FLORIDA WORKSHOPS COMING UP – Nov 1-2, 9.5 CLE Credits Florida Attorneys AND OTHER STATES

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE !!! Donation-form-1108

—–LAWYERS WORKSHOPS COMING UP—– 

November 2, 2009 Clearwater Bch FL

Download Workshop Registration Form Below 

Lawyers Workshop Registration Form – November 2, 2009

Florida Bar approved 9.5 CLE Credits

California Bar approved 8.0 CLE

Check with your individual Bar Assn for reciprocity requirements on out of state CLE seminars

PURCHASE 600 Page Lawyers Workshop Manual: Request to Purchase Lawyers Workshop Handbook-v4 0909

TRO GRANTED READ THIS: excellent-mers-analysis-illegal-scheme-to-avoidevade-state-law-taxes-fees-fines-penalties

covered-in-the-garfield-continuum-workshops-you-can-look-this-stuff-up-in-wikopedia

How to Save $$ while attending Garfield Event(s) 

* Reserve Workshop Seat NOW for Early Bird discount on Registration

* Mention Garfield’s Foreclosure Defense Group when reserving rooms to get special Group Rate of $99 on room at Sheraton Sand Key Hotel & Resort. Reservations must be made by Oct 23,2009  to get discount

*Fly in on Saturday as airfares are always cheaper with a Saturday night stay, 1/2 price in many cases.

*Check Southwest Airlines they are economical, many flights to Phoenix and worth driving an hour or two to a nearby city if you have to if they don’t fly out of the city you live in…

 

 

Work and Play in Clearwater Beach FL

Note: If you are planning to attend it would be wise to book early. Experience has shown us that sometimes a large number of lawyers show up at these workshops intending to register at the door. We don’t want you driving two hours only to find out we don’t have a seat for you.

Suggested Reading:

• lawyers-workshop-sneak-preview
• annoted-example-of-asignment-and-assumption-agreement
• necessary-and-indispensable-parties

1. Analysis from German writer describing the economics of asset backed securities: vink_empiricalanalysis

2. fordham-and-creighton-law-reviews-on-securitization-and-holders-in-due-course

3. harvard-paper-diagrams
4. predatory-lending-practices-cardozo-law-review-ssrn-id929118

5. title-company-sues-countrywide-exposing-deep-flaw-in-loan-closings

6. standard-and-poor_s-classification-of-home-loans-and-predatory-rating
7. california-statutes-foreclosure
8. ten-reality-questions-answers-sb_1137_faq_rev_3

A Case that should have been won and that probably still can be overturned:

deutsche-bank-national-trust-queens-case

The lenders already got their money from sale of the mortgage and note, they want now the property and a deficiency judgment, attorneys fees and costs too. Such unfairness was addressed thousands of years ago.

From the Scriptures: Respect and Ownership

predators-bill-from-newsweek

CONFLICT OF LAWS:

Most states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code without making any revisions. The UCC is an outgrowth of the Uniform Code arising from the Hague conventions. Thus the laws concerning indorsement, transfer, accommodation and assignment date back hundreds of years from common law from over 30 countries. Variance in application of these laws carries with it the probability of undermining the confidence that people will have in knowing that contractual obligations will be enforced and that they are protected by legal conventions that are accepted all over the world. In the context of the mortgage meltdown, the ONLY defensive positions that can be taken by those who would enforce securitized notes and mortgages, given the predatory practices employed and the failure to disclose the inflated pricing and valuation on both sides of the transaction — the investor who put up the money for the loan, and the borrower who signed the papers — is to run contrary to established law. An indorsement in blank generally means nothing without more. It does not convert the instrument to a bearer instrument. An accommodation indorsement fails to provide “cover” which is necessary for one to claim being a holder in due course. The following is an old treatise comparing laws from various jurisdictions. The inescapable conclusions are that the laws that were taught in law schools 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even 25 years ago are all the same. The only party capable of claiming the status of holder in due course is the investor who purchased certificates that gave him/her/it a share of a pool of assets which consisted of, in its purest form, a pool of notes and mortgages that were corrupted by the promise (unknown to the borrower or the investor) to apply payments to parties OTHER THAN the holder in due course. This has the obvious effect of separating the stream of revenue from the original obligor (and co-obligors acquired along the way) from the security instrument (the mortgage) which si a recorded document, as should be any assignment thereof. The parties holding the mortgage and the parties to whom the revenue stream is pledged are different, diverse, and in most cases unknown as they are dependent upon conditions subsequent that were undisclosed to either the borrower or the investor (overcollateralization of the asset backed securities, cross guarantees between tranches, insurance against loss, credit default swaps etc.). Hence the obligation was converted from a secured credit transaction to an unsecured unliquidated contingent contract obligation, subject to affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including the quieting of title, from the borrower. Conflict of Laws as to Bills and Notes