WEBINAR 9/29/21 3PM EDT : LEARN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

INCLUDES EXTENSIVE COURSE MATERIALS

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Challenging Mortgage Assignments: Webinar 9/29/21 3PM EDT NEIL GARFIELD PRESENTER

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

INCLUDES EXTENSIVE COURSE MATERIALS

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Where is government when you need it?

In practice, the current foreclosure practices, which violate substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law at every turn represent a form of extortion upon the American homeowner. Government agencies continue to ignore the obvious and outright deceit and trickery involved in the sale of securities that do not sell loans, and the foreclosure of loans that no longer exist.

Why must consumers, with the least resources and the least access to relevant information, be required to litigate for months or years before the court acknowledges that the suit should never have been brought in the first instance? 

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

The law in all U.S. jurisdictions is that a condition precedent to filing any enforcement of any mortgage lien is that the claimant must be a creditor who has paid value for the underlying obligation. In virtually all of the thousands of cases in which homeowners have prevailed in court, it was because the claimant could not introduce credible evidence that this had occurred.

*
Why must consumers, with the least resources and the least access to relevant information, be required to litigate for months or years before the court acknowledges that the suit should never have been brought in the first instance?
*
The government is tasked with the distribution of accurate information. It has previously entered into settlements with companies who admitted to using fake documents and who promised to stop using fake documents. The accurate information is that these companies have been using fake documents with forged signatures for two decades and that those documents are not entitled to legal evidentiary presumptions. Such an announcement of policy from government agencies would end most foreclosures and force the parties into a settlement.
*
If claimants have not paid value for the alleged underlying obligation then their receipt of foreclosure proceeds is a windfall — possibly subject to other contractual obligations and possibly not. Most investigations post-sale revealed that the claimant never received any part of the sales proceeds from foreclosure sales.
*
In the mythology propagated by Wall Street banks, the bending and breaking of the laws that are explicit and express (UCC 9-203 and Federal TILA Rescission) is excused under the erroneous assumption that someone who paid value for the debt will get paid through foreclosure. Nobody has ever presented evidence to that effect.
*
The current policy unfairly delegates the burden of challenging illegal behavior entirely to homeowners who lack the resources and knowledge to do so and who are presently coerced into giving up the largest investment of their lives and their lifestyle to players who enjoy outsize profits in the process of foreclosure.
*
In practice, the current foreclosure practices, which violate substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law at every turn represent a form of extortion upon the American homeowner. Government agencies continue to ignore the obvious and outright deceit and trickery involved in the sale of securities that do not sell loans, and the foreclosure of loans that no longer exist.

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ON WEBINAR ENDS 9/22/21

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Tonight! How a CPA could upend the case against the homeowner! 6PM EDT 3PM PDT

This might be the closest thing to a magic bullet!

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

The typical case against the homeowner involves the participation of a company claiming to be the servicer. While the company might perform certain functions of the statutory definitions in the regulation of “servicers,” it is actually rare that it is the recipient of money paid by homeowners and even more rare that it is the disburser of payments to “creditors.”

But even if the payment history produced by a representative of the servicer is authentic, it might be barred or struck from evidence, based upon the expert opinion of a certified public accountant.

The opinion of the CPA would simply be that it is impossible to determine the balance of the loan account from the payment history.

Without looking at the accounting ledger of the creditor, the payment history is merely a recitation of activity during the time that the alleged loan was serviced.

The balance of the alleged loan account as claimed by the company claiming to be the servicer is only an estimate. And typically there is no representative of the company claiming to be a servicer that can say that they have seen the accounting ledger of the creditor — or even that they know who the creditor is.

PRACTICE HINT: If the payment history is attached to any filing with the court, including the initial complaint in judicial states, then a motion to strike might be a proper response. As with all motions remember to get a hearing and a court reporter. And file a memorandum.

*******************

Here is a plug for my new webinar coming up on Wednesday, September 29 at 3PM EDT and Noon PDT. You can attend the live presentation or ordering the on demand version.

Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage

It is called Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage. This is an opportunity for lawyers to earn CLE credits that have already been approved (Florida lawyers 2.5 credits) and homeowners to gain knowledge of the real issues facing lawyers and what knowledge and skills are required to actually win these cases. Lawyers from other states will probably be approved for 2.0-2.5 credits.
CLICK HERE TO look for more information about the webinar, the curriculum and how to sign up.

 

Bill Paatalo Explains His Findings in Common “Rent-A-Charter” Scheme Employed by Banks

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Anyone who has participated in or investigated Organized Crime knows that the key ingredient for success of the enterprise is paying people to take the heat if the situation gets sticky. You just need to pay them enough to do your bidding.

Investment Banks have institutionalized this concept with their use of an illegal “Rent-A-Charter” scheme. It’s entirely illegal but it works because it looks legal (facially valid).

Bill Paatalo has been investigating this phenomenon for many years particularly as it is used in (a) securitization schemes and (b) foreclosure schemes (please notice the separation — they are NOT the same).

See New Residential Investment Corp Explains Why Trusts Are Utilized; To Evade State Laws | BP Investigative Agency

  • No evidence in, no judgment out. (Homeowner wins).

Let’s take a few easy examples:

  • If you wanted to practice law, you might find an unscrupulous lawyer willing to take cash in exchange for you pretending to be him or have his license to practice law.
  • If you wanted to do brain surgery because last night you slept at a Holiday Inn Express, you could find an unscrupulous doctor willing to take cash in exchange for you pretending to be him or have his license to practice medicine.
  • If you wanted to go into law enforcement, you might find a police officer who is willing to take money in exchange for staying at home while you wore his uniform and acted under his name, making arrests and even testifying in court against the defendant. That’s because if you look like a police officer, walk like a police officer and sound like a police officer everyone will think you are a police officer, even though you are not and your testimony is worthless. But if nobody thinks to ask the question, there is never an answer and everything becomes legally final.

In each of those cases, it is highly probable that eventually there will be a great revelation in which it is discovered that you have no right to be doing anything — and that the person who had rented you their charter to act under the authority of the state, would lose their license to do anything and probably be blocked from ever getting any kind of license ever again. They might also go to jail.

For more than two decades the investment banks have used this scheme and they have achieved considerable success in both securitization sales to investors and foreclosures conducted under the false flag of securitization of debt. Here is a list of the examples of Rent-A-Charter currently in use:

  • Mortgage brokers
  • Trustees under deeds of trust
  • Servicers
  • Trustees under the false flag of a REMIC trust
  • Lawyers
  • Witnesses
  • Technology companies

In each case, these entities perform some of the functions that are attributed to them but not the key functions that are customarily associated with their title. In each case, the investment banks are hidden far in the background even though they are in complete control over all functions of all players.

PRACTICE HINT: If their lips are moving they are lying from the start. “I represent U.S. Bank” is a false statement, but you won’t get there unless you dig deep in discovery and cross-examination.

  • Opposition to motions for attorney fees might reveal the absence of a retainer agreement between the lawyer and U.S. Bank.
  • Timely and proper discovery demands will no doubt reveal that the servicer neither collects nor disburses any money and takes its instructions not from U.S. Bank but from some investment bank — who in turn merely pay the servicer for use of their name on notices and correspondence.
  • The ABSENCE of any response is sufficient to get an order to compel, then an order for monetary sanctions and finally an order for evidentiary sanctions. Game over. No evidence in, no judgment out. (Homeowner wins).

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

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.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The “argument” over evidence

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The argument between well intentioned people over “evidence” stems mostly from an erroneous understanding of the legal definition of the word “evidence.” Evidence is not simply information. Evidence is any document, exhibit or testimony that is admitted by a judge into the court record as being probative of the truth of a fact that is asserted or implied.

When you dig up some fact or inconsistency that is information. It doesn’t become evidence unless you can successfully argue to the judge that it should be admitted into evidence as the truth of a fact you are asserting.

But once you have done that you have assumed the resposibility of disproving the facts that are alleged against the homeowner — a futile task since the homeowner will never get access to the information that only investment banks possess.

*
*
To be clear, evidence means information that the court rules is acceptable to weigh as a foundation to awarding judgment to a party in the litigation. It is not just information. It is information that is accepted by the court basically because it has some credibility and it does point to the truth of some fact that is asserted or implied.
*
Most foreclosure mills present evidence that ought to be excluded from the evidence accepted into the court record. But nearly all such evidence is admitted because the rules state that unless you make a proper and timely objection, the testimony, affidavit, declaration, or document is allowed and with that, everything contained therein is presumed to be evidence of the truth of the fact asserted.
*
That’s why we have all learned lessons from submitting factual reports and expert conclusions. Mostly such reports are not admitted into evidence and opinions of people who lack impressive credentials are not even considered. But even with credentials, opinions are mostly discarded in foreclosure litigation — unless they are presented by an extremely strong witness who can point to specific facts that are not and cannot be disputed — and I remind everyone that a fact includes the absence of something that ordinarily should be there.
*
Foreclosure defense does not mean proving an alternative theory of fact. Any such effort is entirely futile and will always fail. Foreclosure defense means preventing or undermining the foreclosure mill from getting their documents and testimony into evidence and failing that, getting those documents and testimony out of evidence, and failing that, undermining the credibility of the evidence admitted against the homeowner.
*

If you simply look at how the banks are doing it is painfully obvious that evidence is not what determines the outcome in foreclosure litigation. Nobody from a REMIC trustee comes to court, the robowitness does not have accounting records or ledgers from the REMIC trustee, and the list goes on. The banks have no hard evidence of compliance with the law. They have fabricated documents to make it appear that they have complied. And that appearance of compliance is all that is necessary to win absent an effective challenge from the homeowner.

*
The homeowners that win do so mostly because they successfully prevented evidence from being admitted. And even if it was admitted into evidence they got it back out of evidence. Many other homeowners win even after they failed to convince a judge to exclude the evidence, by simply undermining the credibility of the evidence.
*
Undermining the credibility does not mean proving an alternative narrative.
*
Knowing the alternative narrative allows the lawyer to argue the points raised more effectively because he or she must answer somewhat nonsensical questions like “if the debt is not owed to U.S. Bank, then who is it owed to?”
*
The correct answer is
*
“Your honor, we are defending the claims of this claimant not just any possible claimant. Your Honor, we do not admit the existence or enforceability of this alleged debt, especially as to this claimant. It is this claimant’s job to prove their entitlement to receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale because that is the only assurance the court can get that the proceeds from the foreclosure sale will be applied to reduce the alleged debt if it exists. Asking us to explain the complexity of whatever was done here is an unfair burden. Most precedent bars homeowners from even making such an inquiry. The law requires that before foreclosure can be initiated the claimant at bar has paid value for the ownership of the underlying obligation to a party who legally owned the debt, note and mortgage. If it has paid the debt is theirs. If it hasn’t, the debt either doesn’t exist or belongs to someone else.”
*
Knowing is extremely important to having confidence in your arguments. And those who dig up such information are performing valuable service in providing context and foundation for the defense attack. Winning, however, depends upon outmaneuvering the foreclosure mill — something that leaves facts and evidence in the dust. It can be done and it is done every day.
*
Cooperation and coordination between people with extensive experience in court procedure, investigation and analysis is extremely helpful as I have demonstrated with my associations with Charles Marshall, William Paatalo, Daniel Edstrom, Patrick Giunta, and others. But for such cooperation to work, there needs to be a common mission: winning the case for the homeowner. People with well-intentioned agendas that diverge from applying common sense trial strategy and tactics, unfortunately, undermine the effort without any intention of doing so.
*
Nonetheless, I am always open to new ideas, new people, and new work. When I encounter such work I publish it with attribution to the source.
*
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

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.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Long Island Man Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scheme

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.

see https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/long-island-man-pleads-guilty-mortgage-fraud-scheme

Dear SDNY: You probably got the wrong guy. He can’t be guilty of stealing anything if there was no victim. You portray the victims as homeowners. They indeed were victims but not the victims of this defendant. They were the victims of fraudulent foreclosures on behalf of entities that had no right, title, or interest in the underlying debt and who therefore could claim no injury from non-payment.

He was getting paid too much and he should have disclosed that and he might be liable for doing that. But it wasn’t theft. He was only using the same business model as is currently in use by the banks. They create illusions, sell securities and generate revenues far in excess of any transaction with any homeowner. But they neither give credit to the homeowner, without whom the scheme could not work, nor any disclosure that would enable a homeowner to bargain for different terms.

Such prosecutions merely enhance the viability of these fraudulent schemes at the macro level — a level that you should investigate much more closely. it isn’t hard. See 9-203 UCC adopted by New York State legislature verbatim. Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.

 

CLE CONTEST RESULTS: 2 WINNERS ONE PRIZE! KELLY E (AGAIN) AND FSF

For review, here were the questions:

#2 CHALLENGE: Free Attendance at 9/29/21 CLE Lawyers Webinar to the First Lawyer or Homeowner Who Correctly Answers the Question

QUESTIONS:

  1. How many different entities named in the assignment could claim ownership of the mortgage lien?
  2. Which one has the highest likelihood of establishing the right to foreclose?
  3. In a foreclosure, which of the entities named in the assignment, if any, will likely receive the cash proceeds from the final liquidation (sale to third party) of the foreclosed property?

All 3 must be answered. Essay answers will not be accepted.

FSF posted the following:

1 none , because the trust agreement says so

2 none
3 none , it becomes revenue for the servicer

This wasn’t the answer I was looking for but on reflection it was correct. No entity COULD make a claim if there was a document in existence that said they could not and which governed the actions of the referenced entities.

The trust agreement in REMIC trusts states explicitly that the named  Trustee gets nothing except temporary bare naked title without any rights as to any payment, underlying obligation, debt, note or mortgage. All claims of entitled or authority derived from the presumed ownership of a “loan” are therefore without foundation and could not be made, except in the procedural sense anyone can claim anything until challenged.

So the answer from FSF is better actually than mine or Kelly E (see below)

FSF will get a free pass to the seminar on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT. Upon request, FSF may pick a licensed practicing attorney to attend also for no admission fee. The attending attorney will receive 2.5 credits in Florida and probably 2.0-2.5 in any of 26 other states that previously approved my presentation for CLE credit.

Kelly E also posted a correct result:

1) 4 possible names, perhaps more if you dissect the trust and trustee name further than I already did in my mind, which they like to do.
2) I don’t believe any would have the right to foreclose.
3) None. It will go to pay self-proclaimed servicer(s), attorneys, etc.
Kelly gave the answer I had in mind. If you look at the referenced entities they ar provide a list of entities that might or could make claim (based on the face of the instrument:
  • U.S. Bank N.A.
  • CWABS, Inc.
  • CWABS Inc. Trust
  • Holders of certificates, even though both the holders and the certificates are unidentified.

So the answer to my question as I meant it is 4. But FSF got it right because of the way I wrote it. I asked the question using the word “Could.”

Neither FSF nor Kelly got the answer to the second question entirely correct although they both have the right idea. The one with the highest likelihood of “establishing” the right to foreclose, given the current climate, is U.S. Bank even though it a claim without foundation or merit. But they are both right because the claim is false.

Both FSF and Kelly E hit the answer to the third question dead on right. It was a trick question. Both of them recognized it. The proceeds of foreclosure based on a claim derived from an asserted or implied securitization of an alleged debt goes only to the bookrunner investment bank who pays the servicer (and others) for their good work in obtaining the money. The question was which entity named in the assignment will get the money? The answer is NONE.

Deuteronomy: Securitization for those who read scripture

It seems like from the beginning of time most people understood that there was something intrinsically wrong with borrowing and lending, especially if it extended for more than seven years. There is complete agreement on that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
*
 It is obvious that writers from thousands of years ago were concerned about the enslavement of people through the use of debt. The point was to give help or lend help without expecting anything in return — except in transitions with “foreigners.” Whether you believe the bible was a transcription from God or was just written by humans, the result is the same.
*
Any current casual surfing of consumer offerings on the internet will reveal almost 100% of such offerings are based on either direct offers and encouragement to borrow money or indirect offers of “payments” (as though they bear no relation to price).
*
The result is both obvious and inevitable. Each increment of new payment seems affordable until collectively they exceed the ability to pay them all. This in turn requires consolidation loans, mortgage loans, and even outrageous terms on payday loans, fast cash, or loan sharks, most of which we have made at least partially legal. Thus we have loans on top of loans on top of more loans.
*
This structure did not exist until the 1970’s credit crunch where the prime rate jumped to over 20%. Banks and credit card companies jumped at the chance to relax restrictions on usury — interest rates that were deemed too high to be conscionable.
*
The argument was that credit cards would become extinct if the issuers had to pay three times the interest rate that they could charge. It should be noted that America’s addiction to debt was emerging alongside of opioids and other similar addictions. So the argument was further enhanced by the argument that the destruction of the credit card business would reduce consumer purchases and thereby depress the national economy.
*
It seemed to make sense at the time and so legislatures across the country either changed their usury laws or virtually eliminated them. This opened the door for practically anyone to lend money at rates that were, for thousands of years, deemed poisonous to any orderly society.
*
When prime rates fell back to normal, the credit card rates remained at levels that would have previously placed the issuers in prison in many jurisdictions. By opposing a return to the old legislation, the banks and credit card issuers solidified their place in the national economy. It was a place where consumers were encouraged or even driven to take on ever-increasing amounts of debt — and where the sole hope of most “borrowers” was the ability to get more debt later to pay the old debt.
*
This influx of debt was not matched by increasing wages such that eventual repayment could be the reasonable goal of a “lender.” Quite the contrary, the availability of cash on credit essentially replaced the demand for higher wages, which then remained stagnant for more than 4 decades.
*
The economy thus became a virtual economy in which debt replaced the ordinary flow of income and expenses. And that is what emboldened the major Wall Street players to launch a scheme that had been imagined in the early 1970’s: the entry of Wall Street securities as a replacement for actually funding loans. Sounds like a contradiction in terms? That is exactly what appealed to those who first proposed the scheme in 1971.
*
Successful Wall Street players learned centuries ago that the more complex the offering the more the buyer will rely on the seller to tell the buyer what the investment is about. What they were imagining back then was something that was all smoke and mirrors and so complex that it could never completely succumb to management or accounting since there was no real activity other than collecting money from investors and paying money to some homeowners (the rest of the homeowners would merely get some settlement statement indicating that payment had been made).
*
By separating the loan account from reality, many layers of securities could be sold that paid off any initial funding and provided intoxicating profits to investment banks who retained control without risking anything — as long as they were at the top of the scheme. Keep in mind that any alleged payoff to a prior “lender” that was in fact standing in for the same base investment bank required no cash at all. But each such set of new paperwork gave rise to a whole new round of selling multiple layers of securities based on reports of the new virtual transaction.
*
By secretly retiring the loan account, it was no longer necessary to pay it off. So each new round of debt to pay off the old round of debt was pure profit. This led some mid-range well-known brands on Wall Street to go extremes in leverage. Bear Stearns was leveraged 42 times before its collapse and eventual absorption into Chase who then claimed to own all “loans” ever originated by feeders for Bear Stearns. It was the ultimate in free money. Washington Mutual presented an even larger opportunity.  Rinse, repeat and so on. Most takeover deals produced the same or better results. OneWest claimed ownership of billions in nonexistent loan accounts and received 80% of claimed nonexistent losses.
*
All that was needed was a credible myth that would cast any opposition to this scheme as seeking a “free house.” It was as old a political ploy as any that ever existed. Anyone seeking something for nothing should be punished, not rewarded.  And whoever was shouting that the loudest was clearly not the one looking for something for nothing. Except that is exactly what has been happening for more than 2 decades.
*
The desired PR event happened when the news networks all carried a short segment from the floor of the stock exchange in which a trader (Rick Santelli) passionately said he wasn’t going to support a free house for homeowners. Whether he believed what he was saying or not, it worked. Now he has receded into history. But his coining of the phrase “free house” lives on in the hearts and minds of virtually everyone including homeowners and investors.
*
Someone else from the world of finance had a different view that for a short while propelled him onto TV stardom. (Dylan Ratigan). But like all critics of public policy that starts with “how do we give more money to banks” he was squashed. Ratigan
*
AND keep in mind that Santelli was a ground-level trader with very little expertise in finance — i.e., he knew nothing about the derivatives he was trading, what they were doing or how they were being used. He only knew he was making money trading securities based on the latest customer instructions or hot tips. This wasn’t Warren  Buffet. But Wall Street got all worried that if the truth came out they would not be trading anything and would earn no commissions. That is how our national dialogue was shaped.
*
That dialogue morphed into a threat of financial armageddon issued by the same people that brought us the 2008 crisis. By pretending that the lending markets were not made by them and controlled by them, the banks created the illusion that the market was somehow independent.
*
And they said that with the freeze on investors buying junk “REMIC” certificates, there was no market. And with no market, there could be no lending. And with no lending, the entire economy would crash. This was unadulterated hogwash but people bought the argument that the 2008 crisis was somehow the fault of homeowners — as if tens of millions of Americans woke up one morning and said “let’s defraud Wall Street.”*
*
Hence virtually all consumers are now seen as prospective borrowers. And this remains true even though they are not given loans. Nonetheless, because the transaction resembles a loan, everyone thinks it should be enforceable as a loan even if there is nobody who can claim injury from nonpayment — contrary to the most basic rules contained in the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of most states.
*
It is therefore easy to see and understand why Wall Street began looking for ways in which it could manifest such deals — especially since they could sell the deals multiple times without any accountability. So students who know virtually nothing about finance are encouraged to take on debt they will never be able to repay. the “loan adviser” always reminds them to take on more debt for expenses and anything else that can be packed into the “loan.” The investment banks don’t really care whether the loan is repaid, as long as they continue selling certificates.
*
And the answer to your question is yes, this is entirely a PONZI scheme even though it incorporates attributes of lending and the old system of sharing lending risks. Few, if any loans are originated without the concurrent sale of unregulated securities that have no attributes of owning any debt, note or mortgage from borrowers. No investment bank would even suggest it would make quarterly or monthly payments to investors if they were held to merely to passing on payments illegally collected from homeowners. There is no profit in that.
*
It is only if certificates continue to be sold that lending continues under this scheme. And each new step is a new layer. And each new layer brings us further and further from economic reality. To value investors like me this means only one thing: at some point, there will be a crash in which fundamental economic values are used to form the basis for the valuation of assets. Houses will reflect median income. Stocks will reflect medium-range net income. Bonds will reflect the likelihood of repayment without refinancing.
*
For value investors, we see companies whose stocks are trading at vast multiples of earnings (or no earnings at all) as unsustainable and even silly in many cases. Lest you need reminding all such predictions were uniformly rejected before each crash. I think it is because people are irrational and crave excitement. I could be wrong about that.
*
For the investment banks, It is not only ok but actually preferable for large swaths of people labeled as borrowers to stop making scheduled payments — since the investment banks are placing bets on that happening. It is OK since nobody will get hurt when they don’t pay, and that is OK since anyone can enforce the debt despite the absence of anyone who got hurt — other than the student or homeowner who is saddled for life with debts that their parents and grandparents would think are unthinkable.  A very small group of people are transferring the wealth that would have been accumulated by each student from the students (and their families) to themselves without any corresponding spending in a consumer-driven economy.
*
As Ross Perot once remarked, that sucking sound is getting louder and louder. Wall Street has sucked tens of trillions of dollars out of the U.S. economy without any corresponding long-term benefit to anyone other than themselves. It has been at the expense of everyone.
*
All human beings or at least partly driven by primitive tendencies. If there is a pile of money on the table, most people would at least have the impulse to take it without regard to the consequences. And if the situation is one in which taking the money did not involve theft, the inhibitions against removing the money would be substantially reduced.
*
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament the concept of borrowing and lending arises from the order of God to help thy neighbor. And to the extent that one helps the neighbor and expects something in return, the deal should not include the payment of interest and is subject to cancellation after seven years. Most of our laws concerning bankruptcy are derived from both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
*
The Scriptures are somewhat ambiguous as it relates to lending to “foreigners.” But the general attitude that has been accepted, memorialized into laws since laws were first written, is that lending should not be a business and that lending should be the result of some plan that benefits society as a whole and not a vehicle for concentrating wealth away from society as a whole. Personally, I don’t completely agree with that viewpoint. But the current movement into virtual loans with virtual creditors and virtual servicers has opened the largest risk of moral hazard ever encountered by any human civilization.
*
We don’t need to shut that door. The new innovative scheme has merits if it is fair. It is only fair if all affected parties have sufficient information and opportunity to consent to a bargain in which the risks and rewards are known and shared. That can only be accomplished through disclosure and competition. Right now, we have neither — and that is not the capitalist system. It is a monopolistic system whose primary drive is deceit and theft. And until the “securitized” transactions are reformed by court order into truly securitized transactions foreclosures and enforcement must stop — if we are ever able to stop the wholesale plunder of the American consumer and evisceration of the foundation of our real economy.
*
Corrections in this article to prior publication. Dylan Ratigan was not the person that delivered that famous rant on the floor of the exchange. It was Rick Santelli. 

Tonight! Evading State Laws: The Purpose of Using Trusts Years Past the Mortgage Meltdown 3pm PDT 6pm EDT

Thursdays LIVE!

Click into the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Licensed Private Investigator Bill Paatalo in a Blog post from just yesterday Sep. 8, highlights the case of mortgage servicer New Residential Investment Corp (New Rez), using trusts to enforce their mortgage servicing rights — since so many states otherwise require mortgage-related entities who purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans, to maintain licenses to do so within their jurisdictions.

So servicers like New Rez get around these licensing requirements by continually maintaining the appearance or illusion of ownership (through assignments of rights or interest) by presenting homeowner transactions as being individual mortgage loans in a trust. And in particular, they use one named but not necessarily controlled by a national bank.

Since most banks are not subject to state licensing requirements of the sort at issue here they are evading the requirements of state regulation. Consumers suffer because judges presume that the parties involved have all complied with conditions precedent and estate statutes governing administration, collection and enforcement of alleged debts.

As always, Bill is getting much of his intel through investigation and the discovery process in the cases in which he serves as expert forensic investigator — more proof that discovery is the key to advancing homeowner rights in foreclosure.

Attorney Charles Marshall will recount the latest developments in the mess of the Covid world, from the status of various foreclosure and eviction moratoriums to the latest in court practice, particularly in California.

EARLY BIRD EXTENDED for 9/29/21 Webinar. Early Registration ends 9/22/21!!

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Despite any suggestion of a cutoff date of September 8, 2021, the early bird registration extends to 9/22/21. Pick that option even if you are on some landing page that says that the discount for early registration ends earlier. The payment system will accept your early registration anyway.

#2 CHALLENGE: Free Attendance at 9/29/21 CLE Lawyers Webinar to the First Lawyer or Homeowner Who Correctly Answers the Question

Here is the “word problem”

A document has been recorded bearing the title “Assignment of Mortgage.” The assignee is identified as “U.S. Bank, not on its own behalf but as trustee for the CWABS, Inc. Pass-through Trust Series 2006-A1C, on behalf of the holders of CWABS, Inc. Pass-through Trust Series 2006-A1C Certificates.”

Assume that value has been received by the Assignor in exchange for conveying legal ownership of the alleged underlying obligation due from the subject homeowner.

Assume that there is no issue regarding the legal existence of any entity.

QUESTIONS:

  1. How many different entities named in the assignment could claim ownership of the mortgage lien?
  2. Which one has the highest likelihood of establishing the right to foreclose?
  3. In a foreclosure, which of the entities named in the assignment, if any, will likely receive the cash proceeds from the final liquidation (sale to third party) of the foreclosed property?

All 3 must be answered. Essay answers will not be accepted.

Send answers to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com. The first one to get it right gets a free ticket to the Webinar. If the winner is a homeowner he or she may appoint a lawyer to attend as well at no cost.

Important WEBINAR Opportunity for Trial Lawyers: Foreclosure Defense: Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage 2.5 CLE Credits 9/29/21 Live and On Demand

How to read articles about MBS, RMBS and securitization of debt

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The absence of investigative journalism into the details of claimed securitization results in entirely misleading reporting. News reports now regularly contain gross exaggerations and misrepresentations leading to a “general consensus” that is both ignorant and completely erroneous.

see https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/jp-morgan-offers-about-1-6-billion-in-rmbs

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2021-11 is preparing to come to market with its eleventh residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) deal, hoping to raise notes off of a portfolio with an unpaid principal balance of $1.6 billion.

If the article was reporting facts rather than fraud, it would have said this:

J.P. Morgan is preparing to come to market with a new securitization deal. The new offering under the name of “J.P. Morgan Mortgage  Trust 2021-11” is claiming to be the issuance of RMBS, but the securities do not represent any ownership in any debt, note or mortgage nor does J.P. Morgan assert or warrant title to any debt, note or mortgage. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp is the deal’s sponsor.

As usual, the notes provide operating capital to J.P. Morgan who in turn makes an ultra-subordinated discretionary promise to make payments to buyers of the certificates. And in accordance with current practices and customs the incentive to make such payments is entirely dependent upon (a) sales of more certificates in later deals and (b) receipts from homeowners who make payments that are eventually funnelled to J.P. Morgan, despite the retirement of the original loan account and the obvious absence of any creditor who owns it.

PRACTICE NOTE: THE MOMENT YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE READING FROM WALL STREET IS THE MOMENT YOU ARE FOOLED.

 

 

Bravo!!! LOL We have a winner!!! Kelly E.!!!

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

At 3:12 AM Kelly E. posted the following:

Answer: who does the Servicer represent, I.e: who is the alleged mortgagee and what authority does alleged servicer have to represent? Once a party name is supplied, send a Qualified written request with more specific questions.

Kelly will get a free pass to the seminar on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT. Upon request, Kelly may pick a licensed practicing attorney to attend also for no admission fee. The attending attorney will receive 2.5 credits in Florida and probably 2.0-2.5 in any of 26 other states that previously approved my presentation for CLE credit.

==========================

At least a dozen others also got the right answer, one of whom I was going to invite as a guest anyway because he was co-counsel with me when we won two cases hands down with findings of act opposite to what the foreclosure mill as arguing — Patrick Giunta, Esq., in Fort Lauderdale. Great lawyer.

Several of the people who submitted the right answers but also got lost in the weeds. The simple correct answer is to challenge the authority of the company that is named on the letterhead. It’s pretty simple: the proof fails if the foreclosure mill can’t produce a witness who will provide the legal foundation for the documents they intend to use at trial.

Patrick and I didn’t win our cases (he also won others on his own) because we proved that all claims of the securitization of debt are false and that foreclosures based upon the theory of securitization of debts are a scam although we both think that is probably true.

We won because we stopped the other side from getting their B-S into evidence. And we won because the lawyers for the homeowners revealed and then the judge found too many discrepancies that led the court to question the credibility of the documents proffered by the foreclosure mill. Since the entire case is built on documents that refer to events instead of records of those events, the case fails nearly every time.

That is all you need! But getting there is a challenge especially with judges who are, by definition, supposed to be skeptical.

 

The first thing that can be challenged and which therefore is the first step in the challenge is a challenge to authority. That authority must come from the owner who paid value in exchange for legal ownership and transfer of the alleged underlying obligation. If the authority exists then the servicer is a servicer. If it does not exist, then it doesn’t matter what business the company is in or what functions it actually performs. If it is a servicer, (by broad statutory definition) then you can go to the question bout what functions does it actually perform relative to the subject homeowner transaction.

A Lawsuit against the County Recorders for the Bold and Brave Homeowners who want to see a real change

There are very few County recorders who would deny that the quality of title has been at least diluted and diminished by fabricated documents. Many would say and have said that title is now corrupt as a result of the extensive cover-up engineered and manufactured by investment banks who are acting through multiple layers of intermediaries.
*
First, to state the obvious, there is no statutory duty to perform an investigation to determine whether facially valid documents should be allowed to be recorded in public records. And that is why the banks are getting away with this aspect of their amazing fraud. All previous actions seeking to hold county recorders accountable for failing to conduct an administrative investigation of hearing are missing a key component: citing to any statute or even common law duty for such state or county agencies that even allows, much mandates such investigations. They have been turned down by the courts, just as they should have been.
*
However, there are two possible actions that could be filed in either state or Federal court. One that is more available than you might think is that corruption for private gain is common in some recording offices. If that is the case a lawsuit against the individuals seeking damages might be successful. But proving that lawsuit and collecting on any judgment is somewhat problematic.
*
The other one seeks a court order commanding the county recorder to do its job. It is based on the duty to examine the documents offered for recording to see whether it is facially valid and to get a legal opinion of the examiner does not know — instead of just filing it.
*
As the keeper of official public records, the County Recorder is charged with assuring that that only properly executed documents that comply with state statutes get recorded. And as the public agency charged with assuring continuity of title so that confidence is maintained in the marketplace, they also have a common law duty to assure that the title recording system is not being used or weaponized for illegal purposes. That’s two duties.
*
They are breaching both duties. A lawsuit brought against any one County Recorder would be a test case for the rest and would produce a definite reaction in county recording offices across the nation. The Plaintiff would need to have standing. So that would mean a person who lives in that county and who has property or had property that was the subject of a fabricated document filing. Although I can see the logic of also filing for damages and injunction against the law firms, “servicers” and “REMIC Trustees” asking for damages, you would be bringing in the big guns in litigation — so that might not be the right tactical move.
*
Note that the focus would be not on the substantive validity of the documents used to exemplify the breach of duty. The focus would be on whether the apparent facial validity was actually facially valid. This requires some highly focused analysis, much of which I have highlighted in my blog articles.
*
The main documents that should be attacked are any instrument labeled assignment of mortgage or power of attorney. In brief, the analysis would go as follows:
*
  1. If there is no warranty of title then the recorder should be asking why it is being filed. This is done all the time with virtually all other recorded documents.
  2. If there is no consideration recited, then the recorder should ask the same question: why was this filed. The recorder has every right and duty to ask that question since there are various recording and tamp fees that attach to the transfer of interests in land.
  3. If the consideration recites $1 in cash and “other valuable consideration” the recorder has a right and duty to ask for a description of the other consideration. Since the law says that any transfer of an assignment of the mortgage without the debt is a legal nullity, then it is incumbent upon the recorder to inquire whether the other valuable consideration was in any way related to the value and transfer of the underlying obligation. This goes to both questions: whether the document should be recorded and if so whether the parties are paying the proper recording fees and stamps.
  4. If the grantor of the document entitled “Assignment of Mortgage” has not previously been the grantee of a previously executed facially valid transfer of the mortgage and underlying obligation, the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it.
  5. If the grantor under the alleged transfer document has not been sufficiently described to assure the recorder that it is a legal “person”, then the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it. For examples: “ABC” without any indication of whether ABC is a natural person, corporation, or any other legal entity. “ABC Bank, solely as trustee of XYZ Trust” without any description of the trust name as being associated with a legally organized trust organized and existing under the jurisdiction of some U.S. State or territory.
  6. If the grantee under the alleged transfer document has not been sufficiently described to assure the recorder that it is a legal “person”, then the recorder has the administrative duty to reject the instrument, or, to put it another way, the recorder has no power or right to record it. For examples: “ABC” without any indication of whether ABC is a natural person, corporation, or any other legal entity. “ABC Bank, solely as trustee of XYZ Trust” without any description of the trust name as being associated with a legally organized trust organized and existing under the jurisdiction of some U.S. State or territory. [NOTE: many such trust names have made it all the way through litigation without any allegation, assertion, or proof that the trust name is the name of a legally organized trust that owns the underlying obligation that is the subject of foreclosure.]
  7. If the instrument is signed by an authorized signor there is some room to question the authenticity of the signature but the question has not really been decided. Still, the recorder should make note that an “authorized signor” was used or a VP of MERS was used when the public domain clearly reflects no actual interest in the mortgage, note or debt of anyone.
  8. If the instrument contains the signature of someone whose signature is apparently — or possibly — stamped (or placed on the document through electronic or mechanical means), the recorder is probably under a legal obligation (legal duty) to ask for acknowledgment from the person whose signature appears that the signature is actually their own, that they signed it and that their intent was to make the transfer described in the assignment. The basis for this allegation is a myriad of depositions and affidavits in the public domain in which the name of the apparent signer shows up in a disclaimer that they never signed the document or never knew what was in the document or even if they knew what was in it and whether they had any authority to create the legal transfer of something so valuable as an asset worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  9. If the instrument contains the signature of a signer who is executing on behalf of a company other than the grantor described in the assignment then the authority of that company must be clearly obvious from the face of the instrument in order to be facially valid. In most instances, there is only a label attached like “servicer” or “attorney in fact.” If the power of attorney or servicing agreement is not attached or already in public records the instrument is not facially valid and the recorder has no power or right to record the instrument and has the duty to reject it. [NOTE: much of the fabrication of documents in connection with foreclosures is centered around one single overriding principle, to wit: the creation of the illusion of a property right. By reciting the grant of a power of attorney to a party without a warranty of title regarding the subject property or asset, the grant is a facially invalid and legal nullity].
  10. If the grantor is named but the signing party is a company claiming to be a servicer without any on-record document attesting to that role, and the grantee is named but a company is named claiming to be a servicer without any on-record document attesting to that role, then the document is facially invalid for multiple reasons. The reality might be that the document is merely creating an illusion by having the same party assign to itself –– in the hope that the homeowner, the lawyer and the judge won’t notice that the document is meaningless.
*
A separate lawsuit filed against the county recorder’s office with real allegations based upon real facts and reciting real duties and real breaches of duties might yield some surprising results, including the agreement of the county recorder that your claim is correct. They might have been waiting for a court order commanding them to do the job set forth in the statute. In any event, a motion for stay of the foreclosure proceedings might (a) awaken the presiding judge in the foreclosure action and (b) create a reason why the foreclosure cannot legally proceed.
*
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

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.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Free Attendance at 9/29/21 CLE Lawyers Webinar to the First Homeowner Who Correctly Answers the Question

Here is the “word problem”

A servicer has sent a notice of default to a homeowner who has not made payments that were scheduled on a promissory note that was signed by the homeowner.

What is the first issue that the homeowner should challenge?

Send answers to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com. The first one to get it right gets a free ticket to the Webinar and can appoint a lawyer to attend as well at no cost.

Important WEBINAR Opportunity for Trial Lawyers: Foreclosure Defense: Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage 2.5 CLE Credits 9/29/21 Live and On Demand

Important WEBINAR Opportunity for Trial Lawyers: Foreclosure Defense: Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage 2.5 CLE Credits 9/29/21 Live and On Demand

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference all 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Servicers DO NOT handle the Money or the Accounting: they only pretend to do so to offer fake business records” into court evidence

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The big problem in legal practice is acceptance of the idea that the servicer is the servicer. The practice guide is simple: test that proposition before you do anything else. This is the same strategy as what the litigator should do with the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trustee and others. None of them are doing what you think they are doing. They have only one goal — to increase revenues and profits for the “team.”

NOTE TO HOMEOWNERS: GETTING AN EXPERT OPINION IS NOT LIKE GETTING A NOTE FROM YOUR MOTHER. THE OPINION WON’T REVEAL SKULDUGGERY WITH ANYTHING LIKE THE CLARITY OBTAINED WHEN THE OPPOSITION REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH BASIC DISCOVERY DEMANDS. 

The grand illusion of nonsecuritization of debt requires the nonservicing of the non-loan. But because the actual receipt and disbursements are distributed over multiple players, none of whom know about the others, you have occasions like this where Mr. Cooper f/k/a Nationstar moved ahead with prosecuting a nonexistent claim despite multiple attempts by the homeowner to set the record straight.

In this case, Nationwide nka Mr. Cooper was hit with a large judgment for compensatory and punitive damages which they richly deserved. The lawyers boldly attempted to appeal the jury decision and lost.

The only thing missing from the whole discussion and therefore not reviewed in the courts was the question of what Nationwide was actually doing. I now reiterate my report that the entire reason for this case and many others like it is that Mr. Cooper, just like so-called REMIC Trustees is only a name under which multiple companies operate using the self-proclaimed servicer who is not a servicer as the flag while they are all operating to protect and enrich the investment bank that started the deal.

To most people outside the world of investment banking, this report is either impossible or unbelievable. I do not ask that you believe it. But basic common sense requires that you test it in QWR, DVL, and legal discovery. Wouldn’t you want to know if Mr. Cooper’s records were just printouts from multiple other third parties who are neither contractually related to Mr. Cooper nor under its control? Would that not cause you to move to strike exhibits from them and object to the introduction of evidence from them? Doesn’t this follow the heart of the hearsay rule?

The only reason these facts exist is that Nationwide was not doing anything. It was all other companies doing parts of the work on correspondence, notices, and accounting — all automated to enable the claim of plausible deniability when things blow up. May v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2017): Things like this can only happen when multiple companies are following conflicting instructions without any oversight.

May received her first mortgage statement in March 2013. The statement erroneously included thousands of dollars in “lender-paid” expenses. Also, rather than applying a $51 credit to May’s account, Nationstar improperly debited $5,162 from the account. Nationstar’s errors caused its records to incorrectly reflect a delinquency of $8,534.94 on May’s mortgage. Nationstar initiated collection efforts.

May received her first collection call from Nationstar in March 2013, the same month that she began receiving mortgage statements. May immediately contacted Nationstar, but Nationstar’s employees—acting on erroneous records—informed May that she was delinquent on her mortgage. During the next several months, May regularly received calls from Nationstar at her home, in public and, most often, at work.

In April 2013, prompted by a call from May, Nationstar submitted May’s file to its research department. Nationstar determined on May 15, 2013, that it had made an accounting error in May’s account and directed its cash department to credit the account from Nationstar’s internal bankruptcy fund. Nationstar’s cash department rejected the requested credit, however, because May had been discharged from bankruptcy and her account no longer reflected a bankruptcy code. Nationstar’s research department never followed up on this discrepancy, and Nationstar never credited May’s account.

Instead, Nationstar resumed its collection efforts and presented May with two options—vacate her home or accept a loan modification. The proposed loan modification would have added the erroneously calculated arrears to May’s principal balance. May refused, and Nationstar initiated the loan modification anyway. May repeatedly attempted to correct the accounting errors by calling and sending written complaints to Nationstar. Although May continued tendering monthly mortgage payments, Nationstar began rejecting the payments in September 2013 because its internal policy required it to accept only full payments. Nationstar deemed May’s payments insufficient because of its erroneous determination that her account was in arrears. Nationstar initiated its foreclosure process. May retained counsel.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

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.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business 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. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER 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 TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

TONIGHT! Who Are We Really fighting Against: FINTECH and PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY!! WHAT TO KNOW AND HOW TO CHALLENGE IT.

The laws of men on Wall Street are pushing out the laws of the country. It is time we pushed back. There are no laws of men — not in this country!

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

*
Fighting ghosts is challenging but not impossible. Ask anyone who has been required to deal with what they thought was their loan account and you get the same answer. You never get to speak to anyone in charge of anything. YOU CAN USE THAT AGAINST THEM.
*
Remember always that you are not dealing with people. You are dealing with a computer that is designed to run independently of human intervention, thought or decision making or authorization. And THAT TOO can be used against them.
*
But it allows for deniability because when it comes to any one specific event the claim can be made that no human did it. Yet the law specifically holds such acts to be legally the responsibility of humans who engineered the scheme, which in this case would be the investment banks.
*
That computer will send out instructions to a law firm to initiate foreclosure proceedings. the law firm has no way of knowing where those instructions originated. And it doesn’t ask because it has been told not to ask.
*
The computer decides when the lawyer should start and who to name as creditor and who to name as servicer. These are just predetermined names — not companies tasked with performing any functions or activities.
*
And the computer will decide what figures to use and it will provide access to forms prepared according to algorithms for the computer to create notices, and even fabricate documents sent to third parties to pretend they are authorized signors who in turn take people off the street and have them sign, not knowing what is in the document or even just getting them to allow their signature to be used on documents they will never see much less understand.
%d bloggers like this: