<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-neil-garfield-show--6436098</link><description><![CDATA[Host and world renowned financial expert, attorney and blogger Neil Garfield provides in-depth commentary and analysis of illegal foreclosure actions against Homeowners.   Defense tactics, strategies and advice for legal defenses are shared with homeowners, who either represent themselves or get help from our attorney network.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/6436098/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>Investing</category><copyright>Copyright Steven Gomez</copyright><lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 01:37:29 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Steven Gomez</itunes:name><itunes:email>feeds@spreaker.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>Host and world renowned financial expert, attorney and blogger Neil Garfield provides in-depth commentary and analysis of illegal foreclosure actions against Homeowners. 

Defense tactics, strategies and advice for legal defenses are shared with...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Host and world renowned financial expert, attorney and blogger Neil Garfield provides in-depth commentary and analysis of illegal foreclosure actions against Homeowners.   Defense tactics, strategies and advice for legal defenses are shared with homeowners, who either represent themselves or get help from our attorney network.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="Business"><itunes:category text="Investing"/></itunes:category><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>A final interview with Foreclosure Defense expert Neil Garfield</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-final-interview-with-foreclosure-defense-expert-neil-garfield--63169468</link><description><![CDATA[From his start as an investment banker with expertise in securitization to his earliest days as a trial attorney Neil discusses the evolution of foreclosure actions by lenders. Of particular interest is how Neil speaks to how they have been able to veer away from the traditional rules of evidence and discovery to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners not knowledgable on how these pactice are a violation of basic jurisprudence. The very basic issues of "Legal Standing" are discussed and Neil highlights how they are being ignored in courtrooms all accross the country because homewoners and their attorneys are not challenging the issue of "legal standing" in the discvery process during foreclosure defense litigation. Neil Garfields work continues with Lance Denha esq., Neil's hand picked successor on livinglies.me ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2023/10/20/a-final-interview-with-foreclosure-defense-expert-neil-garfield</guid><pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169468/a_final_interview_with_foreclosure_defense_expert_neil_garfield.mp3" length="34707144" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>From his start as an investment banker with expertise in securitization to his earliest days as a trial attorney Neil discusses the evolution of foreclosure actions by lenders. Of particular interest is how Neil speaks to how they have been able to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[From his start as an investment banker with expertise in securitization to his earliest days as a trial attorney Neil discusses the evolution of foreclosure actions by lenders. Of particular interest is how Neil speaks to how they have been able to veer away from the traditional rules of evidence and discovery to foreclose on unsuspecting homeowners not knowledgable on how these pactice are a violation of basic jurisprudence. The very basic issues of "Legal Standing" are discussed and Neil highlights how they are being ignored in courtrooms all accross the country because homewoners and their attorneys are not challenging the issue of "legal standing" in the discvery process during foreclosure defense litigation. Neil Garfields work continues with Lance Denha esq., Neil's hand picked successor on livinglies.me ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2170</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,lance denha,livinglies.me,neil garfield</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Preemptive Strategies and Tactics in Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/preemptive-strategies-and-tactics-in-foreclosure-defense--63169469</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight I share my thoughts on strategies and tactics that will put your opposition on its heels and probably result in an outright win for homeowners and virtually all consumers who have a written contract for installment payments. We start with the premise that virtually all such transactions are securitized.   I will talk about the many opportunities that exist under the rules of procedure to create an existential challenge to the claims.   If there is no Claimant or Plaintiff and there is no claim at all, then why must we wait to the end and spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get to that point?   Why must homeowners lose their homes to such false claims simply because they lack the resources to contest them?   So in tonight’s show, we will visit and revisit some basic strategies that I believe will work most of the time and which could shorten the litigation period substantially.   Here is the Agenda:  Administrative: QWR and DVL, Complaint to CFPB and State AG Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for More Definite Statement Offer of Judgment, Letter, and Notice of Service AMGAR Strategy: Make them an offer they can’t refuse (but they will) Motion to Strike Exhibits Motion for specific mediation order requiring the claimant to appear Interlocutory Appeal Combined Request for Admission and Request for production Motion to Compel Response Motion for Sanctions and Motion in Limine Motion for Summary Judgment  Remember that in 28 minutes of talk time I can only give an overview of these strategies. Yes, you DO need a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. There is no guarantee that any of these strategies will succeed, even if they have worked in the past.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/04/14/preemptive-strategies-and-tactics-in-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169469/preemptive_strategies_and_tactics_in_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="14108589" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight I share my thoughts on strategies and tactics that will put your opposition on its heels and probably result in an outright win for homeowners and virtually all consumers who have a written contract for installment payments. We start with the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight I share my thoughts on strategies and tactics that will put your opposition on its heels and probably result in an outright win for homeowners and virtually all consumers who have a written contract for installment payments. We start with the premise that virtually all such transactions are securitized.   I will talk about the many opportunities that exist under the rules of procedure to create an existential challenge to the claims.   If there is no Claimant or Plaintiff and there is no claim at all, then why must we wait to the end and spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get to that point?   Why must homeowners lose their homes to such false claims simply because they lack the resources to contest them?   So in tonight’s show, we will visit and revisit some basic strategies that I believe will work most of the time and which could shorten the litigation period substantially.   Here is the Agenda:  Administrative: QWR and DVL, Complaint to CFPB and State AG Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for More Definite Statement Offer of Judgment, Letter, and Notice of Service AMGAR Strategy: Make them an offer they can’t refuse (but they will) Motion to Strike Exhibits Motion for specific mediation order requiring the claimant to appear Interlocutory Appeal Combined Request for Admission and Request for production Motion to Compel Response Motion for Sanctions and Motion in Limine Motion for Summary Judgment  Remember that in 28 minutes of talk time I can only give an overview of these strategies. Yes, you DO need a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. There is no guarantee that any of these strategies will succeed, even if they have worked in the past.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1764</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>dvl,mediation,motion to dismiss,offer of judgment,qwr</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>64</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Evidence 101: If Ireland can do it why can't we?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/evidence-101-if-ireland-can-do-it-why-can-t-we--63169502</link><description><![CDATA[The simple way to remember all this is that a business record must be a record of business actually conducted by the record keeper. Anything else is hearsay and must be secluded from evidence. But there is another rule that has been used to defeat this premise and the strategy has been successfully employed. By getting the homeowner and the attorney for the homeowner to agree that the company is a servicer, then the tacit admission is that it is performing serving functions.    First things first: No case can be proven without evidence that is accepted by the court as proving the truth of the matter asserted. The essence (the truth of the matter asserted) of all foreclosure claims is this: The claimant is the owner of an obligation owed by the homeowner to the claimant.The homeowner executed documents that memorialized a loan transaction that the homeowner accepted.One of those documents was a note that set forth the schedule of payments plus interest.Another document was the mortgage in which the homeowner agreed that the property was collateral that could be sold in the event of a default.A default has occurred: the homeowner did not make a scheduled payment and the claimant did not receive it.The default caused an economic loss to the claimant.Pursuant to the terms of the documents the claimant demands that the property be sold or that the homeowner redeem the property in accordance with the terms of the note and mortgage. Of the preceding paragraphs, in nearly all instances, paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 are false in foreclosure litigation.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/03/10/evidence-101-if-ireland-can-do-it-why-cant-we</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169502/evidence_101_if_ireland_can_do_it_why_cant_we.mp3" length="14432301" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The simple way to remember all this is that a business record must be a record of business actually conducted by the record keeper. Anything else is hearsay and must be secluded from evidence. But there is another rule that has been used to defeat...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The simple way to remember all this is that a business record must be a record of business actually conducted by the record keeper. Anything else is hearsay and must be secluded from evidence. But there is another rule that has been used to defeat this premise and the strategy has been successfully employed. By getting the homeowner and the attorney for the homeowner to agree that the company is a servicer, then the tacit admission is that it is performing serving functions.    First things first: No case can be proven without evidence that is accepted by the court as proving the truth of the matter asserted. The essence (the truth of the matter asserted) of all foreclosure claims is this: The claimant is the owner of an obligation owed by the homeowner to the claimant.The homeowner executed documents that memorialized a loan transaction that the homeowner accepted.One of those documents was a note that set forth the schedule of payments plus interest.Another document was the mortgage in which the homeowner agreed that the property was collateral that could be sold in the event of a default.A default has occurred: the homeowner did not make a scheduled payment and the claimant did not receive it.The default caused an economic loss to the claimant.Pursuant to the terms of the documents the claimant demands that the property be sold or that the homeowner redeem the property in accordance with the terms of the note and mortgage. Of the preceding paragraphs, in nearly all instances, paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 are false in foreclosure litigation.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>business records,hearsay,records,reliability,reports</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>63</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Elevator Pitch on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/elevator-pitch-on-foreclosure-defense--63169479</link><description><![CDATA[So the Defense in your case is that there is no claim, that the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and that the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e.,  it does not receive, account for or disburse payments from homeowners) and has no authority to declare a default much less prove that a default occurred --- i.e., that the designated claimant suffered some actual economic injury arising from nonpayment that can be corroborated by admissible evidence.   And just to put a finer point on it, I strongly recommend that it should be brought against the named Bank and not "as trustee" for anything. This is because the basic premise of your defense is that there is no trust that owns any underlying obligation owed by you to the trust. Your secondary defense is that there is no underlying obligation owed to the Bank. And your third line of defense is that any agency authority claimed by a company that has been designated as a "servicer" is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore not admissible into evidence unless the principal (US Bank) owns an underlying unpaid obligation due from the homeowner to U.S. Bank. See 9-203 UCC.   You do NOT advance some theory of securitization except as context. DO not attempt to try to prove the way the current iteration of securitization operates. You will fail. But if you attack the simple most basic elements of the claim against you at the earliest possible time you will usually win the case --- simply because there is no claim and no viable claimant. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/03/03/elevator-pitch-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169479/elevator_pitch_on_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="14264109" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>So the Defense in your case is that there is no claim, that the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and that the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e.,  it does not receive, account for or disburse...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[So the Defense in your case is that there is no claim, that the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and that the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e.,  it does not receive, account for or disburse payments from homeowners) and has no authority to declare a default much less prove that a default occurred --- i.e., that the designated claimant suffered some actual economic injury arising from nonpayment that can be corroborated by admissible evidence.   And just to put a finer point on it, I strongly recommend that it should be brought against the named Bank and not "as trustee" for anything. This is because the basic premise of your defense is that there is no trust that owns any underlying obligation owed by you to the trust. Your secondary defense is that there is no underlying obligation owed to the Bank. And your third line of defense is that any agency authority claimed by a company that has been designated as a "servicer" is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore not admissible into evidence unless the principal (US Bank) owns an underlying unpaid obligation due from the homeowner to U.S. Bank. See 9-203 UCC.   You do NOT advance some theory of securitization except as context. DO not attempt to try to prove the way the current iteration of securitization operates. You will fail. But if you attack the simple most basic elements of the claim against you at the earliest possible time you will usually win the case --- simply because there is no claim and no viable claimant. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>facial validity,fdcpa and respa,legal rpesumptions,rebutting presumptions,snactions by the court</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>62</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tonight! Liar's Poker! The Things Lawyers Do to Present Their Alleged Client in the Best Light</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tonight-liar-s-poker-the-things-lawyers-do-to-present-their-alleged-client-in-the-best-light--63169488</link><description><![CDATA[Lawyers have a job. Their job is to do the best they can at advancing their client's position-- within the bounds of the law. This usually involves a fair amount of bluff and any successful lawyer will tell you that it requires a great deal of knowledge, only part of which is imparted (and even less retained) in law school.  Tonight we will talk about how lawyers bluff their way through any case. And the most effective way of doing that is by asserting facts or laws that have never been introduced into the case. In some cases, those facts and those laws will never be introduced. But if the lawyer is good at bluffing, the opposing lawyer will fail to object or challenge the assertion. In the mind of the judge, a human being, the fact is then firmly established as true. The die is cast.  This is particularly true in foreclosure litigation. A lawyer stands up and says his name and says that he represents the claimant that has either been named as Plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or as Defendant in a nonjudicial state where the homeowner must file the claim against the forced sale of homestead property.  The fact that this lawyer has never spoken to any officer or employee of the named claimant does not stop him or her from asserting that he or she is the authorized legal advocate for the named claimant. That is a bluff and it is hard to overcome until later, at best. That lawyer knows that the trust, even if could be construed as technically existing, has never received a single payment from the homeowner and never will.  So tonight's show is devoted to bluffing and what homeowners can do about it. Spoiler Alert: you probably need a lawyer of your own to counteract the effect of bluffing by the lawyer for the "foreclosure mill."]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/02/24/tonight-the-things-lawyers-do-to-present-their-alleged-client-in-the-best-light</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169488/tonight_the_things_lawyers_do_to_present_their_alleged_client_in_the_best_light.mp3" length="14115501" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Lawyers have a job. Their job is to do the best they can at advancing their client's position-- within the bounds of the law. This usually involves a fair amount of bluff and any successful lawyer will tell you that it requires a great deal of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Lawyers have a job. Their job is to do the best they can at advancing their client's position-- within the bounds of the law. This usually involves a fair amount of bluff and any successful lawyer will tell you that it requires a great deal of knowledge, only part of which is imparted (and even less retained) in law school.  Tonight we will talk about how lawyers bluff their way through any case. And the most effective way of doing that is by asserting facts or laws that have never been introduced into the case. In some cases, those facts and those laws will never be introduced. But if the lawyer is good at bluffing, the opposing lawyer will fail to object or challenge the assertion. In the mind of the judge, a human being, the fact is then firmly established as true. The die is cast.  This is particularly true in foreclosure litigation. A lawyer stands up and says his name and says that he represents the claimant that has either been named as Plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or as Defendant in a nonjudicial state where the homeowner must file the claim against the forced sale of homestead property.  The fact that this lawyer has never spoken to any officer or employee of the named claimant does not stop him or her from asserting that he or she is the authorized legal advocate for the named claimant. That is a bluff and it is hard to overcome until later, at best. That lawyer knows that the trust, even if could be construed as technically existing, has never received a single payment from the homeowner and never will.  So tonight's show is devoted to bluffing and what homeowners can do about it. Spoiler Alert: you probably need a lawyer of your own to counteract the effect of bluffing by the lawyer for the "foreclosure mill."]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1765</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bluffing in court,court rules,litigation immunity,procedure,trial practice</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>61</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>2022 Trends in the Foreclosure World, including the Great Rise in Housing Values</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/2022-trends-in-the-foreclosure-world-including-the-great-rise-in-housing-values--63169472</link><description><![CDATA[Foreclosure trends for 2022 are developing ever rapidly, and here are some of the most significant ones:   - Home Values continue to rise in many places, disproportionate to historical trends, and loan amounts taken out by homeowners, either in refinances, or new home purchases, have likewise reached historical highs, setting the table for a scenario of a wave of loan defaults, should the economy continue to see massive inflation.    - Many homeowners have seen large increases in home equity, sometimes enough to offset large arrearages built up over months or years of challenging the 'claimants' to their 'mortgage loans'.   - We will discuss on future Shows how homeowners can tap into that home equity.   - In the litigation arena, institutional mortgage foreclosure plaintiffs in judicial foreclosure states are becoming more assertive in bringing matters forward; likewise in non-judcial foreclosure states, where foreclosure activity is not only dramatically increasing, it is also becoming more assertive in the scheduling of trustee's sales.    - In the trustee sale arena, the small arena of which is the final stage, the auction site, it is more important than ever in some cases to challenge the sale at the actual site, as there are more and better monied predatory groups as third parties buying large quantities of foreclosed properties at auction. All things being equal, it is almost always better if an auction goes forward, for the property to back to the beneficiary, rather than be sold to a third-party. Reasons for this are several, and will be covered on the Show today, tieing the analysis to unlawful detainer (UD), and bankruptcy (BK), legal procedure.                ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/02/17/2022-trends-in-the-foreclosure-world-including-the-great-rise-in-housing-values</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169472/2022_trends_in_the_foreclosure_world_including_the_great_rise_in_housing_values.mp3" length="14249709" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Foreclosure trends for 2022 are developing ever rapidly, and here are some of the most significant ones:   - Home Values continue to rise in many places, disproportionate to historical trends, and loan amounts taken out by homeowners, either in...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Foreclosure trends for 2022 are developing ever rapidly, and here are some of the most significant ones:   - Home Values continue to rise in many places, disproportionate to historical trends, and loan amounts taken out by homeowners, either in refinances, or new home purchases, have likewise reached historical highs, setting the table for a scenario of a wave of loan defaults, should the economy continue to see massive inflation.    - Many homeowners have seen large increases in home equity, sometimes enough to offset large arrearages built up over months or years of challenging the 'claimants' to their 'mortgage loans'.   - We will discuss on future Shows how homeowners can tap into that home equity.   - In the litigation arena, institutional mortgage foreclosure plaintiffs in judicial foreclosure states are becoming more assertive in bringing matters forward; likewise in non-judcial foreclosure states, where foreclosure activity is not only dramatically increasing, it is also becoming more assertive in the scheduling of trustee's sales.    - In the trustee sale arena, the small arena of which is the final stage, the auction site, it is more important than ever in some cases to challenge the sale at the actual site, as there are more and better monied predatory groups as third parties buying large quantities of foreclosed properties at auction. All things being equal, it is almost always better if an auction goes forward, for the property to back to the beneficiary, rather than be sold to a third-party. Reasons for this are several, and will be covered on the Show today, tieing the analysis to unlawful detainer (UD), and bankruptcy (BK), legal procedure.                ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1782</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>2022 foreclosure trends,bona fide purchasers,homeowner equity,litigation trends and strategi,unlawful detainer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>60</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Here is How We Beat the Banks</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/here-is-how-we-beat-the-banks--63169506</link><description><![CDATA[We start getting down to specific arguments that can be made to judges and specific testimony from the forensic expert that would likely succeed in educating the court --- as Bill has repeatedly done in the past.   No lawyer can proceed with a defense without knowing the weaknesses in the case against his or her client. Most lawyers proceed without the facts that would reveal those weaknesses. So the starting point is Bill (or some other qualified forensic investigator). The NEXT step is hiring a lawyer who can then develop a strategic and tactical plan to attack the now-revealed weaknesses and defects in the case against the homeowner.    We will analyze an unsigned letter, supposedly from New Rez c//o PHH responding to a QWR by saying that the investor they have listed is "Wells Fargo, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, successor in interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR-5" There are about 5 salient things that make that statement (a) an illegal response to the QWR and (2) establishing an inconsistent statement that cannot be reconciled unless the prosecuting claimant alleges a clear statement and proves the status of the claimant.   But most of all I explained how this was an opportunity for him to start educating the judge and I suggested that he file a motion for clarification and/or more definite statement since it was impossible for him to determine who the Plaintiff was and who he should pay --- while all the while taking the position that he wants to pay and has the resources to do so. Even if denied this brings the issue up on the radar of the judge. It moves the needle, even if not completely. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/02/10/here-is-how-we-beat-the-banks</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169506/here_is_how_we_beat_the_banks.mp3" length="14194413" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We start getting down to specific arguments that can be made to judges and specific testimony from the forensic expert that would likely succeed in educating the court --- as Bill has repeatedly done in the past.   No lawyer can proceed with a defense...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We start getting down to specific arguments that can be made to judges and specific testimony from the forensic expert that would likely succeed in educating the court --- as Bill has repeatedly done in the past.   No lawyer can proceed with a defense without knowing the weaknesses in the case against his or her client. Most lawyers proceed without the facts that would reveal those weaknesses. So the starting point is Bill (or some other qualified forensic investigator). The NEXT step is hiring a lawyer who can then develop a strategic and tactical plan to attack the now-revealed weaknesses and defects in the case against the homeowner.    We will analyze an unsigned letter, supposedly from New Rez c//o PHH responding to a QWR by saying that the investor they have listed is "Wells Fargo, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, successor in interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR5, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR-5" There are about 5 salient things that make that statement (a) an illegal response to the QWR and (2) establishing an inconsistent statement that cannot be reconciled unless the prosecuting claimant alleges a clear statement and proves the status of the claimant.   But most of all I explained how this was an opportunity for him to start educating the judge and I suggested that he file a motion for clarification and/or more definite statement since it was impossible for him to determine who the Plaintiff was and who he should pay --- while all the while taking the position that he wants to pay and has the resources to do so. Even if denied this brings the issue up on the radar of the judge. It moves the needle, even if not completely. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1775</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bank of new york mellon,mortgage pass-through certific,qwr,structured asset mortgage inve,wells fargo</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>59</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to benefit from Wall Street securitization schemes</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-benefit-from-wall-street-securitization-schemes--63169487</link><description><![CDATA[In a remake of technologically challegned Thrusday broadcast ---  Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show format.  Tonight Neil, Charles, and Bill will all be on the same show to discuss what is next in the fight against foreclosures and defamation of homeowner titles.  We will also be discussing various proactive undertakings by homeowners and their lawyers to (a) fend off fake foreclosure claims, (b) seek the return of money (disgorgement) unlawfully coerced from homeowners and (c) seek the award and payment of compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages against those who fraudulently present and pursue fraudulent claims and who abuse legal process.  The Wall Street banks are now locked into their own lies. It is time to take advantage of that and use it to best advantage homeowners and consumers generally.  Fundamentally we are talking about ways to motivate homeowners to obtain a return of what has been taken from them --- a legitimate business investment in their homes, fair terms on real loans with real lenders, and participation in the force-placed securitization schemes as co-issuers of instruments that were eventually converted and sold to investors as huge profits.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/02/08/how-to-benefit-from-wall-street-securitization-schemes</guid><pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169487/how_to_benefit_from_wall_street_securitization_schemes.mp3" length="14425965" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In a remake of technologically challegned Thrusday broadcast ---  Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In a remake of technologically challegned Thrusday broadcast ---  Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show format.  Tonight Neil, Charles, and Bill will all be on the same show to discuss what is next in the fight against foreclosures and defamation of homeowner titles.  We will also be discussing various proactive undertakings by homeowners and their lawyers to (a) fend off fake foreclosure claims, (b) seek the return of money (disgorgement) unlawfully coerced from homeowners and (c) seek the award and payment of compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages against those who fraudulently present and pursue fraudulent claims and who abuse legal process.  The Wall Street banks are now locked into their own lies. It is time to take advantage of that and use it to best advantage homeowners and consumers generally.  Fundamentally we are talking about ways to motivate homeowners to obtain a return of what has been taken from them --- a legitimate business investment in their homes, fair terms on real loans with real lenders, and participation in the force-placed securitization schemes as co-issuers of instruments that were eventually converted and sold to investors as huge profits.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1804</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>damages to homeowners,disgorgement,forced placed securitization,foreclosure defense,securitization revenue sharing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>58</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How consumers can benefit from "Securitization" schemes</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-consumers-can-benefit-from-securitization-schemes--63169471</link><description><![CDATA[Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show format.   Tonight Neil, Charles, and Bill will all be on the same show to discuss what is next in the fight against foreclosures and defamation of homeowner titles.   We will also be discussing various proactive undertakings by homeowners and their lawyers to (a) fend off fake foreclosure claims, (b) seek the return of money (disgorgement) unlawfully coerced from homeowners and (c) seek the award and payment of compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages against those who fraudulently present and pursue fraudulent claims and who abuse legal process.   The Wall Street banks are now locked into their own lies. It is time to take advantage of that and use it to best advantage homeowners and consumers generally.   Fundamentally we are talking about ways to motivate homeowners to obtain a return of what has been taken from them --- a legitimate business investment in their homes, fair terms on real loans with real lenders, and participation in the force-placed securitization schemes as co-issuers of instruments that were eventually converted and sold to investors as huge profits.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/02/03/how-to-consumers-can-benefit-from-securitization-schemes</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169471/how_to_consumers_can_benefit_from_securitization_schemes.mp3" length="229293" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show format.   Tonight Neil, Charles, and Bill will all be on the same show...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Behind the scenes, I have been having extensive telephone conversations and email correspondence with Bill, Charles, and other parties interested in the content and the radio show format.   Tonight Neil, Charles, and Bill will all be on the same show to discuss what is next in the fight against foreclosures and defamation of homeowner titles.   We will also be discussing various proactive undertakings by homeowners and their lawyers to (a) fend off fake foreclosure claims, (b) seek the return of money (disgorgement) unlawfully coerced from homeowners and (c) seek the award and payment of compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages against those who fraudulently present and pursue fraudulent claims and who abuse legal process.   The Wall Street banks are now locked into their own lies. It is time to take advantage of that and use it to best advantage homeowners and consumers generally.   Fundamentally we are talking about ways to motivate homeowners to obtain a return of what has been taken from them --- a legitimate business investment in their homes, fair terms on real loans with real lenders, and participation in the force-placed securitization schemes as co-issuers of instruments that were eventually converted and sold to investors as huge profits.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>29</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>abuse of process,defemation of title,disgorgement and damages paid ,foreclosure defense,fraudulent foreclosure claims</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>57</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Elephant in the room: Securitization is a PONZI scheme</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/elephant-in-the-room-securitization-is-a-ponzi-scheme--63169494</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight I will explain why securitization claims are just simply a PONZI scheme and what that means to the ordinary consumer/homeowner (and "borrower") in any consumer transaction.    But let's start with this, as a checklist of items we will cover tonight:   ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PONZI SCHEME  Exponentially increasing liabilities --- i.e., mounting debt. that is not disclosed until it crashes  crappy, nonexistent, or inadequate assets deceitful or nonexistent accounting feeble, inert or toothless regulation a get rich quick culture for preference salted with a whole array of inappropriate incentives stupid, ignorant, lazy investors--- the greedier the better, and an astonishing capacity for self-delusion]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/01/27/elephant-in-the-room-securitization-is-a-ponzi-scheme</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169494/elephant_in_the_room_securitization_is_a_ponzi_scheme.mp3" length="14080941" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight I will explain why securitization claims are just simply a PONZI scheme and what that means to the ordinary consumer/homeowner (and "borrower") in any consumer transaction.    But let's start with this, as a checklist of items we will cover...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight I will explain why securitization claims are just simply a PONZI scheme and what that means to the ordinary consumer/homeowner (and "borrower") in any consumer transaction.    But let's start with this, as a checklist of items we will cover tonight:   ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PONZI SCHEME  Exponentially increasing liabilities --- i.e., mounting debt. that is not disclosed until it crashes  crappy, nonexistent, or inadequate assets deceitful or nonexistent accounting feeble, inert or toothless regulation a get rich quick culture for preference salted with a whole array of inappropriate incentives stupid, ignorant, lazy investors--- the greedier the better, and an astonishing capacity for self-delusion]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1761</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>consumer,equity,homeowners,ponzi,securitization</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>56</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Mock Foreclosure Trial with Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall and William Paatalo</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/mock-foreclosure-trial-with-neil-garfield-charles-marshall-and-william-paatalo--63169499</link><description><![CDATA[WE ARE TRYING A NEW FORMAT TO BE MORE INFORMATIVE AND TO DO A BETTER JOB AT EDUCATING HOMEOWNERS AND FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS EACH 45 MINUTE SHOW PICKED FROM REAL CASES THAT ARE TRIED, DISCUSSED, AND DECIDED BY OUR PANEL.   If you wish to submit your case for review please submit the case review form. If your case is selected, you will be notified ahead of time, so you can ask questions.  CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE REVIEW (REGISTRATION) FORM.   The information will not be used for any purpose other than evaluation for program purposes and all information will be kept private as to the identification of the homeowner. Don't use your last name if you are selected and on the air. We will contact you to upload documents if you are selected. You will be allowed to ask questions on the air.   Every homeowner who has signed a note and mortgage (or deed of trust) should know what we know and how they can use that knowledge to their benefit. You have more leverage than you think!   Lawyers take note! The flood is starting. If you have not learned the basics of securitization, then you don't have the information necessary to properly advise your clients or prospective clients. This can be your chance to open a very lucrative practice for you with a high likelihood of obtaining satisfying results for you and your client --- if you know trial practice.   This show is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for advice from a local licensed trial practitioner. The absence of knowledge of court procedure (motions, objections) will most likely lead to failure for homeowners. Foreclosure defense is an uphill battle.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2022/01/06/mock-foreclosure-trial-with-neil-garfield-charles-marshall-and-william-paatalo</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169499/mock_foreclosure_trial_with_neil_garfield_charles_marshall_and_william_paatalo.mp3" length="21692781" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>WE ARE TRYING A NEW FORMAT TO BE MORE INFORMATIVE AND TO DO A BETTER JOB AT EDUCATING HOMEOWNERS AND FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS EACH 45 MINUTE SHOW PICKED FROM REAL CASES THAT ARE TRIED, DISCUSSED, AND DECIDED BY OUR PANEL. ...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[WE ARE TRYING A NEW FORMAT TO BE MORE INFORMATIVE AND TO DO A BETTER JOB AT EDUCATING HOMEOWNERS AND FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS EACH 45 MINUTE SHOW PICKED FROM REAL CASES THAT ARE TRIED, DISCUSSED, AND DECIDED BY OUR PANEL.   If you wish to submit your case for review please submit the case review form. If your case is selected, you will be notified ahead of time, so you can ask questions.  CLICK ON THIS LINK TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE REVIEW (REGISTRATION) FORM.   The information will not be used for any purpose other than evaluation for program purposes and all information will be kept private as to the identification of the homeowner. Don't use your last name if you are selected and on the air. We will contact you to upload documents if you are selected. You will be allowed to ask questions on the air.   Every homeowner who has signed a note and mortgage (or deed of trust) should know what we know and how they can use that knowledge to their benefit. You have more leverage than you think!   Lawyers take note! The flood is starting. If you have not learned the basics of securitization, then you don't have the information necessary to properly advise your clients or prospective clients. This can be your chance to open a very lucrative practice for you with a high likelihood of obtaining satisfying results for you and your client --- if you know trial practice.   This show is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for advice from a local licensed trial practitioner. The absence of knowledge of court procedure (motions, objections) will most likely lead to failure for homeowners. Foreclosure defense is an uphill battle.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2712</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>compliance with trial orders,discovery issues,foreclosure defense,motions,trial objections</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>55</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Q&amp;A on Prelitigation Strategies — QWR, DVL and Complaints to CFPB and State AG</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/q-a-on-prelitigation-strategies-qwr-dvl-and-complaints-to-cfpb-and-state-ag--63169503</link><description><![CDATA[As a follow-up to our FREE presentation CLE webinar on Prelitigation Strategies and Practices, we offer an open mike Q&amp;A on tonight’s show. Please think about your questions in advance and refrain from long monologues about your case.  Here is the obvious premise of this work: If as a consumer you have executed a promissory note and mortgage (or deed of trust) and you think that there is a loan account receivable somewhere that is owned and maintained by some lender or creditor, you are most likely incorrect.  Most homeowners make the mistake of thinking that the QWR and DVL are simply “form letters.” If that were the case, we would provide you with the template and you could send it out yourself. And back in the old days (pre-1995) that would be entirely appropriate for settling any disputes regarding the proper allocation of payments or any other issues.  The statutory foundation for the creation of the QWR and the DVL was designed to resolve potential disputes between the debtor and the creditor.  Today, the situation is different. We already know that there is no valid claim against the homeowner and that there is no valid claimant. We also already know that any company that is claimed to be a “servicer” neither has any legal authority to act as such (from anyone) nor does it perform any functions that are normally attributed to a company claiming to be a servicer.  So while the legislative intent for providing consumer remedies in RESPA and the FDCPA was designed to resolve disputes, the procedures contained within those statutes are now used by homeowners to start a dispute — because, without a history of disputing the claims made to administer, collect or enforce any alleged obligation due from the homeowner, it is much harder to mount an effective defense.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/12/09/qa-on-prelitigation-strategies-qwr-dvl-and-complaints-to-cfpb-and-state-ag</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169503/qa_on_prelitigation_strategies_qwr_dvl_and_complaints_to_cfpb_and_state_ag.mp3" length="14459373" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>As a follow-up to our FREE presentation CLE webinar on Prelitigation Strategies and Practices, we offer an open mike Q&amp;amp;A on tonight’s show. Please think about your questions in advance and refrain from long monologues about your case.  Here is the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[As a follow-up to our FREE presentation CLE webinar on Prelitigation Strategies and Practices, we offer an open mike Q&amp;A on tonight’s show. Please think about your questions in advance and refrain from long monologues about your case.  Here is the obvious premise of this work: If as a consumer you have executed a promissory note and mortgage (or deed of trust) and you think that there is a loan account receivable somewhere that is owned and maintained by some lender or creditor, you are most likely incorrect.  Most homeowners make the mistake of thinking that the QWR and DVL are simply “form letters.” If that were the case, we would provide you with the template and you could send it out yourself. And back in the old days (pre-1995) that would be entirely appropriate for settling any disputes regarding the proper allocation of payments or any other issues.  The statutory foundation for the creation of the QWR and the DVL was designed to resolve potential disputes between the debtor and the creditor.  Today, the situation is different. We already know that there is no valid claim against the homeowner and that there is no valid claimant. We also already know that any company that is claimed to be a “servicer” neither has any legal authority to act as such (from anyone) nor does it perform any functions that are normally attributed to a company claiming to be a servicer.  So while the legislative intent for providing consumer remedies in RESPA and the FDCPA was designed to resolve disputes, the procedures contained within those statutes are now used by homeowners to start a dispute — because, without a history of disputing the claims made to administer, collect or enforce any alleged obligation due from the homeowner, it is much harder to mount an effective defense.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cfpb complaint,dvl,qwr,servicer,state ag complaint</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>54</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Sharks Eating Sharks: a Case Study out of the SDNY from 2016</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/sharks-eating-sharks-a-case-study-out-of-the-sdny-from-2016--63169516</link><description><![CDATA[The legal case of US Bank (trust) v. UBS (United Bank of Switzerland) Real Estate was decided in 2016 in SDNY. The order following decision extends for literally more than 100 pages. The gist of the case is that US Bank went after UBS because of the poor loan quality of the loans making up the pool of investement mortgages in the PSA put together with UBS to memorialize the trust. Bill will explain and Charles will frame legal implications for how homeowners can use a lot of the findings and information from the lawsuit in their own cases defending or suing institutional lenders and servicers. While UBS could not meaningfully demonstrate that they deposited the actual mortgage notes per the PSA, into the US Bank trust, US Bank alleged to have never even received the Mortgage Files which make up the source of documentation for the individual loans. Yet US Bank could proffer no meaningful evidence that they US Bank, did not in fact receive the Mortgage Files at issue, so much of the Court Order rejected their claims.    The overall Court Order is an exemplar in contrived complexity, yet also an exemplar of sound and unfortunately vanishing clear and compelling language when relating complex topics such as this one. The Order noted on page 7, "Remarkably, the overwhelming majority of loans in the Trusts were for the purpose of refinancing a home already owned by the borrower, rather than for the purpose of purchasing new property...Undoubtedly, many of these were for the purpose of monetizing and extracting rising equity for other use." Hence, of course, the poor loan quality, and the high default rates in these trusts, here leading US Bank to sue through the trust at issue, to try and stanch the bleeding to them, from the bad loans.    Charles will then discuss how this contrived complexity is one of the reasons homeowers are reluctant to defend themselves, and address other reasons for that reality.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/12/02/sharks-eating-sharks-a-case-study-out-of-the-sdny-from-2016</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169516/sharks_eating_sharks_a_case_study_out_of_the_sdny_from_2016.mp3" length="14436333" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The legal case of US Bank (trust) v. UBS (United Bank of Switzerland) Real Estate was decided in 2016 in SDNY. The order following decision extends for literally more than 100 pages. The gist of the case is that US Bank went after UBS because of the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The legal case of US Bank (trust) v. UBS (United Bank of Switzerland) Real Estate was decided in 2016 in SDNY. The order following decision extends for literally more than 100 pages. The gist of the case is that US Bank went after UBS because of the poor loan quality of the loans making up the pool of investement mortgages in the PSA put together with UBS to memorialize the trust. Bill will explain and Charles will frame legal implications for how homeowners can use a lot of the findings and information from the lawsuit in their own cases defending or suing institutional lenders and servicers. While UBS could not meaningfully demonstrate that they deposited the actual mortgage notes per the PSA, into the US Bank trust, US Bank alleged to have never even received the Mortgage Files which make up the source of documentation for the individual loans. Yet US Bank could proffer no meaningful evidence that they US Bank, did not in fact receive the Mortgage Files at issue, so much of the Court Order rejected their claims.    The overall Court Order is an exemplar in contrived complexity, yet also an exemplar of sound and unfortunately vanishing clear and compelling language when relating complex topics such as this one. The Order noted on page 7, "Remarkably, the overwhelming majority of loans in the Trusts were for the purpose of refinancing a home already owned by the borrower, rather than for the purpose of purchasing new property...Undoubtedly, many of these were for the purpose of monetizing and extracting rising equity for other use." Hence, of course, the poor loan quality, and the high default rates in these trusts, here leading US Bank to sue through the trust at issue, to try and stanch the bleeding to them, from the bad loans.    Charles will then discuss how this contrived complexity is one of the reasons homeowers are reluctant to defend themselves, and address other reasons for that reality.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,homeowners psyche,institutional lawsuits,us bank vs ubs</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>53</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How I came to Know About Securitization Up Close</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-i-came-to-know-about-securitization-up-close--63169526</link><description><![CDATA[It was pure serendipity. There are three areas of expertise required to understand the current developments in the lending marketplace:  Investment banking and the sale of securities Accounting and auditing Trial Law  That has been my life since 1964 when I was just graduating high school. As I moved through careers, I was creating the perfect resume to understand the events that gave rise to the current infrastructure we call securitization. I have found that by recounting the short story of my life in that context, people better understand how and why we are in the third decade of the largest economic crime in human history and why nobody in power wants to do anything about it.   When I first encountered the new reality in 2004, I instantly recognized that the banks were at it again. They were pressuring the marketplace into a bubble that would burst, and they would make money during the pressure and when the market would burst. They were always betting against the market they created.   And my run-ins with banks, starting around 1980 was equally serendipitous dependent wholly upon clients coming to me seeking to obtain results. It was in 1983 that the great PR and advertising plan was launched --- pretty much within the timeline of Purdue Pharma's promotion of pain, break-through pain, and OxyContin. It's all about a national narrative, labels, and addiction to money.    So tonight I answer the essential question of how and why the current infrastructure came into being. I will take you back to the paper crisis of the 1960s and my role in that, the ascent of the use of “street name,” the creation of a fake regulatory entity for handling certificates, the onset of junk bonds, the Goldman Sachs laddering plan and how that scheme gave rise to the current structures that are used to eliminate and then create the illusion of a loan account.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/11/18/how-i-came-to-know-about-securitization-up-close</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169526/how_i_came_to_know_about_securitization_up_close.mp3" length="14811309" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>It was pure serendipity. There are three areas of expertise required to understand the current developments in the lending marketplace:  Investment banking and the sale of securities Accounting and auditing Trial Law  That has been my life since 1964...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[It was pure serendipity. There are three areas of expertise required to understand the current developments in the lending marketplace:  Investment banking and the sale of securities Accounting and auditing Trial Law  That has been my life since 1964 when I was just graduating high school. As I moved through careers, I was creating the perfect resume to understand the events that gave rise to the current infrastructure we call securitization. I have found that by recounting the short story of my life in that context, people better understand how and why we are in the third decade of the largest economic crime in human history and why nobody in power wants to do anything about it.   When I first encountered the new reality in 2004, I instantly recognized that the banks were at it again. They were pressuring the marketplace into a bubble that would burst, and they would make money during the pressure and when the market would burst. They were always betting against the market they created.   And my run-ins with banks, starting around 1980 was equally serendipitous dependent wholly upon clients coming to me seeking to obtain results. It was in 1983 that the great PR and advertising plan was launched --- pretty much within the timeline of Purdue Pharma's promotion of pain, break-through pain, and OxyContin. It's all about a national narrative, labels, and addiction to money.    So tonight I answer the essential question of how and why the current infrastructure came into being. I will take you back to the paper crisis of the 1960s and my role in that, the ascent of the use of “street name,” the creation of a fake regulatory entity for handling certificates, the onset of junk bonds, the Goldman Sachs laddering plan and how that scheme gave rise to the current structures that are used to eliminate and then create the illusion of a loan account.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1852</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>deutsche,goldman sachs,national narrative,paper crisis,purdue</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>52</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tracks in the Sand...How to Exploit the Compliance Docs Lenders Send Out</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tracks-in-the-sand-how-to-exploit-the-compliance-docs-lenders-send-out--63169522</link><description><![CDATA[Now that the various foreclosure and eviction moratoriums have either ended, or are on life support, it is more important than ever for homeowners in or near foreclosure, to exploit the papertrail created by servicers and purported  mortgage note holders to carve out the details of what is in, and not in, these debt representation letters.    As has been the case for years, formally challenging these letters, such as through qualified written requests and/or debt verification letters, is a sound way to get going documentation to show both the absence of the right to foreclose, or more damning evidence that chain-of-title and related issues outright prevent the legal ability to foreclose.    The Covid era actions impacting foreclosures continue apace as well, and Charles will break down the latest in that arena.                                                                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/10/28/tracks-in-the-sandhow-to-exploit-the-compliance-docs-lenders-send-out</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169522/tracks_in_the_sandhow_to_exploit_the_compliance_docs_lenders_send_out.mp3" length="14112621" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Now that the various foreclosure and eviction moratoriums have either ended, or are on life support, it is more important than ever for homeowners in or near foreclosure, to exploit the papertrail created by servicers and purported  mortgage note...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Now that the various foreclosure and eviction moratoriums have either ended, or are on life support, it is more important than ever for homeowners in or near foreclosure, to exploit the papertrail created by servicers and purported  mortgage note holders to carve out the details of what is in, and not in, these debt representation letters.    As has been the case for years, formally challenging these letters, such as through qualified written requests and/or debt verification letters, is a sound way to get going documentation to show both the absence of the right to foreclose, or more damning evidence that chain-of-title and related issues outright prevent the legal ability to foreclose.    The Covid era actions impacting foreclosures continue apace as well, and Charles will break down the latest in that arena.                                                                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1765</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,debt verification/validation l,lender compliance letters,qualified written requests</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>51</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How Consumers and Homeowners Win Cases Against "the Banks"</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-consumers-and-homeowners-win-cases-against-the-banks--63169534</link><description><![CDATA[Nearly all consumers think they're litigating or dealing with banks when in fact they're not. Tonight we look at basic elements of winning based upon 16 years of experience, research, and data collection.  Here are some of the highlights: Consumers who hurl accusations at the banks are sealing their own doom. The basics of every successful defense can be summed up into two words: DENY and TESTMost failures in court are the result of admissions of facts by the consumer about which they know absolutely nothing.Most successes in court are the result of the consumer denying everything and testing every allegation and exhibit. Tonight I will discuss the attributes of successful defense strategies ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/10/21/how-consumers-and-homeowners-win-cases-against-the-banks</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169534/how_consumers_and_homeowners_win_cases_against_the_banks.mp3" length="14256621" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Nearly all consumers think they're litigating or dealing with banks when in fact they're not. Tonight we look at basic elements of winning based upon 16 years of experience, research, and data collection.  Here are some of the highlights: Consumers...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Nearly all consumers think they're litigating or dealing with banks when in fact they're not. Tonight we look at basic elements of winning based upon 16 years of experience, research, and data collection.  Here are some of the highlights: Consumers who hurl accusations at the banks are sealing their own doom. The basics of every successful defense can be summed up into two words: DENY and TESTMost failures in court are the result of admissions of facts by the consumer about which they know absolutely nothing.Most successes in court are the result of the consumer denying everything and testing every allegation and exhibit. Tonight I will discuss the attributes of successful defense strategies ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1783</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>banks,defense,discovery,foreclosure,servicers</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>50</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Little Tiny Clues Can Lead to Big Results</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/little-tiny-clues-can-lead-to-big-results--63169474</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today to break down with Charles a recent case handled by Bill on the invesitgation end, in which Bill was able expose a major deficiency in the servicer/lender's case.    Additionally, Charles will address the latest on the Covid front, including updates on how foreclosures and unlawful detainers are heating up in California and elsewhere due to the lifting of the various moratoriums. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/10/14/little-tiny-clues-can-lead-to-big-results</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169474/little_tiny_clues_can_lead_to_big_results.mp3" length="14300973" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today to break down with Charles a recent case handled by Bill on the invesitgation end, in which Bill was able expose a major deficiency in the servicer/lender's case. ...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today to break down with Charles a recent case handled by Bill on the invesitgation end, in which Bill was able expose a major deficiency in the servicer/lender's case.    Additionally, Charles will address the latest on the Covid front, including updates on how foreclosures and unlawful detainers are heating up in California and elsewhere due to the lifting of the various moratoriums. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1788</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,discovery clues,foreclosure and eviction morat,motions to compel</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>49</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Interview with James Ackley Part 2:</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/interview-with-james-ackley-part-2--63169539</link><description><![CDATA[In the last show, we talked generally about how the promissory note morphs from a promise to pay a debt into a security that is simply an agreement between someone who does not own the debt and someone who will get paid because of a securities scheme.     As James tells it the note is transformed into a security that is essentially irrelevant in any current foreclosure case because that certificate is not and cannot be secured by a mortgage --- at least not one from a homeowner. I would add that current law requires, as a condition precedent, that the claimant has paid value for the underlying obligation, assuming there is one. See Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions verbatim.     I asked James to come back tonight because he is on the front line of litigation and as a competent trial attorney, he knows a lot about the frustrating pitched battles in foreclosure cases. Welcome back James and thanks for coming back.     So just to get started, I will ask James why should everyone understand the elements of a prima facie case first, before they do anything?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/10/07/interview-with-james-ackley-part-2</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169539/interview_with_james_ackley_part_2.mp3" length="14347629" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In the last show, we talked generally about how the promissory note morphs from a promise to pay a debt into a security that is simply an agreement between someone who does not own the debt and someone who will get paid because of a securities scheme....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the last show, we talked generally about how the promissory note morphs from a promise to pay a debt into a security that is simply an agreement between someone who does not own the debt and someone who will get paid because of a securities scheme.     As James tells it the note is transformed into a security that is essentially irrelevant in any current foreclosure case because that certificate is not and cannot be secured by a mortgage --- at least not one from a homeowner. I would add that current law requires, as a condition precedent, that the claimant has paid value for the underlying obligation, assuming there is one. See Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions verbatim.     I asked James to come back tonight because he is on the front line of litigation and as a competent trial attorney, he knows a lot about the frustrating pitched battles in foreclosure cases. Welcome back James and thanks for coming back.     So just to get started, I will ask James why should everyone understand the elements of a prima facie case first, before they do anything?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1794</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>ackley,certificate,mortgage,promissory note,security</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>48</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How does that note you signed change without you knowing about it?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-does-that-note-you-signed-change-without-you-knowing-about-it--63169475</link><description><![CDATA[You have often heard me speak about how the foreclosure mills want to talk about the note but foreclosures are about the mortgage or deed of trust. Those are governed by two sets of rules or laws that were adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions from the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 3 governs negotiable instruments which usually include promissory notes. Article 9 governs the enforcement of security instruments which usually include mortgages or deeds of trust.   *   Tonight Florida attorney and trial lawyer Randy Ackley joins us to discuss his views on how these rules and laws should be considered and argued in court.   *   Randy Ackley is a licensed attorney in West Palm Beach Florida who has been litigating the defense of foreclosure cases and related matters for many years.   *   I consider him to be a good trial lawyer with considerable experience in complex litigation and I have worked with him in the past. Randy worked as a senior litigator with Tom Ice who broke through several cases exposing the fraud and corruption of servicers and the players who assist in making claims for foreclosure.   *   He has worked for disaster relief organizations in many international locations and is an ardent and effective advocate for homeowners and consumers in general.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/09/30/how-does-that-note-you-signed-change-without-you-knowing-about-it</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169475/how_does_that_note_you_signed_change_without_you_knowing_about_it.mp3" length="14470893" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You have often heard me speak about how the foreclosure mills want to talk about the note but foreclosures are about the mortgage or deed of trust. Those are governed by two sets of rules or laws that were adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions from the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You have often heard me speak about how the foreclosure mills want to talk about the note but foreclosures are about the mortgage or deed of trust. Those are governed by two sets of rules or laws that were adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions from the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 3 governs negotiable instruments which usually include promissory notes. Article 9 governs the enforcement of security instruments which usually include mortgages or deeds of trust.   *   Tonight Florida attorney and trial lawyer Randy Ackley joins us to discuss his views on how these rules and laws should be considered and argued in court.   *   Randy Ackley is a licensed attorney in West Palm Beach Florida who has been litigating the defense of foreclosure cases and related matters for many years.   *   I consider him to be a good trial lawyer with considerable experience in complex litigation and I have worked with him in the past. Randy worked as a senior litigator with Tom Ice who broke through several cases exposing the fraud and corruption of servicers and the players who assist in making claims for foreclosure.   *   He has worked for disaster relief organizations in many international locations and is an ardent and effective advocate for homeowners and consumers in general.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>ackley,article 3,mortgage,note,uniform commercial code</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>47</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Foreclosure Tsunami is Coming Ashore Soon...See the Tide Recede Apace</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-foreclosure-tsunami-is-coming-ashore-soon-see-the-tide-recede-apace--63169527</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss the coming foreclosure tsunami, which looks to finally start landing in a big way in October or November. The major solution for homeowners and those whose houses have gone to sale, is to seek safe ground now or shortly, rather than waiting for the inevitable. In both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states,  homeowners can retain foreclosure defense attorneys--defendant's attorneys against judicial foreclosures in judicial foreclosure states, plaintiff's attorneys in non judicial foreclosure states like California.   Today on the Show we will discuss strategies to deal with this latest situation, where the national foreclosure and eviction moratoriums expire in days. The key for homeowners and other impacted is to start early and play hard. Even as the prep period for early is going down quickly, getting an attorney in place, and a financial, forensic investigator like Bill Paatalo, is key to potentially winning the long war with the banks.   Bill will discuss in part an unlawful detainer case he is handling where per usual well crafted and imposed discovery is pinning the opposition down, in this case Chase Bank.           Bill Paatalo, ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/09/23/the-foreclosure-tsunami-is-coming-ashore-soonsee-the-tide-recede-apace</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169527/the_foreclosure_tsunami_is_coming_ashore_soonsee_the_tide_recede_apace.mp3" length="14332653" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss the coming foreclosure tsunami, which looks to finally start landing in a big way in October or November. The major solution for homeowners and those whose houses have gone to sale, is to seek safe...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss the coming foreclosure tsunami, which looks to finally start landing in a big way in October or November. The major solution for homeowners and those whose houses have gone to sale, is to seek safe ground now or shortly, rather than waiting for the inevitable. In both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states,  homeowners can retain foreclosure defense attorneys--defendant's attorneys against judicial foreclosures in judicial foreclosure states, plaintiff's attorneys in non judicial foreclosure states like California.   Today on the Show we will discuss strategies to deal with this latest situation, where the national foreclosure and eviction moratoriums expire in days. The key for homeowners and other impacted is to start early and play hard. Even as the prep period for early is going down quickly, getting an attorney in place, and a financial, forensic investigator like Bill Paatalo, is key to potentially winning the long war with the banks.   Bill will discuss in part an unlawful detainer case he is handling where per usual well crafted and imposed discovery is pinning the opposition down, in this case Chase Bank.           Bill Paatalo, ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase bank,foreclosure and eviction morat,foreclosure tsunami,solutions for homeowners,unlawful detainer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>46</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How a CPA could upend the case against the homeowner!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-a-cpa-could-upend-the-case-against-the-homeowner--63169530</link><description><![CDATA[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.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/09/16/how-a-cpa-could-upend-the-case-against-the-homeowner</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169530/how_a_cpa_could_upend_the_case_against_the_homeowner.mp3" length="13997421" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>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...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[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.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1750</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>certified public accountant,cpa,foreclosure,ledger,payment history</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>45</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Evading State Laws: The Purpose of Using Trusts Years Past the Mortgage Meltdown</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/evading-state-laws-the-purpose-of-using-trusts-years-past-the-mortgage-meltdown--63169493</link><description><![CDATA[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 the discovery process in the cases he handles, 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. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/09/09/evading-state-laws-the-purpose-of-using-trusts-years-past-the-mortgage-meltdown</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169493/evading_state_laws_the_purpose_of_using_trusts_years_past_the_mortgage_meltdown.mp3" length="14341869" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>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...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[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 the discovery process in the cases he handles, 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. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1793</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,newrez,state licensing,trusts</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>44</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>FINTECH and PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY!!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fintech-and-plausible-deniability--63169478</link><description><![CDATA[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!  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.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/09/02/fintech-and-plausible-deniability</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169478/fintech_and_plausible_deniability.mp3" length="14705901" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>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!  Fighting ghosts is challenging but not impossible. Ask anyone who has been required to deal with what...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[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!  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.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1839</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fintech,foreclosure ghosts,foreclosure lawyers,investment banks,servicers</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>43</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How WAMU gamed BK Receivership in 2008; Contrived Complexity Revisited by Neil</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-wamu-gamed-bk-receivership-in-2008-contrived-complexity-revisited-by-neil--63169476</link><description><![CDATA[Bill will discuss on the Show today how a blanket lien granted by the OTS just prior the WAMU BK receivership of 2008 was used by the FDIC to in effect use the bk process to enable the conveying of title to the WAMU mortgage loans transferred through the BK to Chase, whereby same title was 'as is', with no warranties as to enforceability, collectibility, or unknown liens. This provides yet another level and layer of potential attack of the WAMU receivership, in litigation. Bill will then revisit his take as relayed by Charles on the Show a couple of weeks ago, re a Nationstar deponent testifying that no delivery of value occurred in the underyling loan transaction Nationstar was supposed to be servicing.   Charles then will relate some brief details of a thought experiment conveyed to Neil by a Wall Street insider, an anonymous yet reliable source on the mortgage meltdown fiasco and ongoing housing market reality. Great take on how through contrived complexity you can make $100 into $5,000, while still demanding $1,000 from the principal victim to the ruse--the original borrower, seeker of the mortgage deal, purchaser of the home that is mortgaged. Charles will finish up the Show with his latest Covid update. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/08/26/how-wamu-gamed-bk-receivership-in-2008-contrived-complexity-revisited-by-neil</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169476/how_wamu_gamed_bk_receivership_in_2008_contrived_complexity_revisited_by_neil.mp3" length="14478957" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill will discuss on the Show today how a blanket lien granted by the OTS just prior the WAMU BK receivership of 2008 was used by the FDIC to in effect use the bk process to enable the conveying of title to the WAMU mortgage loans transferred through...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill will discuss on the Show today how a blanket lien granted by the OTS just prior the WAMU BK receivership of 2008 was used by the FDIC to in effect use the bk process to enable the conveying of title to the WAMU mortgage loans transferred through the BK to Chase, whereby same title was 'as is', with no warranties as to enforceability, collectibility, or unknown liens. This provides yet another level and layer of potential attack of the WAMU receivership, in litigation. Bill will then revisit his take as relayed by Charles on the Show a couple of weeks ago, re a Nationstar deponent testifying that no delivery of value occurred in the underyling loan transaction Nationstar was supposed to be servicing.   Charles then will relate some brief details of a thought experiment conveyed to Neil by a Wall Street insider, an anonymous yet reliable source on the mortgage meltdown fiasco and ongoing housing market reality. Great take on how through contrived complexity you can make $100 into $5,000, while still demanding $1,000 from the principal victim to the ruse--the original borrower, seeker of the mortgage deal, purchaser of the home that is mortgaged. Charles will finish up the Show with his latest Covid update. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>blanket lien,contrived complexity,depositions,nationstar,wamu bk receivership</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>42</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>It's about winning.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/it-s-about-winning--63169507</link><description><![CDATA[Regular people think that going to court is winning a point and finding vindication in the judgment of the court. But lawyers know that going to court is all about keeping in control of the narrative.  So it should come as no surprise when people feel railroaded because they know or understand that the opposition has no case against them. They still lose. Why? because they lost sight of the real prize: just winning. Not vindication and not a judgment that puts the opposing lawyer and client in jail. Just winning.  Winning is all about what lawyers call the prima facie case but only lawyers understand the true nature of every prima facie case. It is only the case that has been pleaded in allegations of a well-pleaded complaint that asserts a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief COULD be granted.  Notice the word could is not would or will. It is could because without proof the prima facie case fails and judgment is entered for the homeowner. And that is what you want, right? So the goal of every foreclosure defense attorney is to interfere with the ability of the foreclosure mill to put on a case.  See https://livinglies.me/2020/01/09/tonight-whats-in-a-label-everything/]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/08/19/its-about-winning</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169507/its_about_winning.mp3" length="14524461" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Regular people think that going to court is winning a point and finding vindication in the judgment of the court. But lawyers know that going to court is all about keeping in control of the narrative.  So it should come as no surprise when people feel...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Regular people think that going to court is winning a point and finding vindication in the judgment of the court. But lawyers know that going to court is all about keeping in control of the narrative.  So it should come as no surprise when people feel railroaded because they know or understand that the opposition has no case against them. They still lose. Why? because they lost sight of the real prize: just winning. Not vindication and not a judgment that puts the opposing lawyer and client in jail. Just winning.  Winning is all about what lawyers call the prima facie case but only lawyers understand the true nature of every prima facie case. It is only the case that has been pleaded in allegations of a well-pleaded complaint that asserts a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief COULD be granted.  Notice the word could is not would or will. It is could because without proof the prima facie case fails and judgment is entered for the homeowner. And that is what you want, right? So the goal of every foreclosure defense attorney is to interfere with the ability of the foreclosure mill to put on a case.  See https://livinglies.me/2020/01/09/tonight-whats-in-a-label-everything/]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1816</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>pleading vs proof,prima facie case,servicer,trust,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>41</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Discovery Key to Advance Your Position in a Non-Judicial or Judicial Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/discovery-key-to-advance-your-position-in-a-non-judicial-or-judicial-foreclosure--63169533</link><description><![CDATA[Very promising development out of New York State. A principal issue in the case was whether the foreclosing party (mortgagee, the typical designate in a judicial foreclosure state) possessed the subject note before commencing the foreclosure process, and whether it had complied with serving statutorily required notices prior to initiating the foreclosure process. The lower court allowed Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. to get away with presenting as evidence of the the Note, and the notice requirement of foreclosure, affidavits by corp officers supposedly possessing knowledge about the Note on the one hand, and the notices of foreclosure, on the other hand. The New York Appellate Division appropriately reversed the summary judgment foreclosure. Neil rightly points out common sense requirement of UCC Article 9 Section 203 requiring actual possession of the Note is a finesse itself.    Then Bill will be discussing a deposition transcript whereby a Nationstar deponent testifies in effect that the seller at issue never delievered anything of value, showing only a so-called purchase of the underlying mortgage asset, with no proof of legal consideration; further, that same deponent on money issues, states only that someone in the Financing Dept has those answers. So the best course of action in this case would be to then depose the Financing Dept head or someone equally knowledgeable of the sorts of issues in the particular lawsuit.    Finally, Charles addresses latest legal mess with Covid, and how the foreclosure and eviction moratoriums are more muddled than ever. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/08/12/discovery-key-to-advance-your-position-in-a-non-judicial-or-judicial-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169533/discovery_key_to_advance_your_position_in_a_non_judicial_or_judicial_foreclosure.mp3" length="14116077" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Very promising development out of New York State. A principal issue in the case was whether the foreclosing party (mortgagee, the typical designate in a judicial foreclosure state) possessed the subject note before commencing the foreclosure process,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Very promising development out of New York State. A principal issue in the case was whether the foreclosing party (mortgagee, the typical designate in a judicial foreclosure state) possessed the subject note before commencing the foreclosure process, and whether it had complied with serving statutorily required notices prior to initiating the foreclosure process. The lower court allowed Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. to get away with presenting as evidence of the the Note, and the notice requirement of foreclosure, affidavits by corp officers supposedly possessing knowledge about the Note on the one hand, and the notices of foreclosure, on the other hand. The New York Appellate Division appropriately reversed the summary judgment foreclosure. Neil rightly points out common sense requirement of UCC Article 9 Section 203 requiring actual possession of the Note is a finesse itself.    Then Bill will be discussing a deposition transcript whereby a Nationstar deponent testifies in effect that the seller at issue never delievered anything of value, showing only a so-called purchase of the underlying mortgage asset, with no proof of legal consideration; further, that same deponent on money issues, states only that someone in the Financing Dept has those answers. So the best course of action in this case would be to then depose the Financing Dept head or someone equally knowledgeable of the sorts of issues in the particular lawsuit.    Finally, Charles addresses latest legal mess with Covid, and how the foreclosure and eviction moratoriums are more muddled than ever. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1765</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>business records exception,covid,depositions,discovery,hearsay rules</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>40</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Don't Miss the Point!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/don-t-miss-the-point--63169481</link><description><![CDATA[Most people are thinking theater. Perry Mason. Some point in litigation where someone admits to being a lying thieving murderous scoundrel. That doesn't happen in real courtrooms for the most part and it certainly does not happen in foreclosure cases.   Homeowners are looking for both redemption and vindication, neither of which is the business of the court system nor should it be. Homeowners should be looking to accomplish only one goal: saving their home, keeping their house. That is not done by attempting to prove something.    Defense lawyers know that the best defense is a good procedural offense so the case against their clients never gets off the ground.   In foreclosure defense, the point is not to prove it. In fact, the point is to stay away from proving anything. The point is to kneecap the opposition so they can't prove their claim.    The various magic bullets that are circulating are neither magic nor bullets. they don't work. And that is the best case scenario.    Let me be clear, fabricating false documentation to defeat a foreclosure is not any better or any more legally justified than that practice when used in filing foreclosure actions. There is no goose and no gander here. And unless you are a multibillion-dollar bank, you are low hanging fruit to prosecutors.   That said there are a number of legal documents that can be executed that might slow down the foreclosure process or even give you an opportunity to stall or eliminate the threat.    There can be no doubt that the scheme to fabricate false documents was wrong, illegal, unethical.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/08/05/dont-miss-the-point</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169481/dont_miss_the_point.mp3" length="14408685" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Most people are thinking theater. Perry Mason. Some point in litigation where someone admits to being a lying thieving murderous scoundrel. That doesn't happen in real courtrooms for the most part and it certainly does not happen in foreclosure cases....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most people are thinking theater. Perry Mason. Some point in litigation where someone admits to being a lying thieving murderous scoundrel. That doesn't happen in real courtrooms for the most part and it certainly does not happen in foreclosure cases.   Homeowners are looking for both redemption and vindication, neither of which is the business of the court system nor should it be. Homeowners should be looking to accomplish only one goal: saving their home, keeping their house. That is not done by attempting to prove something.    Defense lawyers know that the best defense is a good procedural offense so the case against their clients never gets off the ground.   In foreclosure defense, the point is not to prove it. In fact, the point is to stay away from proving anything. The point is to kneecap the opposition so they can't prove their claim.    The various magic bullets that are circulating are neither magic nor bullets. they don't work. And that is the best case scenario.    Let me be clear, fabricating false documentation to defeat a foreclosure is not any better or any more legally justified than that practice when used in filing foreclosure actions. There is no goose and no gander here. And unless you are a multibillion-dollar bank, you are low hanging fruit to prosecutors.   That said there are a number of legal documents that can be executed that might slow down the foreclosure process or even give you an opportunity to stall or eliminate the threat.    There can be no doubt that the scheme to fabricate false documents was wrong, illegal, unethical.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evictions,false documentation,foreclosure rescue schemes,perry mason,warranty of title</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>39</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Trends 2021 What the Foreclosure Landscape Looks Like Halfway through 2021</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/trends-2021-what-the-foreclosure-landscape-looks-like-halfway-through-2021--63169535</link><description><![CDATA[The latest trends of 2021 will be addressed today, with a focus on non-judicial foreclosure states and actions, in the following legal areas:   - civil litigation state,   - litigation Fed,   - appellate practice both state and Fed,   - unlawful detainer practice, aka post-foreclosure eviction lawsuits,   - bankruptcy practice.   All to be examined through the lens of Covid impacts both State and Federal, including the latest re foreclosure and eviction moratoriums.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/07/29/trends-2021-what-the-foreclosure-landscape-looks-like-halfway-through-2021</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169535/trends_2021_what_the_foreclosure_landscape_looks_like_halfway_through_2021.mp3" length="14258349" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The latest trends of 2021 will be addressed today, with a focus on non-judicial foreclosure states and actions, in the following legal areas:   - civil litigation state,   - litigation Fed,   - appellate practice both state and Fed,   - unlawful...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The latest trends of 2021 will be addressed today, with a focus on non-judicial foreclosure states and actions, in the following legal areas:   - civil litigation state,   - litigation Fed,   - appellate practice both state and Fed,   - unlawful detainer practice, aka post-foreclosure eviction lawsuits,   - bankruptcy practice.   All to be examined through the lens of Covid impacts both State and Federal, including the latest re foreclosure and eviction moratoriums.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1783</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,foreclosure and eviction morat,foreclosure trends</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What I can and what I cannot do for victims of fake foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-i-can-and-what-i-cannot-do-for-victims-of-fake-foreclosures--63169542</link><description><![CDATA[I often have exchanges with frustrated homeowners that end up like this one received recently:  “That leaves everyone doing nothing and allowing the banks to prevail. Your posts are very inspiring ( like a carrot) but then very discouraging ( your answer) when there’s no one willing to help the cause.  We’re supposed to have real answers/ solutions to help people, not just information. “  She’s right! But like most homeowners, she doesn’t like the real answer and real solution.  The real answer lies in a good or great knowledge of court procedure. I can’t teach that to lay people who have no foundation in legal training. If it was that easy we would not need lawyers or even judges.  The reason solution lies in a timely, well-conceived strategy and tactical plan to attack the sufficiency of the allegations, the implied allegations, the evidence, and the implied evidence. In order to do that you need to understand the rules of civil procedure in your local courts and methods and strategies that can be used to encourage a court to fund that that there is insufficient evidence to allow the foreclosure claim to proceed.  That said, I intend to discuss tonight some of the basics and why homeowners should be paying their lawyers more — in order to get the work done that needs to be done.  Whether you are fighting to win or just kick the can down the road, the key to success is in attacking the sufficiency of allegations and the sufficiency of the evidence against the homeowner. Nothing more and nothing less. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/07/22/what-i-can-and-what-i-cannot-do-for-victims-of-fake-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169542/what_i_can_and_what_i_cannot_do_for_victims_of_fake_foreclosures.mp3" length="14497965" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>I often have exchanges with frustrated homeowners that end up like this one received recently:  “That leaves everyone doing nothing and allowing the banks to prevail. Your posts are very inspiring ( like a carrot) but then very discouraging ( your...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[I often have exchanges with frustrated homeowners that end up like this one received recently:  “That leaves everyone doing nothing and allowing the banks to prevail. Your posts are very inspiring ( like a carrot) but then very discouraging ( your answer) when there’s no one willing to help the cause.  We’re supposed to have real answers/ solutions to help people, not just information. “  She’s right! But like most homeowners, she doesn’t like the real answer and real solution.  The real answer lies in a good or great knowledge of court procedure. I can’t teach that to lay people who have no foundation in legal training. If it was that easy we would not need lawyers or even judges.  The reason solution lies in a timely, well-conceived strategy and tactical plan to attack the sufficiency of the allegations, the implied allegations, the evidence, and the implied evidence. In order to do that you need to understand the rules of civil procedure in your local courts and methods and strategies that can be used to encourage a court to fund that that there is insufficient evidence to allow the foreclosure claim to proceed.  That said, I intend to discuss tonight some of the basics and why homeowners should be paying their lawyers more — in order to get the work done that needs to be done.  Whether you are fighting to win or just kick the can down the road, the key to success is in attacking the sufficiency of allegations and the sufficiency of the evidence against the homeowner. Nothing more and nothing less. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evidence,strategy,successful foreclosure defense,sufficiency,tactics</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>WAMU Lives On to 2015 and Beyond, and Double Reconveyances are Now a Thing!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/wamu-lives-on-to-2015-and-beyond-and-double-reconveyances-are-now-a-thing--63169537</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo dissects an assignment of mortgage loan interest to a 'WAMU trust', a possible legal nullity after the 2008 WAMU BK liquidating WAMU's legal interest in their mortgage loan portfolio. Then Bill further dissects a double reconveyance situation, which again involves WAMU and US Bank.   Charles Marshall will weigh in on these issues as well, in addition to providing the latest news on the COVID-19 front as it relates to mortgage loans and evictions. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/07/15/wamu-lives-on-to-2015-and-beyond-and-double-reconveyances-are-now-a-thing</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169537/wamu_lives_on_to_2015_and_beyond_and_double_reconveyances_are_now_a_thing.mp3" length="14422509" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo dissects an assignment of mortgage loan interest to a 'WAMU trust', a possible legal nullity after the 2008 WAMU BK liquidating WAMU's legal interest in their mortgage loan portfolio. Then Bill further dissects a double reconveyance...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo dissects an assignment of mortgage loan interest to a 'WAMU trust', a possible legal nullity after the 2008 WAMU BK liquidating WAMU's legal interest in their mortgage loan portfolio. Then Bill further dissects a double reconveyance situation, which again involves WAMU and US Bank.   Charles Marshall will weigh in on these issues as well, in addition to providing the latest news on the COVID-19 front as it relates to mortgage loans and evictions. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,double reconveyances,foreclosure and evictions mora,wamu assignments post wamu bk</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Stolen Consent and What You Can do About It</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/stolen-consent-and-what-you-can-do-about-it--63169567</link><description><![CDATA[If you learn anything it should be this: cases are not won or lost based upon the merits of each side. They are won and lost based upon perception and procedure.    Everyone already knows what I have been teaching for decades, Winning cases is about working the system not about being right. That is exactly why hardly anyone trusts the system or lawyers or judges for that matter.   But other than a few courageous homeowners, everyone seems to forget that simple proposition. And so because they believe that the entire foreclosure scheme for the past two decades has been one elaborate fraudulent scheme they assume they have a right to win. And they think the lawyers and courts should admit that the scheme is fraudulent and basically mostly a PONZI scheme.   There is no such thing as a right to win. There are only winners and losers who know how or who don't know how to work the system.    The problem for homeowners who seek to fight is that there is a nearly religious belief that this is about  being right rather than undermining the right of anyone to initiate foreclosure procedures against them.   They want to prove their opposition to be wrong. It is not enough for them to prove there is no claim against them and so they go on to lose and prove the erroneous proposition that homeowners cannot win. They can win and they do win. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/07/08/stolen-consent-and-what-you-can-do-about-it</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169567/stolen_consent_and_what_you_can_do_about_it.mp3" length="14271021" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>If you learn anything it should be this: cases are not won or lost based upon the merits of each side. They are won and lost based upon perception and procedure.    Everyone already knows what I have been teaching for decades, Winning cases is about...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[If you learn anything it should be this: cases are not won or lost based upon the merits of each side. They are won and lost based upon perception and procedure.    Everyone already knows what I have been teaching for decades, Winning cases is about working the system not about being right. That is exactly why hardly anyone trusts the system or lawyers or judges for that matter.   But other than a few courageous homeowners, everyone seems to forget that simple proposition. And so because they believe that the entire foreclosure scheme for the past two decades has been one elaborate fraudulent scheme they assume they have a right to win. And they think the lawyers and courts should admit that the scheme is fraudulent and basically mostly a PONZI scheme.   There is no such thing as a right to win. There are only winners and losers who know how or who don't know how to work the system.    The problem for homeowners who seek to fight is that there is a nearly religious belief that this is about  being right rather than undermining the right of anyone to initiate foreclosure procedures against them.   They want to prove their opposition to be wrong. It is not enough for them to prove there is no claim against them and so they go on to lose and prove the erroneous proposition that homeowners cannot win. They can win and they do win. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court process,foreclosure defense,foreclosure fraud,securitization,stolen consent</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>American Property Owners Network (APON) Coming to Your Town</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/american-property-owners-network-apon-coming-to-your-town--63169483</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will join host Charles Marshall to discuss how lenders behind securitized trusts such as US Bank, has no contact with the so-called certificateholders who would presumably possess bona fides to confirm the status pariculars of the mortgage debt. Moroever, certificateholders cannot even be identified typically, nor can accounting of payments to certificateholders be verified.   First though, Charles and Bill will discuss the American Property Owners Network (APON), a new non-profit organization whose mission is to unite homeowners, ultimately nationwide, and rental property owners against the massive lending and foreclosure fraud perpetuated across the country since the Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. APON is coordinating with Neil to bring a formal, legal petition to the Florida Supreme Court to bring not just uniformity but fairness to Florida legal procedures used to adjudicate legal disputes involving mortgage debt securitization. The goal is to enable legal procedure which would disable the institutional lenders and mortgage servicers from continually gaming the legal courts as they do now, and instead enable homeowners to meaningfully have their legal evidence properly considered.   There will be a webinar presented by APON with a Question and Answer session this July 6, 2021, 430 pm EDT. Mark your calendars, and see Neil's Blog for more information.   Finally, Charles will discuss the latest on the Covid-19 foreclosure and eviction front, with an update on how both the national foreclosure and eviction moratoriums have been largely extended through September 30, 2021, with states like California continuing their moratoriums as well.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/07/01/american-property-owners-network-apon-coming-to-your-town</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169483/american_property_owners_network_apon_coming_to_your_town.mp3" length="14472621" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo will join host Charles Marshall to discuss how lenders behind securitized trusts such as US Bank, has no contact with the so-called certificateholders who would presumably possess bona fides to confirm the status pariculars of the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will join host Charles Marshall to discuss how lenders behind securitized trusts such as US Bank, has no contact with the so-called certificateholders who would presumably possess bona fides to confirm the status pariculars of the mortgage debt. Moroever, certificateholders cannot even be identified typically, nor can accounting of payments to certificateholders be verified.   First though, Charles and Bill will discuss the American Property Owners Network (APON), a new non-profit organization whose mission is to unite homeowners, ultimately nationwide, and rental property owners against the massive lending and foreclosure fraud perpetuated across the country since the Mortgage Meltdown of 2008. APON is coordinating with Neil to bring a formal, legal petition to the Florida Supreme Court to bring not just uniformity but fairness to Florida legal procedures used to adjudicate legal disputes involving mortgage debt securitization. The goal is to enable legal procedure which would disable the institutional lenders and mortgage servicers from continually gaming the legal courts as they do now, and instead enable homeowners to meaningfully have their legal evidence properly considered.   There will be a webinar presented by APON with a Question and Answer session this July 6, 2021, 430 pm EDT. Mark your calendars, and see Neil's Blog for more information.   Finally, Charles will discuss the latest on the Covid-19 foreclosure and eviction front, with an update on how both the national foreclosure and eviction moratoriums have been largely extended through September 30, 2021, with states like California continuing their moratoriums as well.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>american property owners netwo,certificateholders,covid-19,foreclosure and evictions mora,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What Can Happen if There IS a Proper Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-can-happen-if-there-is-a-proper-defense--63169501</link><description><![CDATA[Foreclosure process is no different than any other. The courts are required to accept all allegations as true. The homeowner must say that the allegations are not true and then the homeowner has two choices.   The homeowner can seek to either disprove the allegations with evidence that shows that the the allegations could not possibly be true. The other path, which is far from well traveled but which has continuously proven its merit in courtroom warfare, is to establish that the foreclosure mill has no ability or willingness to produce evidence if required to do so.   If you look at virtually all foreclosures in the current era, they are all based upon out of court declarations or statements made by persons who never appear at trial and who are never mentioned. Those undisclosed people, machines and business entities cannot be cross examined or ever subpoenaed. That is evidence which is expressly and specifically prohibited under the hearsay rules because anyone who does come to court under those circumstances is basically a witness to a witness. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/06/24/what-can-happen-if-there-is-a-proper-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169501/what_can_happen_if_there_is_a_proper_defense.mp3" length="14459373" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Foreclosure process is no different than any other. The courts are required to accept all allegations as true. The homeowner must say that the allegations are not true and then the homeowner has two choices.   The homeowner can seek to either disprove...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Foreclosure process is no different than any other. The courts are required to accept all allegations as true. The homeowner must say that the allegations are not true and then the homeowner has two choices.   The homeowner can seek to either disprove the allegations with evidence that shows that the the allegations could not possibly be true. The other path, which is far from well traveled but which has continuously proven its merit in courtroom warfare, is to establish that the foreclosure mill has no ability or willingness to produce evidence if required to do so.   If you look at virtually all foreclosures in the current era, they are all based upon out of court declarations or statements made by persons who never appear at trial and who are never mentioned. Those undisclosed people, machines and business entities cannot be cross examined or ever subpoenaed. That is evidence which is expressly and specifically prohibited under the hearsay rules because anyone who does come to court under those circumstances is basically a witness to a witness. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>deliberation,discovery,hearsay,presumption,witness</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Chase Follows the Lenin Strategy: Who-Whom, That is the Fundamental Question</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/chase-follows-the-lenin-strategy-who-whom-that-is-the-fundamental-question--63169546</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss an established pattern he has uncovered in Chase litigation of all sorts. Just as Lenin in Soviet Russia days decided political questions based on who the players to benefit were from a given action, whom the victims would be from same action, Chase variously changes their claims of 'owning' the debt in securitized mortgages stemming from the WAMU to Chase bankruptcy of 2008, depending on whom they are litigating against. When the other party to their litigation over securitized mortgage loans is a borrower, they claim for these WAMU to Chase loans an ownership interest and role. When the other party to the litigation is instead an investor and/or an insurance company, involved with the securitized trust at issue, then Chase conveniently disclaims the type of ownership role in which they naturally and derivatively would be liable for defects in the securitized trust at issue.   Then Charles Marshall will do what might be a last call of sorts on the National Foreclosure Moratorium, covering how homeowners can still potentially take advantage of the forebearance options available through the Moratorium. The companion Eviction Moratorium is also slated to end June 30, 2021.             ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/06/17/chase-follows-the-lenin-strategy-who-whom-that-is-the-fundamental-question</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169546/chase_follows_the_lenin_strategy_who_whom_that_is_the_fundamental_question.mp3" length="14345901" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss an established pattern he has uncovered in Chase litigation of all sorts. Just as Lenin in Soviet Russia days decided political questions based on who the players to benefit were from a given action,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss an established pattern he has uncovered in Chase litigation of all sorts. Just as Lenin in Soviet Russia days decided political questions based on who the players to benefit were from a given action, whom the victims would be from same action, Chase variously changes their claims of 'owning' the debt in securitized mortgages stemming from the WAMU to Chase bankruptcy of 2008, depending on whom they are litigating against. When the other party to their litigation over securitized mortgage loans is a borrower, they claim for these WAMU to Chase loans an ownership interest and role. When the other party to the litigation is instead an investor and/or an insurance company, involved with the securitized trust at issue, then Chase conveniently disclaims the type of ownership role in which they naturally and derivatively would be liable for defects in the securitized trust at issue.   Then Charles Marshall will do what might be a last call of sorts on the National Foreclosure Moratorium, covering how homeowners can still potentially take advantage of the forebearance options available through the Moratorium. The companion Eviction Moratorium is also slated to end June 30, 2021.             ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1794</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase,covid-19,litigation strategies,wamu to chase securitized loan,who-whom</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How the Logic of the Courtroom Gives Judgments and Sells Property</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-logic-of-the-courtroom-gives-judgments-and-sells-property--63169551</link><description><![CDATA[There is a logic to the laws governing litigation and trial procedure, which is often based on fact. But those who really know how to apply those protocols also understand how they can be twisted away from the facts. And that is the problem for the homeowner.  Ignorance of these protocols is no excuse, and those protocols can kill your chances of winning in court. If the initial cut by the surgeon severs an artery supplying blood, nutrients, and oxygen to the brain, there are only a few minutes to correct the problem --- if it can be corrected.  An initial error by the trial lawyer can sever the chances of ever winning the case. In foreclosures, the trial lawyer is often the homeowner without a lawyer because few lawyers can be found to take these cases.  So the defense narrative is never fully developed under such circumstances. that means that at the outset, the artery is cut. The litigation plan is never considered must less decided upon, with various alternative plans based upon obstacles that appear during litigation.  And the most common mistake is referring to a servicer simply because that is how it was presented.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/06/10/how-the-logic-of-the-courtroom-gives-judgments-and-sells-property</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169551/how_the_logic_of_the_courtroom_gives_judgments_and_sells_property.mp3" length="14654637" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There is a logic to the laws governing litigation and trial procedure, which is often based on fact. But those who really know how to apply those protocols also understand how they can be twisted away from the facts. And that is the problem for the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is a logic to the laws governing litigation and trial procedure, which is often based on fact. But those who really know how to apply those protocols also understand how they can be twisted away from the facts. And that is the problem for the homeowner.  Ignorance of these protocols is no excuse, and those protocols can kill your chances of winning in court. If the initial cut by the surgeon severs an artery supplying blood, nutrients, and oxygen to the brain, there are only a few minutes to correct the problem --- if it can be corrected.  An initial error by the trial lawyer can sever the chances of ever winning the case. In foreclosures, the trial lawyer is often the homeowner without a lawyer because few lawyers can be found to take these cases.  So the defense narrative is never fully developed under such circumstances. that means that at the outset, the artery is cut. The litigation plan is never considered must less decided upon, with various alternative plans based upon obstacles that appear during litigation.  And the most common mistake is referring to a servicer simply because that is how it was presented.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1832</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,eviction,foreclosure,litigation plan,servicer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Navigating the Post Foreclosure and Eviction Moratoriums Set to Expire June 30</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/navigating-the-post-foreclosure-and-eviction-moratoriums-set-to-expire-june-30--63169485</link><description><![CDATA[The National Foreclosure Moratorium and associated forbearance enrollment applying to various Government-back loans (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD/FHA, VA, USDA), is set to expire June 30, 2021. As of this date, a possible extension to let's say September 30 does not appear to be on the horizon, though it may still happen.   The national eviction moratorium thru the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise expires June 30.   Today on the Show we will break down the nuts and bolts of what these foreclosure and eviction protections have looked like, and also cover what to expect in the months ahead, including discussing the various end dates of certain State deadlines, which largely track the Fed experation of June 30. A notable outlier is New York, which extends it's eviction ban through August 31, 2021.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/06/03/navigating-the-post-foreclosure-and-eviction-moratoriums-set-to-expire-june-30</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169485/navigating_the_post_foreclosure_and_eviction_moratoriums_set_to_expire_june_30.mp3" length="14291181" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The National Foreclosure Moratorium and associated forbearance enrollment applying to various Government-back loans (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD/FHA, VA, USDA), is set to expire June 30, 2021. As of this date, a possible extension to let's say...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The National Foreclosure Moratorium and associated forbearance enrollment applying to various Government-back loans (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD/FHA, VA, USDA), is set to expire June 30, 2021. As of this date, a possible extension to let's say September 30 does not appear to be on the horizon, though it may still happen.   The national eviction moratorium thru the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise expires June 30.   Today on the Show we will break down the nuts and bolts of what these foreclosure and eviction protections have looked like, and also cover what to expect in the months ahead, including discussing the various end dates of certain State deadlines, which largely track the Fed experation of June 30. A notable outlier is New York, which extends it's eviction ban through August 31, 2021.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1787</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cdc eviction ban,covid-19,national foreclosure and evict,state foreclosure and eviction</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Listen for Secret key to Unlock Securitization!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/listen-for-secret-key-to-unlock-securitization--63169490</link><description><![CDATA[It all comes down to one thing. This "Thing" is never stated but always there. Focus on this thing and you will enhance your chances of victory against companies claiming to be servicers. They're the ones who hire the lawyers, although the lawyers file pleadings and notices as if they represent banks with whom they have no relationship.  Pretender servicers are more dangerous than pretender lenders. Tonight I'll give anyone who is listening to our weekly show the key to bringing the hammer down on foreclosure mills, the named claimant and the unnamed claimant --- the pretender lender. Now is the time!  Then we'll talk about the hearsay rule, without which the foreclosure mills would always lose. But the hearsay rule is also a challenge opportunity. Use it or lose it!]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/05/27/listen-for-secret-key-to-unlock-securitization</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169490/listen_for_secret_key_to_unlock_securitization.mp3" length="14404653" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>It all comes down to one thing. This "Thing" is never stated but always there. Focus on this thing and you will enhance your chances of victory against companies claiming to be servicers. They're the ones who hire the lawyers, although the lawyers...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[It all comes down to one thing. This "Thing" is never stated but always there. Focus on this thing and you will enhance your chances of victory against companies claiming to be servicers. They're the ones who hire the lawyers, although the lawyers file pleadings and notices as if they represent banks with whom they have no relationship.  Pretender servicers are more dangerous than pretender lenders. Tonight I'll give anyone who is listening to our weekly show the key to bringing the hammer down on foreclosure mills, the named claimant and the unnamed claimant --- the pretender lender. Now is the time!  Then we'll talk about the hearsay rule, without which the foreclosure mills would always lose. But the hearsay rule is also a challenge opportunity. Use it or lose it!]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>business record exception,foreclosure fraud,hearsay,servicer fraud,warranty of ownership</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Hedge Funds Gaming the Auction Process of both Judicial and non Judicial States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/hedge-funds-gaming-the-auction-process-of-both-judicial-and-non-judicial-states--63169495</link><description><![CDATA[Bill will discuss on the Show today how hedge funds are creating close to auction time last-minute bogus assignments which allow them to submit false credit bids, taking back the properties into "REO" status. Then, they sell same properties to third-parties for profit, to bypass paying back debt. This allows them to get first dibs on imminent foreclosure properties, gaming the auction system.   Charles will discuss the latest re the national foreclosure and eviction moratorium, and how the media is downplaying the still cresting tidal wave of foreclosures and evictions, and how market forces in both housing sale and housing and apartment rental markets are being distorted massively.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/05/20/hedge-funds-gaming-the-auction-process-of-both-judicial-and-non-judicial-states</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169495/hedge_funds_gaming_the_auction_process_of_both_judicial_and_non_judicial_states.mp3" length="14198445" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill will discuss on the Show today how hedge funds are creating close to auction time last-minute bogus assignments which allow them to submit false credit bids, taking back the properties into "REO" status. Then, they sell same properties to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill will discuss on the Show today how hedge funds are creating close to auction time last-minute bogus assignments which allow them to submit false credit bids, taking back the properties into "REO" status. Then, they sell same properties to third-parties for profit, to bypass paying back debt. This allows them to get first dibs on imminent foreclosure properties, gaming the auction system.   Charles will discuss the latest re the national foreclosure and eviction moratorium, and how the media is downplaying the still cresting tidal wave of foreclosures and evictions, and how market forces in both housing sale and housing and apartment rental markets are being distorted massively.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1775</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid 19 national foreclosure ,hedge funds,judicial and nonjudicial aucti</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Use Settlement and Mediation to Your Advantage</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-use-settlement-and-mediation-to-your-advantage--63169574</link><description><![CDATA[The main problem for homeowners who end up in mediation or settlement discussions is that they are perceiving their transaction as a loan, while the other side is perceiving the transaction as part of a securitization scheme.   The mistake made by both homeowners and lawyers who are not knowledgeable about securitization is that they undervalue the potential settlement because their reference point is the value of the loan.   The opposing side is looking at the situation as to the value of the threat to the investment bank's scheme of securitization.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/05/13/how-to-use-settlement-and-mediation-to-your-advantage</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169574/how_to_use_settlement_and_mediation_to_your_advantage.mp3" length="14449005" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The main problem for homeowners who end up in mediation or settlement discussions is that they are perceiving their transaction as a loan, while the other side is perceiving the transaction as part of a securitization scheme.   The mistake made by...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The main problem for homeowners who end up in mediation or settlement discussions is that they are perceiving their transaction as a loan, while the other side is perceiving the transaction as part of a securitization scheme.   The mistake made by both homeowners and lawyers who are not knowledgeable about securitization is that they undervalue the potential settlement because their reference point is the value of the loan.   The opposing side is looking at the situation as to the value of the threat to the investment bank's scheme of securitization.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,foreclosure mill,modification,mortgage,settlement</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Accounting Platforms bypass Servicers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/accounting-platforms-bypass-servicers--63169511</link><description><![CDATA[The contrived complexity of the securitized home "mortgage" industry is confounding lawyers, judges, homeowners, regulators and legislators. But it is no more contrived to great complexity than the use by Wall Street banks who were the largest securitizers, of what amounts to accounting tricks accomplished through intermediaries like Black Knight and Core Logic. ON the Chase side there was IBM Lender Processing Services.  Today on the Show Charles Marshall will break this process down with Bill Paatalo, exposing how discovery can be used in either judicial or non-judicial lawsuits to establish that what the public thinks of as the servicer of a loan, collecting payments on same loan, are in fact basically false fronts for mega payment platforms used by the Wall Street banks. This approach explains a lot, including why servicers so often during litigation, cannot provide cohesive or credible payment histories, or show they have real employees responsible for the chain of custody within the servicer of payments, accounting of same, etc.  The bottom line for our audience is that litigants can use the discovery process to force the exclusion of evidence presented by the banks and their faux servicers --- not least by taking away the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Which is to say, if the actual requirements of the business records exception are properly attacked through discovery used in ongoing litigation, then the evidence presented by the banks will typically be nothing but hearsay.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/05/06/accounting-platforms-bypass-servicers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169511/accounting_platforms_bypass_servicers.mp3" length="13453101" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The contrived complexity of the securitized home "mortgage" industry is confounding lawyers, judges, homeowners, regulators and legislators. But it is no more contrived to great complexity than the use by Wall Street banks who were the largest...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The contrived complexity of the securitized home "mortgage" industry is confounding lawyers, judges, homeowners, regulators and legislators. But it is no more contrived to great complexity than the use by Wall Street banks who were the largest securitizers, of what amounts to accounting tricks accomplished through intermediaries like Black Knight and Core Logic. ON the Chase side there was IBM Lender Processing Services.  Today on the Show Charles Marshall will break this process down with Bill Paatalo, exposing how discovery can be used in either judicial or non-judicial lawsuits to establish that what the public thinks of as the servicer of a loan, collecting payments on same loan, are in fact basically false fronts for mega payment platforms used by the Wall Street banks. This approach explains a lot, including why servicers so often during litigation, cannot provide cohesive or credible payment histories, or show they have real employees responsible for the chain of custody within the servicer of payments, accounting of same, etc.  The bottom line for our audience is that litigants can use the discovery process to force the exclusion of evidence presented by the banks and their faux servicers --- not least by taking away the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Which is to say, if the actual requirements of the business records exception are properly attacked through discovery used in ongoing litigation, then the evidence presented by the banks will typically be nothing but hearsay.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1682</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What's in a name? What's in a document?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-in-a-name-what-s-in-a-document--63169538</link><description><![CDATA[For the past 15 years, I have been hearing complaints about law enforcement and regulators who got it all wrong about securitization. The sad fact is that they didn't get it wrong. They knew what was happening, they initially sought enforcement and then backed off. But they did file actions in court at were the culmination of months, even years of investigation that no homeowner could have financed individually.   The retreat from full enforcement was the result of a faulty decision-making process that was corrupted by a threat that was so large that nobody could see past it. Nobody actually was willing to investigate the threat or test it. It is the threat of universal financial armageddon.  It resulted in tacit approval of an entirely fraudulent scheme not just in past conduct but also a green light for ongoing fraud through foreclosure, securitization claims, resecuritization claims, and the issuance of more "nominal" value in unregulated securities than all the money in the world 20 times over. Just as a point of reference the value of all such securities in 1983 was zero.  The complaints filed by regulators and law enforcement help the reader understand what I have been saying here since 2007. The allegations themselves can be copied and pasted into complaints against not only the investment banks and all their minions but potentially against the individual officers and directors.  Tonight we look at the case of the People of the State of Illinois v. Nationwide Title Clearing, described in the complaint as a "document production factory." The complaint is the product of investigation and findings by a state agency and therefore could be argued as presumptively true because of that. The case settled for a small fine, which is part of what I will be talking about tonight.   see Illinois vs NTC]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/04/29/whats-in-a-name-whats-in-a-document</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169538/whats_in_a_name_whats_in_a_document.mp3" length="14351085" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>For the past 15 years, I have been hearing complaints about law enforcement and regulators who got it all wrong about securitization. The sad fact is that they didn't get it wrong. They knew what was happening, they initially sought enforcement and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[For the past 15 years, I have been hearing complaints about law enforcement and regulators who got it all wrong about securitization. The sad fact is that they didn't get it wrong. They knew what was happening, they initially sought enforcement and then backed off. But they did file actions in court at were the culmination of months, even years of investigation that no homeowner could have financed individually.   The retreat from full enforcement was the result of a faulty decision-making process that was corrupted by a threat that was so large that nobody could see past it. Nobody actually was willing to investigate the threat or test it. It is the threat of universal financial armageddon.  It resulted in tacit approval of an entirely fraudulent scheme not just in past conduct but also a green light for ongoing fraud through foreclosure, securitization claims, resecuritization claims, and the issuance of more "nominal" value in unregulated securities than all the money in the world 20 times over. Just as a point of reference the value of all such securities in 1983 was zero.  The complaints filed by regulators and law enforcement help the reader understand what I have been saying here since 2007. The allegations themselves can be copied and pasted into complaints against not only the investment banks and all their minions but potentially against the individual officers and directors.  Tonight we look at the case of the People of the State of Illinois v. Nationwide Title Clearing, described in the complaint as a "document production factory." The complaint is the product of investigation and findings by a state agency and therefore could be argued as presumptively true because of that. The case settled for a small fine, which is part of what I will be talking about tonight.   see Illinois vs NTC]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1794</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>american brokers conduit,document fraud,fabrication,illinois attorney general,national title clearing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How the bad guys get fake stuff into evidence and what you an do about it!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-the-bad-guys-get-fake-stuff-into-evidence-and-what-you-an-do-about-it--63169520</link><description><![CDATA[Most people give no thought to the elaborate scheme in which documents are created exclusively for use in civil court actions. The fact that such a statement is true is reason enough to exclude such evidence, but the failure of almost every homeowner and lawyer to timely and properly object is the reason it comes into evidence anyway.    No document prepared solely for court can be admitted into evidence in the court record.   But once proffered, the court must accept it unless it is obvious that the document is plainly absurd and irrelevant to the issues before the court. And the presence of such evidence in the court record requires the judge to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to the claimant, who probably does not even exist.    Given the fact that there are no business or monetary transactions in the real world, how does any document get admitted into evidence when it purports to be a memorialization of nonexistent events between either nonexistent or disinterested parties? How does the foreclosure mill get such a fabricated, forged, backdated, and false document into evidence? More importantly, how does the homeowner prevent such miscarriage of justice?    In foreclosures, the point is NOT whether there is a loan or whether the homeowner owes any money. The point is whether the named claimant (plaintiff or beneficiary) can prove that they own the underlying obligation because that claimant paid value in the real world in exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation. The issue is not whether the "loan" was in"default." The issue is whether the claimant has any legal basis for receiving any relief. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/04/22/how-the-bad-guys-get-fake-stuff-into-evidence-and-what-you-an-do-about-it</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169520/how_the_bad_guys_get_fake_stuff_into_evidence_and_what_you_an_do_about_it.mp3" length="14205933" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Most people give no thought to the elaborate scheme in which documents are created exclusively for use in civil court actions. The fact that such a statement is true is reason enough to exclude such evidence, but the failure of almost every homeowner...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most people give no thought to the elaborate scheme in which documents are created exclusively for use in civil court actions. The fact that such a statement is true is reason enough to exclude such evidence, but the failure of almost every homeowner and lawyer to timely and properly object is the reason it comes into evidence anyway.    No document prepared solely for court can be admitted into evidence in the court record.   But once proffered, the court must accept it unless it is obvious that the document is plainly absurd and irrelevant to the issues before the court. And the presence of such evidence in the court record requires the judge to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law favorable to the claimant, who probably does not even exist.    Given the fact that there are no business or monetary transactions in the real world, how does any document get admitted into evidence when it purports to be a memorialization of nonexistent events between either nonexistent or disinterested parties? How does the foreclosure mill get such a fabricated, forged, backdated, and false document into evidence? More importantly, how does the homeowner prevent such miscarriage of justice?    In foreclosures, the point is NOT whether there is a loan or whether the homeowner owes any money. The point is whether the named claimant (plaintiff or beneficiary) can prove that they own the underlying obligation because that claimant paid value in the real world in exchange for ownership of the underlying obligation. The issue is not whether the "loan" was in"default." The issue is whether the claimant has any legal basis for receiving any relief. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1776</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>dry-labbing,fake documents,objections,robosigning,robowitness</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Successful Discovery Strategies in Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/successful-discovery-strategies-in-foreclosure-defense--63169586</link><description><![CDATA[Somewhere between questioning everything and questioning nothing lies the law. The law consists of duties, rights, and obligations of everyone plus a process of determining if there was a breach, whether it mattered and what to do about it.   Successful foreclosure defense is entirely about establishing a breach by the foreclosure mill. The best way to do that is usually through demanding discovery   Successful foreclosure defense is about seeking answers that you are entitled to ask when you are allowed to ask them, and how the questions are required to be asked. It is not about getting answers. If someone sues you to collect on a debt, you are entitled to ask, What debt? How do I owe it to you? Who are you?   If you don’t get answers or adequate responses, you are in the driver’s seat. You can either apply the brakes or coast along until you lose. But If you apply the gas, you can run the foreclosure mill into a corner. Because they have no answers.   People lose their homes because they assume they know the answers. They don’t. None of them do. Lawyers inadvertently allow their clients to lose their homes because they were afraid to ask the right questions and then follow up. Lawyers do that because they think they know the answers and wish to avoid them.   Tonight we discuss the who, what, where, when, and why of discovery and why it usually leads to homeowner victory.  Make absolutely certain that you don't admit something that is against your interests.  Start as early as possible.  Avoid using the nomenclature of the opposition, to wit:  Loan Servicer Trustee Trust Certificates Certificate holders]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/04/15/successful-discovery-strategies-in-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169586/successful_discovery_strategies_in_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="14152365" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Somewhere between questioning everything and questioning nothing lies the law. The law consists of duties, rights, and obligations of everyone plus a process of determining if there was a breach, whether it mattered and what to do about it....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Somewhere between questioning everything and questioning nothing lies the law. The law consists of duties, rights, and obligations of everyone plus a process of determining if there was a breach, whether it mattered and what to do about it.   Successful foreclosure defense is entirely about establishing a breach by the foreclosure mill. The best way to do that is usually through demanding discovery   Successful foreclosure defense is about seeking answers that you are entitled to ask when you are allowed to ask them, and how the questions are required to be asked. It is not about getting answers. If someone sues you to collect on a debt, you are entitled to ask, What debt? How do I owe it to you? Who are you?   If you don’t get answers or adequate responses, you are in the driver’s seat. You can either apply the brakes or coast along until you lose. But If you apply the gas, you can run the foreclosure mill into a corner. Because they have no answers.   People lose their homes because they assume they know the answers. They don’t. None of them do. Lawyers inadvertently allow their clients to lose their homes because they were afraid to ask the right questions and then follow up. Lawyers do that because they think they know the answers and wish to avoid them.   Tonight we discuss the who, what, where, when, and why of discovery and why it usually leads to homeowner victory.  Make absolutely certain that you don't admit something that is against your interests.  Start as early as possible.  Avoid using the nomenclature of the opposition, to wit:  Loan Servicer Trustee Trust Certificates Certificate holders]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1770</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>depositions,interrogatories,motion to compel,request for admissions,request to produce</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Lying for Dollars: Apply Your Understanding of Securitization Claims to Win</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/lying-for-dollars-apply-your-understanding-of-securitization-claims-to-win--63169521</link><description><![CDATA[Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure. That is the first lie told in court as lawyers, and companies claiming to be servicers, lenders, or trustees continue to play their game of lying for dollars.   It's obvious I have not simplified the explanation enough because both lawyers and homeowners still mostly don't understand what I am talking about. That means they can't use it effectively, as I have, and that means the judge won't have any idea what you are talking about.    You can prove that the documents used by your opposition can't be trusted. More importantly, you can prove that the lawyers opposing you cannot be trusted. And that means the opposition must prove their case by reference in well-founded relevant testimony from competent witnesses as to the actual transaction, proof of payment, etc. And they can't do that.   That is how I win. And that is how homeowners across the country have won. And that is how all homeowners are faced with false claims of securitization or false claims of ownership where there is MERS or other signs of claimed securitization in the background.    So let me take a stab at another type of explanation of what happened. I concede that it is difficult for anyone to comprehend including Wall Street investment bankers. This will be the show tonight --- my attempt at simplifying the explanation of why homeowners should win every time.   This will be an oversimplification. It is an example of the progression of events that occur when a legitimate loan is claimed to be subject to what is called securitization.    You must be tenacious, persistent and unrelenting to the point where you can clearly demonstrate that the opposition is not complying with either court rules or court orders. That is when you have them in your sights and can shoot down their claim. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/04/08/lying-for-dollars-apply-your-understanding-of-securitization-claims-to-win</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169521/lying_for_dollars_apply_your_understanding_of_securitization_claims_to_win.mp3" length="14381037" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure. That is the first lie told in court as lawyers, and companies claiming to be servicers, lenders, or trustees continue to play their game of lying for dollars.   It's obvious I have not simplified the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure. That is the first lie told in court as lawyers, and companies claiming to be servicers, lenders, or trustees continue to play their game of lying for dollars.   It's obvious I have not simplified the explanation enough because both lawyers and homeowners still mostly don't understand what I am talking about. That means they can't use it effectively, as I have, and that means the judge won't have any idea what you are talking about.    You can prove that the documents used by your opposition can't be trusted. More importantly, you can prove that the lawyers opposing you cannot be trusted. And that means the opposition must prove their case by reference in well-founded relevant testimony from competent witnesses as to the actual transaction, proof of payment, etc. And they can't do that.   That is how I win. And that is how homeowners across the country have won. And that is how all homeowners are faced with false claims of securitization or false claims of ownership where there is MERS or other signs of claimed securitization in the background.    So let me take a stab at another type of explanation of what happened. I concede that it is difficult for anyone to comprehend including Wall Street investment bankers. This will be the show tonight --- my attempt at simplifying the explanation of why homeowners should win every time.   This will be an oversimplification. It is an example of the progression of events that occur when a legitimate loan is claimed to be subject to what is called securitization.    You must be tenacious, persistent and unrelenting to the point where you can clearly demonstrate that the opposition is not complying with either court rules or court orders. That is when you have them in your sights and can shoot down their claim. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1798</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>false documents,foreclosure defense,remic,servicer,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Identify Large Monies to be Gained or Lost, See 'Lender's' Position Close Behind</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/identify-large-monies-to-be-gained-or-lost-see-lender-s-position-close-behind--63169497</link><description><![CDATA[We break down on the Show today the latest from MERS. Now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to try and reverse a quiet title judgment taken in State Court against Central Pacific Mortgage (CPM), claiming since CPM, the original lender, past shortly after origination all beneficial interest in the note and mortgage (DOT--Cal is a deed of trust state) to MERS, the fact that MERS was not noticed in the lawsuit at the State level which went to judgment, same judgment is reversible, arguing that MERS was the only beneficial interest holder in the chain of title--not just an intermediary passing the beneficial interest to other successors-in-interest to the loan origination.   Which is to say, where large pools of money are at stake, institutional players to a given mortgage loan's chain of title, will indeed engage in legal Jujutsu to get or prevent the loss of that money, contradiciting their typical arguments which  were made in countless previous cases.   Then Charles Marshall will address the latest Covid-19 legal impacts, covering the latest on both the national foreclosure moratorium and eviction front, as well as the latest in California's moratorium landscape.                ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/04/01/identify-large-monies-to-be-gained-or-lost-see-lenders-position-close-behind</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169497/identify_large_monies_to_be_gained_or_lost_see_lenders_position_close_behind.mp3" length="14464557" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We break down on the Show today the latest from MERS. Now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to try and reverse a quiet title judgment taken in State Court against Central Pacific Mortgage (CPM), claiming since CPM, the original lender, past...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We break down on the Show today the latest from MERS. Now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to try and reverse a quiet title judgment taken in State Court against Central Pacific Mortgage (CPM), claiming since CPM, the original lender, past shortly after origination all beneficial interest in the note and mortgage (DOT--Cal is a deed of trust state) to MERS, the fact that MERS was not noticed in the lawsuit at the State level which went to judgment, same judgment is reversible, arguing that MERS was the only beneficial interest holder in the chain of title--not just an intermediary passing the beneficial interest to other successors-in-interest to the loan origination.   Which is to say, where large pools of money are at stake, institutional players to a given mortgage loan's chain of title, will indeed engage in legal Jujutsu to get or prevent the loss of that money, contradiciting their typical arguments which  were made in countless previous cases.   Then Charles Marshall will address the latest Covid-19 legal impacts, covering the latest on both the national foreclosure moratorium and eviction front, as well as the latest in California's moratorium landscape.                ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>beneficial interest,central pacific mortgage,covid-19,foreclosure and eviction morat,mers</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The single most important moment in foreclosure: Motion to Compel Responses</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-single-most-important-moment-in-foreclosure-motion-to-compel-responses--63169505</link><description><![CDATA[You have often asked "how do I prove that?" And my answer is always the same. You don't prove anything because you don't need to prove anything. Stop thinking of yourself as making a claim against anyone. And start thinking about it the way it is. Someone is making claim against you. They don't have a case. If you want to say you are proving something, then say you are proving that they don't have a case.   I can never give absolute assurance of the outcome of any litigation, no matter how clear anyone thinks the issues are or how well they have been presented. But assuming that proper interrogatories, request for production and request for admission are drafted and filed in a timely manner as prescribed by local discovery rules, I can absolutely assure you of one thing that will be true every time: if the foreclosure claim is in any way related to claims fo securitization, they won't answer you.    Do not try to prove that securitization is evil. It isn't and it never will be evil by any commercial standards. What I have written and spoken about is not that securitization is evil but that it never happened. And you don't need to prove that either.   Keep it simple and add other motions merely to direct the court's attention to the fact that presumptions are being used rather than actual allegations or evidence.    Like it or not, all those assumptions and presumptions and exist. If you want to win the case, you need to rebut or defeat the use of those presumptions or else in virtually all cases you will lose.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/03/25/the-single-most-important-moment-in-foreclosure-motion-to-compel-responses</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169505/the_single_most_important_moment_in_foreclosure_motion_to_compel_responses.mp3" length="14510061" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You have often asked "how do I prove that?" And my answer is always the same. You don't prove anything because you don't need to prove anything. Stop thinking of yourself as making a claim against anyone. And start thinking about it the way it is....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You have often asked "how do I prove that?" And my answer is always the same. You don't prove anything because you don't need to prove anything. Stop thinking of yourself as making a claim against anyone. And start thinking about it the way it is. Someone is making claim against you. They don't have a case. If you want to say you are proving something, then say you are proving that they don't have a case.   I can never give absolute assurance of the outcome of any litigation, no matter how clear anyone thinks the issues are or how well they have been presented. But assuming that proper interrogatories, request for production and request for admission are drafted and filed in a timely manner as prescribed by local discovery rules, I can absolutely assure you of one thing that will be true every time: if the foreclosure claim is in any way related to claims fo securitization, they won't answer you.    Do not try to prove that securitization is evil. It isn't and it never will be evil by any commercial standards. What I have written and spoken about is not that securitization is evil but that it never happened. And you don't need to prove that either.   Keep it simple and add other motions merely to direct the court's attention to the fact that presumptions are being used rather than actual allegations or evidence.    Like it or not, all those assumptions and presumptions and exist. If you want to win the case, you need to rebut or defeat the use of those presumptions or else in virtually all cases you will lose.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,motion for negative inference,motion for sanctions,motion in limine,motion to compel</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Trends Taking Shape in 2021 Foreclosure arenas: Lawsuits, BK, UD</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-trends-taking-shape-in-2021-foreclosure-arenas-lawsuits-bk-ud--63169519</link><description><![CDATA[On The Show today Host Charles Marshall will devle into the latest trends in the Covid-19 era, parsing out how Covid policy at all levels is still having a major impact on   - foreclosure lawsuits, both non-judicial from the homeowners side, and judicial lawsuits against homeowners;   - BK practice and procedure, especially when involving hi value properties;   - UD procedure, with a convergence of trends to go forward with UDs, especially in California.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/03/18/foreclosure-trends-taking-shape-in-2021-foreclosure-arenas-lawsuits-bk-ud</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169519/foreclosure_trends_taking_shape_in_2021_foreclosure_arenas_lawsuits_bk_ud.mp3" length="12543021" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On The Show today Host Charles Marshall will devle into the latest trends in the Covid-19 era, parsing out how Covid policy at all levels is still having a major impact on   - foreclosure lawsuits, both non-judicial from the homeowners side, and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On The Show today Host Charles Marshall will devle into the latest trends in the Covid-19 era, parsing out how Covid policy at all levels is still having a major impact on   - foreclosure lawsuits, both non-judicial from the homeowners side, and judicial lawsuits against homeowners;   - BK practice and procedure, especially when involving hi value properties;   - UD procedure, with a convergence of trends to go forward with UDs, especially in California.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1568</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>2021 foreclosure trends,bk,covid-19,lawsuits,ud</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Success Dooms Foreclosure Defense Lawyers: Homeowners Denied Access to the Court</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/success-dooms-foreclosure-defense-lawyers-homeowners-denied-access-to-the-court--63169500</link><description><![CDATA[It is now virtually impossible to find a lawyer who will accept an engagement to defend a foreclosure regardless of the financial ability of the prospective client to pay fees. The unconstitutional chilling effect on lawyers and homeowners is obvious. Lawyers and homeowners have been chased away from defending foreclosure claims that are unfounded, illegal and fraudulent.      And the reason is simple: lawyers who are consistently successful at defending foreclosures are targeted with disciplinary actions, punishments and civil actions that either directly or indirectly bar them from ever representing or soliciting a client for foreclosure defense litigation. It's not difficult to identify the beneficiary of this phenomenon: it's the Wall Street investment banks that are falsely claiming to have securitized transactions with homeowners that are falsely represented and labeled as loans. They get the money proceeds from forced sales of homesteads and they don't distribute it to anyone who paid value for entry into the securitization scheme.      I have been a litigator for 45 years. During that time I have also written workbooks on and given CLE seminars to lawyers across the country on various topics relating to business litigation foreclosure, evidence, discovery and expert testimony.      I have never seen a situation like this, created entirely by overreaching of state bar grievance procedures and civil actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and State AG offices under cover of preventing fraudulent "foreclosure rescue" scams. They have even come after me, repeatedly but because of my experience in defending administrative actions, they were largely unsuccessful. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/03/11/success-dooms-foreclosure-defense-lawyers-homeowners-denied-access-to-the-court</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169500/success_dooms_foreclosure_defense_lawyers_homeowners_denied_access_to_the_court.mp3" length="28437151" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>It is now virtually impossible to find a lawyer who will accept an engagement to defend a foreclosure regardless of the financial ability of the prospective client to pay fees. The unconstitutional chilling effect on lawyers and homeowners is obvious....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[It is now virtually impossible to find a lawyer who will accept an engagement to defend a foreclosure regardless of the financial ability of the prospective client to pay fees. The unconstitutional chilling effect on lawyers and homeowners is obvious. Lawyers and homeowners have been chased away from defending foreclosure claims that are unfounded, illegal and fraudulent.      And the reason is simple: lawyers who are consistently successful at defending foreclosures are targeted with disciplinary actions, punishments and civil actions that either directly or indirectly bar them from ever representing or soliciting a client for foreclosure defense litigation. It's not difficult to identify the beneficiary of this phenomenon: it's the Wall Street investment banks that are falsely claiming to have securitized transactions with homeowners that are falsely represented and labeled as loans. They get the money proceeds from forced sales of homesteads and they don't distribute it to anyone who paid value for entry into the securitization scheme.      I have been a litigator for 45 years. During that time I have also written workbooks on and given CLE seminars to lawyers across the country on various topics relating to business litigation foreclosure, evidence, discovery and expert testimony.      I have never seen a situation like this, created entirely by overreaching of state bar grievance procedures and civil actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and State AG offices under cover of preventing fraudulent "foreclosure rescue" scams. They have even come after me, repeatedly but because of my experience in defending administrative actions, they were largely unsuccessful. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1778</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bar discipline,federal trade commission,foreclosure defense attorneys,foreclosure rescue,state attorneys general</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Getting to the Truth: There is no loan account in Zombie Mortgages</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/getting-to-the-truth-there-is-no-loan-account-in-zombie-mortgages--63169541</link><description><![CDATA[Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall addresses some recent developments in loan workout and securitization practice, with a reference also to Neil's Blog post of March 3 in which he breaks down how in a recent deposition the Bank's Zombie Mortgage was exposed as a fraud.   Also discussing latest Covid-19 updates and how those relate to the continuing press on foreclosures and evictions.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/03/04/getting-to-the-truth-there-is-no-loan-account-in-zombie-mortgages</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169541/getting_to_the_truth_there_is_no_loan_account_in_zombie_mortgages.mp3" length="28533282" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall addresses some recent developments in loan workout and securitization practice, with a reference also to Neil's Blog post of March 3 in which he breaks down how in a recent deposition the Bank's Zombie...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall addresses some recent developments in loan workout and securitization practice, with a reference also to Neil's Blog post of March 3 in which he breaks down how in a recent deposition the Bank's Zombie Mortgage was exposed as a fraud.   Also discussing latest Covid-19 updates and how those relate to the continuing press on foreclosures and evictions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>coivd-19,foreclosure and eviction morat,zombie foreclosures,zombie mortgages</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How Do I Use This Information to Survive Foreclosure?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-do-i-use-this-information-to-survive-foreclosure--63169524</link><description><![CDATA[There is a huge difference between knowing something and doing something. Everyone knows or at least suspects that the current wave of foreclosures since the year 2000 has been some sort of scam. Only experienced trial lawyers have been successful, most of the time, in turning back efforts to foreclose. Even some pro se homeowners have been successful. But most homeowners either do nothing and default and most of the rest put up a smokescreen that the foreclosure mills steamroll in court.   For 16 years I have been sounding the alarm about these illegal foreclosures. I have described the specifics of the greatest economic crime in human history. Now it's time to get all homeowners to do something. It's time to stop the threat of foreclosures and get down to the business of awarding all the players the fruit of the extra-legal claims of securitization of residential debt.   And for 16 years homeowner and their lawyers have largely missed the opportunities to retain the biggest investment in the lives of anyone who ever purchased a home.   So here are the first two rules I will discuss tonight, along with others, on how to use the information you have about the insufficiency of the case against the homeowner in what is styled as a foreclosure but in reality, is a grab for profit.   First, don't try to prove any fact. Don't allege it because then you will be inviting the burden of proving it. It doesn't matter whether your opposition is evil.   Second, Do contest the allegations, exhibits, assumptions, and presumptions. Do this with the knowledge that wherever MERS or REMIC trust is asserted  or implied to be involved, they have no objective evidence to support their claims to the existence of the debt, the ownership or authority to administer, collect or enforce.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/02/25/how-do-i-use-this-information-to-survive-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169524/how_do_i_use_this_information_to_survive_foreclosure.mp3" length="28752293" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There is a huge difference between knowing something and doing something. Everyone knows or at least suspects that the current wave of foreclosures since the year 2000 has been some sort of scam. Only experienced trial lawyers have been successful,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is a huge difference between knowing something and doing something. Everyone knows or at least suspects that the current wave of foreclosures since the year 2000 has been some sort of scam. Only experienced trial lawyers have been successful, most of the time, in turning back efforts to foreclose. Even some pro se homeowners have been successful. But most homeowners either do nothing and default and most of the rest put up a smokescreen that the foreclosure mills steamroll in court.   For 16 years I have been sounding the alarm about these illegal foreclosures. I have described the specifics of the greatest economic crime in human history. Now it's time to get all homeowners to do something. It's time to stop the threat of foreclosures and get down to the business of awarding all the players the fruit of the extra-legal claims of securitization of residential debt.   And for 16 years homeowner and their lawyers have largely missed the opportunities to retain the biggest investment in the lives of anyone who ever purchased a home.   So here are the first two rules I will discuss tonight, along with others, on how to use the information you have about the insufficiency of the case against the homeowner in what is styled as a foreclosure but in reality, is a grab for profit.   First, don't try to prove any fact. Don't allege it because then you will be inviting the burden of proving it. It doesn't matter whether your opposition is evil.   Second, Do contest the allegations, exhibits, assumptions, and presumptions. Do this with the knowledge that wherever MERS or REMIC trust is asserted  or implied to be involved, they have no objective evidence to support their claims to the existence of the debt, the ownership or authority to administer, collect or enforce.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1798</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,foreclosure,mortgage,motions,scam</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>LSF9 Master Participation Trust Revisited with Strategies Supporting Homeowners</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/lsf9-master-participation-trust-revisited-with-strategies-supporting-homeowners--63169514</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo breaks down latest take on the lack of standing US Bank and those associated with US Bank have to prosecute in judicial foreclosures lawsuits against homeowners based on LSF9 Master Participation Trusts.   Then Charles Marshall breaks down latest strategies (all Covid-19 impacted) to lawfully and legally delay foreclosures and evictons, particularly in non-judicial foreclosure states, though many of these strategies apply to judicial foreclosure states as well.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/02/18/lsf9-master-participation-trust-revisited-with-strategies-supporting-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169514/lsf9_master_participation_trust_revisited_with_strategies_supporting_homeowners.mp3" length="28830869" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo breaks down latest take on the lack of standing US Bank and those associated with US Bank have to prosecute in judicial foreclosures lawsuits against homeowners based on LSF9 Master Participation Trusts.   Then Charles Marshall breaks...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo breaks down latest take on the lack of standing US Bank and those associated with US Bank have to prosecute in judicial foreclosures lawsuits against homeowners based on LSF9 Master Participation Trusts.   Then Charles Marshall breaks down latest strategies (all Covid-19 impacted) to lawfully and legally delay foreclosures and evictons, particularly in non-judicial foreclosure states, though many of these strategies apply to judicial foreclosure states as well.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,lsf9 master participation trus,non judicial and judicial fore,post foreclosure evictions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>testing</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/testing--63169585</link><description><![CDATA[content]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/02/12/testing</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169585/testing.mp3" length="229086" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>content</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[content]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>15</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>123,blog,content,talk,testing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Name Game: How Wall Street Brokers Fool the Courts and Everyone Else</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-name-game-how-wall-street-brokers-fool-the-courts-and-everyone-else--63169561</link><description><![CDATA[It is often true that the best challenge is after a foreclosure is complete. I know that sounds crazy. But tonight we will discuss tactics and strategies in foreclosure defense in which we can hang the evil-doers by their own paperwork. It’s true that eventually, the truth comes out — or at least part of it. When the “credit bid” is moved around and the deed from foreclosure is granted, the party involved is often not the named party who sued you or on whose behalf the Notice of Default was sent.   Here is some of the wording that we will look at and analyze:   This Deed is made by Paul M. Halliday, Jr., as Successor Trustee and a member of the Utah State Bar, under the Trust Deed described below, in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, for LXS 2007-8H, ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2007-SH, P.O. Box 619080, Dallas, TX 75261-9741, as Grantee.   WHEREAS, on XXXXXXX, 2007, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,, as Trustors, executed and delivered to Meridian Title, as Trustee, for the benefit of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Varent Inc., a Utah Corporation, its successors and assigns, as Beneficiary, a certain Trust Deed to secure the performance by the Trustors of obligations under a Promissory Note of the same date executed and delivered for a valid consideration to the Beneficiary and the Trust Deed having been recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder on XXXXX, 2007, as of Entry No. XXXXXXX:2007, describing the property set forth below; and  WHEREAS, Paul M. Halliday, Jr., was duly appointed by the Beneficiary as Successor Trustee by a Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Utah County, State of Utah, on XXXXXXX, 2015, as Entry No. XXXXXXXX:2015;]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/02/04/the-name-game-how-wall-street-brokers-fool-the-courts-and-everyone-else</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169561/the_name_game_how_wall_street_brokers_fool_the_courts_and_everyone_else.mp3" length="28926582" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>It is often true that the best challenge is after a foreclosure is complete. I know that sounds crazy. But tonight we will discuss tactics and strategies in foreclosure defense in which we can hang the evil-doers by their own paperwork. It’s true that...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[It is often true that the best challenge is after a foreclosure is complete. I know that sounds crazy. But tonight we will discuss tactics and strategies in foreclosure defense in which we can hang the evil-doers by their own paperwork. It’s true that eventually, the truth comes out — or at least part of it. When the “credit bid” is moved around and the deed from foreclosure is granted, the party involved is often not the named party who sued you or on whose behalf the Notice of Default was sent.   Here is some of the wording that we will look at and analyze:   This Deed is made by Paul M. Halliday, Jr., as Successor Trustee and a member of the Utah State Bar, under the Trust Deed described below, in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, for LXS 2007-8H, ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2007-SH, P.O. Box 619080, Dallas, TX 75261-9741, as Grantee.   WHEREAS, on XXXXXXX, 2007, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,, as Trustors, executed and delivered to Meridian Title, as Trustee, for the benefit of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Varent Inc., a Utah Corporation, its successors and assigns, as Beneficiary, a certain Trust Deed to secure the performance by the Trustors of obligations under a Promissory Note of the same date executed and delivered for a valid consideration to the Beneficiary and the Trust Deed having been recorded in the office of the Utah County Recorder on XXXXX, 2007, as of Entry No. XXXXXXX:2007, describing the property set forth below; and  WHEREAS, Paul M. Halliday, Jr., was duly appointed by the Beneficiary as Successor Trustee by a Substitution of Trustee recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Utah County, State of Utah, on XXXXXXX, 2015, as Entry No. XXXXXXXX:2015;]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>asset-backed notes,lasalle bank,successor trustee,u.s&gt; bank,wall street</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Hiding the names of securitized trusts...by Chase Bank...Latest Covid Updates</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/hiding-the-names-of-securitized-trusts-by-chase-bank-latest-covid-updates--63169565</link><description><![CDATA[Today on the Show Bill Paatalo will break down latest strategies by Chase Bank to manipulate the legal process through name-selection shenanigans. Charles Marshall will break down latest on Covid, as well as provide a preview of an upcoming seminar to be presented by the newly formed trio of LendingEyes, consisting of Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall, and Bill Paatalo. The coming seminar will focus on topics critical to both homeowners in foreclosure and attorneys who help them with their either judicial or non-judicial litigation needs. A subset of the seminar will also incorporate content specifically for small landlords, many of whom have been greatly impacted by the Covid-19 foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, and are themselves now in foreclosure with securitized zombie loans they can't pay. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/01/28/hiding-the-names-of-securitized-trustsby-chase-banklatest-covid-updates</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169565/hiding_the_names_of_securitized_trustsby_chase_banklatest_covid_updates.mp3" length="26835114" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today on the Show Bill Paatalo will break down latest strategies by Chase Bank to manipulate the legal process through name-selection shenanigans. Charles Marshall will break down latest on Covid, as well as provide a preview of an upcoming seminar to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today on the Show Bill Paatalo will break down latest strategies by Chase Bank to manipulate the legal process through name-selection shenanigans. Charles Marshall will break down latest on Covid, as well as provide a preview of an upcoming seminar to be presented by the newly formed trio of LendingEyes, consisting of Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall, and Bill Paatalo. The coming seminar will focus on topics critical to both homeowners in foreclosure and attorneys who help them with their either judicial or non-judicial litigation needs. A subset of the seminar will also incorporate content specifically for small landlords, many of whom have been greatly impacted by the Covid-19 foreclosure and eviction moratoriums, and are themselves now in foreclosure with securitized zombie loans they can't pay. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1678</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,jp morgan chase bank,lendingeyes seminar</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why Lawyers Should Want Foreclosure Defense Cases and What They Are Missing $$$</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-lawyers-should-want-foreclosure-defense-cases-and-what-they-are-missing--63169560</link><description><![CDATA[SHARE THIS POST WITH LAWYERS YOU KNOW!!!  This show is devoted to convincing the lawyers who will listen that they are missing out on something very profitable and important. Representing homeowners faced with foreclosure papers can and does present an opportunity for large paydays, consistent victories in court and playing a part in changing the trajectory of home finance in this country and around the world.  In 2008 I presented a seminar that provided the essentials of foreclosure defense as we knew them at that time. We repeated it several times in different parts of the country. In that seminar, I also presented a business plan for lawyers to do it. It was the hub and spoke plan that allowed homeowners to pay monthly based upon the known length of time that any foreclosure would last.  About a dozen lawyers followed my instructions and made millions of dollars.  It's time for a new push.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/01/21/why-lawyers-should-want-foreclosure-defense-cases-and-what-they-are-missing</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169560/why_lawyers_should_want_foreclosure_defense_cases_and_what_they_are_missing.mp3" length="28793671" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>SHARE THIS POST WITH LAWYERS YOU KNOW!!!  This show is devoted to convincing the lawyers who will listen that they are missing out on something very profitable and important. Representing homeowners faced with foreclosure papers can and does present...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[SHARE THIS POST WITH LAWYERS YOU KNOW!!!  This show is devoted to convincing the lawyers who will listen that they are missing out on something very profitable and important. Representing homeowners faced with foreclosure papers can and does present an opportunity for large paydays, consistent victories in court and playing a part in changing the trajectory of home finance in this country and around the world.  In 2008 I presented a seminar that provided the essentials of foreclosure defense as we knew them at that time. We repeated it several times in different parts of the country. In that seminar, I also presented a business plan for lawyers to do it. It was the hub and spoke plan that allowed homeowners to pay monthly based upon the known length of time that any foreclosure would last.  About a dozen lawyers followed my instructions and made millions of dollars.  It's time for a new push.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1800</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,home finance,judgment for homeowner,profit for lawyers,seminars</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>2021 Trends in the Foreclosure World in an era of the (Covid-19) 'New Normal'</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/2021-trends-in-the-foreclosure-world-in-an-era-of-the-covid-19-new-normal--63169509</link><description><![CDATA[Host Charles Marshall will address on today's Show anticipated 2021 trends in foreclosure nationwide, through the lens of the now "new normal" of an interlay of Covid-19 restrictions micromanaging all aspects of human life. Whatever one thinks of the impact of the actual Covid-19 virus on public or their own personal health, it is indisputable that the huge and dense and all-encompassing governmental architecture which has built up to enforce restrictions on human behavior now regulates every facet and aspect of Americans' lives. Naturally this architecture greatly impacts trends in foreclosure. Today we disuss those trends and what to expect. Listeners and interested others have asked questions as to what to expect in the following areas of foreclosure law and practice. Here are some of the most salient questions:   - Will there really be a forecloure tsunami in 2021?   - Will the eviction moratorium be maintained anywhere around the country and will Congress act to reinstate the 2020 rules?   - How will jury trials be held in 2021, and what will be the 'social distancing' requirements? - What trends should we expect? in the areas where foreclosure impacts are the greatest: judicial foreclosures, non-judicial foreclosures, unlawful detainers, bankruptcy practice.                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/01/14/2021-trends-in-the-foreclosure-world-in-an-era-of-the-covid-19-new-normal</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169509/2021_trends_in_the_foreclosure_world_in_an_era_of_the_covid_19_new_normal.mp3" length="28686673" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Host Charles Marshall will address on today's Show anticipated 2021 trends in foreclosure nationwide, through the lens of the now "new normal" of an interlay of Covid-19 restrictions micromanaging all aspects of human life. Whatever one thinks of the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Host Charles Marshall will address on today's Show anticipated 2021 trends in foreclosure nationwide, through the lens of the now "new normal" of an interlay of Covid-19 restrictions micromanaging all aspects of human life. Whatever one thinks of the impact of the actual Covid-19 virus on public or their own personal health, it is indisputable that the huge and dense and all-encompassing governmental architecture which has built up to enforce restrictions on human behavior now regulates every facet and aspect of Americans' lives. Naturally this architecture greatly impacts trends in foreclosure. Today we disuss those trends and what to expect. Listeners and interested others have asked questions as to what to expect in the following areas of foreclosure law and practice. Here are some of the most salient questions:   - Will there really be a forecloure tsunami in 2021?   - Will the eviction moratorium be maintained anywhere around the country and will Congress act to reinstate the 2020 rules?   - How will jury trials be held in 2021, and what will be the 'social distancing' requirements? - What trends should we expect? in the areas where foreclosure impacts are the greatest: judicial foreclosures, non-judicial foreclosures, unlawful detainers, bankruptcy practice.                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1793</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>2021 foreclosure trends,'the new normal' and covid-19 </itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Homeowners are NOT FALLING BEHIND!! They are falling deeper into a trap. Q&amp;A</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/homeowners-are-not-falling-behind-they-are-falling-deeper-into-a-trap-q-a--63169525</link><description><![CDATA[Each payment made by the homeowner to a self-proclaimed servicer is being collected by a third-party vendor, probably under the control of Black Knight. That money is not going to anyone who maintains a loan account receivable on their accounting ledgers. The payment is not reducing the debt because the debt account does not exist under all scenarios in which false claims of securitization are present --- and virtually all securitization claims are false. Neither the servicer nor the named claimant ever sees a dime from homeowner payments or foreclosures.    In simple language, the payment is not due. It is impossible to "fall behind" or become "delinquent" or to issue a "Notice of Default" on a payment that is not due. But if you admit the delinquency or default you have thrown away the biggest investment of your life --- your home. Once you have admitted the default you have admitted the existence of a loan account even though it does not exist. It is nearly impossible to take back that admission which is why most homeowners walk away or lose in court.    The three things you need to know about how to defend your home:   The loan, if it ever existed, no longer exists because in the process of so-called securitization the obligation was extinguished from the accounting ledgers of all securitization participants.    Even if the loan existed nobody under this scenario can offer proof of payment of value for the underlying obligation as set forth in Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all 50 states.   You don't need to prove anything. But you must contest everything relentlessly and aggressively in discovery and motions.    Tonight I will take questions on this and related topics. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2021/01/07/homeowners-are-not-falling-behind-they-are-falling-deeper-into-a-trap-qa</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169525/homeowners_are_not_falling_behind_they_are_falling_deeper_into_a_trap_qa.mp3" length="28484381" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Each payment made by the homeowner to a self-proclaimed servicer is being collected by a third-party vendor, probably under the control of Black Knight. That money is not going to anyone who maintains a loan account receivable on their accounting...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Each payment made by the homeowner to a self-proclaimed servicer is being collected by a third-party vendor, probably under the control of Black Knight. That money is not going to anyone who maintains a loan account receivable on their accounting ledgers. The payment is not reducing the debt because the debt account does not exist under all scenarios in which false claims of securitization are present --- and virtually all securitization claims are false. Neither the servicer nor the named claimant ever sees a dime from homeowner payments or foreclosures.    In simple language, the payment is not due. It is impossible to "fall behind" or become "delinquent" or to issue a "Notice of Default" on a payment that is not due. But if you admit the delinquency or default you have thrown away the biggest investment of your life --- your home. Once you have admitted the default you have admitted the existence of a loan account even though it does not exist. It is nearly impossible to take back that admission which is why most homeowners walk away or lose in court.    The three things you need to know about how to defend your home:   The loan, if it ever existed, no longer exists because in the process of so-called securitization the obligation was extinguished from the accounting ledgers of all securitization participants.    Even if the loan existed nobody under this scenario can offer proof of payment of value for the underlying obligation as set forth in Article 9 §203 UCC, adopted in all 50 states.   You don't need to prove anything. But you must contest everything relentlessly and aggressively in discovery and motions.    Tonight I will take questions on this and related topics. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1781</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>black knight,defense,discovery,mortgage loans,motions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>By Admitting That you Received  a Loan, You Lose</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/by-admitting-that-you-received-a-loan-you-lose--63169562</link><description><![CDATA[Foreclosure litigants need to return to First Principles in the Coming year 2021. What better way than to see Neil's latest Blog post explaining how even admitting you have a mortgage loan when it is securitized, particularly from the mortgage meltdown years from roughly 15 years ago to several years ago, is self-defeating, in that the truth is that there is no identifiable lender, borrower, payor, or payee, in the true and meaningful manner those terms are properly used. As Neil explains, the money which arrives at the closing table of these securitized mortgage loans, is not even a loan, in that 1., no loan is sold, 2., nobody records a purchase of a loan obligation, and 3., nobody maintains any account receivable.   Bill Paatalo will delve into how this works in the real world/legal world by going over an article exposing how in MERS related loans, a 'borrower' who thinks he has discharged a 'debt' by 'paying it off' may in fact have done no such thing. Join the Show to get the breakdown on this analysis.   Finally, we will touch on in today's Show the latest developments with the foreclosure moratorium and the contiuing Covid-19 crisis.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/12/17/by-admitting-that-you-received-a-loan-you-lose</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169562/by_admitting_that_you_received_a_loan_you_lose.mp3" length="29406399" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Foreclosure litigants need to return to First Principles in the Coming year 2021. What better way than to see Neil's latest Blog post explaining how even admitting you have a mortgage loan when it is securitized, particularly from the mortgage...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Foreclosure litigants need to return to First Principles in the Coming year 2021. What better way than to see Neil's latest Blog post explaining how even admitting you have a mortgage loan when it is securitized, particularly from the mortgage meltdown years from roughly 15 years ago to several years ago, is self-defeating, in that the truth is that there is no identifiable lender, borrower, payor, or payee, in the true and meaningful manner those terms are properly used. As Neil explains, the money which arrives at the closing table of these securitized mortgage loans, is not even a loan, in that 1., no loan is sold, 2., nobody records a purchase of a loan obligation, and 3., nobody maintains any account receivable.   Bill Paatalo will delve into how this works in the real world/legal world by going over an article exposing how in MERS related loans, a 'borrower' who thinks he has discharged a 'debt' by 'paying it off' may in fact have done no such thing. Join the Show to get the breakdown on this analysis.   Finally, we will touch on in today's Show the latest developments with the foreclosure moratorium and the contiuing Covid-19 crisis.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1838</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,foreclosure moratorium,mers,mortgage securitization,no-loan loans</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Were You Adequately Paid to Participate in a Concealed Securities Venture?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/were-you-adequately-paid-to-participate-in-a-concealed-securities-venture--63169564</link><description><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  *  Around one month from now, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are again extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.  Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  some samples of the type of questions you could ask.  * Does my obligation still exist?Are you saying that my obligation no longer exists or just that it cannot be enforced?What do the foreclosure mill lawyers need to prove?How can I stop the servicer from testifying or introducing evidence?What do I need to prove?I’ve been in litigation for years. How can I put an end to this?I have received a notice of delinquency from a company that has presented itself as a servicer. What do I do next?I have been served with a notice of default and notice of sale from a company claiming to be the new trustee on my deed of trust. What do I do now?I have been served with a summons and complaint for foreclosure filed by lawyers who say they are representing a trustee for some series of certificates. What is my next move?A sale has already been conducted and now somebody is trying to evict me. What can I do?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/12/10/were-you-adequately-paid-to-participate-in-a-concealed-securities-venture</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169564/were_you_adequately_paid_to_participate_in_a_concealed_securities_venture.mp3" length="28507787" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  *  Around one month from now, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are again extended. That means that...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  *  Around one month from now, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are again extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.  Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  some samples of the type of questions you could ask.  * Does my obligation still exist?Are you saying that my obligation no longer exists or just that it cannot be enforced?What do the foreclosure mill lawyers need to prove?How can I stop the servicer from testifying or introducing evidence?What do I need to prove?I’ve been in litigation for years. How can I put an end to this?I have received a notice of delinquency from a company that has presented itself as a servicer. What do I do next?I have been served with a notice of default and notice of sale from a company claiming to be the new trustee on my deed of trust. What do I do now?I have been served with a summons and complaint for foreclosure filed by lawyers who say they are representing a trustee for some series of certificates. What is my next move?A sale has already been conducted and now somebody is trying to evict me. What can I do?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1782</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>eviction,foreclosure,moratorium,remic trust,securitzation</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Open Mike Q&amp;A with Neil F Garfield</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/open-mike-q-a-with-neil-f-garfield--63169523</link><description><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.   *  In 28 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.   * We start with a simple premise: money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. YOU ASKED FOR A LOAN BUT NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN.It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. DON'T GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE!The attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. In short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didn't get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks.THE GOAL IN LITIGATION IS TO BAR INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU BY AGGRESSIVELY  PURSUING THE DEFENSE NARRATIVE THAT THE OBLIGATION  DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE BOOKS ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/12/03/open-mike-qa-with-neil-f-garfield</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169523/open_mike_qa_with_neil_f_garfield.mp3" length="28693360" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.   *  In 28 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.   *  In 28 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.   * We start with a simple premise: money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. YOU ASKED FOR A LOAN BUT NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN.It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. DON'T GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE!The attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. In short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didn't get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks.THE GOAL IN LITIGATION IS TO BAR INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU BY AGGRESSIVELY  PURSUING THE DEFENSE NARRATIVE THAT THE OBLIGATION  DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE BOOKS ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1794</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>eviction,evidence,foreclosure,loan,securities</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Coming Foreclosure Tsunami 2021 is Real and How to Get Ahead of It</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/coming-foreclosure-tsunami-2021-is-real-and-how-to-get-ahead-of-it--63169570</link><description><![CDATA[Host Charles Marshall returns with Bill Paatalo to discuss among other matters how the Federal CARE Act will expire at the end of this year. It protected millions of of mortgage loans from imminent foreclosure due to COVID-19 related hardships, with an admittedly band-aid approach of what amounts to a forbearance. That all ends in weeks, and millions of loans so protected are expected to go into active foreclosure with the back payments not being paid, and the current payments not affordable either, due to continued sluggishness of much of the economy.   To fight this, homeowners will need to revisit and clarify strategies to defend their homes, and legally attack those who would foreclose on them. Essential approaches will be 1. Facts to look for in your homeowner situation; 2. Pleading a defense or going on offense with a Plaintiff's lawsuit; 3. Discovery options; 4. Motion practice.   So to bring this fight homeowners will need know how, where and when certain burdens of apply--BK vs civil court for example. Then the most relevant facts to a given case should be alleged which are provable, or which it can be shown the other side can't prove. In many cases discovery can be used to expose the inability or unwillingness of the opposition to answer simple questions about the ownership and status of the loan account.   Bill Paatalo will first discuss how in New Jersey securitized mortgage 'trusts' are for the all the wrong reasons avoiding taxes by declaring they are not in facts trusts.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/11/19/coming-foreclosure-tsunami-2021-is-real-and-how-to-get-ahead-of-it</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169570/coming_foreclosure_tsunami_2021_is_real_and_how_to_get_ahead_of_it.mp3" length="27999130" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Host Charles Marshall returns with Bill Paatalo to discuss among other matters how the Federal CARE Act will expire at the end of this year. It protected millions of of mortgage loans from imminent foreclosure due to COVID-19 related hardships, with...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Host Charles Marshall returns with Bill Paatalo to discuss among other matters how the Federal CARE Act will expire at the end of this year. It protected millions of of mortgage loans from imminent foreclosure due to COVID-19 related hardships, with an admittedly band-aid approach of what amounts to a forbearance. That all ends in weeks, and millions of loans so protected are expected to go into active foreclosure with the back payments not being paid, and the current payments not affordable either, due to continued sluggishness of much of the economy.   To fight this, homeowners will need to revisit and clarify strategies to defend their homes, and legally attack those who would foreclose on them. Essential approaches will be 1. Facts to look for in your homeowner situation; 2. Pleading a defense or going on offense with a Plaintiff's lawsuit; 3. Discovery options; 4. Motion practice.   So to bring this fight homeowners will need know how, where and when certain burdens of apply--BK vs civil court for example. Then the most relevant facts to a given case should be alleged which are provable, or which it can be shown the other side can't prove. In many cases discovery can be used to expose the inability or unwillingness of the opposition to answer simple questions about the ownership and status of the loan account.   Bill Paatalo will first discuss how in New Jersey securitized mortgage 'trusts' are for the all the wrong reasons avoiding taxes by declaring they are not in facts trusts.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1750</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>best pleading practices,covid-19,foreclosure moratorium,foreclosure tsunami,tax avoidance</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>OPEN MIKE Q&amp;A: How to Prepare for the New Wave of Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/open-mike-q-a-how-to-prepare-for-the-new-wave-of-foreclosures--63169536</link><description><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  In 49 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.   And just like the 2008 crash, the impact will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic won’t be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.   So my message is simple: get prepared and stay prepared. They will try to steer you into foreclosure because every dollar they receive from the forced sale of your property is going to bonuses and profits. Get rid of any thought you have that the foreclosure mills are filing foreclosures on behalf of lenders.  Tonight in a different format from our regular programming, I am opening the floor to questions and answers.  Please don’t use this as an opportunity to lecture about conspiracies. The purpose of this program is to allow real people to ask real questions and get real answers — subject to review and advice from local counsel.   Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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.  *]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/11/12/open-mike-qa-how-to-prepare-for-the-new-wave-of-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169536/open_mike_qa_how_to_prepare_for_the_new_wave_of_foreclosures.mp3" length="28577168" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  In 49 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Follow voice instructions when you dial in or connect via computer. You will be recognized in the order of your questions.  In 49 days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the 2008 meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves “investment banks” will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives.   And just like the 2008 crash, the impact will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic won’t be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.   So my message is simple: get prepared and stay prepared. They will try to steer you into foreclosure because every dollar they receive from the forced sale of your property is going to bonuses and profits. Get rid of any thought you have that the foreclosure mills are filing foreclosures on behalf of lenders.  Tonight in a different format from our regular programming, I am opening the floor to questions and answers.  Please don’t use this as an opportunity to lecture about conspiracies. The purpose of this program is to allow real people to ask real questions and get real answers — subject to review and advice from local counsel.   Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, 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.  *]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1787</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evictions,foreclosure,foreclosure fraud,forensic report,moratorium</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Motions to Vacate, Motions for Rehearing, Motions for Reconsideration and Appeal</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/motions-to-vacate-motions-for-rehearing-motions-for-reconsideration-and-appeal--63169568</link><description><![CDATA[Most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. Failure to understand the differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must (1) disabuse yourself of the notion that you're dealing with a "standard mortgage loan" and a "standard mortgage foreclosure" and (2) know how to use that knowledge to make legal points that cannot be ignored by the trial court or an appellate court.    Just because you labeled a pleading as a motion to vacate does not mean that it will be treated as such. Nor should it. Just like an assignment of mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust is not an assignment of mortgage if it does not include transfer of the underlying the debt after payment of value --- either on the face of the instrument (making it facially invalid if there is no recitation of transfer of the debt for value paid) or concurrent with the assignment is a separate transaction --- requiring actual proof of payment and transfer from someone who owns the underlying obligation.   Tonight we talk about an area of law that is confusing for lawyers, lay persons and even judges. There is a difference between a motion to vacate, a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration. And generally the decision comes down to manifest injustice. Trial court decisions are not corrected on appeal unless there was a clear mistake by  the trial judge that would have resulted or probably would have resulted in a different decision.   Appeals are not about whether the judges on the appellate panel would have decided the case differently. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/10/29/motions-to-vacate-motions-for-rehearing-motions-for-reconsideration-and-appeal</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169568/motions_to_vacate_motions_for_rehearing_motions_for_reconsideration_and_appeal.mp3" length="28945390" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. Failure to understand the differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Most motions to vacate are actually motions for rehearing. Failure to understand the differences results in thousands of hours of legal work that are completely useless except perhaps as a delay tactic. In order to score points in this arena you must (1) disabuse yourself of the notion that you're dealing with a "standard mortgage loan" and a "standard mortgage foreclosure" and (2) know how to use that knowledge to make legal points that cannot be ignored by the trial court or an appellate court.    Just because you labeled a pleading as a motion to vacate does not mean that it will be treated as such. Nor should it. Just like an assignment of mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust is not an assignment of mortgage if it does not include transfer of the underlying the debt after payment of value --- either on the face of the instrument (making it facially invalid if there is no recitation of transfer of the debt for value paid) or concurrent with the assignment is a separate transaction --- requiring actual proof of payment and transfer from someone who owns the underlying obligation.   Tonight we talk about an area of law that is confusing for lawyers, lay persons and even judges. There is a difference between a motion to vacate, a motion for rehearing and a motion for reconsideration. And generally the decision comes down to manifest injustice. Trial court decisions are not corrected on appeal unless there was a clear mistake by  the trial judge that would have resulted or probably would have resulted in a different decision.   Appeals are not about whether the judges on the appellate panel would have decided the case differently. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeal,motion for reconsideration,motion for rehearing,motions,motion to vacate</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>4</itunes:season><itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Exposed: Further Bombshells re Chase misdeeds in taking over WAMU loans</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/exposed-further-bombshells-re-chase-misdeeds-in-taking-over-wamu-loans--63169613</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo through access to Chase's MSP system has obtained a so-called transaction codes glossary, and "payee codes glossary", used by Chase to supposedly board WAMU loans, going back to the Chase-WAMU merger of 2008. Screenshots Bill has obtained or made available show massive fraud in the routine altering of servicing records which alterings are used to create false affidavits and declarations and Chase witness testimony leaking into judicial and non-judicial mortgage cases all over the country.   Bill will also discuss briefly how a Wilmington Savings Fund Society "Trust" at once registered with the SEC and the State of New Jersey as a common law trust, while at the same time disclaiming that they were either an individual, estate, or even a trust--disclaiming the latter to avoid making an estimated gross income tax payment.   Charles Marshall will discuss ongoing developments in the use of video and audio in remote court and hearing apperances in the era of COVID-19.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/10/22/exposed-further-bombshells-re-chase-misdeeds-in-taking-over-wamu-loans</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169613/exposed_further_bombshells_re_chase_misdeeds_in_taking_over_wamu_loans.mp3" length="29082480" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo through access to Chase's MSP system has obtained a so-called transaction codes glossary, and "payee codes glossary", used by Chase to supposedly board WAMU loans, going back to the Chase-WAMU merger of 2008. Screenshots Bill has obtained...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo through access to Chase's MSP system has obtained a so-called transaction codes glossary, and "payee codes glossary", used by Chase to supposedly board WAMU loans, going back to the Chase-WAMU merger of 2008. Screenshots Bill has obtained or made available show massive fraud in the routine altering of servicing records which alterings are used to create false affidavits and declarations and Chase witness testimony leaking into judicial and non-judicial mortgage cases all over the country.   Bill will also discuss briefly how a Wilmington Savings Fund Society "Trust" at once registered with the SEC and the State of New Jersey as a common law trust, while at the same time disclaiming that they were either an individual, estate, or even a trust--disclaiming the latter to avoid making an estimated gross income tax payment.   Charles Marshall will discuss ongoing developments in the use of video and audio in remote court and hearing apperances in the era of COVID-19.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1818</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase-wamu merger,chase-wamu mortgage fraud,covid-19,trusts</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>40</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>WAMU loan files destroyed one month before BK Receivership put loans with Chase</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/wamu-loan-files-destroyed-one-month-before-bk-receivership-put-loans-with-chase--63169618</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo has gotten intel through his private investigation tools to explosive evidence that WAMU contracted with ACS Image Solutions to destroy loan files in August of 2008, a month before the September 2008 Receivership in BK which WAMU was forced into as a result of the meltdown of their overall accounting balance sheet in the summer of 2008. The establishing of this connection should lead to further legal developments, and we will discuss on the Show how this connection can be used in borrower litigation, both on the Plaintiff's side and where the borrower is on the Defense side.   Then Charles Marshall will discuss discuss how the COVID-19 eviction moratorium is being used in California's Alameda County to protect formerly foreclosed Unlawful Detainer (UD) lawsuit defendants literally for a period of months now, and will continue to do so for months into the future.             ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/10/08/wamu-loan-files-destroyed-one-month-before-bk-receivership-put-loans-with-chase</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169618/wamu_loan_files_destroyed_one_month_before_bk_receivership_put_loans_with_chase.mp3" length="28261191" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo has gotten intel through his private investigation tools to explosive evidence that WAMU contracted with ACS Image Solutions to destroy loan files in August of 2008, a month before the September 2008 Receivership in BK which WAMU was...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo has gotten intel through his private investigation tools to explosive evidence that WAMU contracted with ACS Image Solutions to destroy loan files in August of 2008, a month before the September 2008 Receivership in BK which WAMU was forced into as a result of the meltdown of their overall accounting balance sheet in the summer of 2008. The establishing of this connection should lead to further legal developments, and we will discuss on the Show how this connection can be used in borrower litigation, both on the Plaintiff's side and where the borrower is on the Defense side.   Then Charles Marshall will discuss discuss how the COVID-19 eviction moratorium is being used in California's Alameda County to protect formerly foreclosed Unlawful Detainer (UD) lawsuit defendants literally for a period of months now, and will continue to do so for months into the future.             ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1767</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>acs image solutions,alameda county eviction morato,covid-19 eviction moratorium,wamu,wamu bk receivership</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>39</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Is it time to sue Black Knight?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/is-it-time-to-sue-black-knight--63169528</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight I will discuss the curious case of blatant economic fraud on the entire country by investment banks. They figured out how to eliminate the risk of loss on lending, how not to be labelled as a lender subject to lending laws, and who pursue collection, administration and enforcement of obligations that do not exist.  And then by denying the receipt of funds that paid off the loan on their own books they continue to operate as though the loan exists, and to designate fictitious entities who are falsely represented by foreclosure mills as owning the defunct obligation.  Specifically we explore how to stop this scheme from operating at all.  Foreclosure litigation is like the game of Chess. The banks line up a set of pawns for you to fight with while their real players hide behind multiple layers of curtains. In my opinion it is time to subpoena Black Knight to the table in most instances. Make them produce documents and answer questions. Note that with Chase (and possibly Wells Fargo) there are periods of time when they had the own alter-ego to Black Knight, so forensic investigation is required.  Black Knight, fka LPS (Lender Processing Services), owner of  DOCX and employer of Lorraine Brown who went to jail for fabricating tens of thousands of documents to create the false impression that homeowner obligations still existed and that some designated hitter (e.g., US Bank as trustee for the registered holders of pass through certificates issued by the SASCO Trust a1-2009) owned the obligation.  And then following that logic, since they own  the obligation, the refusal of the homeowner to pay the obligation is assumed to have produced a loss (financial damage). And then, following the logic, being the owner of the obligation and having suffered a loss that was caused by the homeowner’s refusal to pay, the lawyers declare a default on behalf of this designated hitter. And then they foreclose.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/10/01/is-it-time-to-sue-black-knight</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169528/is_it_time_to_sue_black_knight.mp3" length="28900668" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight I will discuss the curious case of blatant economic fraud on the entire country by investment banks. They figured out how to eliminate the risk of loss on lending, how not to be labelled as a lender subject to lending laws, and who pursue...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight I will discuss the curious case of blatant economic fraud on the entire country by investment banks. They figured out how to eliminate the risk of loss on lending, how not to be labelled as a lender subject to lending laws, and who pursue collection, administration and enforcement of obligations that do not exist.  And then by denying the receipt of funds that paid off the loan on their own books they continue to operate as though the loan exists, and to designate fictitious entities who are falsely represented by foreclosure mills as owning the defunct obligation.  Specifically we explore how to stop this scheme from operating at all.  Foreclosure litigation is like the game of Chess. The banks line up a set of pawns for you to fight with while their real players hide behind multiple layers of curtains. In my opinion it is time to subpoena Black Knight to the table in most instances. Make them produce documents and answer questions. Note that with Chase (and possibly Wells Fargo) there are periods of time when they had the own alter-ego to Black Knight, so forensic investigation is required.  Black Knight, fka LPS (Lender Processing Services), owner of  DOCX and employer of Lorraine Brown who went to jail for fabricating tens of thousands of documents to create the false impression that homeowner obligations still existed and that some designated hitter (e.g., US Bank as trustee for the registered holders of pass through certificates issued by the SASCO Trust a1-2009) owned the obligation.  And then following that logic, since they own  the obligation, the refusal of the homeowner to pay the obligation is assumed to have produced a loss (financial damage). And then, following the logic, being the owner of the obligation and having suffered a loss that was caused by the homeowner’s refusal to pay, the lawyers declare a default on behalf of this designated hitter. And then they foreclose.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>black knight,chess,discovery,servicer,subpoenas</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Being paid many times over for the same debt obligation: The Circus Continues</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/being-paid-many-times-over-for-the-same-debt-obligation-the-circus-continues--63169532</link><description><![CDATA[Great Gig if you can get it: Lehman Brothers in their bankruptcy (BK) here in 2020--yes 2020--is having to respond to a proof of claim (POC) which has been filed in the Lehman BK by Nationstar, along with a stipulation which effectively confirms the POC, to the effect that Nationstar is affirmed to have a right to collect from the debt originator Lehman on the same mortgage debt which in a typical scenario they would be restricted from collecting solely from the Individual Borrower--in other words the bulk of the listeners to the Neil Garfield Show. As Bill will discuss, the Obligation under the Note section of the POC at issue here states that: "The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all the amounts owed under this Note."   Then on the Show today Charles Marshall will drill down into the latest Covid-19 impacts to civil legal procedure, foreclosure auctions, and unlawful detainer cases, including addressing foreclosure and eviction moratoriums.  ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/09/24/being-paid-many-times-over-for-the-same-debt-obligation-the-circus-continues</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169532/being_paid_many_times_over_for_the_same_debt_obligation_the_circus_continues.mp3" length="29123022" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Great Gig if you can get it: Lehman Brothers in their bankruptcy (BK) here in 2020--yes 2020--is having to respond to a proof of claim (POC) which has been filed in the Lehman BK by Nationstar, along with a stipulation which effectively confirms the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Great Gig if you can get it: Lehman Brothers in their bankruptcy (BK) here in 2020--yes 2020--is having to respond to a proof of claim (POC) which has been filed in the Lehman BK by Nationstar, along with a stipulation which effectively confirms the POC, to the effect that Nationstar is affirmed to have a right to collect from the debt originator Lehman on the same mortgage debt which in a typical scenario they would be restricted from collecting solely from the Individual Borrower--in other words the bulk of the listeners to the Neil Garfield Show. As Bill will discuss, the Obligation under the Note section of the POC at issue here states that: "The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all the amounts owed under this Note."   Then on the Show today Charles Marshall will drill down into the latest Covid-19 impacts to civil legal procedure, foreclosure auctions, and unlawful detainer cases, including addressing foreclosure and eviction moratoriums.  ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,lehman brothers bk,note obligations,proof of claim</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES: How homeowners lose illegal foreclosure actions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/evidence-and-inferences-how-homeowners-lose-illegal-foreclosure-actions--63169619</link><description><![CDATA[The system has been caught flat-footed by the banks' strategy of weaponizing the court process to prove a nonexistent claim. Homeowners and many lawyers throw up their hands claiming that the banks are just too strong. But the banks are actually weak, once you poke behind the armor.    Of the thousands of cases in which the homeowner won or achieved a very successful result, not one was the result of proving that bankers should be shot. Every single win by homeowners has been the sole result of arguing insufficiency of evidence to prove the existence of the claim.     What most homeowners and many attorneys have failed to realize is that by not responding to demands that they are legally required to answer, the banks have opened the door to the stated allowable inference that the defense narrative is correct, thus rebutting the legal presumptions that form the sole foundation for the case against the homeowner. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/09/17/evidence-and-inferences-how-homeowners-lose-illegal-foreclosure-actions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169619/evidence_and_inferences_how_homeowners_lose_illegal_foreclosure_actions.mp3" length="28729723" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The system has been caught flat-footed by the banks' strategy of weaponizing the court process to prove a nonexistent claim. Homeowners and many lawyers throw up their hands claiming that the banks are just too strong. But the banks are actually weak,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The system has been caught flat-footed by the banks' strategy of weaponizing the court process to prove a nonexistent claim. Homeowners and many lawyers throw up their hands claiming that the banks are just too strong. But the banks are actually weak, once you poke behind the armor.    Of the thousands of cases in which the homeowner won or achieved a very successful result, not one was the result of proving that bankers should be shot. Every single win by homeowners has been the sole result of arguing insufficiency of evidence to prove the existence of the claim.     What most homeowners and many attorneys have failed to realize is that by not responding to demands that they are legally required to answer, the banks have opened the door to the stated allowable inference that the defense narrative is correct, thus rebutting the legal presumptions that form the sole foundation for the case against the homeowner. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,evidence,foreclosure defense,inference,motion to compel</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Circumventing the Hearsay Rule: Lenders are at it Again...</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/circumventing-the-hearsay-rule-lenders-are-at-it-again--63169559</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall will discuss the Hearsay Rule by referencing the details of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 801, which defines Hearsay as the term applies to legal proceedings in Federal Court. The evidence rules of the various States all largely mirror these Federal Rules. Then he will breakdown some of the exceptions to FRE 801, with particular emphasis on the business records exception, at FRE 803(6), and records of documents that affect an interest in property, at FRE 803(14).   Next Bill Paatalo will discuss how lenders and other institutional mortgage players are using data from "bid-tapes" to get around the Hearsay rule, in that they claim the reproduced copies of 'original' notes are in essence the original notes themselves.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/09/10/circumventing-the-hearsay-rule-lenders-are-at-it-again</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169559/circumventing_the_hearsay_rule_lenders_are_at_it_again.mp3" length="28420433" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall will discuss the Hearsay Rule by referencing the details of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 801, which defines Hearsay as the term applies to legal proceedings in Federal Court. The evidence rules of the various States all largely...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall will discuss the Hearsay Rule by referencing the details of Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 801, which defines Hearsay as the term applies to legal proceedings in Federal Court. The evidence rules of the various States all largely mirror these Federal Rules. Then he will breakdown some of the exceptions to FRE 801, with particular emphasis on the business records exception, at FRE 803(6), and records of documents that affect an interest in property, at FRE 803(14).   Next Bill Paatalo will discuss how lenders and other institutional mortgage players are using data from "bid-tapes" to get around the Hearsay rule, in that they claim the reproduced copies of 'original' notes are in essence the original notes themselves.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1777</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bid-tapes,exceptions to hearsay,federal rules of evidence 801,fre 803,hearsay</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to open the eyes of a judge in foreclosure cases!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-open-the-eyes-of-a-judge-in-foreclosure-cases--63169623</link><description><![CDATA[You received a loan, didn’t you?   You didn’t pay, did you?   You signed the note, didn’t you?   You signed the mortgage didn’t you?       Why all of those questions are irrelevant. how to instruct the court and convince the judge to rule accordingly is a skill that most people, including lawyers don’t possess, because they share a mythology with  the judge that the loan accounts actually exist. And they consent to this myth because they can’t imagine how it could be otherwise. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/09/03/how-to-open-the-eyes-of-a-judge-in-foreclosure-cases</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169623/how_to_open_the_eyes_of_a_judge_in_foreclosure_cases.mp3" length="28582601" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You received a loan, didn’t you?   You didn’t pay, did you?   You signed the note, didn’t you?   You signed the mortgage didn’t you?       Why all of those questions are irrelevant. how to instruct the court and convince the judge to rule accordingly...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You received a loan, didn’t you?   You didn’t pay, did you?   You signed the note, didn’t you?   You signed the mortgage didn’t you?       Why all of those questions are irrelevant. how to instruct the court and convince the judge to rule accordingly is a skill that most people, including lawyers don’t possess, because they share a mythology with  the judge that the loan accounts actually exist. And they consent to this myth because they can’t imagine how it could be otherwise. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1787</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,double entry bookkeeping,foreclosure,litigation,loan account</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>3</itunes:season><itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Lehman Brothers BK of 2014 Exposes Massive Mortgage Fraud by the Usual Suspects</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/lehman-brothers-bk-of-2014-exposes-massive-mortgage-fraud-by-the-usual-suspects--63169615</link><description><![CDATA[See Bill Paatalo's Blog post of August 21 re how the Lehman Brothers BK of 2014 served as conduit for enabling Bill himself to do a deep-dive analysis of a database of almost 100,000 loans spread over approximately 250 securitized trust transactions associated with one RMBS Protocol. His analysis took place in what was a sample audting of securitized mortgages ordered by the BK Court. This auditing exposed a litany of defects, misrepresentations, inflated appraisals, falsely reported income, failure to provide original notes, etc.   Bill will then touch on some related mortgage fraud topics, while Charles Marshall will address some of the latest Covid-19 impacts on mortgage borrowers.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/08/27/lehman-brothers-bk-of-2014-exposes-massive-mortgage-fraud-by-the-usual-suspects</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169615/lehman_brothers_bk_of_2014_exposes_massive_mortgage_fraud_by_the_usual_suspects.mp3" length="28583437" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>See Bill Paatalo's Blog post of August 21 re how the Lehman Brothers BK of 2014 served as conduit for enabling Bill himself to do a deep-dive analysis of a database of almost 100,000 loans spread over approximately 250 securitized trust transactions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[See Bill Paatalo's Blog post of August 21 re how the Lehman Brothers BK of 2014 served as conduit for enabling Bill himself to do a deep-dive analysis of a database of almost 100,000 loans spread over approximately 250 securitized trust transactions associated with one RMBS Protocol. His analysis took place in what was a sample audting of securitized mortgages ordered by the BK Court. This auditing exposed a litany of defects, misrepresentations, inflated appraisals, falsely reported income, failure to provide original notes, etc.   Bill will then touch on some related mortgage fraud topics, while Charles Marshall will address some of the latest Covid-19 impacts on mortgage borrowers.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1787</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,lehman brothers bankruptcy,mortgage fraud,rmbs claim protocol</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Feels Like Old Times: The Coming Crash and What to Do About It</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/feels-like-old-times-the-coming-crash-and-what-to-do-about-it--63169624</link><description><![CDATA[Just like 2008, people are not making payments for rent or mortgage in record numbers and most of them are not covered in any formal agreement with anyone, much less anyone authorized to offer forbearance or modification or settlement.   And just like 2007-2008 when many analysts including myself were calling out to take action to avoid a crash, nobody is listening.    And just like 2006-present, millions of homeowners and tenants are going to get screwed again by Wall Street banks as they continue to siphon off our wealth, our lives and our future.     So I am working hard on creating a better defense narrative for homeowners who are being coerced and intimidating into giving up their equity, their homes, their lifestyle just so more Wall Street executives can take home more bonuses.    So here is the latest in my never-ending quest to write the best possible narrative for the defense. I start with the underlying premise that if you don’t give the court an alternative to simply denying enforcement then the judge is sign to look for ways to rule for the party seeking foreclosure.    Fact #1: There is not a single case in which there has ever been proof of payment for the debt. In most cases there is not even any direct or implied allegation that such is the case. It is always presumed to have occurred.   Fact #2: In the context of transactions with homeowners labelled residential home mortgages, second mortgages and HELOCs, most — nearly all of them — involve no payment to the homeowner from anyone who receives any right, any title or any interest in any obligation of any homeowner.    Fact #3: No person or company maintains any account in which it claims legal ownership of the underlying debt.   Fact #4: Foreclosures involve the naming of a designated or nominated creditor ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/08/20/feels-like-old-times-the-coming-crash-and-what-to-do-about-it</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169624/feels_like_old_times_the_coming_crash_and_what_to_do_about_it.mp3" length="28799940" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Just like 2008, people are not making payments for rent or mortgage in record numbers and most of them are not covered in any formal agreement with anyone, much less anyone authorized to offer forbearance or modification or settlement.   And just like...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Just like 2008, people are not making payments for rent or mortgage in record numbers and most of them are not covered in any formal agreement with anyone, much less anyone authorized to offer forbearance or modification or settlement.   And just like 2007-2008 when many analysts including myself were calling out to take action to avoid a crash, nobody is listening.    And just like 2006-present, millions of homeowners and tenants are going to get screwed again by Wall Street banks as they continue to siphon off our wealth, our lives and our future.     So I am working hard on creating a better defense narrative for homeowners who are being coerced and intimidating into giving up their equity, their homes, their lifestyle just so more Wall Street executives can take home more bonuses.    So here is the latest in my never-ending quest to write the best possible narrative for the defense. I start with the underlying premise that if you don’t give the court an alternative to simply denying enforcement then the judge is sign to look for ways to rule for the party seeking foreclosure.    Fact #1: There is not a single case in which there has ever been proof of payment for the debt. In most cases there is not even any direct or implied allegation that such is the case. It is always presumed to have occurred.   Fact #2: In the context of transactions with homeowners labelled residential home mortgages, second mortgages and HELOCs, most — nearly all of them — involve no payment to the homeowner from anyone who receives any right, any title or any interest in any obligation of any homeowner.    Fact #3: No person or company maintains any account in which it claims legal ownership of the underlying debt.   Fact #4: Foreclosures involve the naming of a designated or nominated creditor ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1800</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>designated creditor,mers,nominee creditor,ownership of debt,securitization</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Merger Fraud and Document and Notary Fraud Revisited...and Seemingly Everlasting</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/merger-fraud-and-document-and-notary-fraud-revisited-and-seemingly-everlasting--63169576</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will post on his Blog today details on what he and host Charles Marshall will cover on the Neil Garfield Show today: First, a revisit to the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, with the use of a Pennsylvania case to highlight how this 'Trust' is used to create legitimacy for a fake Bank of America merger.   Second, Bill exposes significant document and notary fraud re a New Jersey bankruptcy case, and via an Idaho notary whose commission was suspended a few years ago, and may have been revoked. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/08/13/merger-fraud-and-document-and-notary-fraud-revisitedand-seemingly-everlasting</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169576/merger_fraud_and_document_and_notary_fraud_revisitedand_seemingly_everlasting.mp3" length="28985932" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo will post on his Blog today details on what he and host Charles Marshall will cover on the Neil Garfield Show today: First, a revisit to the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, with the use of a Pennsylvania case to highlight how this...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will post on his Blog today details on what he and host Charles Marshall will cover on the Neil Garfield Show today: First, a revisit to the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, with the use of a Pennsylvania case to highlight how this 'Trust' is used to create legitimacy for a fake Bank of America merger.   Second, Bill exposes significant document and notary fraud re a New Jersey bankruptcy case, and via an Idaho notary whose commission was suspended a few years ago, and may have been revoked. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1812</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bankruptcy,idaho,lsf9 master participatory trus,new jersey,pennsylvania</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why most mortgage liens are void: Back to Basics --- Two schemes, One Contract</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-most-mortgage-liens-are-void-back-to-basics-two-schemes-one-contract--63169540</link><description><![CDATA[The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold,  and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the hoemowner received money is that it was part of a valid loan agreement.    If lawyers and homeowners want to win cases filed for enforcement of mortgages or deed of trust (foreclosures) then they must understand and use the fact that the homeowner agreed to two contracts --- not one. Operating parrallel to the apparent loan agreement was a concealed securitization agreement. Both are fatally deficient (unenforceable) unless they are combined into one agreement through the legal (equitable) process of reformation.   The loan agreement is fatally deficient because it purposely fails to establish an actual loan account in which the underlying debt is owned as an asset on  the financial statement of some person or company. This is how the investment bank funds what appears to be a loan without ever being disclosed as a lender. Since it never receives any conveyance of the debt, note or rmotgage it is not lender and therefore not subject to any laws governing lending or servicing.   But since it in fact funded the transaction but refuses to be considered a lender, the transaction is not a loan but rather something else. And because it removes every trace of funding trhough a bogus sale to itself acting under the name of a fake trust, it can't call itself a successor either.      In plain langauge there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no valid loan contract and no valid securitization contract. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/08/06/why-most-mortgage-liens-are-void-back-to-basics---two-schemes-one-contract</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169540/why_most_mortgage_liens_are_void_back_to_basics_two_schemes_one_contract.mp3" length="28938702" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold,  and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold,  and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the hoemowner received money is that it was part of a valid loan agreement.    If lawyers and homeowners want to win cases filed for enforcement of mortgages or deed of trust (foreclosures) then they must understand and use the fact that the homeowner agreed to two contracts --- not one. Operating parrallel to the apparent loan agreement was a concealed securitization agreement. Both are fatally deficient (unenforceable) unless they are combined into one agreement through the legal (equitable) process of reformation.   The loan agreement is fatally deficient because it purposely fails to establish an actual loan account in which the underlying debt is owned as an asset on  the financial statement of some person or company. This is how the investment bank funds what appears to be a loan without ever being disclosed as a lender. Since it never receives any conveyance of the debt, note or rmotgage it is not lender and therefore not subject to any laws governing lending or servicing.   But since it in fact funded the transaction but refuses to be considered a lender, the transaction is not a loan but rather something else. And because it removes every trace of funding trhough a bogus sale to itself acting under the name of a fake trust, it can't call itself a successor either.      In plain langauge there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no valid loan contract and no valid securitization contract. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>lender,lien,parallel contract,reformation,securitization</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Bill Paatalo Exposes again the Lack of Authority by Foreclosing Parties</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bill-paatalo-exposes-again-the-lack-of-authority-by-foreclosing-parties--63169579</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he was able to thoroughly expose the lack of authority by foreclosing parties, including Wells Fargo and HSBC, in 5 consolidated cases in Missouri. Missouri is generally a non-judicial foreclosure state, as it is typically a deed-of-trust state. There are a minority of judicial foreclosures in Missouri as well, based often though not exclusively on mortgages as opposed to deeds of trust. Bill testified via WebEx at trial as an expert witness in these cases, and exposed the foreclosing parties' witnesses as proving not their case but the borrower's case. There are some quirks to WebEx testimony which allow greater latitude for those testifying, and Bill will discuss these.    Charles Marshall will then address the latest in the Covid-19 world as it relates to foreclosures and evictions.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/07/30/bill-paatalo-exposes-again-the-lack-of-authority-by-foreclosing-parties</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169579/bill_paatalo_exposes_again_the_lack_of_authority_by_foreclosing_parties.mp3" length="28860126" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he was able to thoroughly expose the lack of authority by foreclosing parties, including Wells Fargo and HSBC, in 5 consolidated cases in Missouri. Missouri is generally a non-judicial foreclosure state,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he was able to thoroughly expose the lack of authority by foreclosing parties, including Wells Fargo and HSBC, in 5 consolidated cases in Missouri. Missouri is generally a non-judicial foreclosure state, as it is typically a deed-of-trust state. There are a minority of judicial foreclosures in Missouri as well, based often though not exclusively on mortgages as opposed to deeds of trust. Bill testified via WebEx at trial as an expert witness in these cases, and exposed the foreclosing parties' witnesses as proving not their case but the borrower's case. There are some quirks to WebEx testimony which allow greater latitude for those testifying, and Bill will discuss these.    Charles Marshall will then address the latest in the Covid-19 world as it relates to foreclosures and evictions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1804</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>hsbc,judicial foreclosure,missouri,non-judicial foreclosure,wells fargo</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Coming Foreclosure Tsunami and what that Means for Borrowers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-coming-foreclosure-tsunami-and-what-that-means-for-borrowers--63169571</link><description><![CDATA[On the Neil Garfield Show today host Charles Marshall will break down the latest trends and developments in the Covid-19 landscape, addressing the following legal areas in order to apprise borrowers what they can do to slow or possibly even derail the coming foreclosure train. With unemployment numbers continuing in most parts of the country to be at numbers not seen since the Great Depression, mortgage payment defaults are likewise skyrocketing, which defaults will lead to a dramatic rise in foreclosure filings against borrowers, in both non-judicial and judicial foreclosure states. Today's Show will touch on effects nationwide, with an emphasis on non-judicial foreclosure states like California.   We will cover a refresher on how borrowers can best handle legal procedure in the following legal arenas:   - pre-NOD mortgage default period;   - post-NOD mortgage default period;   - NOTS period; post-auction period if the subject property goes to sale.    Lawsuit procedure to fight foreclosure, including obtaining TROs to stop foreclosure sales;   Appellate procedure, including whether appeals can and will stop foreclosure sales or evictions   Bankruptcy Procedure re foreclosure, including how bankruptcy stays work, and addressing motions to lift any stay in place;   Unlawful Detainer procedure and how to navigate this procedure when sued for eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure sale.                        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/07/23/the-coming-foreclosure-tsunami-and-what-that-means-for-borrowers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169571/the_coming_foreclosure_tsunami_and_what_that_means_for_borrowers.mp3" length="28718438" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On the Neil Garfield Show today host Charles Marshall will break down the latest trends and developments in the Covid-19 landscape, addressing the following legal areas in order to apprise borrowers what they can do to slow or possibly even derail the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On the Neil Garfield Show today host Charles Marshall will break down the latest trends and developments in the Covid-19 landscape, addressing the following legal areas in order to apprise borrowers what they can do to slow or possibly even derail the coming foreclosure train. With unemployment numbers continuing in most parts of the country to be at numbers not seen since the Great Depression, mortgage payment defaults are likewise skyrocketing, which defaults will lead to a dramatic rise in foreclosure filings against borrowers, in both non-judicial and judicial foreclosure states. Today's Show will touch on effects nationwide, with an emphasis on non-judicial foreclosure states like California.   We will cover a refresher on how borrowers can best handle legal procedure in the following legal arenas:   - pre-NOD mortgage default period;   - post-NOD mortgage default period;   - NOTS period; post-auction period if the subject property goes to sale.    Lawsuit procedure to fight foreclosure, including obtaining TROs to stop foreclosure sales;   Appellate procedure, including whether appeals can and will stop foreclosure sales or evictions   Bankruptcy Procedure re foreclosure, including how bankruptcy stays work, and addressing motions to lift any stay in place;   Unlawful Detainer procedure and how to navigate this procedure when sued for eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure sale.                        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1795</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,mortgage default,mortgage foreclosure,nod,nots</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Reverse Mortgages: Many involve securitization fraud, as with regular mortgages</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/reverse-mortgages-many-involve-securitization-fraud-as-with-regular-mortgages--63169544</link><description><![CDATA[Reverse mortgages are akin to the Centuries Old principle of a Life Estate or an annuity. A life estate is where typically relatives who live together would pass title to a home, during the life of often an elderly person who owned the home in fee simple, who would then live out his or her life in the home, as if still owning the home. While technically a tenant, the person in a Life Estate would have full access to the home. Reverse mortgages are similar to a Life Estate in that typically elderly persons, who have often built up a lot of equity in their homes, are able to continue to live at the home, without paying a mortgage. So in essence the mortgage is a mortgage loan, using the equity in the property to cover what would otherwise be montly payments needed to cover the loan. The loan is typically due at the sale of the home, or upon the death of the homeowner. Reverse mortgages, like regular mortgages, are subject to foreclosure if found to be in default.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sees a lot of loan fraud issues in these types of loans, and the reverse mortgages are based on underlying loans, which if securitized in the early to mid-200s era, and often even before or later than that, have the same fraud-origination and assignment problems as similarly securitized loans. Attorney Marshall is litigating a reverse mortgage lawsuit in California at the moment, and the fraud securitization issues, are in essence identical to non-reverse mortgage situations, as long as the originating loan documents had the typical securitization defects.   Marshall will then provide a covid-19 update, with a focus on force majeure issues, specifically how a borrower who was otherwise current on mortgage loan payments, is arguably not in default if the reason for defaulting on payments was solely due to unemployment caused by covid-19 shutdown and lockdown rules. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/07/09/reverse-mortgages-many-involve-securitization-fraud-as-with-regular-mortgages</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169544/reverse_mortgages_many_involve_securitization_fraud_as_with_regular_mortgages.mp3" length="28252414" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Reverse mortgages are akin to the Centuries Old principle of a Life Estate or an annuity. A life estate is where typically relatives who live together would pass title to a home, during the life of often an elderly person who owned the home in fee...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Reverse mortgages are akin to the Centuries Old principle of a Life Estate or an annuity. A life estate is where typically relatives who live together would pass title to a home, during the life of often an elderly person who owned the home in fee simple, who would then live out his or her life in the home, as if still owning the home. While technically a tenant, the person in a Life Estate would have full access to the home. Reverse mortgages are similar to a Life Estate in that typically elderly persons, who have often built up a lot of equity in their homes, are able to continue to live at the home, without paying a mortgage. So in essence the mortgage is a mortgage loan, using the equity in the property to cover what would otherwise be montly payments needed to cover the loan. The loan is typically due at the sale of the home, or upon the death of the homeowner. Reverse mortgages, like regular mortgages, are subject to foreclosure if found to be in default.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sees a lot of loan fraud issues in these types of loans, and the reverse mortgages are based on underlying loans, which if securitized in the early to mid-200s era, and often even before or later than that, have the same fraud-origination and assignment problems as similarly securitized loans. Attorney Marshall is litigating a reverse mortgage lawsuit in California at the moment, and the fraud securitization issues, are in essence identical to non-reverse mortgage situations, as long as the originating loan documents had the typical securitization defects.   Marshall will then provide a covid-19 update, with a focus on force majeure issues, specifically how a borrower who was otherwise current on mortgage loan payments, is arguably not in default if the reason for defaulting on payments was solely due to unemployment caused by covid-19 shutdown and lockdown rules. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1766</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>consumer financial protection ,covid-19,force majeure,reverse mortgage</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Orphan Loans! The truth about your mortgage transaction.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/orphan-loans-the-truth-about-your-mortgage-transaction--63169575</link><description><![CDATA[My opinion, backed by 14 years of research and securities analysis which I am qualified to perform, is that you probably have what I call an orphan debt. Based upon filings with the SEC and other documents I have reviewed I am quite certain of this. This is the result of an intentional avoidance of lender liability for violations of federal and state laws.    You can use this knowledge to your advantage.    There is no question now about the coming wave of foreclosures. It is happening but thankfully it is delayed by extensions on moratoriums for foreclosure and eviction. This is the time for preparing for how you will deal with claims to bring your payments current or else face foreclosure. It is even probable that as soon as foreclosure firms get the green light they will just start the process by sending a notice of default.    And remember that moratoriums do not cancel or even postpone payment obligations. They only postpone enforcement. So when the moratorium is over, if you were already in foreclosure it will go forward.   Unless you have asked for and received a forbearance agreement that, for example, puts your payments off to the end, the banks will use the available procedures to enforce your note and mortgage against you. They want to because it is free money to them. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/07/02/orphan-loans-the-truth-about-your-mortgage-transaction</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169575/orphan_loans_the_truth_about_your_mortgage_transaction.mp3" length="27468322" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>My opinion, backed by 14 years of research and securities analysis which I am qualified to perform, is that you probably have what I call an orphan debt. Based upon filings with the SEC and other documents I have reviewed I am quite certain of this....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[My opinion, backed by 14 years of research and securities analysis which I am qualified to perform, is that you probably have what I call an orphan debt. Based upon filings with the SEC and other documents I have reviewed I am quite certain of this. This is the result of an intentional avoidance of lender liability for violations of federal and state laws.    You can use this knowledge to your advantage.    There is no question now about the coming wave of foreclosures. It is happening but thankfully it is delayed by extensions on moratoriums for foreclosure and eviction. This is the time for preparing for how you will deal with claims to bring your payments current or else face foreclosure. It is even probable that as soon as foreclosure firms get the green light they will just start the process by sending a notice of default.    And remember that moratoriums do not cancel or even postpone payment obligations. They only postpone enforcement. So when the moratorium is over, if you were already in foreclosure it will go forward.   Unless you have asked for and received a forbearance agreement that, for example, puts your payments off to the end, the banks will use the available procedures to enforce your note and mortgage against you. They want to because it is free money to them. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1717</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>eviction,moratorium,orphan debt,orphan loan,securitization</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>FDIC's Own Regs Show WAMU to Chase Loan Transfers A Sham, Plus Covid Updates</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fdic-s-own-regs-show-wamu-to-chase-loan-transfers-a-sham-plus-covid-updates--63169589</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo in a recent Blog Post (May 14), laid out the position that the FDIC's own promulgated Rules and Regulations demonstrate that the WAMU to Chase purported transfers of securitized trust mortgage loans never legally properly happened due to the criteria laid out in same Rules and Regulations. Bill will cover the factors at play here, including showing how WAMU's loan were 'legally isolated' from the FDIC Receivership of WAMU when WAMU went into bankruptcy in 2008 to facilitate transferring loans to Chase.   Charles Marshall will cover the latest in Covid-19 policies, with special attention to California and the implact these overlapping policies have on foreclosure sales and foreclosure litigation. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/06/25/fdics-own-regs-show-wamu-to-chase-loan-transfers-a-sham-plus-covid-updates</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169589/fdics_own_regs_show_wamu_to_chase_loan_transfers_a_sham_plus_covid_updates.mp3" length="28934941" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo in a recent Blog Post (May 14), laid out the position that the FDIC's own promulgated Rules and Regulations demonstrate that the WAMU to Chase purported transfers of securitized trust mortgage loans never legally properly happened due to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo in a recent Blog Post (May 14), laid out the position that the FDIC's own promulgated Rules and Regulations demonstrate that the WAMU to Chase purported transfers of securitized trust mortgage loans never legally properly happened due to the criteria laid out in same Rules and Regulations. Bill will cover the factors at play here, including showing how WAMU's loan were 'legally isolated' from the FDIC Receivership of WAMU when WAMU went into bankruptcy in 2008 to facilitate transferring loans to Chase.   Charles Marshall will cover the latest in Covid-19 policies, with special attention to California and the implact these overlapping policies have on foreclosure sales and foreclosure litigation. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid-19,fdic,wamu-chase mortgage loans,wamu receivership</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How we will all win this time when the second foreclosure tidal wave hits</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-we-will-all-win-this-time-when-the-second-foreclosure-tidal-wave-hits--63169572</link><description><![CDATA[I have been right on every point since 2006. I correctly predicted the collapse and even the order of collapse of certain investment banks, the foreclosure tidal wave of 2008-11, the ways to beat foreclosures, I won foreclosure cases both as lead attorney and as consultant to other attorneys, and now I’m predicting a new tidal  wave of foreclosures. Wall Street loves foreclosures but nobody else does. It’s all there on video, in print, on radio. I was right.  *  So tonight we are talking about how to prepare for the new wave of foreclosures. Even homeowners who think they are current on their payments might want to listen in to this because foreclosures depress property values, decrease tax revenue, and cause mayhem in housing, crime and hardship.  *  We can pretend that we are over Covid and that economic problems are behind us, but it just isn’t true. We have a huge new wave of corona cases coming on top of the existing one which is projected to cause at least 200,000 deaths by October 1. That will force shutdowns even though nobody wants it. The current ridiculous behavior of the stock market will turn very dark as we head into unknown territory — corporate earrings decreasing, some entire industries vanishing, and huge losses for new bored investors who decided to go into stock market investing as a replacement for their gambling habits.  *  So for those of you who prefer to be human and not pretend to be Ostriches with your head buried in the sand I suggest you listen up. You can’t have 40 million people file for unemployment and not have deep long lasting consequences — particularly as it relates to new foreclosure attempts by investment banks who have no right to do it.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/06/18/how-we-will-all-win-this-time-when-the-second-foreclosure-tidal-wave-hits</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169572/how_we_will_all_win_this_time_when_the_second_foreclosure_tidal_wave_hits.mp3" length="28223156" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>I have been right on every point since 2006. I correctly predicted the collapse and even the order of collapse of certain investment banks, the foreclosure tidal wave of 2008-11, the ways to beat foreclosures, I won foreclosure cases both as lead...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[I have been right on every point since 2006. I correctly predicted the collapse and even the order of collapse of certain investment banks, the foreclosure tidal wave of 2008-11, the ways to beat foreclosures, I won foreclosure cases both as lead attorney and as consultant to other attorneys, and now I’m predicting a new tidal  wave of foreclosures. Wall Street loves foreclosures but nobody else does. It’s all there on video, in print, on radio. I was right.  *  So tonight we are talking about how to prepare for the new wave of foreclosures. Even homeowners who think they are current on their payments might want to listen in to this because foreclosures depress property values, decrease tax revenue, and cause mayhem in housing, crime and hardship.  *  We can pretend that we are over Covid and that economic problems are behind us, but it just isn’t true. We have a huge new wave of corona cases coming on top of the existing one which is projected to cause at least 200,000 deaths by October 1. That will force shutdowns even though nobody wants it. The current ridiculous behavior of the stock market will turn very dark as we head into unknown territory — corporate earrings decreasing, some entire industries vanishing, and huge losses for new bored investors who decided to go into stock market investing as a replacement for their gambling habits.  *  So for those of you who prefer to be human and not pretend to be Ostriches with your head buried in the sand I suggest you listen up. You can’t have 40 million people file for unemployment and not have deep long lasting consequences — particularly as it relates to new foreclosure attempts by investment banks who have no right to do it.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1764</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>covid,defense,foreclosure,investment banks,stock market</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Qui Tam Civil Actions and their Intersection with Foreclosure Law</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/qui-tam-civil-actions-and-their-intersection-with-foreclosure-law--63169550</link><description><![CDATA[Qui Tam Actions generally are lawsuits in which an individual sues on behalf of a governmental entitiy, typically the Federal Government, with the goal of remedying a defrauding of the government by a private organization or individual. These actions typically take the form of a whistleblower exposing the defrauding actions of his or her employer. Qui tam actions in the US are often brought under the False Claims Act, a Federal law specifically empowering individuals to sue as whistleblowers to recover private funds garnered through defrauding the Federal Government.   In the foreclosure context, individuals who are connected with, or in some cases simply apprised of, the defrauding behavior, can then bring a qui tam action to remedy the fraud. As a whistleblower, the suing individual is entitled to substantial compensation, including penalties, attorney's fees, court costs, on top of the disputed amount of the fraud. The whisteblower receives his or her compensation as a percentage of the fraud money recovered. This amount can and often does run into the millions of dollars, depending on the nature of the fraud and the amount in dispute. Bill will highlight a recent successful qui tam action and address previous qui tam matters, involving for example mortgage servicers such as Nationstar.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/06/11/qui-tam-civil-actions-and-their-intersection-with-foreclosure-law</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169550/qui_tam_civil_actions_and_their_intersection_with_foreclosure_law.mp3" length="28638190" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Qui Tam Actions generally are lawsuits in which an individual sues on behalf of a governmental entitiy, typically the Federal Government, with the goal of remedying a defrauding of the government by a private organization or individual. These actions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Qui Tam Actions generally are lawsuits in which an individual sues on behalf of a governmental entitiy, typically the Federal Government, with the goal of remedying a defrauding of the government by a private organization or individual. These actions typically take the form of a whistleblower exposing the defrauding actions of his or her employer. Qui tam actions in the US are often brought under the False Claims Act, a Federal law specifically empowering individuals to sue as whistleblowers to recover private funds garnered through defrauding the Federal Government.   In the foreclosure context, individuals who are connected with, or in some cases simply apprised of, the defrauding behavior, can then bring a qui tam action to remedy the fraud. As a whistleblower, the suing individual is entitled to substantial compensation, including penalties, attorney's fees, court costs, on top of the disputed amount of the fraud. The whisteblower receives his or her compensation as a percentage of the fraud money recovered. This amount can and often does run into the millions of dollars, depending on the nature of the fraud and the amount in dispute. Bill will highlight a recent successful qui tam action and address previous qui tam matters, involving for example mortgage servicers such as Nationstar.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1790</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>flase claims act,private action,qui tam,whistleblower</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Interview with Attorney Charles Marshall on Cal. App. Massoud v JPM Chase</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/interview-with-attorney-charles-marshall-on-cal-app-massoud-v-jpm-chase--63169622</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we pick up where the blog left off. The important but as yet unpublished opinion and decision in California Appellate court in which an appellate court stated clearly and unequivocally stated that allegations do state a cause of action if the homeowner contends that Chase did not buy loans in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement on September 25, 2008 between Chase, FDIC and the US Trustee in Bankruptcy.  Is the court signaling that it is willing to accept the premise that at least some claims for collection and foreclosure are false?   The Court agreed that if Chase was claiming ownership and authority over the loan under those it was a false claim. Charles Marshall succeeded where others had failed. Tonight we discuss how he did it.   []=0]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/06/04/interview-with-attorney-charles-marshall-on-cal-app-massoud-v-jpm-chase</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169622/interview_with_attorney_charles_marshall_on_cal_app_massoud_v_jpm_chase.mp3" length="28667447" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we pick up where the blog left off. The important but as yet unpublished opinion and decision in California Appellate court in which an appellate court stated clearly and unequivocally stated that allegations do state a cause of action if the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we pick up where the blog left off. The important but as yet unpublished opinion and decision in California Appellate court in which an appellate court stated clearly and unequivocally stated that allegations do state a cause of action if the homeowner contends that Chase did not buy loans in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement on September 25, 2008 between Chase, FDIC and the US Trustee in Bankruptcy.  Is the court signaling that it is willing to accept the premise that at least some claims for collection and foreclosure are false?   The Court agreed that if Chase was claiming ownership and authority over the loan under those it was a false claim. Charles Marshall succeeded where others had failed. Tonight we discuss how he did it.   []=0]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase,false claims,wamu,washington mutual,wrongful foreclosure</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Replay Court Bias and Sub Silentio Assumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/replay-court-bias-and-sub-silentio-assumptions--63169625</link><description><![CDATA[Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true facts about the status of the claimed debt, the ownership of the debt, and the authority to collect, administer and enforce the debt.  The elephant in the living room is that none of these “Securitized” transactions are being treated as securitization schemes. Lawyers come to court and say “Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure.” NO! It isn’t.  And the moratorium, such as it is, still leaves homeowners faced with foreclosures by people who have no financial stake in the foreclosure or the “loan” except the expectation of profit.  But because borrowers believe that to be true and so do most of their lawyers, the die is cast. Everyone assumes that the only thing in play is the “loan.” And yet, the courts ignore the fact that under Article 9 §203 of the UCC the claimant must have paid value for the debt — which it must be the owner of the debt because only someone who has suffered actual financial injury can bring a claim for foreclosure. That is black letter law converted to gray because of court bias.  Court bias results from a sub silentio doctrine, which is the subject of tonight’s radio show. It explains how and why the courts are getting it wrong almost every time. It isn’t because judges are out to get homeowners or because they have been  bought off by the banks. It’s because almost nobody is taking the time or energy to present the whole transaction  to the court.  If it isn’t presented, the judge has no power to rule on it. It’s Bias but it isn’t the kind you are thinking about.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/05/21/replay-court-bias-and-sub-silentio-assumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169625/replay_court_bias_and_sub_silentio_assumptions.mp3" length="28807045" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true facts about the status of the claimed debt, the ownership of the debt, and the authority to collect, administer and enforce the debt.  The elephant in the living room is that none of these “Securitized” transactions are being treated as securitization schemes. Lawyers come to court and say “Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure.” NO! It isn’t.  And the moratorium, such as it is, still leaves homeowners faced with foreclosures by people who have no financial stake in the foreclosure or the “loan” except the expectation of profit.  But because borrowers believe that to be true and so do most of their lawyers, the die is cast. Everyone assumes that the only thing in play is the “loan.” And yet, the courts ignore the fact that under Article 9 §203 of the UCC the claimant must have paid value for the debt — which it must be the owner of the debt because only someone who has suffered actual financial injury can bring a claim for foreclosure. That is black letter law converted to gray because of court bias.  Court bias results from a sub silentio doctrine, which is the subject of tonight’s radio show. It explains how and why the courts are getting it wrong almost every time. It isn’t because judges are out to get homeowners or because they have been  bought off by the banks. It’s because almost nobody is taking the time or energy to present the whole transaction  to the court.  If it isn’t presented, the judge has no power to rule on it. It’s Bias but it isn’t the kind you are thinking about.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bias,courts,foreclosure,moratorium,sub silentio</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Bias in the Courts -- the Silent Killer in Foreclosure Actions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bias-in-the-courts-the-silent-killer-in-foreclosure-actions--63169548</link><description><![CDATA[Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true facts about the status of the claimed debt, the ownership of the debt, and the authority to collect, administer and enforce the debt.   The elephant in the living room is that none of these “Securitized” transactions are being treated as securitization schemes. Lawyers come to court and say “Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure.” NO! It isn’t.   And the moratorium, such as it is, still leaves homeowners faced with foreclosures by people who have no financial stake in the foreclosure or the “loan” except the expectation of profit.   But because borrowers believe that to be true and so do most of their lawyers, the die is cast. Everyone assumes that the only thing in play is the “loan.” And yet, the courts ignore the fact that under Article 9 §203 of the UCC the claimant must have paid value for the debt — which it must be the owner of the debt because only someone who has suffered actual financial injury can bring a claim for foreclosure. That is black letter law converted to gray because of court bias.   Court bias results from a sub silentio doctrine, which is the subject of tonight’s radio show. It explains how and why the courts are getting it wrong almost every time. It isn’t because judges are out to get homeowners or because they have been  bought off by the banks. It’s because almost nobody is taking the time or energy to present the whole transaction  to the court.  If it isn’t presented, the judge has no power to rule on it. It’s Bias but it isn’t the kind you are thinking about.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/05/14/bias-in-the-courts--the-silent-killer-in-foreclosure-actions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169548/bias_in_the_courts_the_silent_killer_in_foreclosure_actions.mp3" length="1685256" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Instead of taking the opportunity to review complaints about the process of foreclosure and eviction, the Governor of Florida is issuing an order that all but assures that the foreclosures will continue to be regarded as valid — i.e., based on true facts about the status of the claimed debt, the ownership of the debt, and the authority to collect, administer and enforce the debt.   The elephant in the living room is that none of these “Securitized” transactions are being treated as securitization schemes. Lawyers come to court and say “Your Honor, this is a standard foreclosure.” NO! It isn’t.   And the moratorium, such as it is, still leaves homeowners faced with foreclosures by people who have no financial stake in the foreclosure or the “loan” except the expectation of profit.   But because borrowers believe that to be true and so do most of their lawyers, the die is cast. Everyone assumes that the only thing in play is the “loan.” And yet, the courts ignore the fact that under Article 9 §203 of the UCC the claimant must have paid value for the debt — which it must be the owner of the debt because only someone who has suffered actual financial injury can bring a claim for foreclosure. That is black letter law converted to gray because of court bias.   Court bias results from a sub silentio doctrine, which is the subject of tonight’s radio show. It explains how and why the courts are getting it wrong almost every time. It isn’t because judges are out to get homeowners or because they have been  bought off by the banks. It’s because almost nobody is taking the time or energy to present the whole transaction  to the court.  If it isn’t presented, the judge has no power to rule on it. It’s Bias but it isn’t the kind you are thinking about.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>106</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bias,courts,labels,securitization,sub silentio</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Testing one two three who what where when and why</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/testing-one-two-three-who-what-where-when-and-why--63169581</link><description><![CDATA[blah blah blah]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/05/08/testing-one-two-three-who-what-where-when-and-why</guid><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2020 17:39:18 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169581/testing_one_two_three_who_what_where_when_and_why.mp3" length="1647222" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>blah blah blah</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[blah blah blah]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>103</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,microphone,mike,rode</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Paatalo breakthrough: Reverse engineers Chase WAMU scam, latest re COVID-19</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/paatalo-breakthrough-reverse-engineers-chase-wamu-scam-latest-re-covid-19--63169598</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo harkens back to an article he wrote and posted on his Blog back in 2016 re the supposedly legitimate transfer of WAMU securitized mortgage loans through their 2008 bankruptcy case, faclitiated by the FDIC, to Chase. Bill has used his keen analytical skills to demonstrate that the transfer was the sham we have been calling out, and collaterally trying to prove in various court cases, now some years on.   Charles Marshall hosts today, with more COVID-19 updates, particularly related to how lenders are using Fed Removals to get borrower-plaintiff lawsuits against them taken out of state court where those cases are largely stayed due to COVID-19, to Fed Court, where they are not so stayed. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/05/07/paatalo-breakthrough-reverse-engineers-chase-wamu-scam-latest-re-covid-19</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169598/paatalo_breakthrough_reverse_engineers_chase_wamu_scam_latest_re_covid_19.mp3" length="28822092" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo harkens back to an article he wrote and posted on his Blog back in 2016 re the supposedly legitimate transfer of WAMU securitized mortgage loans through their 2008 bankruptcy case, faclitiated by the FDIC, to Chase. Bill has used his keen...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo harkens back to an article he wrote and posted on his Blog back in 2016 re the supposedly legitimate transfer of WAMU securitized mortgage loans through their 2008 bankruptcy case, faclitiated by the FDIC, to Chase. Bill has used his keen analytical skills to demonstrate that the transfer was the sham we have been calling out, and collaterally trying to prove in various court cases, now some years on.   Charles Marshall hosts today, with more COVID-19 updates, particularly related to how lenders are using Fed Removals to get borrower-plaintiff lawsuits against them taken out of state court where those cases are largely stayed due to COVID-19, to Fed Court, where they are not so stayed. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase wamu transfer,coronavirus,covid-19,federal removal,reverse engineering</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Pandemonium Pandemic: What do I do now with my mortgage or car payment?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/pandemonium-pandemic-what-do-i-do-now-with-my-mortgage-or-car-payment--63169547</link><description><![CDATA[You still owe the money. But only if you continue to believe it is a loan. I have my doubts.     As soon as the moratorium period is over, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of foreclosures initiated and many car repossessions because an extra 30 million Americans are out of work, many are not receiving unemployment benefits and many who are getting unemployment benefits are threatened with a hold back of funds or cancellation of their benefits if their governor orders businesses open even when it is unsafe to do so.    It’s case of your money or your life, which is what muggers say at the point of a gun. Whether the employee goes back to work risking the health and lives of themselves or their family or refuses to expose themselves the risk, they might lose their uemployment benefits.    In the meanwhile debt collectors are still demanding the money and the moratoriums at best only stop them from filing foreclosure actions. While there is some evdience that car repossessions are temporarily down it seems that is only a voluntary thing.   Moratoriums temporarily prevent enforcement of foreclosures but most do not prevent repossessions of cars. And contrary to popular belief, they are not orders to stop collecting payments nor are they orders commanding debt collectors to issue forbearance or forgiveness on missed payments. You must apply for forbearance and don’t expect forgiveness because you are not going to get it. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/04/30/pandemonium-pandemic-what-do-i-do-now-with-my-mortgage-or-car-payment</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169547/pandemonium_pandemic_what_do_i_do_now_with_my_mortgage_or_car_payment.mp3" length="28723871" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You still owe the money. But only if you continue to believe it is a loan. I have my doubts.     As soon as the moratorium period is over, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of foreclosures initiated and many car repossessions because an...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You still owe the money. But only if you continue to believe it is a loan. I have my doubts.     As soon as the moratorium period is over, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of foreclosures initiated and many car repossessions because an extra 30 million Americans are out of work, many are not receiving unemployment benefits and many who are getting unemployment benefits are threatened with a hold back of funds or cancellation of their benefits if their governor orders businesses open even when it is unsafe to do so.    It’s case of your money or your life, which is what muggers say at the point of a gun. Whether the employee goes back to work risking the health and lives of themselves or their family or refuses to expose themselves the risk, they might lose their uemployment benefits.    In the meanwhile debt collectors are still demanding the money and the moratoriums at best only stop them from filing foreclosure actions. While there is some evdience that car repossessions are temporarily down it seems that is only a voluntary thing.   Moratoriums temporarily prevent enforcement of foreclosures but most do not prevent repossessions of cars. And contrary to popular belief, they are not orders to stop collecting payments nor are they orders commanding debt collectors to issue forbearance or forgiveness on missed payments. You must apply for forbearance and don’t expect forgiveness because you are not going to get it. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>collection,forbearance,forgiveness,moratoriums,payments</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>COVID-19 and Bailout of servicers along with tracing securitization proceeds</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/covid-19-and-bailout-of-servicers-along-with-tracing-securitization-proceeds--63169588</link><description><![CDATA[We will discuss on Today's Show how the recently enacted federal CARES ACT, otherwise known as the Coronavirus Relief Bill, has unsurprisingly been commandeered by Big Bank lobbyists to direct monies to mortgage servicers servicing securitized loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the arrangement, servicers are directed to pay investors to the trusts for 4 months, then Fannie and Freddie through the stimulus money will pay the same investors for a period of 8 months after the 4 month period expires.   Yet why would servicers be directing any monies to mortgage securitization certificate holders? The servicers are not a party to the indenture on certificates purchase by investors. We hear a lot in court proceedings involving securitized mortgage borrowers that they the borrowers have limited or even no legal challenge rights re the securitization process, as they the borrowers were not a party to the original securitization--just so here with the servicers.   Bill Paatalo returns to discuss the concept of tracing financial proceeds, and how borrowers can use this principle in both plaintiff and defense cases. Bill continues to uncover reports from law enrichment to congressional committed seeking reduce the epidemic of fraud, Ponzi schemes, and money laundering --- all involving the use of sham entities in which the beneficial interest is held by unknown third parties.                     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/04/23/covid-19-and-bailout-of-servicers-along-with-tracing-securitization-proceeds</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169588/covid_19_and_bailout_of_servicers_along_with_tracing_securitization_proceeds.mp3" length="28831287" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We will discuss on Today's Show how the recently enacted federal CARES ACT, otherwise known as the Coronavirus Relief Bill, has unsurprisingly been commandeered by Big Bank lobbyists to direct monies to mortgage servicers servicing securitized loans...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We will discuss on Today's Show how the recently enacted federal CARES ACT, otherwise known as the Coronavirus Relief Bill, has unsurprisingly been commandeered by Big Bank lobbyists to direct monies to mortgage servicers servicing securitized loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the arrangement, servicers are directed to pay investors to the trusts for 4 months, then Fannie and Freddie through the stimulus money will pay the same investors for a period of 8 months after the 4 month period expires.   Yet why would servicers be directing any monies to mortgage securitization certificate holders? The servicers are not a party to the indenture on certificates purchase by investors. We hear a lot in court proceedings involving securitized mortgage borrowers that they the borrowers have limited or even no legal challenge rights re the securitization process, as they the borrowers were not a party to the original securitization--just so here with the servicers.   Bill Paatalo returns to discuss the concept of tracing financial proceeds, and how borrowers can use this principle in both plaintiff and defense cases. Bill continues to uncover reports from law enrichment to congressional committed seeking reduce the epidemic of fraud, Ponzi schemes, and money laundering --- all involving the use of sham entities in which the beneficial interest is held by unknown third parties.                     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cares act aka coronavirus reli,coronavirus,covid-19,proceeds tracing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The People Strike Back! Mass Joinder in a  World Siding With Crooked banks</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-people-strike-back-mass-joinder-in-a-world-siding-with-crooked-banks--63169597</link><description><![CDATA[For 20 years homeowners have been losing their homes based upon the deep seated belief that despite all the fraud, fabrications and even perjury, somehow the foreclosures are giving money back to people who paid for transactions that were loans. But for the banks, this has strictly been an exercise in profit making from the issuance and trading of securities based upon data descriptions and not, as they would have you believe, the sale of any loans.   So foreclosure sales have not produced sales proceeds of money that was forwarded to anyone who paid money for the debt. And under current black letter law in all jurisdictions that means that the foreclosures were and continue to be illegal. To achieve acceptance of this understanding a massive effort must be undertaken to educate the public and  judges and law makers about the true nature of what Wall Street has been calling securitization.    I have advocated for combining resources to mount a real challenge and to stop this process. Everyone seems to agree. The issue is whether there are  enough people who are willing to step up and be part of a movement that must grow large enough to beat back the entrenched interests of the largest banks in the world.   I don't know what the answer is but there appears to be only way to find out. Let’s stop guessing. So I will carefully monitor incoming communications regarding this effort. We'll see if a collective action is possible. If not, the situation will remain the same --- each homeowner with limited resources out for themselves. Send your comments to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.  Good luck to all of us. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/04/16/now-is-the-time-to-take-down-the-banks-through-mass-joinder</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169597/now_is_the_time_to_take_down_the_banks_through_mass_joinder.mp3" length="28937031" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>For 20 years homeowners have been losing their homes based upon the deep seated belief that despite all the fraud, fabrications and even perjury, somehow the foreclosures are giving money back to people who paid for transactions that were loans. But...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[For 20 years homeowners have been losing their homes based upon the deep seated belief that despite all the fraud, fabrications and even perjury, somehow the foreclosures are giving money back to people who paid for transactions that were loans. But for the banks, this has strictly been an exercise in profit making from the issuance and trading of securities based upon data descriptions and not, as they would have you believe, the sale of any loans.   So foreclosure sales have not produced sales proceeds of money that was forwarded to anyone who paid money for the debt. And under current black letter law in all jurisdictions that means that the foreclosures were and continue to be illegal. To achieve acceptance of this understanding a massive effort must be undertaken to educate the public and  judges and law makers about the true nature of what Wall Street has been calling securitization.    I have advocated for combining resources to mount a real challenge and to stop this process. Everyone seems to agree. The issue is whether there are  enough people who are willing to step up and be part of a movement that must grow large enough to beat back the entrenched interests of the largest banks in the world.   I don't know what the answer is but there appears to be only way to find out. Let’s stop guessing. So I will carefully monitor incoming communications regarding this effort. We'll see if a collective action is possible. If not, the situation will remain the same --- each homeowner with limited resources out for themselves. Send your comments to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.  Good luck to all of us. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>champerty,foreclosure,maintenance,mass joinder,royalty</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Dealing effectively with continuing Institutional Bias in COVID-19 era</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/dealing-effectively-with-continuing-institutional-bias-in-covid-19-era--63169653</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he is taking the fight to the Defendants in his Oregon case, previously discussed on the Show, which Defendants are now seeking massive attorney's fees, over six-figures. The same Defendants who managed to secure a judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, are claiming now this same Court has jurisdiction to bring an attorney's fee motion never raised in previous pleadings.   Charles Marshall will discuss how the ongoing institutional bias issues long present in foreclosure law cases is stubbornly creating a messy and patchwork terrain for borrowers to navigate in the COVID-19 era, with a focus on California. He will address this through an update of particularly the latest California-based coronavirus-related developments in court access, foreclosures, and post-auction evictions.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/04/09/dealing-effectively-with-continuing-institutional-bias-in-covid-19-era</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169653/dealing_effectively_with_continuing_institutional_bias_in_covid_19_era.mp3" length="28390340" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he is taking the fight to the Defendants in his Oregon case, previously discussed on the Show, which Defendants are now seeking massive attorney's fees, over six-figures. The same Defendants who managed...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo will discuss on the Show today how he is taking the fight to the Defendants in his Oregon case, previously discussed on the Show, which Defendants are now seeking massive attorney's fees, over six-figures. The same Defendants who managed to secure a judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, are claiming now this same Court has jurisdiction to bring an attorney's fee motion never raised in previous pleadings.   Charles Marshall will discuss how the ongoing institutional bias issues long present in foreclosure law cases is stubbornly creating a messy and patchwork terrain for borrowers to navigate in the COVID-19 era, with a focus on California. He will address this through an update of particularly the latest California-based coronavirus-related developments in court access, foreclosures, and post-auction evictions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1775</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bill paatalo oregon case,coronavirus,covid-19,foreclosure moratorium,post-auction evictions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Get it right this time! Foreclosure Moratoriums? Forbearance?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/get-it-right-this-time-foreclosure-moratoriums-forbearance--63169580</link><description><![CDATA[Government and business and banks are announcing various efforts to stave off a total economic  collapse. Moratoriums and have been announced.  Forbearance programs have been announced with little details as to how these programs will impact the average homeowner or renter. Publix just announced that it won’t charge rent to tenants in shopping centers it owns.        But as usual the devil is in the details. Delaying foreclosure when it shouldn’t have happened in the first place is not the answer. We all know that the Lorraine Brown guilty plea to falsifying over 1 million documents led to a 50 state settlement which netted homeowners a $300 check and maintained the use of falsified documents.       Rahm Emmanuel former Chief of Staff to president Obama said that every crisis should be also taken as an opportunity. This is our opportunity to get things right so we come back stronger instead of weaker from this ordeal. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/04/02/get-it-right-this-time-foreclosure-moratoriums-forbearance</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169580/get_it_right_this_time_foreclosure_moratoriums_forbearance.mp3" length="28772355" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Government and business and banks are announcing various efforts to stave off a total economic  collapse. Moratoriums and have been announced.  Forbearance programs have been announced with little details as to how these programs will impact the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Government and business and banks are announcing various efforts to stave off a total economic  collapse. Moratoriums and have been announced.  Forbearance programs have been announced with little details as to how these programs will impact the average homeowner or renter. Publix just announced that it won’t charge rent to tenants in shopping centers it owns.        But as usual the devil is in the details. Delaying foreclosure when it shouldn’t have happened in the first place is not the answer. We all know that the Lorraine Brown guilty plea to falsifying over 1 million documents led to a 50 state settlement which netted homeowners a $300 check and maintained the use of falsified documents.       Rahm Emmanuel former Chief of Staff to president Obama said that every crisis should be also taken as an opportunity. This is our opportunity to get things right so we come back stronger instead of weaker from this ordeal. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1799</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fabricated documents,false claims,foreclosure forbearance,foreclosure moratorium,lorraine brown</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>COVID-19 aka Coronavirus Latest on Pandemic in its impact on foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/covid-19-aka-coronavirus-latest-on-pandemic-in-its-impact-on-foreclosures--63169601</link><description><![CDATA[COVID-19 topics discussed on the Show today are as follows:   - How states are issuing both in judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states foreclosure and eviction moratoriums of various kinds;   - How borrowers can potentially bring in California declaratory or injuctive relief lawsuits if any notice of default (NOD) is filed against them at this time, on the basis that such an NOD per se violates Governor Newsome's order to 'shelter in place' statewide, which among other things probhibits public gatherings. This order therefore makes holding foreclosure auctions impossible in California, without violating this order;   - How states such as Calfornia are closing or limiting access to county recorders, and the implications this has for the recording of notice of defaults (NODs), and Notice of Trustee's Sales (NOTSs); - How court access both Federal and State is being heavily restricted and what this means for borrowers, from both a positive and negative point of view; - Bill will discuss the COVID-19 impact on forensic loan audits and the intel gathering he does in his nvestigative work on behalf of borrowers;   - Expanding on what Neil discussed last week in his own coronavirus update show, how legal procedure potentially will change in the coming months to accommodate a more virtual access to courts, legal procedure, etc, which will have impacts both positive and negative for borrowers;                                                ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/03/26/covid-19-aka-coronavirus-latest-on-pandemic-in-its-impact-on-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169601/covid_19_aka_coronavirus_latest_on_pandemic_in_its_impact_on_foreclosures.mp3" length="28373204" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>COVID-19 topics discussed on the Show today are as follows:   - How states are issuing both in judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states foreclosure and eviction moratoriums of various kinds;   - How borrowers can potentially bring in California...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[COVID-19 topics discussed on the Show today are as follows:   - How states are issuing both in judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states foreclosure and eviction moratoriums of various kinds;   - How borrowers can potentially bring in California declaratory or injuctive relief lawsuits if any notice of default (NOD) is filed against them at this time, on the basis that such an NOD per se violates Governor Newsome's order to 'shelter in place' statewide, which among other things probhibits public gatherings. This order therefore makes holding foreclosure auctions impossible in California, without violating this order;   - How states such as Calfornia are closing or limiting access to county recorders, and the implications this has for the recording of notice of defaults (NODs), and Notice of Trustee's Sales (NOTSs); - How court access both Federal and State is being heavily restricted and what this means for borrowers, from both a positive and negative point of view; - Bill will discuss the COVID-19 impact on forensic loan audits and the intel gathering he does in his nvestigative work on behalf of borrowers;   - Expanding on what Neil discussed last week in his own coronavirus update show, how legal procedure potentially will change in the coming months to accommodate a more virtual access to courts, legal procedure, etc, which will have impacts both positive and negative for borrowers;                                                ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1774</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>coronavirus,county recorders,court closings,covid-19,virtual access</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Corona Virus and Mortgage Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/corona-virus-and-mortgage-foreclosures--63169599</link><description><![CDATA[We are at the beginning of an epidemic. As usual information has been scarce and only highly placed government officials and scientists are in possession of the real data, and analysis and projections. What we do know is that more and more local governments and businesses are leading the way to contain the spread of the Corona virus. Among those steps have been enforced  social distancing, closing malls, bars, restaurants, cruises and flights, and various forms of moratoriums on evictions, foreclosure filings, and other legal proceedings.   Neil hosts tonight show with tips on how to use this short window of opportunity to your advantage and some tips on how to avoid getting trapped into thinking that the foreclosure is gone.    A good time to start the challenge is with each new statement or notice received from some third party claiming the right to administer, collect, service or enforce your debt. Starting early brings the best results. And the best results are when the homeowner wins the case. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/03/19/corona-virus-and-mortgage-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169599/corona_virus_and_mortgage_foreclosures.mp3" length="27800182" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We are at the beginning of an epidemic. As usual information has been scarce and only highly placed government officials and scientists are in possession of the real data, and analysis and projections. What we do know is that more and more local...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We are at the beginning of an epidemic. As usual information has been scarce and only highly placed government officials and scientists are in possession of the real data, and analysis and projections. What we do know is that more and more local governments and businesses are leading the way to contain the spread of the Corona virus. Among those steps have been enforced  social distancing, closing malls, bars, restaurants, cruises and flights, and various forms of moratoriums on evictions, foreclosure filings, and other legal proceedings.   Neil hosts tonight show with tips on how to use this short window of opportunity to your advantage and some tips on how to avoid getting trapped into thinking that the foreclosure is gone.    A good time to start the challenge is with each new statement or notice received from some third party claiming the right to administer, collect, service or enforce your debt. Starting early brings the best results. And the best results are when the homeowner wins the case. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1738</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>corona,foreclosures,remote deposition,virtual court,virus</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorneys for Banks now using Google to find non-existent clients</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorneys-for-banks-now-using-google-to-find-non-existent-clients--63169658</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo discusses on the Show today a case out of the judicial foreclosure state of Kentucky, in which the Defendant has countersued the foreclosing 'Trust'--Chrisitiana Trust, A Division of Wilingmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. See Bill Paatalo's Blog post from March 5, 2020, and Neil's Blog for further case details, etc.   The attorney retained by the Servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, tried recently to withdraw from the case, conceding on the record as a basis for the withdraw, that while he had contact with SPS, who retained and communicated with him re the lawsuit filed at the direction, ostensibly on behalf of the Christiana Trust (CT), CT disavowed having any contact with SPS re the mortgage loan at issue, and further stating that there is no legal entity attached to the lawsuit from CT.   Mr. Hill filed the motion to withdraw as legal counsel, because the countersuit filed by Defendant, led him to confirm with CT that he would legally represent them as a named Plaintiff on same counterclaims. Yet he literally could contact no one at CT who represented being connected to the lawsuit, and thus could not confirm retainer arrangements--re either the representation--or any retainer payment to cover his potential legal fees.   The Court did the right thing here, refusing to let him out of the case. We will discuss on the Show today what this means for borrowers around the country.   One aspect to this: How to use discovery to ferret out this type of situation, or a similar one, in foreclosure cases, either judicial or non-judicial cases.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/03/12/attorneys-for-banks-now-using-google-to-find-non-existent-clients</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2020 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169658/attorneys_for_banks_now_using_google_to_find_non_existent_clients.mp3" length="28460557" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo discusses on the Show today a case out of the judicial foreclosure state of Kentucky, in which the Defendant has countersued the foreclosing 'Trust'--Chrisitiana Trust, A Division of Wilingmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. See Bill...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo discusses on the Show today a case out of the judicial foreclosure state of Kentucky, in which the Defendant has countersued the foreclosing 'Trust'--Chrisitiana Trust, A Division of Wilingmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. See Bill Paatalo's Blog post from March 5, 2020, and Neil's Blog for further case details, etc.   The attorney retained by the Servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, tried recently to withdraw from the case, conceding on the record as a basis for the withdraw, that while he had contact with SPS, who retained and communicated with him re the lawsuit filed at the direction, ostensibly on behalf of the Christiana Trust (CT), CT disavowed having any contact with SPS re the mortgage loan at issue, and further stating that there is no legal entity attached to the lawsuit from CT.   Mr. Hill filed the motion to withdraw as legal counsel, because the countersuit filed by Defendant, led him to confirm with CT that he would legally represent them as a named Plaintiff on same counterclaims. Yet he literally could contact no one at CT who represented being connected to the lawsuit, and thus could not confirm retainer arrangements--re either the representation--or any retainer payment to cover his potential legal fees.   The Court did the right thing here, refusing to let him out of the case. We will discuss on the Show today what this means for borrowers around the country.   One aspect to this: How to use discovery to ferret out this type of situation, or a similar one, in foreclosure cases, either judicial or non-judicial cases.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1779</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>christiana trust,countersuits,motion to withdraw as counsel,wilmington savings fund societ</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Sneak Preview of Upcoming Webinar Topics and Their Relevance</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/sneak-preview-of-upcoming-webinar-topics-and-their-relevance--63169591</link><description><![CDATA[Syllabus for Webinars Covered in Brief      What Trust? An overview of securitization TILA Rescission Why Lawyers Should Get Involved You signed, didn’t you? Legal Presumptions Absence of evidence: Discovery strategies and tactics Objection! Lack of  foundation! Rules of evidence and objections Illegal (wrongful) Auction Sale: Proactive litigation You want me to leave? Defending Eviction and Unlawful Detainer Bankruptcy and foreclosure How do I prove? Understanding legal procedure That’s wrong! How to figure out the truth. Investigation, affidavits and reports.  But your honor! What to do with the truth  $$$$$!: BUSINESS PLANS: For Paralegals and Attorneys: How to Make Money Defending Foreclosures AND Going After the Banks Disgorgement remedies Injunctive remedies -Prohibitive and Mandatory  Q&amp;A Panel discussion Watering Hole discussion, meet and greet, network Appellate practice Mediation, Modification and Settlement ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/03/05/sneak-preview-of-upcoming-webinar-topics-and-their-relevance</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169591/sneak_preview_of_upcoming_webinar_topics_and_their_relevance.mp3" length="28722200" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Syllabus for Webinars Covered in Brief      What Trust? An overview of securitization TILA Rescission Why Lawyers Should Get Involved You signed, didn’t you? Legal Presumptions Absence of evidence: Discovery strategies and tactics Objection! Lack...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Syllabus for Webinars Covered in Brief      What Trust? An overview of securitization TILA Rescission Why Lawyers Should Get Involved You signed, didn’t you? Legal Presumptions Absence of evidence: Discovery strategies and tactics Objection! Lack of  foundation! Rules of evidence and objections Illegal (wrongful) Auction Sale: Proactive litigation You want me to leave? Defending Eviction and Unlawful Detainer Bankruptcy and foreclosure How do I prove? Understanding legal procedure That’s wrong! How to figure out the truth. Investigation, affidavits and reports.  But your honor! What to do with the truth  $$$$$!: BUSINESS PLANS: For Paralegals and Attorneys: How to Make Money Defending Foreclosures AND Going After the Banks Disgorgement remedies Injunctive remedies -Prohibitive and Mandatory  Q&amp;A Panel discussion Watering Hole discussion, meet and greet, network Appellate practice Mediation, Modification and Settlement ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evdiecne,lawyers,legal pressumptions,rescission,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>CONTRIVED IGNORANCE AND PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/contrived-ignorance-and-plausible-deniability--63169549</link><description><![CDATA[David Luban of Georgetown University Law Center wrote an interesting article re the structure of Contrived Ignorance — involving complex business arrangements of all sorts — where in step one the party acting shields itself from unwanted knowledge, then in step two, performs actions which but for the lack of that knowledge, would be engaged in conduct subject to being interpreted as illegal, and or fraudulent, etc.  In recent discovery responses, MERS’s response to the question: identify the Holder in Due Course of the Note–which note was attached–was “MERS has no information as to which entity is or has been the holder in due course of the subject Note”. Which begs the question: How can MERS then be acting as a bona fide assigner of interest–even as an intermediary for other parties–when they have no knowledge re the bona fides of the assigning party? Contrived ignorance indeed!  On the Show today Charles and Bill will address how servicers are in some instances trying to pass themselves off in Bk court as the holder in due course of a note, without sufficient evidence, or any evidence in some cases.  Also up for discussion: Use of deposition testimony testimony in prior cases involving the same witness, servicer or claimant.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/02/27/contrived-ignorance-and-plausible-deniability</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169549/contrived_ignorance_and_plausible_deniability.mp3" length="28459303" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>David Luban of Georgetown University Law Center wrote an interesting article re the structure of Contrived Ignorance — involving complex business arrangements of all sorts — where in step one the party acting shields itself from unwanted knowledge,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[David Luban of Georgetown University Law Center wrote an interesting article re the structure of Contrived Ignorance — involving complex business arrangements of all sorts — where in step one the party acting shields itself from unwanted knowledge, then in step two, performs actions which but for the lack of that knowledge, would be engaged in conduct subject to being interpreted as illegal, and or fraudulent, etc.  In recent discovery responses, MERS’s response to the question: identify the Holder in Due Course of the Note–which note was attached–was “MERS has no information as to which entity is or has been the holder in due course of the subject Note”. Which begs the question: How can MERS then be acting as a bona fide assigner of interest–even as an intermediary for other parties–when they have no knowledge re the bona fides of the assigning party? Contrived ignorance indeed!  On the Show today Charles and Bill will address how servicers are in some instances trying to pass themselves off in Bk court as the holder in due course of a note, without sufficient evidence, or any evidence in some cases.  Also up for discussion: Use of deposition testimony testimony in prior cases involving the same witness, servicer or claimant.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1779</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>contrived ignorance,depositions,holder in due course,mers,plausible deniability</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>2</itunes:season><itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>WHAT IS EVIDENCE: HOW TO PRESENT IT IN COURT</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-evidence-how-to-present-it-in-court--63169552</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight I am commenting directly on about one dozen submissions to me, mostly from pro se litigants who have submitted affidavits, declarations and exhibits only to have the judge completely disregard them as either not evidence or evidence having no weight.    An affidavit is not evidence. Neither is a declaration. If you say that the trust doesn't exist, that is not evidence either --- because there is no foundation for your testimony. It's true that if the other side fails to object it might come in as evidence but the court will  give it no weight at all unless you say something more.    Most affidavits and declarations are merely repeated denials that the claimant in foreclosure exists or that it has a claim that can be adjudicated in court. Theoretically that denial should be enough to shift the burden onto the attorneys for the claimant to prove their assertions. But the facial validity of documents raises legal presumptions that keeps the burden on the homeowner.    Tonight's show is about how to shift the burden back to the lawyers for the foreclosure mill which is really not representing anyone in court. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/02/20/what-is-evidence-how-to-present-it-in-court</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169552/what_is_evidence_how_to_present_it_in_court.mp3" length="28639862" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight I am commenting directly on about one dozen submissions to me, mostly from pro se litigants who have submitted affidavits, declarations and exhibits only to have the judge completely disregard them as either not evidence or evidence having no...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight I am commenting directly on about one dozen submissions to me, mostly from pro se litigants who have submitted affidavits, declarations and exhibits only to have the judge completely disregard them as either not evidence or evidence having no weight.    An affidavit is not evidence. Neither is a declaration. If you say that the trust doesn't exist, that is not evidence either --- because there is no foundation for your testimony. It's true that if the other side fails to object it might come in as evidence but the court will  give it no weight at all unless you say something more.    Most affidavits and declarations are merely repeated denials that the claimant in foreclosure exists or that it has a claim that can be adjudicated in court. Theoretically that denial should be enough to shift the burden onto the attorneys for the claimant to prove their assertions. But the facial validity of documents raises legal presumptions that keeps the burden on the homeowner.    Tonight's show is about how to shift the burden back to the lawyers for the foreclosure mill which is really not representing anyone in court. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1790</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>affidavits,declarations,evidence,foreclosure defense,objections in court</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>110</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ex Parte TRO and UD Proceedings in non-judicial foreclosure States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ex-parte-tro-and-ud-proceedings-in-non-judicial-foreclosure-states--63169594</link><description><![CDATA[On today's Show Charles Marshall will break down and break out analysis on the following topiics: Using unlawful detainer (UD) legal procedure to increase your leverage as a UD defendant through the filing where appropriate of   - motions to quash;   - demurrers (motions to dismiss);   - Federal Removals;   - bankruptcies.   Then Attorney Marshall will cover the issues that typically arise in setting up TRO ex parte hearings to stop non-judicial foreclosure auctions, including   - the need for a filed lawsuit;    - typical notice requirements;   - timing issues;   - strategies to increase odds of prevailing.            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/02/13/ex-parte-tro-and-ud-proceedings-in-non-judicial-foreclosure-states</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169594/ex_parte_tro_and_ud_proceedings_in_non_judicial_foreclosure_states.mp3" length="28903176" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On today's Show Charles Marshall will break down and break out analysis on the following topiics: Using unlawful detainer (UD) legal procedure to increase your leverage as a UD defendant through the filing where appropriate of   - motions to quash;...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On today's Show Charles Marshall will break down and break out analysis on the following topiics: Using unlawful detainer (UD) legal procedure to increase your leverage as a UD defendant through the filing where appropriate of   - motions to quash;   - demurrers (motions to dismiss);   - Federal Removals;   - bankruptcies.   Then Attorney Marshall will cover the issues that typically arise in setting up TRO ex parte hearings to stop non-judicial foreclosure auctions, including   - the need for a filed lawsuit;    - typical notice requirements;   - timing issues;   - strategies to increase odds of prevailing.            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>109</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to convince the judge that ruling in your favor is the right thing to do</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-convince-the-judge-that-ruling-in-your-favor-is-the-right-thing-to-do--63169667</link><description><![CDATA[The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, Change your strategy, Change your tactics. Change your presentation and be mindful of the facial expressions and concerns expressed by a judge. That is what good trial lawyers do and it is what any pro se litigant must do if they are going to win. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/02/06/how-to-convince-the-judge-that-ruling-in-your-favor-is-the-right-thing-to-do</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169667/how_to_convince_the_judge_that_ruling_in_your_favor_is_the_right_thing_to_do.mp3" length="29304835" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, Change your strategy, Change your tactics. Change your presentation and be mindful of the facial expressions and concerns expressed by a judge....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, Change your strategy, Change your tactics. Change your presentation and be mindful of the facial expressions and concerns expressed by a judge. That is what good trial lawyers do and it is what any pro se litigant must do if they are going to win. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1832</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>court,foreclosure defense,remic,trust,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>108</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>CSA uses and abuses in foreclosure litigation in 2020, plus RICO for Homeowners</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/csa-uses-and-abuses-in-foreclosure-litigation-in-2020-plus-rico-for-homeowners--63169668</link><description><![CDATA[- CSA's, a type of security agreement typically central to the securitized loans of the mortgage meltdown era, are vulerable to being exposed as not capable of conveying title to the institutional 'holder of the debt' behind so many securitized loans. Bill will break this down and out on the Show today, using his own case as a reference point.   - Then we cover RICO principles and how arguments of collusion and conspiracy can be used by homeowners to advance their legal rights against the institutional parties foreclosing on them, using the Florida case of Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., as a orienting point to present important issues re collusion and conspiracy legal theories.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/01/30/csa-uses-and-abuses-in-foreclosure-litigation-in-2020-plus-rico-for-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169668/csa_uses_and_abuses_in_foreclosure_litigation_in_2020_plus_rico_for_homeowners.mp3" length="28981334" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>- CSA's, a type of security agreement typically central to the securitized loans of the mortgage meltdown era, are vulerable to being exposed as not capable of conveying title to the institutional 'holder of the debt' behind so many securitized...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[- CSA's, a type of security agreement typically central to the securitized loans of the mortgage meltdown era, are vulerable to being exposed as not capable of conveying title to the institutional 'holder of the debt' behind so many securitized loans. Bill will break this down and out on the Show today, using his own case as a reference point.   - Then we cover RICO principles and how arguments of collusion and conspiracy can be used by homeowners to advance their legal rights against the institutional parties foreclosing on them, using the Florida case of Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., as a orienting point to present important issues re collusion and conspiracy legal theories.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1812</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>conspiracy,csa,rico,statute of limitations</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>107</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Knock Knock. Who's there? Nobody! You can still lose to a ghost!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/knock-knock-who-s-there-nobody-you-can-still-lose-to-a-ghost--63169587</link><description><![CDATA[In some cases you must hammer home the fact that the lawyers for the foreclosure mill have not presented a legal person who is submitted to the  jurisdiction of the court. The court can’t rule for or against a lawyer who has no client.   But if you don't stop the judge he or she will do it anyway.   This is not the court of Chancery in Bleak House by Dickens where lawyers get to argue motions when nobody knows or cares what the case is about after generations. But sometimes it feels that way.   Tongiht we talk about how to detect whether there is anyone home on the side of the claimant --- besides a lawyer promoting an idea rather than the valid claims of a client who is submitting itself to the jurisdicition of the court.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/01/23/knock-knock-whos-there-nobody-you-can-still-lose-to-a-ghost</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169587/knock_knock_whos_there_nobody_you_can_still_lose_to_a_ghost.mp3" length="29227930" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In some cases you must hammer home the fact that the lawyers for the foreclosure mill have not presented a legal person who is submitted to the  jurisdiction of the court. The court can’t rule for or against a lawyer who has no client.   But if you...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In some cases you must hammer home the fact that the lawyers for the foreclosure mill have not presented a legal person who is submitted to the  jurisdiction of the court. The court can’t rule for or against a lawyer who has no client.   But if you don't stop the judge he or she will do it anyway.   This is not the court of Chancery in Bleak House by Dickens where lawyers get to argue motions when nobody knows or cares what the case is about after generations. But sometimes it feels that way.   Tongiht we talk about how to detect whether there is anyone home on the side of the claimant --- besides a lawyer promoting an idea rather than the valid claims of a client who is submitting itself to the jurisdicition of the court.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1827</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bleak house,dickens,in personam jurisdicition,jurisdiction,subject matter jurisdiction</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>106</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Trends for 2020 Foreclosures What to Anticipate</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/trends-for-2020-foreclosures-what-to-anticipate--63169600</link><description><![CDATA[On today's Show Charles Marshall will break out and break down an analysis of anticipated trends for 2020 in the following foreclosure-impacted llitigation-related areas:   - Unlimited lawsuit litigation, with an emphasis on Plaintiff-borrower litigation in non-judicial foreclosure states like California;   - Appellate litigation in the foreclosure area, with a focus on the 9th Circuit and non-judicial foreclosure cases in the State Appellate Districts of California;   - Unlawful Detainer litigation, with a focus on California cases;   - Bankruptcy practice and litigation related to forclosure issues;   - Novel and Cutting-edge approaches to the Foreclosure arena.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/01/16/trends-for-2020-foreclosures-what-to-anticipate</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169600/trends_for_2020_foreclosures_what_to_anticipate.mp3" length="28863052" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On today's Show Charles Marshall will break out and break down an analysis of anticipated trends for 2020 in the following foreclosure-impacted llitigation-related areas:   - Unlimited lawsuit litigation, with an emphasis on...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On today's Show Charles Marshall will break out and break down an analysis of anticipated trends for 2020 in the following foreclosure-impacted llitigation-related areas:   - Unlimited lawsuit litigation, with an emphasis on Plaintiff-borrower litigation in non-judicial foreclosure states like California;   - Appellate litigation in the foreclosure area, with a focus on the 9th Circuit and non-judicial foreclosure cases in the State Appellate Districts of California;   - Unlawful Detainer litigation, with a focus on California cases;   - Bankruptcy practice and litigation related to forclosure issues;   - Novel and Cutting-edge approaches to the Foreclosure arena.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1804</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,bankruptcy,litigation,trends for 2020,unlawful detainer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>105</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What's in a label? Everything and Nothing! How illegal foreclosures continue</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-s-in-a-label-everything-and-nothing-how-illegal-foreclosures-continue--63169592</link><description><![CDATA[Picking the labels apart   PLAINTIFF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON  FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11   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   How do you lose a case to a claimant with no claim? It’s simple. Let them pretend to have a claim and then watch judgment be entered against you in favor of a claimant without a name. Musical foreclosure chairs.   It all starts with labelling. The banks have long been masters at labelling things to seem like something other than reality. Close reading of the name of the claimant is often a key to a successful defense. Tonight I show you how to do that.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2020/01/09/whats-in-a-label-everything-and-nothing-how-illegal-foreclosures-continue</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169592/whats_in_a_label_everything_and_nothing_how_illegal_foreclosures_continue.mp3" length="28951241" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Picking the labels apart   PLAINTIFF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON  FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11   Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show   Tonight’s...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Picking the labels apart   PLAINTIFF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON  FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11   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   How do you lose a case to a claimant with no claim? It’s simple. Let them pretend to have a claim and then watch judgment be entered against you in favor of a claimant without a name. Musical foreclosure chairs.   It all starts with labelling. The banks have long been masters at labelling things to seem like something other than reality. Close reading of the name of the claimant is often a key to a successful defense. Tonight I show you how to do that.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bank of new york,bony,certificate holders,certificates,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>104</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Turn the Tables On Foreclosure Mills</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-turn-the-tables-on-foreclosure-mills--63169590</link><description><![CDATA[You are asking the wrong question but you have the right idea. There are plenty of cases nationwide saying that enforcement of a mortgage without owning the debt is not allowed. But that isn't enough. The burden is on you to rebut the legal presumption that the claimant has paid for and does own the debt. That presumption arises from the presentation of copies of what appear to be facially valid documents. Sometimes a close look reveals they are not facially valid and that gives you added ammunition. The way you get from Point a to Point B is through discovery. Assuming they have not paid for the debt and don't own it and don't have any authority from anyone who does own the debt, your questions about ownership, agency and authority will not be answered. And that is what changes the narrative if you know what you are doing. Listen to the Neil Garfield Show Tonight at 6Pm EST. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/12/19/how-to-turn-the-tables-on-foreclosure-mills</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169590/how_to_turn_the_tables_on_foreclosure_mills.mp3" length="28413328" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You are asking the wrong question but you have the right idea. There are plenty of cases nationwide saying that enforcement of a mortgage without owning the debt is not allowed. But that isn't enough. The burden is on you to rebut the legal...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You are asking the wrong question but you have the right idea. There are plenty of cases nationwide saying that enforcement of a mortgage without owning the debt is not allowed. But that isn't enough. The burden is on you to rebut the legal presumption that the claimant has paid for and does own the debt. That presumption arises from the presentation of copies of what appear to be facially valid documents. Sometimes a close look reveals they are not facially valid and that gives you added ammunition. The way you get from Point a to Point B is through discovery. Assuming they have not paid for the debt and don't own it and don't have any authority from anyone who does own the debt, your questions about ownership, agency and authority will not be answered. And that is what changes the narrative if you know what you are doing. Listen to the Neil Garfield Show Tonight at 6Pm EST. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1776</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,discovery motions,motion to compel,ownership of debt,value paid</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>103</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Charles Marshall with Bill Paatalo dissects latest re Chase WAMU deal of 2008</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/charles-marshall-with-bill-paatalo-dissects-latest-re-chase-wamu-deal-of-2008--63169611</link><description><![CDATA[On the Show Bill will break down for listeners the following:  - How Chase acquired no genuine legal interest in the mortgage loans sold and securitized by WAMU prior the FDIC takeover of September 25, 2008;  - How an investor code known as AO1 was used by WAMU and Chase to conceal the identities of the actual investors of many WAMU mortgage loans;  - Bill's own foreclosed property in Oregon is both the backdrop and fount for so much of this latest intel.         ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/12/12/charles-marshall-with-bill-paatalo-dissects-latest-re-chase-wamu-deal-of-2008</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169611/charles_marshall_with_bill_paatalo_dissects_latest_re_chase_wamu_deal_of_2008.mp3" length="28658252" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On the Show Bill will break down for listeners the following:  - How Chase acquired no genuine legal interest in the mortgage loans sold and securitized by WAMU prior the FDIC takeover of September 25, 2008;  - How an investor code known as AO1 was...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On the Show Bill will break down for listeners the following:  - How Chase acquired no genuine legal interest in the mortgage loans sold and securitized by WAMU prior the FDIC takeover of September 25, 2008;  - How an investor code known as AO1 was used by WAMU and Chase to conceal the identities of the actual investors of many WAMU mortgage loans;  - Bill's own foreclosed property in Oregon is both the backdrop and fount for so much of this latest intel.         ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>ao1,chase wamu merger,fdic</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>102</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Get Into the Head of the Judge</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-get-into-the-head-of-the-judge--63169602</link><description><![CDATA[ A typical seasoned judge in a community with dense demographics might have been the primary judge or at least a participating or covering judge in about 10,000 foreclosure cases before he hears anything about your case.  In each case the judge renders multiple rulings, opinions and judgment. On average it’s probably about 5 rulings (orders) per case because nearly all cases are not contested by homeowners. That’s around 50,000 orders by that one judge. The odds of any judge saying he or she was wrong 50,000 times is at best delusional.  The odds of any judge entering the courtroom without prior opinions and biases is zero. Period. They are human and if you want something else go to a planet where robots do everything including all the thinking.  So how do I win and how do other attorneys win in foreclosure cases. More importantly if you are a homeowner who is facing foreclosure or who has been subject to foreclosure, how do you plead a claim or defense that ends up being considered credible to a judge who walks into the courtroom believing that he or she has already ruled on this matter 50,000 times and he or she wasn’t wrong.  Start with hiring a trial lawyer.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/12/05/how-to-get-into-the-head-of-the-judge</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169602/how_to_get_into_the_head_of_the_judge.mp3" length="28963780" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle> A typical seasoned judge in a community with dense demographics might have been the primary judge or at least a participating or covering judge in about 10,000 foreclosure cases before he hears anything about your case.  In each case the judge...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[ A typical seasoned judge in a community with dense demographics might have been the primary judge or at least a participating or covering judge in about 10,000 foreclosure cases before he hears anything about your case.  In each case the judge renders multiple rulings, opinions and judgment. On average it’s probably about 5 rulings (orders) per case because nearly all cases are not contested by homeowners. That’s around 50,000 orders by that one judge. The odds of any judge saying he or she was wrong 50,000 times is at best delusional.  The odds of any judge entering the courtroom without prior opinions and biases is zero. Period. They are human and if you want something else go to a planet where robots do everything including all the thinking.  So how do I win and how do other attorneys win in foreclosure cases. More importantly if you are a homeowner who is facing foreclosure or who has been subject to foreclosure, how do you plead a claim or defense that ends up being considered credible to a judge who walks into the courtroom believing that he or she has already ruled on this matter 50,000 times and he or she wasn’t wrong.  Start with hiring a trial lawyer.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,foreclosure defense,motion to compel,trial judge,trial practice</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>101</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Patrick Giunta Talks About How he Wins Foreclosure Cases</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/patrick-giunta-talks-about-how-he-wins-foreclosure-cases--63169557</link><description><![CDATA[One of the many things that irks me is how the banks are getting good press for reducing the number of foreclosures, as though that was an accomplishment. The fact is that they should not have been able to foreclose any of the properties that were subject to claims of securitization both for technical reasons and because the proceeds of sale under those foreclosures went to players who were booking the proceeds as revenue and so they were not turning over any money to anyone who had paid value for the debt.        That is why an industry that created and wrote all of the forms, documents and laws governing banking had to resort to the creation of fake forms and documents to invoke the use of laws that  the real facts don’t fit.       Patrick Giunta is a well-respected lawyer in South Florida whose general practice has put him on all ends of v virtually any transaction you can think about, especially residential loans. I’ve worked with him on and off for years and while we have our vigorous discussions I have always admired his tenacity, wit, and ability to see things from all sides.        He wins because he thinks he should, and that I think is the key difference between lawyers like Patrick Giunta and lawyers who consistently lose defending homeowners in foreclosure cases.    Law Offices of Patrick Giunta, P.A.   https://www.pgpalaw.com/   954-406-2649   800-655-9828]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/11/14/patrick-giunta-talks-about-how-he-wins-foreclosure-cases</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169557/patrick_giunta_talks_about_how_he_wins_foreclosure_cases.mp3" length="28534954" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>One of the many things that irks me is how the banks are getting good press for reducing the number of foreclosures, as though that was an accomplishment. The fact is that they should not have been able to foreclose any of the properties that...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[One of the many things that irks me is how the banks are getting good press for reducing the number of foreclosures, as though that was an accomplishment. The fact is that they should not have been able to foreclose any of the properties that were subject to claims of securitization both for technical reasons and because the proceeds of sale under those foreclosures went to players who were booking the proceeds as revenue and so they were not turning over any money to anyone who had paid value for the debt.        That is why an industry that created and wrote all of the forms, documents and laws governing banking had to resort to the creation of fake forms and documents to invoke the use of laws that  the real facts don’t fit.       Patrick Giunta is a well-respected lawyer in South Florida whose general practice has put him on all ends of v virtually any transaction you can think about, especially residential loans. I’ve worked with him on and off for years and while we have our vigorous discussions I have always admired his tenacity, wit, and ability to see things from all sides.        He wins because he thinks he should, and that I think is the key difference between lawyers like Patrick Giunta and lawyers who consistently lose defending homeowners in foreclosure cases.    Law Offices of Patrick Giunta, P.A.   https://www.pgpalaw.com/   954-406-2649   800-655-9828]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>patrick giunta,proof at trial,winning foreclosure cases</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>100</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Don't Admit Anything! Don't Assume Anything!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/don-t-admit-anything-don-t-assume-anything--63169617</link><description><![CDATA[One of the frustrating things about reading reports prepared by people who call themselves forensic examiners is their continual explanation of the content of false documentation. They are assuming facts about which they know nothing and using that report in support of your defenses or allegations can result in admissions against interest.  Such admissions by lawyers and pro se litigants are the main reason why foreclosure mills win. And they make such admissions against interest because they have not mastered the counter-intuitive nature of the securitization process.  Specifically that the securitization of residential mortgage debt was in reality an exercise in converting assets of investors and borrowers to revenue of the brokers.  Foreclosures are just another part of that process of revenue production. Foreclosure have nothing to do with paying off the debt --- a fact which is completely lost on borrowers, their attorneys, the courts and even many people in foreclosure mills.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/11/07/dont-admit-anything-dont-assume-anything</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169617/dont_admit_anything_dont_assume_anything.mp3" length="28771937" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>One of the frustrating things about reading reports prepared by people who call themselves forensic examiners is their continual explanation of the content of false documentation. They are assuming facts about which they know nothing and using that...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[One of the frustrating things about reading reports prepared by people who call themselves forensic examiners is their continual explanation of the content of false documentation. They are assuming facts about which they know nothing and using that report in support of your defenses or allegations can result in admissions against interest.  Such admissions by lawyers and pro se litigants are the main reason why foreclosure mills win. And they make such admissions against interest because they have not mastered the counter-intuitive nature of the securitization process.  Specifically that the securitization of residential mortgage debt was in reality an exercise in converting assets of investors and borrowers to revenue of the brokers.  Foreclosures are just another part of that process of revenue production. Foreclosure have nothing to do with paying off the debt --- a fact which is completely lost on borrowers, their attorneys, the courts and even many people in foreclosure mills.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1799</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>admissions,assumptions,debt,foreclosure,securitzation</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>99</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Russ Baldwin and the Art of Pleading</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/russ-baldwin-and-the-art-of-pleading--63169644</link><description><![CDATA[The ghosts and goblins of 2008 are still causing trouble. Some things don’t change and others do. As I have been reporting on my blog, there are several attorneys who have taken the time to research and analyze the pleadings and proof issues involved with self-serving claims of securitization.        Everyone thinks they know THE LAW but the evidence is that they don’t know how to use the law. The truth is that foreclosure mills are largely relying upon argument in lieu of both pleading and proof. Russ Baldwin is taking the fun out of that.        Russ Baldwin, attorney in the state of Oregon, joins tonight with my friend Bill Paatalo to talk about the very exquisite and nuanced pleading he just filed in a case where the Homeowner is seeking ejectment of a person who supposedly bought the property. Russ is one of the lawyers who brought to my attention the issues regarding recoupment, which could avoid statutes of limitation and have the potential of defeating the claim for money entirely and therefore the claim for foreclosure.        Here, Baldwin expertly kneecaps the opposing attorneys by challenging them to actually plead the facts that they want the court to assume are true. They don’t want to do that and Russ is now well positioned to make this issue a defining turning point in what is required from attorneys who represent to a court that they represent a named party whom they want the court to presume is the beneficiary under a Deed of trust. As an added measure the case involves a timely sent notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635 of the truth in lending act.  ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/10/31/russ-baldwin-and-the-art-of-pleading</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169644/russ_baldwin_and_the_art_of_pleading.mp3" length="43298108" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The ghosts and goblins of 2008 are still causing trouble. Some things don’t change and others do. As I have been reporting on my blog, there are several attorneys who have taken the time to research and analyze the pleadings and proof issues involved...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The ghosts and goblins of 2008 are still causing trouble. Some things don’t change and others do. As I have been reporting on my blog, there are several attorneys who have taken the time to research and analyze the pleadings and proof issues involved with self-serving claims of securitization.        Everyone thinks they know THE LAW but the evidence is that they don’t know how to use the law. The truth is that foreclosure mills are largely relying upon argument in lieu of both pleading and proof. Russ Baldwin is taking the fun out of that.        Russ Baldwin, attorney in the state of Oregon, joins tonight with my friend Bill Paatalo to talk about the very exquisite and nuanced pleading he just filed in a case where the Homeowner is seeking ejectment of a person who supposedly bought the property. Russ is one of the lawyers who brought to my attention the issues regarding recoupment, which could avoid statutes of limitation and have the potential of defeating the claim for money entirely and therefore the claim for foreclosure.        Here, Baldwin expertly kneecaps the opposing attorneys by challenging them to actually plead the facts that they want the court to assume are true. They don’t want to do that and Russ is now well positioned to make this issue a defining turning point in what is required from attorneys who represent to a court that they represent a named party whom they want the court to presume is the beneficiary under a Deed of trust. As an added measure the case involves a timely sent notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635 of the truth in lending act.  ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2707</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>argument in lieu of pleading,motion for summary judgment,pleading</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>98</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Revisiting a recent Florida win against a US Bank Trust LSF9</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/revisiting-a-recent-florida-win-against-a-us-bank-trust-lsf9--63169674</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to break down even further the important win in a Florida case involving a US Bank LSF9 Trust. They also discuss and expand on how Fidelity Title is illegally circumventing recording statutes, re power of attorney rules involved in property title issues. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/10/24/revisiting-a-recent-florida-win-against-a-us-bank-trust-lsf9</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169674/revisiting_a_recent_florida_win_against_a_us_bank_trust_lsf9.mp3" length="28847169" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to break down even further the important win in a Florida case involving a US Bank LSF9 Trust. They also discuss and expand on how Fidelity Title is illegally circumventing recording statutes, re power of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to break down even further the important win in a Florida case involving a US Bank LSF9 Trust. They also discuss and expand on how Fidelity Title is illegally circumventing recording statutes, re power of attorney rules involved in property title issues. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fidelity national title insura,power of attorney,us bank trust lsf9</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>97</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What is my defense narrative in foreclosure?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-my-defense-narrative-in-foreclosure--63169573</link><description><![CDATA[The defense narrative is a blueprint for guiding the strategies and tactics of defense of a foreclosure action. It is not necessarily what you say to the judge or write in a pleading or memorandum. It is your theory of the case. In all court cases the litigants are required to make certain assumptions of fact and law to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory. If you don’t have a case narrative then your presentation will be chaotic and will not be persuasive, because it doesn’t make any sense.   This is a program intended to expand your awareness of procedural law which is the basis for all judgments and orders entered by any court. The rules of procedure and the laws of evidence, presumptions and inferences are not well understood by most lawyers much less pro se litigants who have no legal training. But procedure is where the homeowner can win --- if you understand your own side of the case. That is the defense narrative.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/10/17/what-is-my-defense-narrative-in-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169573/what_is_my_defense_narrative_in_foreclosure.mp3" length="28981334" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The defense narrative is a blueprint for guiding the strategies and tactics of defense of a foreclosure action. It is not necessarily what you say to the judge or write in a pleading or memorandum. It is your theory of the case. In all court cases the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The defense narrative is a blueprint for guiding the strategies and tactics of defense of a foreclosure action. It is not necessarily what you say to the judge or write in a pleading or memorandum. It is your theory of the case. In all court cases the litigants are required to make certain assumptions of fact and law to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory. If you don’t have a case narrative then your presentation will be chaotic and will not be persuasive, because it doesn’t make any sense.   This is a program intended to expand your awareness of procedural law which is the basis for all judgments and orders entered by any court. The rules of procedure and the laws of evidence, presumptions and inferences are not well understood by most lawyers much less pro se litigants who have no legal training. But procedure is where the homeowner can win --- if you understand your own side of the case. That is the defense narrative.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1812</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evidence,finance,inference,presumption,procedure</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>96</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How Foreclosure Defense Attorneys are Winning Cases: Case Study in Florida</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-foreclosure-defense-attorneys-are-winning-cases-case-study-in-florida--63169605</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we discuss the strategies and reasons for homeowners to win foreclosure cases.  Specifically we look at yet another case where a homeowner did win, hands down game over.  see https://livinglies.me/2019/10/09/patrick-giunta-esq-scores-another-homeowner-win-in-south-florida-v-us-bank-trustee-lsf9-master-participation-trust-william-paatalo-expert-testifies/  Foreclosure statistics could be vastly different if all foreclosures were seriously contested and that court bias would be bending the other way if the foreclosures were strongly contested. In plain language the homeowners could be winning at least 68% of foreclosure cases and the resulting softening of court bias could easily raise that to 95%.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/10/10/how-foreclosure-defense-attorneys-are-winning-cases-case-study-in-florida</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169605/how_foreclosure_defense_attorneys_are_winning_cases_case_study_in_florida.mp3" length="29008502" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we discuss the strategies and reasons for homeowners to win foreclosure cases.  Specifically we look at yet another case where a homeowner did win, hands down game over....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we discuss the strategies and reasons for homeowners to win foreclosure cases.  Specifically we look at yet another case where a homeowner did win, hands down game over.  see https://livinglies.me/2019/10/09/patrick-giunta-esq-scores-another-homeowner-win-in-south-florida-v-us-bank-trustee-lsf9-master-participation-trust-william-paatalo-expert-testifies/  Foreclosure statistics could be vastly different if all foreclosures were seriously contested and that court bias would be bending the other way if the foreclosures were strongly contested. In plain language the homeowners could be winning at least 68% of foreclosure cases and the resulting softening of court bias could easily raise that to 95%.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>caliber,failure of proof,judicial foreclosure in florid,lsf9 master participation trus,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>95</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Trends in California Non-Judicial Foreclosure Appellate Litigation</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/trends-in-california-non-judicial-foreclosure-appellate-litigation--63169608</link><description><![CDATA[Re non-judicial foreclosure non-judicial foreclosure lawsuits, which are on appeal in California, Today's Show will cover the following:  - where chain of title argument is still getting traction at the appellate level;  - how breach of contract argument is getting traction when chain of title argument is not;  - how appellate courts might handle California Homeowner Bill of Rights cases, given the impending ending of the legislation on December 31, 2019;  - how to limit appellate courts from narrowily framing lower court and appellate briefing argument to kill appeals without truly addressing the most fundamental legal arguments re chain of title issues and the lender's right to collect on the note and associated deed of trust.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/10/03/trends-in-california-non-judicial-foreclosure-appellate-litigation</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169608/trends_in_california_non_judicial_foreclosure_appellate_litigation.mp3" length="28973393" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Re non-judicial foreclosure non-judicial foreclosure lawsuits, which are on appeal in California, Today's Show will cover the following:  - where chain of title argument is still getting traction at the appellate level;  - how breach of contract...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Re non-judicial foreclosure non-judicial foreclosure lawsuits, which are on appeal in California, Today's Show will cover the following:  - where chain of title argument is still getting traction at the appellate level;  - how breach of contract argument is getting traction when chain of title argument is not;  - how appellate courts might handle California Homeowner Bill of Rights cases, given the impending ending of the legislation on December 31, 2019;  - how to limit appellate courts from narrowily framing lower court and appellate briefing argument to kill appeals without truly addressing the most fundamental legal arguments re chain of title issues and the lender's right to collect on the note and associated deed of trust.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>breach of contract,california appeals,california homeowner bill of r,non-judicial foreclosure appea</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>94</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Legal Presumptions --- The Key to Winning and Losing Foreclosure Cases</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/legal-presumptions-the-key-to-winning-and-losing-foreclosure-cases--63169554</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight We’ll talk about how to understand and use legal presumptions to defeat illegal foreclosures. The key to persuading the court is logic applied to every day experience. And remember that the key in every foreclosure is the money trail. That means who paid for the debt, and who now is carrying the debt on their books as a loan receivable which has not been sold.    It is not enough to deny or even assert an affirmative defense that the party claiming the right to foreclose does not exist, or that they have no legal claim or that they have not paid value for the debt. And those who ask “how do  I prove that?” are asking the wrong question. You can’t prove it unless they admit it and they will never do that. But just as legal inferences and presumptions can be used against you, they can also be used for you and against them.    Through the careful and aggressive use of discovery you can raise the inference that they don't own the debt adn therefore that they have no claim for foreclosure. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/09/26/legal-presumptions---the-key-to-winning-and-losing-foreclosure-cases</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169554/legal_presumptions_the_key_to_winning_and_losing_foreclosure_cases.mp3" length="28907774" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight We’ll talk about how to understand and use legal presumptions to defeat illegal foreclosures. The key to persuading the court is logic applied to every day experience. And remember that the key in every foreclosure is the money trail. That...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight We’ll talk about how to understand and use legal presumptions to defeat illegal foreclosures. The key to persuading the court is logic applied to every day experience. And remember that the key in every foreclosure is the money trail. That means who paid for the debt, and who now is carrying the debt on their books as a loan receivable which has not been sold.    It is not enough to deny or even assert an affirmative defense that the party claiming the right to foreclose does not exist, or that they have no legal claim or that they have not paid value for the debt. And those who ask “how do  I prove that?” are asking the wrong question. You can’t prove it unless they admit it and they will never do that. But just as legal inferences and presumptions can be used against you, they can also be used for you and against them.    Through the careful and aggressive use of discovery you can raise the inference that they don't own the debt adn therefore that they have no claim for foreclosure. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>conclusions of fact,foreclosure,legal inferences,legal rpesumptions,payment of value</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>93</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Discovery on Defendants Well Applied in a California Lawsuit</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/discovery-on-defendants-well-applied-in-a-california-lawsuit--63169634</link><description><![CDATA[Today we discsus on the Show the California case of Bienfeld, et al. v. Ditech Financial, LLC, et al. This case involves as a Defendant Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the purported Trustee of a securitized trust at the heart of the lawsuit. While Ditech itself is in bankruptcy protection in a Chapter 11 in New York State, its co-defendant here BNYM is not covered by any potential bk automatic stay.  A pending motion for summary judgment has been continued as the Judge here has partially sided with Plaintiffs to compel Defendant BNYM to provide further and genuine responses to the following issues: chain of title re the subject loan; the transfer, sale, and purchase of the loan; the relationship between the trust beneficiary and its agents/loan servicers, etc.  Critical to the Judge's order here is the viewing of evidence related to these matters being so critical that the motion for summary judgment was continued to enable Plaintiffs to seek such evidence to more adequately respond to the MSJ itself.  One other interesting wrinkle to this case: The demand and the providing of (here, apparently illegitimate) Certifications of Trustee, which certifications are just that, certifications that the mortgage note at issue is in fact legally part of the securitized trust with which it is supposed to be associated.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/09/19/discovery-on-defendants-well-applied-in-a-california-lawsuit</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169634/discovery_on_defendants_well_applied_in_a_california_lawsuit.mp3" length="28992619" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today we discsus on the Show the California case of Bienfeld, et al. v. Ditech Financial, LLC, et al. This case involves as a Defendant Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the purported Trustee of a securitized trust at the heart of the lawsuit. While...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today we discsus on the Show the California case of Bienfeld, et al. v. Ditech Financial, LLC, et al. This case involves as a Defendant Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the purported Trustee of a securitized trust at the heart of the lawsuit. While Ditech itself is in bankruptcy protection in a Chapter 11 in New York State, its co-defendant here BNYM is not covered by any potential bk automatic stay.  A pending motion for summary judgment has been continued as the Judge here has partially sided with Plaintiffs to compel Defendant BNYM to provide further and genuine responses to the following issues: chain of title re the subject loan; the transfer, sale, and purchase of the loan; the relationship between the trust beneficiary and its agents/loan servicers, etc.  Critical to the Judge's order here is the viewing of evidence related to these matters being so critical that the motion for summary judgment was continued to enable Plaintiffs to seek such evidence to more adequately respond to the MSJ itself.  One other interesting wrinkle to this case: The demand and the providing of (here, apparently illegitimate) Certifications of Trustee, which certifications are just that, certifications that the mortgage note at issue is in fact legally part of the securitized trust with which it is supposed to be associated.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bnym,borrower discovery on lenders,certifications of trustee,motions to compel further disc</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>92</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tonight! How Homeowners Win Foreclosure Cases: Procedure v Substantive Law</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tonight-how-homeowners-win-foreclosure-cases-procedure-v-substantive-law--63169670</link><description><![CDATA[The difference between winning and losing is whether you are using procedural law to your advantage or you naively enter the courtroom believing that a substantive law will save you.  Spoiler alert #1: The substantive law is irrelevant until you make it relevant.  Spoiler alert #2: The court doesn't want to let you make it relevant.  Tonight we will talk about the the Litigation Menu that leads to winning foreclosure cases. As always my premise, proved true in thousands of cases, is that there is not a single transaction in which anyone has purchased or funded the debt. This is counterintuitive but once you allow for the possibility that it is true, the doors are open to victory.  [By "anyone" I mean anyone in the chain relied upon by the party claiming foreclosure. Hint: You don't need to prove who has a financial interest in the loan performance. You just need to reveal the fact that the claimant has no such interest.]   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/09/12/tonight-how-homeowners-win-foreclosure-cases-procedure-v-substantive-law</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169670/tonight_how_homeowners_win_foreclosure_cases_procedure_v_substantive_law.mp3" length="28952495" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The difference between winning and losing is whether you are using procedural law to your advantage or you naively enter the courtroom believing that a substantive law will save you.  Spoiler alert #1: The substantive law is irrelevant until you make...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The difference between winning and losing is whether you are using procedural law to your advantage or you naively enter the courtroom believing that a substantive law will save you.  Spoiler alert #1: The substantive law is irrelevant until you make it relevant.  Spoiler alert #2: The court doesn't want to let you make it relevant.  Tonight we will talk about the the Litigation Menu that leads to winning foreclosure cases. As always my premise, proved true in thousands of cases, is that there is not a single transaction in which anyone has purchased or funded the debt. This is counterintuitive but once you allow for the possibility that it is true, the doors are open to victory.  [By "anyone" I mean anyone in the chain relied upon by the party claiming foreclosure. Hint: You don't need to prove who has a financial interest in the loan performance. You just need to reveal the fact that the claimant has no such interest.]   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bank of new york mellon,deutsch bank,lasalle bank,us bank,wells fargo bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>91</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Advancing and Defending discovery when defending an Unlawful Detainer lawsuit</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/advancing-and-defending-discovery-when-defending-an-unlawful-detainer-lawsuit--63169555</link><description><![CDATA[Today's Show will cover the following topics, all related to unlawful detainer lawsuits following a non-judicial foreclosure sale:   - Issuing written discovery on the UD Plaintiff when that Plaintiff is the so-called Beneficiary of the 'loan', not a Third-Party purchaser;   - Issuing discovery on the UD Plaintiff when that Plaintiff is a Third-Party purchaser;   - Responding to discovery from either a 'Beneficiary' or a Third-Party Purchaser;   - Trends in Negotiating final settlements  and Move-outs from Subject Properties following a non-judicial foreclosure Sale, covering both the situation which applies when the UD Plaintiff is a 'Beneficiary', and when the Plaintiff is a Third-Party Purchaser.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/09/05/advancing-and-defending-discovery-when-defending-an-unlawful-detainer-lawsuit</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169555/advancing_and_defending_discovery_when_defending_an_unlawful_detainer_lawsuit.mp3" length="29115917" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today's Show will cover the following topics, all related to unlawful detainer lawsuits following a non-judicial foreclosure sale:   - Issuing written discovery on the UD Plaintiff when that Plaintiff is the so-called Beneficiary of the 'loan', not a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today's Show will cover the following topics, all related to unlawful detainer lawsuits following a non-judicial foreclosure sale:   - Issuing written discovery on the UD Plaintiff when that Plaintiff is the so-called Beneficiary of the 'loan', not a Third-Party purchaser;   - Issuing discovery on the UD Plaintiff when that Plaintiff is a Third-Party purchaser;   - Responding to discovery from either a 'Beneficiary' or a Third-Party Purchaser;   - Trends in Negotiating final settlements  and Move-outs from Subject Properties following a non-judicial foreclosure Sale, covering both the situation which applies when the UD Plaintiff is a 'Beneficiary', and when the Plaintiff is a Third-Party Purchaser.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1820</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>beneficiaries,negotiations,non-judicial foreclosures,unlawful detainer lawsuits,written discovery</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>90</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Fannie Mae Deponent admits no agency exists between MERS and Fannie Mae</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fannie-mae-deponent-admits-no-agency-exists-between-mers-and-fannie-mae--63169595</link><description><![CDATA[Going back to even 2011 and before, approximately half of the mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae were registered in the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). And the loan value on the official books re such loans was and undoubtledly still is over a trillion dollars. In a recent deposition in a case Bill is associated with, a Fannie Mae official essentially admitted under oath that there is no agency relationship between MERS and Fannie Mae. This is a potential bombshell for borrowers, in that it exposes how MERS is used by purported holders of notes and associated mortgages or deeds of trust to bypass recording statutes in that MERS is allowed to do what we have discussed on this show many times: record property interests in states near and far through robosigning and associated sleights of hand. Yet what this depositon admission shows is that the mortgage entities using MERS, such as Fannie Mae, under the pressure of being under oath are subject to disclaiming the existence of a true agency relationship between MERS  and the purported 'lender'.   See Neil's Blog--and tune into the Show today--for further details.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/08/29/fannie-mae-deponent-admits-no-agency-exists-between-mers-and-fannie-mae</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169595/fannie_mae_deponent_admits_no_agency_exists_between_mers_and_fannie_mae.mp3" length="29418102" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Going back to even 2011 and before, approximately half of the mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae were registered in the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). And the loan value on the official books re such loans was and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Going back to even 2011 and before, approximately half of the mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae were registered in the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). And the loan value on the official books re such loans was and undoubtledly still is over a trillion dollars. In a recent deposition in a case Bill is associated with, a Fannie Mae official essentially admitted under oath that there is no agency relationship between MERS and Fannie Mae. This is a potential bombshell for borrowers, in that it exposes how MERS is used by purported holders of notes and associated mortgages or deeds of trust to bypass recording statutes in that MERS is allowed to do what we have discussed on this show many times: record property interests in states near and far through robosigning and associated sleights of hand. Yet what this depositon admission shows is that the mortgage entities using MERS, such as Fannie Mae, under the pressure of being under oath are subject to disclaiming the existence of a true agency relationship between MERS  and the purported 'lender'.   See Neil's Blog--and tune into the Show today--for further details.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1839</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>agency relationships,fannie mae,mers,mers members</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>89</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Chase-WAMU --- Laundering Money and Mortgages Foreclosing on Debt They Don't Own</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/chase-wamu-laundering-money-and-mortgages-foreclosing-on-debt-they-don-t-own--63169612</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins me on tonight's edition of the Neil Garfield Show. That's because as a forensic investigator (and former cop) he just recently unearthed the most damning evidence yet against Chase and their entire charade. Chase never paid for, does not own and legally is not entitled to enforce the mortgages that were originated by WAMU. The courts have been letting Chase foreclose on the presumption that the foreclosure sale proceeds were going to pay a debt. Paatalo's new evidence underscores and corroborates the fact that Chase converted debt into revenue without ever putting up a single penny. So far they have made hundreds of billions of dollars by foreclosing on loan agreements to which they are not a party and for restitution of a debt that Chase does not own. So even after foreclosure, the debt never gets paid.    See Article 9 §203 UCC]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/08/15/chase-wamu---laundering-money-and-mortgages-foreclosing-on-debt-they-dont-own</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169612/chase_wamu_laundering_money_and_mortgages_foreclosing_on_debt_they_dont_own.mp3" length="29034415" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo joins me on tonight's edition of the Neil Garfield Show. That's because as a forensic investigator (and former cop) he just recently unearthed the most damning evidence yet against Chase and their entire charade. Chase never paid for,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo joins me on tonight's edition of the Neil Garfield Show. That's because as a forensic investigator (and former cop) he just recently unearthed the most damning evidence yet against Chase and their entire charade. Chase never paid for, does not own and legally is not entitled to enforce the mortgages that were originated by WAMU. The courts have been letting Chase foreclose on the presumption that the foreclosure sale proceeds were going to pay a debt. Paatalo's new evidence underscores and corroborates the fact that Chase converted debt into revenue without ever putting up a single penny. So far they have made hundreds of billions of dollars by foreclosing on loan agreements to which they are not a party and for restitution of a debt that Chase does not own. So even after foreclosure, the debt never gets paid.    See Article 9 §203 UCC]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1815</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>case chase,chase,chase chase,jpm chase,wamu</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>88</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>FIRREA Revisited: How an Older First Appellate Circuit Case Helps Borrowers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/firrea-revisited-how-an-older-first-appellate-circuit-case-helps-borrowers--63169626</link><description><![CDATA[We look today at the case of Bolduc v Beal Bank to show a way forward for borrowers suing defendants like Chase and Ditech and Aurora, who have been in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/08/08/firrea-revisited-how-an-older-first-appellate-circuit-case-helps-borrowers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169626/firrea_revisited_how_an_older_first_appellate_circuit_case_helps_borrowers.mp3" length="18343019" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We look today at the case of Bolduc v Beal Bank to show a way forward for borrowers suing defendants like Chase and Ditech and Aurora, who have been in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We look today at the case of Bolduc v Beal Bank to show a way forward for borrowers suing defendants like Chase and Ditech and Aurora, who have been in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1147</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>aurora,chapter 11 bk,chase,ditech,firrea preemption</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>87</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Use TILA Rescission in Court</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-use-tila-rescission-in-court--63169678</link><description><![CDATA[There are many potential claims arising out of attempted foreclosure after TILA rescission is effective.   But one of them is not a violation of your rescission rights. By pleading that you are putting into play the burden of proving the effectiveness of rescission which has already occurred by operation of law.    By pleading or arguing such a notion you are inviting interpretation form a court that is only too happy to reject your claim. In most cases your right to enforce the duties of a lender under the TILA Rescission statute, 15 USC §1635 has long since expired under TILA so you have no claim to violation of your rescission rights. You are making a claim that does not exist.   Nearly all successful foreclosure defenses are based upon the defense narrative that the party bringing the foreclosure action has no right to bring it. In the case where rescission has been effected, there is no claim for foreclosure anymore. The debt remains but there is a new way to collect it under the TILA Rescission statute. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/08/01/how-to-use-tila-rescission-in-court</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169678/how_to_use_tila_rescission_in_court.mp3" length="29029400" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There are many potential claims arising out of attempted foreclosure after TILA rescission is effective.   But one of them is not a violation of your rescission rights. By pleading that you are putting into play the burden of proving the effectiveness...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There are many potential claims arising out of attempted foreclosure after TILA rescission is effective.   But one of them is not a violation of your rescission rights. By pleading that you are putting into play the burden of proving the effectiveness of rescission which has already occurred by operation of law.    By pleading or arguing such a notion you are inviting interpretation form a court that is only too happy to reject your claim. In most cases your right to enforce the duties of a lender under the TILA Rescission statute, 15 USC §1635 has long since expired under TILA so you have no claim to violation of your rescission rights. You are making a claim that does not exist.   Nearly all successful foreclosure defenses are based upon the defense narrative that the party bringing the foreclosure action has no right to bring it. In the case where rescission has been effected, there is no claim for foreclosure anymore. The debt remains but there is a new way to collect it under the TILA Rescission statute. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1815</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>15 usc 1635,jesinoski,rescission,statute of limitations,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>86</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Ditech and Aurora are in Chapter 11 BK Protection. What it Means for Borrowers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ditech-and-aurora-are-in-chapter-11-bk-protection-what-it-means-for-borrowers--63169633</link><description><![CDATA[On the Show today Bill and I will address the following:  How MERS misused the transfer of Aurora servicing rights to Nationstar, all starting out of the Lehman Brothers BK following the Mortgage Meltdown.  How borrowers can use these servicer bankruptcies, particularly the one of Ditech, to advance the following:  - Using notices (of the Ditech) of stay to manage litigation options;  - Ditech's non-judicial foreclosure auctions are apparently on hold, due to the automatic stay rules and restrictions on recording documents, in their BK. Judicial actions by Ditech should be on hold too. These restrictions even limit Ditech's ability to direct the removal of Lis Pendens in lawsuits in which they received a judgment.  How Ocwen may be using a recent merger with PHH to shore up their book of business, to ameliorate credit issues or avoid bankruptcy.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/07/25/ditech-and-aurora-are-in-chapter-11-bk-protection-what-it-means-for-borrowers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169633/ditech_and_aurora_are_in_chapter_11_bk_protection_what_it_means_for_borrowers.mp3" length="29319045" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On the Show today Bill and I will address the following:  How MERS misused the transfer of Aurora servicing rights to Nationstar, all starting out of the Lehman Brothers BK following the Mortgage Meltdown.  How borrowers can use these servicer...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On the Show today Bill and I will address the following:  How MERS misused the transfer of Aurora servicing rights to Nationstar, all starting out of the Lehman Brothers BK following the Mortgage Meltdown.  How borrowers can use these servicer bankruptcies, particularly the one of Ditech, to advance the following:  - Using notices (of the Ditech) of stay to manage litigation options;  - Ditech's non-judicial foreclosure auctions are apparently on hold, due to the automatic stay rules and restrictions on recording documents, in their BK. Judicial actions by Ditech should be on hold too. These restrictions even limit Ditech's ability to direct the removal of Lis Pendens in lawsuits in which they received a judgment.  How Ocwen may be using a recent merger with PHH to shore up their book of business, to ameliorate credit issues or avoid bankruptcy.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1833</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>aurora,automatic stays and recorded d,chapter 11 bankruptcy,ditech,southern district of new york</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>85</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Word Salad Claimants: When the words don't identify the Plaintiff or Beneficiary</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/word-salad-claimants-when-the-words-don-t-identify-the-plaintiff-or-beneficiary--63169680</link><description><![CDATA[The more I research and analyze the issue, the more convinced I am that the fundamental deficiency of the case against homeowners is hiding in plain sight. And I think it is jurisdictional so it might be possible to raise it at any stage.   Close analysis of the actual wording used in the style of judicial and nonjudicial foreclosures shows that if there is a direct or indirect reference to an alleged REMIC Trust there is no Plaintiff and there is no Beneficiary asserted or alleged.    Who is the claimant if they lose? Whose assets will be used to satisfy an award of costs, damages, or sanctions. Who could be found in contempt of court?    Is it Bony Mellon who will say they are only named in order to allow a third party to be the claimant because a trust cannot appear except through a trustee?   Is it an implied trust that is not identified except by name?   Is it certificate holders who have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage?    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/07/18/word-salad-claimants-when-the-words-dont-identify-the-plaintiff-or-beneficiary</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169680/word_salad_claimants_when_the_words_dont_identify_the_plaintiff_or_beneficiary.mp3" length="29016861" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The more I research and analyze the issue, the more convinced I am that the fundamental deficiency of the case against homeowners is hiding in plain sight. And I think it is jurisdictional so it might be possible to raise it at any stage.   Close...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The more I research and analyze the issue, the more convinced I am that the fundamental deficiency of the case against homeowners is hiding in plain sight. And I think it is jurisdictional so it might be possible to raise it at any stage.   Close analysis of the actual wording used in the style of judicial and nonjudicial foreclosures shows that if there is a direct or indirect reference to an alleged REMIC Trust there is no Plaintiff and there is no Beneficiary asserted or alleged.    Who is the claimant if they lose? Whose assets will be used to satisfy an award of costs, damages, or sanctions. Who could be found in contempt of court?    Is it Bony Mellon who will say they are only named in order to allow a third party to be the claimant because a trust cannot appear except through a trustee?   Is it an implied trust that is not identified except by name?   Is it certificate holders who have no right, title or interest in the debt, note or mortgage?    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bony,certificate,deutsch,remic trust,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>84</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Quiet Title Judgments and How MERS Efforts to Vacate One Expose MERS Violations</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/quiet-title-judgments-and-how-mers-efforts-to-vacate-one-expose-mers-violations--63169603</link><description><![CDATA[MERS is seeking to vacate a default quiet title judgment in a California lawsuit, by suing as a plaintiff on the basis that they were never properly served the lawsuit in which they were named as a defendant. Borrowers in California are increasingly using default quiet title judgments as a litigation tool, and we will discuss this process on the Show today.  In this particular case, in which MERS seeks to vacate the judgment, MERS is claiming a lack of proper service. Bill has exposed already in this case, through the discovery process, that MERS is not able even to demonstrate that they meet the minimum agency requirements of their own Membership Agreements.  An interesting wrinkle to this situaution is that it exposes the court bias often seen for institutional foreclosure litigants, in which same litigants are able to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the application of service rules in foreclosure-related lawsuits.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/07/11/quiet-title-judgments-and-how-mers-efforts-to-vacate-one-expose-mers-violations</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169603/quiet_title_judgments_and_how_mers_efforts_to_vacate_one_expose_mers_violations.mp3" length="29002232" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>MERS is seeking to vacate a default quiet title judgment in a California lawsuit, by suing as a plaintiff on the basis that they were never properly served the lawsuit in which they were named as a defendant. Borrowers in California are increasingly...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[MERS is seeking to vacate a default quiet title judgment in a California lawsuit, by suing as a plaintiff on the basis that they were never properly served the lawsuit in which they were named as a defendant. Borrowers in California are increasingly using default quiet title judgments as a litigation tool, and we will discuss this process on the Show today.  In this particular case, in which MERS seeks to vacate the judgment, MERS is claiming a lack of proper service. Bill has exposed already in this case, through the discovery process, that MERS is not able even to demonstrate that they meet the minimum agency requirements of their own Membership Agreements.  An interesting wrinkle to this situaution is that it exposes the court bias often seen for institutional foreclosure litigants, in which same litigants are able to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the application of service rules in foreclosure-related lawsuits.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>default quiet title judgments,mers,service of process rules</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>83</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Survive Litigation</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-survive-litigation--63169616</link><description><![CDATA[Both lawyers and pro se homeowners are continually frustrated by the Dickensian process of the courts. If you don’t know what that means, go read Bleak House by Charles Dickens. If nothing else just read the first chapter.     What you need to know and accept as fact is that the litigation will always be long. That is because the lawyers for the banks, like every lawyer advocating an indefensible position, know that there is a difference between who should win and who can win.     Surviving that requires physical and mental stamina and accepting the realities of the role of courts and judges. And most of all it requires the development of a strategic plan for each case and a tactical plan for executing the strategy. That can only be done by investigating and analyzing all the facts of each case.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/06/27/how-to-survive-litigation</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169616/how_to_survive_litigation.mp3" length="28781550" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Both lawyers and pro se homeowners are continually frustrated by the Dickensian process of the courts. If you don’t know what that means, go read Bleak House by Charles Dickens. If nothing else just read the first chapter.     What you need to know...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Both lawyers and pro se homeowners are continually frustrated by the Dickensian process of the courts. If you don’t know what that means, go read Bleak House by Charles Dickens. If nothing else just read the first chapter.     What you need to know and accept as fact is that the litigation will always be long. That is because the lawyers for the banks, like every lawyer advocating an indefensible position, know that there is a difference between who should win and who can win.     Surviving that requires physical and mental stamina and accepting the realities of the role of courts and judges. And most of all it requires the development of a strategic plan for each case and a tactical plan for executing the strategy. That can only be done by investigating and analyzing all the facts of each case.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1799</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bleak house,bony mellon,dickens,discovery,holders of certificates</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>82</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) witnesses testifying they know nothing</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/person-most-knowledgeable-pmk-witnesses-testifying-they-know-nothing--63169631</link><description><![CDATA[Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo wll be break down the following topic: PMK aka Person Most Knowledgeable. Charles and Bill will also address other issues related to the introduction of evidence, the needed standard of proof which courts are supposed to require, and otherwise get out details on how institutional players on the other side of borrowers--be those players on the plaintiff or the defendant side in any given case--all too often get away with using witnesses to successfully enter evidence, when those same witnesses have none of the bona fides evidence law requires, to get the evidence at issue admitted before the court in question.  Bill will greatly illuminate this topic by describng the details of the 2007 Texas Foreclosure Task Force, which now 12 years ago looked into the troubling details of this important topic.  See Neil's Blog for further details.         ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/06/20/person-most-knowledgeable-pmk-witnesses-testifying-they-know-nothing</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169631/person_most_knowledgeable_pmk_witnesses_testifying_they_know_nothing.mp3" length="29439000" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo wll be break down the following topic: PMK aka Person Most Knowledgeable. Charles and Bill will also address other issues related to the introduction of evidence, the needed standard of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today on the Neil Garfield Show Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo wll be break down the following topic: PMK aka Person Most Knowledgeable. Charles and Bill will also address other issues related to the introduction of evidence, the needed standard of proof which courts are supposed to require, and otherwise get out details on how institutional players on the other side of borrowers--be those players on the plaintiff or the defendant side in any given case--all too often get away with using witnesses to successfully enter evidence, when those same witnesses have none of the bona fides evidence law requires, to get the evidence at issue admitted before the court in question.  Bill will greatly illuminate this topic by describng the details of the 2007 Texas Foreclosure Task Force, which now 12 years ago looked into the troubling details of this important topic.  See Neil's Blog for further details.         ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1840</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>2007 texas foreclosure task fo,evidence,evidentiary witness,pmk</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>81</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What is the point of foreclosure defense? MONEY!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-is-the-point-of-foreclosure-defense-money--63169629</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt.    The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation for losing the house. Saving the house means defending it. Getting compensation means filing a lawsuit for damages. In nonjudicial states you need to file for a TRO in order to challenge the foreclosure.    The central point of foreclosure defense in the current era is to reveal the fact that the foreclosure will not result in payment of the debt. Everyone seems to think that the central point is to avoid paying the debt. There used to be only one defense to foreclosure: payment. In the current era starting in the late 1990’s there is another defense — lack of payment.        The issue is wrapping your head around something that is completely counter-intuitive. Why would anyone foreclose unless they were looking for money to pay down a debt?   The answer to that question sends most people into a tailspin, stumbling over their own words. In the end the judge doesn’t know what your are talking about and you lose your home unless you present a clear and persuasive reason to prevent foreclosure — namely that the party claiming foreclosure is not in fact the owner of the debt and probably has never seen nor possessed the original promissory note.   That claimant has never loaned any money and they don’t say that they have loaned you money. That claimant has never paid value for the debt, note or mortgage, they don't say they did. In most cases you were mislead into believing that the Payee named on the promissory note was lending you money.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/06/13/what-is-the-point-of-foreclosure-defense-money</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169629/what_is_the_point_of_foreclosure_defense_money.mp3" length="28877262" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt.    The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about how to be persuasive in court so that the Judge realizes that the foreclosure might not result in any proceeds being used to pay down the debt.    The point of defending a foreclosure is saving the house or getting compensation for losing the house. Saving the house means defending it. Getting compensation means filing a lawsuit for damages. In nonjudicial states you need to file for a TRO in order to challenge the foreclosure.    The central point of foreclosure defense in the current era is to reveal the fact that the foreclosure will not result in payment of the debt. Everyone seems to think that the central point is to avoid paying the debt. There used to be only one defense to foreclosure: payment. In the current era starting in the late 1990’s there is another defense — lack of payment.        The issue is wrapping your head around something that is completely counter-intuitive. Why would anyone foreclose unless they were looking for money to pay down a debt?   The answer to that question sends most people into a tailspin, stumbling over their own words. In the end the judge doesn’t know what your are talking about and you lose your home unless you present a clear and persuasive reason to prevent foreclosure — namely that the party claiming foreclosure is not in fact the owner of the debt and probably has never seen nor possessed the original promissory note.   That claimant has never loaned any money and they don’t say that they have loaned you money. That claimant has never paid value for the debt, note or mortgage, they don't say they did. In most cases you were mislead into believing that the Payee named on the promissory note was lending you money.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bank reform,debt,foreclosure defense,legal standing,originator</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>80</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Two Big Topics: Reversal in a Chase defense case; Real Estate Brokers and RESPA</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/two-big-topics-reversal-in-a-chase-defense-case-real-estate-brokers-and-respa--63169566</link><description><![CDATA[Today's Show involves two important topics:   1. First Circuit US Court of Appeals case, Thompson v. Chase, in which the appellate court reversed the lower district court, essentially strictly construing the Mass. judicial foreclosure statutory framework.   2. Real Estate brokers are being used as institutional stand-ins for certain evidentiary purposes, particularly in non-judicial foreclosure states like California. Bill Paatalo has a great blog item about this issue, on his blog, from May 17, 2019. Gives the apperance of real estate brokers paying illegal referral fees to sub-servicers, in violation of the Real   Estate Settlement &amp; Procedures Act (RESPA). Details to follow on today's Show.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/06/06/two-big-topics-reversal-in-a-chase-defense-case-real-estate-brokers-and-respa</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169566/two_big_topics_reversal_in_a_chase_defense_case_real_estate_brokers_and_respa.mp3" length="29258441" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today's Show involves two important topics:   1. First Circuit US Court of Appeals case, Thompson v. Chase, in which the appellate court reversed the lower district court, essentially strictly construing the Mass. judicial foreclosure statutory...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today's Show involves two important topics:   1. First Circuit US Court of Appeals case, Thompson v. Chase, in which the appellate court reversed the lower district court, essentially strictly construing the Mass. judicial foreclosure statutory framework.   2. Real Estate brokers are being used as institutional stand-ins for certain evidentiary purposes, particularly in non-judicial foreclosure states like California. Bill Paatalo has a great blog item about this issue, on his blog, from May 17, 2019. Gives the apperance of real estate brokers paying illegal referral fees to sub-servicers, in violation of the Real   Estate Settlement &amp; Procedures Act (RESPA). Details to follow on today's Show.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1829</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>1st circuit appeals court,real estate brokers,respa,strict statutory construction</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>79</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Attack Facial Validity of Documents Used in Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-attack-facial-validity-of-documents-used-in-foreclosures--63169607</link><description><![CDATA[I'm revealing tonight the specific structural analysis I use and which the LivingLies team uses under my direction to analyze the facial validity of documents that are being used to initiate fraudulent, yet legally effective foreclosures and sales of property. If you don’t challenge it the foreclosure becomes legal, valid and enforceable in unlawful detainer or eviction.   The basic premise of all foreclosures is that foreclosure is necessary and legal to compensate and protect a party who is losing money because a borrower-homeowner is not paying their legal debt to the party that owns that debt. They must assert the position that they are losing money because they loaned money or bought the debt. One of those two things must be true.    By attacking facial validity of documents you are starting at the beginning. You are attacking the foreclosure complaint, or the notices of substitution, default and sale. Properly done it removes all of the protective gear worn by your opposition and forces them to prove facts that don't exist. That is how homeowners have won thousands of cases.      Article 9 UCC §203 requires payment of value as a condition precedent to enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust. Remember this is to be distinguished from Article 3 which enables a non-owner of the debt to enforce the note and get a money judgment against the maker of the note. That's different than a foreclosure judgment.     Most lawyers and judges forget that the UCC is not some theoretical treatise on commercial paper. It is law. It isn’t just common law, it is statutory law adopted in all US jurisdictions.    Facial analysis of documents is critical to success in court. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/05/30/how-to-attack-facial-validity-of-documents-used-in-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169607/how_to_attack_facial_validity_of_documents_used_in_foreclosures.mp3" length="29005576" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>I'm revealing tonight the specific structural analysis I use and which the LivingLies team uses under my direction to analyze the facial validity of documents that are being used to initiate fraudulent, yet legally effective foreclosures and sales of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[I'm revealing tonight the specific structural analysis I use and which the LivingLies team uses under my direction to analyze the facial validity of documents that are being used to initiate fraudulent, yet legally effective foreclosures and sales of property. If you don’t challenge it the foreclosure becomes legal, valid and enforceable in unlawful detainer or eviction.   The basic premise of all foreclosures is that foreclosure is necessary and legal to compensate and protect a party who is losing money because a borrower-homeowner is not paying their legal debt to the party that owns that debt. They must assert the position that they are losing money because they loaned money or bought the debt. One of those two things must be true.    By attacking facial validity of documents you are starting at the beginning. You are attacking the foreclosure complaint, or the notices of substitution, default and sale. Properly done it removes all of the protective gear worn by your opposition and forces them to prove facts that don't exist. That is how homeowners have won thousands of cases.      Article 9 UCC §203 requires payment of value as a condition precedent to enforcement of a mortgage or deed of trust. Remember this is to be distinguished from Article 3 which enables a non-owner of the debt to enforce the note and get a money judgment against the maker of the note. That's different than a foreclosure judgment.     Most lawyers and judges forget that the UCC is not some theoretical treatise on commercial paper. It is law. It isn’t just common law, it is statutory law adopted in all US jurisdictions.    Facial analysis of documents is critical to success in court. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>authenticity,facial validity of documents,foreclosure,goldman sachs,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>78</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Using Hybrid Legal Representation to Accomplish Your Goals</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/using-hybrid-legal-representation-to-accomplish-your-goals--63169610</link><description><![CDATA[   Charles Marshall is on today hosting the Neil Garfield Show to discuss what he calls Hybrid legal representation, which is a combinaton of pro per representation alternately mixed with formal legal representation at times from an attorney, and/or, pro per representation with the assistance of an attorney or other advocate/support person who has some expertise in the legal or factual issues at play in the legal case, whether a Plaintiff's case you run in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or a defense case in a judicial foreclosure state. The following elements/issues are the most important to figure out re whether this type of representation makes sense, or when to use alternatives to this model, in certain circumstances:  - Pro Hac Vice: what it is, how to use it;  - Lis Pendens in non-judicial foreclosure states;  - Having an attorney come into and go off of your pleadings, either in non-judicial foreclosure states, or judicial ones;  - The attorney retainer agreement in a Hybrid situation;  - Working with a non-attorney re legal issues and pleadings;  - Attorney hearing appearance issues, pluses and minuses.  Re all these issues, it is best to keep in mind one of Marshall's major aphorisms: As in law, so in life; as in life, so in law.....   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/05/23/using-hybrid-legal-representation-to-accomplish-your-goals</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169610/using_hybrid_legal_representation_to_accomplish_your_goals.mp3" length="29242141" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>   Charles Marshall is on today hosting the Neil Garfield Show to discuss what he calls Hybrid legal representation, which is a combinaton of pro per representation alternately mixed with formal legal representation at times from an attorney, and/or,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[   Charles Marshall is on today hosting the Neil Garfield Show to discuss what he calls Hybrid legal representation, which is a combinaton of pro per representation alternately mixed with formal legal representation at times from an attorney, and/or, pro per representation with the assistance of an attorney or other advocate/support person who has some expertise in the legal or factual issues at play in the legal case, whether a Plaintiff's case you run in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or a defense case in a judicial foreclosure state. The following elements/issues are the most important to figure out re whether this type of representation makes sense, or when to use alternatives to this model, in certain circumstances:  - Pro Hac Vice: what it is, how to use it;  - Lis Pendens in non-judicial foreclosure states;  - Having an attorney come into and go off of your pleadings, either in non-judicial foreclosure states, or judicial ones;  - The attorney retainer agreement in a Hybrid situation;  - Working with a non-attorney re legal issues and pleadings;  - Attorney hearing appearance issues, pluses and minuses.  Re all these issues, it is best to keep in mind one of Marshall's major aphorisms: As in law, so in life; as in life, so in law.....   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1828</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>hybrid legal representation,non-attorney support with fore,pro hac vice representation,pro per</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>77</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Escape from Bankster Fraud --- Case Study in the WAMU-Chase Fraudulent Scheme</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/escape-from-bankster-fraud-case-study-in-the-wamu-chase-fraudulent-scheme--63169620</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight's guest is Stephen R Renfrow, born 1957 in Louisiana. He graduated with Honors from Louisiana Business College and Bakers Professional Real Estate College. He has extensive experience in Banking and Real Estate and he holds an honorary Juris Doctor degree. His story about confronting and winning against the WAMU-Chase scheme led him to perform deep investigation and research into the facts and the law over a period of 11 years. He recently published an article at http://nmt-psp.com/article-01May2019.php summarizing the years-long ordeal in which he saved his life, his house and his sanity by fighting against the largest economic crime in human history. He won't be collateral damage in this story.   I invited him to be a guest because he has an interesting story to tell that can serve as an inspiration to those homeowners who keep hearing that their case is a loser or that the law is against them. The truth is that the law is for the homeowner but it takes grit to get it enforced. Those that persevere and understand civil procedure and courtroom dynamics generally win. Everyone else screams bias as they run from the courthouse]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/05/16/escape-from-bankster-fraud---case-study-in-the-wamu-chase-fraudulent-scheme</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169620/escape_from_bankster_fraud_case_study_in_the_wamu_chase_fraudulent_scheme.mp3" length="29332002" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight's guest is Stephen R Renfrow, born 1957 in Louisiana. He graduated with Honors from Louisiana Business College and Bakers Professional Real Estate College. He has extensive experience in Banking and Real Estate and he holds an honorary Juris...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight's guest is Stephen R Renfrow, born 1957 in Louisiana. He graduated with Honors from Louisiana Business College and Bakers Professional Real Estate College. He has extensive experience in Banking and Real Estate and he holds an honorary Juris Doctor degree. His story about confronting and winning against the WAMU-Chase scheme led him to perform deep investigation and research into the facts and the law over a period of 11 years. He recently published an article at http://nmt-psp.com/article-01May2019.php summarizing the years-long ordeal in which he saved his life, his house and his sanity by fighting against the largest economic crime in human history. He won't be collateral damage in this story.   I invited him to be a guest because he has an interesting story to tell that can serve as an inspiration to those homeowners who keep hearing that their case is a loser or that the law is against them. The truth is that the law is for the homeowner but it takes grit to get it enforced. Those that persevere and understand civil procedure and courtroom dynamics generally win. Everyone else screams bias as they run from the courthouse]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1834</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase,remic trust,rescission,securitized trusts,wamu</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>76</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Guana v. Chase Bank revisited. Declaratory relief bolsters borrower lawsuit.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/guana-v-chase-bank-revisited-declaratory-relief-bolsters-borrower-lawsuit--63169682</link><description><![CDATA[   The Guana v. Chase ruling recently out of the Third District of Appeal, California, is a small gem of a ruling, if not quite a diamond or even a ruby. As is typical for California appeal wins for borrowers being foreclosed upon in California, this Appellate Court declined to publish the opinion. This is deeply troubling, as it blunts dramatically the uses to which this ruling may be put by case-starved California borrowers looking to put forward case law to support their lawsuits against the institutional players foreclosing illegitmately on their homes.  Still.....the takeaway and holding here are as follows: Where a foreclosing party, as Chase here, has not demonstrated they have an interest in the note and associated deed of trust, then wrongful foreclosure as a cause of action may proceed to trial, in cases as here, where the subject property has gone to auction. Furthermore, such a scenario means associated causes of action can also be supported, such as cancellation of instruments and slander of title.  Charles and Bill will address this case and some related California-related developments, in their May 9 Broadcast. See Neil's Blog posts for more re Guana. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/05/09/guana-v-chase-bank-revisited-declaratory-relief-bolsters-borrower-lawsuit</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169682/guana_v_chase_bank_revisited_declaratory_relief_bolsters_borrower_lawsuit.mp3" length="28988022" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>   The Guana v. Chase ruling recently out of the Third District of Appeal, California, is a small gem of a ruling, if not quite a diamond or even a ruby. As is typical for California appeal wins for borrowers being foreclosed upon in California, this...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[   The Guana v. Chase ruling recently out of the Third District of Appeal, California, is a small gem of a ruling, if not quite a diamond or even a ruby. As is typical for California appeal wins for borrowers being foreclosed upon in California, this Appellate Court declined to publish the opinion. This is deeply troubling, as it blunts dramatically the uses to which this ruling may be put by case-starved California borrowers looking to put forward case law to support their lawsuits against the institutional players foreclosing illegitmately on their homes.  Still.....the takeaway and holding here are as follows: Where a foreclosing party, as Chase here, has not demonstrated they have an interest in the note and associated deed of trust, then wrongful foreclosure as a cause of action may proceed to trial, in cases as here, where the subject property has gone to auction. Furthermore, such a scenario means associated causes of action can also be supported, such as cancellation of instruments and slander of title.  Charles and Bill will address this case and some related California-related developments, in their May 9 Broadcast. See Neil's Blog posts for more re Guana. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1812</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>74</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Discovery Sanctions Expected on U.S. Bank N.A. in Florida</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/discovery-sanctions-expected-on-u-s-bank-n-a-in-florida--63169638</link><description><![CDATA[    Charles Marshall is back along with Bill Paatalo to discuss the appalling if not suprising developments in a Florida judicial forecloure lawsuit, US Bank National Association as Trustee v. Zayas. By appalling we refer to the behavior of the US Bank Trust, not the Judge's Order to Show Cause, which is a needed cudgel to push more forcefully for the US Bank Plaintiff in this case, to provide essential long-sought documents and make available essential testimony by way of depositions, of key executives pertinent to the Plaintiff Trust's case, including Nationstar executives whose servicing of the subject loan has been a not-so-funhouse charade of smoke and mirrors.   Plaintiff's attorneys in this case have avoided for many months on behalf of their Bank Trust client providing already overdue documents violating previous discovery time frames and associated orders. The Judge in this case is demanding the production of certain documents, and the scheduling and directing of several depositions of Plaintiff-related executives, including executives from Nationstar. The Judge has scheduled a Show-Cause hearing for July 30, at which Plaintiff must appear to explain and ultimately justify the almost year-long disregarding of a previous discovery order of August 2018.   Charles and Bill will break down further the nuts and bolts of not only the discovery sanctions motion aspects in this case, but implications for homeowners around the country. See Neil's Blog for further details as well.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/05/02/discovery-sanctions-coming-on-us-bank-trust-in-florida-if-continued-stonewalling</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169638/discovery_sanctions_coming_on_us_bank_trust_in_florida_if_continued_stonewalling.mp3" length="28944554" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>    Charles Marshall is back along with Bill Paatalo to discuss the appalling if not suprising developments in a Florida judicial forecloure lawsuit, US Bank National Association as Trustee v. Zayas. By appalling we refer to the behavior of the US...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[    Charles Marshall is back along with Bill Paatalo to discuss the appalling if not suprising developments in a Florida judicial forecloure lawsuit, US Bank National Association as Trustee v. Zayas. By appalling we refer to the behavior of the US Bank Trust, not the Judge's Order to Show Cause, which is a needed cudgel to push more forcefully for the US Bank Plaintiff in this case, to provide essential long-sought documents and make available essential testimony by way of depositions, of key executives pertinent to the Plaintiff Trust's case, including Nationstar executives whose servicing of the subject loan has been a not-so-funhouse charade of smoke and mirrors.   Plaintiff's attorneys in this case have avoided for many months on behalf of their Bank Trust client providing already overdue documents violating previous discovery time frames and associated orders. The Judge in this case is demanding the production of certain documents, and the scheduling and directing of several depositions of Plaintiff-related executives, including executives from Nationstar. The Judge has scheduled a Show-Cause hearing for July 30, at which Plaintiff must appear to explain and ultimately justify the almost year-long disregarding of a previous discovery order of August 2018.   Charles and Bill will break down further the nuts and bolts of not only the discovery sanctions motion aspects in this case, but implications for homeowners around the country. See Neil's Blog for further details as well.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>discovery,discovery sanctions,judicial foreclosure,order to show cause,us bank trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>73</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY --- Pushing Back on Servicers and Banks</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-administrative-strategy-pushing-back-on-servicers-and-banks--63169648</link><description><![CDATA[Remember in the movie "The Firm" with Tom Cruise when he said "it's not sexy but it has teeth"? That is administrative law. The character Cruise played was talking about mail fraud. It worked. Playing your administrative cards right you could end up with a mail fraud case to be brought against the servicers and pretender lenders, but you will almost certainly end up with more and better defined defenses than you otherwise would have.  In 42 years of practicing trial law, I practiced in admin law for many years. And believe me it has teeth. Ask any lawyer or doctor who has a complaint to which they must respond. Government agencies are scary. That is why consumers should use some of the easier processes available. You get to smoke out the servicers and pretenders "on the cheap."   In administrative procedures and proceedings, people save or lose business and professional licenses, get fined, pay restitution and all sorts of things. And administrative decisions are required to be given deference in courts of law. It's far less expensive than litigation and could greatly reduce the cost of litigation so why wouldn't you use the administrative strategy first?    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/04/25/the-administrative-strategy---pushing-back-on-servicers-and-banks</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169648/the_administrative_strategy_pushing_back_on_servicers_and_banks.mp3" length="28829615" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Remember in the movie "The Firm" with Tom Cruise when he said "it's not sexy but it has teeth"? That is administrative law. The character Cruise played was talking about mail fraud. It worked. Playing your administrative cards right you could end up...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Remember in the movie "The Firm" with Tom Cruise when he said "it's not sexy but it has teeth"? That is administrative law. The character Cruise played was talking about mail fraud. It worked. Playing your administrative cards right you could end up with a mail fraud case to be brought against the servicers and pretender lenders, but you will almost certainly end up with more and better defined defenses than you otherwise would have.  In 42 years of practicing trial law, I practiced in admin law for many years. And believe me it has teeth. Ask any lawyer or doctor who has a complaint to which they must respond. Government agencies are scary. That is why consumers should use some of the easier processes available. You get to smoke out the servicers and pretenders "on the cheap."   In administrative procedures and proceedings, people save or lose business and professional licenses, get fined, pay restitution and all sorts of things. And administrative decisions are required to be given deference in courts of law. It's far less expensive than litigation and could greatly reduce the cost of litigation so why wouldn't you use the administrative strategy first?    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>dvl,fdcpa,frca,qwr,respa</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>75</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Plead and Prove Fraud Against the Banks</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-plead-and-prove-fraud-against-the-banks--63169642</link><description><![CDATA[The pleading and proof requirements for fraud in all circumstances are very rigorous. Knowing now to plead and wording the complaint or defense properly is essential to getting fraud on the table in litigation which by the way opens the door to discovery that might not otherwise be allowed if you are merely defending the foreclosure on other grounds. That said, a successful action for fraud has a high likelihood of achieving a significant verdict for compensatory and potentially punitive damages.    Fraud can be a very effective claim or defense. But it is not an easy claim. Fraud must be both pled and proven clearly and convincingly. Some view the burden of pleading and proof as unfair when compared to a claim for foreclosure which has a burden of proof that requires only that it is more likely than not that the claimant is real and has a real claim entitling the claimant to a remedy. That is a philosophical argument.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/04/18/how-to-plead-and-prove-fraud-against-the-banks</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169642/how_to_plead_and_prove_fraud_against_the_banks.mp3" length="28917805" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The pleading and proof requirements for fraud in all circumstances are very rigorous. Knowing now to plead and wording the complaint or defense properly is essential to getting fraud on the table in litigation which by the way opens the door to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The pleading and proof requirements for fraud in all circumstances are very rigorous. Knowing now to plead and wording the complaint or defense properly is essential to getting fraud on the table in litigation which by the way opens the door to discovery that might not otherwise be allowed if you are merely defending the foreclosure on other grounds. That said, a successful action for fraud has a high likelihood of achieving a significant verdict for compensatory and potentially punitive damages.    Fraud can be a very effective claim or defense. But it is not an easy claim. Fraud must be both pled and proven clearly and convincingly. Some view the burden of pleading and proof as unfair when compared to a claim for foreclosure which has a burden of proof that requires only that it is more likely than not that the claimant is real and has a real claim entitling the claimant to a remedy. That is a philosophical argument.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>claim,compensatory damages,defense,discovery,fraud</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>72</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How and Why to demand cancellation of assignment of mortgage</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-and-why-to-demand-cancellation-of-assignment-of-mortgage--63169636</link><description><![CDATA[The Rainn case in California stands for the proposition that a complaint is sufficient when it pleads that the party on whose behalf an assignment was made had no ownership in the debt. The proof of the pudding will be at trial. How will you prove this basic proposition. The answer is that you have taken the first step which is that you put the matter in issue. The second step is discovery. And the third step, if it ever gets to that, is establishing at trial that the supposed beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage deed had not satisfied its burden of proof showing an ownership interest in the underlying debt.”  Neil Garfield and Bill Paatalo discuss how to reveal that the assignment is void without getting in over your head.   See http://lawzilla.com/blog/rainn-gauna-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank/]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/04/11/how-and-why-to-demand-cancellation-of-assignment-of-mortgage</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169636/how_and_why_to_demand_cancellation_of_assignment_of_mortgage.mp3" length="29246320" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The Rainn case in California stands for the proposition that a complaint is sufficient when it pleads that the party on whose behalf an assignment was made had no ownership in the debt. The proof of the pudding will be at trial. How will you prove...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Rainn case in California stands for the proposition that a complaint is sufficient when it pleads that the party on whose behalf an assignment was made had no ownership in the debt. The proof of the pudding will be at trial. How will you prove this basic proposition. The answer is that you have taken the first step which is that you put the matter in issue. The second step is discovery. And the third step, if it ever gets to that, is establishing at trial that the supposed beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage deed had not satisfied its burden of proof showing an ownership interest in the underlying debt.”  Neil Garfield and Bill Paatalo discuss how to reveal that the assignment is void without getting in over your head.   See http://lawzilla.com/blog/rainn-gauna-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank/]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1828</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cancellation of instrument,rainn,void assignment</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>71</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Use Legal Discovery in Fighting Fraudclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-use-legal-discovery-in-fighting-fraudclosures--63169703</link><description><![CDATA[How can you present your case if you don't really understand it?  The key to understanding your own case, its strengths and weaknesses is in conducting discovery in court and following up. Without the follow up it's virtully useless.   The devil is in the details. The details in litigation lie basically in discovery — asking and responding. Very few pro se litigants know how to construct good Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, or Requests for Admission. They know even less about how to use the responses, if they get any.  And they know still less about how to use inconsistencies or lack of response as the basis for enforcement and motions for contempt and sanctions and ultimately to limit the evidence that can be introduced by the claimant in foreclosure.  Failure to know about this is fatal because it is failure to understand the nature and procedure of litigation. Most lawyers don’t suffer from that ignorance. But they often do suffer from lack of motivation and thus they head for failure when they could be heading for success.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/04/04/how-to-use-legal-discovery-in-fighting-fraudclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169703/how_to_use_legal_discovery_in_fighting_fraudclosures.mp3" length="29174431" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>How can you present your case if you don't really understand it?  The key to understanding your own case, its strengths and weaknesses is in conducting discovery in court and following up. Without the follow up it's virtully useless.   The devil is in...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[How can you present your case if you don't really understand it?  The key to understanding your own case, its strengths and weaknesses is in conducting discovery in court and following up. Without the follow up it's virtully useless.   The devil is in the details. The details in litigation lie basically in discovery — asking and responding. Very few pro se litigants know how to construct good Interrogatories, Requests to Produce, or Requests for Admission. They know even less about how to use the responses, if they get any.  And they know still less about how to use inconsistencies or lack of response as the basis for enforcement and motions for contempt and sanctions and ultimately to limit the evidence that can be introduced by the claimant in foreclosure.  Failure to know about this is fatal because it is failure to understand the nature and procedure of litigation. Most lawyers don’t suffer from that ignorance. But they often do suffer from lack of motivation and thus they head for failure when they could be heading for success.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1824</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>interrogatories,motions for sanctions,motions to compel,requeest to produce,request for admissions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>69</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Does Anyone Have a "Copy" of An Original Note That was Destroyed?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/does-anyone-have-a-copy-of-an-original-note-that-was-destroyed--63169628</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight. Charles Marshall, Esq. and Bill Paatalo, P.I., reveal new information on the existence of original promissory notes and how they are falsely presented in foreclosure cases.    See Neil's post at  https://livinglies.wpcomstaging.com/2019/03/27/lost-notes-and-the-sudden-appearance-of-original-notes/   See Bill's post at   https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/do-custodiansreally-hold-original-notes/  Original promissory notes were customarily destroyed contemporaneously with the loan closing. It follows that original notes presented in court were recreations — i.e. copies, which is what is not permitted in the enforcement of a note or mortgage. Testimony about it being an original, while knowing that the original was destroyed or “lost” would be perjury.  We have accepted and institutionalized the presentation of false documentation in court, and perjury in testimony mainly because of political ideology based upon false premises.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/03/28/does-anyone-have-a-copy-of-an-original-note-that-was-destroyed</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169628/does_anyone_have_a_copy_of_an_original_note_that_was_destroyed.mp3" length="29101289" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight. Charles Marshall, Esq. and Bill Paatalo, P.I., reveal new information on the existence of original promissory notes and how they are falsely presented in foreclosure cases.    See Neil's post at...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight. Charles Marshall, Esq. and Bill Paatalo, P.I., reveal new information on the existence of original promissory notes and how they are falsely presented in foreclosure cases.    See Neil's post at  https://livinglies.wpcomstaging.com/2019/03/27/lost-notes-and-the-sudden-appearance-of-original-notes/   See Bill's post at   https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/do-custodiansreally-hold-original-notes/  Original promissory notes were customarily destroyed contemporaneously with the loan closing. It follows that original notes presented in court were recreations — i.e. copies, which is what is not permitted in the enforcement of a note or mortgage. Testimony about it being an original, while knowing that the original was destroyed or “lost” would be perjury.  We have accepted and institutionalized the presentation of false documentation in court, and perjury in testimony mainly because of political ideology based upon false premises.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>custodians,destruction of original notes,fabrication of orginal documen,perjury</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>68</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Holding Lawyers and Banks Accountable for Presenting False Claims</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/holding-lawyers-and-banks-accountable-for-presenting-false-claims--63169630</link><description><![CDATA[In the Case of OBDUSKEY v. MCCARTHY &amp; HOLTHUS LLP, decided yesterday, March 20, 2019, a unanimous but ambivalent Supreme Court of the United States decided that lawyers are not debt collectors in non judicial states. In doing so, they undermined the due diligence requirement in the bar rules of every jurisdiction that require a lawyer to perform enough investigation to assure that the client is real and has at least an arguable claim.    Several justices opined that Congress should clear up the ambiguity that they perceived in the law. The case was seen as fundamental challenge to the non judicial statutory scheme adopted in 32 states in which property subject to a Deed of Trust could be sold privately without judicial process. We have called out the problem as a substantive and procedural one.    What is more important and least understood is that the virtual immunity granted to lawyers provides banks with an impenetrable vehicle through which they continue to commit widespread fraud --- to the detriment of borrowers, investors, taxpayers, the financial system and society at large]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/03/21/holding-lawyers-and-banks-accountable-for-presenting-false-claims</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169630/holding_lawyers_and_banks_accountable_for_presenting_false_claims.mp3" length="28924910" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In the Case of OBDUSKEY v. MCCARTHY &amp;amp; HOLTHUS LLP, decided yesterday, March 20, 2019, a unanimous but ambivalent Supreme Court of the United States decided that lawyers are not debt collectors in non judicial states. In doing so, they undermined...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the Case of OBDUSKEY v. MCCARTHY &amp; HOLTHUS LLP, decided yesterday, March 20, 2019, a unanimous but ambivalent Supreme Court of the United States decided that lawyers are not debt collectors in non judicial states. In doing so, they undermined the due diligence requirement in the bar rules of every jurisdiction that require a lawyer to perform enough investigation to assure that the client is real and has at least an arguable claim.    Several justices opined that Congress should clear up the ambiguity that they perceived in the law. The case was seen as fundamental challenge to the non judicial statutory scheme adopted in 32 states in which property subject to a Deed of Trust could be sold privately without judicial process. We have called out the problem as a substantive and procedural one.    What is more important and least understood is that the virtual immunity granted to lawyers provides banks with an impenetrable vehicle through which they continue to commit widespread fraud --- to the detriment of borrowers, investors, taxpayers, the financial system and society at large]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure mill,mccarthy and holthus,obuskey,scotus</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>67</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>CHBOR Revisited: Implications of the Cal Homeowner Bill of Rights for homeowners</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/chbor-revisited-implications-of-the-cal-homeowner-bill-of-rights-for-homeowners--63169665</link><description><![CDATA[Today Charles Marshall will address the implicatitons for several areas of legal practice of the Califiornia Homeowner Bill of Rights (CHBOR) here in 2019, covering the following areas:   - pre-litigation practice;   - litigation practice--when a lawsuit is pending;   - appellate practice--when an appeal is pending, the lower court matter having gone to judgment;   - bankruptcy practice.   On the show he will break down whether, how and why to use CHBOR to accommplish litigation goals.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/03/14/chbor-revisited-implications-of-the-cal-homeowner-bill-of-rights-for-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169665/chbor_revisited_implications_of_the_cal_homeowner_bill_of_rights_for_homeowners.mp3" length="29143502" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today Charles Marshall will address the implicatitons for several areas of legal practice of the Califiornia Homeowner Bill of Rights (CHBOR) here in 2019, covering the following areas:   - pre-litigation practice;   - litigation practice--when a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today Charles Marshall will address the implicatitons for several areas of legal practice of the Califiornia Homeowner Bill of Rights (CHBOR) here in 2019, covering the following areas:   - pre-litigation practice;   - litigation practice--when a lawsuit is pending;   - appellate practice--when an appeal is pending, the lower court matter having gone to judgment;   - bankruptcy practice.   On the show he will break down whether, how and why to use CHBOR to accommplish litigation goals.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1822</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>california homeowner bill of r,charles marshall,chbor</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>66</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>FALSE Claimant in Foreclosure: Who's on First?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/false-claimant-in-foreclosure-who-s-on-first--63169641</link><description><![CDATA[After 12 years of thinking and analysis I have boiled everything down to one question: Does the party named by the lawyers ever get anything out of a successful foreclosure? I think the answer is always NO if the loan has been sold into the secondary market and worse yet if it has been subject to securitization claims which are almost always completely false.   If the lawyers have given a name of an implied entity that does not exist, the answer is obvious but sometimes you need to parse their words to even discover that they are naming a party that does not exist. If the lawyers name a legally existing entity then the question is whether that is the entity who will actually receive the benefit of foreclosure. Again the answer if you parse the words used by the lawyers the answer is no, whoever it is they named as claimant will never see the use or proceeds of the foreclosed property.   And then you have the hybrid. Like Deutsch or US Bank or BONY as trustee for a jumble of words that imply but do not identify a trust and refer to certificate holders without identifying the certificates that in all events disclaim any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage.    BOTTOM LINE: If the lawyers know that the name they are using for the claimant is a fictitious entity or is an entity that has never received the proceeds of foreclosure in the past, then they know that the foreclosure is invalid and probably fraudulent but they do it anyway because they can and they get away with it.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/03/07/false-claimant-in-foreclosure-whos-on-first</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169641/false_claimant_in_foreclosure_whos_on_first.mp3" length="29023966" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>After 12 years of thinking and analysis I have boiled everything down to one question: Does the party named by the lawyers ever get anything out of a successful foreclosure? I think the answer is always NO if the loan has been sold into the secondary...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[After 12 years of thinking and analysis I have boiled everything down to one question: Does the party named by the lawyers ever get anything out of a successful foreclosure? I think the answer is always NO if the loan has been sold into the secondary market and worse yet if it has been subject to securitization claims which are almost always completely false.   If the lawyers have given a name of an implied entity that does not exist, the answer is obvious but sometimes you need to parse their words to even discover that they are naming a party that does not exist. If the lawyers name a legally existing entity then the question is whether that is the entity who will actually receive the benefit of foreclosure. Again the answer if you parse the words used by the lawyers the answer is no, whoever it is they named as claimant will never see the use or proceeds of the foreclosed property.   And then you have the hybrid. Like Deutsch or US Bank or BONY as trustee for a jumble of words that imply but do not identify a trust and refer to certificate holders without identifying the certificates that in all events disclaim any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage.    BOTTOM LINE: If the lawyers know that the name they are using for the claimant is a fictitious entity or is an entity that has never received the proceeds of foreclosure in the past, then they know that the foreclosure is invalid and probably fraudulent but they do it anyway because they can and they get away with it.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>abuse of process,false claimants,foreclosure fraud,fundamental question,nonexistent claimants</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>65</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure cases: Settle or Don't Settle?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-cases-settle-or-don-t-settle--63169650</link><description><![CDATA[You can always settle any case by horse trading on the amount due, when it is due and at what intervals and interest rate. But more and more lawyers are asking the right questions --- what are the elements to consider when evaluating the settlement value of a foreclosure case? Emphasis on the case at hand distracts from the value of the threat to the other side.    Bottom LIne: If you don't have the tenacity, stomach and resources to litigate all the way you might just as well settle on any terms you can get. You can improve your odds by sending a QWR, DVL, complaint to CFPB or Complaint to State AG. You can also improve your odds by aggressively pursuing discovery in litigation and getting an order requiring your opposition to produce answers or documents that they don't have.      ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/02/28/foreclosure-cases-settle-or-dont-settle</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169650/foreclosure_cases_settle_or_dont_settle.mp3" length="29206196" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You can always settle any case by horse trading on the amount due, when it is due and at what intervals and interest rate. But more and more lawyers are asking the right questions --- what are the elements to consider when evaluating the settlement...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You can always settle any case by horse trading on the amount due, when it is due and at what intervals and interest rate. But more and more lawyers are asking the right questions --- what are the elements to consider when evaluating the settlement value of a foreclosure case? Emphasis on the case at hand distracts from the value of the threat to the other side.    Bottom LIne: If you don't have the tenacity, stomach and resources to litigate all the way you might just as well settle on any terms you can get. You can improve your odds by sending a QWR, DVL, complaint to CFPB or Complaint to State AG. You can also improve your odds by aggressively pursuing discovery in litigation and getting an order requiring your opposition to produce answers or documents that they don't have.      ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1826</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>dvl,foreclosure,loans,qwr,settlement</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>64</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Res Judicata Revisited....and related topics, including when to go pro per</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/res-judicata-revisited-and-related-topics-including-when-to-go-pro-per--63169643</link><description><![CDATA[Homeowners and even those with rental properties need to know whether, when, and if res judicata principles could shut down their potential foreclosure-related legal case right out of the gate. Need to know whether, when, and if, bankruptcy proecdures are available to advance their legal interests. Need to know whether, when, and if, it makes sense after sometimes multiple previous litigation and bankruptcy procedures, to go pro per in a given legal or bankruptcy or even unlawful detainer proceeding (aka pro se Federal cases), or hire an attorney.  We break it all down today with Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today.         ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/02/21/res-judicata-revisitedand-related-topics-including-when-to-go-pro-per</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169643/res_judicata_revisitedand_related_topics_including_when_to_go_pro_per.mp3" length="28933687" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Homeowners and even those with rental properties need to know whether, when, and if res judicata principles could shut down their potential foreclosure-related legal case right out of the gate. Need to know whether, when, and if, bankruptcy proecdures...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Homeowners and even those with rental properties need to know whether, when, and if res judicata principles could shut down their potential foreclosure-related legal case right out of the gate. Need to know whether, when, and if, bankruptcy proecdures are available to advance their legal interests. Need to know whether, when, and if, it makes sense after sometimes multiple previous litigation and bankruptcy procedures, to go pro per in a given legal or bankruptcy or even unlawful detainer proceeding (aka pro se Federal cases), or hire an attorney.  We break it all down today with Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today.         ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bankruptcy,litigation,litigation strategy,pro per pro se,res judicata</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>63</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Facially Invalid Documents and Legal Presumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/facially-invalid-documents-and-legal-presumptions--63169700</link><description><![CDATA[Russ Baldwin joins Neil, Charles and Bill. He has some special insights into a continually developing area of foreclosure defense — what if the presumptions are being applied when the document is not facially valid. When the document requires extrinsic evidence to identify parties or their authority and the ext rinisc evidence is neither attached nor dientified, is the document facially valid?  I say no it isn’t. If you wrote out what appeared to be a check for a sum of money made payable to a party who could only be identified by reference to a power of attorney or trust agreement, the parties would not be defined or identified until you were provided with the power of attorney or trust agreement under circumstances where the agreement or power of attorney was still in force. This sounds more like a private contract than a negotiable instrument. And yes the contract can be proved up by introducing the extrinsic (parole) evidence but no, the instrument itself would not be governed by the laws and rules governing negotiable instruments under Article 3 of the UCC.  Russ Baldwin is an attorney  based in the State of Oregon. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/02/07/facially-invalid-documents-and-legal-presumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169700/facially_invalid_documents_and_legal_presumptions.mp3" length="29238379" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Russ Baldwin joins Neil, Charles and Bill. He has some special insights into a continually developing area of foreclosure defense — what if the presumptions are being applied when the document is not facially valid. When the document requires...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Russ Baldwin joins Neil, Charles and Bill. He has some special insights into a continually developing area of foreclosure defense — what if the presumptions are being applied when the document is not facially valid. When the document requires extrinsic evidence to identify parties or their authority and the ext rinisc evidence is neither attached nor dientified, is the document facially valid?  I say no it isn’t. If you wrote out what appeared to be a check for a sum of money made payable to a party who could only be identified by reference to a power of attorney or trust agreement, the parties would not be defined or identified until you were provided with the power of attorney or trust agreement under circumstances where the agreement or power of attorney was still in force. This sounds more like a private contract than a negotiable instrument. And yes the contract can be proved up by introducing the extrinsic (parole) evidence but no, the instrument itself would not be governed by the laws and rules governing negotiable instruments under Article 3 of the UCC.  Russ Baldwin is an attorney  based in the State of Oregon. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1828</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>brudien of proof,facially inavlid,facially valid,foreclosure litigation,legal presumptions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>62</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rogue REMIC Trusts as Fencing Operations</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rogue-remic-trusts-as-fencing-operations--63169693</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo has another worthy Blog Post about how certain rogue REMIC trusts are akin to fencing operations. Today, we revisit the US Bank LSF9 Master Paticipipation Trust, purportedly located and operating out of and receiving mail in Florida, but in fact set up, to the extent it is organized in a legally and meaningfully manner, in the Virgin Islands.   Bill will discuss this and related cases, and we will delve into the implications of this situation for pleading practice, impacting both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure cases. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/01/31/rogue-remic-trusts-as-fencing-operations</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169693/rogue_remic_trusts_as_fencing_operations.mp3" length="29151862" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo has another worthy Blog Post about how certain rogue REMIC trusts are akin to fencing operations. Today, we revisit the US Bank LSF9 Master Paticipipation Trust, purportedly located and operating out of and receiving mail in Florida, but...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo has another worthy Blog Post about how certain rogue REMIC trusts are akin to fencing operations. Today, we revisit the US Bank LSF9 Master Paticipipation Trust, purportedly located and operating out of and receiving mail in Florida, but in fact set up, to the extent it is organized in a legally and meaningfully manner, in the Virgin Islands.   Bill will discuss this and related cases, and we will delve into the implications of this situation for pleading practice, impacting both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure cases. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1822</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>off shore trusts,remic trusts,rogue trusts</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>61</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Sue the Collection and Foreclosure Mill Lawyers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/sue-the-collection-and-foreclosure-mill-lawyers--63169705</link><description><![CDATA[In foreclosure litigation countless law firms entered into agreements with various parties to achieve the result of a foreclosure sale. They knew or MUST have known that the documents that they referenced or attached to their pleadings in court were either fabricated by them or their employees), or at their instruction, or fabricated by others. They knew or MUST have known that the "client" was not the Plaintiff/Claimant but they fraudulently continued acting as if the named Plaintiff both existed and had a valid claim.  Such actions among others are violations of the FDCPA. The banks suckered the lawyers into what appeared to be lucrative retainers to handle mass debt collection and foreclosure without disclosing the fact that with the retainer came liability for violation of multiple state and Federal laws.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/01/24/sue-the-collection-and-foreclosure-mill-lawyers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169705/sue_the_collection_and_foreclosure_mill_lawyers.mp3" length="29354154" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In foreclosure litigation countless law firms entered into agreements with various parties to achieve the result of a foreclosure sale. They knew or MUST have known that the documents that they referenced or attached to their pleadings in court were...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In foreclosure litigation countless law firms entered into agreements with various parties to achieve the result of a foreclosure sale. They knew or MUST have known that the documents that they referenced or attached to their pleadings in court were either fabricated by them or their employees), or at their instruction, or fabricated by others. They knew or MUST have known that the "client" was not the Plaintiff/Claimant but they fraudulently continued acting as if the named Plaintiff both existed and had a valid claim.  Such actions among others are violations of the FDCPA. The banks suckered the lawyers into what appeared to be lucrative retainers to handle mass debt collection and foreclosure without disclosing the fact that with the retainer came liability for violation of multiple state and Federal laws.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1835</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>debt collection,fdcpa,foreclosure mills,illegal foreclosrues</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>60</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Use and abuse of Requests for Judicial Notice aka RJN, thru SEC.gov and beyond.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/use-and-abuse-of-requests-for-judicial-notice-aka-rjn-thru-sec-gov-and-beyond--63169661</link><description><![CDATA[Institutional litigants are misusing the court system throughout the dozens of state and Federal jurisdictions to get into evidence matters which are and should be barred from evidence or at least subject to dispute, and about which these same litigants often have no or little independent evidentiary support. One such major vehicle for advancing this practice is the use of Requests for Judicial Notice (RJN).    Documents uploaded to SEC.gov, for example, are proferred as subject to judicial notice, even though the SEC website acts merely as a platform for publication, and not a proper registry, and neither monitors nor validates any documents placed on their site.   In California, StorMedia,, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9, has long controlled among other Cal cases RJNs in California litigation.  This case holds that "When judicial notice is taken of a document...the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable."  Yet it is very common in California foreclosure litigation for courts to treat RJNs as if they do establish the truth of the matter asserted within the documents. This enables institutional defendants in Cal. borrower foreclosure litigation, to point as evidence to Plaintiff's presenting recorded documents only to dispute their content, as if the documents so presented and disputed are not subject to dispute, because of the taking of judicial notice.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/01/17/use-and-abuse-of-requests-for-judicial-notice-aka-rjn-thru-secgov-and-beyond</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169661/use_and_abuse_of_requests_for_judicial_notice_aka_rjn_thru_secgov_and_beyond.mp3" length="28815405" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Institutional litigants are misusing the court system throughout the dozens of state and Federal jurisdictions to get into evidence matters which are and should be barred from evidence or at least subject to dispute, and about which these same...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Institutional litigants are misusing the court system throughout the dozens of state and Federal jurisdictions to get into evidence matters which are and should be barred from evidence or at least subject to dispute, and about which these same litigants often have no or little independent evidentiary support. One such major vehicle for advancing this practice is the use of Requests for Judicial Notice (RJN).    Documents uploaded to SEC.gov, for example, are proferred as subject to judicial notice, even though the SEC website acts merely as a platform for publication, and not a proper registry, and neither monitors nor validates any documents placed on their site.   In California, StorMedia,, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9, has long controlled among other Cal cases RJNs in California litigation.  This case holds that "When judicial notice is taken of a document...the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable."  Yet it is very common in California foreclosure litigation for courts to treat RJNs as if they do establish the truth of the matter asserted within the documents. This enables institutional defendants in Cal. borrower foreclosure litigation, to point as evidence to Plaintiff's presenting recorded documents only to dispute their content, as if the documents so presented and disputed are not subject to dispute, because of the taking of judicial notice.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>california foreclosure litigat,requests for judicial notice,sec</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>59</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why I am Excited for Homeowners Defending Their Homes in Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-i-am-excited-for-homeowners-defending-their-homes-in-foreclosure--63169694</link><description><![CDATA[There is a reason why banks don’t simply come to court with proof of funding of the loan origination and proof of funding of loans transfers dressed up like sales. The reason is that none of the players on center stage or anything but stooges — conduits who are being paid a monthly fee for doing the bidding of investment banks like Goldman Sachs. We are all fighting a ghost.  I am not predicting the future of foreclosure defense litigation except to say that at the moment the court are starting to question the roles and place of the players who are sent up to the front of the stage  having a dubious if not nonexistent role in the loan process, the debt, note or mortgage. The FDCPA wording is fuzzy as to who is covered. SCOTUS could go either way. But the very fact that a case was brought before the Supreme Court in which a foreclosure mill was being sued is testament to the fact that foreclosure defense attorneys are stepping up and starting to shake a tree that was once a steel and concrete edifice.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/01/10/why-i-am-excited-for-homeowners-defending-their-homes-in-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169694/why_i_am_excited_for_homeowners_defending_their_homes_in_foreclosure.mp3" length="28832959" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There is a reason why banks don’t simply come to court with proof of funding of the loan origination and proof of funding of loans transfers dressed up like sales. The reason is that none of the players on center stage or anything but stooges —...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is a reason why banks don’t simply come to court with proof of funding of the loan origination and proof of funding of loans transfers dressed up like sales. The reason is that none of the players on center stage or anything but stooges — conduits who are being paid a monthly fee for doing the bidding of investment banks like Goldman Sachs. We are all fighting a ghost.  I am not predicting the future of foreclosure defense litigation except to say that at the moment the court are starting to question the roles and place of the players who are sent up to the front of the stage  having a dubious if not nonexistent role in the loan process, the debt, note or mortgage. The FDCPA wording is fuzzy as to who is covered. SCOTUS could go either way. But the very fact that a case was brought before the Supreme Court in which a foreclosure mill was being sued is testament to the fact that foreclosure defense attorneys are stepping up and starting to shake a tree that was once a steel and concrete edifice.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fdcpa,florida supreme court,foreclosure mill,glass,scotus</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>58</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Russell Baldwin and Neil Discuss Recoupment and Assumption of Risk</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/russell-baldwin-and-neil-discuss-recoupment-and-assumption-of-risk--63169660</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Russell Baldwin joins me to discuss some theories that might have some traction off the usual track of foreclosure defense. We will be discussing recoupment, assumption of risk and the continuing discoveries by Bill Paatalo about conflicts and inconsistencies in the documents used to claim rights of collection, servicing and foreclosure. Bill Paatalo and Charles Marshall join the conversation tonight to offer their insights.    Russell Baldwin can be reached at  baldwin_atty@embarqmail.com   or  Address: 4355 NW U.S. 101, Lincoln City, OR 97367      Phone: (541) 994-6166]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2019/01/03/russell-baldwin-and-neil-discuss-recoupment-and-assumption-of-risk</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169660/russell_baldwin_and_neil_discuss_recoupment_and_assumption_of_risk.mp3" length="29037759" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Russell Baldwin joins me to discuss some theories that might have some traction off the usual track of foreclosure defense. We will be discussing recoupment, assumption of risk and the continuing discoveries by Bill Paatalo about conflicts...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Russell Baldwin joins me to discuss some theories that might have some traction off the usual track of foreclosure defense. We will be discussing recoupment, assumption of risk and the continuing discoveries by Bill Paatalo about conflicts and inconsistencies in the documents used to claim rights of collection, servicing and foreclosure. Bill Paatalo and Charles Marshall join the conversation tonight to offer their insights.    Russell Baldwin can be reached at  baldwin_atty@embarqmail.com   or  Address: 4355 NW U.S. 101, Lincoln City, OR 97367      Phone: (541) 994-6166]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1815</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>assumption of risk,foreclosure,inconsistent documents,mortgage,recoupment</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>57</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Yet more evidence that a US Bank Trust is operating under a false name.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/yet-more-evidence-that-a-us-bank-trust-is-operating-under-a-false-name--63169663</link><description><![CDATA[The US Bank Trust, NA as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, has over the last several years been involved in potentially hundreds of litigation matters, possibly a lot more. US Bank, NA has used many other "master trusts" and other trust names to advance its interests on both the plaintiff and defense side, in litigation all over the country.     Today on the Neil Garfield Show we have Bill Paatalo returning to discuss a major legal settlement involving the State of California (through a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Court several years ago) against US Bank, and its web of trusts used to conceal the real-party-in-interest at issue in US Bank foreclosures. See Neil's blog for more info.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/12/20/yet-more-evidence-that-a-us-bank-trust-is-operating-under-a-false-name</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169663/yet_more_evidence_that_a_us_bank_trust_is_operating_under_a_false_name.mp3" length="29228348" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The US Bank Trust, NA as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, has over the last several years been involved in potentially hundreds of litigation matters, possibly a lot more. US Bank, NA has used many other "master trusts" and other trust...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The US Bank Trust, NA as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, has over the last several years been involved in potentially hundreds of litigation matters, possibly a lot more. US Bank, NA has used many other "master trusts" and other trust names to advance its interests on both the plaintiff and defense side, in litigation all over the country.     Today on the Neil Garfield Show we have Bill Paatalo returning to discuss a major legal settlement involving the State of California (through a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Court several years ago) against US Bank, and its web of trusts used to conceal the real-party-in-interest at issue in US Bank foreclosures. See Neil's blog for more info.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1827</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bank settlements,master trusts,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>56</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Loan is the Essential Fallacy: Splitting up the debt, note and mortgage</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-loan-is-the-essential-fallacy-splitting-up-the-debt-note-and-mortgage--63169656</link><description><![CDATA[Here is what almost everyone is getting wrong and why it matters:  In the run up to the mortgage meltdown, investment banks were described as taking foolish risks, buying loans that were likely or even guaranteed to fail. It’s true, some investment banks that were not in on the grand scheme did exactly that and Lehman might have been one of them, Bear Stearns another.  But for the TBTF banks it was a different story. They were not lending money nor buying mortgage loans. They were funding the origination of loans likely or guaranteed to fail with incoming investor money that was intended by the investors to buy good quality loans that were seasoned by some period of time in which payments were made by the borrower. They were purchasing loans the same way. And they were not buying derivatives, they were selling them. SO the entire “bailout” was a farce. There were no losses.  Why does this matter?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/12/13/the-loan-is-the-essential-fallacy-splitting-up-the-debt-note-and-mortgage</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169656/the_loan_is_the_essential_fallacy_splitting_up_the_debt_note_and_mortgage.mp3" length="29069942" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Here is what almost everyone is getting wrong and why it matters:  In the run up to the mortgage meltdown, investment banks were described as taking foolish risks, buying loans that were likely or even guaranteed to fail. It’s true, some investment...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Here is what almost everyone is getting wrong and why it matters:  In the run up to the mortgage meltdown, investment banks were described as taking foolish risks, buying loans that were likely or even guaranteed to fail. It’s true, some investment banks that were not in on the grand scheme did exactly that and Lehman might have been one of them, Bear Stearns another.  But for the TBTF banks it was a different story. They were not lending money nor buying mortgage loans. They were funding the origination of loans likely or guaranteed to fail with incoming investor money that was intended by the investors to buy good quality loans that were seasoned by some period of time in which payments were made by the borrower. They were purchasing loans the same way. And they were not buying derivatives, they were selling them. SO the entire “bailout” was a farce. There were no losses.  Why does this matter?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1817</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bear stearns,lehman,tbtf,third party strangers</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>55</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Revisiting TILA rescission through the lens of an Illinois Land Trust</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/revisiting-tila-rescission-through-the-lens-of-an-illinois-land-trust--63169583</link><description><![CDATA[Today with Bill Paatalo we will discuss the Illinois Supreme Court case of Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC (One West Bank, N.A., Appellee) v. Standard Bank and Trust Co et al., Appellant. This case has many elements of interest to our listeners, and established the following legal points:    1. Illinois Land Trusts can be treated as consumers for purposes of the TILA rescission statute;    2. An Obligor to a TILA transaction need not be the same entity or person as the consumer-borrower, the latter of whom is the party to whom credit is extended--it is the Obligor who has and retains the right to rescind under TILA;    3. Reverse mortgages are by definition consumer credit transactions, an implication of which--to be discussed today on the Show--but not addressed in the IL Supreme Court opinion--is that insitutional Defendants who sometimes escape rescission claims through claiming mortgages are not consumer credit transactions--will be barred from so escaping when the mortgage at issue is a reverse mortgage.   4. When certain issues on appeal are not part of a lower court order involving the ending of the lower court case, they may be raised and discussed, on appeal, notwithstanding being absent from the lower court order.    Go to Neil's Blog for more on this case and to get a copy of the case.    Also time permitting we will revisit the Cashmere Valley Bank case recently discussed on Neil's Show.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/12/06/revisiting-tila-rescission-through-the-lens-of-an-illinois-land-trust</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169583/revisiting_tila_rescission_through_the_lens_of_an_illinois_land_trust.mp3" length="29133889" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today with Bill Paatalo we will discuss the Illinois Supreme Court case of Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC (One West Bank, N.A., Appellee) v. Standard Bank and Trust Co et al., Appellant. This case has many elements of interest to our listeners, and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today with Bill Paatalo we will discuss the Illinois Supreme Court case of Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC (One West Bank, N.A., Appellee) v. Standard Bank and Trust Co et al., Appellant. This case has many elements of interest to our listeners, and established the following legal points:    1. Illinois Land Trusts can be treated as consumers for purposes of the TILA rescission statute;    2. An Obligor to a TILA transaction need not be the same entity or person as the consumer-borrower, the latter of whom is the party to whom credit is extended--it is the Obligor who has and retains the right to rescind under TILA;    3. Reverse mortgages are by definition consumer credit transactions, an implication of which--to be discussed today on the Show--but not addressed in the IL Supreme Court opinion--is that insitutional Defendants who sometimes escape rescission claims through claiming mortgages are not consumer credit transactions--will be barred from so escaping when the mortgage at issue is a reverse mortgage.   4. When certain issues on appeal are not part of a lower court order involving the ending of the lower court case, they may be raised and discussed, on appeal, notwithstanding being absent from the lower court order.    Go to Neil's Blog for more on this case and to get a copy of the case.    Also time permitting we will revisit the Cashmere Valley Bank case recently discussed on Neil's Show.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>illinois land trusts,obligor,reverse mortgages,tila rescission,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>54</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Where are REMIC Investors? Are they not beneficiaries?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-are-remic-investors-are-they-not-beneficiaries--63169637</link><description><![CDATA[Stop thinking about investors as beneficiaries under a REMIC Trust (PSA), a Deed of Trust, mortgage, note, debt or anything else when it comes to residential mortgage loans --- which may or may not be "loans" in any conventional sense. Just like we have torts without a name as long as you can plead duty, breach and proximately caused damages, we might  have a similar situation here with an agreement without a contract that is called a bond without any definite promise to pay.   And the courts agree. When investors sue to take advantage of terms or provisions of the so-called trust instrument, the courts tell the investors they have no standing because they are not part of the trust instrument. They are not beneficiaries, they have no right to view the assets, or to complain about mismanagement. They waive all right, title or interest to the debts, notes and mortgages that are increasingly looking like they are not "underlying."]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/11/29/where-are-remic-investors-are-they-not-beneficiaries</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169637/where_are_remic_investors_are_they_not_beneficiaries.mp3" length="29244649" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Stop thinking about investors as beneficiaries under a REMIC Trust (PSA), a Deed of Trust, mortgage, note, debt or anything else when it comes to residential mortgage loans --- which may or may not be "loans" in any conventional sense. Just like we...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Stop thinking about investors as beneficiaries under a REMIC Trust (PSA), a Deed of Trust, mortgage, note, debt or anything else when it comes to residential mortgage loans --- which may or may not be "loans" in any conventional sense. Just like we have torts without a name as long as you can plead duty, breach and proximately caused damages, we might  have a similar situation here with an agreement without a contract that is called a bond without any definite promise to pay.   And the courts agree. When investors sue to take advantage of terms or provisions of the so-called trust instrument, the courts tell the investors they have no standing because they are not part of the trust instrument. They are not beneficiaries, they have no right to view the assets, or to complain about mismanagement. They waive all right, title or interest to the debts, notes and mortgages that are increasingly looking like they are not "underlying."]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1828</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>beneficiaries,deed of trust,investors,remic</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>53</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>CitiGroup: Unrelenting Concealment and Unaccountability</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/citigroup-unrelenting-concealment-and-unaccountability--63169683</link><description><![CDATA[Citi companies, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out a number of times, deserve to be broken up into little tiny inconsequential pieces. The presence of the name “CitiMortgage”) without any entity directly tied to it, has led to direct malfeasance and corruption even in Florida courts. “CitiMortgage” is named by foreclosure mill attorneys as the “Plaintiff.” And Citi subsidiaries pass around the mortgage as though it was a plate of hors d’oeuvres. As one perceptive reader just pointed out to me, “Do you really think that those companies each paid for the debt every time there was a paper transfer?” No I don’t. And the skulduggery perpetrated by Citi that I have personally witnessed is maddening — especially in counties that are corrupt.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/11/15/citigroup-unrelenting-concealment-and-unaccountability</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169683/citigroup_unrelenting_concealment_and_unaccountability.mp3" length="29047790" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Citi companies, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out a number of times, deserve to be broken up into little tiny inconsequential pieces. The presence of the name “CitiMortgage”) without any entity directly tied to it, has led to direct malfeasance and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Citi companies, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out a number of times, deserve to be broken up into little tiny inconsequential pieces. The presence of the name “CitiMortgage”) without any entity directly tied to it, has led to direct malfeasance and corruption even in Florida courts. “CitiMortgage” is named by foreclosure mill attorneys as the “Plaintiff.” And Citi subsidiaries pass around the mortgage as though it was a plate of hors d’oeuvres. As one perceptive reader just pointed out to me, “Do you really think that those companies each paid for the debt every time there was a paper transfer?” No I don’t. And the skulduggery perpetrated by Citi that I have personally witnessed is maddening — especially in counties that are corrupt.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1816</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bailout,citi,citimortgage,corruption,elizabeth warren</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>52</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>'Where's the Harm?': Classic question from judges to foreclosed homeowners.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/where-s-the-harm-classic-question-from-judges-to-foreclosed-homeowners--63169627</link><description><![CDATA[    Yes listeners well know that it is continuing the mantra of judges all around the nation in non-judicial and judicial foreclosure cases alike: Where is the Harm? to you the 'borrower'. Well one judge did find great harm to a party subject to a judicial foreclosure in Florida, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Riley, which case we have discussed previously on the Show. See Neil's blog post for details. Bottom line in this case the Judge found Wells Fargo had unclean hands in their behavior, and so could not proceed with the foreclosure.   As for addressing with a wider scope the issue of harm to 'borrowers' in these situations, the following types of harm are typical and often ongoing:   - Not getting a true accounting of the amount of money still owing on the alleged debt, and a proper showing of the real creditor to whom any payments are to be made;   - Not having the ability to finally reconcile the debt with the true holder of the debt; - Having an entity report to credit agencies that I am supposedly in default on a mortgage loan, where the particulars of who I owe the money to and the amount of money at issue are finessed or outright misrepresented;   - Not having the ablity to alienate, that is sell or even rent my property, without the chain of title be a chaotic mess which cannot be properly explained to potential third-party purchasers or renters;   - Being subject to continual foreclosure proceedings, threatening me with eviction, when the party pushing an auction sale and subsequent eviction has little incentive to negotiate a resolution with me if they don't in fact hold the debt they harass me over.                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/11/08/wheres-the-harm-classic-question-from-judges-to-foreclosed-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169627/wheres_the_harm_classic_question_from_judges_to_foreclosed_homeowners.mp3" length="29332420" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>    Yes listeners well know that it is continuing the mantra of judges all around the nation in non-judicial and judicial foreclosure cases alike: Where is the Harm? to you the 'borrower'. Well one judge did find great harm to a party subject to a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[    Yes listeners well know that it is continuing the mantra of judges all around the nation in non-judicial and judicial foreclosure cases alike: Where is the Harm? to you the 'borrower'. Well one judge did find great harm to a party subject to a judicial foreclosure in Florida, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Riley, which case we have discussed previously on the Show. See Neil's blog post for details. Bottom line in this case the Judge found Wells Fargo had unclean hands in their behavior, and so could not proceed with the foreclosure.   As for addressing with a wider scope the issue of harm to 'borrowers' in these situations, the following types of harm are typical and often ongoing:   - Not getting a true accounting of the amount of money still owing on the alleged debt, and a proper showing of the real creditor to whom any payments are to be made;   - Not having the ability to finally reconcile the debt with the true holder of the debt; - Having an entity report to credit agencies that I am supposedly in default on a mortgage loan, where the particulars of who I owe the money to and the amount of money at issue are finessed or outright misrepresented;   - Not having the ablity to alienate, that is sell or even rent my property, without the chain of title be a chaotic mess which cannot be properly explained to potential third-party purchasers or renters;   - Being subject to continual foreclosure proceedings, threatening me with eviction, when the party pushing an auction sale and subsequent eviction has little incentive to negotiate a resolution with me if they don't in fact hold the debt they harass me over.                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1834</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>51</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Lose a Foreclosure Case</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-lose-a-foreclosure-case--63169646</link><description><![CDATA[All foreclosure cases are on life support. In all cases you need to do the proper investigation, analysis and legal research. But the key component is persuasive presentation. In banks vs. homeowner the banks win on persuasive presentation. Tonight we talk about how to lose and how to win.   The banks start off with a case that cannot be won if all facts were known and applicable law was used. The banks do it by sending in lawyers with carefully worded scripts to give the impression that this a standard foreclosure for nonpayment of a debt. They have memorandums of law and cases (they rarely cite to statutes) that create the illusion that (a) the foreclosure is inevitable and (b) the homeowner is trying to buy time or get some undeserved leverage.    The homeowner usually spends all their time and money collecting facts and getting snippets of analysis off the internet. Neither they nor their lawyers spend any quality time on presentation. As a result the defense is what I call a "yes but" defense. As soon as you say yes you are buried. The "but" means nothing. And that is how the case ends up on life support. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/11/01/how-to-lose-a-foreclosure-case</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169646/how_to_lose_a_foreclosure_case.mp3" length="29145174" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>All foreclosure cases are on life support. In all cases you need to do the proper investigation, analysis and legal research. But the key component is persuasive presentation. In banks vs. homeowner the banks win on persuasive presentation. Tonight we...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[All foreclosure cases are on life support. In all cases you need to do the proper investigation, analysis and legal research. But the key component is persuasive presentation. In banks vs. homeowner the banks win on persuasive presentation. Tonight we talk about how to lose and how to win.   The banks start off with a case that cannot be won if all facts were known and applicable law was used. The banks do it by sending in lawyers with carefully worded scripts to give the impression that this a standard foreclosure for nonpayment of a debt. They have memorandums of law and cases (they rarely cite to statutes) that create the illusion that (a) the foreclosure is inevitable and (b) the homeowner is trying to buy time or get some undeserved leverage.    The homeowner usually spends all their time and money collecting facts and getting snippets of analysis off the internet. Neither they nor their lawyers spend any quality time on presentation. As a result the defense is what I call a "yes but" defense. As soon as you say yes you are buried. The "but" means nothing. And that is how the case ends up on life support. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1822</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,persuasion,presentation</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>50</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The inevitable happens: Criminal use of Cal. foreclosure law to steal title.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-inevitable-happens-criminal-use-of-cal-foreclosure-law-to-steal-title--63169632</link><description><![CDATA[Today we discuss on the West Coast Foreclosure show with Bill Paatalo a civil lawsuit in which Nationstar Mortgage LLC is suing various defendants for essentially subverting Nationstar's ostensibly valid interest in the subject properties. This suit, short title Nationstar v. Patrick Joseph Soria, et al, seeks to use the power of a full-blown Defendants' asset freeze to shut down the efforts of Defendants to continue what appears on its face to be a criminal enterprise.   Caveats all around here, though it needs to be said that various criminal investigations into Defendants' conduct are being directed from various quarters in California, including Los Angeles County and portions of Central Califorina, in which according to the Nationstar lawsuit criminal proceedings are pending against Soria in San Joaquin County re the business enterprise at issue here. See Neil's Blog for some case information and documentation on this Nationstar lawsuit.   Ah yes, the inevitability of all this....it is almost patently reasonable to maintain that it was and is inevitable that California's non-judicial foreclosure scheme is great cover for the type of activity seen here. Same non-judicial legal framework is but a modest--one might say papier mache--backstop against illegitimate foreclosure actions, where the proving of true title before proceeding with a trustee's sale is rarely vetted by the Courts, and only then when hard-pressed homeowners elect to sue to try and protect their fragile legal rights, in which proceedings more often than not the 'pretender-lender' is ratified as the real one by California's courts, State and Federal.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/10/25/the-inevitable-happens-criminal-use-of-cal-foreclosure-law-to-steal-title</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169632/the_inevitable_happens_criminal_use_of_cal_foreclosure_law_to_steal_title.mp3" length="28887711" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today we discuss on the West Coast Foreclosure show with Bill Paatalo a civil lawsuit in which Nationstar Mortgage LLC is suing various defendants for essentially subverting Nationstar's ostensibly valid interest in the subject properties. This suit,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today we discuss on the West Coast Foreclosure show with Bill Paatalo a civil lawsuit in which Nationstar Mortgage LLC is suing various defendants for essentially subverting Nationstar's ostensibly valid interest in the subject properties. This suit, short title Nationstar v. Patrick Joseph Soria, et al, seeks to use the power of a full-blown Defendants' asset freeze to shut down the efforts of Defendants to continue what appears on its face to be a criminal enterprise.   Caveats all around here, though it needs to be said that various criminal investigations into Defendants' conduct are being directed from various quarters in California, including Los Angeles County and portions of Central Califorina, in which according to the Nationstar lawsuit criminal proceedings are pending against Soria in San Joaquin County re the business enterprise at issue here. See Neil's Blog for some case information and documentation on this Nationstar lawsuit.   Ah yes, the inevitability of all this....it is almost patently reasonable to maintain that it was and is inevitable that California's non-judicial foreclosure scheme is great cover for the type of activity seen here. Same non-judicial legal framework is but a modest--one might say papier mache--backstop against illegitimate foreclosure actions, where the proving of true title before proceeding with a trustee's sale is rarely vetted by the Courts, and only then when hard-pressed homeowners elect to sue to try and protect their fragile legal rights, in which proceedings more often than not the 'pretender-lender' is ratified as the real one by California's courts, State and Federal.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1806</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>criminal enterprise,fraudulent title,non-judicial foreclosure</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>49</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Confronting False Legal Presumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/confronting-false-legal-presumptions--63169690</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about how to deal with legal presumptions and how much proof you need to undermine the presumptions and thus force the foreclosing party (if it exists at all) to prove its case with real evidence, testimony and documents that are valid and authenticated.  Based upon 12 years of experience with this issue I have concluded with complete certainty that the named foreclosers are pretenders and that they have no right, title or interest in the loans. More importantly I have concluded that the lawyers for the named foreclosers do not have witnesses nor documents that can be corroborated or authenticated.  This leaves ownership of the debt in the winds. The fact that the court is not given the information necessary to conclude that the party who initiated foreclosure is not the creditor and that as far as the case is concerned, no creditor stepped forward is not a problem for homeowners. It is a problem for the banks who want the courts to grant foreclosure to whoever claims it.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/10/18/confronting-false-legal-presumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169690/confronting_false_legal_presumptions.mp3" length="28878516" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we talk about how to deal with legal presumptions and how much proof you need to undermine the presumptions and thus force the foreclosing party (if it exists at all) to prove its case with real evidence, testimony and documents that are valid...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about how to deal with legal presumptions and how much proof you need to undermine the presumptions and thus force the foreclosing party (if it exists at all) to prove its case with real evidence, testimony and documents that are valid and authenticated.  Based upon 12 years of experience with this issue I have concluded with complete certainty that the named foreclosers are pretenders and that they have no right, title or interest in the loans. More importantly I have concluded that the lawyers for the named foreclosers do not have witnesses nor documents that can be corroborated or authenticated.  This leaves ownership of the debt in the winds. The fact that the court is not given the information necessary to conclude that the party who initiated foreclosure is not the creditor and that as far as the case is concerned, no creditor stepped forward is not a problem for homeowners. It is a problem for the banks who want the courts to grant foreclosure to whoever claims it.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>burden of proof,legal presumptions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>48</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Two California UD cases which show the path to winning UD cases for borrowers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/two-california-ud-cases-which-show-the-path-to-winning-ud-cases-for-borrowers--63169647</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall will discuss today two seminal unlawful detainer (UD) cases, in which respectively in each case the lower Court there found per usual for the institutional UD Plaintiiff against the 'former' homeowner who was foreclosed on by an instutiional trust, aka 'lender-in-succession'. Yet on appeal of the UD judgment, in both these separate cases, the appellate courts reversed the judgment and remanded the cases.   First up for discussion today is Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) v. Preciado, the appeal decided in August 2013. The second case is US Financial, L.P. v. McLitus, decided on appeal in August of 2016, which appeal decision was published in November 2016.   Both appellate courts found that neither UD Plaintiff had perfected title, as required by CCC 2924. Will discuss the reasons for this on today's show.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/10/11/two-california-ud-cases-which-show-the-path-to-winning-ud-cases-for-borrowers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169647/two_california_ud_cases_which_show_the_path_to_winning_ud_cases_for_borrowers.mp3" length="29154787" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall will discuss today two seminal unlawful detainer (UD) cases, in which respectively in each case the lower Court there found per usual for the institutional UD Plaintiiff against the 'former' homeowner who was foreclosed on by...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall will discuss today two seminal unlawful detainer (UD) cases, in which respectively in each case the lower Court there found per usual for the institutional UD Plaintiiff against the 'former' homeowner who was foreclosed on by an instutiional trust, aka 'lender-in-succession'. Yet on appeal of the UD judgment, in both these separate cases, the appellate courts reversed the judgment and remanded the cases.   First up for discussion today is Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) v. Preciado, the appeal decided in August 2013. The second case is US Financial, L.P. v. McLitus, decided on appeal in August of 2016, which appeal decision was published in November 2016.   Both appellate courts found that neither UD Plaintiff had perfected title, as required by CCC 2924. Will discuss the reasons for this on today's show.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1823</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>47</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Finally a potentially effective way to challenge MERS assignments in California</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/finally-a-potentially-effective-way-to-challenge-mers-assignments-in-california--63169687</link><description><![CDATA[Yes the bane of California-based litigators both attorneys and those in pro per is MERS, and the way Caifornia courts State and Federal routinely allow MERS assignments to be sanitized and made legitimate, notwithstanding the many issues with same assignments, from robo-sigining, to non-compliant declarations getting around the hearsay rule, to self-dealing and double-dealing. Well now we have Bll Paatalo back today on the West Coast Foreclosure show to discuss how litigants are using RTC 23302 Pt 1 to effectively attack certain MERS-based foreclosure-related assignments and the associated agency attendant to same assignments.                     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/10/04/finally-a-potentially-effective-way-to-challenge-mers-assignments-in-california</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169687/finally_a_potentially_effective_way_to_challenge_mers_assignments_in_california.mp3" length="29230020" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Yes the bane of California-based litigators both attorneys and those in pro per is MERS, and the way Caifornia courts State and Federal routinely allow MERS assignments to be sanitized and made legitimate, notwithstanding the many issues with same...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Yes the bane of California-based litigators both attorneys and those in pro per is MERS, and the way Caifornia courts State and Federal routinely allow MERS assignments to be sanitized and made legitimate, notwithstanding the many issues with same assignments, from robo-sigining, to non-compliant declarations getting around the hearsay rule, to self-dealing and double-dealing. Well now we have Bll Paatalo back today on the West Coast Foreclosure show to discuss how litigants are using RTC 23302 Pt 1 to effectively attack certain MERS-based foreclosure-related assignments and the associated agency attendant to same assignments.                     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1827</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attacking assignments,mers,void assignments</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>46</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Use Mediation to Obtain a Better Result in Mortgage Foreclosure Cases</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-use-mediation-to-obtain-a-better-result-in-mortgage-foreclosure-cases--63169702</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about mediation and modification. It turns out that mediation, if played properly, can be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the dubious authority of anyone to initiate foreclosure, or appear at mediation.   As for mediation most people do not realize that mediation is an extremely potent tool for homeowners. What you want is an order that commands all parties to be present with complete authority to negotiate a settlement through either lump sum payment or modification of the current installment payments.    None of the Banks, Servicers, trustees etc. can comply with that simple order.  If a judge orders the parties to mediation and one of them doesn’t show up, the sanctions usually are judgment or dismissal for the other side. If the court order says the persons showing up must have all the authority necessary to make a final decision and execute a binding settlement agreement and their appearance is by some doofus on the telephone who won’t give his full name and is only authorized to offer you an application for modification, the order has been violated as well. The results are strikingly favorable to homeowners.    The facts show that in most cases the party named by lawyers as having initiated foreclosure are not showing up and never will show up. And that is because there is no trust, there is no trustee, there is no trustor, there is no beneficiary, and there are no assets that have been entrusted to the trustee to actively manage on behalf of named beneficiaries of a legally existing and valid trust.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/09/27/how-to-use-mediation-to-obtain-a-better-result-in-mortgage-foreclosure-cases</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169702/how_to_use_mediation_to_obtain_a_better_result_in_mortgage_foreclosure_cases.mp3" length="28878516" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we talk about mediation and modification. It turns out that mediation, if played properly, can be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the dubious authority of anyone to initiate foreclosure, or appear at mediation.   As for mediation most...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we talk about mediation and modification. It turns out that mediation, if played properly, can be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the dubious authority of anyone to initiate foreclosure, or appear at mediation.   As for mediation most people do not realize that mediation is an extremely potent tool for homeowners. What you want is an order that commands all parties to be present with complete authority to negotiate a settlement through either lump sum payment or modification of the current installment payments.    None of the Banks, Servicers, trustees etc. can comply with that simple order.  If a judge orders the parties to mediation and one of them doesn’t show up, the sanctions usually are judgment or dismissal for the other side. If the court order says the persons showing up must have all the authority necessary to make a final decision and execute a binding settlement agreement and their appearance is by some doofus on the telephone who won’t give his full name and is only authorized to offer you an application for modification, the order has been violated as well. The results are strikingly favorable to homeowners.    The facts show that in most cases the party named by lawyers as having initiated foreclosure are not showing up and never will show up. And that is because there is no trust, there is no trustee, there is no trustor, there is no beneficiary, and there are no assets that have been entrusted to the trustee to actively manage on behalf of named beneficiaries of a legally existing and valid trust.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appearance of parties,court order,mediation,modification</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>45</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Bill Paatalo is back to discuss some winning foreclosure cases.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bill-paatalo-is-back-to-discuss-some-winning-foreclosure-cases--63169695</link><description><![CDATA[Today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show we discuss two Plaintiff's lawsuits where the Courts do the right thing, at least partially. One case, out of Massachusetts, Starkey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al., addresses our not-so-good statutory friend the FIRREA framework at issue, as here, in so many cases where 'assets' of Washington Mutual were transferred to Chase via the corporate BK of Washington Mutual back in 2008.   The second case, McManus v. Bank of America, et al., comes out of the Eastern District of California Federal Court, just this month, with a pro se Plaintiff, and potentially revives wrongful foreclosure as a viable cause of action in California.     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/09/20/bill-paatalo-is-back-to-discuss-some-winning-foreclosure-cases</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169695/bill_paatalo_is_back_to_discuss_some_winning_foreclosure_cases.mp3" length="28910699" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show we discuss two Plaintiff's lawsuits where the Courts do the right thing, at least partially. One case, out of Massachusetts, Starkey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al., addresses our not-so-good...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show we discuss two Plaintiff's lawsuits where the Courts do the right thing, at least partially. One case, out of Massachusetts, Starkey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al., addresses our not-so-good statutory friend the FIRREA framework at issue, as here, in so many cases where 'assets' of Washington Mutual were transferred to Chase via the corporate BK of Washington Mutual back in 2008.   The second case, McManus v. Bank of America, et al., comes out of the Eastern District of California Federal Court, just this month, with a pro se Plaintiff, and potentially revives wrongful foreclosure as a viable cause of action in California.     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,firrea,foreclosure plaintiff wins,motions to dismiss,wrongful foreclosure</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>44</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>"Free House" Myth and TILA Rescission</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/free-house-myth-and-tila-rescission--63169584</link><description><![CDATA[STOP COMPLAINING AND ATTACK HEAD ON  If bias were the basis for challenging a decision there would be no final decisions. The losing party would always shout bias and the decision would go into limbo. Our judicial system recognizes that judges are human beings and that all human beings have biases and preferences. The question is not whether the bias exists; it is whether the bias caused the judge to prejudge the case.  *  The backdrop of all judicial decisions is that judges refuse to give homeowners a free house. I tend address this head-on and state the obvious bias. Bias is not grounds for recusal in and of itself. Having stated the common bias, I then attack the notion of a free house.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/09/13/free-house-myth-and-tila-rescission</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169584/free_house_myth_and_tila_rescission.mp3" length="29056985" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>STOP COMPLAINING AND ATTACK HEAD ON  If bias were the basis for challenging a decision there would be no final decisions. The losing party would always shout bias and the decision would go into limbo. Our judicial system recognizes that judges are...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[STOP COMPLAINING AND ATTACK HEAD ON  If bias were the basis for challenging a decision there would be no final decisions. The losing party would always shout bias and the decision would go into limbo. Our judicial system recognizes that judges are human beings and that all human beings have biases and preferences. The question is not whether the bias exists; it is whether the bias caused the judge to prejudge the case.  *  The backdrop of all judicial decisions is that judges refuse to give homeowners a free house. I tend address this head-on and state the obvious bias. Bias is not grounds for recusal in and of itself. Having stated the common bias, I then attack the notion of a free house.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1817</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>15 usc §1635,biases,freehouse,prejudgment,tila rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>43</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Straw Man "LSF9 Master Participation Trust" further exposed by Bill Paatalo</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/straw-man-lsf9-master-participation-trust-further-exposed-by-bill-paatalo--63169639</link><description><![CDATA[    Bill Paatalo joins Attorney Charles Marshall today to provide more info and intell re the "LSF9 Master Participation Trust", rightly considered by Bill to be a straw man hiding the machinations of US Bank to obfuscate chain-of-title issues in loans ostensibly legally connected to US Bank trusts.   As part of our continuing expose on this issue, we will revisit the Wells Fargo v. Riley case, the Florida case in which Defendant Riley was granted in December 2017 a final judgment for Defendant against Wells Fargo. You will find that case in Florida's 15th Judicial Circuit, covering Palm Beach County, Case No. 50-2016-CA-010759.   See Bill's further analysis on this LSF9 issue at his Blog for his BP Investigative Agency below:  https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-a-straw-man-and-heres-some-proof/        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/09/06/straw-man-lsf9-master-participation-trust-further-exposed-by-bill-paatalo</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169639/straw_man_lsf9_master_participation_trust_further_exposed_by_bill_paatalo.mp3" length="29502529" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>    Bill Paatalo joins Attorney Charles Marshall today to provide more info and intell re the "LSF9 Master Participation Trust", rightly considered by Bill to be a straw man hiding the machinations of US Bank to obfuscate chain-of-title issues in...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[    Bill Paatalo joins Attorney Charles Marshall today to provide more info and intell re the "LSF9 Master Participation Trust", rightly considered by Bill to be a straw man hiding the machinations of US Bank to obfuscate chain-of-title issues in loans ostensibly legally connected to US Bank trusts.   As part of our continuing expose on this issue, we will revisit the Wells Fargo v. Riley case, the Florida case in which Defendant Riley was granted in December 2017 a final judgment for Defendant against Wells Fargo. You will find that case in Florida's 15th Judicial Circuit, covering Palm Beach County, Case No. 50-2016-CA-010759.   See Bill's further analysis on this LSF9 issue at his Blog for his BP Investigative Agency below:  https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/lsf9-master-participation-trust-is-a-straw-man-and-heres-some-proof/        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1844</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>42</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why foreclosure cases are still not getting enough traction for homeowners</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-foreclosure-cases-are-still-not-getting-enough-traction-for-homeowners--63169645</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Charles Marshall is on to discuss one of his favorite if unpleasant topics: Institutional Bias in the foreclosure arena directed at Homeowners. There are many layers and associated pieces to this situation, which I will discuss on the show:   - Institutional bias of the lenders, servicers, securitized trusts, sale's trustees, etc;   - institutional bias of the alphabet soup Government agencies inclulding the CFPB, FTC, State and County Bar associations, etc;   - institutional bias of the courts and associated judges and clerks;   Finally, we will cover implications of these biases for the homeowner in foreclosure and what to do about it.            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/08/23/why-foreclosure-cases-are-still-not-getting-enough-traction-for-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169645/why_foreclosure_cases_are_still_not_getting_enough_traction_for_homeowners.mp3" length="28809971" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Charles Marshall is on to discuss one of his favorite if unpleasant topics: Institutional Bias in the foreclosure arena directed at Homeowners. There are many layers and associated pieces to this situation, which I will discuss on the show:...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Charles Marshall is on to discuss one of his favorite if unpleasant topics: Institutional Bias in the foreclosure arena directed at Homeowners. There are many layers and associated pieces to this situation, which I will discuss on the show:   - Institutional bias of the lenders, servicers, securitized trusts, sale's trustees, etc;   - institutional bias of the alphabet soup Government agencies inclulding the CFPB, FTC, State and County Bar associations, etc;   - institutional bias of the courts and associated judges and clerks;   Finally, we will cover implications of these biases for the homeowner in foreclosure and what to do about it.            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>41</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How to Deal with Legal Presumptions of Nonexistent Facts.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-to-deal-with-legal-presumptions-of-nonexistent-facts--63169640</link><description><![CDATA[You have already achieved the goal. At this point you can argue that you asked for the identity of the holder in due course and they were unable or unwilling to provide the information. The confusion emanates from the fact that a holder can sue on the note if it has the right to enforce the note, which right must come from the creditor.   But the apparent rebuttable legal presumptions run against you. In every case the success of the foreclosure is entirely dependent upon the success of the foreclosure mill attorneys in invoking legal presumptions of fact because the actual facts differ from what is presumed by the Judge.  But the one legal presumption that would wipe out virtually all borrower defenses is NEVER invoked --- the status of holder in due course. Because that would mean proving that a purchase of the debt, note and mortgage occurred in which the foreclosing party is or was the purchaser in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower's defenses. Instead the crafty lawyers get judges to presume that the foreclosing party should be treated as a holder in due course, thereby evading their true burden of proof.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/08/16/how-to-deal-with-legal-presumptions-of-nonexistent-facts</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169640/how_to_deal_with_legal_presumptions_of_nonexistent_facts.mp3" length="29765426" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You have already achieved the goal. At this point you can argue that you asked for the identity of the holder in due course and they were unable or unwilling to provide the information. The confusion emanates from the fact that a holder can sue on the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You have already achieved the goal. At this point you can argue that you asked for the identity of the holder in due course and they were unable or unwilling to provide the information. The confusion emanates from the fact that a holder can sue on the note if it has the right to enforce the note, which right must come from the creditor.   But the apparent rebuttable legal presumptions run against you. In every case the success of the foreclosure is entirely dependent upon the success of the foreclosure mill attorneys in invoking legal presumptions of fact because the actual facts differ from what is presumed by the Judge.  But the one legal presumption that would wipe out virtually all borrower defenses is NEVER invoked --- the status of holder in due course. Because that would mean proving that a purchase of the debt, note and mortgage occurred in which the foreclosing party is or was the purchaser in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower's defenses. Instead the crafty lawyers get judges to presume that the foreclosing party should be treated as a holder in due course, thereby evading their true burden of proof.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1861</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>article 3,burden of proof,holder,holder in due course,legal presumptions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>40</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Chase robo-signer implodes at trial winning case for homeowner</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/chase-robo-signer-implodes-at-trial-winning-case-for-homeowner--63169652</link><description><![CDATA[In the December 2017 Florida judicial foreclosure case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Riley, Court holds after trial that Defendant homeowner prevails and keeps his home due to three legal theories, the first and paramount one that the Plaintiff Wells Fargo on behalf of a Chase Trust, had unclean hands for through a key witness dissembling at trial (and failing to prove) that the 'Chase Trust' had possession of the original Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) at issue in the case. As the opinion after trial noted, "even if Plaintiff had standing to foreclose (a meritorious claim), Planitff would be denied the equitable relief of foreclosure upon a finding that Plaintiff took action in pursuing this foreclosure that reasonable and honest men would condemn."   Now to see this principle of unclean hands applied in California and other non-judicial case lawsuits on behalf of homeowner Plaintiffs....    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/08/09/chase-robo-signer-implodes-at-trial-winning-case-for-homeowner</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169652/chase_robo_signer_implodes_at_trial_winning_case_for_homeowner.mp3" length="29123858" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In the December 2017 Florida judicial foreclosure case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Riley, Court holds after trial that Defendant homeowner prevails and keeps his home due to three legal theories, the first and paramount one that the Plaintiff Wells Fargo...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In the December 2017 Florida judicial foreclosure case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Riley, Court holds after trial that Defendant homeowner prevails and keeps his home due to three legal theories, the first and paramount one that the Plaintiff Wells Fargo on behalf of a Chase Trust, had unclean hands for through a key witness dissembling at trial (and failing to prove) that the 'Chase Trust' had possession of the original Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) at issue in the case. As the opinion after trial noted, "even if Plaintiff had standing to foreclose (a meritorious claim), Planitff would be denied the equitable relief of foreclosure upon a finding that Plaintiff took action in pursuing this foreclosure that reasonable and honest men would condemn."   Now to see this principle of unclean hands applied in California and other non-judicial case lawsuits on behalf of homeowner Plaintiffs....    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>homeowner wins,judicial foreclosure,robo-signer witnesses,unclean hands legal theory</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>39</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What effect does TILA Rescission have on my title? Can I sue for damages?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-effect-does-tila-rescission-have-on-my-title-can-i-sue-for-damages--63169657</link><description><![CDATA[Whether you can sue for damages is one question. Whether the rescission had the effect of removing the jurisdiction, right or authority to dispossess you of title is another. And whether title ever changed is yet another. Yes you can sue for damages if not barred by a statute of limitations. Yes authority is vitiated by operation of law regardless of the status of litigation. And NO, title never changed and you probably own your house unless state law restricts your right to claim such ownership.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/08/02/what-effect-does-tila-rescission-have-on-my-title-can-i-sue-for-damages</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169657/what_effect_does_tila_rescission_have_on_my_title_can_i_sue_for_damages.mp3" length="28909445" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Whether you can sue for damages is one question. Whether the rescission had the effect of removing the jurisdiction, right or authority to dispossess you of title is another. And whether title ever changed is yet another. Yes you can sue for damages...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Whether you can sue for damages is one question. Whether the rescission had the effect of removing the jurisdiction, right or authority to dispossess you of title is another. And whether title ever changed is yet another. Yes you can sue for damages if not barred by a statute of limitations. Yes authority is vitiated by operation of law regardless of the status of litigation. And NO, title never changed and you probably own your house unless state law restricts your right to claim such ownership.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>15 usc §1635,drafting pleadings,livinglies,neil garfield,tila rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Open Rebellion By Inferior Courts Threatens Authority of SCOTUS!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/open-rebellion-by-inferior-courts-threatens-authority-of-scotus--63169671</link><description><![CDATA[While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  unanimously (9-0) put to bed all of the arguments against the effectiveness of a notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), all inferior and lower courts have been ruling the other way. Any dispute raised by anyone, even if they have no legal standing to do so, is taken as an excuse for the lower courts to impose conditions not included in the TILA Rescission statute and banned or barred by SCOTUS.  Join me tonight as we discuss what to do about rebellious judges and how to preserve your interest in real property despite a negative ruling from a trial judge, even if it is affirmed by an appellate court other than SCOTUS, the highest court in the land.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/07/26/open-rebellion-by-inferior-courts-threatens-authority-of-scotus</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169671/open_rebellion_by_inferior_courts_threatens_authority_of_scotus.mp3" length="29090422" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  unanimously (9-0) put to bed all of the arguments against the effectiveness of a notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), all...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  unanimously (9-0) put to bed all of the arguments against the effectiveness of a notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), all inferior and lower courts have been ruling the other way. Any dispute raised by anyone, even if they have no legal standing to do so, is taken as an excuse for the lower courts to impose conditions not included in the TILA Rescission statute and banned or barred by SCOTUS.  Join me tonight as we discuss what to do about rebellious judges and how to preserve your interest in real property despite a negative ruling from a trial judge, even if it is affirmed by an appellate court other than SCOTUS, the highest court in the land.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,jesinoski,rescission,scotus,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Legal Standing Requires Legal Proof</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/legal-standing-requires-legal-proof--63169662</link><description><![CDATA[Shrinking Legal Presumptions  Charles Marshall, California attorney and Bill Paatalo, private investigator, discuss the implications of two Hawaii cases that are mirroring other decisions across the country.  Hawaii Schranz Case  Hawaii St. John Case  The above links go to two recent Hawaii cases dealing with legal standing. The fundamental fact of law is that standing must be ACTUAL NOT PRESUMED.  Specifically the issue is whether the foreclosing party actually had the original note at the time the foreclosure was commenced. Reasserting that standing is jurisdictional and therefore must be proven (with actual facts) present before a party takes any action, the courts here reversed (not for publication) Summary Judgments in favor of U.S. Bank and BONY Melon respectively.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/07/19/legal-standing-requires-legal-proof</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169662/legal_standing_requires_legal_proof.mp3" length="29304835" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Shrinking Legal Presumptions  Charles Marshall, California attorney and Bill Paatalo, private investigator, discuss the implications of two Hawaii cases that are mirroring other decisions across the country.  Hawaii Schranz Case  Hawaii St. John Case...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Shrinking Legal Presumptions  Charles Marshall, California attorney and Bill Paatalo, private investigator, discuss the implications of two Hawaii cases that are mirroring other decisions across the country.  Hawaii Schranz Case  Hawaii St. John Case  The above links go to two recent Hawaii cases dealing with legal standing. The fundamental fact of law is that standing must be ACTUAL NOT PRESUMED.  Specifically the issue is whether the foreclosing party actually had the original note at the time the foreclosure was commenced. Reasserting that standing is jurisdictional and therefore must be proven (with actual facts) present before a party takes any action, the courts here reversed (not for publication) Summary Judgments in favor of U.S. Bank and BONY Melon respectively.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1832</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>actual proof of facts,bony mellon,legal presumptions,legal standing,us bank</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Modification Muddle and Strategies</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/modification-muddle-and-strategies--63169673</link><description><![CDATA[There is a great deal of conflict and confusion in the world of foreclosure defense about the prospect of modification. It is obvious that approvals are random only to create the impression that an entire system devoted to foreclosing on as many homes as possible is purportedly attempting to work with homeowners.  We all know that we are dealing with entities who have no right, title or interest to the loans or the servicing or the administration of them. Yet we are presented with a crazy hodgepodge of demands for paperwork so that the unauthorized servicer can “consider” and “get approval” from the “investor.”  If the terms are favorable to the homeowners, many homeowners are advised by me and others to accept the modification even though we know that we are not settling with anyone who has the right or authority to bring the claim, much less settle it. But settlement/modification brings with it some potential opportunities to drill home your primary defense narrative.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/07/12/modification-muddle-and-strategies</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169673/modification_muddle_and_strategies.mp3" length="29055731" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There is a great deal of conflict and confusion in the world of foreclosure defense about the prospect of modification. It is obvious that approvals are random only to create the impression that an entire system devoted to foreclosing on as many homes...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is a great deal of conflict and confusion in the world of foreclosure defense about the prospect of modification. It is obvious that approvals are random only to create the impression that an entire system devoted to foreclosing on as many homes as possible is purportedly attempting to work with homeowners.  We all know that we are dealing with entities who have no right, title or interest to the loans or the servicing or the administration of them. Yet we are presented with a crazy hodgepodge of demands for paperwork so that the unauthorized servicer can “consider” and “get approval” from the “investor.”  If the terms are favorable to the homeowners, many homeowners are advised by me and others to accept the modification even though we know that we are not settling with anyone who has the right or authority to bring the claim, much less settle it. But settlement/modification brings with it some potential opportunities to drill home your primary defense narrative.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1816</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>authority,modification,remic,trust,trustee</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Anatomy of a Foreclosure Case</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/anatomy-of-a-foreclosure-case--63169699</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to discuss the structure and content of foreclosure cases.   (1) What facts really matter?  (2) How do you stop fabricated evidence from being admitted in evidence?  (3) What is the difference between forgery and robosigning?  (4) Death of a Salesman: What happens when the "lender" on the note and deed of trust is no longer in business?  (5) How do you persuade the judge that you are seeking the creditor, not a free house?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/07/05/anatomy-of-a-foreclosure-case</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169699/anatomy_of_a_foreclosure_case.mp3" length="28535372" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to discuss the structure and content of foreclosure cases.   (1) What facts really matter?  (2) How do you stop fabricated evidence from being admitted in evidence?  (3) What is the difference between forgery...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo return to discuss the structure and content of foreclosure cases.   (1) What facts really matter?  (2) How do you stop fabricated evidence from being admitted in evidence?  (3) What is the difference between forgery and robosigning?  (4) Death of a Salesman: What happens when the "lender" on the note and deed of trust is no longer in business?  (5) How do you persuade the judge that you are seeking the creditor, not a free house?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chain of custody,delivery,legal presumptions,"lender",money trail</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tonight! How to Defend Against a Claim of “Holder” Status to Discredit Standing</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tonight-how-to-defend-against-a-claim-of-holder-status-to-discredit-standing--63169655</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight I will discuss the central point of of false claims of authority to enforce the note, and inferentially the authority to enforce the mortgage.  In 2008, I called to confront a lawyer about the false claim of being authorized to enforce the note and mortgage, his reply to all my questions was “We’re a holder.”  No matter what I said or asked, that was his answer. He was relying upon a carefully thought out strategy of taking the term “holder” and stretching it to unimaginable lengths. And in that conversation it became clear that he — and the rest of the investment banking industry — were essentially “banking” on a single fact, to wit: that Judges are lawyers who went to law school and for the most part slept through classes on negotiable instruments. He was right.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/06/28/tonight-how-to-defend-against-a-claim-of-holder-status-to-discredit-standing</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169655/tonight_how_to_defend_against_a_claim_of_holder_status_to_discredit_standing.mp3" length="29120515" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight I will discuss the central point of of false claims of authority to enforce the note, and inferentially the authority to enforce the mortgage.  In 2008, I called to confront a lawyer about the false claim of being authorized to enforce the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight I will discuss the central point of of false claims of authority to enforce the note, and inferentially the authority to enforce the mortgage.  In 2008, I called to confront a lawyer about the false claim of being authorized to enforce the note and mortgage, his reply to all my questions was “We’re a holder.”  No matter what I said or asked, that was his answer. He was relying upon a carefully thought out strategy of taking the term “holder” and stretching it to unimaginable lengths. And in that conversation it became clear that he — and the rest of the investment banking industry — were essentially “banking” on a single fact, to wit: that Judges are lawyers who went to law school and for the most part slept through classes on negotiable instruments. He was right.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>holder,holder in due course,negotiiable instruments,ucc</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Holding creditors accountable for BK automatic stay abuses; deposition revisited</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/holding-creditors-accountable-for-bk-automatic-stay-abuses-deposition-revisited--63169679</link><description><![CDATA[                Bankruptcy Code Section 362 covers the automatic stay which occurs whenever a borrower-debtor files a BK A recent blog post by Neil on Neil's Livinglies blog breaks down well how consumer BK filers and their associated attorneys would do well to be proactive in bringing sanctions motions for violations of the automatic stay. On today's show we will go over how the stay works, when it applies, and how and when sanctions motions for violations can be brought.    First off today Bill Pattaslo will discuss a Wyoming Nationstar case (Klaczkiewicz v. Nationstar Mortgage, et al.), where the Plaintiff recently took a deposition of a Nationstar witness, and has several nuggets of goodness to report to our listening audience.                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/06/21/holding-creditors-accountable-for-bk-automatic-stay-abuses-deposition-revisited</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169679/holding_creditors_accountable_for_bk_automatic_stay_abuses_deposition_revisited.mp3" length="28893981" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>                Bankruptcy Code Section 362 covers the automatic stay which occurs whenever a borrower-debtor files a BK A recent blog post by Neil on Neil's Livinglies blog breaks down well how consumer BK filers and their associated attorneys would...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[                Bankruptcy Code Section 362 covers the automatic stay which occurs whenever a borrower-debtor files a BK A recent blog post by Neil on Neil's Livinglies blog breaks down well how consumer BK filers and their associated attorneys would do well to be proactive in bringing sanctions motions for violations of the automatic stay. On today's show we will go over how the stay works, when it applies, and how and when sanctions motions for violations can be brought.    First off today Bill Pattaslo will discuss a Wyoming Nationstar case (Klaczkiewicz v. Nationstar Mortgage, et al.), where the Plaintiff recently took a deposition of a Nationstar witness, and has several nuggets of goodness to report to our listening audience.                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1806</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Illinois Lopez Case: When Do the Rules Matter?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/illinois-lopez-case-when-do-the-rules-matter--63169691</link><description><![CDATA[It is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there even though everyone is complaining about not finding an attorney. Dan wins cases and motions because he fights every step of the way — but like every good litigator he thinks about the case before he writes or says anything.   Here the note was sent for endorsement AFTER suit was filed. Truth is stronger than fiction. In the Lopez case an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial judge and dismissed the foreclosure. Then the same court reversed its own decision en banc and affirmed the foreclosure. Now Khwaja is taking it to the Illinois Supreme Court. He has the law and the rules on his side. You can see what he filed here: US Bank, Trustee v Lopez   Daniel Khwaja, Esq.  Attorney at Law  ph (312)-933-4015    web:www.ilforeclosurelawyer.com  email: dsk@ilforeclosurelawyer.com    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/06/14/illinois-lopez-case-when-do-the-rules-matter</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169691/illinois_lopez_case_when_do_the_rules_matter.mp3" length="43634983" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>It is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there even though everyone is complaining about not finding an attorney. Dan wins cases and motions because he fights every...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[It is always a pleasure to speak with an attorney who is an ardent advocate for consumers. And it is good to know they are out there even though everyone is complaining about not finding an attorney. Dan wins cases and motions because he fights every step of the way — but like every good litigator he thinks about the case before he writes or says anything.   Here the note was sent for endorsement AFTER suit was filed. Truth is stronger than fiction. In the Lopez case an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial judge and dismissed the foreclosure. Then the same court reversed its own decision en banc and affirmed the foreclosure. Now Khwaja is taking it to the Illinois Supreme Court. He has the law and the rules on his side. You can see what he filed here: US Bank, Trustee v Lopez   Daniel Khwaja, Esq.  Attorney at Law  ph (312)-933-4015    web:www.ilforeclosurelawyer.com  email: dsk@ilforeclosurelawyer.com    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2728</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,foreclosure,illinois,khwaja,lopez</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure law: Implications re tax law, bankruptcy law, other law</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-law-implications-re-tax-law-bankruptcy-law-other-law--63169649</link><description><![CDATA[Foreclosure matters unresolved and especially even when resolved have major implications for legal options and results and at the far end impositions, related to taxes owed, credit consequences and options, bankruptcy options or impositiions, unlawful detainer options or limitations, and even estate planning alternatives. Will address all these topics today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/06/07/foreclosure-law-implications-re-tax-law-bankruptcy-law-other-law</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169649/foreclosure_law_implications_re_tax_law_bankruptcy_law_other_law.mp3" length="28819584" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Foreclosure matters unresolved and especially even when resolved have major implications for legal options and results and at the far end impositions, related to taxes owed, credit consequences and options, bankruptcy options or impositiions, unlawful...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Foreclosure matters unresolved and especially even when resolved have major implications for legal options and results and at the far end impositions, related to taxes owed, credit consequences and options, bankruptcy options or impositiions, unlawful detainer options or limitations, and even estate planning alternatives. Will address all these topics today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1802</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bankruptcy,estate planning,foreclosure,tax law,unlawful detainer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Fake Aggregation and False Assignments</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fake-aggregation-and-false-assignments--63169666</link><description><![CDATA[The banks have elevated pro forma spreadsheets into the illusion of actual deals. The reason nobody has ever come up with a money trail showing that the aggregation took place and was sold to a trust is that no such money trail exists.   The truth is that no actual aggregation took place and there was no sale to the trust. In fact probing the trusts, there is never a time that the trust is actually created by entrusting money or property to the named Trustee. Without that there is no Trust because nothing is held "in trust."   The money from investors is never held by the Trustee. The loan debt is never owned by the Trustee or the Trust. There is no sale. And that is because the Broker Dealers funded the loans in the first place using the money of investors.   Charles Marshall, California attorney joins the show tonight as co-host]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/05/31/fake-aggregation-and-false-assignments</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169666/fake_aggregation_and_false_assignments.mp3" length="28858454" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The banks have elevated pro forma spreadsheets into the illusion of actual deals. The reason nobody has ever come up with a money trail showing that the aggregation took place and was sold to a trust is that no such money trail exists.   The truth is...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The banks have elevated pro forma spreadsheets into the illusion of actual deals. The reason nobody has ever come up with a money trail showing that the aggregation took place and was sold to a trust is that no such money trail exists.   The truth is that no actual aggregation took place and there was no sale to the trust. In fact probing the trusts, there is never a time that the trust is actually created by entrusting money or property to the named Trustee. Without that there is no Trust because nothing is held "in trust."   The money from investors is never held by the Trustee. The loan debt is never owned by the Trustee or the Trust. There is no sale. And that is because the Broker Dealers funded the loans in the first place using the money of investors.   Charles Marshall, California attorney joins the show tonight as co-host]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1804</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>aggregation of loans,assignments,due process</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why do I have different loan numbers associated with my mortgage loan?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-do-i-have-different-loan-numbers-associated-with-my-mortgage-loan--63169654</link><description><![CDATA[it is possible to change loan numbers and the change could be related to combining data between two entities where the loan papers or servicing rights are supposedly being transferred. If Company A for example uses a 10 digit format for loan numbers and then “transfers” the loan to company B which uses 11 digit format for loan numbers, the loan number would need to be changed.  That said, it is often indicative of multiple transfers off record — i.e., where undisclosed third parties had possession, rights or even ownership of the loan documents. One of those parties might have more rights to enforce than the foreclosing party in your present case.  DISCOVERY:  Identify all loan numbers, including MIN, and any index used in alleged aggregation of loans that have ever been associated with the subject loan.  Describe the factual circumstances in which each loan number was used.  Produce all documents as defined herein that relate to ownership of  the subject debt.  Produce all documents as defined herein relating to transfer of any written instrument relating to the subject debt.  Neil F Garfield  954-451-1230]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/05/24/why-do-i-have-different-loan-numbers-associated-with-my-mortgage-loan</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169654/why_do_i_have_different_loan_numbers_associated_with_my_mortgage_loan.mp3" length="28868903" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>it is possible to change loan numbers and the change could be related to combining data between two entities where the loan papers or servicing rights are supposedly being transferred. If Company A for example uses a 10 digit format for loan numbers...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[it is possible to change loan numbers and the change could be related to combining data between two entities where the loan papers or servicing rights are supposedly being transferred. If Company A for example uses a 10 digit format for loan numbers and then “transfers” the loan to company B which uses 11 digit format for loan numbers, the loan number would need to be changed.  That said, it is often indicative of multiple transfers off record — i.e., where undisclosed third parties had possession, rights or even ownership of the loan documents. One of those parties might have more rights to enforce than the foreclosing party in your present case.  DISCOVERY:  Identify all loan numbers, including MIN, and any index used in alleged aggregation of loans that have ever been associated with the subject loan.  Describe the factual circumstances in which each loan number was used.  Produce all documents as defined herein that relate to ownership of  the subject debt.  Produce all documents as defined herein relating to transfer of any written instrument relating to the subject debt.  Neil F Garfield  954-451-1230]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>debt v written instrument,discovery,servicer advances,transfer of debt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Indemnification and how it applies to mortgage trust laundering of mortgages</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/indemnification-and-how-it-applies-to-mortgage-trust-laundering-of-mortgages--63169659</link><description><![CDATA[Indemnification of mortgages is a topic which is implicated when homeowners seek to refinance or sell their homes or the mortgage notes associated with their homes. Indemnification happens when one party tells another party: I will indemnify you from harm, meaning I will carry the weight of any legal consequences, and if you get an unfavorable legal consequence, such as an adverse Court ruling or judgment, I will in effect pick up the tab, and see that you are held harmless.    Securitizers of mortgages and their servicers and auction sale trustees often make it sound as if the hypothetical of another party trying to enforce their sketchy mortgage notes is just a misplaced notion, and that in any case they would argue (particularly in court proceedings or the pleadings related to same), they the institutional trust or serivcer could or would indemnify borrowers from a random third-party coming onto the scene to try and collect on the note. Discussing a California appeal case today shooting down that whole scenario, showing how indemnification may not be enough in these situations.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/05/17/indemnification-and-how-it-applies-to-mortgage-trust-laundering-of-mortgages</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169659/indemnification_and_how_it_applies_to_mortgage_trust_laundering_of_mortgages.mp3" length="28787401" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Indemnification of mortgages is a topic which is implicated when homeowners seek to refinance or sell their homes or the mortgage notes associated with their homes. Indemnification happens when one party tells another party: I will indemnify you from...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Indemnification of mortgages is a topic which is implicated when homeowners seek to refinance or sell their homes or the mortgage notes associated with their homes. Indemnification happens when one party tells another party: I will indemnify you from harm, meaning I will carry the weight of any legal consequences, and if you get an unfavorable legal consequence, such as an adverse Court ruling or judgment, I will in effect pick up the tab, and see that you are held harmless.    Securitizers of mortgages and their servicers and auction sale trustees often make it sound as if the hypothetical of another party trying to enforce their sketchy mortgage notes is just a misplaced notion, and that in any case they would argue (particularly in court proceedings or the pleadings related to same), they the institutional trust or serivcer could or would indemnify borrowers from a random third-party coming onto the scene to try and collect on the note. Discussing a California appeal case today shooting down that whole scenario, showing how indemnification may not be enough in these situations.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1800</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>10th Circuit limits Chase using bankruptcy claim preemption to dismiss lawsuits</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/10th-circuit-limits-chase-using-bankruptcy-claim-preemption-to-dismiss-lawsuits--63169681</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo is back on the West Coast Foreclosure Show to discuss a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which going forward will deny Chase the right to use bankruptcy preemption rules to deny homeowners pursuing claims against Chase due to endorsements of notes from WAMU, when those ostensibly legal (not!) endorsements occurred after September 25, 2008. Sounds complicated let's unpack matters for you: When WAMU went into bankruptcy receivership after going broke in September 2008, the FDIC took over its assets in receivership, using that receivership to transfer the WAMU assets to Chase Bank. Meanwhile, the FDIC set a 'claims bar' date of December 30, 2008, which had the effect of limiting and sometimes preventing homeowners from pursuing lawsuits against Chase based upon note endorsements from WAMU, when those endorsements happened while the FDIC had WAMU in receivership. Since many of those WAMU to Chase note endorsements occurred after the FDIC receivership ended, the bankruptcy preemption rules Chase has been using to stifle lawsuits will no longer be available to Chase to shut down those same lawsuits against them over illegal note endorsements. And all of this by the way in a TILA rescission lawsuit. The 10th Circuit ruling of Pembroke Living Trust v. US Bank National Association concerns principally a TILA rescission claim, which the 10th Circuit shot down. While issuing that ruling, the Court formally addressed the bankruptcy preemption claim issue highlighted above.                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/05/03/10th-circuit-limits-chase-using-bankruptcy-claim-preemption-to-dismiss-lawsuits</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169681/10th_circuit_limits_chase_using_bankruptcy_claim_preemption_to_dismiss_lawsuits.mp3" length="28559614" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo is back on the West Coast Foreclosure Show to discuss a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which going forward will deny Chase the right to use bankruptcy preemption rules to deny homeowners pursuing claims against Chase due to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo is back on the West Coast Foreclosure Show to discuss a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which going forward will deny Chase the right to use bankruptcy preemption rules to deny homeowners pursuing claims against Chase due to endorsements of notes from WAMU, when those ostensibly legal (not!) endorsements occurred after September 25, 2008. Sounds complicated let's unpack matters for you: When WAMU went into bankruptcy receivership after going broke in September 2008, the FDIC took over its assets in receivership, using that receivership to transfer the WAMU assets to Chase Bank. Meanwhile, the FDIC set a 'claims bar' date of December 30, 2008, which had the effect of limiting and sometimes preventing homeowners from pursuing lawsuits against Chase based upon note endorsements from WAMU, when those endorsements happened while the FDIC had WAMU in receivership. Since many of those WAMU to Chase note endorsements occurred after the FDIC receivership ended, the bankruptcy preemption rules Chase has been using to stifle lawsuits will no longer be available to Chase to shut down those same lawsuits against them over illegal note endorsements. And all of this by the way in a TILA rescission lawsuit. The 10th Circuit ruling of Pembroke Living Trust v. US Bank National Association concerns principally a TILA rescission claim, which the 10th Circuit shot down. While issuing that ruling, the Court formally addressed the bankruptcy preemption claim issue highlighted above.                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1785</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>10th circuit court of appeals,bankruptcy preemption,chase bank,tila rescission,wamu</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How Are Homeowners Winning?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-are-homeowners-winning--63169704</link><description><![CDATA[https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/tonight-how-are-homeowners-winning-the-neil-garfield-show/  Homeowners are winning cases in increasing numbers as Judges get increasingly skeptical of  the so-called evidence that is brought into their courtrooms by banks and servicers. Homeowners are winning foreclosure cases with rulings that describe the defects and deficiencies in the proof.Homeowners are winning wrongful foreclosure cases with 6-7 figure verdictsAlmost all of the many winning cases are silenced when the opposing side pays or gives value to the homeowner in exchange for a confidentiality agreement that silences them and their attorneys from discussing the case or the settlement.In foreclosure cases they win by attacking The existence of the trustThe powers of the trusteeThe authenticity of assignments of mortgageThe timing of the endorsements or the assignments of mortgageThe completeness of the PSAThe knowledge of the witnessInconsistencies in the pleadings and proofIn damage cases they are winning on several different types of claims including Fraudulent foreclosuresNegligenceRICOEmotional distressPunitive Damages Tune in tonight as we discuss these issues as hope for homeowners increases. But remember that most homeowners decide not to fight. SO most cases are decided by default. The time will come  when homeowners will win on the issue of TILA Rescission but not until SCOTUS rules AGAIN that courts may not interpret the TILA Rescission statute to grind a case into an outcome that is predetermined.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/04/26/how-are-homeowners-winning</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169704/how_are_homeowners_winning.mp3" length="29191986" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/tonight-how-are-homeowners-winning-the-neil-garfield-show/  Homeowners are winning cases in increasing numbers as Judges get increasingly skeptical of  the so-called evidence that is brought into their...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/tonight-how-are-homeowners-winning-the-neil-garfield-show/  Homeowners are winning cases in increasing numbers as Judges get increasingly skeptical of  the so-called evidence that is brought into their courtrooms by banks and servicers. Homeowners are winning foreclosure cases with rulings that describe the defects and deficiencies in the proof.Homeowners are winning wrongful foreclosure cases with 6-7 figure verdictsAlmost all of the many winning cases are silenced when the opposing side pays or gives value to the homeowner in exchange for a confidentiality agreement that silences them and their attorneys from discussing the case or the settlement.In foreclosure cases they win by attacking The existence of the trustThe powers of the trusteeThe authenticity of assignments of mortgageThe timing of the endorsements or the assignments of mortgageThe completeness of the PSAThe knowledge of the witnessInconsistencies in the pleadings and proofIn damage cases they are winning on several different types of claims including Fraudulent foreclosuresNegligenceRICOEmotional distressPunitive Damages Tune in tonight as we discuss these issues as hope for homeowners increases. But remember that most homeowners decide not to fight. SO most cases are decided by default. The time will come  when homeowners will win on the issue of TILA Rescission but not until SCOTUS rules AGAIN that courts may not interpret the TILA Rescission statute to grind a case into an outcome that is predetermined.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1825</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>emotional distress,failure of proof,foreclosure fraud,punitive damages</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Unlawful detainers and evictions in foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/unlawful-detainers-and-evictions-in-foreclosures--63169684</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall hosts tonight presenting step by step guidelines for defending against unlawful detainer lawsuits]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/04/19/unlawful-detainers-and-evictions-in-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169684/unlawful_detainers_and_evictions_in_foreclosures.mp3" length="28440495" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall hosts tonight presenting step by step guidelines for defending against unlawful detainer lawsuits</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall hosts tonight presenting step by step guidelines for defending against unlawful detainer lawsuits]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1778</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>eviction,foreclosure,non-judicial foreclosure,unlawful detainer</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tonight — Silent Roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — Hiding Behind the Obtuse</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tonight-silent-roles-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-hiding-behind-the-obtuse--63169675</link><description><![CDATA[How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners.  Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.  Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.  Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.  Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t.GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).Third parties claimed GSE owned subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.Third parties claimed GSE owned subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/04/12/tonight-silent-roles-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-hiding-behind-the-obtuse</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169675/tonight_silent_roles_of_fannie_mae_and_freddie_mac_hiding_behind_the_obtuse.mp3" length="26119568" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners.  Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners.  Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.  Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.  Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.  Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t.GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).Third parties claimed GSE owned subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.Third parties claimed GSE owned subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1633</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fabrication of documents,fannie,fasle pretenses,freddie,gse</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>8 Fraudulent Steps to Ill-Gotten Gains</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/8-fraudulent-steps-to-ill-gotten-gains--63169698</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing "presumptions" to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts. .  As predicted by myself and Bill Paatalo years back, it didn't take long for someone to realize that a new business plan had emerged to enrich themselves at the expense of homeowners. Bill calls it "mailbox trolling." Sophisticated and unethical business people realized that the decisions from the courts were allowing and even ratifying fabrication and forgery of documents that were then recorded. As we said repeatedly this made it easy to anyone to foreclose on anybody's home. It also makes it easy to get ahead of others on all types of debt in which the borrower is delinquent or in default.  Step one: Troll mailboxes and find out who is getting default letters and final notices.  Step two: Create entities  Step three: Fabricate documents  Step four: In nonjudicial states record a notice of substitution of trustee, naming one of your fictitious entities as the new trustee.  Step five: The new "Trustee" sends a notice of default that the homeowner/borrower was expecting anyway.  Step six: The new Trustee sends out a notice of sale.  Step 7: is either selling the property to the false beneficiary named in the substitution of trustee, or, in its more sophisticated form selling the mortgage rights to yet another party or assigning the bid to another party.  Step 8: Sell the property for cash.  See "Deutsch" gets a taste of its own medicine   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/04/05/8-fraudulent-steps-to-ill-gotten-gains</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169698/8_fraudulent_steps_to_ill_gotten_gains.mp3" length="29100871" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing "presumptions" to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts. ....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing "presumptions" to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts. .  As predicted by myself and Bill Paatalo years back, it didn't take long for someone to realize that a new business plan had emerged to enrich themselves at the expense of homeowners. Bill calls it "mailbox trolling." Sophisticated and unethical business people realized that the decisions from the courts were allowing and even ratifying fabrication and forgery of documents that were then recorded. As we said repeatedly this made it easy to anyone to foreclose on anybody's home. It also makes it easy to get ahead of others on all types of debt in which the borrower is delinquent or in default.  Step one: Troll mailboxes and find out who is getting default letters and final notices.  Step two: Create entities  Step three: Fabricate documents  Step four: In nonjudicial states record a notice of substitution of trustee, naming one of your fictitious entities as the new trustee.  Step five: The new "Trustee" sends a notice of default that the homeowner/borrower was expecting anyway.  Step six: The new Trustee sends out a notice of sale.  Step 7: is either selling the property to the false beneficiary named in the substitution of trustee, or, in its more sophisticated form selling the mortgage rights to yet another party or assigning the bid to another party.  Step 8: Sell the property for cash.  See "Deutsch" gets a taste of its own medicine   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>assignment of bid,fabrication of foreclosure doc,mailbox trolling</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Appealing Decisions in Foreclosure Cases With Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/appealing-decisions-in-foreclosure-cases-with-charles-marshall--63169596</link><description><![CDATA[We hardly ever address appellate practice on these pages or the Neil Garfield Show. Tonight Charles Marshall, California Attorney, discusses basic factors on appeal.  What is an appeal?When should notice of appeal be filed?What does an appellate panel or judge consider on appeal?What are the issues on appeal?Can new facts be introduced on appeal?Can jurisdictional issues be brought up for the first time on appeal?When does oral argument occur?What kinds of decisions are made by appellate court?Is there always a written decision issued by the judge or panel?What happens after the appellate judge or panel renders a decision or opinion?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/03/22/appealing-decisions-in-foreclosure-cases-with-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169596/appealing_decisions_in_foreclosure_cases_with_charles_marshall.mp3" length="29070778" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>We hardly ever address appellate practice on these pages or the Neil Garfield Show. Tonight Charles Marshall, California Attorney, discusses basic factors on appeal.  What is an appeal?When should notice of appeal be filed?What does an appellate panel...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[We hardly ever address appellate practice on these pages or the Neil Garfield Show. Tonight Charles Marshall, California Attorney, discusses basic factors on appeal.  What is an appeal?When should notice of appeal be filed?What does an appellate panel or judge consider on appeal?What are the issues on appeal?Can new facts be introduced on appeal?Can jurisdictional issues be brought up for the first time on appeal?When does oral argument occur?What kinds of decisions are made by appellate court?Is there always a written decision issued by the judge or panel?What happens after the appellate judge or panel renders a decision or opinion?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1817</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,bankruptcy appellate panel,bap,district judge,state appeals</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>PAPER CHASE AND MONEY CHASE -- THE CASE AGAINST CHASE</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/paper-chase-and-money-chase-the-case-against-chase--63169707</link><description><![CDATA[When will Chase and the other TBTF Banks finally be seen as conspirators who collectively have lied and created false documents in nearly all foreclosures over the past 10-15 years? Why are their documetns receiving the presumption of authenticity and the truth of the matters asserted in their fabricated documents? How many more tens of billions of dollars in settlement will it take to disabuse courts of the notion that the banks are entitiled to any presumptions? How many fake trusts will get a foreclosure judgment and sale on property in which the trust has no interest whatsoever?   These questions and more tonight with Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/03/15/paper-chase-and-money-chase--the-case-against-chase</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169707/paper_chase_and_money_chase_the_case_against_chase.mp3" length="43192365" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>When will Chase and the other TBTF Banks finally be seen as conspirators who collectively have lied and created false documents in nearly all foreclosures over the past 10-15 years? Why are their documetns receiving the presumption of authenticity and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[When will Chase and the other TBTF Banks finally be seen as conspirators who collectively have lied and created false documents in nearly all foreclosures over the past 10-15 years? Why are their documetns receiving the presumption of authenticity and the truth of the matters asserted in their fabricated documents? How many more tens of billions of dollars in settlement will it take to disabuse courts of the notion that the banks are entitiled to any presumptions? How many fake trusts will get a foreclosure judgment and sale on property in which the trust has no interest whatsoever?   These questions and more tonight with Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2700</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>chase bank,fabrication of evidence for tr,perjury</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Obligee and Obligor: You can't have One without the Other</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-obligee-and-obligor-you-can-t-have-one-without-the-other--63169606</link><description><![CDATA[Prior to the securitization era began, no party to litigation was entitled to a legal presumption of facts when they had engaged in patterns of conduct in which they had forged, fabricated or otherwise attempted to use self-serving documents that were neither official documents nor otherwise credible. It is time that people return to the rules of evidence starting with the Obligee and Obligor.  Presumptions are simply procedural gimmicks to assume in evidence that which is obvious and credible. Up until now they were not used, nor was their use affirmed on appeal, when the facts assumed were not obvious and subject to doubt as to credibility.   In every book, treatise, article and case decision on evidence — until now, the facts mattered.  It is time to return to a time when the foreclosing party prove each element and each fact of their case and a return to due process.  Foreclosers, like everyone else, should be required to prove each and every element of their case including who is the Obligor and who is the Obligee.  Remember even in a default situation they must still must prove actual damages- but there is no entity that can be identified as the obligee of the debt.  Definition of Obligee (creditor):  The individual to whom a particular duty or obligation is owed.  The obligation might be to pay a debt or involve the performance or nonperformance of a particular act.     Definition of Obligor (debtor):  The individual who owes another person a certain debt or duty.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/03/08/the-obligee-and-obligor-you-cant-have-one-without-the-other</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169606/the_obligee_and_obligor_you_cant_have_one_without_the_other.mp3" length="29312358" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Prior to the securitization era began, no party to litigation was entitled to a legal presumption of facts when they had engaged in patterns of conduct in which they had forged, fabricated or otherwise attempted to use self-serving documents that were...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Prior to the securitization era began, no party to litigation was entitled to a legal presumption of facts when they had engaged in patterns of conduct in which they had forged, fabricated or otherwise attempted to use self-serving documents that were neither official documents nor otherwise credible. It is time that people return to the rules of evidence starting with the Obligee and Obligor.  Presumptions are simply procedural gimmicks to assume in evidence that which is obvious and credible. Up until now they were not used, nor was their use affirmed on appeal, when the facts assumed were not obvious and subject to doubt as to credibility.   In every book, treatise, article and case decision on evidence — until now, the facts mattered.  It is time to return to a time when the foreclosing party prove each element and each fact of their case and a return to due process.  Foreclosers, like everyone else, should be required to prove each and every element of their case including who is the Obligor and who is the Obligee.  Remember even in a default situation they must still must prove actual damages- but there is no entity that can be identified as the obligee of the debt.  Definition of Obligee (creditor):  The individual to whom a particular duty or obligation is owed.  The obligation might be to pay a debt or involve the performance or nonperformance of a particular act.     Definition of Obligor (debtor):  The individual who owes another person a certain debt or duty.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1833</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Radio Show: Chase Admits it does not have Wire Transfer Receipts</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-radio-show-chase-admits-it-does-not-have-wire-transfer-receipts--63169692</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo will share a bombshell: There is a COMPLETE disconnect between the Trust, the Servicer and the Borrower and there is NO WAY to prove, through verifiable accounting, that the alleged investor ever receives the payments from the Homeowners.  On February 23, 2018 JPMorgan Chase filed an emergency motion seeking clarification and an in camera review. (See: Proodian-V-Chase-Order1).  The Order demands Chase produce “ wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo, or any other entity, via wire transfer.  Chase admists that it is not in “possession, custody or control of the documents”.  Chase continues to assert that its records will show that: Plaintiff’s loan is part of the pool of loans; and that Chase makes one large lump sum payment to Wells Fargo each month for that pool, regardless of whether it receives a payment from Plaintiff’s.   Chase admits that it sends millions of dollars each month to Wells Fargo on behalf of a pool of loans, but can’t break down that lump sum to show the origins and sources of these payments!   Bill Paatalo, Private Investigator  BP Investigative Agency, LLC  bill.bpia@gmail.com     Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/03/01/the-west-coast-radio-show-chase-admits-it-does-not-have-wire-transfer-receipts</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169692/the_west_coast_radio_show_chase_admits_it_does_not_have_wire_transfer_receipts.mp3" length="29131800" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo will share a bombshell: There is a COMPLETE disconnect between the Trust, the Servicer and the Borrower and there is NO WAY to prove, through verifiable accounting, that the alleged investor ever receives the payments from...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo will share a bombshell: There is a COMPLETE disconnect between the Trust, the Servicer and the Borrower and there is NO WAY to prove, through verifiable accounting, that the alleged investor ever receives the payments from the Homeowners.  On February 23, 2018 JPMorgan Chase filed an emergency motion seeking clarification and an in camera review. (See: Proodian-V-Chase-Order1).  The Order demands Chase produce “ wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo, or any other entity, via wire transfer.  Chase admists that it is not in “possession, custody or control of the documents”.  Chase continues to assert that its records will show that: Plaintiff’s loan is part of the pool of loans; and that Chase makes one large lump sum payment to Wells Fargo each month for that pool, regardless of whether it receives a payment from Plaintiff’s.   Chase admits that it sends millions of dollars each month to Wells Fargo on behalf of a pool of loans, but can’t break down that lump sum to show the origins and sources of these payments!   Bill Paatalo, Private Investigator  BP Investigative Agency, LLC  bill.bpia@gmail.com     Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Radio Show:  Table Funding comes in many Flavors</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-radio-show-table-funding-comes-in-many-flavors--63169676</link><description><![CDATA["Table Funding" comes in many flavors but all table funded loans, according to Reg Z of the Federal Reserve, are predatory loans per se especially if it was part of a pattern of conduct by the originator.  1. The one addressed by TILA and required disclosures of the identity of the lender (giving the consumer choice over who he/she decides to do business with) has some basics to it. You have a real lender with real money making a real loan.   2. The banks set up what they called warehouse lending in which the originator was borrowing money from the real lender and therefore really was the lender.  3. But in the customary purchase and assumption agreement with the "warehouse lender" it is clear that the so-called "warehouse lender" is the real lender, since it asserted ownership of the loan starting before the closing of the new loan.  Join us to learn more about why table-funded loans are predatory and the courts are indifferent.  To learn more visit us at Livinglies   info@lendinglies.com     Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com     Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/02/15/the-west-coast-radio-show-table-funding-comes-in-many-flavors</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169676/the_west_coast_radio_show_table_funding_comes_in_many_flavors.mp3" length="29376724" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>"Table Funding" comes in many flavors but all table funded loans, according to Reg Z of the Federal Reserve, are predatory loans per se especially if it was part of a pattern of conduct by the originator.  1. The one addressed by TILA and required...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA["Table Funding" comes in many flavors but all table funded loans, according to Reg Z of the Federal Reserve, are predatory loans per se especially if it was part of a pattern of conduct by the originator.  1. The one addressed by TILA and required disclosures of the identity of the lender (giving the consumer choice over who he/she decides to do business with) has some basics to it. You have a real lender with real money making a real loan.   2. The banks set up what they called warehouse lending in which the originator was borrowing money from the real lender and therefore really was the lender.  3. But in the customary purchase and assumption agreement with the "warehouse lender" it is clear that the so-called "warehouse lender" is the real lender, since it asserted ownership of the loan starting before the closing of the new loan.  Join us to learn more about why table-funded loans are predatory and the courts are indifferent.  To learn more visit us at Livinglies   info@lendinglies.com     Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com     Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1837</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Evidence- It is an Art not just a Skill</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/evidence-it-is-an-art-not-just-a-skill--63169686</link><description><![CDATA[See: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/54827  To download case referenced go here.  The process starts off with Discovery, Motions to Compel, Objections at Trial and Cross examination. But what is the underlying theme behind those objections and cross examination?  All objections and cross examination questions arise from a knowledge of the rules and laws of evidence. What you don't know can kill your defense. The law of evidence is that hearsay evidence is excluded for the trial record. But the procedure requires that a timely objection be raised contemporaneously with the the question asking for a hearsay response. This is where pro se litigants and inexperienced lawyers get steamrolled. If the objection is not deemed timely by the trial court, then the objection is waived and the hearsay testimony or hearsay document comes into evidence.  Evidence is an art not just a skill. The goal is not just to score points on an imaginary scoreboard. The goal is to actually persuade the judge that in this case the bank, servicer or Trustee should lose because they didn't fulfill the requirements of a prima facie case.  Listen in to learn more  To sign up for the Evidence Seminar go here.  Contact us at: info@lendinglies.com  To Donate to LivingLies go here.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/02/08/evidence-it-is-an-art-not-just-a-skill</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169686/evidence_it_is_an_art_not_just_a_skill.mp3" length="29114245" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>See: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/54827  To download case referenced go here.  The process starts off with Discovery, Motions to Compel, Objections at Trial and Cross examination. But what is the underlying theme behind those...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[See: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/54827  To download case referenced go here.  The process starts off with Discovery, Motions to Compel, Objections at Trial and Cross examination. But what is the underlying theme behind those objections and cross examination?  All objections and cross examination questions arise from a knowledge of the rules and laws of evidence. What you don't know can kill your defense. The law of evidence is that hearsay evidence is excluded for the trial record. But the procedure requires that a timely objection be raised contemporaneously with the the question asking for a hearsay response. This is where pro se litigants and inexperienced lawyers get steamrolled. If the objection is not deemed timely by the trial court, then the objection is waived and the hearsay testimony or hearsay document comes into evidence.  Evidence is an art not just a skill. The goal is not just to score points on an imaginary scoreboard. The goal is to actually persuade the judge that in this case the bank, servicer or Trustee should lose because they didn't fulfill the requirements of a prima facie case.  Listen in to learn more  To sign up for the Evidence Seminar go here.  Contact us at: info@lendinglies.com  To Donate to LivingLies go here.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1820</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall: Tenacity and Capacity</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-tenacity-and-capacity--63169669</link><description><![CDATA[A terminated or unfunded trust lacks capacity to direct other parties to sue or be sued, or to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.   Trial courts typically fail to require supporting evidence of a trust’s capacity to direct foreclosure.  The alleged trust that likely was never funded and exists only on paper lacks any authority and yet the courts will proceed with the presumption that the trust in in compliance with all applicable laws- unless this issue is brought to the attention of the court.   A terminated trust lacks the capacity to pursue a derivative action.  The issue in foreclosure therefore, is whether the trustee, as fiduciary for a trust that was previously terminated, has the power to direct a servicer to maintain a foreclosure action.    The Trust Agreement is subject to being considered null and void because it lacks the signature of someone with authority to proceed with foreclosure, and because of this lack of authorized signature the court should not assign the presumption of validity. Without evidence that a person’s signature is in fact their signature, the trust could be an imposter looking to foreclose without authority or capacity.      ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/02/01/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-tenacity-and-capacity</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169669/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_with_charles_marshall_tenacity_and_capacity.mp3" length="28677478" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>A terminated or unfunded trust lacks capacity to direct other parties to sue or be sued, or to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.   Trial courts typically fail to require supporting evidence of a trust’s capacity to direct foreclosure.  The...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[A terminated or unfunded trust lacks capacity to direct other parties to sue or be sued, or to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.   Trial courts typically fail to require supporting evidence of a trust’s capacity to direct foreclosure.  The alleged trust that likely was never funded and exists only on paper lacks any authority and yet the courts will proceed with the presumption that the trust in in compliance with all applicable laws- unless this issue is brought to the attention of the court.   A terminated trust lacks the capacity to pursue a derivative action.  The issue in foreclosure therefore, is whether the trustee, as fiduciary for a trust that was previously terminated, has the power to direct a servicer to maintain a foreclosure action.    The Trust Agreement is subject to being considered null and void because it lacks the signature of someone with authority to proceed with foreclosure, and because of this lack of authorized signature the court should not assign the presumption of validity. Without evidence that a person’s signature is in fact their signature, the trust could be an imposter looking to foreclose without authority or capacity.      ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1793</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Hearsay Evidence: Self-Serving Documents from Suspect Parties</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/hearsay-evidence-self-serving-documents-from-suspect-parties--63169672</link><description><![CDATA[The one BIG thing it is missing is that bank documents are hearsay and that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception. The point here is credibility --- if the documents come from a third party unrelated to the litigation and with no possible interest in the outcome then the authentication process is enough.  But the closer you come to the proffered document being a self-serving piece of work produced solely for the purpose of litigation, the less the exception applies. In other words if the document is coming from a party to litigation it is immediately suspect, or should be. Much greater authentication is required when a party proffers a document that comes from the party itself.  Visit us at: www.wordpress.lendinglies.com  Donate today HERE.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/01/25/hearsay-evidence-self-serving-documents-from-suspect-parties</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169672/hearsay_evidence_self_serving_documents_from_suspect_parties.mp3" length="28944136" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The one BIG thing it is missing is that bank documents are hearsay and that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception. The point here is credibility --- if the documents...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The one BIG thing it is missing is that bank documents are hearsay and that certain documents kept in the ordinary course of business have credibility and therefore may be admitted as an exception. The point here is credibility --- if the documents come from a third party unrelated to the litigation and with no possible interest in the outcome then the authentication process is enough.  But the closer you come to the proffered document being a self-serving piece of work produced solely for the purpose of litigation, the less the exception applies. In other words if the document is coming from a party to litigation it is immediately suspect, or should be. Much greater authentication is required when a party proffers a document that comes from the party itself.  Visit us at: www.wordpress.lendinglies.com  Donate today HERE.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fraudulent foreclosure,hearsay,livinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Radio Show: Fraudulent Indorsements Magically Appear</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-radio-show-fraudulent-indorsements-magically-appear--63169677</link><description><![CDATA[See: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/live-at-3pm-pacific-the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-fraudulent-indorsement/  Judges are increasingly discounting fraudulent endorsements that appear out of nowhere, seemingly to “perfect” the right to foreclose. Judgments are often based on erroneous conclusions especially when the Bank fails to prove the chain of title back to the original lender, who is often defunct. If the entity that endorsed the note didn’t exist when the note was indorsed- it is void.  In Deutsche Bank v. Burke, the judge refuses to allow Duetche one more chance, ruling “the banks request for a do-over is denied.”  “?From the very beginning of trial, Deutsche Bank’s counsel was on notice that if it wanted to introduce its version of the Note indorsed in blank, some proof of authentication would be necessary.  Deutsche Bank never offered such proof at trial.?….?”  Deutsche Bank asked to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.”  It is likely the endorsement would have simply been added.  Charles Marshall:  email: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Investigator Bill Paatalo:  BP Investigative Agency  Email: info.bpia@gmail.com  Office: 406-328-4075   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/01/18/the-west-coast-radio-show-fraudulent-indorsements-magically-appear</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169677/the_west_coast_radio_show_fraudulent_indorsements_magically_appear.mp3" length="28713005" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>See: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/live-at-3pm-pacific-the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-fraudulent-indorsement/  Judges are increasingly discounting fraudulent endorsements that appear out of nowhere, seemingly to “perfect” the right to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[See: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/live-at-3pm-pacific-the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-fraudulent-indorsement/  Judges are increasingly discounting fraudulent endorsements that appear out of nowhere, seemingly to “perfect” the right to foreclose. Judgments are often based on erroneous conclusions especially when the Bank fails to prove the chain of title back to the original lender, who is often defunct. If the entity that endorsed the note didn’t exist when the note was indorsed- it is void.  In Deutsche Bank v. Burke, the judge refuses to allow Duetche one more chance, ruling “the banks request for a do-over is denied.”  “?From the very beginning of trial, Deutsche Bank’s counsel was on notice that if it wanted to introduce its version of the Note indorsed in blank, some proof of authentication would be necessary.  Deutsche Bank never offered such proof at trial.?….?”  Deutsche Bank asked to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.”  It is likely the endorsement would have simply been added.  Charles Marshall:  email: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Investigator Bill Paatalo:  BP Investigative Agency  Email: info.bpia@gmail.com  Office: 406-328-4075   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1795</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,foreclosure fraud,forged endorsements,investigator bill paatalo</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Neil Garfield Foreclosure Show:  Information vs Evidence</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-neil-garfield-foreclosure-show-information-vs-evidence--63169614</link><description><![CDATA[Neil Garfield will discuss the difference between Information and Evidence.  No report from either side is admissible without proper foundation. Without foundation the report will be and should be excluded from being included in evidence for the trier of fact to consider.  Opinions that are often included in reports often diminish the credibility of the report unless the writer has been qualified as an expert witness. All testimony, reports and opinions will carry very little weight with the courts unless they are not only credible but are also persuasive.  Homeowners often believe that they have all of this information that shows the foreclosure is a scam, that the trust owns nothing, that the certificate holders own nothing, and that the banks and servicers are bad actors. How do you use that? Is information evidence?  In trial preparation and discovery knowledge is used for one of two things: Eroding the foundation or credibility of the prima facie case against the homeowner.Proving who is who and what is what. See our article to be released on 1/18/2018 Every successful strategy for winning a foreclosure defense case rests on the ability to blow up the robo-witness and deny the foreclosing party the ability to get documents (hearsay) into evidence. — or the ability to make the testimony or document less credible than it would appear at first blush.  Listen to this show if you want to know why lawyers pay for consultations with me to prepare discovery or trial strategy.   To schedule a consultation with Neil Garfield.  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com  This show is not legal advice but for informational purposes only.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/01/11/the-neil-garfield-foreclosure-show-information-vs-evidence</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169614/the_neil_garfield_foreclosure_show_information_vs_evidence.mp3" length="28974229" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Neil Garfield will discuss the difference between Information and Evidence.  No report from either side is admissible without proper foundation. Without foundation the report will be and should be excluded from being included in evidence for the trier...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Neil Garfield will discuss the difference between Information and Evidence.  No report from either side is admissible without proper foundation. Without foundation the report will be and should be excluded from being included in evidence for the trier of fact to consider.  Opinions that are often included in reports often diminish the credibility of the report unless the writer has been qualified as an expert witness. All testimony, reports and opinions will carry very little weight with the courts unless they are not only credible but are also persuasive.  Homeowners often believe that they have all of this information that shows the foreclosure is a scam, that the trust owns nothing, that the certificate holders own nothing, and that the banks and servicers are bad actors. How do you use that? Is information evidence?  In trial preparation and discovery knowledge is used for one of two things: Eroding the foundation or credibility of the prima facie case against the homeowner.Proving who is who and what is what. See our article to be released on 1/18/2018 Every successful strategy for winning a foreclosure defense case rests on the ability to blow up the robo-witness and deny the foreclosing party the ability to get documents (hearsay) into evidence. — or the ability to make the testimony or document less credible than it would appear at first blush.  Listen to this show if you want to know why lawyers pay for consultations with me to prepare discovery or trial strategy.   To schedule a consultation with Neil Garfield.  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com  This show is not legal advice but for informational purposes only.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>evidence and information,foreclosure fraud,fraudulent foreclosure,livinglies,the neil garfield show</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall: Endorsing the Fraud</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-endorsing-the-fraud--63169696</link><description><![CDATA[Visit us at LivingLies to view the documents related to this show.  Attorney Scott Aronowitz filed a declaration that was submitted in a Washington case that he was a “Litigation specialist” for Selene Finance, LP.   Investigator Bill Paatalo’s research shows that Aronowitz is an attorney, but fails to disclose this fact.  In-house counsel executes mortgage documents without revealing they are licensed attorneys.  In this case  Aronowitz attests that Selene has the original note in its possession, and that he is familiar with the record keeping practices of Countrywide/ ReconTrust.   Motions to Compel the note history screenshots should be filed (like the Diddrick case proving evidence of the bogus note endorsements? In Diddrick, David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the note in 2012 for purposes of litigation while the attorney in the infamous Kemp v. Countrywide case also stating in the transcript  that David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the Allonge because it was needed for “litigation”.  In the Arkansas case Schiefer v Wells Fargo , Wells Fargo witness admits the endorsement of the WaMu officer was placed on the note by Chase in 2013- despite failing to exist after 2008.  This fraudulent method of endorsing notes for litigation is the servicer modus operandi, and yet the servicers all have the note history for the endorsements within their servicing platforms.   .   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2018/01/04/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-endorsing-the-fraud</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169696/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_with_charles_marshall_endorsing_the_fraud.mp3" length="28873083" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Visit us at LivingLies to view the documents related to this show.  Attorney Scott Aronowitz filed a declaration that was submitted in a Washington case that he was a “Litigation specialist” for Selene Finance, LP.   Investigator Bill Paatalo’s...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Visit us at LivingLies to view the documents related to this show.  Attorney Scott Aronowitz filed a declaration that was submitted in a Washington case that he was a “Litigation specialist” for Selene Finance, LP.   Investigator Bill Paatalo’s research shows that Aronowitz is an attorney, but fails to disclose this fact.  In-house counsel executes mortgage documents without revealing they are licensed attorneys.  In this case  Aronowitz attests that Selene has the original note in its possession, and that he is familiar with the record keeping practices of Countrywide/ ReconTrust.   Motions to Compel the note history screenshots should be filed (like the Diddrick case proving evidence of the bogus note endorsements? In Diddrick, David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the note in 2012 for purposes of litigation while the attorney in the infamous Kemp v. Countrywide case also stating in the transcript  that David Spector’s endorsement was placed on the Allonge because it was needed for “litigation”.  In the Arkansas case Schiefer v Wells Fargo , Wells Fargo witness admits the endorsement of the WaMu officer was placed on the note by Chase in 2013- despite failing to exist after 2008.  This fraudulent method of endorsing notes for litigation is the servicer modus operandi, and yet the servicers all have the note history for the endorsements within their servicing platforms.   .   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,foreclosure fraud,investigator bill paatalo,livinglies,west coast foreclosure show</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>California's revised Homeowner Bill of Rights still offers Homeowner Protections</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-revised-homeowner-bill-of-rights-still-offers-homeowner-protections--63169688</link><description><![CDATA[https://livinglies.wordpress.com  Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss California's Homeowner Bill of Rights. Parts of HOBR will be replaced and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Loss Mitigation Rules still apply.  The provisions prohibit recording a notice of sale or conducting a foreclosure sale upon receipt of a “complete application for a foreclosure prevention alternative.” In the past, loan servicers were required to stay foreclosure proceedings upon receipt of a completed loan modification application.  Beginning in 2018, the dual tracking prohibition is expanded and now applies to all applications for all foreclosure prevention options.  The denial of a first lien loan modification application will state “with specificity” the reasons for the denial of the modification and will include a statement that the borrower may obtain additional information regarding the denial decision upon written request to the mortgage servicer.   Previously, servicers could refuse to review multiple loan modification applications that did not involve a “material change in financial circumstances.” That provision was very vague, but was useful to loan servicers who could reject an application by denying that there was a material change in the homeowner’s financial circumstances.   Servicers must now review multiple applications from the homeowner, regardless of whether there is a “material change in financial circumstances”.    Charles Marshall, Esq  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/12/21/californias-revised-homeowner-bill-of-rights-still-offers-homeowner-protections</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169688/californias_revised_homeowner_bill_of_rights_still_offers_homeowner_protections.mp3" length="28565883" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>https://livinglies.wordpress.com  Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss California's Homeowner Bill of Rights. Parts of HOBR will be replaced and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Loss Mitigation Rules still apply.  The provisions prohibit...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[https://livinglies.wordpress.com  Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss California's Homeowner Bill of Rights. Parts of HOBR will be replaced and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Loss Mitigation Rules still apply.  The provisions prohibit recording a notice of sale or conducting a foreclosure sale upon receipt of a “complete application for a foreclosure prevention alternative.” In the past, loan servicers were required to stay foreclosure proceedings upon receipt of a completed loan modification application.  Beginning in 2018, the dual tracking prohibition is expanded and now applies to all applications for all foreclosure prevention options.  The denial of a first lien loan modification application will state “with specificity” the reasons for the denial of the modification and will include a statement that the borrower may obtain additional information regarding the denial decision upon written request to the mortgage servicer.   Previously, servicers could refuse to review multiple loan modification applications that did not involve a “material change in financial circumstances.” That provision was very vague, but was useful to loan servicers who could reject an application by denying that there was a material change in the homeowner’s financial circumstances.   Servicers must now review multiple applications from the homeowner, regardless of whether there is a “material change in financial circumstances”.    Charles Marshall, Esq  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1786</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Litigation: The Difference between Information and Evidence</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-litigation-the-difference-between-information-and-evidence--63169701</link><description><![CDATA[Attorney Patricia Rodriguez will join Neil Garfield to discuss the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), which establishes protections for homeowners and tenants facing foreclosure.  It was set to expire on December 31, 2017 but has been extended.   Neil Garfield will discuss the difference between information and evidence.   Both evidence and information:  inform the investigator what happened, when and who was responsible for the matter under investigation; can take various forms including witness accounts, hard copy documents and electronic records.  The difference between information and evidence is their inherent quality of the materials, and credibility. Evidence is the term used to describe information which is relevant to proving a disputed fact in issue in legal proceedings. Accordingly, evidence complies with the legal rules of evidence. However, information may or may not comply with these rules.   Also discussed will be the determine when a case is ripe for modification or settlement, and the best way to position a case for a favorable modification.   Patricia Rodriguez- Lead Attorney/Chief Executive Officer   phone: (626) 888-5206   www.attorneyprod.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/12/14/foreclosure-litigation-the-difference-between-information-and-evidence</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169701/foreclosure_litigation_the_difference_between_information_and_evidence.mp3" length="28912371" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Attorney Patricia Rodriguez will join Neil Garfield to discuss the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), which establishes protections for homeowners and tenants facing foreclosure.  It was set to expire on December 31, 2017 but has been extended.   Neil...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Attorney Patricia Rodriguez will join Neil Garfield to discuss the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), which establishes protections for homeowners and tenants facing foreclosure.  It was set to expire on December 31, 2017 but has been extended.   Neil Garfield will discuss the difference between information and evidence.   Both evidence and information:  inform the investigator what happened, when and who was responsible for the matter under investigation; can take various forms including witness accounts, hard copy documents and electronic records.  The difference between information and evidence is their inherent quality of the materials, and credibility. Evidence is the term used to describe information which is relevant to proving a disputed fact in issue in legal proceedings. Accordingly, evidence complies with the legal rules of evidence. However, information may or may not comply with these rules.   Also discussed will be the determine when a case is ripe for modification or settlement, and the best way to position a case for a favorable modification.   Patricia Rodriguez- Lead Attorney/Chief Executive Officer   phone: (626) 888-5206   www.attorneyprod.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Phantom Collectors of Phantom Debt on behalf of Phantom Trusts</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/phantom-collectors-of-phantom-debt-on-behalf-of-phantom-trusts--63169709</link><description><![CDATA[Mortgage servicers are collecting Phantom Debt on behalf of Phantom creditors by creating fabricated and forged documents.  Servicers counterfeit mortgage notes and pursue collection of this 'debt'- but who do they send the proceeds they collect to, if there is no true creditor or funded trust that can be identified, or can accept payments from the servicer?   It is now known that:  The banks funded themselves instead of the trusts which never really existed (phantom trusts). The banks covered up their theft of investor money by originating or buying loans with investor money and not trust money. The theft has been the subject of settlements in which the owner of the debt --- the investors --- is paid off with cash and "resecuritization" in which actual loans were "sold" into a new trust (Like Zuni) by a party who STILL didn't own them (phantom sales). The proceeds of judicial and nonjudicial sales do not go to investors but back to the "underwriters" of nonexistent worthless certificates issued by nonexistent trusts that are registered nowhere and unfunded (phantom trusts). The underwriter acts as "Master Servicer" for the phantom trust and collects "servicer advances" that were neither advances nor from the servicer, but rather a return of investor capital even if it was OTHER investors. The "Trustee" of the Trust is not a Trustee either in writing nor in practice (phantom trustees). We know the banks are acting on their own behalf and not on behalf of the investors or the trusts.  What we still don't know- is where do the proceeds collected by the servicers from homeowners go- if there is no Trustee or Trust?  Neil Garfield, investigator Bill Paatalo and California Attorney Charles Marshall discuss the mystery of Phantom loans. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/12/07/phantom-collectors-of-phantom-debt-on-behalf-of-phantom-trusts</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169709/phantom_collectors_of_phantom_debt_on_behalf_of_phantom_trusts.mp3" length="43649194" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Mortgage servicers are collecting Phantom Debt on behalf of Phantom creditors by creating fabricated and forged documents.  Servicers counterfeit mortgage notes and pursue collection of this 'debt'- but who do they send the proceeds they collect to,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mortgage servicers are collecting Phantom Debt on behalf of Phantom creditors by creating fabricated and forged documents.  Servicers counterfeit mortgage notes and pursue collection of this 'debt'- but who do they send the proceeds they collect to, if there is no true creditor or funded trust that can be identified, or can accept payments from the servicer?   It is now known that:  The banks funded themselves instead of the trusts which never really existed (phantom trusts). The banks covered up their theft of investor money by originating or buying loans with investor money and not trust money. The theft has been the subject of settlements in which the owner of the debt --- the investors --- is paid off with cash and "resecuritization" in which actual loans were "sold" into a new trust (Like Zuni) by a party who STILL didn't own them (phantom sales). The proceeds of judicial and nonjudicial sales do not go to investors but back to the "underwriters" of nonexistent worthless certificates issued by nonexistent trusts that are registered nowhere and unfunded (phantom trusts). The underwriter acts as "Master Servicer" for the phantom trust and collects "servicer advances" that were neither advances nor from the servicer, but rather a return of investor capital even if it was OTHER investors. The "Trustee" of the Trust is not a Trustee either in writing nor in practice (phantom trustees). We know the banks are acting on their own behalf and not on behalf of the investors or the trusts.  What we still don't know- is where do the proceeds collected by the servicers from homeowners go- if there is no Trustee or Trust?  Neil Garfield, investigator Bill Paatalo and California Attorney Charles Marshall discuss the mystery of Phantom loans. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2729</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure fraud,livinglies,neil garfield,securitzation fraud,servicing fraud</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Arkansas Bankruptcy Court goes Rogue</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-arkansas-bankruptcy-court-goes-rogue--63169697</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California foreclosure attorney Charles Marshall to discuss one of the most egregious foreclosure decisions in recent history.  An Arkansas Bankruptcy court ruled that bank fraud is an acceptable practices in Shiefer v. Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo, on the record, admited to executing a note by a WaMu Officer in 2013- when WaMu no longer existed and long after FDIC Receivership.  The Arkansas courts have repeatedly proven they will permit fraud to protect the banks.  Charles Marshall will discuss legal decision making in the area of foreclosure law is infected with and reflective of major political machinations, not the rule of law.  Judges are ramrodding homeowners in foreclosure with displays of indifference and contempt. The political posturing occurs in mega-million dollar settlements between Fed/State entities and big lender/servicers, but only a trickle of relief to homeowners.  The sun is setting on the California Homeowner Bill of Rights &amp; will no longer be operative (except for loan mods under review on or before Dec. 31, 2017). Lawmakers have made no attempt to extend CHBOR protections to homeowners.  #MineToo!  Bill Paatalo at the BP Investigative Agency  Office:406-328-4075  Email: info.bpia@gmail.com  Attorney Charles Marshall  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/11/30/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-arkansas-bankruptcy-court-goes-rogue</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169697/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_arkansas_bankruptcy_court_goes_rogue.mp3" length="28806209" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California foreclosure attorney Charles Marshall to discuss one of the most egregious foreclosure decisions in recent history.  An Arkansas Bankruptcy court ruled that bank fraud is an acceptable practices in Shiefer v....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California foreclosure attorney Charles Marshall to discuss one of the most egregious foreclosure decisions in recent history.  An Arkansas Bankruptcy court ruled that bank fraud is an acceptable practices in Shiefer v. Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo, on the record, admited to executing a note by a WaMu Officer in 2013- when WaMu no longer existed and long after FDIC Receivership.  The Arkansas courts have repeatedly proven they will permit fraud to protect the banks.  Charles Marshall will discuss legal decision making in the area of foreclosure law is infected with and reflective of major political machinations, not the rule of law.  Judges are ramrodding homeowners in foreclosure with displays of indifference and contempt. The political posturing occurs in mega-million dollar settlements between Fed/State entities and big lender/servicers, but only a trickle of relief to homeowners.  The sun is setting on the California Homeowner Bill of Rights &amp; will no longer be operative (except for loan mods under review on or before Dec. 31, 2017). Lawmakers have made no attempt to extend CHBOR protections to homeowners.  #MineToo!  Bill Paatalo at the BP Investigative Agency  Office:406-328-4075  Email: info.bpia@gmail.com  Attorney Charles Marshall  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,california foreclosure,investigator bill paatalo,livinglies,west coast foreclosure hour</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Q &amp; A with Neil Garfield of Livinglies.com</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-q-a-with-neil-garfield-of-livinglies-com--63169609</link><description><![CDATA[Do you have a perplexing question about foreclosure, securitization or chain-of-title issues?  Neil Garfield will answer questions from callers.  Please keep your question brief and limit yourself to one question so other guests may have an opportunity to speak with Neil.  Information provided is for educational purposes only and is NOT intended as legal advice.  Neil recommends you meet with an experienced attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance.   The Neil Garfield blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com is the nation's premiere website for information on fighfting wrongful foreclosure, identifying predatory bank practices, securitization issues and .chain-of-title issues.  www.lendinglies.com  MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies     Cohost: Charles Marshall, Esq.   Email: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone: 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/11/16/foreclosure-q-a-with-neil-garfield-of-livingliescom</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63169609/foreclosure_q_a_with_neil_garfield_of_livingliescom.mp3" length="28811643" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Do you have a perplexing question about foreclosure, securitization or chain-of-title issues?  Neil Garfield will answer questions from callers.  Please keep your question brief and limit yourself to one question so other guests may have an...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Do you have a perplexing question about foreclosure, securitization or chain-of-title issues?  Neil Garfield will answer questions from callers.  Please keep your question brief and limit yourself to one question so other guests may have an opportunity to speak with Neil.  Information provided is for educational purposes only and is NOT intended as legal advice.  Neil recommends you meet with an experienced attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance.   The Neil Garfield blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com is the nation's premiere website for information on fighfting wrongful foreclosure, identifying predatory bank practices, securitization issues and .chain-of-title issues.  www.lendinglies.com  MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies     Cohost: Charles Marshall, Esq.   Email: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone: 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,attorney neil garfield,foreclosure,lendinglies,livinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Post-Jesinoski Rescission Strategy Revisited</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-post-jesinoski-rescission-strategy-revisited--63171187</link><description><![CDATA[The rescission is ALWAYS effective upon mailing and must be vacated or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction upon the filing of timely claims by a party with legal standing.  You can compare rescission to foreclosure. When the sale is complete and the deed is issued,  the event has happened. It is no longer a claim. Even if the sale can be voided because of a void assignment or whatever, the sale still has happened.  The sale is in its history and it in the chain of title.  See Neil Garfield’s Recent Rescission post here.  The ONLY entity who can sue to vacate the rescission is a party with legal standing. Since the rescission IS effective if unopposed, the note and mortgage are void. “That means they can’t use the note and mortgage to establish standing,” claims Garfield, because, “THAT is jurisdictional!!”  If you rescind your loan, and argue your right to rescind, you will lose.  There is nothing to argue- it is done.  Not even the homeowner can undo a completed rescission if they wanted to.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Informational purposes only.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/11/02/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-post-jesinoski-rescission-strategy-revisited</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171187/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_post_jesinoski_rescission_strategy_revisited.mp3" length="28710079" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The rescission is ALWAYS effective upon mailing and must be vacated or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction upon the filing of timely claims by a party with legal standing.  You can compare rescission to foreclosure. When the sale is...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The rescission is ALWAYS effective upon mailing and must be vacated or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction upon the filing of timely claims by a party with legal standing.  You can compare rescission to foreclosure. When the sale is complete and the deed is issued,  the event has happened. It is no longer a claim. Even if the sale can be voided because of a void assignment or whatever, the sale still has happened.  The sale is in its history and it in the chain of title.  See Neil Garfield’s Recent Rescission post here.  The ONLY entity who can sue to vacate the rescission is a party with legal standing. Since the rescission IS effective if unopposed, the note and mortgage are void. “That means they can’t use the note and mortgage to establish standing,” claims Garfield, because, “THAT is jurisdictional!!”  If you rescind your loan, and argue your right to rescind, you will lose.  There is nothing to argue- it is done.  Not even the homeowner can undo a completed rescission if they wanted to.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Informational purposes only.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1795</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,investigator bill paatalo,livinglies,neil garfield,rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Bank "Witnesses" don't know Jack: "Expert" Computer Screen Readers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bank-witnesses-don-t-know-jack-expert-computer-screen-readers--63171195</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall to discuss bank employee weaknesses and lack of credibility in depositions and affidavits.   Chase bank 'witnesses', and bank witnesses in general, know little about the loan in which they are deposed, beyond what the computer screen shows. Under oath, the bank employee will parrot information the bank's attorney coached them on prior to their deposition. If you are able to drill-down, it becomes obvious that the person 'with the most knowledge', knows nothing regarding the travel of the loan, assignments or current holder in due course.    Bank witnesses can provide a balance, the name of the servicer, and who claims to own the note; but know nothing about payment proceeds from insurance/settlements or when the note was endorsed or by who.  The bank employee relies on hearsay and and erroneous information on a screen to foreclose.   Chase employee Rosemary Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.  See Martin deposition here.  Even former in-house Chase counsel are oblivious in regards to the operations, documentation and validity of documents.    The loans are defective, and only the illusion keeps the ownership facade alive.  Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   Not legal advice]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/10/19/bank-witnesses-dont-know-jack-computer-screen-readers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171195/bank_witnesses_dont_know_jack_computer_screen_readers.mp3" length="43614085" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall to discuss bank employee weaknesses and lack of credibility in depositions and affidavits.   Chase bank 'witnesses', and bank witnesses in general, know little about the loan in which they are deposed,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall to discuss bank employee weaknesses and lack of credibility in depositions and affidavits.   Chase bank 'witnesses', and bank witnesses in general, know little about the loan in which they are deposed, beyond what the computer screen shows. Under oath, the bank employee will parrot information the bank's attorney coached them on prior to their deposition. If you are able to drill-down, it becomes obvious that the person 'with the most knowledge', knows nothing regarding the travel of the loan, assignments or current holder in due course.    Bank witnesses can provide a balance, the name of the servicer, and who claims to own the note; but know nothing about payment proceeds from insurance/settlements or when the note was endorsed or by who.  The bank employee relies on hearsay and and erroneous information on a screen to foreclose.   Chase employee Rosemary Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.  See Martin deposition here.  Even former in-house Chase counsel are oblivious in regards to the operations, documentation and validity of documents.    The loans are defective, and only the illusion keeps the ownership facade alive.  Investigator Bill Paatalo  Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   Not legal advice]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2726</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,bank witnesses,chase,investigator bill paatalo,jpmorgan chase</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>FIGHTING THE TRUSTS IN DISCOVERY</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fighting-the-trusts-in-discovery--63171232</link><description><![CDATA[Title is changed for the sole purpose of overcoming a disputed forced sale conducted under a nonjudicial state's foreclosure statutes.   The servicer will typically contend that the homeowner's requests are beyond the scope of discovery, especially in a nonjudicial action.   The homeowner can file a motion to compel the production of documents upon which the Plaintiff relies on to assert that its forced sale was valid, proper, and legal. The validity of the referenced Power of Attorney and its reality of its existence are crucial for the alleged 'lender' to even bring the instant non-judicial action and respond, as a party, to discovery. If it does not exist or is not a current source of power granted by the creditor, then the bank's reliance upon it is misplaced. If there is no completed trust instrument for an existing entity that had been funded, then there is no trust, and therefore, there can be no trustee or servicer deriving their "powers" from a trust that does not exist.   If the sale was conducted in favor of a party who claimed to be a beneficiary, but was not a beneficiary under the deed of trust, the sale is void.   Without the validity of the forced sale, no action for unlawful detainer arises.  Discovery can be effective for overcoming erroneous legal presumptions.  This article is not legal advice, but for discussion purposes only.  The Rodriguez Law Firm   Patricia Rodriguez, Attorney   If you need immediate assistance and are located in California, please call 626-888-5206.   To receive a free consultation, please fill out the contact form here.  The Rodriguez Law Firm is Located at:  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/10/12/fighting-the-trusts-in-discovery</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171232/fighting_the_trusts_in_discovery.mp3" length="29146846" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Title is changed for the sole purpose of overcoming a disputed forced sale conducted under a nonjudicial state's foreclosure statutes.   The servicer will typically contend that the homeowner's requests are beyond the scope of discovery, especially in...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Title is changed for the sole purpose of overcoming a disputed forced sale conducted under a nonjudicial state's foreclosure statutes.   The servicer will typically contend that the homeowner's requests are beyond the scope of discovery, especially in a nonjudicial action.   The homeowner can file a motion to compel the production of documents upon which the Plaintiff relies on to assert that its forced sale was valid, proper, and legal. The validity of the referenced Power of Attorney and its reality of its existence are crucial for the alleged 'lender' to even bring the instant non-judicial action and respond, as a party, to discovery. If it does not exist or is not a current source of power granted by the creditor, then the bank's reliance upon it is misplaced. If there is no completed trust instrument for an existing entity that had been funded, then there is no trust, and therefore, there can be no trustee or servicer deriving their "powers" from a trust that does not exist.   If the sale was conducted in favor of a party who claimed to be a beneficiary, but was not a beneficiary under the deed of trust, the sale is void.   Without the validity of the forced sale, no action for unlawful detainer arises.  Discovery can be effective for overcoming erroneous legal presumptions.  This article is not legal advice, but for discussion purposes only.  The Rodriguez Law Firm   Patricia Rodriguez, Attorney   If you need immediate assistance and are located in California, please call 626-888-5206.   To receive a free consultation, please fill out the contact form here.  The Rodriguez Law Firm is Located at:  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1822</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall with Bill Paatalo</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-with-bill-paatalo--63171327</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall with his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’- an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes. For more information see: LivingLies Blog  The Chase witnesses universally testify that they don’t know when the endorsements were/are placed on the notes, by who, and that they are unaware of anyone up the corporate chain of command who could answer questions regarding the notes, assignments and investors.  Chase inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.   Even former in-house Chase counsel are oblivious in regards to the operations, documentation and validity of documents.  Despite this lack of knowledge, the attorney was submitting and approving affidavits and loan verifications, but knew nothing beyond what he read on a computer screen or was coached by Chase attorneys to parrot.  Yet, the courts continue to make erroneous presumptions in favor of the banks, while the evidence confirms there are massive ownership issues with WaMu to Chase 'loan' transfers.  BP Investigative Agency- Bill Paatalo Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/10/05/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-with-bill-paatalo</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171327/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_with_charles_marshall_with_bill_paatalo.mp3" length="29279339" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall with his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’- an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes. For more information see:...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo joins Charles Marshall with his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’- an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes. For more information see: LivingLies Blog  The Chase witnesses universally testify that they don’t know when the endorsements were/are placed on the notes, by who, and that they are unaware of anyone up the corporate chain of command who could answer questions regarding the notes, assignments and investors.  Chase inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.   Even former in-house Chase counsel are oblivious in regards to the operations, documentation and validity of documents.  Despite this lack of knowledge, the attorney was submitting and approving affidavits and loan verifications, but knew nothing beyond what he read on a computer screen or was coached by Chase attorneys to parrot.  Yet, the courts continue to make erroneous presumptions in favor of the banks, while the evidence confirms there are massive ownership issues with WaMu to Chase 'loan' transfers.  BP Investigative Agency- Bill Paatalo Office: (406) 328-4075  bill.bpia@gmail.com  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1830</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,foreclosure fraud,investigator bill paatalo,livinglies,neil garfield</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Objections and Cross Examination: Where the Rubber meets the Road</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/objections-and-cross-examination-where-the-rubber-meets-the-road--63171191</link><description><![CDATA[Ask any lawyer how they won a case defending against foreclosure and they will probably tell you it was by "blowing up the witness."  With the right planning, concentrating on what the robo-witness does not know and can't say, well-timed, well-based objections will disrupt the attorneys pursuing foreclosure to the point where they can't make their case. What are the right objections? Neil Garfield gives an overview of defensive objections and how most lawyers and pro se litigants either raise them too late or never raise them.  Blowing up the witness usually takes something more than objections. It requires well-planned cross-examination including practicing in your mind how you will pursue the many crossed lines of cross-examination. Neil Garfield provides a short overview of cross-examination techniques.   This is where Perry Mason's rubber hits the road.  Get a Consult!  MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-6345  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Join Attorney Charles Marshall on the first and third Thursdays of each month HERE for the West Coast Radio Show.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/09/28/objections-and-cross-examination-where-the-rubber-meets-the-road</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171191/objections_and_cross_examination_where_the_rubber_meets_the_road.mp3" length="28993455" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Ask any lawyer how they won a case defending against foreclosure and they will probably tell you it was by "blowing up the witness."  With the right planning, concentrating on what the robo-witness does not know and can't say, well-timed, well-based...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Ask any lawyer how they won a case defending against foreclosure and they will probably tell you it was by "blowing up the witness."  With the right planning, concentrating on what the robo-witness does not know and can't say, well-timed, well-based objections will disrupt the attorneys pursuing foreclosure to the point where they can't make their case. What are the right objections? Neil Garfield gives an overview of defensive objections and how most lawyers and pro se litigants either raise them too late or never raise them.  Blowing up the witness usually takes something more than objections. It requires well-planned cross-examination including practicing in your mind how you will pursue the many crossed lines of cross-examination. Neil Garfield provides a short overview of cross-examination techniques.   This is where Perry Mason's rubber hits the road.  Get a Consult!  MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-6345  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Join Attorney Charles Marshall on the first and third Thursdays of each month HERE for the West Coast Radio Show.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney neil garfield,foreclosure defense,lendinglies,livinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:season>1</itunes:season><itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall: Nardolillo v. JPM Chase</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-nardolillo-v-jpm-chase--63171189</link><description><![CDATA[See: Nardolillo v. Chase  Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who discusses FOIA strategies and the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA LPS BlackKnight strategy during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.  Contact your state AG office immediately and ask why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement!    See articles here and here.  Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase: Chase’s Motion to Dismiss was denied based on its failure to demonstrate ownership of the note/DOT.  Chase relied exclusively on a Purchase and Assumption Agreement but the court ruled the PAA was insufficient in itself.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Investigator Bill Paatalo:  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075  info.bpia@gmail.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/09/21/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-nardolillo-v-jpm-chase</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171189/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_with_charles_marshall_nardolillo_v_jpm_chase.mp3" length="43225383" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>See: Nardolillo v. Chase  Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who discusses FOIA strategies and the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA LPS BlackKnight...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[See: Nardolillo v. Chase  Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who discusses FOIA strategies and the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA LPS BlackKnight strategy during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.  Contact your state AG office immediately and ask why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement!    See articles here and here.  Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase: Chase’s Motion to Dismiss was denied based on its failure to demonstrate ownership of the note/DOT.  Chase relied exclusively on a Purchase and Assumption Agreement but the court ruled the PAA was insufficient in itself.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Investigator Bill Paatalo:  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075  info.bpia@gmail.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2702</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bill paatalo investigator,california foreclosure,charles marshall attorney,eric mains former fdic team me,lendinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The State of Foreclosure Defense with California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-state-of-foreclosure-defense-with-california-attorney-patricia-rodriguez--63171188</link><description><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show   Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Featured Guest: California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez   Today on the Neil Garfield Show, California Foreclosure attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss the current state of Foreclosure Defense in California.   Topics to be discussed include how to get a judge to keep an open mind when there is no creditor in the courtroom, and why so many lawyers and judges are reluctant to scrutinize this problem when there is zero evidence money was ever entrusted to the trust.   If no debts, notes or mortgages were acquired by the nonexistent trust, then it is basic black letter law that if no money or property (tangible or intangible) has been entrusted to the trustee, there can be no valid entity calling itself a trust that exists as a legal person.   Patricia Rodriguez will discuss why lawyers, servicers, trusts, and other parties have been unable to demonstrate they have consulted with the investors.   Even in modification situations, Neil Garfield states, that in all his years of practicing foreclosure defense, he has seen no evidence that there was any contact with the owner of the debt when a homeowner is told that the investors turned down the offer to modify. Rodriguez will provide her analysis of modification fraud- which tracks wrongful foreclosure but raises the fraud to an entirely new level, and what changes she sees occurring in foreclosure defense.   Patricia Rodriguez, Esq.   Rodriguez Law Group   Phone: (626) 888-5206   www.attorneyprod.com    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/09/14/the-state-of-foreclosure-defense-with-california-attorney-patricia-rodriguez</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171188/the_state_of_foreclosure_defense_with_california_attorney_patricia_rodriguez.mp3" length="29010174" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show   Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Featured Guest: California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez   Today on the Neil Garfield Show, California Foreclosure attorney Patricia Rodriguez...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show   Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Featured Guest: California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez   Today on the Neil Garfield Show, California Foreclosure attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss the current state of Foreclosure Defense in California.   Topics to be discussed include how to get a judge to keep an open mind when there is no creditor in the courtroom, and why so many lawyers and judges are reluctant to scrutinize this problem when there is zero evidence money was ever entrusted to the trust.   If no debts, notes or mortgages were acquired by the nonexistent trust, then it is basic black letter law that if no money or property (tangible or intangible) has been entrusted to the trustee, there can be no valid entity calling itself a trust that exists as a legal person.   Patricia Rodriguez will discuss why lawyers, servicers, trusts, and other parties have been unable to demonstrate they have consulted with the investors.   Even in modification situations, Neil Garfield states, that in all his years of practicing foreclosure defense, he has seen no evidence that there was any contact with the owner of the debt when a homeowner is told that the investors turned down the offer to modify. Rodriguez will provide her analysis of modification fraud- which tracks wrongful foreclosure but raises the fraud to an entirely new level, and what changes she sees occurring in foreclosure defense.   Patricia Rodriguez, Esq.   Rodriguez Law Group   Phone: (626) 888-5206   www.attorneyprod.com    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney patricia rodriguez,foreclosure defense,lendinglies.com,livinglies blog,the neil garfield show</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Sanctions directed at Litigants</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-sanctions-directed-at-litigants--63171299</link><description><![CDATA[This edition of the West Coast Foreclosure Hour features California attorney Charles Marshall who will address sanctions and motions directed at you as litigant and/or your attorney including:   - removing lis pendens;  - supposed failure to respond properly to discovery;  - maintaining a 'frivolous' lawsuit, such as where there has been a possible res judicata issue  Charles Marshall who specializes in wrongful foreclosure, will discuss why homeowners should reconsider taking their foreclosure attorney to the Bar and the potential ramifications for you as a litigant or would be litigant.  He will cover why doing so can result in a decision that can hurt all homeowners and others trying to take on the Big Banks.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/09/07/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-sanctions-directed-at-litigants</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171299/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_sanctions_directed_at_litigants.mp3" length="28747277" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This edition of the West Coast Foreclosure Hour features California attorney Charles Marshall who will address sanctions and motions directed at you as litigant and/or your attorney including:   - removing lis pendens;  - supposed failure to respond...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This edition of the West Coast Foreclosure Hour features California attorney Charles Marshall who will address sanctions and motions directed at you as litigant and/or your attorney including:   - removing lis pendens;  - supposed failure to respond properly to discovery;  - maintaining a 'frivolous' lawsuit, such as where there has been a possible res judicata issue  Charles Marshall who specializes in wrongful foreclosure, will discuss why homeowners should reconsider taking their foreclosure attorney to the Bar and the potential ramifications for you as a litigant or would be litigant.  He will cover why doing so can result in a decision that can hurt all homeowners and others trying to take on the Big Banks.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,litigant sanctions foreclosure,san diego attorney,west coast foreclosure show</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Litigation Realities &amp; Resolutions with  Attorney Patricia Rodriguez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-litigation-realities-resolutions-with-attorney-patricia-rodriguez--63171196</link><description><![CDATA[This episode of the Neil Gafield Radio Show features Los Angeles attorney Patricia Rodriguez.  She will discuss the current state of foreclosure litigation, techniques, and possible resolutions.   Effective litigation strategies include resolutions like short sales, short pays, modifications, cash for keys, and full litigation judgments.  Rodriguez points out that Securitization arguements are not strong in California and suggests ways to void the lien by examining originations and transfers and overcoming the statute of limitations.   Homeowners who are wronged must challenge their foreclosures and not allow a bank who can't prove standing to win.  The Rodriguez Law Firm offers a free initial consultation.   The Rodriguez Law Firm   Attorney Patricia Rodriguez  www.attorneyprod.com    Address: 1961 W Huntington Dr #201, Alhambra, CA 91801  Hours: 8am to 5pm Pacific   Phone: (626)-888-5206   Contact: http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html                                     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/08/31/foreclosure-litigation-realities-resolutions-with-attorney-patricia-rodriguez</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171196/foreclosure_litigation_realities_resolutions_with_attorney_patricia_rodriguez.mp3" length="43598621" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This episode of the Neil Gafield Radio Show features Los Angeles attorney Patricia Rodriguez.  She will discuss the current state of foreclosure litigation, techniques, and possible resolutions.   Effective litigation strategies include resolutions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This episode of the Neil Gafield Radio Show features Los Angeles attorney Patricia Rodriguez.  She will discuss the current state of foreclosure litigation, techniques, and possible resolutions.   Effective litigation strategies include resolutions like short sales, short pays, modifications, cash for keys, and full litigation judgments.  Rodriguez points out that Securitization arguements are not strong in California and suggests ways to void the lien by examining originations and transfers and overcoming the statute of limitations.   Homeowners who are wronged must challenge their foreclosures and not allow a bank who can't prove standing to win.  The Rodriguez Law Firm offers a free initial consultation.   The Rodriguez Law Firm   Attorney Patricia Rodriguez  www.attorneyprod.com    Address: 1961 W Huntington Dr #201, Alhambra, CA 91801  Hours: 8am to 5pm Pacific   Phone: (626)-888-5206   Contact: http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html                                     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2725</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney patricia rodriguez,california foreclosure,foreclosure fraud,foreclosure resolutions,neil garfield show</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall: Finding LPS Violations</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-finding-lps-violations--63171311</link><description><![CDATA[California attorney Charles Marshall is joined by former FDIC team manager Eric Mains who will discuss the use of  Freedom of Information Requests to obtain information regarding the LPS Consent Judgement that was signed by all state Attorney Generals. He will walk listeners through the process.  The LPS Consent Judgementrequired that foreclosure violations be corrected and forgeries remediated.  Violating the consent judgement and commencing and proceeding with forgeries in a foreclosure action is a damage that targets the foreclosure mills (bank attorneys) who knew they were violating the consent judgement, but also LPS and servicers.  Although you may not get a past foreclosure overturned, the consent judgement specifically allows consumers to sue because they were damaged by litigation which was commenced and proceeded based on forged documents in violation of a consent judgment  Read more on the Livinglies blog.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/08/24/the-west-coast-foreclosure-show-with-charles-marshall-finding-lps-violations</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171311/the_west_coast_foreclosure_show_with_charles_marshall_finding_lps_violations.mp3" length="29785488" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>California attorney Charles Marshall is joined by former FDIC team manager Eric Mains who will discuss the use of  Freedom of Information Requests to obtain information regarding the LPS Consent Judgement that was signed by all state Attorney...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[California attorney Charles Marshall is joined by former FDIC team manager Eric Mains who will discuss the use of  Freedom of Information Requests to obtain information regarding the LPS Consent Judgement that was signed by all state Attorney Generals. He will walk listeners through the process.  The LPS Consent Judgementrequired that foreclosure violations be corrected and forgeries remediated.  Violating the consent judgement and commencing and proceeding with forgeries in a foreclosure action is a damage that targets the foreclosure mills (bank attorneys) who knew they were violating the consent judgement, but also LPS and servicers.  Although you may not get a past foreclosure overturned, the consent judgement specifically allows consumers to sue because they were damaged by litigation which was commenced and proceeded based on forged documents in violation of a consent judgment  Read more on the Livinglies blog.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1862</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,eric mains,fdic eric mains,foias foreclosure,lps forgery</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>US Bank, Trustee loses Uncontested Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/us-bank-trustee-loses-uncontested-foreclosure--63171218</link><description><![CDATA[Court held that plaintiff was only the nominal plaintiff in the action because it brought the complaint on behalf of a trust, This distinction is consistently missed around the country. Maybe not so much anymore. The location of the trust is what determines citizenship and it doesn’t matter where US Bank’s main place of business is.      I was just explaining this point today on one of my consults — it isn’t the bank suing you in foreclosure it is the trust. The trustee is only agent for the trust. And it isn’t even that when no property has been subjected to the control of the named trustee which is another way of saying no property has been entrusted to the supposed trustee. That is why the trustee always answers that they have nothing to do with your loan, the administration or the foreclosure. because they don’t — except that they re part of a conspiracy to defraud tens of millions of people across the country and in other countries. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/08/10/us-bank-trustee-loses-uncontested-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171218/us_bank_trustee_loses_uncontested_foreclosure.mp3" length="43359966" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Court held that plaintiff was only the nominal plaintiff in the action because it brought the complaint on behalf of a trust, This distinction is consistently missed around the country. Maybe not so much anymore. The location of the trust is what...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Court held that plaintiff was only the nominal plaintiff in the action because it brought the complaint on behalf of a trust, This distinction is consistently missed around the country. Maybe not so much anymore. The location of the trust is what determines citizenship and it doesn’t matter where US Bank’s main place of business is.      I was just explaining this point today on one of my consults — it isn’t the bank suing you in foreclosure it is the trust. The trustee is only agent for the trust. And it isn’t even that when no property has been subjected to the control of the named trustee which is another way of saying no property has been entrusted to the supposed trustee. That is why the trustee always answers that they have nothing to do with your loan, the administration or the foreclosure. because they don’t — except that they re part of a conspiracy to defraud tens of millions of people across the country and in other countries. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2710</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>diversity,jurisdicition,remic,subject matter</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Power of FOIA requests to uncover Foreclosure Data</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-power-of-foia-requests-to-uncover-foreclosure-data--63171360</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Southern California attorney Charles Marshall will host the new West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall with guest Eric Mains, former FDIC Team Leader who will discuss how to use FOIA requests for information to reveal information you may not have known.  Eric Mains currently has a writ of certiorari  that has been submitted to SCOTUS appealing a recent decision in his 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case where the federal court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his case under the Rooker Feldman doctrine.  Eric is using the FOIA laws to obtain data in his own case and just recently was able to cancel a sheriff’s sale on his own home that was averted just 5 hours after he issued a complaint to the Indiana State Attorney General’s office supported by an FOAI request he had submitted just weeks before.  Tonight Eric will discuss how FOIA requests may benefit you, or help others.  The West Coast Foreclosure Hour is hosted by:  California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone: 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/08/03/the-power-of-foia-requests-to-uncover-foreclosure-data</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171360/the_power_of_foia_requests_to_uncover_foreclosure_data.mp3" length="29429805" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Southern California attorney Charles Marshall will host the new West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall with guest Eric Mains, former FDIC Team Leader who will discuss how to use FOIA requests for information to reveal information...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Southern California attorney Charles Marshall will host the new West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall with guest Eric Mains, former FDIC Team Leader who will discuss how to use FOIA requests for information to reveal information you may not have known.  Eric Mains currently has a writ of certiorari  that has been submitted to SCOTUS appealing a recent decision in his 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case where the federal court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his case under the Rooker Feldman doctrine.  Eric is using the FOIA laws to obtain data in his own case and just recently was able to cancel a sheriff’s sale on his own home that was averted just 5 hours after he issued a complaint to the Indiana State Attorney General’s office supported by an FOAI request he had submitted just weeks before.  Tonight Eric will discuss how FOIA requests may benefit you, or help others.  The West Coast Foreclosure Hour is hosted by:  California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone: 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1840</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Dangers of Judicial Presumptions with Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-dangers-of-judicial-presumptions-with-attorney-charles-marshall-and-investigator-bill-paatalo--63171233</link><description><![CDATA[California Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss the dangers of judicial presumptions.  Magical presumptions prevent the homeowner from defending a case and guaranteeing a win for a so-called beneficiary under a deed of trust.  The first magical presumption erroneously applied in foreclosure litigation has been on the doctrine of “judical notice.” Judges have been erroneously ruling that once a judicially “noticed” document is admitted into evidence, everything in it represents a proffer of evidence which is accepted by the court into evidence.   The second magical presumption erroneously applied in foreclosure litigation has been some sort of doctrine of concoction on standing to defend.  This is a nonsensical doctrine in which the homeowner may not defend the case using a defense that the party ostensibly foreclosing has no right, justification or excuse for doing so.   In Yvanova, the California Supreme Court inexplicably held that the homeowner can sue for damages for a wrongful foreclosure based upon false instruments and lack of authority but that the homeowner could not stop the foreclosure itself.   If a homeowner has a right to damages because the foreclosure should never have been conducted, then exactly how could the homeowner be prevented from stopping it in the first place?  Please see: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/ca-5th-dca-magical-presumptions-are-not-enough/  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  619.807.2628    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/07/27/the-dangers-of-judicial-presumptions-with-attorney-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171233/the_dangers_of_judicial_presumptions_with_attorney_charles_marshall.mp3" length="28667029" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>California Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss the dangers of judicial presumptions.  Magical presumptions prevent the homeowner from defending a case and guaranteeing a win for a so-called beneficiary under a deed of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[California Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss the dangers of judicial presumptions.  Magical presumptions prevent the homeowner from defending a case and guaranteeing a win for a so-called beneficiary under a deed of trust.  The first magical presumption erroneously applied in foreclosure litigation has been on the doctrine of “judical notice.” Judges have been erroneously ruling that once a judicially “noticed” document is admitted into evidence, everything in it represents a proffer of evidence which is accepted by the court into evidence.   The second magical presumption erroneously applied in foreclosure litigation has been some sort of doctrine of concoction on standing to defend.  This is a nonsensical doctrine in which the homeowner may not defend the case using a defense that the party ostensibly foreclosing has no right, justification or excuse for doing so.   In Yvanova, the California Supreme Court inexplicably held that the homeowner can sue for damages for a wrongful foreclosure based upon false instruments and lack of authority but that the homeowner could not stop the foreclosure itself.   If a homeowner has a right to damages because the foreclosure should never have been conducted, then exactly how could the homeowner be prevented from stopping it in the first place?  Please see: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/ca-5th-dca-magical-presumptions-are-not-enough/  Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  619.807.2628    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bill paatalo,charles marshall,forclosure fraud,judicial notice,magic presumptions</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Nationwide Title Clearing Employees would prefer job duties remain confidential</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/nationwide-title-clearing-employees-would-prefer-job-duties-remain-confidential--63171227</link><description><![CDATA[Brent S. Tantillo is the Managing Shareholder of Tantillo Law, PLLC. with offices in New York, Washington DC, and Coconut  Creek, Florida,  Brent is very well acquainted with high-stakes lawsuits, often involving government and internal investigations, whistleblower actions, and other federal regulatory matters.   Brent has extensive experience handling disputes relating to health care fraud, money laundering, the Bank Secrecy Act, RICO, and the False Claims Act.   https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/tantillo-law-nationwide-title-clearing-must-provide-proprietary-information/   He worked for ten years for the United States Department of Justice, serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 2006 to 2016. Brent led the Southern District of Florida’s Human Trafficking Task Force from 2006-2010, where he coordinated the efforts of over forty non-governmental organizations and law enforcement agencies in rooting out human slavery. Brent also prosecuted cases involving public corruption, organized crime, and drug and sex trafficking. He also served as Counsel &amp; Legislative Assistant in the United States House of Representatives in 2005-2006, where Brent drafted legislation on tax, banking, energy, environmental, and judiciary issues.   Brent talks tonight about a case in which damaging testimony came out in sworn testimony and the effort to claim "privacy" and block the depositions from being used.   What came out? That NTC was a place for fabricating and forging documents. Oops. The suit is against JPM Chase.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/07/20/nationwide-title-clearing-employees-would-prefer-job-duties-remain-confidential</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171227/nationwide_title_clearing_employees_would_prefer_job_duties_remain_confidential.mp3" length="43467800" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Brent S. Tantillo is the Managing Shareholder of Tantillo Law, PLLC. with offices in New York, Washington DC, and Coconut  Creek, Florida,  Brent is very well acquainted with high-stakes lawsuits, often involving government and internal...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Brent S. Tantillo is the Managing Shareholder of Tantillo Law, PLLC. with offices in New York, Washington DC, and Coconut  Creek, Florida,  Brent is very well acquainted with high-stakes lawsuits, often involving government and internal investigations, whistleblower actions, and other federal regulatory matters.   Brent has extensive experience handling disputes relating to health care fraud, money laundering, the Bank Secrecy Act, RICO, and the False Claims Act.   https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/tantillo-law-nationwide-title-clearing-must-provide-proprietary-information/   He worked for ten years for the United States Department of Justice, serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida from 2006 to 2016. Brent led the Southern District of Florida’s Human Trafficking Task Force from 2006-2010, where he coordinated the efforts of over forty non-governmental organizations and law enforcement agencies in rooting out human slavery. Brent also prosecuted cases involving public corruption, organized crime, and drug and sex trafficking. He also served as Counsel &amp; Legislative Assistant in the United States House of Representatives in 2005-2006, where Brent drafted legislation on tax, banking, energy, environmental, and judiciary issues.   Brent talks tonight about a case in which damaging testimony came out in sworn testimony and the effort to claim "privacy" and block the depositions from being used.   What came out? That NTC was a place for fabricating and forging documents. Oops. The suit is against JPM Chase.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2717</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bryan bry,erika lance,jpm chase,nationwide title clearing,privacy</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why the Trusts are Busts: RBS is the tip of the Iceberg</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-the-trusts-are-busts-rbs-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg--63171244</link><description><![CDATA[Yesterday RBS settled with US authorities in the name of “so-called residential mortgage-backed securities.”  They took in over $30 billion and only have to pay about 20% of the theft.  No criminal charges apply. See: rbs-fine-mortgage  Of  importance to homeowners and foreclosure defense lawyers is that they make the obvious connection, to wit: if the securities were not mortgage-backed, then the trust never owned the mortgages that were described generically in the prospectus. If the trust had owned mortgage loans, then the securities would have been mortgage backed, in which case there would have no charges against RBS much less a settlement.  THAT means that the Trusts could never be named as Plaintiff in judicial states or beneficiary in non-judicial states without misrepresenting the nature of the so-called trust that existed only on paper and frequently incomplete paper that did not include signatures or exhibits. The mortgage loan schedule was never attached in any trust. The MLS attached to the PSA was specifically disclaimed in the prospectus as being there by way of example only and that none of the “loans” described in the MLS actually existed, but would be replaced by real loans.  Assuming the Trust existed on paper, the Trust either (a) never received, directly or indirectly, the original loan documents or (b) the trust did receive the loan paperwork but has received no authority to do anything with it. The Trust is therefore not a creditor, not a lender, not a servicer and not an agent for a creditor from whom the trust could have received authority to enforce. The trust becomes a sham conduit used for the purpose of foreclosures and otherwise was ignored.  Attorney Charles Marshall:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  619-807-2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/07/13/why-the-trusts-are-busts-rbs-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171244/why_the_trusts_are_busts_rbs_is_the_tip_of_the_iceberg.mp3" length="43355787" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Yesterday RBS settled with US authorities in the name of “so-called residential mortgage-backed securities.”  They took in over $30 billion and only have to pay about 20% of the theft.  No criminal charges apply. See: rbs-fine-mortgage  Of  importance...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Yesterday RBS settled with US authorities in the name of “so-called residential mortgage-backed securities.”  They took in over $30 billion and only have to pay about 20% of the theft.  No criminal charges apply. See: rbs-fine-mortgage  Of  importance to homeowners and foreclosure defense lawyers is that they make the obvious connection, to wit: if the securities were not mortgage-backed, then the trust never owned the mortgages that were described generically in the prospectus. If the trust had owned mortgage loans, then the securities would have been mortgage backed, in which case there would have no charges against RBS much less a settlement.  THAT means that the Trusts could never be named as Plaintiff in judicial states or beneficiary in non-judicial states without misrepresenting the nature of the so-called trust that existed only on paper and frequently incomplete paper that did not include signatures or exhibits. The mortgage loan schedule was never attached in any trust. The MLS attached to the PSA was specifically disclaimed in the prospectus as being there by way of example only and that none of the “loans” described in the MLS actually existed, but would be replaced by real loans.  Assuming the Trust existed on paper, the Trust either (a) never received, directly or indirectly, the original loan documents or (b) the trust did receive the loan paperwork but has received no authority to do anything with it. The Trust is therefore not a creditor, not a lender, not a servicer and not an agent for a creditor from whom the trust could have received authority to enforce. The trust becomes a sham conduit used for the purpose of foreclosures and otherwise was ignored.  Attorney Charles Marshall:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  619-807-2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2710</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>charles marshall,lendinglies,livinglies,neil garfield,rbs</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>What areas should you target when you Litigate a Foreclosure?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/what-areas-should-you-target-when-you-litigate-a-foreclosure--63171366</link><description><![CDATA[What areas should you target when you litigate?  In foreclosure litigation there are many pointless rabbit-holes an attorney or homeowner can attempt to go down, but they serve only to confuse and distract from the real issues.  Instead, litigants should focus on areas where actual leverage can be obtained.  Neil Garfield has warned litigants not to focus on the lender’s vulnerabilities that are not provable.  In order to get something tangible that can be used to leverage your case consider strategic depositions of the pawns the servicer uses to verify ownership. The person signing off on the certification of note possession who files an affidavit claiming the servicer has standing to foreclose is vulnerable because they possess limited knowledge about the actual creditor, movement of the note and have no personal knowledge.  If you speak with the Master Servicer or Trustee of a mortgage-backed trust they would tell you they don’t own anything and they are only a reporting agent.  They would direct you to the loan servicer for anything related to the loan.  The Servicer actually hired the foreclosure mill law firm to file the foreclosure – and is engaged in camouflaged equitable subrogation.  Therefore, what is a homeowner to do?  Join Southern California attorney Charles Marshall to learn how you can obtain the discovery necessary to prevail in your foreclosure lawsuit.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/06/29/what-areas-should-you-target-when-you-litigate-a-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171366/what_areas_should_you_target_when_you_litigate_a_foreclosure.mp3" length="28906520" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>What areas should you target when you litigate?  In foreclosure litigation there are many pointless rabbit-holes an attorney or homeowner can attempt to go down, but they serve only to confuse and distract from the real issues.  Instead, litigants...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[What areas should you target when you litigate?  In foreclosure litigation there are many pointless rabbit-holes an attorney or homeowner can attempt to go down, but they serve only to confuse and distract from the real issues.  Instead, litigants should focus on areas where actual leverage can be obtained.  Neil Garfield has warned litigants not to focus on the lender’s vulnerabilities that are not provable.  In order to get something tangible that can be used to leverage your case consider strategic depositions of the pawns the servicer uses to verify ownership. The person signing off on the certification of note possession who files an affidavit claiming the servicer has standing to foreclose is vulnerable because they possess limited knowledge about the actual creditor, movement of the note and have no personal knowledge.  If you speak with the Master Servicer or Trustee of a mortgage-backed trust they would tell you they don’t own anything and they are only a reporting agent.  They would direct you to the loan servicer for anything related to the loan.  The Servicer actually hired the foreclosure mill law firm to file the foreclosure – and is engaged in camouflaged equitable subrogation.  Therefore, what is a homeowner to do?  Join Southern California attorney Charles Marshall to learn how you can obtain the discovery necessary to prevail in your foreclosure lawsuit.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1807</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>california foreclosure litigat,charles marshall,foreclosure discovery,lendinglies,livinglies blog</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorney Brent Tantillo: JPMorgan Chase Fabricated Documentation to Foreclose</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorney-brent-tantillo-jpmorgan-chase-fabricated-documentation-to-foreclose--63171204</link><description><![CDATA[Washington DC Attorney Brent Tantillo joins Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo to discuss Mortgage Resolution Servicing v JPMorgan Chase and a related False Claims Act case.  For a copy of this case: RICO Complaint – Chase  JPMorgan Chase was accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” fort the purpose of evading its legal duties owed to borrowers, regulators and Plaintiffs, among others, to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans.  Tantillo argued that JPMorgan Chase could not provide the necessary documentation to the Plaintiff’s regarding the loans they purchased, while borrowers whose loans were sold to JPMorgan Chase could not obtain proof regarding the ownership of their loans. Loans sold without proper documentation (notes, reconveyances and assignments) are void, not voidable.  JPMorgan Chase foreclosed on “loans” with no legitimate documentation by hiring Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose.  To avoid costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, JPMorgan Chase warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers.     Please Contact:  Attorney Brent Tantillo  Tantillo Law PLLC  District of Columbia  (786) 506-2991  btantillo@tantillolaw.com  www.tantillolaw.com/staff/brent-tantillo]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/06/22/attorney-brent-tantillo-jpmorgan-chase-fabricated-documentation-to-foreclose</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171204/attorney_brent_tantillo_jpmorgan_chase_fabricated_documentation_to_foreclose.mp3" length="43461112" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Washington DC Attorney Brent Tantillo joins Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo to discuss Mortgage Resolution Servicing v JPMorgan Chase and a related False Claims Act case.  For a copy of this case: RICO Complaint – Chase...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Washington DC Attorney Brent Tantillo joins Neil Garfield, Charles Marshall and investigator Bill Paatalo to discuss Mortgage Resolution Servicing v JPMorgan Chase and a related False Claims Act case.  For a copy of this case: RICO Complaint – Chase  JPMorgan Chase was accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” fort the purpose of evading its legal duties owed to borrowers, regulators and Plaintiffs, among others, to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans.  Tantillo argued that JPMorgan Chase could not provide the necessary documentation to the Plaintiff’s regarding the loans they purchased, while borrowers whose loans were sold to JPMorgan Chase could not obtain proof regarding the ownership of their loans. Loans sold without proper documentation (notes, reconveyances and assignments) are void, not voidable.  JPMorgan Chase foreclosed on “loans” with no legitimate documentation by hiring Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose.  To avoid costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, JPMorgan Chase warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers.     Please Contact:  Attorney Brent Tantillo  Tantillo Law PLLC  District of Columbia  (786) 506-2991  btantillo@tantillolaw.com  www.tantillolaw.com/staff/brent-tantillo]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2717</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney brent tantillo,bill paatalo,charles marshall,mortgage resolution servicing,rackeetering and mortgage frau</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>JPMorgan Chase operates a Racketeering Enterprise according to Plaintiffs</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/jpmorgan-chase-operates-a-racketeering-enterprise-according-to-plaintiffs--63171345</link><description><![CDATA[JPMorgan Chase has been accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” whose purpose was to evade legal duties owed to investors and borrowers and to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans. JPMorgan Chase failed to provide documentations to investors that purchased loans from them (likely because all documentation was intentionally destroyed). The loans are void and uncollectable without the proper documentation.  JPMorgan Chase also uses entities like Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose (notes, assignments, reconveyances).  This blockbuster lawsuit illuminates the fact that JPMorgan Chase was selling thousands of loans it didn’t own including loans it had previously sold to other MBS trusts!  Chase likely transferred these defective “loans” in order to avoid non-reimbursable advances and expenses.  JPMorgan Chase failed to service loans in a manner consistent with its legal obligations under: RESPA, TILA, FTC violations, the FDCPA, The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act; and other applicable state and federal usury, consumer credit protection and privacy, predatory and abusive lending laws.  It is likely that this is not an isolated incident, but JPMorgan Chase’s standard operating procedure.  It is alleged that JPMC failed to comply with the costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, and instead warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers such as the Plaintiffs.  For a copy of the lawsuit and additional information please go to LivingLies.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/06/08/jpmorgan-chase-operates-a-racketeering-enterprise-according-to-plaintiffs</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171345/jpmorgan_chase_operates_a_racketeering_enterprise_according_to_plaintiffs.mp3" length="43232489" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>JPMorgan Chase has been accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” whose purpose was to evade legal duties owed to investors and borrowers and to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans. JPMorgan Chase failed to provide...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[JPMorgan Chase has been accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” whose purpose was to evade legal duties owed to investors and borrowers and to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans. JPMorgan Chase failed to provide documentations to investors that purchased loans from them (likely because all documentation was intentionally destroyed). The loans are void and uncollectable without the proper documentation.  JPMorgan Chase also uses entities like Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose (notes, assignments, reconveyances).  This blockbuster lawsuit illuminates the fact that JPMorgan Chase was selling thousands of loans it didn’t own including loans it had previously sold to other MBS trusts!  Chase likely transferred these defective “loans” in order to avoid non-reimbursable advances and expenses.  JPMorgan Chase failed to service loans in a manner consistent with its legal obligations under: RESPA, TILA, FTC violations, the FDCPA, The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act; and other applicable state and federal usury, consumer credit protection and privacy, predatory and abusive lending laws.  It is likely that this is not an isolated incident, but JPMorgan Chase’s standard operating procedure.  It is alleged that JPMC failed to comply with the costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, and instead warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers such as the Plaintiffs.  For a copy of the lawsuit and additional information please go to LivingLies.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2703</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bill paatalo,charles marshall,lendinglies,livinglies,neil garfield</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Lawsuits: Litigate, Modify or Settle?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-lawsuits-litigate-modify-or-settle--63171397</link><description><![CDATA[This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement should or even can work.   The overwhelming majority of civil cases will settle well before reaching the trial stage of a lawsuit, nationwide. Whether we're talking about a divorce, a car accident lawsuit, or foreclosure case parties often choose to settle their case rather than leave their respective fates in the hands of an unpredictable jury. But is settlement always more beneficial?  Benefits of Settling a Case: Expense.Stress.Privacy.Predictability.Finality. With foreclosure lawsuits a homeowner often has a personal or profound sense of right and wrong, and decides to make an important point that impacts more than the parties in the case. For cases challenging the constitutionality of a law or some other perceived fundamental unfairness, settling also doesn't create precedent and won't affect public policy.  If one or both parties aren't motivated to settle, or aren't coming to the negotiating table with a remotely realistic offer, then resolution of the lawsuit before trial may not be possible.  This is often the case in foreclosure disputes- by the time the lender is prepared to settle, the homeowner wants vengence for the harm they have sustained (justifiably).  California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/06/01/foreclosure-lawsuits-litigate-modify-or-settle</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171397/foreclosure_lawsuits_litigate_modify_or_settle.mp3" length="43139702" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement should or even can work.   The overwhelming majority of civil cases will settle well before reaching the trial stage of a lawsuit, nationwide. Whether we're talking about a divorce, a car accident lawsuit, or foreclosure case parties often choose to settle their case rather than leave their respective fates in the hands of an unpredictable jury. But is settlement always more beneficial?  Benefits of Settling a Case: Expense.Stress.Privacy.Predictability.Finality. With foreclosure lawsuits a homeowner often has a personal or profound sense of right and wrong, and decides to make an important point that impacts more than the parties in the case. For cases challenging the constitutionality of a law or some other perceived fundamental unfairness, settling also doesn't create precedent and won't affect public policy.  If one or both parties aren't motivated to settle, or aren't coming to the negotiating table with a remotely realistic offer, then resolution of the lawsuit before trial may not be possible.  This is often the case in foreclosure disputes- by the time the lender is prepared to settle, the homeowner wants vengence for the harm they have sustained (justifiably).  California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2697</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,foreclosure,litigation,modification,settlement</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure: The Money Trail v. The Paper Trail and why it makes a difference</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-the-money-trail-v-the-paper-trail-and-why-it-makes-a-difference--63171200</link><description><![CDATA[What is the significance of the money trail being different from the paper trial and how does that impact the presumptions that usually attach to facially valid documents? Neil Garfield will explain why it makes a factual and legal difference.  Who is pulling the strings?  Investigator Bill Paatalo will also discuss his new findings regarding reinsurance.  Paatalo has discovered that borrowers are being charged for private mortgage insurance and "reinsurance" when the risk is nonexistent.  This is a violation of the Home Owners Protection Act of 1998 which requires full disclosure.  Other topics that will be covered include:  ·  Insurance  ·  Why the debt is not merged into the note and there are two different parties --- originator and investor  ·  Setting up your case for litigation and/or modification or settlement.  ·  A recent decision that statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may or may not be raised. However, it is not a proper subject for a motion to dismiss.  Investigator Bill Paatalo- BP Investigative Agency  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075     Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, California  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Neil Garfield  Phone: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Email: info@lendinglies.com  Blog: www.livinglies.wordpress.com         ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/05/25/foreclosure-the-money-trail-v-the-paper-trail-and-why-it-makes-a-difference</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171200/foreclosure_the_money_trail_v_the_paper_trail_and_why_it_makes_a_difference.mp3" length="43321096" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>What is the significance of the money trail being different from the paper trial and how does that impact the presumptions that usually attach to facially valid documents? Neil Garfield will explain why it makes a factual and legal difference.  Who is...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[What is the significance of the money trail being different from the paper trial and how does that impact the presumptions that usually attach to facially valid documents? Neil Garfield will explain why it makes a factual and legal difference.  Who is pulling the strings?  Investigator Bill Paatalo will also discuss his new findings regarding reinsurance.  Paatalo has discovered that borrowers are being charged for private mortgage insurance and "reinsurance" when the risk is nonexistent.  This is a violation of the Home Owners Protection Act of 1998 which requires full disclosure.  Other topics that will be covered include:  ·  Insurance  ·  Why the debt is not merged into the note and there are two different parties --- originator and investor  ·  Setting up your case for litigation and/or modification or settlement.  ·  A recent decision that statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may or may not be raised. However, it is not a proper subject for a motion to dismiss.  Investigator Bill Paatalo- BP Investigative Agency  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075     Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, California  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Neil Garfield  Phone: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Email: info@lendinglies.com  Blog: www.livinglies.wordpress.com         ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Foreclosure Autopsy: Securitization Strategies in Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-foreclosure-autopsy-securitization-strategies-in-foreclosure-defense--63171250</link><description><![CDATA[This episode is entitled "Foreclosure Autopsy".  Neil Garfield will show you how to analyze a case and plan your strategy in confronting the banks in the context of claims of securitization and multiple transfers of "Ownership" and "Servicing rights.". The case to be discussed is Robelto v US Bank, as Trustee, 4th DCA, Florida, May 4, 2016.  The judges in Florida's fourth district nailed a lost-note affidavit when they stated US Bank is, "not entitled to a second bite at the apple."   Please visit our blog for a download of the Roberlto v. US Bankcase at www.livinglies.wordpress.com   Call Lendinglies for a consult at 202-838-634 or email us at info@lendinglies.com   For more information about our services : www.lendinglies.com   THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.                    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/05/18/the-foreclosure-autopsy-securitization-strategies-in-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171250/the_foreclosure_autopsy_securitization_strategies_in_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="28935777" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This episode is entitled "Foreclosure Autopsy".  Neil Garfield will show you how to analyze a case and plan your strategy in confronting the banks in the context of claims of securitization and multiple transfers of "Ownership" and "Servicing...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This episode is entitled "Foreclosure Autopsy".  Neil Garfield will show you how to analyze a case and plan your strategy in confronting the banks in the context of claims of securitization and multiple transfers of "Ownership" and "Servicing rights.". The case to be discussed is Robelto v US Bank, as Trustee, 4th DCA, Florida, May 4, 2016.  The judges in Florida's fourth district nailed a lost-note affidavit when they stated US Bank is, "not entitled to a second bite at the apple."   Please visit our blog for a download of the Roberlto v. US Bankcase at www.livinglies.wordpress.com   Call Lendinglies for a consult at 202-838-634 or email us at info@lendinglies.com   For more information about our services : www.lendinglies.com   THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.                    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Defense with Attorney Charles Marshall &amp; Investigator Bill Paatalo</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-defense-with-attorney-charles-marshall-investigator-bill-paatalo--63171221</link><description><![CDATA[Do you have an Ocwen Loan?  If so you are going to want to listen to this episode.  Investigator Bill Paatalo has some interesting information regarding Ocwen and its relationship to “Security Connections- Idaho”.  He will also discuss his most recent “Cease &amp; Desist” from the SEC to the Wilmington/Christiana trust.  As for SEC Cease &amp; Desists, if the Trustees can't identify the certificate holders, how can borrowers join forces to combat these same issues?  Paatalo will address the conflict between servicers who try to create the illusion of transferring the note to a trust years after the trust closes.  In most cases the certificate holders in the trust have no idea a servicer is attempting to transfer defective loans into the trusts.  This action alone would create all sorts of IRS pass-through tax issues for the trusts not to mention issues for the Trustee who is in breach of its duties.  If the note is assigned years after the trust closed, the assignment should be considered void.   Most certificate holders have no desire to acquire non-performing loans years after the closing date and are not aware of ongoing litigation between consumer and servicer.  A homeowner may want to consider involving the certificate holders if a note was assigned to a trust outside of the closing date.  Contact:   Attorney Charles Marshall   cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com or phone: 619-807-2628  Investigator Bill Paatalo  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com or phone: 406- 328-4075  Neil Garfield  info@lendinglies.com or 202-838-6345  Visit the Livinglies blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/05/11/foreclosure-defense-with-attorney-charles-marshall-investigator-bill-paatalo</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171221/foreclosure_defense_with_attorney_charles_marshall_investigator_bill_paatalo.mp3" length="43232071" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Do you have an Ocwen Loan?  If so you are going to want to listen to this episode.  Investigator Bill Paatalo has some interesting information regarding Ocwen and its relationship to “Security Connections- Idaho”.  He will also discuss his most recent...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Do you have an Ocwen Loan?  If so you are going to want to listen to this episode.  Investigator Bill Paatalo has some interesting information regarding Ocwen and its relationship to “Security Connections- Idaho”.  He will also discuss his most recent “Cease &amp; Desist” from the SEC to the Wilmington/Christiana trust.  As for SEC Cease &amp; Desists, if the Trustees can't identify the certificate holders, how can borrowers join forces to combat these same issues?  Paatalo will address the conflict between servicers who try to create the illusion of transferring the note to a trust years after the trust closes.  In most cases the certificate holders in the trust have no idea a servicer is attempting to transfer defective loans into the trusts.  This action alone would create all sorts of IRS pass-through tax issues for the trusts not to mention issues for the Trustee who is in breach of its duties.  If the note is assigned years after the trust closed, the assignment should be considered void.   Most certificate holders have no desire to acquire non-performing loans years after the closing date and are not aware of ongoing litigation between consumer and servicer.  A homeowner may want to consider involving the certificate holders if a note was assigned to a trust outside of the closing date.  Contact:   Attorney Charles Marshall   cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com or phone: 619-807-2628  Investigator Bill Paatalo  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com or phone: 406- 328-4075  Neil Garfield  info@lendinglies.com or 202-838-6345  Visit the Livinglies blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2702</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bill paatalo,charles marshall,lendinglies,livinglies,neil garfield</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorney Charles Marshall: When to appeal and not appeal a lawsuit.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorney-charles-marshall-when-to-appeal-and-not-appeal-a-lawsuit--63171198</link><description><![CDATA[California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss when you should appeal, and when you should not appeal.  An appeal can be an opportunity to obtain justice when it was earlier denied. However, an appeal may not always make sense even if you believe that the trial court was in error. The first step in the appeals process is to decide what you hope to get out of it and whether the benefits justify possible drawbacks.  A successful appeal may not end your legal battle  Some successful appeals do provide the complete and final resolution of a dispute. However, this is by no means always the case.   Many successful appeals result in the case being sent back for further proceedings in the trial court. This could result in a completely new trial. Although the Court of Appeal’s decision might result in that trial being conducted on ground rules more favorable than the first, there is no certainty that the bottom-line outcome will be any better. In fact, it could be even worse.  Listen to this episode to learn more.  This broadcast is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal relationship.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/04/27/attorney-charles-marshall-when-to-appeal-and-not-appeal-a-lawsuit</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171198/attorney_charles_marshall_when_to_appeal_and_not_appeal_a_lawsuit.mp3" length="28473514" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss when you should appeal, and when you should not appeal.  An appeal can be an opportunity to obtain justice when it was earlier denied. However, an appeal may not always make sense even if you believe...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss when you should appeal, and when you should not appeal.  An appeal can be an opportunity to obtain justice when it was earlier denied. However, an appeal may not always make sense even if you believe that the trial court was in error. The first step in the appeals process is to decide what you hope to get out of it and whether the benefits justify possible drawbacks.  A successful appeal may not end your legal battle  Some successful appeals do provide the complete and final resolution of a dispute. However, this is by no means always the case.   Many successful appeals result in the case being sent back for further proceedings in the trial court. This could result in a completely new trial. Although the Court of Appeal’s decision might result in that trial being conducted on ground rules more favorable than the first, there is no certainty that the bottom-line outcome will be any better. In fact, it could be even worse.  Listen to this episode to learn more.  This broadcast is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal relationship.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Office of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1780</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>appeals,attorney charles marshall,foreclosure litigation,lendinglies,livinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Statute of Limitations:  How Florida Failed Homeowners</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/statute-of-limitations-how-florida-failed-homeowners--63171268</link><description><![CDATA[Q and A: Statute of Limitations  In this episode I will discuss two states with drastically different interpretations of Statute of Limitations.  In Florida the Bartram decision ruled that every time a homeowner misses a payment, the statute resets.  In stark contrast is a New York case called Costa v. Deutsche Bank that clarified that statute of limitations will be enforced.  The Bartram decision created a bad precedent where Pretender lenders (or any other Plaintiff) can look to Bartram as support for taking a pot luck shot at getting a foreclosure judgment and sale, followed by eviction. If they fail they can try again.  The application of res judicata, statute of limitations and Rooker Feldman don't apply to the banks.  This creates a double standard.  The ambidextrous treatment of homeowners versus the financial sector is exactly what the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (and, the Florida Constitution) says cannot occur under guarantees of equal protection under the law.  In stark contrast to Bartram was a New York decision last week called Costa v. Deutsche Bank.  The court was asked whether the statute of limitations applies. It did and according to NY Law it was too late for the pretend lender to take action.   Get a consult! 202-838-6345 or https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies  THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/04/06/statute-of-limitations-how-florida-failed-homeowners</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171268/statute_of_limitations_how_florida_failed_homeowners.mp3" length="43420988" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Q and A: Statute of Limitations  In this episode I will discuss two states with drastically different interpretations of Statute of Limitations.  In Florida the Bartram decision ruled that every time a homeowner misses a payment, the statute resets. ...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Q and A: Statute of Limitations  In this episode I will discuss two states with drastically different interpretations of Statute of Limitations.  In Florida the Bartram decision ruled that every time a homeowner misses a payment, the statute resets.  In stark contrast is a New York case called Costa v. Deutsche Bank that clarified that statute of limitations will be enforced.  The Bartram decision created a bad precedent where Pretender lenders (or any other Plaintiff) can look to Bartram as support for taking a pot luck shot at getting a foreclosure judgment and sale, followed by eviction. If they fail they can try again.  The application of res judicata, statute of limitations and Rooker Feldman don't apply to the banks.  This creates a double standard.  The ambidextrous treatment of homeowners versus the financial sector is exactly what the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution (and, the Florida Constitution) says cannot occur under guarantees of equal protection under the law.  In stark contrast to Bartram was a New York decision last week called Costa v. Deutsche Bank.  The court was asked whether the statute of limitations applies. It did and according to NY Law it was too late for the pretend lender to take action.   Get a consult! 202-838-6345 or https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies  THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2714</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>due process,foreclosure fraud,livinglies,res judicata,statute of limitations</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Foreclosure Appeal Process withAttorney Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-foreclosure-appeal-process-withattorney-charles-marshall--63171267</link><description><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Many people assume that when they appeal that they will be able to retry their case, compel additional discovery and provide additional evidence in their appeal.  This is not the purpose of an appeal court.  An appeal is a request for a higher court to review a lower court's decision. An appeals attorney handles cases on appeal when a party loses or is unhappy with some part of the decision made by the lower court. The appeals court reviews the record made in the trial court. Nothing new can be added to the record; and this is not the time to add new facts or evidence.  The appeal is not a trial and looks nothing like what you see on in a movie. The appeal is much less exciting, and is typically handled by a lawyer who is experienced and skilled at research and writing. An appeals lawyer presents the facts and law to the appeals court in a legal brief that looks like a book. The appeals court decides whether to affirm or to reverse the trial court's decision based upon the written briefs.  Questions covered in this segment include:  Can I file a new lawsuit while my case is on appeal? (relates to rules about res judicata)  - My servicer is demanding I remove the Lis Pendens while my case is on appeal, should I?  - What can I expect from an appeal of my lawsuit?  Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/03/30/the-foreclosure-appeal-process-withattorney-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171267/the_foreclosure_appeal_process_withattorney_charles_marshall.mp3" length="43314827" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Many people assume that when they appeal that they will be able to retry their case, compel additional discovery and provide additional...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Many people assume that when they appeal that they will be able to retry their case, compel additional discovery and provide additional evidence in their appeal.  This is not the purpose of an appeal court.  An appeal is a request for a higher court to review a lower court's decision. An appeals attorney handles cases on appeal when a party loses or is unhappy with some part of the decision made by the lower court. The appeals court reviews the record made in the trial court. Nothing new can be added to the record; and this is not the time to add new facts or evidence.  The appeal is not a trial and looks nothing like what you see on in a movie. The appeal is much less exciting, and is typically handled by a lawyer who is experienced and skilled at research and writing. An appeals lawyer presents the facts and law to the appeals court in a legal brief that looks like a book. The appeals court decides whether to affirm or to reverse the trial court's decision based upon the written briefs.  Questions covered in this segment include:  Can I file a new lawsuit while my case is on appeal? (relates to rules about res judicata)  - My servicer is demanding I remove the Lis Pendens while my case is on appeal, should I?  - What can I expect from an appeal of my lawsuit?  Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Changing Landscape of Foreclosure Defense with Attorney Patricia Rodriquez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-changing-landscape-of-foreclosure-defense-with-attorney-patricia-rodriquez--63171298</link><description><![CDATA[In this episode Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.  Topics will include best litigation practices, the pros and cons of Short Sales, Short Pays, Cash Walk-Away Settlements, and Modifications in light of the repeal of HAMP modifications.   The importance of Client Expectations, and how clients can both help and hurt their case will also be covered.  For more information about the Rodriguez Law Firm please visit: http://attorneyprod.com/   Patricia Rodriguez   The Rodriguez Law Group  FREE initial consultation!   Phone:  626-888-5206   If you are in California and are looking for help with foreclosure, call The Rodriguez Law Group, Inc  at 626-888-5206 or fill out their online form for a FREE Case Evaluation. Let the lawyers and staff at The Rodriguez Law Group, Inc serve you!                        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/03/16/the-changing-landscape-of-foreclosure-defense-with-attorney-patricia-rodriquez</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171298/the_changing_landscape_of_foreclosure_defense_with_attorney_patricia_rodriquez.mp3" length="43728188" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this episode Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.  Topics will include best litigation practices, the pros and cons of Short Sales, Short Pays, Cash Walk-Away Settlements, and Modifications in light of the repeal of HAMP...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this episode Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.  Topics will include best litigation practices, the pros and cons of Short Sales, Short Pays, Cash Walk-Away Settlements, and Modifications in light of the repeal of HAMP modifications.   The importance of Client Expectations, and how clients can both help and hurt their case will also be covered.  For more information about the Rodriguez Law Firm please visit: http://attorneyprod.com/   Patricia Rodriguez   The Rodriguez Law Group  FREE initial consultation!   Phone:  626-888-5206   If you are in California and are looking for help with foreclosure, call The Rodriguez Law Group, Inc  at 626-888-5206 or fill out their online form for a FREE Case Evaluation. Let the lawyers and staff at The Rodriguez Law Group, Inc serve you!                        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2734</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney patricia rodriguez,california foreclosure law,hamp,rodriguez law group</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Q &amp; A with Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/q-a-with-neil-garfield-and-california-attorney-charles-marshall--63171226</link><description><![CDATA[During this episode Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall take your questions.  This is a relatively short Q&amp;A program lasting only 45 minutes. It is not an interview. Long narratives preceding the question only takes time away from others that have questions. Your questions should take the form of the following SHORT examples: I just received a notice of default. What are my options?Nobody will answer the questions in my QWR or DVL. What do I do now?The bank is moving for summary judgment. What should I do?Would an accountant be able to show that I wasn't in default?Why is it that I can sue for damages under Yvanova for wrongful foreclosure based upon a void assignment but I can't sue for permanent introduction to stop them from using the void assignment?Who is really in charge of all this fabrication and forgery of void instruments? Are any courts accepting TILA rescission as law? This episode will also address what stops a foreclosure including TROs and preliminary injunctions, as well as obtaining a Lis Pendens through a mortgage-related lawsuit.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Notice: This is a discussion about foreclosure and is not legal advice.  Please consult with a local attorney.      ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/03/09/q-a-with-neil-garfield-and-california-attorney-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171226/q_a_with_neil_garfield_and_california_attorney_charles_marshall.mp3" length="43029778" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>During this episode Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall take your questions.  This is a relatively short Q&amp;amp;A program lasting only 45 minutes. It is not an interview. Long narratives preceding the question only takes time away...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[During this episode Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall take your questions.  This is a relatively short Q&amp;A program lasting only 45 minutes. It is not an interview. Long narratives preceding the question only takes time away from others that have questions. Your questions should take the form of the following SHORT examples: I just received a notice of default. What are my options?Nobody will answer the questions in my QWR or DVL. What do I do now?The bank is moving for summary judgment. What should I do?Would an accountant be able to show that I wasn't in default?Why is it that I can sue for damages under Yvanova for wrongful foreclosure based upon a void assignment but I can't sue for permanent introduction to stop them from using the void assignment?Who is really in charge of all this fabrication and forgery of void instruments? Are any courts accepting TILA rescission as law? This episode will also address what stops a foreclosure including TROs and preliminary injunctions, as well as obtaining a Lis Pendens through a mortgage-related lawsuit.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628     Notice: This is a discussion about foreclosure and is not legal advice.  Please consult with a local attorney.      ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2690</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Q &amp; A with California Attorney Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-q-a-with-california-attorney-charles-marshall--63171638</link><description><![CDATA[In this episode, California attorney Charles Marshall and Neil Garfield will take questions from listeners.  Please keep your questions short and concise so that other callers will have an opportunity to ask questions.  No legal information will be provided and discussion is for educational purposes only.  Thursdays LIVE at 6pm Eastern! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com     Contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413  Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies      ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/03/02/foreclosure-q-a-with-california-attorney-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171638/foreclosure_q_a_with_california_attorney_charles_marshall.mp3" length="29123022" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this episode, California attorney Charles Marshall and Neil Garfield will take questions from listeners.  Please keep your questions short and concise so that other callers will have an opportunity to ask questions.  No legal information will be...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this episode, California attorney Charles Marshall and Neil Garfield will take questions from listeners.  Please keep your questions short and concise so that other callers will have an opportunity to ask questions.  No legal information will be provided and discussion is for educational purposes only.  Thursdays LIVE at 6pm Eastern! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  Visit us at www.livinglies.wordpress.com     Contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413  Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies      ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Contrived complexity from the usual suspects: MGIC master insurance pools</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/contrived-complexity-from-the-usual-suspects-mgic-master-insurance-pools--63171342</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo and California attorney Charles Marshall believe that mortgage insurance is yet another example of contrived complexity by lenders/'trusts'/purported trustee's and 'beneficiaries' in mortgage transactions, particularly when recording documents pursuant to taking properties to sale, or when subverting the credit bidding rules at sale.  Paatalo stumbled upon an insurance policy that was issued for loans in a trust, but discovered that the trust no longer existed due to a payoff of all loans within the trust years before by Mortgage Guarantee Master Policy (MGIC). However, that didn’t stop BNY Mellon "as Trustee" from filing a foreclosure complaint on behalf of the dissolved trust.  The insurance agreement is a "treasure trove" of insight as to the secret workings between the servicers (who are named as the "Insured") and MGIC.  The Plaintiff not only ceased to exist due to a merger, but the trust itself was terminated with all loans paid off long before the filing of the complaint.  It is likely that the insurance carrier is calling the shots because the policy states approval must be provided by the insurer.  Radian and AIG also offer insurance policies like MGIC.  Bill Paatalo  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075  Attorney Charles Marshall  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/02/23/contrived-complexity-from-the-usual-suspects-mgic-master-insurance-pools</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171342/contrived_complexity_from_the_usual_suspects_mgic_master_insurance_pools.mp3" length="29015607" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo and California attorney Charles Marshall believe that mortgage insurance is yet another example of contrived complexity by lenders/'trusts'/purported trustee's and 'beneficiaries' in mortgage transactions, particularly when...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo and California attorney Charles Marshall believe that mortgage insurance is yet another example of contrived complexity by lenders/'trusts'/purported trustee's and 'beneficiaries' in mortgage transactions, particularly when recording documents pursuant to taking properties to sale, or when subverting the credit bidding rules at sale.  Paatalo stumbled upon an insurance policy that was issued for loans in a trust, but discovered that the trust no longer existed due to a payoff of all loans within the trust years before by Mortgage Guarantee Master Policy (MGIC). However, that didn’t stop BNY Mellon "as Trustee" from filing a foreclosure complaint on behalf of the dissolved trust.  The insurance agreement is a "treasure trove" of insight as to the secret workings between the servicers (who are named as the "Insured") and MGIC.  The Plaintiff not only ceased to exist due to a merger, but the trust itself was terminated with all loans paid off long before the filing of the complaint.  It is likely that the insurance carrier is calling the shots because the policy states approval must be provided by the insurer.  Radian and AIG also offer insurance policies like MGIC.  Bill Paatalo  www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Office: (406) 328-4075  Attorney Charles Marshall  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Changing Landscape of California Foreclosure Law with  Patricia Rodriguez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-changing-landscape-of-california-foreclosure-law-with-patricia-rodriguez--63171240</link><description><![CDATA[In this episode of the Neil Garfield Foreclosure Show, California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.   Patricia will discuss:  The Importance of  being realistic The Bank's realm of power, control, and influence  Yvanova extension to pre-foreclosure cases Void v. Voidable  HAMP expirations Services offered at the Rodriguez Law Firm  To contact Patricia Rodriguez:   Call: 626-888-5206 for a free consult!   Website:  http://attorneyprod.com/   Call today for a complimentary consultation!    Our team serves our clients in a wide variety of law fields. Our track record is tellingly documented by hundreds of cases. These cases delivered desirable outcomes for our clients. Patricia Rodriguez is our founding partner, serving as the lead attorney for what many consider the top serving law firm in the state. We intelligently use every resource, strategy and legal tool for the best results. Our team experience spans several decades, and all of that expertise is directed to your case. Our clients come to us from the greater LA area and as well from the southern and northern California state regions. Very good legal law firm representation is important to you. No other firm equals us in the depth of skill sets, excellent preparation and expert trial experience in representing clients affordably. Los Angeles (LA). Pasadena. Burbank. Orange. Ventura county. CA. California. Southern. Northern.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/02/16/the-changing-landscape-of-california-foreclosure-law-with-patricia-rodriguez-1</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171240/the_changing_landscape_of_california_foreclosure_law_with_patricia_rodriguez_1.mp3" length="29001396" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this episode of the Neil Garfield Foreclosure Show, California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.   Patricia will discuss:  The Importance of  being realistic The Bank's realm of power, control, and influence  Yvanova extension to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this episode of the Neil Garfield Foreclosure Show, California Attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield.   Patricia will discuss:  The Importance of  being realistic The Bank's realm of power, control, and influence  Yvanova extension to pre-foreclosure cases Void v. Voidable  HAMP expirations Services offered at the Rodriguez Law Firm  To contact Patricia Rodriguez:   Call: 626-888-5206 for a free consult!   Website:  http://attorneyprod.com/   Call today for a complimentary consultation!    Our team serves our clients in a wide variety of law fields. Our track record is tellingly documented by hundreds of cases. These cases delivered desirable outcomes for our clients. Patricia Rodriguez is our founding partner, serving as the lead attorney for what many consider the top serving law firm in the state. We intelligently use every resource, strategy and legal tool for the best results. Our team experience spans several decades, and all of that expertise is directed to your case. Our clients come to us from the greater LA area and as well from the southern and northern California state regions. Very good legal law firm representation is important to you. No other firm equals us in the depth of skill sets, excellent preparation and expert trial experience in representing clients affordably. Los Angeles (LA). Pasadena. Burbank. Orange. Ventura county. CA. California. Southern. Northern.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Q &amp; A with Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/q-a-with-neil-garfield-and-california-attorney-charles-marshall--63171224</link><description><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Do you have a question regarding wrongful foreclosure?  Tonight  Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall will answer questions from Livinglies readers.  Please keep your questions short and concise so other listeners have an opportunity to participate.  Questions should NOT require a lengthy backstory!!!!!!!!!!   Please be considerate.  Please contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413     Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consult: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Disclaimer: A conversation with Neil Garfield or Charles Marshall is not legal advice and does not imply a legal relationship exists.  The broadcast is for informational purposes only.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/02/09/q-a-with-neil-garfield-and-california-attorney-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171224/q_a_with_neil_garfield_and_california_attorney_charles_marshall.mp3" length="29332002" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Do you have a question regarding wrongful foreclosure?  Tonight  Neil Garfield and California Attorney...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Do you have a question regarding wrongful foreclosure?  Tonight  Neil Garfield and California Attorney Charles Marshall will answer questions from Livinglies readers.  Please keep your questions short and concise so other listeners have an opportunity to participate.  Questions should NOT require a lengthy backstory!!!!!!!!!!   Please be considerate.  Please contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413     Get a Consult!  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/  Register for Consult: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Disclaimer: A conversation with Neil Garfield or Charles Marshall is not legal advice and does not imply a legal relationship exists.  The broadcast is for informational purposes only.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1834</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney charles marshall,attorney neil garfield,charles marshall california at,charles marshall esquire,livinglies</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Trust can't be Trusted: The US Bank Sham</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-trust-can-t-be-trusted-the-us-bank-sham--63171371</link><description><![CDATA[New evidence demonstrates that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others.   Livinglies founder Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall, and Investigator Bill Paatalo discuss the US Bank as Trustee scam:  A Trustee without powers or duties is no trustee. Disclaimer of fiduciary duties denotes non acceptance of being the Trustee of the Trust.  Acquiring the trust business is a euphemism for the continuation of the musical chair business that is well known in subservicers.  Being the trustee is NOT a marketable commodity without amendment to the Trust document. Hence if a Trustee is named and has no power or duties, and which then “sells” its “trust business” to US Bank the “transfer” trust responsibility is void but damnum absque injuria. BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets.   Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:        Office: 406-328-4075        email: bill.bpia@gmail.com       http://bpinvestigativeagency.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/02/02/the-trust-cant-be-trusted-the-us-bank-sham</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171371/the_trust_cant_be_trusted_the_us_bank_sham.mp3" length="43375013" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>New evidence demonstrates that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others.   Livinglies founder Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[New evidence demonstrates that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others.   Livinglies founder Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall, and Investigator Bill Paatalo discuss the US Bank as Trustee scam:  A Trustee without powers or duties is no trustee. Disclaimer of fiduciary duties denotes non acceptance of being the Trustee of the Trust.  Acquiring the trust business is a euphemism for the continuation of the musical chair business that is well known in subservicers.  Being the trustee is NOT a marketable commodity without amendment to the Trust document. Hence if a Trustee is named and has no power or duties, and which then “sells” its “trust business” to US Bank the “transfer” trust responsibility is void but damnum absque injuria. BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets.   Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:        Office: 406-328-4075        email: bill.bpia@gmail.com       http://bpinvestigativeagency.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2711</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bpinvestigative agency,investigator bill paatalo,livinglies,neil garfield,us bank as trustee fraud</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Defending the Deed of Trust: The Homeowner is Obligated to do so.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/defending-the-deed-of-trust-the-homeowner-is-obligated-to-do-so--63171387</link><description><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo who investigates foreclosure fraud nationwide joins Neil Garfield to discuss a recent California trial he testified in.  This case was not a foreclosure issue, and the homeowners sought a straight declaratory action seeking to expunge and declare as VOID an assignment by the notorious "Linda Green" from DocX.  The opposition spent two days putting on a dog and pony show about everything but the assignment, and tried profusely to bring in a hundred issues surrounding the debt, standing to challenge the assignment (even though there was no foreclosure issue in play), etc. Interestingly the opposition NEVER rebutted or denied with any witness or testimony that the assignment WAS NOT FRAUDULENT! They chose to ignore the assignment and the issue before the court.  The case survived MSJ twice before the eventual trial, and the judge has taken it under advisement at this time.  Paatalo claims the bank did everything to draw attention away from the assignment, and to get some sort of admission that they were owed the debt.  However, the Deed of Trust specifies that the Obligor has a duty to defend title. That is what the homeowner is doing when they challenge a questionable assignment; defending against a fraudulent assignment on title, PERIOD.  Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:      Office: 406-328-4075      Inquiry: info.bpia@gmail.com      http://bpinvestigativeagency.com     Attorney Charles Marshall can be reached at:  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/01/26/defending-the-deed-of-trust-the-homeowner-is-obligated-to-do-so</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171387/defending_the_deed_of_trust_the_homeowner_is_obligated_to_do_so.mp3" length="43302706" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Investigator Bill Paatalo who investigates foreclosure fraud nationwide joins Neil Garfield to discuss a recent California trial he testified in.  This case was not a foreclosure issue, and the homeowners sought a straight declaratory action seeking...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Investigator Bill Paatalo who investigates foreclosure fraud nationwide joins Neil Garfield to discuss a recent California trial he testified in.  This case was not a foreclosure issue, and the homeowners sought a straight declaratory action seeking to expunge and declare as VOID an assignment by the notorious "Linda Green" from DocX.  The opposition spent two days putting on a dog and pony show about everything but the assignment, and tried profusely to bring in a hundred issues surrounding the debt, standing to challenge the assignment (even though there was no foreclosure issue in play), etc. Interestingly the opposition NEVER rebutted or denied with any witness or testimony that the assignment WAS NOT FRAUDULENT! They chose to ignore the assignment and the issue before the court.  The case survived MSJ twice before the eventual trial, and the judge has taken it under advisement at this time.  Paatalo claims the bank did everything to draw attention away from the assignment, and to get some sort of admission that they were owed the debt.  However, the Deed of Trust specifies that the Obligor has a duty to defend title. That is what the homeowner is doing when they challenge a questionable assignment; defending against a fraudulent assignment on title, PERIOD.  Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:      Office: 406-328-4075      Inquiry: info.bpia@gmail.com      http://bpinvestigativeagency.com     Attorney Charles Marshall can be reached at:  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2707</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Post-Yvanova Rulings in California &amp; the use of  Table-Funded Lending Arguments</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/post-yvanova-rulings-in-california-the-use-of-table-funded-lending-arguments--63171207</link><description><![CDATA[On this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, California Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss table-funded lending--California rules thereto--and how to beat back a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In a recent California case the ruling was very much contradictory to many of the pro-servicer opinions which have come out of the post-Yvanova decision.  The recent Jacobsen v. Bayview Montana Supreme Court decision will also be analyzed.  The District Court in this case upheld that Bayview violated the FDCPA when it made false representations to the Jacobsons regarding the Trust Indenture and engaged in unfair trade practices to collect the debt.   Because any violation of the FDCPA corresponds with an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Act.  The District Court awarded significant damages as a result of Bayview’s actions and supported those conclusions with substantial evidence.   The Jacobsons are entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal because of the conduct of Bayview.  Neil Garfield believes that the language in this case will be cut and pasted into thousands of pleadings across the country.  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/01/19/post-yvanova-rulings-in-california-the-use-of-table-funded-lending-arguments</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171207/post_yvanova_rulings_in_california_the_use_of_table_funded_lending_arguments.mp3" length="43362056" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, California Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss table-funded lending--California rules thereto--and how to beat back a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In a recent California case the ruling was...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, California Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss table-funded lending--California rules thereto--and how to beat back a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In a recent California case the ruling was very much contradictory to many of the pro-servicer opinions which have come out of the post-Yvanova decision.  The recent Jacobsen v. Bayview Montana Supreme Court decision will also be analyzed.  The District Court in this case upheld that Bayview violated the FDCPA when it made false representations to the Jacobsons regarding the Trust Indenture and engaged in unfair trade practices to collect the debt.   Because any violation of the FDCPA corresponds with an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Act.  The District Court awarded significant damages as a result of Bayview’s actions and supported those conclusions with substantial evidence.   The Jacobsons are entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal because of the conduct of Bayview.  Neil Garfield believes that the language in this case will be cut and pasted into thousands of pleadings across the country.  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.  Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies  Charles Marshall, Esq.  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2711</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Tender and Standing Issues: Cal Attorneys Patricia Rodriguez &amp; Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tender-and-standing-issues-cal-attorneys-patricia-rodriguez-charles-marshall--63171214</link><description><![CDATA[Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez returns again to discuss CA SB 900 (known as California's Homeowner Bill of Rights), current law, pre litigation planning, wrongful foreclosure, rescission, and nonjudicial resolutions like short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and obtaining additional time/money in the property.  Click here for more information: CA SB 900   San Diego Attorney Charles Marshall will host the show this evening.   Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:   1.) Wrongful foreclosure   2.) California’s  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)   3.) Rescission   Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.  Attorney Patricia Rodriguez  Foreclosure Defense  Website: www.attorneyprod.com  Call: 626-888-5206  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   -and-  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/01/12/tender-and-standing-issues-cal-attorneys-patricia-rodriguez-charles-marshall</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171214/tender_and_standing_issues_cal_attorneys_patricia_rodriguez_charles_marshall.mp3" length="43384626" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez returns again to discuss CA SB 900 (known as California's Homeowner Bill of Rights), current law, pre litigation planning, wrongful foreclosure, rescission, and nonjudicial resolutions like short sales, short...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez returns again to discuss CA SB 900 (known as California's Homeowner Bill of Rights), current law, pre litigation planning, wrongful foreclosure, rescission, and nonjudicial resolutions like short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and obtaining additional time/money in the property.  Click here for more information: CA SB 900   San Diego Attorney Charles Marshall will host the show this evening.   Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:   1.) Wrongful foreclosure   2.) California’s  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)   3.) Rescission   Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.  Attorney Patricia Rodriguez  Foreclosure Defense  Website: www.attorneyprod.com  Call: 626-888-5206  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   -and-  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2712</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Foreclosure Litigation and Resolutions-California Attorney Patricia Rodriquez</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/foreclosure-litigation-and-resolutions-california-attorney-patricia-rodriquez--63171219</link><description><![CDATA[In this episode Los Angeles based attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss Pre-Litigation concerns for homeowners facing foreclosure.   Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:   1.) Wrongful foreclosure    2.) California's  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)      3.) Rescission    Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.     Attorney Patricia Rodriguez   Foreclosure Defense   Call: 626-888-5206   1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   Website: http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2017/01/05/foreclosure-litigation-and-resolutions-california-attorney-patricia-rodriquez-1</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171219/foreclosure_litigation_and_resolutions_california_attorney_patricia_rodriquez_1.mp3" length="41917589" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this episode Los Angeles based attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss Pre-Litigation concerns for homeowners facing foreclosure.   Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:   1.) Wrongful foreclosure    2.) California's ...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this episode Los Angeles based attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss Pre-Litigation concerns for homeowners facing foreclosure.   Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:   1.) Wrongful foreclosure    2.) California's  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)      3.) Rescission    Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.     Attorney Patricia Rodriguez   Foreclosure Defense   Call: 626-888-5206   1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   Website: http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2620</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attorney patricia rodriguez,neil garfield living lies,rodriguez foreclosure law</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Visionet Systems: How False Original Signatures Are Created on False Notes</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/visionet-systems-how-false-original-signatures-are-created-on-false-notes--63171258</link><description><![CDATA[California Attorney Charles Marshall joins host Neil Garfield.  Fraud investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency recently obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying the “signature images” upon stored copies.  The production of "original" notes that were previously destroyed is an illegal practice by banks that violates law as well as the $25 Billion Mortgage Settlement Consent Orders.  Perhaps most important is the take-away question from this revelation: Why is the fabrication and forging and robosigning documents necessary if these were all bona fide loans? Answer: They were not bona fide loans and the loan documents were fabrications that the borrower was fraudulently induced to sign.  In virtually every foreclosure case the money trail (i.e., reality) does not in any way dovetail or reconcile with the false paper trail created by the world's largest banks.  Listen Now!  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/automated-affidavit-verifications-and-lost-note-reproductions-for-bank-vendors-its-standard-business-practice/  Consult with Neil Garfield: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies Phone: (202) 838-6345  Attorney Charles Marshall: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com   Phone: (619) 807-2628   Investigator Bill Paatalo:  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com   Phone: (406) 328-4075   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/12/15/visionet-systems-how-false-original-signatures-are-created-on-false-notes</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171258/visionet_systems_how_false_original_signatures_are_created_on_false_notes.mp3" length="43433109" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>California Attorney Charles Marshall joins host Neil Garfield.  Fraud investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency recently obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[California Attorney Charles Marshall joins host Neil Garfield.  Fraud investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency recently obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying the “signature images” upon stored copies.  The production of "original" notes that were previously destroyed is an illegal practice by banks that violates law as well as the $25 Billion Mortgage Settlement Consent Orders.  Perhaps most important is the take-away question from this revelation: Why is the fabrication and forging and robosigning documents necessary if these were all bona fide loans? Answer: They were not bona fide loans and the loan documents were fabrications that the borrower was fraudulently induced to sign.  In virtually every foreclosure case the money trail (i.e., reality) does not in any way dovetail or reconcile with the false paper trail created by the world's largest banks.  Listen Now!  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/automated-affidavit-verifications-and-lost-note-reproductions-for-bank-vendors-its-standard-business-practice/  Consult with Neil Garfield: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies Phone: (202) 838-6345  Attorney Charles Marshall: cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com   Phone: (619) 807-2628   Investigator Bill Paatalo:  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com   Phone: (406) 328-4075   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2715</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why not sue the Certificate Holders of the Trust?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-not-sue-the-certificate-holders-of-the-trust--63171288</link><description><![CDATA[In Non-Judicial foreclosure states could Homeowners sue the Certificate Holders of a specific Trust?  The answer to this circular question is very convoluted. The short answer is that the investors sue the underwriter and the seller and nobody has ever sued the investors.  The answer would depend on the following issues :  The investors are the real parties in interest. The money never went into any trust and that it was commingled with all kinds of investors who thought they were dealing with hundreds of "Trusts". The Trusts don't exist unless they have a res. The trusts never received the proceeds of sale of the MBS issued by the trust nor were they ever intended to receive those proceeds, unbeknownst to the investors. The promotional material on derivatives and securitization of residential "loans" repeatedly refer to "bankruptcy remote" and other language stating that the investors don't need to worry about liability for lending violations because they had the protection of the trust layered on top of everything.   For the remaining answer to this very simple question (at least in theory), please listen to the Neil Garfield Show.   Neil is joined by Calfornia attorney Charles Marshall who can be contacted at:  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Charles Marshall represents clients across the entire state of California.    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/12/01/why-not-sue-the-certificate-holders-of-the-trust</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171288/why_not_sue_the_certificate_holders_of_the_trust.mp3" length="43389223" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In Non-Judicial foreclosure states could Homeowners sue the Certificate Holders of a specific Trust?  The answer to this circular question is very convoluted. The short answer is that the investors sue the underwriter and the seller and nobody has...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In Non-Judicial foreclosure states could Homeowners sue the Certificate Holders of a specific Trust?  The answer to this circular question is very convoluted. The short answer is that the investors sue the underwriter and the seller and nobody has ever sued the investors.  The answer would depend on the following issues :  The investors are the real parties in interest. The money never went into any trust and that it was commingled with all kinds of investors who thought they were dealing with hundreds of "Trusts". The Trusts don't exist unless they have a res. The trusts never received the proceeds of sale of the MBS issued by the trust nor were they ever intended to receive those proceeds, unbeknownst to the investors. The promotional material on derivatives and securitization of residential "loans" repeatedly refer to "bankruptcy remote" and other language stating that the investors don't need to worry about liability for lending violations because they had the protection of the trust layered on top of everything.   For the remaining answer to this very simple question (at least in theory), please listen to the Neil Garfield Show.   Neil is joined by Calfornia attorney Charles Marshall who can be contacted at:  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Charles Marshall represents clients across the entire state of California.    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2712</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Illusion of  WaMu to JPMC Loan Assumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-illusion-of-wamu-to-jpmc-loan-assumptions--63171203</link><description><![CDATA[Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud, and recent foreclosure trends.  Bill Paatalo has discovered recently that WaMu loans claimed to be owned by JPMorgan Chase, through the “Purchase &amp; Assumption Agreement” with the FDIC, were in fact sold by WaMu to “Private Investor – AO1” prior to the FDIC’s Receivership.  JPMC claims to own these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans-even within their servicing platform.  It is likely that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008.  If no schedule or inventory of WaMu loans has ever been produced, and there are no servicing records in existence from WaMu showing whether or not the loan was ever sold or securitized, could it be possible the loan(s) were sold by WaMu prior to September 25, 2008?     Paatalo states that Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.”  It is almost too much to believe that one of the largest banking institutions in the world, would not have tracked the loans it originated and sold into the secondary market within its servicing systems.  Homeowners and Attorneys may want to ask Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”  Bill Paatalo- Oregon Private Investigator   Office: (406) 328-4075 www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Charles T. Marshall- CA Attorney  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/11/17/the-illusion-of-wamu-to-jpmc-loan-assumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171203/the_illusion_of_wamu_to_jpmc_loan_assumptions.mp3" length="43312319" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud, and recent foreclosure trends.  Bill Paatalo has discovered recently that WaMu loans claimed to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud, and recent foreclosure trends.  Bill Paatalo has discovered recently that WaMu loans claimed to be owned by JPMorgan Chase, through the “Purchase &amp; Assumption Agreement” with the FDIC, were in fact sold by WaMu to “Private Investor – AO1” prior to the FDIC’s Receivership.  JPMC claims to own these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans-even within their servicing platform.  It is likely that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008.  If no schedule or inventory of WaMu loans has ever been produced, and there are no servicing records in existence from WaMu showing whether or not the loan was ever sold or securitized, could it be possible the loan(s) were sold by WaMu prior to September 25, 2008?     Paatalo states that Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.”  It is almost too much to believe that one of the largest banking institutions in the world, would not have tracked the loans it originated and sold into the secondary market within its servicing systems.  Homeowners and Attorneys may want to ask Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”  Bill Paatalo- Oregon Private Investigator   Office: (406) 328-4075 www.bpinvestigativeagency.com  Charles T. Marshall- CA Attorney  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>bpinvestigations,foreclosure fraud,jpmorgan,livinglies,wamu</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Loan Modification Fraud by Servicer is a new Foreclosure Tactic</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/loan-modification-fraud-by-servicer-is-a-new-foreclosure-tactic--63171254</link><description><![CDATA[In this broadcast Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud.   Loan Modification Fraud by Loan Servicers is on the rise.  Unsuspecting homeowners are not aware that servicers are modifying their loans without their consent.   When a loan is modified it is a revision to the contractual payment terms of the related mortgage note, agreed to by the servicer and borrower, including, the capitalization of any amounts owed by adding such amount to the outstanding principal balance.   Mortgage servicing fraud generally involves the diversion or misuse of principal and interest payments, loan prepayments, and/or escrow funds for the benefit of the service provider, but not the consumer.   Bill Paatalo conducted an investigation for a client that revealed that the servicer (Nationstar) was reporting to the investors of a REMIC trust that the loan/debt received a “Capitalization Modification” in the midst of foreclosure proceedings, and just prior to the Sheriff’s Sale of the property.   The end result is that there is likely not a borrower default, the outstanding balance is incorrect and all too often the trust doesn't own the note, or the note no longer exists, or the servicer has no losses.  Proving this is true is more difficult and an attorney should ask the defendant (servicer) to:  Produce remittance reports limited to the time period when Defendant was acting as servicer Produce copies of unredacted and redacted documents to plaintiff to determine whether attorney/client and/or attorney work product privileges were properly claimed.   please go to: http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/federal-judge-compels-nationstar-to-produce-false-modification-accounting-records/   Bill Paatalo can be reached at:(406) 328-4075.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/11/10/loan-modification-fraud-by-servicer-is-a-new-foreclosure-tactic</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171254/loan_modification_fraud_by_servicer_is_a_new_foreclosure_tactic.mp3" length="43501654" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this broadcast Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud.   Loan Modification Fraud by Loan Servicers is on the rise.  Unsuspecting...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this broadcast Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud.   Loan Modification Fraud by Loan Servicers is on the rise.  Unsuspecting homeowners are not aware that servicers are modifying their loans without their consent.   When a loan is modified it is a revision to the contractual payment terms of the related mortgage note, agreed to by the servicer and borrower, including, the capitalization of any amounts owed by adding such amount to the outstanding principal balance.   Mortgage servicing fraud generally involves the diversion or misuse of principal and interest payments, loan prepayments, and/or escrow funds for the benefit of the service provider, but not the consumer.   Bill Paatalo conducted an investigation for a client that revealed that the servicer (Nationstar) was reporting to the investors of a REMIC trust that the loan/debt received a “Capitalization Modification” in the midst of foreclosure proceedings, and just prior to the Sheriff’s Sale of the property.   The end result is that there is likely not a borrower default, the outstanding balance is incorrect and all too often the trust doesn't own the note, or the note no longer exists, or the servicer has no losses.  Proving this is true is more difficult and an attorney should ask the defendant (servicer) to:  Produce remittance reports limited to the time period when Defendant was acting as servicer Produce copies of unredacted and redacted documents to plaintiff to determine whether attorney/client and/or attorney work product privileges were properly claimed.   please go to: http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/federal-judge-compels-nationstar-to-produce-false-modification-accounting-records/   Bill Paatalo can be reached at:(406) 328-4075.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2719</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>livinglies.,loan modification fraud</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Window into the Lifecycle of a Lawsuit- Part II with California Attorney Charles Marshall</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/window-into-the-lifecycle-of-a-lawsuit-part-ii-with-california-attorney-charles-marshall--63171265</link><description><![CDATA[This episode is a continuation of last week's discussion.  California attorney Charles Marshall will join Neil Garfield to discuss the strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign (both are mostly similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side) with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:  - pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;   - filing of lawsuit;  - demurrers/motions to dismiss;  - discovery;  - motions for summary judgment;  - pre-trial prep and motions;  - trial;  - appeals;  - post appeal judgment options  ___________________________________________________________________________  About our Guest:  California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall practices throught California and can be contacted at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  Email:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/10/27/window-into-the-lifecycle-of-a-lawsuit-part-ii-with-california-attorney-charles</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171265/window_into_the_lifecycle_of_a_lawsuit_part_ii_with_california_attorney_charles.mp3" length="43163107" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This episode is a continuation of last week's discussion.  California attorney Charles Marshall will join Neil Garfield to discuss the strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign (both are mostly similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side) with...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This episode is a continuation of last week's discussion.  California attorney Charles Marshall will join Neil Garfield to discuss the strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign (both are mostly similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side) with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:  - pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;   - filing of lawsuit;  - demurrers/motions to dismiss;  - discovery;  - motions for summary judgment;  - pre-trial prep and motions;  - trial;  - appeals;  - post appeal judgment options  ___________________________________________________________________________  About our Guest:  California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall practices throught California and can be contacted at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  Email:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2698</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Window into the Life-cycle of a Lawsuit</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/window-into-the-life-cycle-of-a-lawsuit--63171280</link><description><![CDATA[This episode discusses strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign, which is somewhat similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:     - pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;   - filing of lawsuit;  - demurrers/mtd;  - discovery;  - motions for summary judgment;  - pre-trial prep and motions;  - trial;  - appeals;  - post appeal judgment options     California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall practices throught California and can be contacted at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  Email:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/10/20/window-into-the-life-cycle-of-a-lawsuit</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171280/window_into_the_life_cycle_of_a_lawsuit.mp3" length="43413465" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This episode discusses strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign, which is somewhat similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:     - pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This episode discusses strategic planning of a lawsuit campaign, which is somewhat similar whether on the Plaintiff or Defendant side with strategic litigation planning, to encompass following elements:     - pre-foreclosure negotiation and settlement demands;   - filing of lawsuit;  - demurrers/mtd;  - discovery;  - motions for summary judgment;  - pre-trial prep and motions;  - trial;  - appeals;  - post appeal judgment options     California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall practices throught California and can be contacted at:  Charles Marshall, Esq.  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  Email:  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.807.2628  Fax 866.575.7413]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2714</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Challenge your Mortgage Servicer and Successors: Overcoming Legal Presumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/challenge-your-mortgage-servicer-and-successors-overcoming-legal-presumptions--63171230</link><description><![CDATA[Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue through their sham surrogates ("successors") that any inquiry beyond the paper trail was irrelevant because the the issue had already been decided in the early motions of the case wherein those legal presumptions were used to sustain the implied perspective of the banks, servicers, and their surrogate successors. The tide has changed.  Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/10/13/challenge-your-mortgage-servicer-and-successors-overcoming-legal-presumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171230/challenge_your_mortgage_servicer_and_successors_overcoming_legal_presumptions.mp3" length="44838482" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue through...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue through their sham surrogates ("successors") that any inquiry beyond the paper trail was irrelevant because the the issue had already been decided in the early motions of the case wherein those legal presumptions were used to sustain the implied perspective of the banks, servicers, and their surrogate successors. The tide has changed.  Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>North Carolina Attorney Jim Surane and the Basics of Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/north-carolina-attorney-jim-surane-and-the-basics-of-foreclosure--63171307</link><description><![CDATA[This evening North Carolina attorney Jim Surane will join Neil Garfield to discuss the first steps that should be taken in a Foreclosure defense case.  Surane states that, "A thorough title search of the property being subject to foreclosure is an absolute necessity.  This includes researching back to the plat in the case of a home in a subdivision, and back 30 years in a case in which the property is not in a subdivision."  Surane has won many cases based upon errors in the chain of title.  "It must be remembered that a large majority of the mortgages that we deal with today were closed between the years of 1992 – 2007.  During these years, closing attorneys and lenders were overwhelmed with business, and as a result many errors in preparing documents that compromised the lenders lien rights."  Surane will outline the steps that should be taken in order to properly prepare to defend a foreclosure case including: Errors in the legal descriptionsThe legal description was attached at the time the deed of trust was signedErrors in the timing of the recordation of documents in the chain of titleErrors in the spelling of the grantor or grantee namesBoth Grantors names in the body of the Deed of Trust and not just signedFailure to include all necessary signatures on deeds Attorney James Surane is located in Cornelius, North Carolina.  Phone: 704-895-5885  Email:  ssurane@suranelawpllc.com  Website: www.suranelawpllc.com                            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/09/29/north-carolina-attorney-jim-surane-and-the-basics-of-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171307/north_carolina_attorney_jim_surane_and_the_basics_of_foreclosure.mp3" length="43167705" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>This evening North Carolina attorney Jim Surane will join Neil Garfield to discuss the first steps that should be taken in a Foreclosure defense case.  Surane states that, "A thorough title search of the property being subject to foreclosure is an...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[This evening North Carolina attorney Jim Surane will join Neil Garfield to discuss the first steps that should be taken in a Foreclosure defense case.  Surane states that, "A thorough title search of the property being subject to foreclosure is an absolute necessity.  This includes researching back to the plat in the case of a home in a subdivision, and back 30 years in a case in which the property is not in a subdivision."  Surane has won many cases based upon errors in the chain of title.  "It must be remembered that a large majority of the mortgages that we deal with today were closed between the years of 1992 – 2007.  During these years, closing attorneys and lenders were overwhelmed with business, and as a result many errors in preparing documents that compromised the lenders lien rights."  Surane will outline the steps that should be taken in order to properly prepare to defend a foreclosure case including: Errors in the legal descriptionsThe legal description was attached at the time the deed of trust was signedErrors in the timing of the recordation of documents in the chain of titleErrors in the spelling of the grantor or grantee namesBoth Grantors names in the body of the Deed of Trust and not just signedFailure to include all necessary signatures on deeds Attorney James Surane is located in Cornelius, North Carolina.  Phone: 704-895-5885  Email:  ssurane@suranelawpllc.com  Website: www.suranelawpllc.com                            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2698</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Settlements and Negotiations in Foreclosure Modifications and Litigation</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/settlements-and-negotiations-in-foreclosure-modifications-and-litigation--63171406</link><description><![CDATA[At a time when approximately two percent of legal disputes are ended by a trial, the walk-up to trial itself is often a game of negotiation and posturing. The strategy is to stick with an improbable "we'll see you in court" message for as long as possible in order to bring the other side around to your settlement demand.  However, this is often a mistake and creates resistance and a stale-mate.  A better strategy is to conduct your pre-trial research. What are typical settlement values for similar cases?  Evaluate what the strengths and weaknesses are of your case and lay out a realistic window regarding what you are willing to settle for prior to litigation.  California Attorney Charles Marshall can be contacted at:  415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San Diego CA 92101 US  +1. 619.807.2628.  Email:       Charles@MarshallLawCa.com  Website:  http://www.marshalllawca.com/home.html]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/09/22/settlements-and-negotiations-in-foreclosure-modifications-and-litigation</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171406/settlements_and_negotiations_in_foreclosure_modifications_and_litigation.mp3" length="43613249" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>At a time when approximately two percent of legal disputes are ended by a trial, the walk-up to trial itself is often a game of negotiation and posturing. The strategy is to stick with an improbable "we'll see you in court" message for as long as...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[At a time when approximately two percent of legal disputes are ended by a trial, the walk-up to trial itself is often a game of negotiation and posturing. The strategy is to stick with an improbable "we'll see you in court" message for as long as possible in order to bring the other side around to your settlement demand.  However, this is often a mistake and creates resistance and a stale-mate.  A better strategy is to conduct your pre-trial research. What are typical settlement values for similar cases?  Evaluate what the strengths and weaknesses are of your case and lay out a realistic window regarding what you are willing to settle for prior to litigation.  California Attorney Charles Marshall can be contacted at:  415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San Diego CA 92101 US  +1. 619.807.2628.  Email:       Charles@MarshallLawCa.com  Website:  http://www.marshalllawca.com/home.html]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2726</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Paper Chase: How Chase Bank Stole the WAMU Loans That Were Already Sold</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/paper-chase-how-chase-bank-stole-the-wamu-loans-that-were-already-sold--63171248</link><description><![CDATA[Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright and Investigator Bill Paatalo join Neil Garfield to discuss JPMorgan Chase issues.   The WaMu/FDIC/Chase pattern where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase &amp; Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, has now demonstated that no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed.   This finding shows that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public.  Listen in for more information on the WAMU-JPMorgan Chase illusion   For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.  Attorney Stephen Wright in Monroe, Connecticut:    Wright Law Firm  203-261-3050  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com      Investigator Bill Paatalo at BP Investigative Agency:  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/contact-us/  (406) 328-4075]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/09/15/paper-chase-how-chase-bank-stole-the-wamu-loans-that-were-already-sold</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171248/paper_chase_how_chase_bank_stole_the_wamu_loans_that_were_already_sold.mp3" length="43991920" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright and Investigator Bill Paatalo join Neil Garfield to discuss JPMorgan Chase issues.   The WaMu/FDIC/Chase pattern where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright and Investigator Bill Paatalo join Neil Garfield to discuss JPMorgan Chase issues.   The WaMu/FDIC/Chase pattern where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase &amp; Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, has now demonstated that no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed.   This finding shows that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public.  Listen in for more information on the WAMU-JPMorgan Chase illusion   For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.  Attorney Stephen Wright in Monroe, Connecticut:    Wright Law Firm  203-261-3050  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com      Investigator Bill Paatalo at BP Investigative Agency:  http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/contact-us/  (406) 328-4075]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2750</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fdic,jpm chase,off-balance sheet transactions,purchase and assumption agreem,washington mutual</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Sneak Preview of Neil's Most Recent Victory in Court</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/sneak-preview-of-neil-s-most-recent-victory-in-court--63171252</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we will discuss a case that is so new the final judgment has not yet been entered. But it was announced by the judge in approximately 30 minutes of dictation on record where the Judge, after 2 hours of deliberations, read every word of every document and concluded there was no connection between the loan and the trust, at least at the time suit was filed, and gave findings that would cast extreme doubt as to whether the Trust could ever have owned the loan. The case is instructive on objections timely made, preserving objections by following pre-trial orders, and the inability to reconcile the the Pooling and Servicing Agreements with the alleged exhibits attempted to be introduced in court. There may be time for questions and answers. After the Judgment becomes final co-counsel Patrick Giunta, Esq. will join us to discuss the national importance of the results and consequences in this case.        ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/09/08/sneak-preview-of-neils-most-recent-victory-in-court</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171252/sneak_preview_of_neils_most_recent_victory_in_court.mp3" length="29088332" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we will discuss a case that is so new the final judgment has not yet been entered. But it was announced by the judge in approximately 30 minutes of dictation on record where the Judge, after 2 hours of deliberations, read every word of every...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we will discuss a case that is so new the final judgment has not yet been entered. But it was announced by the judge in approximately 30 minutes of dictation on record where the Judge, after 2 hours of deliberations, read every word of every document and concluded there was no connection between the loan and the trust, at least at the time suit was filed, and gave findings that would cast extreme doubt as to whether the Trust could ever have owned the loan. The case is instructive on objections timely made, preserving objections by following pre-trial orders, and the inability to reconcile the the Pooling and Servicing Agreements with the alleged exhibits attempted to be introduced in court. There may be time for questions and answers. After the Judgment becomes final co-counsel Patrick Giunta, Esq. will join us to discuss the national importance of the results and consequences in this case.        ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>mortgage loan schedules (mls),objections,pooling and servicing,pretrial orders,psa</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Neil Garfield Show Radio Replay: Unconcionable Contracts</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-neil-garfield-show-radio-replay-unconcionable-contracts--63171261</link><description><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).  A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.  If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/09/01/the-neil-garfield-show-radio-replay-unconcionable-contracts</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171261/the_neil_garfield_show_radio_replay_unconcionable_contracts.mp3" length="46293398" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).  A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.  If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2894</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>adhesion contracts,foreclosure fraud,neil garfield show,south florida attorney james r</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>California Foreclosure Update: Attorney Charles Marshall &amp; Sciaratta Revisited</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-foreclosure-update-attorney-charles-marshall-sciaratta-revisited--63171284</link><description><![CDATA[In this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, we revisit the California Sciarratta decision.  Sciaratta was originally viewed as a post-auction ruling, but according to attorney Charles Marshall, Sciaratta should also be viewed as a pre-auction ruling.  The bottom line that case is Sciaratta is still a strong case in California.    While the subject property went to sale one day after the filing of complaint, the analysis and actual published Order is all pre-auction analysis, and summarily is in favor of Sciaratta.  Equally important in this new terrain, is of course to plead void not voidable, when it comes to addressing the broken chain of assignments, the front-dating, back-dating, and robo-signing associated with same assignments.  The importance of the Geiseke decision will also be addressed and the importance of black letter law that says that every borrower should know the identity of his or her creditor. But like other issues, the courts are still asking “what difference does it make?”  Please look for upcoming post on the LivingLies Blog where Charles Marshall will discuss Post-Sciaratta issues and current West Coast foreclosure developments at www.livinglies.worpress.com.  ____________________________________________________________  California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall can be contacted at:  415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San Diego CA 92101 US  +1. 619.807.2628.   Email:       Charles@MarshallLawCa.com  Website:  http://www.marshalllawca.com/home.html      ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/08/18/california-foreclosure-update-attorney-charles-marshall-sciaratta-revisited</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171284/california_foreclosure_update_attorney_charles_marshall_sciaratta_revisited.mp3" length="43245445" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, we revisit the California Sciarratta decision.  Sciaratta was originally viewed as a post-auction ruling, but according to attorney Charles Marshall, Sciaratta should also be viewed as a pre-auction...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In this episode of the Neil Garfield Radio Show, we revisit the California Sciarratta decision.  Sciaratta was originally viewed as a post-auction ruling, but according to attorney Charles Marshall, Sciaratta should also be viewed as a pre-auction ruling.  The bottom line that case is Sciaratta is still a strong case in California.    While the subject property went to sale one day after the filing of complaint, the analysis and actual published Order is all pre-auction analysis, and summarily is in favor of Sciaratta.  Equally important in this new terrain, is of course to plead void not voidable, when it comes to addressing the broken chain of assignments, the front-dating, back-dating, and robo-signing associated with same assignments.  The importance of the Geiseke decision will also be addressed and the importance of black letter law that says that every borrower should know the identity of his or her creditor. But like other issues, the courts are still asking “what difference does it make?”  Please look for upcoming post on the LivingLies Blog where Charles Marshall will discuss Post-Sciaratta issues and current West Coast foreclosure developments at www.livinglies.worpress.com.  ____________________________________________________________  California-licensed attorney Charles T. Marshall (CA Bar # 176091) earned his Juris Doctorate in 1992 from the University of San Diego School of Law. His practice includes Foreclosure Relief, Civil Litigation, Bankruptcy, Immigration, Estate Planning and all facets of Personal Financial Management.  Charles Marshall can be contacted at:  415 Laurel Street, Suite 405 San Diego CA 92101 US  +1. 619.807.2628.   Email:       Charles@MarshallLawCa.com  Website:  http://www.marshalllawca.com/home.html      ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2703</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Question and Answer Session with LivingLies Author Neil Garfield</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/question-and-answer-session-with-livinglies-author-neil-garfield--63171255</link><description><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Get a Consult! Or contact us at info@lendinglies.com.  Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and is for information purposes only.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.  Please note that conversation does not form any type of attorney-client relationships through conversation and lawyers are prevented from giving specific legal advice.  By posing questions you agree to our disclaimer which can be viewed at: http://www.lendinglies.com/#!legal-disclaimer/hcb4h]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/08/04/question-and-answer-session-with-livinglies-author-neil-garfield</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171255/question_and_answer_session_with_livinglies_author_neil_garfield.mp3" length="29053641" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Get a Consult! Or contact us at info@lendinglies.com.  Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show  Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays  NEW MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).  Get a Consult! Or contact us at info@lendinglies.com.  Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and is for information purposes only.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.  Please note that conversation does not form any type of attorney-client relationships through conversation and lawyers are prevented from giving specific legal advice.  By posing questions you agree to our disclaimer which can be viewed at: http://www.lendinglies.com/#!legal-disclaimer/hcb4h]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1816</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Unconscionability in Mortgage Adhesion Contracts- Attorney James "Randy" Ackley</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/unconscionability-in-mortgage-adhesion-contracts-attorney-james-randy-ackley--63171322</link><description><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).  A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.  If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/07/28/unconscionability-in-mortgage-adhesion-contracts-attorney-james-randy-ackley</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171322/unconscionability_in_mortgage_adhesion_contracts_attorney_james_randy_ackley.mp3" length="44837646" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).  A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.  If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Question and Answer Session with Neil Garfield of LivingLies</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/question-and-answer-session-with-neil-garfield-of-livinglies--63171277</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and Neil cannot provide legal advice.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.  Please note that conversation does not form any type of attorney-client relationships through conversation and lawyers are prevented from giving specific legal advice.  By posing questions you agree to our disclaimer which can be viewed at: http://www.lendinglies.com/#!legal-disclaimer/hcb4h]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/07/21/question-and-answer-session-with-neil-garfield-of-livinglies</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171277/question_and_answer_session_with_neil_garfield_of_livinglies.mp3" length="29002650" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and Neil cannot provide legal advice.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.  Please note that conversation does not form any type of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Neil Garfield will answer general questions about foreclosure.  This is not legal advice and Neil cannot provide legal advice.  Please keep questions simple and not state specific.  Please note that conversation does not form any type of attorney-client relationships through conversation and lawyers are prevented from giving specific legal advice.  By posing questions you agree to our disclaimer which can be viewed at: http://www.lendinglies.com/#!legal-disclaimer/hcb4h]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1813</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>"Moot" Borrowers and the Unraveling of WAMU/Chase</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/moot-borrowers-and-the-unraveling-of-wamu-chase--63171333</link><description><![CDATA[Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright joins Neil Garfield to discuss the Florida Court of Appeals Christiana Trust opinion, fake documents and the likelihood that lack of standing will gain traction in other states. We discuss the unraveling of the WAMU/Chase relationship and why you may not want to refer to yourself as a Borrower unless you possess evidence that the parties on the Note had a legal contract including consummation.   Neil Garfield will explore the concept of  “Moot Borrowers” to compliment his theory of Pretender Lenders. Since it is almost impossible to determine who loaned the borrower money at origination, and the ownership of the loans can’t be traced- the homeowner can ONLY be a “borrower” if they executed a loan contract and the contract became enforceable because there was offer, acceptance and consideration flowing both ways. Without all four legs of the stool it collapses.   In the Christiana Trust case- a successor plaintiff  failed to demonstrate that its predecessor (JPMC) had standing at the time the action was commenced. Although the bank eventually filed a blank-indorsed note, the note attached to the complaint did not contain the indorsement, and the bank failed to present any other evidence demonstrating standing at the time the complaint was filed. The Appeal court reversed due to lack of standing, and decided that any remaining issues such as proof of damages were moot.   See: Septimus v. Christiana Trust/JPMC       Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm    324 Elm Street    Suite 103B    Monroe, CT 06468    203-261-3050 (O)  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/07/07/moot-borrowers-and-the-unraveling-of-wamuchase</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171333/moot_borrowers_and_the_unraveling_of_wamuchase.mp3" length="43398418" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright joins Neil Garfield to discuss the Florida Court of Appeals Christiana Trust opinion, fake documents and the likelihood that lack of standing will gain traction in other states. We discuss the unraveling of the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright joins Neil Garfield to discuss the Florida Court of Appeals Christiana Trust opinion, fake documents and the likelihood that lack of standing will gain traction in other states. We discuss the unraveling of the WAMU/Chase relationship and why you may not want to refer to yourself as a Borrower unless you possess evidence that the parties on the Note had a legal contract including consummation.   Neil Garfield will explore the concept of  “Moot Borrowers” to compliment his theory of Pretender Lenders. Since it is almost impossible to determine who loaned the borrower money at origination, and the ownership of the loans can’t be traced- the homeowner can ONLY be a “borrower” if they executed a loan contract and the contract became enforceable because there was offer, acceptance and consideration flowing both ways. Without all four legs of the stool it collapses.   In the Christiana Trust case- a successor plaintiff  failed to demonstrate that its predecessor (JPMC) had standing at the time the action was commenced. Although the bank eventually filed a blank-indorsed note, the note attached to the complaint did not contain the indorsement, and the bank failed to present any other evidence demonstrating standing at the time the complaint was filed. The Appeal court reversed due to lack of standing, and decided that any remaining issues such as proof of damages were moot.   See: Septimus v. Christiana Trust/JPMC       Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm    324 Elm Street    Suite 103B    Monroe, CT 06468    203-261-3050 (O)  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2713</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Challenge your Mortgage Servicer and Successors: Overcoming Legal Presumptions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/challenge-your-mortgage-servicer-and-successors-overcoming-legal-presumptions--63171275</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue through their sham surrogates ("successors") that any inquiry beyond the paper trail was irrelevant because the the issue had already been decided in the early motions of the case wherein those legal presumptions were used to sustain the implied perspective of the banks, servicers, and their surrogate successors. The tide has changed.   Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/06/23/challenge-your-mortgage-servicer-and-successors-overcoming-legal-presumptions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171275/challenge_your_mortgage_servicer_and_successors_overcoming_legal_presumptions.mp3" length="43393821" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Neil Garfield and southern California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss the recent Massachussetts case US Bank v. Bolling.  For years legal presumptions attached to "facially valid" documents and the banks and servicers were able to argue through their sham surrogates ("successors") that any inquiry beyond the paper trail was irrelevant because the the issue had already been decided in the early motions of the case wherein those legal presumptions were used to sustain the implied perspective of the banks, servicers, and their surrogate successors. The tide has changed.   Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2713</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>California's Sciarratta Decison: Banks aren't Bounty Hunters</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-s-sciarratta-decison-banks-aren-t-bounty-hunters--63171251</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight Southern California Attorney Stephen F. Lopez discusses the recent Sciarratta decision.  Lopez is a 1986 graduate of California Western School of Law and practices law in San Diego, California.  In May the California Court of Appeals for the 4th Appellate District issued an opinion that allows a homeowner to sue for wrongful foreclosure when the foreclosure is instituted by a non-party and where the assignment is defective. The case is called Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc., No. D069439.  Scirratta reversed the trial court’s sustaining of the Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend the Complaint.   The Court found that “the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and that is all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action.”  Citing the recent Yvanova decision from the California Supreme Court, the Sciarratta court stated: “Banks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank’s deed of trust.”  The appellate court made it very clear that banks cannot re-write a homeowner’s case and then take the position that no claim is stated.  The court stated that there are strong public policy reasons for this approach, as otherwise, anyone could foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose, and since lenders can avoid the court system entirely through the nonjudicial process, there would be no court oversight whatsoever.  Stephen F. Lopez Esq.  600 B Street, Suite 2230  San Diego CA 92101  Tel:  (858) 682-9666  Fax: (619) 243-7215  Email:  Steve@sflopesq.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/06/16/californias-sciarratta-decison-banks-arent-bounty-hunters</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171251/californias_sciarratta_decison_banks_arent_bounty_hunters.mp3" length="43290167" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight Southern California Attorney Stephen F. Lopez discusses the recent Sciarratta decision.  Lopez is a 1986 graduate of California Western School of Law and practices law in San Diego, California.  In May the California Court of Appeals for the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight Southern California Attorney Stephen F. Lopez discusses the recent Sciarratta decision.  Lopez is a 1986 graduate of California Western School of Law and practices law in San Diego, California.  In May the California Court of Appeals for the 4th Appellate District issued an opinion that allows a homeowner to sue for wrongful foreclosure when the foreclosure is instituted by a non-party and where the assignment is defective. The case is called Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc., No. D069439.  Scirratta reversed the trial court’s sustaining of the Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend the Complaint.   The Court found that “the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and that is all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action.”  Citing the recent Yvanova decision from the California Supreme Court, the Sciarratta court stated: “Banks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank’s deed of trust.”  The appellate court made it very clear that banks cannot re-write a homeowner’s case and then take the position that no claim is stated.  The court stated that there are strong public policy reasons for this approach, as otherwise, anyone could foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose, and since lenders can avoid the court system entirely through the nonjudicial process, there would be no court oversight whatsoever.  Stephen F. Lopez Esq.  600 B Street, Suite 2230  San Diego CA 92101  Tel:  (858) 682-9666  Fax: (619) 243-7215  Email:  Steve@sflopesq.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2706</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorney Patricia Rodriguez discusses what to Expect from your Attorney</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorney-patricia-rodriguez-discusses-what-to-expect-from-your-attorney--63171297</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight, Southern California attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss new California decisions in light of the Yvanova ruling, including Keshtgar, Mendoza, Boyce, Scirratta, and Geiseke   Patricia will also discuss how you can help your attorney by organizing your information, and what is too much client involvement or not enough.   Patricia will address other attorney/client issues that contribute to case success.   Do you know there are tell-tale signs that a bank is misleading you before filing to foreclose on you?   Patricia sheds light on what signs to look for. Join us tonight to learn more!   Ms. Rodriguez obtained her Juris Doctor from Temple University. While there, she participated in their National Trial Team and received exceptional advocacy training from one of the best law school programs in the country. Ms. Rodriguez previously worked for the Camden Public Defenders Office, the Philadelphia Public Defenders Office, the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles Public Defenders Office.   Ms. Rodriguez currently and for the past four years has represented a wide range of clients, focusing her representation on borrowers facing non-judicial foreclosure.  .  Rodriguez Law Group:   Call:   626-888-5206  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/06/09/attorney-patricia-rodriguez-discusses-what-to-expect-from-your-attorney</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171297/attorney_patricia_rodriguez_discusses_what_to_expect_from_your_attorney.mp3" length="43413883" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight, Southern California attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss new California decisions in light of the Yvanova ruling, including Keshtgar, Mendoza, Boyce, Scirratta, and Geiseke   Patricia will also discuss how you can help...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight, Southern California attorney Patricia Rodriguez joins Neil Garfield to discuss new California decisions in light of the Yvanova ruling, including Keshtgar, Mendoza, Boyce, Scirratta, and Geiseke   Patricia will also discuss how you can help your attorney by organizing your information, and what is too much client involvement or not enough.   Patricia will address other attorney/client issues that contribute to case success.   Do you know there are tell-tale signs that a bank is misleading you before filing to foreclose on you?   Patricia sheds light on what signs to look for. Join us tonight to learn more!   Ms. Rodriguez obtained her Juris Doctor from Temple University. While there, she participated in their National Trial Team and received exceptional advocacy training from one of the best law school programs in the country. Ms. Rodriguez previously worked for the Camden Public Defenders Office, the Philadelphia Public Defenders Office, the Los Angeles District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles Public Defenders Office.   Ms. Rodriguez currently and for the past four years has represented a wide range of clients, focusing her representation on borrowers facing non-judicial foreclosure.  .  Rodriguez Law Group:   Call:   626-888-5206  1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120  Pasadena, CA 91105   http://attorneyprod.com/contact.html]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2714</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Unconscionability in Adhesion Contracts with South Florida Attorney James Ackley</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/unconscionability-in-adhesion-contracts-with-south-florida-attorney-james-ackley--63171276</link><description><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).   A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.   If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/06/02/unconscionability-in-adhesion-contracts-with-south-florida-attorney-james</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171276/unconscionability_in_adhesion_contracts_with_south_florida_attorney_james.mp3" length="43403016" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Cases based on unconscionability in adhesion contracts are not new, but are being raised more frequently to combat the bank’s tactics to engineer loan defaults. Loan modifications are also adhesion contracts and may be filed where the terms or actions of the bank are unconscionable and result in default (dual-tracking, large balloon payments at loan’s end, etc).   A contract can’t be enforced if it is grossly unfair- but aren’t mortgages where the borrower is not allowed to know who their lender is- unconscionable?  It may be time to expand the definition of what is unconscionable in contracts of adhesion.   If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2713</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>adhesion and foreclosure,adhesion unconscionability,lendinglies.com,neil garfield living lies,randy ackley attorney</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>California Yvanova's Paves the Way for Gieseke, Lundy and Sciarratta Decisions</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-yvanova-s-paves-the-way-for-gieseke-lundy-and-sciarratta-decisions--63171296</link><description><![CDATA[“As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank. But nobody is acting as if that is true.”   The California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has made it clear that it will routinely reverse any decision that involves the trial court accepting void assignments or in which the court rules that the borrower has no standing to raise the issue of ownership and standing based upon a void assignment on the grounds that the borrower was not a party to the transaction.   The very notion of due process means that all parties have an opportunity to pursue the truth and not be stuck with some legal presumption that is based upon a false statement of fact.   The importance of the Geiseke decision is that it is black letter law, as they say, that every borrower should know the identity of his or her creditor. But like other issues, the courts are still asking “what difference does it make?”  It makes all the difference in the world.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413   Original Order: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14840482884466427978&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr   THIS SHOW IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.            ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/05/26/california-yvanovas-paves-the-way-for-gieseke-lundy-and-sciarratta-decisions</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171296/california_yvanovas_paves_the_way_for_gieseke_lundy_and_sciarratta_decisions.mp3" length="43403434" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>“As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank. But nobody is acting as if that is true.”   The California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has made it clear that it will routinely reverse...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[“As it stands, the “creditor” consists of all investors in all trusts created by each investment bank. But nobody is acting as if that is true.”   The California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has made it clear that it will routinely reverse any decision that involves the trial court accepting void assignments or in which the court rules that the borrower has no standing to raise the issue of ownership and standing based upon a void assignment on the grounds that the borrower was not a party to the transaction.   The very notion of due process means that all parties have an opportunity to pursue the truth and not be stuck with some legal presumption that is based upon a false statement of fact.   The importance of the Geiseke decision is that it is black letter law, as they say, that every borrower should know the identity of his or her creditor. But like other issues, the courts are still asking “what difference does it make?”  It makes all the difference in the world.  Charles Marshall, Esq.  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413   Original Order: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14840482884466427978&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr   THIS SHOW IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.            ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2713</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>David Dayen's Chain of Title- A Great Literary Example of the Great Recession</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/david-dayen-s-chain-of-title-a-great-literary-example-of-the-great-recession--63171351</link><description><![CDATA[Chain of Title by David Dayen.  How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud.   Salon and recent recipient of the Ida and Studs Terkel Prize, Author David Dayen joins Neil Garfield tonight on the Neil Garfield Show.  David Dayen will share insights on his book Chain of Title that was released last week.  This will be one of Neil’s most interesting guests.   The book, Chain of Title, explores the lives of three ordinary Florida residents facing foreclosure that decided to take on the ominous ‘Foreclosure Machine’ that includes powerful banks, biased courts and delivers few slivers of justice.   In the depths of the Great Recession, a cancer nurse, a car dealership worker, and an insurance fraud specialist helped uncover the largest consumer crime in American history—a scandal that implicated dozens of major executives on Wall Street. They called it foreclosure fraud: millions of families were kicked out of their homes based on false evidence by mortgage companies that had no legal right to foreclose.   Lisa Epstein, Michael Redman, and Lynn Szymoniak did not work in government or law enforcement. They had no history of anticorporate activism. Instead they were all foreclosure victims, and while struggling with their shame and isolation they committed a revolutionary act: closely reading their mortgage documents, discovering the deceit behind them, and building a movement to expose it.   David Dayen recounts how these ordinary Floridians challenged the most powerful institutions in America armed only with the truth—and for a brief moment they brought the corrupt financial industry to its knees.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/05/19/david-dayens-chain-of-title-a-great-literary-example-of-the-great-recession</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171351/david_dayens_chain_of_title_a_great_literary_example_of_the_great_recession.mp3" length="43324022" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Chain of Title by David Dayen.  How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud.   Salon and recent recipient of the Ida and Studs Terkel Prize, Author David Dayen joins Neil Garfield tonight on the Neil Garfield Show. ...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Chain of Title by David Dayen.  How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud.   Salon and recent recipient of the Ida and Studs Terkel Prize, Author David Dayen joins Neil Garfield tonight on the Neil Garfield Show.  David Dayen will share insights on his book Chain of Title that was released last week.  This will be one of Neil’s most interesting guests.   The book, Chain of Title, explores the lives of three ordinary Florida residents facing foreclosure that decided to take on the ominous ‘Foreclosure Machine’ that includes powerful banks, biased courts and delivers few slivers of justice.   In the depths of the Great Recession, a cancer nurse, a car dealership worker, and an insurance fraud specialist helped uncover the largest consumer crime in American history—a scandal that implicated dozens of major executives on Wall Street. They called it foreclosure fraud: millions of families were kicked out of their homes based on false evidence by mortgage companies that had no legal right to foreclose.   Lisa Epstein, Michael Redman, and Lynn Szymoniak did not work in government or law enforcement. They had no history of anticorporate activism. Instead they were all foreclosure victims, and while struggling with their shame and isolation they committed a revolutionary act: closely reading their mortgage documents, discovering the deceit behind them, and building a movement to expose it.   David Dayen recounts how these ordinary Floridians challenged the most powerful institutions in America armed only with the truth—and for a brief moment they brought the corrupt financial industry to its knees.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rescission Revisited with Florida Attorney James "Randy" Ackley</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-revisited-with-florida-attorney-james-randy-ackley--63171269</link><description><![CDATA[Neil Garfield continues to advocate rescission, but in light of the state courts resistance to apply the procedure clearly set forth in TILA rescission- homeowners must plan accordingly when pursuing rescission litigation.  It is true that there should not be any litigation where the rescission was sent, received and the “creditor” did nothing for more than 20 days and frequently more than 1 year and even several years. Unfortunately judges are making decisions based upon a presumptive finding of fact that the loan contract was consummated on the date the documents were apparently signed (closing). Once again we are dealing with presumed facts that are most likely untrue.  Despite the Jesinoski decision, the courts are reading into the statute on procedure and saying that various conditions apply when the statute and the Supreme Court say otherwise. All rescissions are effective when mailed regardless of whether or not they are disputed- but it may be some time before the courts fall in line.  Attorney “Randy” Ackley is one of south Florida’s finest foreclosure defense attorneys who has a 5-star ratings at Martindale.com.   If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call the Law offices of James R. Ackley at 561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.                     ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/05/12/rescission-revisited-with-florida-attorney-james-randy-ackley</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171269/rescission_revisited_with_florida_attorney_james_randy_ackley.mp3" length="43314827" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Neil Garfield continues to advocate rescission, but in light of the state courts resistance to apply the procedure clearly set forth in TILA rescission- homeowners must plan accordingly when pursuing rescission litigation.  It is true that there...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Neil Garfield continues to advocate rescission, but in light of the state courts resistance to apply the procedure clearly set forth in TILA rescission- homeowners must plan accordingly when pursuing rescission litigation.  It is true that there should not be any litigation where the rescission was sent, received and the “creditor” did nothing for more than 20 days and frequently more than 1 year and even several years. Unfortunately judges are making decisions based upon a presumptive finding of fact that the loan contract was consummated on the date the documents were apparently signed (closing). Once again we are dealing with presumed facts that are most likely untrue.  Despite the Jesinoski decision, the courts are reading into the statute on procedure and saying that various conditions apply when the statute and the Supreme Court say otherwise. All rescissions are effective when mailed regardless of whether or not they are disputed- but it may be some time before the courts fall in line.  Attorney “Randy” Ackley is one of south Florida’s finest foreclosure defense attorneys who has a 5-star ratings at Martindale.com.   If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call the Law offices of James R. Ackley at 561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.                     ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2708</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>fraudulent foreclosure,james randy ackley,neil garfield,rescission,standing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Steven Wright, Connecticut Attorney talks about equity and unclean hands</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/steven-wright-connecticut-attorney-talks-about-equity-and-unclean-hands--63171302</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight's guest will be Connecticut Attorney Steve Wright. We will be talking about the Buset decision, unclean hands, presumptions, and other developments in foreclosure defense and foreclosure offense.  Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm   324 Elm Street   Suite 103B   Monroe, CT 06468   203-261-3050 (O)   203-218-6395 (C)   spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/05/05/steven-wright-connecticut-attorney-talks-about-equity-and-unclean-hands</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171302/steven_wright_connecticut_attorney_talks_about_equity_and_unclean_hands.mp3" length="43374595" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight's guest will be Connecticut Attorney Steve Wright. We will be talking about the Buset decision, unclean hands, presumptions, and other developments in foreclosure defense and foreclosure offense.  Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm   324 Elm...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight's guest will be Connecticut Attorney Steve Wright. We will be talking about the Buset decision, unclean hands, presumptions, and other developments in foreclosure defense and foreclosure offense.  Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm   324 Elm Street   Suite 103B   Monroe, CT 06468   203-261-3050 (O)   203-218-6395 (C)   spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2711</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,presumptions,rescission,standing,unclean hands</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>South Florida Attorney James "Randy" Ackley- Foreclosure is a Humanitarian Issue</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/south-florida-attorney-james-randy-ackley-foreclosure-is-a-humanitarian-issue--63171293</link><description><![CDATA[Over the past 25 years Randy has devoted his life to disaster relief and humanitarian aid having been employed at the American Red Cross and in charge of Presbyterian Global Disaster Assistance.   Randy has been on the ground when Hurricanes like Andrew and Katrina struck, responded to tornados and floods, faced armed conflict in Kosovo, economic collapse in Bulgaria, the Indian Ocean tsunami in South Asia and earthquakes in Haiti and Japan- all while keeping his membership active in the Florida BAR.   When Randy says he can help save your home- he means just that.  Randy has helped save homes that are in the paths of Tsunamis, volcanos, hurricanes and wars- and even in more mundane venues- but equally dangerous areas- like court rooms.   Randy has stated that home losses are the consequence of bad actions by banks that caused families to lose their homes.  Randy Ackley believes that if the laws on the books are enforced, families can fight back and avoid losing their homes altogether. While many people may still perceive foreclosure as similar to that of our grandparents’ day, Randy points out that many people now realize that contemporary foreclosure is often the result of failings, or outright fraudulent behavior, of the lenders and the industry, and that these are very different circumstances from the foreclosures of the past.    If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.   ___________________________________   Small Group Consultation (by phone) is scheduled for Friday April 29th at 3:00 EST.      You may self-schedule and make payment at: https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies          ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/04/28/south-florida-attorney-james-randy-ackley-foreclosure-is-a-humanitarian-issue</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171293/south_florida_attorney_james_randy_ackley_foreclosure_is_a_humanitarian_issue.mp3" length="43038974" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Over the past 25 years Randy has devoted his life to disaster relief and humanitarian aid having been employed at the American Red Cross and in charge of Presbyterian Global Disaster Assistance.   Randy has been on the ground when Hurricanes like...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Over the past 25 years Randy has devoted his life to disaster relief and humanitarian aid having been employed at the American Red Cross and in charge of Presbyterian Global Disaster Assistance.   Randy has been on the ground when Hurricanes like Andrew and Katrina struck, responded to tornados and floods, faced armed conflict in Kosovo, economic collapse in Bulgaria, the Indian Ocean tsunami in South Asia and earthquakes in Haiti and Japan- all while keeping his membership active in the Florida BAR.   When Randy says he can help save your home- he means just that.  Randy has helped save homes that are in the paths of Tsunamis, volcanos, hurricanes and wars- and even in more mundane venues- but equally dangerous areas- like court rooms.   Randy has stated that home losses are the consequence of bad actions by banks that caused families to lose their homes.  Randy Ackley believes that if the laws on the books are enforced, families can fight back and avoid losing their homes altogether. While many people may still perceive foreclosure as similar to that of our grandparents’ day, Randy points out that many people now realize that contemporary foreclosure is often the result of failings, or outright fraudulent behavior, of the lenders and the industry, and that these are very different circumstances from the foreclosures of the past.    If you are in Florida and are looking for help with your foreclosure, especially your foreclosure trial, call James "Randy" Ackley at  561-594-5671 for a FREE CONSULTATION.   ___________________________________   Small Group Consultation (by phone) is scheduled for Friday April 29th at 3:00 EST.      You may self-schedule and make payment at: https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies          ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2690</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,james randy ackley,neil garfield,south florida florida attorney</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Charles Marshall, Esq. Northern California Attorney</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/charles-marshall-esq-northern-california-attorney--63171346</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/04/21/charles-marshall-esq-northern-california-attorney</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171346/charles_marshall_esq_northern_california_attorney.mp3" length="29008920" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall, Esq. attorney in Northern California joins us again as the featured attorney. Charles has been a long time supporter of the livinglies blog and has contributed to the analysis and strategies that are reported on the blog. He has exceptional critical thinking skills and the ability to understand the strategic winds that are blowing. Things are changing rapidly. We'll be talking about Yvanova, Keshtgar, Lundy, TILA Rescission and current trends.  Charles Marshall  Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall  415 Laurel St., #405  San Diego, CA 92101  cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com  Phone 619.723.7071  Fax 866.575.7413    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>defense,deficiency,foreclosure,rescission,yvanova</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorney Patricia Rodriguez Talks California law, Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorney-patricia-rodriguez-talks-california-law-foreclosure-defense--63171291</link><description><![CDATA[Attorney Rodriguez has been battling for homeowners. She litigates to win. Join us as we discuss the ramifications of new case decisions and the landscape for foreclosure defense.     Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.,  (Formerly known as Law Offices of Patricia Rodriguez)  1961 West Huntington Drive | Suite 201   Alhambra, CA 91801   phone: (626) 888-5206  fax: (626) 282-0522]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/04/14/attorney-patricia-rodriguez-talks-california-law-foreclosrue-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171291/attorney_patricia_rodriguez_talks_california_law_foreclosrue_defense.mp3" length="28878516" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Attorney Rodriguez has been battling for homeowners. She litigates to win. Join us as we discuss the ramifications of new case decisions and the landscape for foreclosure defense.     Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.,  (Formerly known as Law Offices of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Attorney Rodriguez has been battling for homeowners. She litigates to win. Join us as we discuss the ramifications of new case decisions and the landscape for foreclosure defense.     Rodriguez Law Group, Inc.,  (Formerly known as Law Offices of Patricia Rodriguez)  1961 West Huntington Drive | Suite 201   Alhambra, CA 91801   phone: (626) 888-5206  fax: (626) 282-0522]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>assignments,defense,foreclosure,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TILA RESCISSION PROCEDURE</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tila-rescission-procedure--63171271</link><description><![CDATA[TILA Rescission is an event. It is not a theory, claim or defense. It is a nonjudicial procedural remedy. It is accomplished by mailing a letter. In most cases it is an event that has indisputably occurred. The effect of TILA Rescission is, as a matter of law and by operation of law, to cancel the loan contract, and to render the note and mortgage void. In its Motion to Dismiss, the pretender lenders seek to have courts assume that the rescission exists but is not effective, despite all law to the contrary. The matter is well settled, to wit: if the rescission exists, it is effective as a matter of law.The effectiveness of a TILA Rescission is not predicated upon any judicial analysis of the likelihood of the borrower’s success if a lawsuit to vacate the rescission is filed by a party with legal standing. Any such interpretation would be opposite to the holding in Jesinoski that the rescission is effective upon mailing, whether disputed or not.The pretender lenders do not dispute that rescission has occurred but seek to invoke issues in a case that is not and cannot be before any Court, to wit: whether the rescission is effective.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/03/31/tila-rescission-procedure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171271/tila_rescission_procedure.mp3" length="28976737" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>TILA Rescission is an event. It is not a theory, claim or defense. It is a nonjudicial procedural remedy. It is accomplished by mailing a letter. In most cases it is an event that has indisputably occurred. The effect of TILA Rescission is, as a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[TILA Rescission is an event. It is not a theory, claim or defense. It is a nonjudicial procedural remedy. It is accomplished by mailing a letter. In most cases it is an event that has indisputably occurred. The effect of TILA Rescission is, as a matter of law and by operation of law, to cancel the loan contract, and to render the note and mortgage void. In its Motion to Dismiss, the pretender lenders seek to have courts assume that the rescission exists but is not effective, despite all law to the contrary. The matter is well settled, to wit: if the rescission exists, it is effective as a matter of law.The effectiveness of a TILA Rescission is not predicated upon any judicial analysis of the likelihood of the borrower’s success if a lawsuit to vacate the rescission is filed by a party with legal standing. Any such interpretation would be opposite to the holding in Jesinoski that the rescission is effective upon mailing, whether disputed or not.The pretender lenders do not dispute that rescission has occurred but seek to invoke issues in a case that is not and cannot be before any Court, to wit: whether the rescission is effective.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1812</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Yvanova, Justice Rubin and Fairy Tale Anecdotes</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/yvanova-justice-rubin-and-fairy-tale-anecdotes--63171324</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight our guests include Charles Marshall, Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin. We will take note of an increasing number of Judges who have gone far beyond skeptical over the claims of the banks and servicers, starting with the origination of the loan and ending with the lax compliance with civil procedure in a matter that is the civil equivalent of the death penalty. Loss of the house is seen as a draconian remedy and Judges are clearly tired of hearing excuses from the banks why they can’t get their facts and documents straight. These judges, ever increasing in number, have become hostile to the attorneys for banks and servicers and at best doubtful over the grating of loans with terms that are clear from the face can never be paid.      We will look at Yvanova again and dig deeper. We will look at the Justice Rubin dissent that spells out the truth — that a new industry has been born in California and other states. People who don’t know one thing about the transaction can dig up information on a debt, send a notice to the debtor, sue the debtor and now under precedent particularly strong in California  the debtor cannot challenge the thief who gets the judgment collects the money and then leaves tend debtor and the real creditor to fight it out or leaves the real creditor left dangling in the wind, left only to sue a fly by night entity whose sole purpose was to divert legal debts from the legal creditor to themselves. Yvanova and other cases are starting to address this, but it is too late. The industry of steal the debt and enforce it has already begun. ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/03/24/yvanova-justice-rubin-and-fairy-tale-anecdotes</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171324/yvanova_justice_rubin_and_fairy_tale_anecdotes.mp3" length="43484518" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight our guests include Charles Marshall, Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin. We will take note of an increasing number of Judges who have gone far beyond skeptical over the claims of the banks and servicers, starting with the origination of the loan and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight our guests include Charles Marshall, Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin. We will take note of an increasing number of Judges who have gone far beyond skeptical over the claims of the banks and servicers, starting with the origination of the loan and ending with the lax compliance with civil procedure in a matter that is the civil equivalent of the death penalty. Loss of the house is seen as a draconian remedy and Judges are clearly tired of hearing excuses from the banks why they can’t get their facts and documents straight. These judges, ever increasing in number, have become hostile to the attorneys for banks and servicers and at best doubtful over the grating of loans with terms that are clear from the face can never be paid.      We will look at Yvanova again and dig deeper. We will look at the Justice Rubin dissent that spells out the truth — that a new industry has been born in California and other states. People who don’t know one thing about the transaction can dig up information on a debt, send a notice to the debtor, sue the debtor and now under precedent particularly strong in California  the debtor cannot challenge the thief who gets the judgment collects the money and then leaves tend debtor and the real creditor to fight it out or leaves the real creditor left dangling in the wind, left only to sue a fly by night entity whose sole purpose was to divert legal debts from the legal creditor to themselves. Yvanova and other cases are starting to address this, but it is too late. The industry of steal the debt and enforce it has already begun. ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2718</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>edstrom,marshall,rubin,void documents,yvanova</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Mediation, Modification and Settlements of Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/mediation-modification-and-settlements-of-foreclosures--63171412</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we start the conversation on mediation, modification and settlements with the banks and servicers, keeping in mind that we are dealing with people who most likely have no financial interest in the performance of the loan and no authority to mediate, modify or settle despite all their assurances to the contrary.  And watch out for those hidden balloon payments that are 20, 30 or even 40 years down the road. They will come up a lot faster when you go to sell or refinance the property!]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/03/17/mediation-modification-and-settlements-of-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171412/mediation_modification_and_settlements_of_foreclosures.mp3" length="29010257" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we start the conversation on mediation, modification and settlements with the banks and servicers, keeping in mind that we are dealing with people who most likely have no financial interest in the performance of the loan and no authority to...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we start the conversation on mediation, modification and settlements with the banks and servicers, keeping in mind that we are dealing with people who most likely have no financial interest in the performance of the loan and no authority to mediate, modify or settle despite all their assurances to the contrary.  And watch out for those hidden balloon payments that are 20, 30 or even 40 years down the road. They will come up a lot faster when you go to sell or refinance the property!]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Impact of Yvanova Decision, Void Assignments, Ownership of the DEBT vs Note</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/impact-of-yvanova-decision-void-assignments-ownership-of-the-debt-vs-note--63171419</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show, I am joined by attorney Charles Marshall (CA), Dan Edstrom, chief forensic analyst for livinglies, and Jim Macklin who has guest hosted our program and been creative voice in the fight against illegal behavior by the banks.       While we be covering a few issues, the main focus tonight is to discuss the impact of the Yvanova decision by the California Supreme Court. If Jesinoski was the first punch that the banks can't recover from, Yvanova is viewed by many of the bank attorneys as the second. I agree.   The Yvanova Court clears up several issues and based upon advise anda rticles from bank attorneys, it is clear that the "narrow" decision is expected to have broad impact across the country. The absurd ruling that a borrower cannot challenge a void assignment has been settled once and for all in favor of the borrower. Just as important, is that this court says that the key to any foreclosure is ownership of the debt --- not the note, not the mortgage, but the actual debt. This one statement in the Yvanova decision spells the beginning of the end for the the banks and hopefully eliminate most foreclosures. It will take a while but this represents one giant leap for all homeowners.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/03/03/impact-of-yvanova-decision-void-assignments-ownership-of-the-debt-vs-note</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171419/impact_of_yvanova_decision_void_assignments_ownership_of_the_debt_vs_note.mp3" length="29292797" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show, I am joined by attorney Charles Marshall (CA), Dan Edstrom, chief forensic analyst for livinglies, and Jim Macklin who has guest hosted our program and been creative voice in the fight against illegal behavior by the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show, I am joined by attorney Charles Marshall (CA), Dan Edstrom, chief forensic analyst for livinglies, and Jim Macklin who has guest hosted our program and been creative voice in the fight against illegal behavior by the banks.       While we be covering a few issues, the main focus tonight is to discuss the impact of the Yvanova decision by the California Supreme Court. If Jesinoski was the first punch that the banks can't recover from, Yvanova is viewed by many of the bank attorneys as the second. I agree.   The Yvanova Court clears up several issues and based upon advise anda rticles from bank attorneys, it is clear that the "narrow" decision is expected to have broad impact across the country. The absurd ruling that a borrower cannot challenge a void assignment has been settled once and for all in favor of the borrower. Just as important, is that this court says that the key to any foreclosure is ownership of the debt --- not the note, not the mortgage, but the actual debt. This one statement in the Yvanova decision spells the beginning of the end for the the banks and hopefully eliminate most foreclosures. It will take a while but this represents one giant leap for all homeowners.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1831</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>edstrom,macklin,marshall,void assignments,yvanova</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rescission in Bankruptcy? Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright has the Answers.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-in-bankruptcy-connecticut-attorney-stephen-wright-has-the-answers--63171437</link><description><![CDATA[If you feel this show has been helpful to you, we gladly accept donations.  Please donate through the link at:  LivingLies. Thank you in advance.   Attorney Stephen Wright will be discussing Rescission in terms of Bankruptcy, and touch on the Yvanova Decision in California.  In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) the California Supreme Court ruled that homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void.   Attorney Stephen P. Wright can be reached at:    Stephen P. Wright    Wright Law Firm    324 Elm Street    Suite 103B    Monroe, CT 06488    203-261-3050 (O)    203-218-6395 (C)    spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com   Stephen went to Trumball High School, Florida State University and Western New England College of Law where he graduated in 1980. So we are not talking about a new comer in the practice of law we are talking about a litigator with experience. He is a lecturer in the Commercial Law League of America, a former faculty member of the College of the State Bar in Texas, and a current member of the Connecticut Bar and previous member of the Texas Bar. He has lectured and written on workouts, collection of judgments, debtor/creditor relations, the UCC, and bankruptcy.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/02/25/rescission-in-bankruptcy-connecticut-attorney-stephen-wright-has-the-answers</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171437/rescission_in_bankruptcy_connecticut_attorney_stephen_wright_has_the_answers.mp3" length="43604973" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>If you feel this show has been helpful to you, we gladly accept donations.  Please donate through the link at:  LivingLies. Thank you in advance.   Attorney Stephen Wright will be discussing Rescission in terms of Bankruptcy, and touch on the Yvanova...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[If you feel this show has been helpful to you, we gladly accept donations.  Please donate through the link at:  LivingLies. Thank you in advance.   Attorney Stephen Wright will be discussing Rescission in terms of Bankruptcy, and touch on the Yvanova Decision in California.  In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) the California Supreme Court ruled that homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void.   Attorney Stephen P. Wright can be reached at:    Stephen P. Wright    Wright Law Firm    324 Elm Street    Suite 103B    Monroe, CT 06488    203-261-3050 (O)    203-218-6395 (C)    spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com   Stephen went to Trumball High School, Florida State University and Western New England College of Law where he graduated in 1980. So we are not talking about a new comer in the practice of law we are talking about a litigator with experience. He is a lecturer in the Commercial Law League of America, a former faculty member of the College of the State Bar in Texas, and a current member of the Connecticut Bar and previous member of the Texas Bar. He has lectured and written on workouts, collection of judgments, debtor/creditor relations, the UCC, and bankruptcy.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2726</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>livinglies,neil garfield,rescission,stephen wright,yvanova</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>testing one two theree four</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/testing-one-two-theree-four--63171274</link><description><![CDATA[testing one two three fou]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/02/25/testing-one-two-theree-four</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:19:01 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171274/testing_one_two_theree_four.mp3" length="1156621" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>testing one two three fou</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[testing one two three fou]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>73</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TILA RESCISSION RULES FOR the ROAD</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tila-rescission-rules-for-the-road--63171432</link><description><![CDATA[Discussion of proactive and reactive approaches to strategies after TILA rescission is sent and recorded. Tonight w etalk about all the different things that should be considered when pursuing a TILA rescission strategy. This might actually be the real magic bullet. So maybe youa re already in court andmaybe you're not. What are your options?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/02/11/tila-rescission-rules-for-the-road</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171432/tila_rescission_rules_for_the_road.mp3" length="29096774" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Discussion of proactive and reactive approaches to strategies after TILA rescission is sent and recorded. Tonight w etalk about all the different things that should be considered when pursuing a TILA rescission strategy. This might actually be the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Discussion of proactive and reactive approaches to strategies after TILA rescission is sent and recorded. Tonight w etalk about all the different things that should be considered when pursuing a TILA rescission strategy. This might actually be the real magic bullet. So maybe youa re already in court andmaybe you're not. What are your options?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>defense,foreclosure,mortgage,tila rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Patricia Rodriguez Tonight! What Happens After Notice of Rescission under TILA?</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/patricia-rodriguez-tonight-what-happens-after-notice-of-rescission-under-tila--63171339</link><description><![CDATA[See www.livinglies.wordpress.com --- the largest site on the internet providing information and support to homeowners for more than 8 years. 4,500 articles, together with free forms and resources.   I  will be discussing THE RULES OF THE ROAD FOR TILA RESCISSION AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A NOTICE OF RESCISSION IS MAILED.   When that notice of rescission is mailed, THAT is when the rescission is effective and THAT means that the note and mortgage are void. The trick here is to avoid getting drawn into an argument about whether there was something wrong with the rescission. Nobody has a right to raise that unless they have standing. And then it is a question of fact whether they prove that the rescission was defective in some way.   All rescissions are effective when sent whether they are disputed or not. Raising the issue of a statute of limitations is a dispute.   So what happesn after notice of rescission is given? Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., 1961 West Huntington Drive | Suite 201 Alhambra, CA 91801   phone: (626) 888-5206fax: (626) 282-0522]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/02/04/what-happens-after-notice-of-rescission-under-tila</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171339/what_happens_after_notice_of_rescission_under_tila.mp3" length="29102625" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>See www.livinglies.wordpress.com --- the largest site on the internet providing information and support to homeowners for more than 8 years. 4,500 articles, together with free forms and resources.   I  will be discussing THE RULES OF THE ROAD FOR TILA...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[See www.livinglies.wordpress.com --- the largest site on the internet providing information and support to homeowners for more than 8 years. 4,500 articles, together with free forms and resources.   I  will be discussing THE RULES OF THE ROAD FOR TILA RESCISSION AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A NOTICE OF RESCISSION IS MAILED.   When that notice of rescission is mailed, THAT is when the rescission is effective and THAT means that the note and mortgage are void. The trick here is to avoid getting drawn into an argument about whether there was something wrong with the rescission. Nobody has a right to raise that unless they have standing. And then it is a question of fact whether they prove that the rescission was defective in some way.   All rescissions are effective when sent whether they are disputed or not. Raising the issue of a statute of limitations is a dispute.   So what happesn after notice of rescission is given? Rodriguez Law Group, Inc., 1961 West Huntington Drive | Suite 201 Alhambra, CA 91801   phone: (626) 888-5206fax: (626) 282-0522]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,foreclosure defense,rescission,standing,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>For Lawyers: TILA Rescission and Jurisdicition</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/for-lawyers-tila-rescission-and-jurisdicition--63171338</link><description><![CDATA[If this episode was valuable to you, please support the Neil Garfield Show by visiting our blog at http://livinglies.wordpress.com.   The only jurisdiction the court had was based upon the allegations based upon the note and mortgage. The rescission removed the note and mortgage as valid instruments as of the date of mailing the rescission. Hence unless one or more of the parties allege that they are the owner of the debt and the end of the line in the "chain" (and then prove it) none of the existing parties have standing to dispute the rescission which, as Justice Scalia said on behalf of a unanimous US Supreme Court, was effective on mailing regardless of whether it was disputed or not.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/01/28/for-lawyers-tila-rescission-and-jurisdicition</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171338/for_lawyers_tila_rescission_and_jurisdicition.mp3" length="29070861" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>If this episode was valuable to you, please support the Neil Garfield Show by visiting our blog at http://livinglies.wordpress.com.   The only jurisdiction the court had was based upon the allegations based upon the note and mortgage. The rescission...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[If this episode was valuable to you, please support the Neil Garfield Show by visiting our blog at http://livinglies.wordpress.com.   The only jurisdiction the court had was based upon the allegations based upon the note and mortgage. The rescission removed the note and mortgage as valid instruments as of the date of mailing the rescission. Hence unless one or more of the parties allege that they are the owner of the debt and the end of the line in the "chain" (and then prove it) none of the existing parties have standing to dispute the rescission which, as Justice Scalia said on behalf of a unanimous US Supreme Court, was effective on mailing regardless of whether it was disputed or not.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1817</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,jurisdicition,mortgages,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Stephen Wright, Attorney Talks About Rescission and Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephen-wright-attorney-talks-about-rescission-and-foreclosure-defense--63171367</link><description><![CDATA[Steve Wright and Neil Garfield will be discussing and allowing time for questions in a 45 minute broadcast. The topics are Rescission, the time limits for sending, recording the rescission, the time limits and the rules restricting the right of so-called lenders or creditors from filing anything that challenges the effect of the rescission, Standing, Drilling down on Standing and driving down beyond standing, Judicial notice of the Trust instrument, and the difference between the strategy of trying to enforce the PSA, which most courts are saying you can’t do, vs the strategy of attacking whether the REMIC Trust ever purchased the loan and therefore whether the alleged trustee or servicer has any relationship to the loan. If the loan doesn’t own the debt then the Trustee and Servicer are just padding.   Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm   324 Elm Street   Suite 103B   Monroe, CT 06488   203-261-3050 (O)   203-218-6395 (C)   spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/01/21/stephen-wright-attorney-talks-about-rescission-and-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171367/stephen_wright_attorney_talks_about_rescission_and_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="43721584" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Steve Wright and Neil Garfield will be discussing and allowing time for questions in a 45 minute broadcast. The topics are Rescission, the time limits for sending, recording the rescission, the time limits and the rules restricting the right of...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Steve Wright and Neil Garfield will be discussing and allowing time for questions in a 45 minute broadcast. The topics are Rescission, the time limits for sending, recording the rescission, the time limits and the rules restricting the right of so-called lenders or creditors from filing anything that challenges the effect of the rescission, Standing, Drilling down on Standing and driving down beyond standing, Judicial notice of the Trust instrument, and the difference between the strategy of trying to enforce the PSA, which most courts are saying you can’t do, vs the strategy of attacking whether the REMIC Trust ever purchased the loan and therefore whether the alleged trustee or servicer has any relationship to the loan. If the loan doesn’t own the debt then the Trustee and Servicer are just padding.   Stephen P. Wright   Wright Law Firm   324 Elm Street   Suite 103B   Monroe, CT 06488   203-261-3050 (O)   203-218-6395 (C)   spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2733</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,rescission,standing,stephen wright,truth in lending</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The MERS SELLOUT in Oregon: Jill Smith Returns with News and Views</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-mers-sellout-in-oregon-jill-smith-returns-with-news-and-views--63171287</link><description><![CDATA[Every year we get closer to turning the corner and having most decisions favor borrowers. Right now we must accept that we are getting more borrower decisions but we are not yet at MOST.   Tonight we have Jill Smith, Esquire returning to our show. Jill Smith is a lawyer with wide-ranging interests and experience and is now one of the foremost lawyers representing homeowners in mortgage disputes. She has experience in many different states of the union and a unique perspective on the culture and ambiance of courtrooms particularly in Seattle Washington where she now practices.   Jill's contact information is  Jill Smith, Esq.  Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC  5470 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 520   Seattle, WA 98107   (206) 227-9800         ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/01/14/the-mers-sellout-in-oregon-jill-smith-returns-with-news-and-views</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171287/the_mers_sellout_in_oregon_jill_smith_returns_with_news_and_views.mp3" length="29088833" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Every year we get closer to turning the corner and having most decisions favor borrowers. Right now we must accept that we are getting more borrower decisions but we are not yet at MOST.   Tonight we have Jill Smith, Esquire returning to our show....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Every year we get closer to turning the corner and having most decisions favor borrowers. Right now we must accept that we are getting more borrower decisions but we are not yet at MOST.   Tonight we have Jill Smith, Esquire returning to our show. Jill Smith is a lawyer with wide-ranging interests and experience and is now one of the foremost lawyers representing homeowners in mortgage disputes. She has experience in many different states of the union and a unique perspective on the culture and ambiance of courtrooms particularly in Seattle Washington where she now practices.   Jill's contact information is  Jill Smith, Esq.  Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC  5470 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 520   Seattle, WA 98107   (206) 227-9800         ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1819</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,mers,multnomah county oregon,rescission,seattle</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Details of Rescission</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-details-of-rescission--63171285</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we are covering the topic of whether we can interpret, argue or philosophize about TILA rescission. The answer is yes, provided it is outside the courtroom. We will also be covering recordation of the notice of rescission under state law. And the main point of argument about the TILA rescission provision that says that the right to rescind expires after three years from the date of consummation. Let me just say that when the SCOTUS says there is no room for argument or discussion that is the end of the matter because they are the court of last resort. There is nothing to revisit in a lower court except correcting prior unlawful decisions that ignored rescissions.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2016/01/07/the-details-of-rescission</guid><pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2016 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171285/the_details_of_rescission.mp3" length="28935442" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we are covering the topic of whether we can interpret, argue or philosophize about TILA rescission. The answer is yes, provided it is outside the courtroom. We will also be covering recordation of the notice of rescission under state law. And...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we are covering the topic of whether we can interpret, argue or philosophize about TILA rescission. The answer is yes, provided it is outside the courtroom. We will also be covering recordation of the notice of rescission under state law. And the main point of argument about the TILA rescission provision that says that the right to rescind expires after three years from the date of consummation. Let me just say that when the SCOTUS says there is no room for argument or discussion that is the end of the matter because they are the court of last resort. There is nothing to revisit in a lower court except correcting prior unlawful decisions that ignored rescissions.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,mortgage,rescission,standing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Bill Paatalo talks about his case and others like it on rescission, foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/bill-paatalo-talks-about-his-case-and-others-like-it-on-rescission-foreclosure--63171308</link><description><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo's case was highlighted a few days back where the standard bank attacks were rebuffed in Court. He is a very able private investigator who has educated himself thoroughly in the mess we call the "mortgage crisis." see opinion for Paatalo MTD DENIED  Tune in and you'll get some insights that may be very helpful to litigating, modifying and rescinding the alleged "mortgage loans."  Bill Paatalo  Oregon Private Investigator - PSID#49411     BP Investigative Agency, LLC  P.O. Box 838  Absarokee, MT 59001  Office: (406) 328-4075www.bpinvestigativeagency.com]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/12/10/bill-paatalo-talks-about-his-case-and-others-like-it-on-rescission-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171308/bill_paatalo_talks_about_his_case_and_others_like_it_on_rescission_foreclosure.mp3" length="43663488" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Bill Paatalo's case was highlighted a few days back where the standard bank attacks were rebuffed in Court. He is a very able private investigator who has educated himself thoroughly in the mess we call the "mortgage crisis." see opinion for Paatalo...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Bill Paatalo's case was highlighted a few days back where the standard bank attacks were rebuffed in Court. He is a very able private investigator who has educated himself thoroughly in the mess we call the "mortgage crisis." see opinion for Paatalo MTD DENIED  Tune in and you'll get some insights that may be very helpful to litigating, modifying and rescinding the alleged "mortgage loans."  Bill Paatalo  Oregon Private Investigator - PSID#49411     BP Investigative Agency, LLC  P.O. Box 838  Absarokee, MT 59001  Office: (406) 328-4075www.bpinvestigativeagency.com]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>2729</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Stephen Wright Discusses Connecticut Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/stephen-wright-discusses-connecticut-foreclosures--63171282</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight, Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright discusses the specifics of Ct Foreclosure Law in layman's terms.  There is very little education for the Conneticut consumer to go to and learn about the foreclosure process in this state.  Probably because this is a banker's paridise.     The topics would include:   1) Mandatory pre-conditions to commencement of a foreclosure action   2)The foreclosure complaint and homeowner's right to court sponsored mediation;   3) Foreclosure Defenses and rescission;   4) Use of Bankruptcy to prevent foreclosure;   5)Types of Foreclosures and the differences;   60 Deficiency Judgments;   7) Short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure and the next phase; increase in foreclosuresdue to expiration of short term solutions  Stephen P. Wright  The Wright Law Firm, LLC  324 Elm Street  Suite 103B  Monroe, CT 06468  (203) 218-6395 phone  (203 268-8938 fax  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com    ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/12/03/stephen-wright-discusses-connecticut-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171282/stephen_wright_discusses_connecticut_foreclosures.mp3" length="21224513" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight, Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright discusses the specifics of Ct Foreclosure Law in layman's terms.  There is very little education for the Conneticut consumer to go to and learn about the foreclosure process in this state.  Probably because...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight, Connecticut attorney Stephen Wright discusses the specifics of Ct Foreclosure Law in layman's terms.  There is very little education for the Conneticut consumer to go to and learn about the foreclosure process in this state.  Probably because this is a banker's paridise.     The topics would include:   1) Mandatory pre-conditions to commencement of a foreclosure action   2)The foreclosure complaint and homeowner's right to court sponsored mediation;   3) Foreclosure Defenses and rescission;   4) Use of Bankruptcy to prevent foreclosure;   5)Types of Foreclosures and the differences;   60 Deficiency Judgments;   7) Short sales and deeds in lieu of foreclosure and the next phase; increase in foreclosuresdue to expiration of short term solutions  Stephen P. Wright  The Wright Law Firm, LLC  324 Elm Street  Suite 103B  Monroe, CT 06468  (203) 218-6395 phone  (203 268-8938 fax  spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com    ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1327</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>connecticut,foreclosure,mortgages,notice,rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rescission and Wrongful Foreclosure Judgments!</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-and-wrongful-foreclosure-judgments--63171295</link><description><![CDATA[With recent decisions confirming the Jesinoski Supreme Court decision, and confirming that Wrongful Foreclosure actions are producing big verdicts, the largest recent one being over $5 million. This is an opportunity for lawyers to make a lot of money in fees.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/11/19/rescission-and-wrongful-foreclosure-judgments</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171295/rescission_and_wrongful_foreclosure_judgments.mp3" length="29105133" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>With recent decisions confirming the Jesinoski Supreme Court decision, and confirming that Wrongful Foreclosure actions are producing big verdicts, the largest recent one being over $5 million. This is an opportunity for lawyers to make a lot of money...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[With recent decisions confirming the Jesinoski Supreme Court decision, and confirming that Wrongful Foreclosure actions are producing big verdicts, the largest recent one being over $5 million. This is an opportunity for lawyers to make a lot of money in fees.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1820</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rescission in NonJudicial States</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-in-nonjudicial-states--63171353</link><description><![CDATA[Attorney Charles Marshall, Jim Macklin, and Dan Edstrom sit in for Neil Garfield to discuss the very latest in litigation strategies relating to rescission, enforcement of rescission and dealing with motions from the banks. As the banks try to rewrite the law indirectly, they are coming up against a brick wall: judges are reserving ruling, signaling their dislike for rescission but their acknowledgment that the procedure of TILA rescission cannot be rewritten or interpreted.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/11/05/rescission-in-nonjudicial-states</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171353/rescission_in_nonjudicial_states.mp3" length="28869404" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Attorney Charles Marshall, Jim Macklin, and Dan Edstrom sit in for Neil Garfield to discuss the very latest in litigation strategies relating to rescission, enforcement of rescission and dealing with motions from the banks. As the banks try to rewrite...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Attorney Charles Marshall, Jim Macklin, and Dan Edstrom sit in for Neil Garfield to discuss the very latest in litigation strategies relating to rescission, enforcement of rescission and dealing with motions from the banks. As the banks try to rewrite the law indirectly, they are coming up against a brick wall: judges are reserving ruling, signaling their dislike for rescission but their acknowledgment that the procedure of TILA rescission cannot be rewritten or interpreted.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>charles marshall,dan edstrom,jim macklin,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Attorney Stephen Wright  talks about Foreclosure Defense in Connecticut</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/attorney-stephen-wright-talks-about-foreclosure-defense-in-connecticut--63171289</link><description><![CDATA[Tonight we have Attorney Stephen P Wright from Connecticut with us because he and I have been having some conversations about the real issues that the banks keep sweeping under the rug. He has a very impressive resume.    Stephen went to Trumball High School, Florida State University and Western New England College of Law where he graduated in 1980. So we are not talking about a new comer in the practice of law we are talking about a litigator with experience. He is a lecturer in the Commercial Law League of America, a former faculty member of the College of the State Bar in Texas, and a current member of the Connecticut Bar and previous member of the Texas Bar. He has lectured and written on workouts, collection of judgments, debtor/creditor relations, the UCC, and bankruptcy.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/10/29/attorney-stephen-wright-talks-about-foreclosure-defense-in-connecticut</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171289/attorney_stephen_wright_talks_about_foreclosure_defense_in_connecticut.mp3" length="29329577" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Tonight we have Attorney Stephen P Wright from Connecticut with us because he and I have been having some conversations about the real issues that the banks keep sweeping under the rug. He has a very impressive resume.    Stephen went to Trumball High...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Tonight we have Attorney Stephen P Wright from Connecticut with us because he and I have been having some conversations about the real issues that the banks keep sweeping under the rug. He has a very impressive resume.    Stephen went to Trumball High School, Florida State University and Western New England College of Law where he graduated in 1980. So we are not talking about a new comer in the practice of law we are talking about a litigator with experience. He is a lecturer in the Commercial Law League of America, a former faculty member of the College of the State Bar in Texas, and a current member of the Connecticut Bar and previous member of the Texas Bar. He has lectured and written on workouts, collection of judgments, debtor/creditor relations, the UCC, and bankruptcy.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1834</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,mods and worksouts,mortgage,rescission,ucc</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MONEY</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-truth-about-the-money--63171279</link><description><![CDATA[Dan Edstrom, Jim Macklin and Attorney Charles Marshall rejoin me on the show tonight to talk about one particular subject — explaining why “servicers” undermine the modification process and wherever possible fight against receiving money from the alleged borrower. As one Judge in Broward County, Florida recently mused out loud in the courtroom — “It used to be that banks wanted the money. Now they don’t. Why is that?”  The plain truth is that the servicers are not creditors. And because the alleged “loans” were not acquired by the Trust, their authority to act like servicers and trustees are nonexistent. [AND that is why they are resorting to empty powers of attorney — having realized that we are on to the fact that the REMIC Trust was completely ignored]  BUT even though they are NOTHING in relation to the “loan” or the homeowner, they assert a right to collect servicer advances as though those advances are secured. They are not secured. If the “creditor” on the mortgage or deed of trust makes those payments or if an agent makes payments out of an account that contains the creditor’s money for insurance, taxes, and other expenses covered by the mortgage or deed of trust, then of course the advances are secured by the mortgage or deed of trust.  BUT if the servicer is making payments from its own account or from the account of some third party who is a stranger (neither creditor nor authorized agent) then the payments are volunteer payments that are NOT secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. When you add to that fact that the servicer is making advances out of a reserve fund consisting of investors’ funds but not covered by any agreement because the Investment Bank intentionally avoided the REMIC Trust, then the truth emerges]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/10/15/the-truth-about-the-money</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171279/the_truth_about_the_money.mp3" length="29770524" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Dan Edstrom, Jim Macklin and Attorney Charles Marshall rejoin me on the show tonight to talk about one particular subject — explaining why “servicers” undermine the modification process and wherever possible fight against receiving money from the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Dan Edstrom, Jim Macklin and Attorney Charles Marshall rejoin me on the show tonight to talk about one particular subject — explaining why “servicers” undermine the modification process and wherever possible fight against receiving money from the alleged borrower. As one Judge in Broward County, Florida recently mused out loud in the courtroom — “It used to be that banks wanted the money. Now they don’t. Why is that?”  The plain truth is that the servicers are not creditors. And because the alleged “loans” were not acquired by the Trust, their authority to act like servicers and trustees are nonexistent. [AND that is why they are resorting to empty powers of attorney — having realized that we are on to the fact that the REMIC Trust was completely ignored]  BUT even though they are NOTHING in relation to the “loan” or the homeowner, they assert a right to collect servicer advances as though those advances are secured. They are not secured. If the “creditor” on the mortgage or deed of trust makes those payments or if an agent makes payments out of an account that contains the creditor’s money for insurance, taxes, and other expenses covered by the mortgage or deed of trust, then of course the advances are secured by the mortgage or deed of trust.  BUT if the servicer is making payments from its own account or from the account of some third party who is a stranger (neither creditor nor authorized agent) then the payments are volunteer payments that are NOT secured by the mortgage or deed of trust. When you add to that fact that the servicer is making advances out of a reserve fund consisting of investors’ funds but not covered by any agreement because the Investment Bank intentionally avoided the REMIC Trust, then the truth emerges]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1861</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>charles marshall,dan edstrom,jim macklin,servicer advances</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Patricia Rodriguez Returns to Talk About Her Upcoming Seminar in Southern Calif</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/patricia-rodriguez-returns-to-talk-about-her-upcoming-seminar-in-southern-calif--63171286</link><description><![CDATA[Patricia Rodriguez returns tonight to talk about her Seminar on October 31, 2015.. Patricia is a good lawyer and particularly good at organizing cases. She will be talking about Foreclosure Defense, Rescission, Intakes of Clients, and of course the latest in what is happening on the ground in Southern California. One of her strong points is organization --- something that most lawyers are not so great at doing. Her seminar will focus on the bricks and mortar of setting up a case for litigation or modification.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/10/08/patricia-rodriguez-returns-to-talk-about-her-upcoming-seminar-in-southern-calif</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171286/patricia_rodriguez_returns_to_talk_about_her_upcoming_seminar_in_southern_calif.mp3" length="29062501" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Patricia Rodriguez returns tonight to talk about her Seminar on October 31, 2015.. Patricia is a good lawyer and particularly good at organizing cases. She will be talking about Foreclosure Defense, Rescission, Intakes of Clients, and of course the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Patricia Rodriguez returns tonight to talk about her Seminar on October 31, 2015.. Patricia is a good lawyer and particularly good at organizing cases. She will be talking about Foreclosure Defense, Rescission, Intakes of Clients, and of course the latest in what is happening on the ground in Southern California. One of her strong points is organization --- something that most lawyers are not so great at doing. Her seminar will focus on the bricks and mortar of setting up a case for litigation or modification.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1817</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure defense,mortgages,organization,rescission,southern california</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>California Charles Marshall Returns for Talk on Rescission and Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/california-charles-marshall-returns-for-talk-on-rescission-and-foreclosure--63171321</link><description><![CDATA[Charles Marshall returns tonight to delve deeper into the non-judicial cancellation of loans (TILA Rescission). We are getting reports of seminars across the country devoting a large part of their presentation to rescission. The Banks know they are in trouble --- rescission levels the playing field and will force the disclosure of the identity of the true creditors. The answer is likely to be they are unknown because investor money was (a) never delivered to the trusts that issued the certificates that investors thought they bought and (b) investors money was never segregated into separate accounts, never subject to the control of the trustee or its trustee, and was all mixed together from thousands of trusts. There is most likely no way to determine whose money was used to fund any loan.    Rescission could clear the path to solutions for homeowners and Federal, State and Local governments deprived of revenue by entities that existed only on paper to obscure the real transactions and avoid taxes, fees and costs.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/10/01/california-charles-marshall-returns-for-talk-on-rescission-and-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171321/california_charles_marshall_returns_for_talk_on_rescission_and_foreclosure.mp3" length="28955086" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Charles Marshall returns tonight to delve deeper into the non-judicial cancellation of loans (TILA Rescission). We are getting reports of seminars across the country devoting a large part of their presentation to rescission. The Banks know they are in...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Charles Marshall returns tonight to delve deeper into the non-judicial cancellation of loans (TILA Rescission). We are getting reports of seminars across the country devoting a large part of their presentation to rescission. The Banks know they are in trouble --- rescission levels the playing field and will force the disclosure of the identity of the true creditors. The answer is likely to be they are unknown because investor money was (a) never delivered to the trusts that issued the certificates that investors thought they bought and (b) investors money was never segregated into separate accounts, never subject to the control of the trustee or its trustee, and was all mixed together from thousands of trusts. There is most likely no way to determine whose money was used to fund any loan.    Rescission could clear the path to solutions for homeowners and Federal, State and Local governments deprived of revenue by entities that existed only on paper to obscure the real transactions and avoid taxes, fees and costs.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Edstrom and Marshall Return by Popular Demand</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/edstrom-and-marshall-return-by-popular-demand--63171409</link><description><![CDATA[Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst and Attorney Charles Marshall join us again, continuing the discussion last week and promotingtheir seminar on October 17, 2015.  The REAL problem is that there are no monetary transactions backing up the paper that the servicers, banks, trustees are using. And that means that there is no party who satisifes the statutory requirements for being a beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/09/24/edstrom-and-marshall-return-by-popuular-demand</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171409/edstrom_and_marshall_return_by_popuular_demand.mp3" length="28963445" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst and Attorney Charles Marshall join us again, continuing the discussion last week and promotingtheir seminar on October 17, 2015.  The REAL problem is that there are no monetary transactions backing up the paper...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst and Attorney Charles Marshall join us again, continuing the discussion last week and promotingtheir seminar on October 17, 2015.  The REAL problem is that there are no monetary transactions backing up the paper that the servicers, banks, trustees are using. And that means that there is no party who satisifes the statutory requirements for being a beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>edstrom,foreclosures,marshall,mortgage,note</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Edstrom, Macklin and Marshall on Foreclosure Defense and Rescission</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/edstrom-macklin-and-marshall-on-foreclosure-defense-and-rescission--63171326</link><description><![CDATA[Despite media articles to the contrary the number of foreclosures is still sky rocketing in many parts of the country. And nobody wants to talk about the truth behind this deadly virus. It is all based upon a cover-up. The money deals were made in one room while the paper deals were fabricated in another room. Edstrom, Macklin and Marshall have been pursuing the real facts against enormous resistance by the banks. If they really had legitimate deals with legitimate creditors, why wouldn't they just show it? That is why we need people to keep doing workshops and why the public should support it. Eventually, thanks to people like Dan, Jim and Charles everyone will know everything.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/09/17/edstrom-macklin-and-marshall-on-foreclosure-defense-and-rescission</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171326/edstrom_macklin_and_marshall_on_foreclosure_defense_and_rescission.mp3" length="29150691" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Despite media articles to the contrary the number of foreclosures is still sky rocketing in many parts of the country. And nobody wants to talk about the truth behind this deadly virus. It is all based upon a cover-up. The money deals were made in one...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Despite media articles to the contrary the number of foreclosures is still sky rocketing in many parts of the country. And nobody wants to talk about the truth behind this deadly virus. It is all based upon a cover-up. The money deals were made in one room while the paper deals were fabricated in another room. Edstrom, Macklin and Marshall have been pursuing the real facts against enormous resistance by the banks. If they really had legitimate deals with legitimate creditors, why wouldn't they just show it? That is why we need people to keep doing workshops and why the public should support it. Eventually, thanks to people like Dan, Jim and Charles everyone will know everything.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1822</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>edstrom,foreclosure defense,northern california,rescission,workshop</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Jill Smith, Esq. Licensed in Washington State. New Mexico Joins the Fight</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/jill-smith-esq-licensed-in-washington-state-new-mexico-joins-the-fight--63171389</link><description><![CDATA[Jill J. Smith established her law practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  For eighteen years she has represented a wide variety of clients in employment law, land use, environmental, public lands and water law, Indian law, tax-exempt organizations, and election and campaign finance law.  Jill served as the Executive Director of New Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance, New Mexico Conservation Education Fund, and Washington Wilderness Coalition.  Most recently, Jill served as in-house counsel for the Pueblo of Sandia in New Mexico.  Jill was formerly Legal Director for Futurewise, a land use watchdog organization in Seattle.  Jill is a graduate of Vermont Law School, where she won the Academic Excellence Award for Natural Resources Law, and top honors in Federal Indian Law.  Now She is one of the pre-eminent foreclosure defense attorneys on the West Coast.     Jill Smith, Attorney  Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC  5470 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 520  Seattle, WA 98107  (206) 227-9800  Welcome to our show.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/09/10/jill-smith-esq-licensed-in-washington-state-new-mexico-joins-the-fight</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171389/jill_smith_esq_licensed_in_washington_state_new_mexico_joins_the_fight.mp3" length="29113074" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Jill J. Smith established her law practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  For eighteen years she has represented a wide variety of clients in employment law, land use, environmental, public lands and water law, Indian law, tax-exempt organizations, and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Jill J. Smith established her law practice in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  For eighteen years she has represented a wide variety of clients in employment law, land use, environmental, public lands and water law, Indian law, tax-exempt organizations, and election and campaign finance law.  Jill served as the Executive Director of New Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance, New Mexico Conservation Education Fund, and Washington Wilderness Coalition.  Most recently, Jill served as in-house counsel for the Pueblo of Sandia in New Mexico.  Jill was formerly Legal Director for Futurewise, a land use watchdog organization in Seattle.  Jill is a graduate of Vermont Law School, where she won the Academic Excellence Award for Natural Resources Law, and top honors in Federal Indian Law.  Now She is one of the pre-eminent foreclosure defense attorneys on the West Coast.     Jill Smith, Attorney  Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC  5470 Shilshole Ave. NW, Suite 520  Seattle, WA 98107  (206) 227-9800  Welcome to our show.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1820</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosrue defense,foreclosure defense,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Donna Huffman, Kansas Lawyer with the inside Scoop on Securitization Fail</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/donna-huffman-kansas-lawyer-with-the-inside-scoop-on-securitization-fail--63171393</link><description><![CDATA[Donna Huffman was in business originating mortgages and brokering mortgages. She really knows what went on and she is available as an expert witness who can describe the meaning of many actions that leave most people scratching their heads.  Now Huffman is fighting the banks in the very red state of Kansas and she is taking no prisoners --- going after the law firms for the banks, the banks and the servicers. We are all going to be hearing a lot about her as time progresses. In my opinion she is pressing all the right buttons.  Tonight we are going to explore her experiences and shed some light on the mysterious world of non-securitization.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/08/13/donna-huffman-kansas-lawyer-with-the-inside-scoop-on-securitization-fail</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171393/donna_huffman_kansas_lawyer_with_the_inside_scoop_on_securitization_fail.mp3" length="28747778" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Donna Huffman was in business originating mortgages and brokering mortgages. She really knows what went on and she is available as an expert witness who can describe the meaning of many actions that leave most people scratching their heads.  Now...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Donna Huffman was in business originating mortgages and brokering mortgages. She really knows what went on and she is available as an expert witness who can describe the meaning of many actions that leave most people scratching their heads.  Now Huffman is fighting the banks in the very red state of Kansas and she is taking no prisoners --- going after the law firms for the banks, the banks and the servicers. We are all going to be hearing a lot about her as time progresses. In my opinion she is pressing all the right buttons.  Tonight we are going to explore her experiences and shed some light on the mysterious world of non-securitization.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>false documentation,huffman,livinglies,rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TILA RESCISSION Battleground: Patricia Rodriguez Guest</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tila-rescission-battleground-patricia-rodriguez-guest--63171433</link><description><![CDATA[LA Lawyer Patricia Rodriguez (TILA Rescission is boiling over the top. And there are differences between non-judicial states and judicial states. The main problem though is that desperate homeowners are hearing something different than the real message: rescission is as close to a magic bullet as we have seen but it is still susceptible to multiple issues in litigation. Rescission is certainly effective upon mailing and that appears to be true even if the notice is wrongfully sent. The burden of vacating the rescission is on the so-called lender. But there are still circumstances where the notice of rescission itself may well render it void even if mailed. Admitting that the transaction was consummated on a specific date where the rescission letter itself has both the consumamtion date and the date of mailing might encourage judges to strike down the rescission or vacate it because it is void on tis face if the notice was sent after the three year period. It is true that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and that the ability to raise an affirmative defense depends upon your standing to raise the issue. Patricia Rodriguez agrees that the argument could still be made that the rescission is effective but the more information on the recission, the more likely the Judge will find the rescission void on its face even if mailed.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/08/06/tila-rescission-battleground-patricia-rodriguez-guest</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171433/tila_rescission_battleground_patricia_rodriguez_guest.mp3" length="28973476" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>LA Lawyer Patricia Rodriguez (TILA Rescission is boiling over the top. And there are differences between non-judicial states and judicial states. The main problem though is that desperate homeowners are hearing something different than the real...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[LA Lawyer Patricia Rodriguez (TILA Rescission is boiling over the top. And there are differences between non-judicial states and judicial states. The main problem though is that desperate homeowners are hearing something different than the real message: rescission is as close to a magic bullet as we have seen but it is still susceptible to multiple issues in litigation. Rescission is certainly effective upon mailing and that appears to be true even if the notice is wrongfully sent. The burden of vacating the rescission is on the so-called lender. But there are still circumstances where the notice of rescission itself may well render it void even if mailed. Admitting that the transaction was consummated on a specific date where the rescission letter itself has both the consumamtion date and the date of mailing might encourage judges to strike down the rescission or vacate it because it is void on tis face if the notice was sent after the three year period. It is true that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and that the ability to raise an affirmative defense depends upon your standing to raise the issue. Patricia Rodriguez agrees that the argument could still be made that the rescission is effective but the more information on the recission, the more likely the Judge will find the rescission void on its face even if mailed.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,foreclosure defense,nonjudicial,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Why Mortgage Modifications Are So Discouraging</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/why-mortgage-modifications-are-so-discouraging--63171341</link><description><![CDATA[Everyone has the same question in the back of their minds. The loans should be worked out rather than foreclosed. That is what is done with commercial loans, that is what was done in residential loans and it is still done with credit cards and other consumer loans. So why are we having problems with workouts and modifications?  The answer is simple: we are not dealing with the creditor. We are dealing with an intermediary whose instructions are to get the loan into foreclosure. So they tell borrowers that they can’t qualify for a redo of their loan unless they stop paying, they say and do a lot of things that encourage the borrowers to do things that make them look like deadbeats when the case goes to foreclosure judgments. The borrowers are not deadbeats. They are victims just as the investors are victims. But we never hear from the investors because they don’t know that anything is wrong with their investments — because they are getting paid regardless of whether the “borrower” pays or not.  Many judges have been asking two questions for years even as they give the banks the benefit of the doubt:  (1) why is the modification process so enigmatic and random (and why are there not more workouts like it used to be in civil courts and bankruptcy courts) and  (2) why are we seeing this shell game with first some bank or other entity claiming it is the owner of the loan, denying even the existence of the REMIC Trust, then they admit the existence of the Trust and claim the loan is owned by the Trusts, then they say the servicers have the right to foreclose and not the trusts or the investors, and then they keep switching servicers and trustees? To the Judges that ask these questions, it looks like a shell game but without appropriate pleading and evidence they can’t rule on it — or get the answers to their questions.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/07/30/why-mortgage-modifications-are-so-discouraging</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171341/why_mortgage_modifications_are_so_discouraging.mp3" length="28963445" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Everyone has the same question in the back of their minds. The loans should be worked out rather than foreclosed. That is what is done with commercial loans, that is what was done in residential loans and it is still done with credit cards and other...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Everyone has the same question in the back of their minds. The loans should be worked out rather than foreclosed. That is what is done with commercial loans, that is what was done in residential loans and it is still done with credit cards and other consumer loans. So why are we having problems with workouts and modifications?  The answer is simple: we are not dealing with the creditor. We are dealing with an intermediary whose instructions are to get the loan into foreclosure. So they tell borrowers that they can’t qualify for a redo of their loan unless they stop paying, they say and do a lot of things that encourage the borrowers to do things that make them look like deadbeats when the case goes to foreclosure judgments. The borrowers are not deadbeats. They are victims just as the investors are victims. But we never hear from the investors because they don’t know that anything is wrong with their investments — because they are getting paid regardless of whether the “borrower” pays or not.  Many judges have been asking two questions for years even as they give the banks the benefit of the doubt:  (1) why is the modification process so enigmatic and random (and why are there not more workouts like it used to be in civil courts and bankruptcy courts) and  (2) why are we seeing this shell game with first some bank or other entity claiming it is the owner of the loan, denying even the existence of the REMIC Trust, then they admit the existence of the Trust and claim the loan is owned by the Trusts, then they say the servicers have the right to foreclose and not the trusts or the investors, and then they keep switching servicers and trustees? To the Judges that ask these questions, it looks like a shell game but without appropriate pleading and evidence they can’t rule on it — or get the answers to their questions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,modifications,remic,servicer advances,shell game</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>BORROWERS WINNING IN FORECLOSURES</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/borrowers-winning-in-foreclosures--63171428</link><description><![CDATA[With the two back to back decisions in the Florida 2d DCA and 4th DCA, Standing has made its long waited comeback. The question is not whether the borrower stopped making payments as the thousands of Judges have put it. The real question is whether the creditor got paid. Banks have successfully obscured the issue and obtained nearly 8 million foreclosures. What difference does it make if the borrower stopped paying the party who has no right to collect the money? If anything, the borrower was mitigating damages against the servicer who was wrongfully collecting and wrongfully foreclosing on the property. All the money that has been paid to a servicer pretending to be the servicer is subject to disgorgement — IF the servicer is claiming to be the authorized servicer by virtue of a grant of power from the Trustee of a Trust that has not been shown to be the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the debt. It’s pretty simple really once you sweep bias aside.   ===============================   The question is what do you do after you have sent the notice of rescission? And that extends to rescissions that were sent years ago. There are many nuances here caused by State and Federal law. But one thing cannot denied: the rescission is effective by operation of law when it is mailed and nothing except another operation of law can change that.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/07/23/borrowers-winning-in-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171428/borrowers_winning_in_foreclosures.mp3" length="28791664" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>With the two back to back decisions in the Florida 2d DCA and 4th DCA, Standing has made its long waited comeback. The question is not whether the borrower stopped making payments as the thousands of Judges have put it. The real question is whether...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[With the two back to back decisions in the Florida 2d DCA and 4th DCA, Standing has made its long waited comeback. The question is not whether the borrower stopped making payments as the thousands of Judges have put it. The real question is whether the creditor got paid. Banks have successfully obscured the issue and obtained nearly 8 million foreclosures. What difference does it make if the borrower stopped paying the party who has no right to collect the money? If anything, the borrower was mitigating damages against the servicer who was wrongfully collecting and wrongfully foreclosing on the property. All the money that has been paid to a servicer pretending to be the servicer is subject to disgorgement — IF the servicer is claiming to be the authorized servicer by virtue of a grant of power from the Trustee of a Trust that has not been shown to be the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the debt. It’s pretty simple really once you sweep bias aside.   ===============================   The question is what do you do after you have sent the notice of rescission? And that extends to rescissions that were sent years ago. There are many nuances here caused by State and Federal law. But one thing cannot denied: the rescission is effective by operation of law when it is mailed and nothing except another operation of law can change that.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1800</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,jurisdiction,rescission,standing,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Seminar Presenters Charles Marshall, Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin July 18</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/seminar-presenters-charles-marshall-dan-edstrom-and-jim-macklin-july-18--63171313</link><description><![CDATA[My good friends on the West Coast are taking time out from their busy schedules to present a 6 hour seminar on the new issues in foreclosure defense, rescission under TILA and other plans they have to attack the foreclosure problems of borrowers who are being forced to shoulder the cost of economic recovery.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/07/09/seminar-presenters-charles-marshall-dan-edstrom-and-jim-macklin-july-18</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171313/seminar_presenters_charles_marshall_dan_edstrom_and_jim_macklin_july_18.mp3" length="28931680" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>My good friends on the West Coast are taking time out from their busy schedules to present a 6 hour seminar on the new issues in foreclosure defense, rescission under TILA and other plans they have to attack the foreclosure problems of borrowers who...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[My good friends on the West Coast are taking time out from their busy schedules to present a 6 hour seminar on the new issues in foreclosure defense, rescission under TILA and other plans they have to attack the foreclosure problems of borrowers who are being forced to shoulder the cost of economic recovery.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1809</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>edstrom,foreclosure defense,neil garfield,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>How Late Can a Consumer Rescind? Jesinoski Revisited</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/how-late-can-a-consumer-rescind-jesinoski-revisited--63171294</link><description><![CDATA[The parties were invited to attend a meeting at which the borrowers signed the papers. The originator is usually not in attendance. The closing agent, usually a title agent, takes the signed documents into escrow. At some later time the alleged loan is "funded" by a wire transfer from an unknown source. The borrower believes that the originator is loaning him the money. In truth it was a "table-funded" loan in which the name of the actual lender was actively concealed from the borrower and the actual "loan" was not funded until some time after the meeting. Later the mortgage is recorded and the note is released from escrow and sent to someone whom the closing agent assumes to be authorized to receive it. When was consummation?   Later the successors to the loan documents will allege that the loan closing was "consummated" at the time of signing, but that is not right. If there was a consummation of the loan at all it didn't occur until hours, days, weeks or months or even years after the meeting. It is a question of fact as to when the alleged loan was consummated. And if there was a table-funded loan there might have been no consummation at all. Instead whoever the real lender is might have some claim for quantum meruit or unjust enrichment to get their money back but if they raise that claim they cannot do it using the note and mortgage. So when does the three day period commence for rescission? When does the three year period begin for rescission? Is there a time when the borrower is prohibited by statue from sending the notice of rescission? And what happens if some company steps up and complies and then asks for the money? They don't have to object to rescission --- they can agree. If rescission is effective when mailed, who can vacate it?]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/06/25/how-late-can-a-consumer-rescind-jesinoski-revisited</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171294/how_late_can_a_consumer_rescind_jesinoski_revisited.mp3" length="28489479" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The parties were invited to attend a meeting at which the borrowers signed the papers. The originator is usually not in attendance. The closing agent, usually a title agent, takes the signed documents into escrow. At some later time the alleged loan...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The parties were invited to attend a meeting at which the borrowers signed the papers. The originator is usually not in attendance. The closing agent, usually a title agent, takes the signed documents into escrow. At some later time the alleged loan is "funded" by a wire transfer from an unknown source. The borrower believes that the originator is loaning him the money. In truth it was a "table-funded" loan in which the name of the actual lender was actively concealed from the borrower and the actual "loan" was not funded until some time after the meeting. Later the mortgage is recorded and the note is released from escrow and sent to someone whom the closing agent assumes to be authorized to receive it. When was consummation?   Later the successors to the loan documents will allege that the loan closing was "consummated" at the time of signing, but that is not right. If there was a consummation of the loan at all it didn't occur until hours, days, weeks or months or even years after the meeting. It is a question of fact as to when the alleged loan was consummated. And if there was a table-funded loan there might have been no consummation at all. Instead whoever the real lender is might have some claim for quantum meruit or unjust enrichment to get their money back but if they raise that claim they cannot do it using the note and mortgage. So when does the three day period commence for rescission? When does the three year period begin for rescission? Is there a time when the borrower is prohibited by statue from sending the notice of rescission? And what happens if some company steps up and complies and then asks for the money? They don't have to object to rescission --- they can agree. If rescission is effective when mailed, who can vacate it?]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1781</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,jesinoski,statute of limitations,tila rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>RESCISSION DEVIL IN THE DETAILS</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-devil-in-the-details--63171439</link><description><![CDATA[Lawyers and pro se litigants, particularly in foreclosures, are failing to realize the value of the PROCEDURES in TILA Rescission. They are a game changer --- shifting the burden from the the borrower to the lender (where it ought to be).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/06/18/rescission-devil-in-the-details</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171439/rescission_devil_in_the_details.mp3" length="28505780" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Lawyers and pro se litigants, particularly in foreclosures, are failing to realize the value of the PROCEDURES in TILA Rescission. They are a game changer --- shifting the burden from the the borrower to the lender (where it ought to be).</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Lawyers and pro se litigants, particularly in foreclosures, are failing to realize the value of the PROCEDURES in TILA Rescission. They are a game changer --- shifting the burden from the the borrower to the lender (where it ought to be).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1782</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>foreclosure,foreclosure defense,lawyers,livinglies,rescission</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Big Trouble for Banks and Servicers on Mortgages</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/big-trouble-for-banks-and-servicers-on-mortgages--63171441</link><description><![CDATA[The scheme created on Wall Street is starting to unravel. They are fast losing ground --- and the new question is what difference does it make if you say that the borrower stopped paying when you have no right to collect or enforce the loan? And where is the creditor who CAN enforce the debt? The banks and servicers' answers were accepted as gospel until the last year when things started to turn. Listen to tonight's show and learn how consumer loans were hijacked and who are the real losers.   ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/06/11/big-trouble-for-banks-and-servicers-on-mortgages</guid><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171441/big_trouble_for_banks_and_servicers_on_mortgages.mp3" length="28843073" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The scheme created on Wall Street is starting to unravel. They are fast losing ground --- and the new question is what difference does it make if you say that the borrower stopped paying when you have no right to collect or enforce the loan? And where...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The scheme created on Wall Street is starting to unravel. They are fast losing ground --- and the new question is what difference does it make if you say that the borrower stopped paying when you have no right to collect or enforce the loan? And where is the creditor who CAN enforce the debt? The banks and servicers' answers were accepted as gospel until the last year when things started to turn. Listen to tonight's show and learn how consumer loans were hijacked and who are the real losers.   ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>balance of loan,foreclosure,mortgage,ownership of loan,standing</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Rescission Decision</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rescission-decision--63171386</link><description><![CDATA[RESCISSION: I have received hundreds of requests and questions. It boils down to one thing — the rescission IS EFFECTIVE the moment it is dropped in the mail. People, lawyers and even Judges seem not to understand what that means despite a very terse snip from Justice Scalia speaking for an unusually unanimous Supreme Court in Jesinowksi. What it means is that the deal is done, canceled, rescinded (stick a fork in it). And what it also means is that the time starts to run on the duties of the “lender(s)” to comply with that cancellation/rescission. Telling you in a letter that you had no right to send it is NOTHING, as a matter of law.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/06/04/rescission-decision</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171386/rescission_decision.mp3" length="28871076" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>RESCISSION: I have received hundreds of requests and questions. It boils down to one thing — the rescission IS EFFECTIVE the moment it is dropped in the mail. People, lawyers and even Judges seem not to understand what that means despite a very terse...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[RESCISSION: I have received hundreds of requests and questions. It boils down to one thing — the rescission IS EFFECTIVE the moment it is dropped in the mail. People, lawyers and even Judges seem not to understand what that means despite a very terse snip from Justice Scalia speaking for an unusually unanimous Supreme Court in Jesinowksi. What it means is that the deal is done, canceled, rescinded (stick a fork in it). And what it also means is that the time starts to run on the duties of the “lender(s)” to comply with that cancellation/rescission. Telling you in a letter that you had no right to send it is NOTHING, as a matter of law.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1805</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>enforcement,mortgage,note,rescission,tila</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>NY and California Foreclosures</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ny-and-california-foreclosures--63171396</link><description><![CDATA[Guest Rod Ciferri]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/05/14/ny-and-california-foreclosures</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171396/ny_and_california_foreclosures.mp3" length="28739419" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Guest Rod Ciferri</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Guest Rod Ciferri]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>loans,mortgage,notes,rescission,securitization</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--63171401</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/04/30/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171401/neil_garfield_show_on_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="28740673" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--63171403</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/04/23/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171403/neil_garfield_show_on_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="28509959" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1782</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--63171283</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/04/16/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/63171283/neil_garfield_show_on_foreclosure_defense.mp3" length="29125613" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021138</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/04/09/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021138/show_7412843.mp3" length="28732314" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021123</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/03/26/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021123/show_7412837.mp3" length="28844327" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021139</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/03/12/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021139/show_7412817.mp3" length="28735657" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show--64021136</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/03/05/neil-garfield-show</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021136/show_7412807.mp3" length="28531275" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure--64021132</link><description><![CDATA[Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/02/26/the-neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021132/show_7390225.mp3" length="28660007" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021125</link><description><![CDATA[Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense ]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/02/12/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021125/show_7349661.mp3" length="28659171" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense </itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Talks and Discussion about Foreclosure Defense ]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1792</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021130</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/01/29/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021130/show_7228683.mp3" length="28757391" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1798</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021135</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/01/22/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021135/show_7214103.mp3" length="28836803" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021133</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/01/15/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021133/show_7195875.mp3" length="28802949" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1801</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021131</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2015/01/08/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021131/show_7176739.mp3" length="28951324" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1810</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021142</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/12/18/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021142/show_7114525.mp3" length="29020705" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1814</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021140</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/12/04/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021140/show_7071889.mp3" length="28961355" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021153</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/11/20/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021153/show_7027113.mp3" length="28962191" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1811</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021137</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/11/13/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021137/show_7005683.mp3" length="28920813" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021134</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/11/06/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021134/show_6984079.mp3" length="28923739" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1808</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021146</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/10/30/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021146/show_6961603.mp3" length="28536709" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1784</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021127</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/10/16/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021127/show_6910203.mp3" length="28645378" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1791</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021143</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/09/18/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021143/show_6812233.mp3" length="28617793" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1789</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021124</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/09/04/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021124/show_6761709.mp3" length="7143104" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1786</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021121</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/08/28/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021121/show_6735281.mp3" length="7149728" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1788</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021120</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/08/21/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021120/show_6708723.mp3" length="7143392" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1786</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021119</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/07/24/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021119/show_6604075.mp3" length="7175232" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1794</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021117</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/07/17/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021117/show_6578859.mp3" length="7140800" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1786</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021118</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/06/26/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021118/show_6493879.mp3" length="7190048" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1798</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021122</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/06/19/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021122/show_6468061.mp3" length="7185728" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021126</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/06/12/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021126/show_6441271.mp3" length="7137344" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1785</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021128</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/06/05/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021128/show_6412899.mp3" length="7156352" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1790</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021154</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/05/29/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021154/show_6383793.mp3" length="7121504" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1781</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021141</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/05/22/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021141/show_6355329.mp3" length="7186304" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021145</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/05/08/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021145/show_6300369.mp3" length="7209920" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021144</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/05/01/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021144/show_6269859.mp3" length="7151744" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1788</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021156</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/04/17/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021156/show_6210773.mp3" length="7177376" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1795</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021148</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/04/10/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021148/show_6182263.mp3" length="7196096" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1800</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021159</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/04/03/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021159/show_6150883.mp3" length="7283360" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021147</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/03/27/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021147/show_6120303.mp3" length="7186880" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1797</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021155</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/03/20/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021155/show_6088381.mp3" length="7148864" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1788</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021150</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/03/13/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021150/show_6057877.mp3" length="7221152" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1806</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021157</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/03/06/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021157/show_6026421.mp3" length="7215392" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1804</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021160</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/02/20/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021160/show_5993377.mp3" length="7180544" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1796</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021158</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/02/13/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021158/show_5993375.mp3" length="7211072" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1803</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021161</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/02/06/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021161/show_5993373.mp3" length="12245024" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>3062</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Defense</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense--64021162</link><description><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/01/30/neil-garfield-show-on-foreclosure-defense</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021162/show_5993371.mp3" length="7281632" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Free information, interviews, with national experts and attorneys relating to foreclosure defense, forensic reviews, securitization of debt and related consumer topics hosted by Neil F Garfield, attorney, expert witness and former investment banker. Neil is the editor and chief reporter for the largest internet site providing free information and forms for lawyers, litigants and government officials at www.livinglies.wordpress.com.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>1821</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TESST</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/tesst--64021152</link><description><![CDATA[TEST]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/01/27/tesst</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021152/show_5993341.mp3" length="2757440" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>TEST</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[TEST]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>690</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TEST Number 2</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/test-number-2--64021149</link><description><![CDATA[TEST]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/01/16/test-number-2</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021149/show_5946313.mp3" length="2263232" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>TEST</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[TEST]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>566</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>TESTING</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/testing--64021151</link><description><![CDATA[TEST ONLY!!!]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/neilgarfield/2014/01/15/testing</guid><pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:30:00 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/64021151/show_5945491.mp3" length="1730432" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Steven Gomez</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>TEST ONLY!!!</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[TEST ONLY!!!]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>433</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/729aa4c742336713c95ff2d916209970.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
