Join Us Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show

The guest this week is James Macklin a veteran of the foreclosure wars and a forensic analyst working with Garfield Kelley and White, LLC. He has been a relentless advocate for distressed homeowners in the foreclosure wars. He will be talking about the success aggressive trial lawyers are having by standing their ground on Article 9, which requires that the mortgage be negotiated for value. Hosted by Neil Garfield. Sponsored by Livinglies, GTC Honors, Garfield Kelley and White and contributions to the LivingLies website from listeners like you. Additional sponsors may apply.

Let’s get together and do some work on how to convince a judge or prosecutor that Wall Street corruption does make a difference and should never be allowed.

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

You know the subject — the biggest economic crime in human history and the price investors and homeowners are paying for it. You know the goal — claiming your rights, defending your home and recover damages from wrongful foreclosure and predatory loan practices. The format of the 30 minute show will be news, analysis (or guest interview), and question and answer. It is just like the old teleconferences we had, only better. You can start a chat with me on the side, call in for a question, or write in comments.

Come learn something you didn’t know. We will be covering the latest info on what works and what doesn’t and why.

The show is sponsored by Livinglies, GTC Honors, and the law firm of Garfield, Kelley and White, LLC with main offices in Tallahassee and additional offices in Broward County and Dade County.

Additional sponsors are invited. Not all offers of sponsorship will be accepted, in the sole discretion of the Show’s Host.

This show is for general information only and not to be used as a substitute for real advice from a licensed lawyer who practices in the geographical area in which your property is located or transaction occurred. The show is not a solicitation or offer of services.

21 Responses

  1. Documents, Affiant, Company name and Notice FAIL
    Keen-eyed WI Court of Appeals catches
    Bank of America’s Shell Game
    Bank of America’s authentication argument does not address what Bank of America seeks to prove – possession of the note. Assuming without deciding that a copy of a note attached to a complaint is self-authenticating under § 909.02(9), the copy of the note is self-authenticating only as to what the document purports to be. See WIS. STAT. § 909.02. Nothing in the document demonstrates that Bank of America has possession of the original note.

    http://msfraud.org/law/lounge/bankofamerica-v-minkov_affidavit_self-authenticating-docs-fail_wi-8-13.pdf

  2. Madoff said JPMorgan executives knew of his fraud: lawsuit

    By Jonathan Stempel

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/us-jpmorgan-madoff-idUSBREA1J21W20140220

  3. Certified Documents: Question? When I put together a Qualified Written Request (QWR) and I request Certified Copies of a Deed of Trust and the Note, they are suppose to send me certified copies. How can I ensure that they are copies of the original documents since they are suppose to have the original documents? What prevents them from getting a notary in their office to falsify documents? How can I ensure that they have the original documents?

  4. James,

    You’re in Baltimore, right? Contact Todd Wetzelberger of Surfire Home Retention in Baltimore. Don’t have his phone number handy but he’s on internet. A gold mine of info. And he really helps people.

  5. I invited a couple of people to listen to the show today. One person is my client and well known in the Jewish community. therefore, can be very influential in bringing in or referring in clients. the other is not my client but a well known person in the Latin community and will be able to bring in Latin clients.

    Oded

  6. My friends, I desperately need your help. After reviewing my Assignment of Deed of Trust I noticed some things that were definitely wrong. The assignment is with Citi Mortgage. The first thing I notice is that it was dated July 26, 2013, which is really crazy because the transaction was conducted back in 2006. The second thing that jumped out at me was the Signature. It is signed by a Geraldine Ann Belinski and her title is Vice President, so I decided to track down this Vice President. I finally reached the office where she worked at Citi Mortgage and I asked to speak to Vice President Belinski. Low and behold the Gentleman that answered the phone stated that she was not the vice president but a mere processor. So armed with that information and some issues with my second mortgage with Wells Fargo, which is securitized I decided to file a complaint with the Office of Comptroller of Currency. My complaint was based on the fact that there is a Cease and Desist order against both banks to stop the robo signing. I have not yet received a response from Wells Fargo, but Citi responded by saying “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.” What I need help with is, I need to know if she can in fact work for Citi and be a certified appointed signor for MER’s as they stated. Also is she signing the document as a Citi Vice President or MERS Vice President. I need to know because if this is in fact illegal Im going to keep pushing this up the Government Chain of Command until I get some answers. It makes no sense to me that they would initiate a Cease and Desist Order and not take any action when the banks are still clearly doing this. Thanks for your help in this matter James. jsmith5915@msn.com 443-677-2799.

  7. Trespass I have been writing the Fed about the parent companies of these banks in the bank holding companies has oversight of there banks.

    Also if it servicers, custodian of records or MERS who is performing a task for the banks, they are an extension of the bank. The bank authorized all this illegal activity.

    But the Fed had been one of the main entities that have benefited from these activities. My claims directly to the Fed every other week or so, I question the safe & sound practices the Fed has allowed the banks to get away with!

  8. Anyone know of this release from the Fed on Dec 5, 2013?
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20131205a.htm

    Of interest is these statements
    ” reminding financial institutions it supervises to exercise appropriate risk management and oversight when using service providers. ”
    ” If service provider relationships are not managed effectively, they may expose financial institutions to risks that can result in reputational problems, financial loss, or regulatory actions,”
    “the guidance states that the use of service providers does not relieve a financial institution’s board of directors or senior managers of responsibility for the activities performed by service providers”
    “Financial institutions are responsible for ensuring that all activities conducted by service providers comply with applicable laws and regulations and are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. ”

    After all this time; after all servicers have done in the name of the ‘purported lender’, the banks board of directors and / or senior managers have to receive a reminder that the responsibility and risks from that relationship still remain with the bank.

    Now why didn’t a court come to the same resolution?
    My opinion is because there is no remedy in the courts. The curtain got pulled back outside of the courts, and all it takes is a regulatory agency that is so anal about procedures that they’ll investigate their own self, something like that would peel the layers of this rotten onion and expose the fraud and point out who’s responsible for the risk management of what these servicers have done while violating applicable laws using law-ye(a)rs.

    Seeing all the notices on the internet for the bank drills on Feb 15 starting at 8pm and through Feb 16 (not showing an end time).
    Bank of Albuquerque was the first one I heard about, then others surfaced on a post naming The Bank of Arizona, Bank of Oklahoma, and the Bank of Texas – and?

    Collapse the bonds, render the cusips worthless, make whoever issued them the surety and make them pay them out at face value after everything collapses, ensuring they are bankrupt themselves for what they’ve participated in.

    A Comedy of justice, just some wishful thinking; yet the truth is all creation begins with a thought, thought is energy, focused.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  9. The Perfect alleged crime by bank of america

  10. Ian I just give up on the Qui Tam and filed with the SEC whistle blower program a couple of years ago.

  11. “Electronic discovery (or e-discovery or eDiscovery) refers to discovery in civil litigation or government investigations which deals with the exchange of information in electronic format (often referred to as electronically stored information or ESI)….

    Electronic information is considered different from paper information because of its intangible form, volume, transience and persistence. Electronic information is usually accompanied by metadata that is not found in paper documents and that can play an important part as evidence (for example the date and time a document was written could be useful in a copyright case). The preservation of metadata from electronic documents creates special challenges to prevent spoliation. Electronic discovery was the subject of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), effective December 1, 2006, as amended to December 1, 2010.[2] In addition, state law now frequently also addresses issues relating to electronic discovery.

    Individuals working in the field of electronic discovery commonly refer to the field as Litigation Support.”

  12. “We further support your needs with our proprietary Web-based investor reporting system,CDOlink.com, which gives you access to standardized reports across transactions, downloadable flat file portfolio and transaction data, and complete reporting history.”

    It’s way past time we get onboard “electronic discovery”. By “we”, I guess I mean homeowner defense attorneys. If a borrower is only given one set of accounting records these days from say, the servicer, he is not getting all the accounting records relevant to his loan. The servicer and / or master servicer has, must have, these other accounting records / access to them. All we are given is the one set, the one reflecting payments and activity of the borrower only. If cdolink isn’t used by a particular servicer, then it’s using another company like it. These records are SOMEwhere, likely kept electronically. When the servicer, for instance, makes an advance and is then reimbursed by fnma, a record of that transaction is some stinking place. So would be any monies changing hands relevant to a credit default swap and so on.

  13. On the call this evening and the young lady stated to use a QWR to asked for who owns your loan. I’ve done this many times over the course of 4 years. So please point were can I go to enforce them to answer these basic questions? I used QWR on Sam Olens attorney general for the state of Ga FCPB complaints seem to not go anywhere…..

  14. Charles Reed- retry. Spellcheck at it again

  15. Charles Reed- have you tried engaging another law firm to refuel your whistleblower case?

  16. Thanks KC, great case there. MERS was given their hat, then the judge slammed the door on their ass on the way out. About time.

    What I’d really like to follow is the SCOTUS deal of them weighing in on my pet peeve, as I’m sure you know, that of the fed judges trampling state court issues. Any idea how to follow that hearing?

    I know better than to get my hopes up on that one though. As we’ve seen in the past, this SCOTUS is hell bent on doing whatever it takes to firmly plant the United States of Corporatocracy flag, with the firm belief that we, the citizens, of that newly formed state should work tirelessly to line the pockets of everyone at the top .01%.

  17. Hi needcaselaw. Do you have a link?

  18. Neil; you are a difficult man to reach, and I can understand why. The issue of federal courts removing state law foreclosure cases and then applying (and misapplying) federal rules to usurp state law and dismiss them, is coming before the SCOTUS conference committee on February 21. It is case No. 13-655. Support for the Court hearing this matter could effect the rights of virtually every mortgagor in the U.S. and seriously shake up federal courts that are abusing the system.The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is viewable at stafnetrumbull.com (see Robertson case). If you need further info contact them.
    Thanks

  19. Hey Neil have you seen this?: http://thewallstreetconspiracy.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: