Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 13,000,000 Visitors

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-6345


Get a Consult!

PURCHASE SEMINARS HERE to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:

Register for Consultation here:

Services include: Expert Consultative Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, and our Title and Encumbrance Analysis.

Fill out our FREE registration form at

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. I believe our recovery will never reach the majority of struggling Americans until we restore equal protection for all citizens and especially borrowers in our debt-ridden society. LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient resources to combat bloated banks who are flooding the political market with money. We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. And we provide paid services, books and products that enable us to maintain an infrastructure to provide a voice to the victims of Wall Street corruption.




Case reviews by Neil Garfield available. Litigation and Expert Consulting in all fifty states.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from our Online Store

  • GET our Rescission Package
  • GET Litigation support
  • Get our COMBO Title and Securitization Report
  • FREE! Select recent articles from the right side of this page!


WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY? by Neil F Garfield. E-Book available on our online store.

CHAIN OF TITLE by David Dayen. Available on Amazon

LISTEN LIBERALS! by Thomas Frank. Available on Amazon and Kindle.

Pretender Lenders: How Tablefunding and Securitization Go Hand in Hand” By William Paatalo and Kimberly Cromwell. CLICK:

URGENT! Washington Homeowners Demand Governor Inslee reject Bill 2057 NOW!

By J. Guggenheim, LendingLies

The Washington State Legislature is one vote away from making changes to Bill  2057 that would be detrimental to homeowners.  The changes would clear the way for anyone, without proof, to claim to be in possession of a promissory note, and to make it a slam-dunk to foreclosure non-judicially.

The state of Arkansas masterminded this type of non-judicial rule, that allows complete strangers in nice suits, and in possession of well photo-shopped documents to waltz into court and claim ownership.  If this bill is passed, the servicer will provide doctored prima facie evidence consisting of a fabricated mortgage note, fake assignment(s) and even a perjured or deceptive affidavit from a servicer to establish the right to foreclose.

This bill will pave the way for banks to commit massive fraud with the homeowner having no defenses until after their home is foreclosed by a stranger who had no standing except by resorting to the presentation of deceptive documents.

Governor Inslee has not signed this bill yet! Please contact his office to send a message that he should NOT sign this bill into law in its current form. We can ask him to please do a line item veto of this section at least!

Here is the section with the most important and disturbing changes. The words in (( )) will be eliminated from the current law, IF this new bill is signed into law by Governor Inslee.

See page 25 at this link:…/EducationAndInfo/Guide_to_Lawmaking.pdf

“After reviewing a bill, the Governor may decide to sign it, veto a section of the bill (usually called a line-item veto), or veto all of it. Actual line item vetoes are only permitted in the budget”

Specifically, the language of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) on page 2 of the bill:

(7)(a) That, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the ((owner)) holder of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the ((actual)) holder of ((the))any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.

NOTE: By changing “owner” to “holder” means the servicer/debt collector asserting authority to foreclose, does not have to own the underlying debt.

By changing “the promissory note” to “any promissory note” the legislature is allowing the servicer/debt collector to only have a copy of the promissory note, a negotiable instrument.

Can a bank cash a copy of a personal check? No! But, this legislature is going to allow a bank to foreclose the lien using only a copy of a negotiable instrument– despite widespread knowledge that banks routinely forge and fabricate promissory notes.  This is not acceptable and a complete capitulation by the legislature and the so-called homeowner advocates involved in crafting this bill, to the bank and foreclosure industry in Washington State.

It is imperative that the world “holder” should be changed to “owner”  to be consistent with the previous reference to “owner” in (7)(a)!!! AND, it should be made a felony to make false statement(s) in a beneficiary declaration.  Of course, this bill has been created because it is common knowledge that the notes were destroyed and  servicers rarely know who the owner is.

You can send a message online to Governor Inslee at this link:…/con…/send-gov-inslee-e-message

Governor Inslee contact page:…/c…/contacting-governors-office

The Washington State Legislature will clarify four long-standing issues in foreclosure and DOTA law:

-Resolution of the Jordan vs. NationStar case
-No judicial process for homes with deceased borrowers
-Fix to statutory language for owner/holder/actual holder
-Process to file non-monetary interest in Washington state for trustees

The bill, HB 2057, initially began as a draft document to negotiate back in 2017 but was met with fierce opposition- as this version of the bill should also be.

The beneficiary declaration will now be provided at the same time as the Notice of Default, and the NOD will now include information on the first page identifying the beneficiary and trustee.  The problem with the beneficiary declaration is that if the bank engages in perjury or fraud, they can claim plausible deniability by claiming that they were not aware of any trust issues, document deficiencies, or that the purported chain of title was defective.  The beneficiary declaration is simply window dressing.


Subpoena Compliance Officer at the time the loan was made

Last night on the Neil Garfield Show, Charles Marshall brought up the idea of the use of the subpoena power of the court. I agree that this is a way of lawfully penetrating into the inner recesses of the alleged loan process. People ask me to whom should they issue a subpoena? Opinions vary. But I would say the person who served as compliance officer at the time was being “underwritten.” You’ll probably find out that loan was not underwritten by the originator. But more than that you will find that there exists a witness who can say what really happened at the alleged “loan closing.”

See below for a short list of questions that might be posed at the deposition of such a witness.

Let us help you plan your discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps). to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!


There are dozens of questions to ask. But I think the following list is a guide toward strategically posing the right questions:

  1. Do you review all prospective loans?
  2. What risks are you looking for? Define them.
  3. What are the primary risks of loss in closing a loan in today’s marketplace?
  4. Does the prospect of “sale” of the debt, note or mortgage affect your risk analysis?
  5. Is the bank using a warehouse lender?
  6. Is the bank making the loan or playing the role of originator?
  7. Is the bank the intended ultimate secured party on the mortgage?
  8. Is the bank the intended ultimate recipient of monthly payments as described in the note?
  9. What is the annual rate of mortgage originations in principal dollars for the bank.
  10. Does the bank have buy-back exposure on its loan originations?





CALL IN 347-850-1260


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 documents 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.

You know that nagging feeling that the banks got away with the equivalent of murder? YOU WERE RIGHT!!

The Fallacy of Legitimacy: SEC Documents are not Evidence

Documents filed with the SEC are not evidence of the legitimacy of a PSA.  The PSA was not filed with the SEC although the banks would like you to think so. The document, such as it is, was loaded onto the SEC website without any review or acceptance process. Anyone can load documents onto the SEC website. In fact, you can upload them yourself if you have an account.

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-6345


Get a Consult!

PURCHASE SEMINARS HERE to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Our Services:

Register for Consultation here:

Services include: Expert Consultative Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, and our Title and Encumbrance Analysis.

Fill out our FREE registration form at

In most cases the PSA loaded onto the SEC website is incomplete or unsigned. As an example, in nearly all cases there is no Mortgage Loan Schedule attached as an exhibit and other exhibits referenced in the PSA are also not attached.

As an incomplete trust document, the trust is not created by a settlor since until the trust document is complete, there is no trust. No trust can be implied either since there is no indication that anything was ever entrusted to the trustee nor that the Trustee acquired assets on behalf of the trust and thence the trust beneficiaries. Without property or money entrusted to an active managing trustee of a Trust borne from a completed trust instrument, the claims of servicers, trustees, etc., mean nothing because there is no active trust and thus there is no active management of business activity for a trust. A document uploaded to the SEC does not make the Trust so.

Hence there is no trust, trustee or servicer since all of them claim rights derived from a nonexistent trust arising from an incomplete or unsigned instrument (or both).

The banks know all of that. They load documents onto the SEC website or even other sites where the same access is granted. Then they print the version loaded from the SEC website without any certificate of authenticity and ask for judicial notice. This is not a government document e.g., where the time, date and signature of an authorized party is noted. This is not a commonly known fact or group of facts in the public domain. This is a self-serving document created out of thin air presented without the original as a document offered as “Evidence” of the existence of the trust and as evidence of the loans owned by the Trust, neither of which assertions is even remotely true.

Hence a motion for judicial notice, while often allowed by foreclosure defense counsel, is completely inappropriate and should be disallowed every time — if the foreclosure defense attorney presents his objection or motion in limine well enough. Even the argument for letting it in to show the document exists would be disingenuous (i.e., wrong) because the fact that an image was loaded onto the SEC website by the party proffering the evidence does not mean that the original document exists. Therefore, challenge the document as disingenuous when presented, and don’t rely on the document as proof in your own litigation. Demand the full PSA in discovery, signed by an actual corporate officer with ALL schedules and attachments, and especially mortgage loan schedules.


HOW TO BREAK THE BANKS: Purchase Neil Garfield’s Evidence in a Nutshell: SILENCE IS DEADLY webinar. 3.5 hour seminar and materials for download. $149

Listen to Neil Garfield, Dan Edstrom, Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo present their findings and tell you how to use them.
Watch as the story unfolds with real examples that you can use for presenting a clear narrative in court.
Think about what you can do to save your home win money damages against the banks
All 3.5 hours for the price of a 15 minute consult!

Purchase Here.


Preface from Neil Garfield:

In my nearly 41 years as a litigator, I have won many (but not all) cases. Over the past ten years those include foreclosure cases that were given up for lost by preceding lawyers. The reason I won is simple: the entire foreclosure scheme is basically a fraud. So I was able to direct my requests for discovery, my objections at trial and my cross examination of witnesses towards the missing links that never existed.

I don’t prove fraud. I reveal the absence of evidence that should be present if the foreclosure was real. I didn’t prove anything except the absence of critically important transactions and documents, thus undermining the prima facie case of the alleged foreclosing party.

It is impossible to impart our knowledge of what works and what doesn’t in a simple 30 minute or even a one hour consult. So I made the decision to offer a seminar that costs a third of what such a seminar would charge in order to get people to learn how to line up their defense strategies.

The single most common reason for homeowner losses in foreclosure cases is lack of knowledge on procedure and substantive law. And the single most prevalent piece that lawyers and pro se litigants are missing is understanding the rules of evidence. That lack of knowledge affects everything, but especially discovery requests.

So although the topic may appear too technical or boring for your taste, attendance is required for anyone who really wants to start winning cases. No guarantees of course — except that you will almost certainly lose if you don’t know the laws and rules affecting discovery and evidence.


Defending your home from foreclosure? Suing a servicer?  Approaching trial with a wish and hope instead of a prepared trial strategy? Purchase Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.

This webinar provides instruction on establishing your narrative, making objections, conducting cross examinations and how to blow up the robo-witness. It will also cover the foundation for objections through attempts at getting discovery and the use of Motions in Limine based upon the inability or unwillingness of the attorneys to provide any meaningful response to discovery.

Knowing the laws of Evidence is critical in preparing discovery requests. Cases often end during discovery when you get the order (on a Motion to Compel) you want requiring the foreclosing party to open up its books and records. At this point our experience is that the other side immediately makes a credible settlement offer. But even if you don’t get that order or are not interested in the settlement offer the failure to respond to discovery serves as the foundation for Motions in Limine, objections at trial and cross examination of the robo-witness.

Every successful trial strategy for winning a foreclosure defense case rests on the ability to blow up the robo-witness and to deny the foreclosing party the ability to get documents (hearsay) into evidence. You will learn why the most common question asked is the wrong question. It isn’t a matter of proving the fraud. Good defensive trial strategy does not prove anything; it reveals the gaps in the prima facie case of the foreclosing party.

Forensic experts will also demonstrate the value of investigation and how that helps the attorney or pro se litigant create a narrative and case strategy that works.


To purchase:

Real estate attorneys, homeowners, and title agents who insure title following a foreclosure (and their support staff) should purchase the recorded webinar.

Presenters include:

  • Attorney and Foreclosure Expert Neil F Garfield for GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Securitization Expert Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, Inc.
  • Investigator Bill Paatalo, BP Investigative Agency
  • Attorney Charles Marshall of the Marshall Law Firm/California.

Seminar Length:  3.5 Hours including Q&A sessions

Materials for Participants:

  • PowerPoint Printouts (delivered with link)
  • Transcript of Seminar
  • Recording of the Seminar
  • Transcript of Cross Examination (delivered by link)

Lecture Topics:

  1. Law vs. Politics
  2. The Politics of Home Foreclosures
  3. Realities for Investors
  4. Reality vs. Legal Doctrine: No action arises from deceit
  5. Strategies for Homeowners When the Salesman is Dead
  6. Information v Evidence
  7. Reality v Paper
  8. Void v. Voidable
  9. The Fictional Boarding Process
  10. Standing and Jurisdiction
  11. Objections
  12. Motions in Limine
  13. Cross examinations
  14. Robo-witnesses and signatures
  15. Negotiable Instruments
  16. Nonexistent Transactions
  17. Fabrication of Documents
  18. Who’s on first?
  19. Unfunded Trusts
  20. Inside & Outside of Discovery: Requests for Production, Interrogatories, Request for physical access (computers) and Request for Admissions
  21. Motion for Summary Judgement
  22. Admitting information into evidence
  23. Reveal Absence of Evidence
  24. Fraud on the Court
  25. Compliance with Pre-Trial Orders

The seminar is delivered by an email link to Box allowing you to immediately download materials.

Discovery is where the rubber meets the road. This seminar will help you navigate the discovery and evidence minefield with skill.  


Purchase Here.

David Dayen at the L.A. Times: One thing Democrats and Republicans apparently agree on: Destabilizing the banking sector again

Next week marks the 10th anniversary of the run on Bear Stearns, the investment bank that collapsed under the weight of toxic subprime mortgages. Although JPMorgan Chase snapped up Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar, this maneuver failed to stop the bleeding from the mortgage meltdown, leading to the biggest economic crisis in nearly a century.

That seems like a terrible political backdrop for the Senate to pass a bill that deregulates the banking sector. But that’s exactly what’s about to happen.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which pro-regulation groups have called the “Bank Lobbyist Act,” advanced in the Senate this week with the support of 50 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one Democratic-leaning independent. Bipartisanship, it seems, isn’t dead.

We’re witnessing a familiar swing of the pendulum: toward regulation when banks crash the economy, away from regulation when memories fade. The next stop is often financial crisis, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated this week that the bipartisan legislation would increase the risk of another one happening.

Pitched as a way to provide regulatory relief for community banks, the bill goes well beyond that; it rolls back key pieces of the Dodd-Frank Act and includes giveaways to large institutions of the same size and scope as the ones that crashed the economy in 2008.

The most important measure in the legislation raises the threshold for enhanced regulatory supervision by the Federal Reserve from $50 billion to $250 billion. The beneficiaries, 25 of the top 38 banks in America, could be called “stadium banks:” not big enough to count as Wall Street mega-banks, but big enough to have a sports stadium named after them.

We’re witnessing a familiar swing of the pendulum: toward regulation when banks crash the economy, away from regulation when memories fade.

To read more go HERE.

David Dayen is a contributing writer to Opinion.

The Neil Garfield Radio Show- The Missing Obligee

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

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.

%d bloggers like this: