Gary Dubin on the Attack in California: Simple Truths About Foreclosure Defense

Dubin reports that the status of judicial consensus in California is pretty much the way it was before he entered the battle in Hawaii. I think he is starting to change that with inventive ways to educate the courts and give them pause before they rubber-stamp another foreclosure.

see Dubin Graphic Foreclosure Defense

The simple truth is that unless the person is steeped in education, experience, and training in investment banking and specifically the structuring of transactions, they cannot imagine how it could be true that an apparent transaction could have occurred with homeowners, leaving the homeowner with no liability.

Foreclosure today is largely about winning at all costs without regard to whether the “dark side” has any right to the remedies they are seeking.

Foreclosure defense is all about focusing the judge’s attention away from the documents and on the presence or absence of admissible evidence — i.e., testimony from a competent witness providing a proper foundation for introducing a document into evidence where that document was NOT prepared strictly for use in a trial proceeding.

Foreclosures are about money. Only people who are owed money are allowed to sue for it or get any known legal or equitable remedy. In today’s judicial arena there is an absence of any legally recognizable entity, person or company who receives such a judgment because none of the names used as claimants in foreclosure are expecting to receive any remedy. And they don’t — directly or indirectly.

Ask any officer with knowledge of this fake REMIC scheme whether they have ever received the money proceeds from the forced sale of property and they will admit that (a) they never owned any loan account and (b) they never received any money, title or anything else.

I think the underlying theme or thread is simple: this is a case where the attorneys themselves propagate these false claims and not U.S. Bank. They have no admissible document or testimony that is not fabricated.

Accordingly, everything they do in court is geared to one purpose ONLY: avoid admissible evidence requirements and stick with presumptions raised from fabricated documents.

There are and were many lawyers who easily recognize the absence of credible admissible evidence, starting with the fact that the records of a company whom the lawyer claims is a servicer are (a) not records of that company but more importantly (b) the reports from a company who has an existential interest in the outcome of litigation — i.e., that the foreclosure case MUST be won.

By definition, such reports are not credible and may not be admitted into evidence to prove the truth of any matter asserted unless there is corroborating testimony or exhibits that can be independently confirmed to show that the transactions memorialized in the purported documents are events that did happen and not just imaginary reports that some robowitness says or testified happened — despite the obvious absence of any personal knowledge regarding the origination or “servicing” of payments that homeowners were falsely induced to make.

But it is obvious that the lawyers who possess the requisite amount of legal knowledge, experience, and training to handle that matter at trial in pretrial litigation, do not accept these cases — despite the prospects of an easy win, satisfied clients, achieving justice and making money doing it.

Why? The answer is simple: the more they win the larger the target on their back and virtually all of them have been targets of prosecution by the FTC, Bar Associations, and other agencies.

Here is a modest proposal. the FTC and the Bar associations should be doing their jobs. Virtually all foreclosures are business ventures for profit led by law firms that were often created for the sole purpose of receiving outsized fees and profits for prospecting false claims of debt, default, and foreclosure.

If the lawyers are successful at misleading the court then they are successful at forcing the sale of homestead property where the money proceeds will all be distributed into the operating or off-balance-sheet accounts of several companies.

This is a business venture whose principal characteristic is fraud and deceit.

  • The FTC should be pursuing those ventures and not just those of defense lawyers and other parties who attempt to create vehicles for mass joinder actions against the monolith investment banking industry.
  • The Bar associations should be prosecuting lawyers for telling the court that they have a client who is named as a plaintiff or claimant when they don’t have any client relationship, contact, or instructions received from such companies named as “claimants.”
    • Such lawyers should be liable for restitution to homeowners whose homes were forced into an apparent auction sale.
    • Those homes were the property of the homeowners and the lawyers had no right, justification, or excuse for pursuing any attempt to take their property.


Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)


But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at

Please visit for more information.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: