121 Responses

  1. Thanks for your effort for posting “Events Livinglies’s Weblog”. Imight definitely end up being returning for more reading through and commenting in the near future. Thanks, Jackie

  2. Interesting take on this issue. I for one have seen many twists on this and can often spot the holes in the argument however, on this occasion I believed your writing is such that everyone should be in agreement with this. Thank you for sharing it with us.

  3. How do we start an action against MERS. I live in Nassau County NY

  4. Ok our lawyer isn’t in my opinion competent enough handle our problem.
    Here’s what I would like to present on my behalf
    : we received papers that bank of America filed in BK court. I noticed my name forged on deed of trust. In Texas, it’s an invalid deed or something of the likes. I did not sign my interest in our community property that is homesteaded. We have put over 75 thousand into a 92 thousand over appraised home. We still, according to bank of America owe 64 thousand plus 10 thou in arrearages. Long story shirt we don’t mind paying the loan back, because we have shown standing because of our numerous lump sum payments from amounts 6 thousand or more during a one month period. We intended to pay for our home because it is a moral obligation, however we all are expected to abide and follow laws and procedures to govern our society. I don’t want a lien on this house because I have interest that I never signed away. Do I file quiet title on my own? Without a valid deed of trust, the lien is not perfected?

  5. I am looking for an attorney in TN that can handle a loan extraction even if the property is not in foreclosure but has a clouded title.

  6. Case to help understand the NOTE issue from USBK court
    from Consumer Rights Defenders….helping save homes nationwide with attorneys and staff….call us at 818.453.3585 ask for Steve or Sara We now have attorneys in Calif to help and former BOA insiders.
    _________Opinion cited with comments from counsel_____________
    In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (C.D. California 2008).

    I. Key Facts
    This case involved a 376k loan originated by Mortgage IT, Inc. in 2007. The Borrower Hwang, gave a note to Mortgage IT and the loan was later transferred to Indymac Bank, FSB (no longer in business with assets sold to OneWest bank through the FDIC conservatorship). Indymac Bank was the “holder of the note” as they had physical possession of the note, but the note had been sold “through Freddie Mac” and presumably sold off to investors on Wall Street through a securitized trust.
    So, Indymac had actual physical possession of the loan (apparently they produced an original copy at the stay hearing and also produced the Deed of Trust assigned from MERS), but the ownership of the loan was sold to a unknown third party and thus ownership of the loan was not in the hands of Indymac although the right to enforce the loan was (and in fact Indymac had been acting only as the loan servicer at the time the borrower Hwang filed for BK in 2008).
    When the borrower filed for BK in 2008, Indymac Federal bank (as other so-called “lenders” normally will due when a chapter 7 bankruptcy is filed) filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay and sought to lift the stay so that the debtor’s property could be sold. So amazingly, although Indymac sold the loan to an unknown third party, they still sought to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy alleging that is was the loan servicer, but yet they didn’t know who actually owned the loan (i.e. on whose principal’s behalf they were actually servicing the loan for). Welcome to the wonderful world of securitized loans.
    The borrower challenged Indymac’s right to seek relief from the automatic stay from foreclosure afforded by the bankruptcy filing.
    II. Legal Issue
    Under what circumstances may a party to a bankruptcy action lift the Section 362 automatic stay from foreclosure? Or as the Court stated it: “the question remains, to whom is the debt owed”
    III. Courts Holding:
    The court essentially articulated a three-part test to determine when it was proper for a party to invoke the power of the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay that would prevent a foreclosure sale following the filing of bankruptcy chapter 7 by a debtor.
    (1) Only a “holder” of a note can enforce it
    (2) The “holder of the note must have constitutional “standing” to seek to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy
    (3) The holder of the note, who has standing, must also be the “real party in interest” to the transaction in order to be able to seek to lift the BK stay.
    Indymac Federal (as predecessor to the failed Indymac bank through the FDIC conservatorship) at best was the loan servicer even though it did not know who actually owned the loan it had sold, and could not produce any loan servicing agreement. However, due to the mere fact that they had possession of the note (“holder”), they were entitled to enforce the note even though they had sold it off “through Freddie Mac” and apparently to a securitized trust on behalf of investors on Wall Street. Note that the Court said whoever DOES own the loan cannot presently enforce it because they do not have possession of the secured note, as Indymac Federal has actual possession of the note and deed of trust.
    That being said, the Court determined that Indymac had standing as they had possession of the note and right to enforce it, but that they were not a real party in interest to the motion to lift the automatic stay (the real party is unidentified and needs to be joined) and therefore its motion to lift the stay, with attached declarations, and copy of the note (the original was produced in court) and deed of trust, do not make it the real party in interest, and the motion was therefore denied
    IV. Rationale
    (1) Legal obligations of parties to a bankruptcy proceedings (ex. the law governing negotiable notes) are controlled by applicable STATE LAW unless bankruptcy law is on point controlling the issues. In this event, who the owner of the loan is, and who has a legal right to enforce it is decided by State Law as the court set forth citing the applicable provisions of the California Commercial Code (“CComC”), the California version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).
    (2) A Party filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay against foreclosure, in a bankruptcy Court must satisfy both substantive grounds for the motion (i.e. who has right to enforce note), and procedural grounds (i.e. that it has standing to file the motion – Article III of the US Constitution; and that it is a real party in interest to make the filing – FRCP 17). The real party in interest must be joined in an action under FRCP Rule 19 where necessary to avoid multiple litigation, or where needed to provide parties with effective relief in a single action, and if necessary to protect absent persons from the possible prejudicial effects of deciding a case without them. In this case the Court denied Indymac Federal’s motion for relief from the automatic stay ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS because of Rule 17 (Indymac was not real party in interest) and Rule 19 (joinder of trustee of securitized trust was required).
    (3) NOTE THAT THE MORTGAGE LOAN AT ISSUE WAS A “MERS LOAN” AND THAT MERS HAD TRANSFERRED THE DEED OF TRUST TO INDYMAC ON JANUARY 29, 2008. AT THAT POINT INDYMAC BANK WOULD HAVE HAD BOTH THE NOTE AND THE DEED OF TRUST. The case discussed how 85% of all mortgages originated in 2006 and 2007 were securitized and a link provided to a report from the Milken Institute: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/SubprimeMeltdownv2.pdf (registration required).
    (4) Essentially the Court discussed California Commercial Code law and discussed what party has a right to enforce a note. The Court first discussed what a “negotiable instrument is” under California law. We have provided link to the law here: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/hwang-bankruptcy-case-motion-to-lift-the-automatic-stay-is-denied-what-is-a-negotiable-instrument-under-california-commercial-code-section-3104/. The Court determined that “the note here at issue is a negotiable instrument”
    (5) Next, the Court discussed that only the “holder” of an instrument can enforce it. The Court discussed what a “holder” is under California Commercial Law. Again, here is a link to the code provision the court cited to: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/holder-in-due-course-challenging-motion-to-lift-stay-in-bankruptcy-in-california/. In short, the “holder” of the note is one with POSSESSION OF THE NOTE which is either payable to bearer, or to an identified person. Here, Indymac had possession of the note and the note was payable to Indymac.
    (6) Next, the Court discussed “who can enforce a note” (persons entitled to enforce) and the Court cited California Commercial Code Section 3301. Here is a link to that code section: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/hwang-bankruptcy-case-who-is-a-holder-of-a-note-entitled-to-enforce-it-california-commercial-code-section-3301/.
    (7) As a result of the foregoing sections of the California Commercial Code, the Court held that Indymac had standing to enforce the note (based on its actual possession of such and that the note was indorsed to Indymac), even though Indymac had subsequently sold the note through Freddie Mac – who was not a party to the case – and despite the fact that the true “owner” (and thus the current “lender” or beneficiary under the deed of trust) was not known or disclosed, and in fact was a total mystery as it seems.
    (8) The Court then discussed the concept of “negotiating” secured instruments and cited the holder in due course rule under California law: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/what-is-a-holder-in-due-course-under-california-commercial-code-section-3302-in-relation-to-negotiable-instruments-such-as-a-secured-mortgage-note/. In this case, the loan was negotiated from Mortgage IT to Indymac, but not from Indymac to anyone else. Although there was a contract to sell ownership of the note through Freddie Mac, there was no such legal transfer of possession or negotiation.
    (9) The Court presented two alternatives for Indymac to consider: (1) transfer the loan to its rightful owner and let them enforce it or let them file a motion to lift the automatic stay, or (2) Indymac can try to enforce the loan (although it cannot lift the stay) even though it does not own the loan. Under this scenario I suppose Indymac would sell the property after the BK is discharged and that would be the end of the story since you cannot argue PRODUCE THE NOTE IN A PRIVATE TRUSTEE SALE. See our blog posts in this regard: http://www.foreclosuredefenseresourcecenter.com/2010/03/can-a-california-homeowner-demand-that-the-lender-or-loan-servicer-produce-the-note-as-a-foreclosure-defense-strategy/. Now normally I would say this might be subject to a legal challenge (lawsuit and TRO keeping a “pretender lender” from foreclosing), but recall in the facts of this case Indymac had possession of both the (original) note and deed of trust with proper delivery and endorsement. So, under these facts, at least on paper, it does have the proper credentials to foreclose and they would seem to be liable to some “real owner” of the loan if such was ever found.
    (10) The Court discussed the “common practice” of “failure to deliver notes when they are sold” on the secondary loan market, but also discussed that “entities who hold valid notes are entitled to receive timely payments” (evidencing that the Courts are not really interested in any “house for free” argument). But again this is not really a reason to ignore the legal challenge in a bankruptcy court and to challenge the alleged creditor of your loan. If a false creditor is filing a proof of claim, or alleging it has a lien on your property in the face of conflicting evidence, a bankruptcy Court would seem to be a good forum for raising these issues regarding ownership. Here, Indymac had a valid claim to enforce the loan even though it conceded it was not the owner.
    (11) NO RISK OF FINANCIAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY PAYING INDYMAC WHO DOES NOT OWN THE LOAN. The Court recognized that although Indymac does not own the loan, it does have the legal right to “enforce” the loan. If the owner pays Indymac (instead of the true owner) the borrower is entitled to a credit to their payments under California Commercial Code Section 3602 which we have provided here for you: http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/hwang-bankruptcy-case-financial-double-jeopardy-borrower-is-entitled-to-credit-for-payments-made-on-an-instrument-california-commercial-code-section-3602/.
    (12) Despite the fact that Indymac had a ‘right to enforce the note’ (which gives them legal standing for constitutional purposes) this is not the same as saying that they are the “real party in interest.” To invoke the power of Federal Courts, both are required to be established. Again, the Court determined that Indymac had no real concrete stake in the outcome and thus was not the real party to the transaction. The Court stated if they wanted to prove they were a real party in interest under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SEE http://www.producethenoteattorney.com/2010/05/who-is-the-real-party-in-interest-under-frcp-rule-17-hwang-case-california-bankruptcy-motion-to-lift-the-automatic-stay-in-chapter-7-bk/. THE COURT WENT ON TO STATE THAT “IF A LOAN HAS BEEN SECURITIZED, THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IS THE TRUSTEE OF THE SECURITIZED TRUST AND NOT THE SERVICING AGENT.” BECAUSE INDYMAC PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE, THE COURT COULD NOT DETERMINE WHO THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WAS. THE COURT ESSENTIALLY DETERMINED THAT THE MOTION TO LIFT THE AUTOMATIC STAY IN BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD BE BROUGHT OR PROSCUTED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE SECURITIZED TRUST (WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COURT LIKELY SECURITIZED THE NOTE WITH 10,000 OTHER NOTES). THE COURT THINKS JOINDER OF THE TRUSTEE IS NECESSARY.
    What principles of law might derive from this case?
    (1) A secured note (essentially MERS loans that wind up on Wall Street) is a negotiable instrument and can be freely bought and sold on the secondary loan market, including securitizing them into securitized trusts with thousands of other notes.
    (2) Where one lender (ex. MortgageIT) wants to transfer ownership of the loan to a new entity (such as Indymac Bank here), “negotiation” of the instrument is accomplished by proper endorsement of the note (to a specific person or payable to a bearer) and delivery of the note to the new “holder” who will have “possession” of the note and can enforce it as such, and may even be a “holder in due course.”
    (3) Where one entity holds the note and deed of trust assignment (the Court did not really get into the assignment of the deed of trust) they have the rights of a holder and can enforce the loan, seek to lift an automatic stay in bankruptcy and probably also file proof of claims in a Chapter 13 case, or properly respond to adversary proceedings challenging the extent or validity of a lien (ex. in a TILA rescission case).
    (4) However, where the bankruptcy courts are involved, it should be required that any alleged “lender” “creditor” or “loan servicer” (agent) who is seeking to invoke the power of a bankruptcy court to do, or refrain from doing something, the Court should require valid credentials (such as proof of the note and deed of trust assignment) with proper endorsements and physical possession of the note.
    (5) In cases dealing with OneWest bank (who bought ‘assets’ from the FDIC) the Loan Sale Agreement between the FDIC and OneWest bank require the “purchaser” (OneWest Bank) to perfect its security interest through MERS. In this event, if you are in litigation with OneWest bank, you should seek to find out whether or not OneWest (sometimes referred to as “new Indymac” since they occupy the same campus as the failed Indymac once occupied) actually got an assignment of the note and deed of trust from MERS or whether or not there are challenges as to standing, or real party in interest (joinder) that should be raised and/or evaluated.
    If you are having issues trying to determine who owns your loan, who the beneficiary is, who has the right to foreclose, and if you are thinking of filing bankruptcy, have a foreclosure defense lawyer review your notice of default, notice of sale, chain of title, deed of trust, and other critical documents to see who the true lender might be. There may be legal challenges you can raise in “stay litigation (motions for relief from automatic stay), challenges to proofs of claims filed in bankruptcy court, and in adversary proceedings challenging the validity of an alleged lien. Just who your true creditor is, and who their truly authorized agents are is becoming an interesting issue in the age of loan securitization.

  7. […] people who became a member of this blog and who participate in the membership conferences (see “Events” […]

  8. Can you give me a lawyer in Ohio, Cincinnati and or Dayton Ohio that has been through your progrm that I can use in my foreclosure case?

  9. Hey Mickey,
    I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. There is never a guarantee of getting your home free and clear, nor a percentage of your principal being reduced. You need to start with the basics and take this one step at a time. First, you need a reliable, trustworthy, and knowledgeable lawyer. Second, you need to fight the eviction. You have to fight and ultimately prove what they did was wrong and/or fraudulent. Believe me. I am a homeowner that has been fighting for four years. Start with getting the right attorney…through any and all reliable sources that you can find. However, do not assume that you will automatically gain equity or your home free and clear. These wheels of justice are turning slowly and believe me, i know corruption. I live in the homeland of it. Fight your fight, make your reaponse heard in a court of law, and pay attention to all the details. Take every step one at a time. I am not an attorney. Everything I say is based on experience within the state that I reside. Good luck in your venture and fight.

  10. Dear Friends & Patriots,

    As an avid reader and visitor of this site I appreciate the plethora of information and various comments; suggestions herein. However, what I do not see are any attorneys in the way of eviction and or foreclosure prevention that can be contacted for help in California. Now I may be looking in the wrong place, or simply not looking closely enough, but I am in trouble and in need of help.
    I had a loan with US. Bank. It’s a MERS loan and has indeed been securitized. The Note and deed have been separated and I have proof of this though a thorough securitization audit and title search.
    My home was sold on 27 Oct to a third party. That 3rd Party served notice to vacate on Saturday 29 Oct. I am still in the home.
    I understand from all that I have read and heard that it is very tough to get the sale re-wound in California and to regain possession of the property. Regardless, I do not want to receive an unlawful detainer and have to move out. The UD courts in LA County are VERY corrupt. They ruthlessly favor the landlord / new property owner and 99.9% of the time (From what I have heard) brush off tenants, homeowners in an expedited manner.
    Now what I need is an attorney who UNDERSTANDS why I have a good case, is willing to pursue the case and have a high probability of nopt only reversing the sale, but regaining control of the property, and by way of either an adversarial proceeding and quiet title action help me get my home free and clear. If not free and clear, the attorney should feel very confident in his or her ability to negotiate a favorable balance reduction of say 50% or better and be able to negotiate an exceptional interest rate on the property, or even possibly a buy back from the new ‘owner’ at the price he has paid for the home. At that price I would roughly have 70k in equity.
    Now I feel that US Bank is absolutely criminal in there role and again have proof that they were not in fact the legal beneficiary of the loan; it’s mortgage payments, but I need someone who has very high certainty in this area of law (One who is not going to give me an apple pie and cup of coffee; song and dance just to get a retainer), and again one who is willing to go after the lender, bank and all involved in the perpetration of fraud on my loan.
    PLEASE HELP! Eviction is moving forward and we have VERY little time.

    Thank you very, very much.


    PS. I am willing to donate to keeping this site going. I can do this as soon as requested, though I do need help.

    Thank You.

  11. Nice web , I like your share
    I have entried your blog on my bookmark . Thanks

  12. Nice web , I like your writing
    I have entried your blog on my bookmark . Thanks













  15. have about 2 lines of credit and three mortgages i need help with. if you can help me, please let me know.

  16. Dear Mr. Garfield:

    I first want to say thank you for such valuable newsletters. Your expertise has assisted many, for certain.

    I purchased a home in Yorba Linda, California 5 years ago and put 20% down. As you could imagine, I paid an inflated price at that time. As the economy diminished, so did my income. With a 3 year old daughter and wife, I found myself battling the banks for some type of assistance until I could get back on my feet. The battle came to no avail and on September 1st I received the dreadful knock at the door. Within 15 minutes me and my little girl needed to walk out. Not only have I lost a home that I put a lot of hard work into, the place my little girl called home and I lost my initial down payment of 200k.

    Next weekend, I will have to have all of my belongings out.

    Is there anything you can advise me? Are there steps I can take to continue to fight for what is rightfully mine against the deceitful banks? I am prepared to fight!

    Your advise is greatly needed and respected.

  17. I need help, please. I justed recieved an unlawful detainer-eviction summons and need to respond within 5 days. i took out a loan with Countrywide in 2007, could no longer make payments in 2008, tried to modify the loan- BofA took over, mers is on the original paperwork as benificery. On 6/2/2011 the house was sold from under me to Recon Trust , and now Bank onf New York Mellon is saying the property is thiers and is serving me an unlawful detainer-eviction summons…i’m in southern california, palm springs area…Hector 760-219-3192…. can someone please get me headed in the right direction Thanks-

  18. Homeowners Need Zealous Advocates

    Mark Harmon, in my opinion, is technically incorrect as quoted, in the Boston Globe, August 7, 2011 page A14, “They (banks and other lenders) loaned people money. It is not being paid back, and they need to be represented, and it is required that we represent them zealously.”

    First, there was no real money loaned to people. Credit was loaned. The homeowner’s credit as a signed promise to pay, not the bank’s, was loaned. Also, usually, over time the original lender sold or securitized the loan, clouding the title and creating a foreclosing “lender” that is not the originating lender. Second, it doesn’t have to be paid back. Since no real money or depositor’s money or actual consideration was loaned and since consideration is part of a legal contract, the original contract is illegal and unenforceable from the start. According to RICO, (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organization Act), there is no legal obligation to pay back money that was provided illegally! Third, bankers do not need to be represented by outside law firms; they already have the best lawyers. Try suing a bank for discovery! And fourth, as a warning to Harmon Law, don’t be too zealous. Fraudulent statements brought into a court, according to the laws of Massachusetts, will be subject to huge fines.

    Building an empire by conquest or stealing other people’s homes and property has been going on for centuries. Harmon Law perpetuates that practice! You can stop them in their tracks by stopping your mortgage payment now and challenging these bankers and lenders in their fraudulent practices.

    David Snieckus
    Advocate for Public Banking
    99 Crescent Street
    Newton, MA 02466

  19. This is for those close to Boston, MA

    Foreclosure Defense


    PRESS RELEASE: April 4, 2011


    When: SATURDAY, April 9, 2011, 10 a.m. to noon plus.

    WHERE:: First Congregational Church, Billerica, MA 01821-1916

    Directions: http://www.firstcongo.org/html/directio.htm

    The First Meeting was an Introduction meeting where we (more than a dozen brave souls) introduced ourselves, and shared where we were at regarding the foreclosure process. Then the meeting opened up to a very peaceful discussion about Securitization, fraud, banking, foreclosure defense and offense, money, clear title to our home, and the Ibanez case. And other subsequent meeting also!

    We are gathering to support each other through the process of finding our way through the murky, deceptive waters of our current monetary system and Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA) and how we can ensure clear title to our property. An understanding of the current mortgage laws in Massachusetts along with a practical writing of a QWR (Qualified Written Request) will be the main focus of every meeting.

    Hope to see many of you there.

    Call David Snieckus at 617-964-2951 for more information.

    THINK: We are not VICTIMS OF ORGANIZED Monetary Crime!!!!


  20. I need help finding an attorney in Colorado with my adversarial proceeding. let me know asap.

  21. 98 Responses

    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/podcasts-the-neil-garfield-show/#comment-35457, on February 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm said: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    e-mail: msleahmail@gmail.com 2/12/11
    I would like to find an attorney in Oak, CA.
    I have a 73 year old neighbor that is being hounded by Chase/EMC to send the SAME docs OVER & OVER for two years now insisting she sends the payments to them, and rude when she calls to check the status of the loan mod they should have LONG ago completed or denied. We believe this is a HUGE fraud.

  22. I would like to find an attorney in Oak, CA.
    I have a 73 year old neighbor that is being hounded by Chase/EMC to send the SAME docs OVER & OVER for two years now insisting she sends the payments to them, and rude when she calls to check the status of the loan mod they should have LONG ago completed or denied. We believe this is a HUGE fraud.

  23. is there any lawyer in new york that will help me.
    i am desperate. and inexpensive.

    luis martinez
    917 254 2749

    i got all the fact to fight, i need help filling in court.

  24. On Sat 02/12 & Tues 02/15, the legal team behind the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision will host a live online panel discussion on the Ibanez ruling and its implications for the mortgage industry, legal practitioners and consumers. The panel will consist of top foreclosure defense experts: Attorney Max Gardner, Mortgage Analysis Specialist Marie McDonnell, Attorney Jamie Ranney, and Attorney Glenn F. Russell, Jr. The panel will share their insights in analyzing mortgages and building a foreclosure defense case. The panelist will answer questions from the audience and share the research and evidence gathering tools they used to build their case. The webinars will take place on Sat 02/12 at 12pm eastern & Tues 02/15, 8pm eastern time. To attend use this link https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ereg/newreg.php?eventid=19733&eb=currentblast

  25. Hi

    This is for those close to Boston, MA

    Foreclosure Defense

    Masao’s Kitchen
    581 Moody Street
    Waltham, MA 02453
    February 5, 2011
    “Be Prepared!” 1-3 p.m.

    Call David Snieckus at 617-964-2951 for Reservations AND for Possible Change in Location!


    The blog has some great information on it, but as time goes by it is getting more and more disjointed and tough to figure out what to read first.
    I would really like to add some of this knowledge to my skill set, but it is hard to figure out what I should be reading – plus I am sure that there is plenty of information we could use that is not on the website.

    I for one would love to see the lawyer / loan auditor training you have available online as a distance learning course. It is tough to take the time out of the office, but I can dedicate a few hours in the evening which will still be business hours on the west coast.

    Could you please put together a distance learning course for those of us that don’t have the flexibility to travel due to family obligations.
    I was thinking the course books you use right now.. plus video presentations from one of your classes (with all relevant PPT slides, etc)… plus live chat and email support.
    You could run it twice a month, and wouldn’t be limited by physical space, so have bigger class sizes.

    Thanks in advance!

  27. Sorry Abby (and everyone),

    It is notes2 AT servantweb DOT org.. or just repost on the forum.


  28. Angela–the email address you posted does not work.

    Please repost

  29. Hey Everyone,
    I am trying to file a pro-se case in federal district court against:

    Bank of America
    Bankers Trust Company of California
    U.S. Dept off Veterans Affairs

    Can someone in the know please confirm I need to send the summons to the registered agent of the aforementioned companies?

    ALSO more importantly, can someone please send me a comprehensive list of bank registered agents. I have family with loans with Wells Fargo and Countrywide.. and having searched their websites it is almost impossible to figure out which part of the monster-mega-bank is which, and where to direct a summons when suing over a mortgage situation.


    Please email directly to Notes2 Servantweb.org if you would… or post here if anyone else needs this info.

    Thanks much,


  30. Would someone please email me as soon as Neil decides on a time an place for his very next pro-sei laymen’s workshop?? I have talked nearly all the attorneys in my state and not one of them has a clue. They are all ready to turn my house over to the pretender lender. Please call or email with the date and time of Neil’s next workshop and I’ll be there!
    Tel: 307-354-6227
    email: leavealegacy2@msn.com

  31. Ordered the Attorney Workbook.
    It addresses judicial foreclosure, as they have in Florida.
    I live in California.
    Do you have attorney workbooks that address non-judicial foreclosure?
    May I return/exchange the judicial foreclosure attorney workbook?

  32. Ok we got summing here why was this letter that I posted last night taken off it all true What don’t you want these people to see I though we were here to help these people what going on here .
    Nile you need to email me back let me no why this has happen. I like to no the reason.
    I will tell you I am going to help these people if I can and it looks like you don’t want me too why.
    I the letter I said you need to check out these lawyer because I am not sure. But in your site all these people that need help are an easy pick for the lender and the lawyer that why this is a set up. Again with respect to the lawyer but these bad one are giving you guys a bad name. First the brokers and the lenders now the bad lawyers
    My case number is down below you people need to look it up stop in May 2009 that when I hire that lawyer that cost my case you have a better Change on your own When in court with a lawyer you will not be ale to talk there were they get you .Go to the law library it is designed to assist you finding the legal resources necessary to correctly determine the state of the law

    February 10, 2010

    Honorable Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte SENT VIA E-MAIL & FAX
    Dept. 516
    Hayward Hall of Justice
    24405 Amador Rd.
    Hayward, CA

    FAX NO. (510) 267-1587

    FEBRUARY 10, 2010 @ 2:30 p.m.
    DEPT. 516
    Plaintiff’s Additional Declaration of Opposition to Defendants Summary Judgment
    and Stipulation requesting additional time to conduct proper discovery in order to file a proper response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to obtain new Counsel.

    Dear Honorable Judge Harbin-Forte:

    Plaintiff, Nicolas Ramirez, is requesting that your honor please consider my request to continue the February 10, 2010 hearing for Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to a future date to allow Plaintiff time to conduct additional discovery necessary to resist the Summary Judgment and to obtain new Counsel

    The purpose of this attached Declaration is to inform the Court of the outstanding discovery necessary to properly resist Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. It will also inform your honor, of the unprofessional misconduct and blatant disregard of Court deadlines, by my attorney, xxxx, which caused a negative impact on my case.

    xxxxneglected to inform me of important dates of depositions and responses that were due to Defendant, which as a result, has caused the Defendant to file Motion to Compel, and have requested sanctions, at several upcoming hearings. Now she has requested to be relieved as Counsel, a hearing is set for February 19, 2010. She does not want to take responsibility for her actions, by requesting that she be relieved as Counsel, prior to the hearing for Motion to Compel. Her actions (or lack thereof) have put me and my case in jeopardy.

    I am aware that this case has been going on for long time, but that is due to the numerous unsuccessful Law & Motion and attacks on the Pleadings by Defendant. I feel that is continuance is vital for me to obtain necessary evidence to support my case.

    Thank you for your kind consideration to this request.

    Yours Truly,

    Nicolas E. Ramirez, Plaintiff
    Cc: Jason Goldstein, jgoldstein@buchalter.com

    =[ I am submitting this on my own, without the authorization of my attorney, xxxxx.

    I, Nicolas E. Ramirez, Plaintiff in the above matter, declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
    The purpose of this attached Declaration is to inform the Court of the outstanding discovery necessary to properly resist Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. It will also inform your honor, of the unprofessional misconduct and blatant disregard of Court deadlines, by my attorney, xxxxxx, which caused a negative impact on my case.
    My attorney, xxxxxxdid not conduct proper discovery, if any, to uncover essential evidence that may exist. I requested numerous times that my attorney send out written Interrogatories and Request for Admissions, and to schedule depositions of employees of Argent named in the Second Amended Complaint, who were involved in the investigation of my initial forgery claim to Argent prior to my filing the lawsuit. None of this was done. Had additional discovery been conducted it would of revealed the fact that it is an undisputed fact that none of the signatures on my loan papers match my signature, and there are different signatures on the loan application, loan documents, Grant Deed and Deed of Trust. There was also a report done by a handwriting expert, who works for the Department of Justice which states the signatures are forged. Had he been deposed, this would of revealed this information.
    In addition, as you can see by the Courts register of Actions, since the November 5, 2009 Case Management Conference, my lawyer has basically abandoned my case. She completely ignored all Discovery requested by Argent. She neglected to inform me that any discovery responses were even due until January 12, 2010. (E-mail dated January 12 attached as Exibit By this time Argent had already filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. My attorney claims that she was unable to reach me, which is simply not true. According to Defendant’s Proof of Service, my attorney received the Request for Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions since November 25, 2009. I was in contact with her on numerous occasions after the date of Service, a mediation was conducted on December 18, 2009, where she should of given me a copy to complete, or she could of mailed them to me at my home. None of these were done.
    I was never made aware of the January 22, 2010 deposition set by Argent. My lawyer never informed me that a deposition was scheduled. It was not until Argent filed the Motion to Compel the deposition that I found out about it. I immediately asked xxxwhy I was not informed of my deposition. (shown in email dated Exibit A) She informed me that she did not see the Notice of Deposition because it was stuck to the back of the other discovery. She never had any intention of responding to any of the discovery on my behalf because she never even read it. In Argents Motion to Compel, it also states that they left xxxseveral phone messages and emails confirming the deposition, which they never received a response to. xxxneglected to inform me of such messages.
    xxxxnever intended to respond to Argent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as she stated in the attached e-mail dated January 27, 2010, (listed as Exhibit B ) She also stated that the only reason she has agreed to continue on as my Council is if I agreed to accept Argent’s settlement offer they made at the December 18th mediation, which I declined on December 21 (email dated December 21, 2009 as Exhibit B )
    A Motion to be Relieved as Council was not filed by xxxuntil January 28, 2010. The hearing is set for February 19, 2010. xxxis still my attorney of record until such time when the court may relieve her of her duties. xxxx, as my attorney, is obligation to me to represent me to my best interest . xxxxhas been verbally abusive towards me, (see e-mail dated January 27 Exhibit B), and has blatantly ignored court deadlines. She stated that she was going to Amend the Complaint to add additional defendants which she never did. She also refused to submit my counter offer to Argent (see e-mail dated January 27 Exhibit B)

    — On Wed, 1/27/10, xxxxx> wrote:
    From: xxxxxxx
    Subject: RE: RE: signature
    To: “‘Nick Ramirez'”
    Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 9:00 AM
    When we spoke on the phone earlier today, you agreed to put in writing your decision to accept Argent’s settlement offer. (Provided, of course that the offer was still on the table.) Once again, I am totally perplexed by your email, which includes numerous conditions on the settlement that we never discussed.
    This appears to be yet another example of how you agree to follow my legal advice and/or authorize me to act on your behalf, only to later change your mind. I have already explained that it is difficult for me to conclude anything other than that you did not intend to follow through with your decision from the beginning. Fortunately, you (and Debbie) provided me with the unexpressed conditions before I contacted Argent regarding acceptance of the offer. After receiving your email, I do not intend to contact Argent and try to re-open negotiation at the 11th hour after Argent already indicated that it was the final offer.
    Responding to each condition separately:
    1. An “admission” by Argent that the Deed of Trust is forged is essentially worthless. What I suggested is proposing that Argent stipulate to allow you to amend your complaint to add a cause of action for declaratory relief. Basically, you request that the Judge make a ruling that the signature is forged. You would need to submit enough evidence to convince the judge to so rule. As I explained, this is important because it would force the current owner of your mortgage to pursue judicial foreclosure, without you having to initiate legal action to get an injunction against them.
    2. Again, Argent cannot declare anything about the validity of the Deed. It requires a judicial declaration. I also do not understand why you and Debbie believe a distinction between void and voidable has any legal relevance.
    3. You are now attempting to add a substantial amount of money to Argent’s offer by demanding all fees associated with the loan. I believe the mediator made it very clear that Argent was not willing to offer a higher amount. Furthermore, the mediator reiterated what I had already explained to you: Argent is confident that they will win their motion for summary judgment, meaning the case will be dismissed without any money judgment against Argent. Argent’s offer, as both the mediator and I explained, is based on the costs and attorney fees that Argent would incur in bringing the motion and completing discovery.
    4. This also was never discussed in our phone conversation, and also attempts to add (presumably) significant amounts to the offer by Argent. Again, Argent made it clear during mediation that their offer was the highest they were willing to go. Even if Argent were willing to pay fees as part of its settlement offer, I should also add that it is only appropriate for you to ask for attorney fees that you actually paid. I will also point out again that your apparent belief that you are entitled to completely wipe out your mortgage AND reap tens of thousands of dollars in damages is not supported by any legal theory.
    RE: Validity of Forged Deed of Trust
    I have discussed this issue with you numerous times, so I am just providing you with the basics, not the detailed explanation I have provided in the past. As I explained above, if the Deed of Trust is forged, the entity who owns the loan would not be able to use non-judicial foreclosure process because without a valid deed of trust they do not have the power of sale. Even if the deed of trust is declared invalid as a forgery, it does not mean that you do not owe money to the current owner of the loan. The present owner would, however, have to use the judicial process to foreclose. Basically, the bank would go to court and ask the judge to give them an equitable lien for the amount that you still owe on the loan, then get the judge’s approval to sell the house in order to pay the amount owing. The basic premise is this: even if the deed of trust is forged, you received a substantial benefit (large loan that paid off your previous mortgage plus $60,000 cash), and you shouldn’t be allowed a huge windfall by not being required to pay the money back.
    I have previously discussed several strategies with you. If the new owner tries to foreclosure judicially, you can counterclaim for any wrongdoing on the part of the new owner; any damages you win may offset the amount you owe the bank. (Keep in mind that since you have not given me the notice you received regarding transfer of your mortgage, I cannot be more specific about potential claims or liability of the new owner of the promissory note.) As I also pointed out, if through discovery you find that that the promissory note was also forged, the bank may be able to foreclose or get any monetary award. I have also suggested bankruptcy as a potential option; in a Chapter 13 reorganization, the loan is unsecured and would be paid off in full after completion of 3-5 year repayment plan. Unfortunately, you need to have an income to qualify for a chapter 13. Although you initially seemed to be open to considering these and other options, you eventually rejected my legal advice. I trust you understand how frustrating it is to hear that you trust information you read on the internet over my legal advice.
    RE: Future Communications
    First let me be frank: I am well aware that Debbie, not you, wrote the email. I am really losing patience with you and Debbie continuing to try to insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise. I have already advised you of the loss of attorney-client privilege, but if you choose to give up the confidentiality by sharing emails with Debbie, there is nothing I can do to stop you. As I also explained, however, you continue to put me in an untenable ethical dilemma when I know that someone other than my client is attempting to make decisions about the case by masquerading via your email address.
    As if that were not enough, I previously provided a warning in writing regarding your contradictory instructions about sharing anything about your case with Debbie and the resulting ethical dilemma I have been placed in. Need I remind you of the emails and phone conversations, including references to Debbie as a cunt, bitch, etc., requesting that I provide legal representation to evict her from your home, relating your fear that you will end up in jail because you have been close to strangling her, etc.? Again I ask you: How can I simultaneously maintain your confidentiality and honor your desire to not reveal any information to Debbie because she is using you to get free rent — while at the same time communicate by email to an account that Debbie obviously has access to? We previously agreed that my continued representation was contingent on your promise not to allow Debbie to communicate with me using your name and email.
    I also want to point out the irony in your request for me to communicate via email: You have not been responding to me emails despite your promises to check your email daily.
    During the mediation session, which was preceded by yet another extended period of non-communication on your part, I indicated that I had no choice but to seek to withdraw from your case. I continued on as counsel of record only because you agreed to accept Argent’s settlement offer.
    When you withdrew authorization to accept the settlement, and then refused to respond by phone or email, I scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel. The hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. in Dept. 516, and you will receive notice in the mail.
    Unfortunately, the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for hearing on February 10, 2010. As I already informed you, I am unable to oppose the motion because 1) the causes of action as plead while you were representing yourself have no merit, and 2) you have failed to pay the money promised to obtain evidence to support your claims, including having a mortgage audit conducted, and 3) you still have not provided the documents you promised to deliver months ago. This is not the first time that I have informed you of my belief that Argent will win their motion and be dismissed from the case. Although it makes no sense to me, you are certainly free to give up $7500 and disregard my advice based on your own analysis of the strength of your case.

    From: Nick Ramirez [mailto:nick.ramirez80@yahoo.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:32 PM
    To: xxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: Fw: RE: signature
    As I stated on the phone today, I would be willing to settle my case with Argent Mortgage Company, only if Argent agrees to the following terms.
    1. Argent must admit that my signature on the Deed of Trust, loan application and all loan documents pertaining to this loan is forged.
    2. That the Deed of Trust be considered void (not voidable) and invalid. (this is very important)
    3. Argent must refund to me all fees that I was charged in association with this loan including but not limited to the Pre-Payment Penalty with interest. Amount to be determined.
    4. Argent must pay all attorney fees associated with this case.
    You stated to me on the phone that by Argent admitting to the forgery, the Deed would be invalid, and whoever currently holds the note could not foreclose. My understanding is that only a judge can declare a Deed void. Please confirm this.
    I would prefer that we communicate via e-mail, so that I am clear on what we discussed and what I am agreeing to. Also, I am requesting that I be copied on any communications that you have with Argents attorneys.
    Thank you,
    Nick Ramirez

    — On Tue, 12/22/09, Nick Ramirez wrote:

    From: Nick Ramirez
    Subject: RE: signature
    To: “xxxxxxxx
    Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 6:24 AM
    I will not take the offer from Argent Attorney.
    Give me a call or email will be checking let no what next or if there any thing I can do for you
    Thanks for the advice and good job at the meeting.
    If I don’t hear from you before the end of the week hope you have a Merry Christmas
    Nick Ramirez

  33. Neil–ok…I dont understand why was the letter I post last night ont on here any more I though we were trying to help these poeple you need to let me no why it all true what dont you want these poeple to see email me

  34. We want to know how many cases had being won using the Loan Audit

  35. Hello, are you interested in affiliates ? We are looking for a litigation attorney.Georgia

  36. I am looking for information, pleadings to fight foreclosure against Citibank, Mers in California.
    I have a little experience litigating and writing briefs in actions against my local county government.
    I have a great deal of resource material explaining the bank fraud, mortgages as derivatives etc. And realize the difficulty of the battle ahead. But I have no choice but to proceed in Pro Se.
    Livinglies has a complaint template here and it is quite extensive. Most of the activity seems to be in the State of Florida.
    Is anyone able to give me some guidance from the position of having done this?
    I am wondering whether to file in Federal or State court.
    David davidwood100@yahoo.com

  37. I have reviewed this site for aggressive OFFENSE after bank misses the 10 month window to “prosecute”. I am on month 10 two days and have to notice the Rip Van Winkles. Any suggestion on fighting their “conjured” showing of cause why the shoddily responded to a production of documents NEVER did any discovery- and then simply disappeared off the planet. I don’t think waiting for the Fed or a mod program that would fit should be contemplated for a second! Looking for feedback here and on’t note this issue on the site here? Thanks.

  38. I attended your seminar last summer and I still dont see me or my law firm on the list of attorneys who get it. We have been handling foreclosure defense cases for a while now and will appreciate being added to your referral list immediatly.

    Thanks for the attention you give to this materials.

    Muchas Gracias :)

  39. We sent plaintiff a letter over 30 days ago disputing their right to collect never heard from them yet. Under the Fair Debt Practice Collection act. Will this work in our favor since they did not respond? enclosed copy of text…
    RE: FCZ 125105
    Dear Mr. Zucker,
    In accordance with the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1601 it is incumbent upon us to dispute, the validity of the alleged debt. We are writing in response to your letter dated 9-11-2009 because we do not believe we owe you what you say we owe. This is the first we have heard from you, in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, we respectfully request that you provide us with the following information:

    (1) The name and address of the original creditor to whom the alleged debt is owed,

    (2) Please verify who the real party in interest is in this alleged debt collection matter,

    (3) Proof that you are licensed to collect debts in New Jersey.

    We have disputed this debt in writing within 30 days of receipt of your dunning notice.
    We also got notice of intent from the servicer not t foreclosing party.

  40. Please let me know when you’ll be providing any forensic analysts workshops/bootcamps. I’m on the West Coast.

    Charles Cox

  41. I have been trying to modify my pred loan I am less than 60 days for the obvious to keep out of default they have not put
    Any effort to modify 6 moths and most likely will not answer this notice below –I am very confident it was a table top investor Funded arrangement
    should i next go for quite title I qouted ucc 3-202 below ?

    _____________________________________________ SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
    BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
    Notice is given that the LENDERS AND OR TRUSTEES LISTED ABOVE
    Have not complied with civil code 2923.5
    As such all notices of default and or trustee sales and such other recordings and actions are void as a matter of law. I have in good faith attempted to mediate the loan and the true beneficiary has refused to negotiate in good faith by error or malpractice, BAC has not disclosed the true beneficiary of the loan proceeds and party’s of interest holding security with authority to mediate, thus impairing the borrower’s ability to mediate. They have not complied with the provisions in which they were to meet with me in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the Beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. If we knew who the beneficiary, or authorized agent is and have had opportunity to meet we are prepared to pay an interest rate of 4.5 % and will be able to make monthly payments of 674.34 the principal balance of the loan should be reduced to the present market value of 140,000.00. In the event this is not acceptable. I hereby exercise my right to have the security interest in this property rescinded pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code, Article 3, § 3-202 and TLA non disclosure issues.
    And with a legal description of: APN 111111111111
    xxx No. zzzzz, in the City of xxxxxx, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book xxxxx Pages xxxxx and xxxof Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County
    ACKNOWLEDGMENT Subscribed and sworn to before me this November 1 of 2009,
    ___________________________________Notary Public in and for the County of Los Angeles
    xxxxxxxxxxxx ___________________vvvvvvvvvvv ___________________

  42. Looking for a lawyer that gets it in Kansas City area or Missouri area ( that can practice in Kansas) since we live in Kansas.
    Been following the webblog for some months and I hope we are getting it.
    We are dealing with Chase mortgage and it has been stressful and exhausting, and we figure it is time for a good attorney to assist us if possible.
    Thanks, Carrie and Jay

  43. Mr. Garfield,

    If at all possible, could you give another defense seminar on the East Coast in the near future, please. I am willing to travel. I was planning on going to the one in Tampa but had a conflict in schedule. Please consider. Thank you.

  44. Dear Mr. Garfield,

    We just received a letter from Wells Fargo notifying us that it will foreclose our home.

    We are victims of Wells Fargo Bank’s predatory lending practices. Here is what happened. Please help us and let us know how can we protect ourselves from forclosure?

    1. We purchased a property in Reno, NV in August, 2005 for 718,000. We put 20% down payment and applied a mortgage loan 560,000 from Wells Fargo Bank. Wells Fargo Bank contracted with Rels Evaluation to appraise our property. The appraisal value came in as the purchase price 718,000.

    2, In June, 2006, we found out that Wells Fargo’s original appraisal report done on our property was fraudulent, and contacted Wells Fargo Bank right away. Wells Fargo Bank promised to investigate by ordering a review appraisal and informed us that if the original appraisal was proven fraudulent, Wells Fargo Bank will help us to rescind the contract and recover our losses.

    3. In July, 2006, we filled a complaint against the appraiser T.J. M with the appraiser association and the Attorney General office in Nevada.

    4. In August, 2006, Wells Fargo Bank got its review appraisal report and initiated its cover up and refused to carry out its promise. And further refused to have any conversation with us and challenged us to report them to OCC or file a lawsuit. Wells Fargo did not even send us a copy of the appraisal review that it promised us. Later with the help of Senator Feinstein’s office, we found that Wells Fargo’s appraisal review was 475,000 or 235,000 less than our purchased appraised value of 718,000.

    5. In August, 2006, we contacted OCC and filed a complaint. OCC promised to investigate and regulate Wells Fargo if proven Wells Fargo was conducting predatory lending practices. However after OCC obtained both of Wells Fargo’s original and review appraisals, and it informed us that based on the two Wells Fargo’s appraisals, the value difference between the original and review appraisal didn’t make any difference and should not cause any financial damage to us. Furthermore, OCC refused to send us a copy of the appraisal review and stated that it lacked authority to regulate Wells Fargo Bank, which left us with no alternative but to file a lawsuit.

    6. In November 2006, we contacted Wells Fargo Bank senior management who told us that there was no value difference between its original and review appraisal. Wells Fargo Bank would not help us. If we were not satisfied with its response, we had to file a lawsuit against the bank.

    7. In March 2007, after the clear indication and indifference from Wells Fargo and OCC, we had no choice but to file the lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, Rels Valuation and appraiser T.J. M for our financial damages caused by its fraudulent appraisal.

    8. In July, 2008, Attorney General’s office suspended T.J. M’s appraiser license due to its fraudulent appraisal done on our property.

    9. After we obtained Nevada Attorney General’s judgment, we forwarded it to OCC right away, this time, instead of telling us that there were no value difference between the original and review appraisal, OCC came up with a new excuse NOT to regulate Wells Fargo Bank’s predatory lending practices. OCC told us that our case was now in litigation, and that it was not be able to make any comments.

    10. In March, 2009, with the overwhelming evidences, to our shocking surprise the Reno superior court judge awarded not only Wells Fargo Bank summary judgment despite of its predatory lending practices, but also awarded the summary judgment to a convicted real estate appraiser T.J. On top of it, the judge also allowed Wells Fargo Bank, Rels Valuation and convicted appraiser T.J. to seek their attorney fees against us. Who are the true victims? Where is justice? Where are the watch dogs for the security of the American general public? It’s obvious that OCC and Reno superior court judge are not exercising their duty entrusted by the American general public.

    11. The house next door to ours is larger than ours and has one more bedroom, one more bath and 2,094 square feet is in contract for 330,000. Another house on our street of 2,553 square feet is also in contract for 320,000. Our home is 1,879 square feet, 3 bedroom and 2 baths.

    During our four year ordeal, we have been constantly pushed away from our “regulatory agencies” claiming that there was nothing that they can do to regulate Wells Fargo Bank and Rels Evaluation. At our second settlement conference, we were told by the sitting judge that “you can talk to your senators and congressman as much as you want, I can assure you that nothing will be done for you. You are better off to accept 10,000 that Wells Fargo Bank is willling to give you and put everything behind you, move on with your life.” We were in shock. How can the sitting in judge and Wells Fargo Bank so sure about our Congress will OK its predatory lending practices.

    Please help.

  45. I would like some advise on what I should do. I filed a complaint against my lender and broker Pro-Per back in October 2007. The basis of my complaint is that my loan documents were forged and was the victim of predatory lending. I filed Pro-Per because I was unable to afford a lawyer. I have been able to survive two different Demurs and Motions to Strike and Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and have a trial date in March 2010. Over the past two years I was always careful to follow the court’s procedures and comply with all deadlines. In May 2009, I hired a lawyer that read my story that I posted on this website. When I met with her, she was confident that she could help me and was very convincing. I felt she had the same passion that I did to fight against predatory lenders and win my case. I informed her up-front that I did not have much money. I paid her a retainer and she said I could work on her home and also file court papers as she needed me. At the time that I hired her, I was about to attend a deposition by defendant. She attended the depo with me, but she stated that she was unaware of the details of my case, so she was not objecting to anything, so I left the deposition feeling that it did not go well. When I first met with her, I informed her that I needed her to send out discovery and set up depos, She stated that she wanted to Amend the Complaint to add additional defendants and Causes of Actions. None of this has been done as of today. Seven days after I paid her the money, she was threatening to withdraw from my case because she said that I was not complying with her requests for my documents, which was not true. I gave her all the documents that I had. She also said that she was unable to get in touch with me, which was also not true because I had been to her house numerous times to do work. Defendants served a Request for Production of 22 different documents, and the day before they were due, she called and informed us that she was not able to prepare the documents and that we needed to do retrieve the files from her home, which is at least 25 minutes from where we live, put the documents in order and make copies and bring them back to her. She was very verbally abusive toward us and after a confrontation occurred between my girlfriend and her she informed me that I was not to discuss my case with her or she would resign. This made it very hard for me because my girlfriend has helped me from the beginning. She never should have had us doing her job to begin with. We are not attorneys’ and that is why I hired her. She became very negative and said that I was going to lose my case and the judge was going to dismiss it.
    After her first CMC (which she filed the statement late), the judge required a status letter to be filed by a certain date with she did not do. Over the next several months, I was at her home at least every other weekend and during the week, filing documents, all over the bay area, never missing any of her deadlines for her other clients, always available when she needed me. I had requested more than once that we discuss the details of my case and our strategy’s and she refused stating that there was no time for that and she was not going to waste time listening to me. As the next court date approached, she did not file a timely CMC statement or a status letter. I sent her a lenghly e-mail with my concerns that she was not properly representing me and did not treat me with respect. After several attempts to contact her, she finally telephoned me and informed me that she wanted to withdraw from my case, and that I needed to sign a Substitution of Attorney and that the judge would most likely be dismissing my case and trying to intimidate me by saying that I was going to lose my home. I refused to sign anything and told her that I would see her in court. This was the third time she had threatened to withdraw and it had only been three months since I hired her. By the day we appeared in court, she had not filed a substitution of attorney or had she filed the CMC statement. She arrived late to court and immediately informed the judge that she would be resigning. The judge wanted us to try to work it out. As soon as I requested to speak, my attorney said that she would be willing to step outside and talk to me. We worked out our differences and informed the court that she no longer was resigning and the judge assigned my case to mediation. Again my attorney stated that she wanted to amend the complaint to add additional defendants. The judge said that she should do this immediately. The judge ordered that we choose a mediator and inform the court within 30 days and set a Compliance hearing. My attorney again did not comply with this request even though I worked for her again and sent her a reminder email to notify the court. She not only didn’t send a status letter, she also failed to appear at the compliance hearing and now is subject to sanctions. The judge has ordered both attorneys to appear to show cause why she should not sanction them further or dismissal of the actions/striking of the pleadings pursuant to CCP 177.5 and 575.2.
    This is where I stand now. I sent her an e-mail asking her why she had not complied with the court and that I was very concerned because she had not done anything she said she was going to do. I also asked her what the judge meant by that. She said that she had chosen a mediator and did not know why the court did not receive any documents from the mediator. It is not the mediator’s responsibility to notify the court. It was hers. She then informed me verbally of the mediation date. The OSC hearing is set for 11/05/09 and she is to file a declaration by 10/29/09. She has not filed anything in my case since June 8, 2009 which was one week after she was retained. She has not provided me with the legal representation that I am entitled to, nor has she conducted any discovery or responded to any of my requests. I don’t know what my legal rights are. What happens to my case, if she continues to be noncompliant. Would the judge actually dismiss, and if so, what is my recourse?
    I have worked so hard fighting lenders, brokers, and their attorneys. I have gone to the Department of Real Estate, Department of Corporations, District Attorney’s office, Department of Justice, and even appeared on Channel 7 on your side with my story. I have stopped the illegal sale of my home five times, with the last time on the court steps at 12:05 p.m. on the day of the sale. I have never given up and am still in my home and intend to remain here for a long time.
    I believe in what I am fighting for and intend to try to help innocent homeowners who are victims of Predatory Lending Practices and against crooked lawyers who are misleading and taking their monies.
    This is why I am asking you for your advise as to what I should do. I am posting this on your site because this is where she found me and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else.
    I want you especially to become aware that this is happening on your website. I was told that I should not make a complaint with the State Bar while she was still representing me. I do not have money to hire a different lawyer, but can I proceed with a lawyer that I do not trust.

    Neil, thank you for taking the time to read my story. I anxiously await your reply and the comments and advise of your readers.

  46. Angela!

    Gosh, your Plaintiff’s lack of response is working so well in your favor!

    If you are amenable, I would be so grateful to see the paperwork you have filed in your case.

    Please email me if you are willing to share them.

    GOOD LUCK and please continue to keep us informed as to your case & it’s progress!

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove all spaces to email)

  47. Hi Lisa, The appellete court ordered the appellee to answer my initial brief within 10 days or face sanction Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. That response date expired on 9/10/2009, and to date (9/16/09) there is no answer docketted in the appellete court! It appears that the court will now have to hand down an order, and also to sanction the bank’s attorneys.

  48. Angela Dennis,

    Any updates on your case? I’m interested in hearing how you filed an appeal.

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

  49. In Florida, a judge handed down default judgement in a foreclosure case and I (pro se litigant) filed motion to dismiss void judgment and the judge denied. Then I filed a notice of appeal on March 4, 2009, and the judge recused himself on March 5th. They also cancelled the sale date. I filed appeal brief on June 26, 2009, and the appelle had 20 days to respond. To date, 3 weeks later, an answer has not been filed in the appellate court. The appellate court has not yet handed down an order. However, the bank’s attorney on July 24 filed a motion to reset the sale date in the lower court. Can the lower court allow them to reset the saledate while the appellate court case is still pending?


  50. Did I hear it correctly that you are updating or writing a new book? if so when will it be available.
    Is it a new book or are you updating the training workbooks? I want to buy the Attorneys workbook but want to get the most recent version. Please advise asap.

  51. NEIL,




  52. How much is your Forensic Audit? Where can I find your forms to get it started?

  53. I am so impressed with your site! I am booking it and will be forwarding to many. We are a small group helping people do pro se foreclosure process. The attorney list who get it is nice but they seem to be very busy. Anyone wanting to work with us can contact admin@charleslincoln.spiritualpatriot.com thanks for all you do!

  54. I am plannning to attend the workshop this month, and I would like to bring my assistant. Is there a fee for her to sit in and not participate?

  55. Dear Client’s;

    In a Bank structured TRUST, for example (REIT) pay particular attention to the TRS. A Taxable REIT Subsidiary [TRS] is the management. The REIT is owned by the bank shareholders and TRS is usually owned 80% by the REIT and 20% by the management acting as the advisor.

    This is a huge angle for a number of reasons including sheltering 10% retained earnings from tax liability. This also comes into play with what the TRS will call the 5% investment into the REIT’s assets. If the REIT is a bank it lends support for the argument the bank is not in fact selling the assets it originates. Its merely leveraging the assets it originates. .

    Therein the Trust becomes vulnerable to receivership under FAS 140-3 and FIRREA not withstanding for other regulatory issues [SARBOX].


  56. ABBEY -I have filed a Fraud/Tila case in the Calif. Superior Court. One of my defendants is New Century Mortgage



  57. Can i still file QWR to ASC lender even my chapter 7 bankruptcy will be over in less than 2 months.

  58. please email me at ngarfield@msn.com. I need help doing what you are suggesting

  59. please make a link or playback number available for later listening. It is fairly easy to do and not everyone can make the call. Thank you so much

  60. Is there any way to post a link for the recording of the Podcast in case we missed it?

  61. I was on your conference call last night and also had my Ch. 7 BK filed just yesterday afternoon. I sent my BK attorney no fewer than three emails during this process outlining how the mortgage servicers should be listed as unsecured and we must list John Does as holders of MBSs, etc. She pretty much ignored the whole argument, and listed the mortgage servicers as secured but disputed. Regarding the John Does, she said “I don’t use this convention”. She did list on one of the schedules that I had potential causes of action against the servicers. Despite my hesitation, I deferred to her advice and allowed her to file the schedules this way. After listening to your conference call, you guys specifically stated how listing the servicers as secured is incorrect in these cases. I sent her an email last night asking to amend the schedules. She responded that she will not amend and that she suggests I find a new attorney, but of course she’s keeping our $1750 fee. She is saying that we’re attempting to use the BK process to “unseat our mortgages”.

    I’m not sure what to do now. What are the possible consequences if we don’t amend the schedules to show the servicer as unsecured?

    I certainly can’t afford to hire a new attorney, but I’m willing to go forward from here pro se. Any suggestions strongly appreciated…

  62. I have filed a Fraud/Tila case in the Calif. Superior Court. One of my defendants is New Century Mortgage, the pretender lender, however they are in Chpt 11 BKR in Delaware. They are hiding behind their Chpt 11 BKR and not really participating. Is there a way for me to compel them to answer interrogatories and produce documents? Do I go to Judge Carey who is in charge of the Chpt 11 BKR or do I go to my judge in Calif. Superior Court?

  63. Neil
    is there a url for the upcoming 6-11 -09 7pm edt podcast?
    is phoning in @ the 712-432-1630 # the only way to listen in?
    i’m feeling kinda stupid right now not finding this info anywhere on the livinglies site, so please forgive the question if the answer is totally apparent!
    tia.; ]

  64. Sorry to hear of your troubles. I don’t think Tim is actually licensed to represent you. You need a lawyer who can appear in Court for you. Check out our list of Lawyers Who Get It. You are on the right side of this. Keep fighting!

  65. Niel;

    I am sure that you have tens of thousands of home owners seeking your wisdom . . . i am just one more on your list. My attorney is Tim McCandless. We lost an Unlawful Detainer on my rental house which I was renting rooms within the house and NOT the house in its entirety. We could only take out my furniture and personal belongings as the tennants moved out. Bottom line is that a warrant for my arrest was issued and I spent 12 horrific hours in county jail. The charge is Burglary and vandalism. I am 75 years old and have NEVER broken the law, not even a traffioc ticket. I had to make bail $2,500 and obtain one of the best attorneys in San Diego to represent me. That cost me another $7,500 (if we do not go to court). My savings is gone and all I have is a megar Social Security check once a month, plus what my wife brings in.

    To make things worse, I was with the impression that SAXON Bank who sold the house we live in to Bank Of New York Mellen, was negotiating with me to keep us in the house by modifying the interest rate, giving me my house at market value and lowering my mortgage payments. I was advised last Friday that the bank has given insgtructions to their attorney to begin eviction proceedings. The life of my wife and I are in “Free Fall”. I don’t know what to do anymore. I have sent 4 e-mails to im McCandless and he has not answered even one of them.

    It seems that my life is over, for I don’t know what to do anymore. I don’t know if you can help me. If something doesn’t turn in my favor soon, I am afraid that I will go over the deep end with all the stress.

    Thank you for listening to a not too old man.

    Donn Hart
    619-890-6783 (cell)

  66. 2 important cases will be heard in San Francisco Superior Court this coming Monday, June 8th, 2009 at 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. , please attend!

    here are the dockets:



    similar case with Gateway bank CUD09629261


    Dear Mr. Timothy McCandless:

    Thank you! Thank you!, Thank you! so much for standing up to the Pittsburg Superior Court in the Contra Costa County. The homeowners you represented last Friday, were amazed and impressed on how you stood up and fearlessly faught for their rights.

    This court has been ordering evictions like traffic tickets and treating homeowners as if we are the criminals.

    Again, Thank You Mr. McCandless
    From Contra Costa County, CA

  68. WOW!!!

    That’s the word that lodged in my throat following last Monday May 18th’s Attorneys Workshop in Orlando.

    Neil, ever spry and Lincolnesque (all he needed is a period top hat), looked 10 years younger, and Brad brought humor and banking know-how to the event. Why any bank would call itself Fifth of Third was itself humorous.

    It was good to meet in person the alumni and other luminaries (Gator Bradshaw, Carol Asbury, F. Scott Fistel, Tim McCandless, Dawn Rapaport, et al.) that make such great contributions to the foreclosure defense movement and to these pages.

    Enjoyed meeting Lawrence “Bucky” Klepetko, Jon B. Lindeman, Jr., Glenn F. Russell, Jr., Steven Bernstein, Chris Starkey, Rick Mortimer, Mo Toledo, Fernando Lopes.

    As one of several Pro Se litigants attending, I got a rare chance to address the learned gathering as a “prop” and present for best practices review my late mother’s Miami foreclosure case. US Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of SASCO 2005 RF(Reperfoming VA and FHA Loans) 5 is the plaintiff in my case. Their Florida Default Law Group’s name came up often.

    Last week I discovered why I could find NO records of SASCO 2005 RF 5 at the SEC. SASCO 2005 RF 5 is part of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. So, why is US Bank National Association acting as a Trustee for SASCO 2005 RF 5 suing to foreclose on a property whose note may have been (properly or improperly) assigned to now bankrupt SASCO 2005 RF 5?


  69. Okay Mr Garfield/Mr Keiser
    Now that the Seminar is over in Orlando, Florida, when
    are you coming to Suffolk County, Long Island, New York??

  70. this message was for nei garfield to call me

  71. can you please call me 773- 269-9233

  72. Adding Insult to Injury – Homeowners Told to Walk Away From Loan Modifications
    Why Banks Are Better at Making Loans Than Modifying Them
    By Mandelman – Last updated: Thursday, March 26, 2009 – Save & Share – Leave a Comment

    According to just about everyone on television and in print these days, should a homeowner get the crazy idea that they might be able to avoid losing their home to foreclosure through a loan modification, the thing they should do is call their bank and, I would assume, ask for one. I say that I would assume because no one on television or in print has offered anything more detailed in the way of instruction than to say: Call your bank.

    Being that I had some extra time this morning, I thought… what the heck… the guy on 20/20 said it would work so he must know, right? So, I decided to call my own bank… First Nationalized Bank.

    Ring… ring… ring… Thank you for calling First Nationalized Bank. If you know the extension of the person you are calling you may enter it now. For the company directory, press 9. (Silence…)

    If you are calling about a checking or savings account, press 1. For credit cards, press 2. Auto loans… 3. Other options… press 4. (I pressed 4.)

    (Ring… ring… ring….) You have reached First Nationalized Bank. For questions about home mortgages press 5… for questions about… (I pressed 5.)

    You have reached First Nationalized Bank. If you know the extension of the person you’re trying to reach, you may enter it now. (Silence…) To return to the main menu, press 7. To hear a duck quack, press 8. (Silence…) To speak with an operator, press 0. (I pressed 0.)

    Ring… ring… ring… No one is available to take your call… But we value your business… If you’d like to leave a message press… (Click)

    I figured maybe it wasn’t a good time, and decided to try back a little later. Mornings are probably busy times for banks. No reason to make any snap judgments based on just that one attempt.

    Plus, I’m of a mind to give the banks a break. They’ve had a very tough year. Giving out all those bonuses is time consuming. It’s not like their direct deposits you know? And that’s to say nothing of the envelopes. Who’s going to lick all those envelopes, huh? And the TARP money? Hey, you think all those billions just store themselves? No sir, someone has to store all that money away somewhere.

    Then, when you add in all the time it takes to get the sub-prime borrowers evicted and onto the streets where they belong… all that crying and sobbing… please Mr. Banker… please… we’ll pay soon… please… it gives me a headache just thinking about it. I mean, if I just picked up a bonus check for a mil… I’m sure I want to go deal with some dead beat who couldn’t even handle it when his mortgage payment doubled over a couple of months… like deal with it people… I’m booked on the 7:05 to Maui and I don’t have time for your whining… like I said… I’m quite sure it’s been hectic.

    The only saving grace has been that at least the banks didn’t have to do all that, and worry about serving the needs of actual customers.

    I remember Citibank laid off like… I don’t know… what was it, like two million people? And I heard that David Rosenberg, who used to be the Chief Economist at Merrill Lynch, is now working as a teller at B of A. So, there’ve been some very significant changes at most banks for sure. Heck, Citi even had to cancel the purchase of one of its Lear Jets that had been on order. See how dangerous all that populism crap is? You let that stuff get out of control and next thing you know bankers are going to start forcing executives to drive the Mercedes instead of the Bentley. It’s dangerous. It’s socialism. And it’s a slippery slope.

    So… let’s give First Nationalized Bank a break on that first call and talk about something else. We’ll try them back in half an hour, how’s that?

    You may remember this past year there was a study released that showed that loan modifications were re-defaulting at the rate of like 60% within the first year after being modified. It sort of came across like proof that sub-prime borrowers shouldn’t have been allowed to buy their homes in the first place, because apparently even if you modified their loans, they still couldn’t make their payments. Ah ha! I knew it! Dead beats, one and all.

    I saw the study. It was actually two studies. One done by Credit Suisse and the other by the Swiss banking giant, UBS. (U… BS. I love that name.)

    The total number of mortgages in both studies, as I remember it, was right around 1400. And roughly 40% – 60% of the loans defaulted in six months depending on the exact circumstances, but the point was the same either way. A lot of modified loans defaulted, or rather re-defaulted… that was the point.

    I immediately wanted to figure out why that would be the case. Why, you ask? I’m not sure… it just seemed like an awfully high percentage in an awfully short period of time. I mean, even hard core dead beats make it more than six months, right? A year, maybe?

    So, I dove in to the data, trying to see if there were any reoccurring themes that would lead me to that “Ah ha!” moment for which I was hoping. I tried to see if there were any patterns as far as the borrowers were concerned… but nothing popped out. I tried to see if the numbers presented a path to follow… again nothing looked indicative of anything special. I even tried to find out the average credit scores or whether there was a geographical consistency, like maybe a whole bunch of the borrowers lived in Michigan. Nope, nothing.

    So, feeling a little bit lost, I called a friend of mine who used to be a big time corporate treasurer at a Fortune 100 company. He’s smart as a whip, and I wanted to see if he had any ideas. He didn’t. But he did offer to refer me to a senior executive at PIMCO, which to me sounded like the transmission place Aamco, but without the horn honking at the end. The CEO’s name is Bill Gross, and he’s a zillionaire.

    PIMCO is like the world’s largest bond holder, or something like that. I never even bothered to look them up. I just called the woman my friend recommended and said hello.

    My friend was right… she was double sharp and knew everything about the whole mortgage mess. When I mentioned the bond ratings agencies she immediately got hot under the collar. She almost raised her voice saying “They should be in jail.”

    “Really,” I said. “How so?” And she went on to explain the intricacies of the bond market as it related to securitization and derivatives. She laughed towards the end of her rant, which woke me up and luckily she wasn’t asking a question so I was free to get back at my original topic of interest: loan modifications.

    She had no idea why borrowers would default in such high numbers and so quickly. She did however express surprise that the investors had let Credit Suisse or UBS modify their loans, and she told me that PIMCO wouldn’t let one of their servicers do that.

    I asked why, a little hesitantly now, and she explained…

    “The banks don’t own the loans,” she explained. “Investors like PIMCO do, and why would an investor allow a servicer to cut into their profitability, just because someone wasn’t making the payments on their mortgage?” Foreclose, was her answer. I mentioned that the costs of foreclosure in this market were rather high, but she wasn’t having any of it. Foreclose, and that’s that. Well alrighty then… interesting.

    Then I suggested that a cost comparison could be done using a present value calculation as compared with the costs of foreclosure and her attitude changed. “Oh, well… that would be different, I suppose,” she was clearly softening at the mere mention of a “present value calculation,” bond people are so easy. “If someone showed us a present value calculation as compared with a foreclosure costs and the data was solid, I suppose we’d have to take a look at it.” Bingo.

    Maybe this would be a good time to try Downey again. What do you think? No? Okay, let’s give them a few more minutes, then we’ll call back. I’m sure we’ll get someone. Anderson Cooper said so.

    I thanked my new present value oriented friend and hung up. Next I would need to find a homeowner whose loan had been modified directly by the bank as a result of their request. This wasn’t easy. Lots of refinancing, but no modifications. Finally, I found an older gentleman who said that he asked his bank about modifying his mortgage and they did.

    “Perfect,” I said to him on the phone. “How’s tomorrow?”

    The next day I found myself driving out to Palm Springs. It was crisp and sunny… a beautiful day and I was anxious to see how he had done it and why he had chosen to do so. I spent the entire afternoon with the old guy; we drank a couple of martinis and drove around a golf course in his private cart. It was fun and I genuinely liked him. He told me how it went, and answered all of my questions. I started to think that maybe the banks weren’t so bad after all.

    As I was leaving, I stopped by a glass case by the hallway leading to the home’s main door. There was a plaque that read “Employee of the Year… Bank of America… 1965.” Uh oh. “Were you with Bank of America before you retired” I called out to him. “Yes,” he replied, “44 years,” he said with great pride. So, I guess when you called B of A for your loan modification, you knew exactly who to call, right? And they took your call because they saw it was you, right?”

    “Oh absolutely,” he said. I was the Senior Vice President of Consumer Loans and Mortgages for 21 years… when I retired, there were more than 1,000 people at my party. They held it at our loan-processing center in Pasadena. Want to see some pictures?”

    “Maybe next time,” I said. It was getting late… so, I said my goodbyes and got back on the road toward home, kicking myself that I hadn’t thought to ask about that before driving for two hours to interview Mr. Bank of America. Oh well… people are losing their homes to foreclosure, who am I to complain about a little extra driving.

    Alright, so let’s give old First Nationalize… one more, another try….

    Ring… ring… ring… Thank you for calling First Nationalized Bank. If you know the extension of the person you are calling you may enter it now. For the company directory, press 9. (Silence…)

    If you are calling about a checking or savings account, press 1. For credit cards, press 2. All other callers, press 3.

    I pressed 3. (Ring… ring… ring….) You have reached First Nationalized Bank. For questions about loans press 5… for questions (I pressed 5)

    You have reached First Nationalized Bank. If you know the extension of the person you’re trying to reach, you may enter it now. (Silence…) To return to the main menu, press 1. (Silence…) To speak with an operator, press 0. (I pressed 0)

    Ring… ring… ring… No one is available to take your call… If you’d like to leave a message press… (click)

    Okay, don’t get impatient; we’ve got a lot more to cover anyway. Besides it’s getting close to lunchtime, maybe that’s the problem… they probably don’t answer as many calls around lunchtime.

    So, getting back to my analysis of the disappointing loan modification data… through several interviews with borrowers and a few with bankers, I was able to ascertain what I referred to as my “7 Points of Blight” behind the high re-default percentages. It wasn’t the borrowers that caused the high numbers of re-defaults, it was the nature of the transactions. Banks simply were not handling loan modifications effectively, and none of the reasons for this should be the least bit difficult to understand.

    Banks Negotiating Directly With Borrowers: 7 Points of Blight

    1. Banks have a hard time getting in touch with distressed borrowers. As in: “Honey, it’s the bank.” “Tell them I’m not here.” Or mail that goes unopened. It’s just not that easy for a bank to get in touch with someone who is four months or more behind on their mortgage payments. And in many instances, by the time the bank did reach the borrower, it was often too late to stop the foreclosure process.

    2. Banks and loan servicers today are anything but overstaffed, as one might imagine. They certainly haven’t upsized this past year, right? So, as an industry, they simply don’t have the additional staff sitting around trained to handle loan modifications.

    3. Banks and servicers are set up to process tens or hundreds of thousands of mortgage statements and handle routine foreclosures and collections… all processes made possible by systems, more so than people. Loan modifications, however, are like a hand made car. One at a time… working with the borrower… putting the package together for submission to the lender… as a process it bears little resemblance to routine mortgage processing.

    4. Perhaps most importantly, I was able to determine that the negotiation between a bank and a borrower at risk of losing their home is not a negotiation at all. It’s more like having a gun to your head. Being at risk of losing a home is nothing if not frightening. Distressed homeowners who received an offer from their bank that allowed them to stay in their homes, too often, jumped at it… and understandably so. After all, I realized, if I was going to lose my home to foreclosure, I suppose six months from now beats the heck out of next week, right?

    5. Systems were lacking, as well. Banks and servicers had robust systems to handle the processing of payments, normal collections and even foreclosures, but loan modifications were another animal altogether. And few in the industry were prepared to invest in a system enhancement that would likely only be used for a couple of years. If you were a mortgage lender or loan servicer, would you invest in systems and people to handle loan modifications, when you saw that such modifications will only be a factor for a limited number of years? Exactly.

    6.Investors are reticent to give banks and loan servicers the authority to write down their assets. No standardized guidelines exist, and investors need criteria upon which such decisions are to be made. Otherwise, it seems safer to foreclose.’’

    7. Compensation was another issue. Banks servicing mortgages are being paid to do so, but they weren’t being paid to handle loan modifications, and investors that we spoke with all indicated that in their opinion, mortgage servicers were over paid when times were good in order to cover times that were not. In other words, the investors weren’t all that hot on the idea of paying the banks anything extra to modify loans in order to avoid foreclosure.

    When I finished my analysis of why so many borrowers were re-defaulting six months after their loans were modified by their lender or mortgage servicer, I went around testing my theories with everyone who would listen. And guess what? Everyone agreed, most said something equivalent to “Duh… like, of course.”

    Meanwhile, the stories about modified loans re-defaulting were showing up everywhere. In fact, it was becoming an urban legend, for a while anyway. I’d show up at a meeting, the sub-prime crisis would come up and within a minute, someone would bring up the Credit Suisse or UBS data. Most of the time the person bringing it up didn’t even know from where the stats came. All they knew was that modified loans were re-defaulting 60% of the time after just six months. And that made homeowners at fault. How could they not be… if 60% of them couldn’t even make it six months after modification, although not much of a modification, if you ask me.

    I went ahead and called First Nationalized Bank again, just in case the phone had cleared up, obviously they must be having some kind of problem over there. It can’t be the norm, can it? I also stopped in at a bank to see if they could answer a few questions about President Obama’s plan to rescue the housing market.

    They said they didn’t know anything. Just that the paperwork hadn’t been sent out to banks as yet. One of the guys asked me a few questions and I fielded them all. I gave them the government phone number from the Treasury Website, and I told them this:

    “Whatever you do, don’t hang up… no matter how many times it rings, stay on hold… or they put you all the way back at the end of the line… so even if it takes an hour… just wait there… they’ll come…”

    Then I got into my car and laughed my buttons off my shirt…

    Alright, here’s the bottom-line.

  73. In regards to the teleseminar service there should already a playback number that was given to you when you scheduled the call.

  74. Hi,

    how can I get your pod casts?

  75. raja , please email me

  76. George,

    They are working on it. Your best bet would be to go to Google and search. Type in “LivingLies” in quotes and then what you are looking for.

    Dan Edstrom

  77. There seem to be numerous groupings of viewers’ questions all over this site, I have gone back and forth trying to revisit letters which I have read and can’t locate them. Can anything be done about this since time is of the essence and efficiency saves time.

  78. Neil,

    Have you posted links to any of the podcasts

    Thank You

  79. Thank you sir,Be Safe

  80. Raja: It’s not just a matter of accounting although in individual cases, going over ledgers and showing the full story that tracks the flow of funds would be a good idea. The lethal bullet is due process. The issue is jurisdiction and standing. These are interlopers stealing property in which they have no interest.

  81. Neil, please get this verified from some good CPA or accounting firms and the re frame it adding some more lethal bullets to kill these scummy and Zomby lenders for ever .

    Thanks and Be Safe

  82. Your name & address

    To 1. Board Of Governors of Federal Reserve System
    Division of Consumer & Community Affairs
    20th & C Street NW
    Washington DC 20551
    2. Office Of Thrift Supervision
    1700 G. Street ,NW Washington DC 20552
    3. Federal trade Commission
    Consumer Response Center
    6th&PennsylvaniaAvenueNW Washington DC 20580
    4. FDIC
    Consumer Response Center 2345 Grand Blvd
    Suit # 100 Kansas City MO 64108

    Subject XYZ Bank Mortgage Loan No.xxxxxxxxx

    Dear Sirs,
    1. We signed the promissory note under UCC Article 3 and after securitization it comes under Article 8.XYZ failed to record a debt to us on their liability ledger.
    We are writing regarding, XYZ being the alleged creditor in the amount of $ (amount on note)____________. XYZ has waived their status as a creditor when they accepted our tender of payment(note) under UCC §§3-409(a)&(b) and UCC §3-604(a). XYZ did not adjust their accounting ledger to reflect settlement and closure of the accounts receivable side of the accounting ledger. All XYZ has done is keep the ledgers separate. The receivables book has not been ledgered. That is why the collection agent says they have not given us credit and we still owe the money. We need to bring the knowledge of that forward to a data integrity board hearing. “We don’t disagree with anything that this Collection agent is saying, however, if you would go over to the corporate liability off balance sheet ledgers, you would find that there has been a set off deposited there and if you could see both sets of books, you would see there is a set off, which is a claim under civil rule 13, which we are timely invoking and we are asking you to look at both sets of books and do the offset balance and do the settlement and closure in this matter. Please Let XYZ know that, one, we did not get the note back, so they are a holder, so they are liable on it. Two, this was meant as a setoff on the corporate liability books because XYZ kept our note. XYZ should have given cash receipt for the note. The collection agent in receivables is only looking at the corporate asset ledger.

    2. We have an asset that the XYZ is holding of our’s that they failed to give us credit for. Where they made their mistake, is that they are likely carrying our asset on a liability ledger of balance from their accounts receivable. What we are asking you to do, as a data integrity board is to investigate to determine which one of us has the most sustainable evidence.

    3. Please go back to the XYZ accounting ledgers and ask to see the off balance sheet liabilities ledger to check out the claim. ( discovery under civil rule 11.) Please delegate some one to find out who is responsible for the accounts payable ledger and what did XYZ do with the cash receipt for his deposit. We want to see their 1099-OID, statement 95 cash flow statement and balance sheet. The note was an asset to us and a liability to the XYZ, and XYZ did not account for it. So, like the Mafia, XYZ has a second set of books that are not available to the public. They only use the public books when they make a claim against us to determine how much we know about our claims available on the other side of the accounting. Under FAS 140, we get our setoff. When we make a deposit, it is a cash receipt, cash proceed. Everything becomes a cash proceed in commercial law under Article 9. XYZ show it as cash proceed. XYZ gave us a credit to our account that is actually a cash receipt to us the customer or the borrower.

    4. XYZ took the proceeds from the promissory note and pay off the warehouse lender. So the debt on the real estate is extinguished from the books. XYZ is required to file an FR 2046, Under 12 USC 248 and 347 .(required on a quarterly or weekly basis.) XYZ filed these balance sheets with the Federal Reserve Board. The balance sheet shows the assets and liabilities that they use in the accounting. The liabilities would be our promissory note. It is a liability because it is an asset to us. The balance sheet, a 2046, 2049, and 2099, have OMB numbers on them that are subject to disclosure under the privacy act, Title 5 USC 552(b)(4). XYZ has to give it to us.

    5. When we have given a promissory note to XYZ, XYZ is required to give us a cash receipt. XYZ owes us that money under a recoupment or asset. They call it an offset in accounting, but in the UCC it is called a recoupment. Unless we do ask or do a defense in recoupment under UCC 3-305, and a claim under 3-306, we have a possessory and property claim against the cash proceeds under the liability side of the ledger. UCC 3-306, there cannot be a holder in due course on a promissory note after they deposit it. They do an off balance sheet entry. This means they take our note after they sell it, instead of showing it on their balance sheet, they move it over to some other entities balance sheet. This is called off balance sheet bookkeeping. They are not showing the liability side of the ledger or the accounts payable because it has been moved over to someone else’s balance sheet.

    6. XYZ is not applying the correct accounting entries under GAAP. XYZ is treating the account as a trade receivable through securitization as an off balance sheet financing technique. Since XYZ has accepted the instrument that we have tendered, we have a claim or possession right in the instrument and its proceeds under 3-306 of the UCC. Any defense and any claim in recoupment under section 3-305 of the UCC, which we shall exercise at our option, if XYZ does not credit my account. The 1099-OID will identify who the principal is from, which capital and interest were taken, and who the recipient or who the payer of the funds are, and who is holding the account in escrow and unadjusted.

    7. Since we are reasonably sure that we can come to a peaceful resolution of this matter, as XYZ does not understand commercial banking law, and the IASB, the FASB and GAAP principles as they apply to commercial banking. (Banks are mandated by Title 12 USC to follow GAAP and GAAS) Since we are solution oriented, and want to show good faith, there are two ways of resolving this matter. Since XYZ has already accepted our tender of payment and has not returned it, you can instruct XYZto credit our account for the sum said in full for settlement and closure. Or, instruct XYZ to return the original instrument to us, unendorsed, and we will make an alternative form of payment. Otherwise, we will consider this matter settled and closed.

    Note for Mr. Neil.1.The note is not under negotiable instrument any more,it is a security.2.We are creditor on the liability side and bank/lender is debtor on the liability side 3.Bank/lender is creditor on receivable or their asset side that is receivable 4. We can use our accounts payable side as an offset or counter claim to financial asset side that is receivable.

    8. Thanking you in anticipation.


    Your Name ___________________ Dated ______________

    Co Buyer’s Name_______________________ Dated ______________
    Neil, please go through this and re frame it ,lenders are treating these notes under article 8 because it involves securities and not article 3 paper.under article 8 we are the holders of entitlement and possessory rights to the proceeds of the transaction because we are the originator of first hands transfer on the accounts payable side of the ledger.We are entitled to the funds.UCC 1-204 says we are considered as merchants at law.When the note is deposited by the lender it looks as if we deposited the money in the account.This is cash under Title 12 of USC.

    Please send me the reply on this.

  83. My original lender is no longer in business, but they are still listed as the beneficiary w/MERS as Nominee on the Notice of Sale.
    Who should Q.W.R.’s be sent to … the lender, the servicer, the trustee, MERS?
    Also, I’m assuming that your Q.W.R. has “the proper wording” for reconveyance?

  84. Jeff: We are going to post the podcasts soon on the blog site

  85. SF-Dan: Thank you

  86. Greg: Yes I would have QWR’s notarized and if you have any intermediary working for you there should be a notarized authorization form. 20 days to acknowledge receipt, 60 days to “resolve” the matter. After that it is my opinion you can file a satisfaction of mortgage or release and reconveyance if you have the proper wording in your QWR.

  87. Thank you SO MUCH for making your knowledge available for everyone!

    I have already sent “Notice of Objection” letters to the Trustee. Please outline specifics for sending Q.W.R. letters.

    What is the time frame for sending via certified mail (within 30 days of receiving Notice of Sale)?
    Who should Q.W.R.’s be sent to … the servicer, the trustee, MERS as Nominee, lender even though no longer in business, etc.?
    Should Q.W.R. letters be notorized?
    What should be the “standard” time frame for Lender response – I have seen anywhere from 20 to 60 days?
    Is there a benefit to using your 19 page Q.W.R. template as opposed to a shorter 1-2 page letters that are available online.
    What response should I expect?
    What is the next step if there is no response?
    Thank You,

  88. Mr. Garfield & Staff:

    Congratulations on the excellent teleconference you hosted today! Any interested party should keep an eye out for the archive when it is posted here (very soon), and listen to the content very carefully with a subdued emotional state (drink a beer, or emulate Michael Phelps …). NO ONE IN AMERICA SHOULD MISS THIS!!!!

    Thank you for responding to the question that I forwarded via email in advance of the event, as directed, though I should have forwarded it earlier (hint) to facilitate your preparation.

    For anyone that missed the live event, “I’d like to ask that you discuss a Quiet Title Action: its relevance to property rights; its methodology in application; its elements and standards of proof; its purpose as a procedural tool against adverse claims; its effects in the matrix of the ‘livinglies’ defense strategy.” TO OFFSET THE 45-MINUTE LONG DISTANCE CHARGE TRY A VERY AFFORDABLE SKYPE.com OFFERING @ $0.02 CENTS A MINUTE, or $2.95/month unlimited.

    As you succinctly indicated, a Quiet Title Action is the cornerstone of a vested property right (mortgage principal, or equity for the few) defense/offense, and the judicial prove-up event which slaughters the FRAUDULENT adverse claims of the ‘carpetbagger’ opponent(s) — in this instance the loan servicing entity, or a hired gun, that has neither a legitimate property interest nor any lawful standing to proceed, judicially or otherwise, under the pretense of a foreclosure/unlawful detainer enforcement action. THINK NO LEGAL STANDING — NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCEMENT!

    Moreover, it was great that you made the distinction that the defense to foreclosure is not about financial liability, IT IS ABOUT ‘CARPETBAGGERS’ ATTEMPTING TO FRAUDULENTLY ASSERT THEMSELVES IN THE PLACE OF ‘LAWFUL’ ABSENTEE HOLDERS OF NOTE/TITLE (mortgage-backed security investors).

    Thank you! More to follow….


  89. Neil

    Missed the pod cast. Is there a way to listen to a tape of it.


  90. Good day,

    It is hell and as a Saxon client, with an ARM to kick in , I am ready to fight. I have ready this blog, noting doing points, and visited the living lies blog. Great info and pointers on how to fight.

    If I can sum it up, the whole planitiffs arguement is that they are the owner and that you have not complied with your contract. (I’m not a lawyer) And they have to prove that you failed to comply, which is quiet easy.

    Most people don’t challenge that and hence their high success rate in foreclosing.

    And the best defense, it sounds like you have to challenge their ownership.You can’t do that in court because that is not the suit, “not challenging the case.” It sounds like you have to request proof of ownership “original signed mortgage”, as part of fair trial, where all EVIDENCE is available, i.e “material facts”.

    In Florida, I read about that a case was dismissed, because the lender/ servicer couldn’t provide proof, before or even during the case.

    So, I guess it is really important to FEDEX documents to the lender/ servicer. And the “original owner can only foreclose on your home?.

    Look at you original paper work and see where it has to go. Here is where the RESPA comes into play, because either the Servicer’s Statuary agent (lawyer) or the servicer has to respond. Time is critical, because the lender or the servicer has by law 20 days or 60 days.

    I would FEDEX the Statuary agent, since states require any company (foreign or domestic) to have one disclose for public information.Check your local secretary of state for this.

    Even the MERS is critical component, because it is like someone posted an electronic system that keeps track of the pools of mortgages for the benefit of the trustee’s, which can be anyone with a 401K. I guess the system does not hold promissary notes, and copies are not valid.

    I also read that many banks, destroy promissary notes with in two years. Shit, storage is expensive and attracts rodents.

    Right to Rescind is only viable if the lender or servicer violated the truth in lending act.
    And yes, Saxon is a debt collector and not a lender. They will not refinance you loan.

    Finally, with these postings, I am sure someone can sue them under RICO statues, for Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act. Is there a brave and politically ambitious attorney willing to do it?

    Did Saxon as a lender, conspire to lend subprime loans to people who couldn’t afford them; and eventually, have its Debt collector (Saxon Mortgage Servicer, Inc) cash in on the late and modification fees, after knowingly that it can cash out by selling them to the secondary market?

    Did it prey on people consciously, seeking to modify its loans, to cash in on the fees, and eventually cash in on resale of the foreclosed property?

    Finally, these postings can be used as evidence, if we reveal our full legal name and testify, with contact information like a cell phone and home address. Witnesses, can be a friend .

  91. Hello,
    I was looking over the president’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan announced yesterday. I don’t see any help there for homeowner’s who are already in default. Am I overlooking something? Would you please discuss in your podcast if there will be a way for defaulted homeowners to qualify for loan modifications through this plan? In our case we were able to refi in 2007 but then lost income. Now we are close to finding permanent employment, but it may not be in time;the mortgage servicer wants to foreclose. They have no interest in modification. Will the new plan force them to re-examine our situation, or is it too late?
    Thank you,
    April R

  92. “Oregon Bankrupcty Attorney posting” – Can you please contact me to discuss – as I am in need of assistance with Foreclosure – filed Chapter 13 in Portland OR- and need another attorney to take over. Contact me at tam1012@comcast.net The filing was done incorrect – the attorney doesn’t show up on time, never returns calls and telling me I should just sell and dismiss my case.

  93. Sir Neil,

    I also posted the below the dotted line text to EVENTS COMING UP FOR GARFIELD CONTINUUM AND GARFIELD HANDBOOKS page and noticed this page gets viewed more frequently by you Neil.

    How I got to frequent this site is, searching for self help info on line. I have an investment house that is in foreclosure and appx 2 weeks after I sent the Sub TTEE the Validation-RESPA-TILA letter/inquiry that I got here, thanks Neil, the short sale process seems to mysteriously progressed a lot in a short time. Their 30 days is up and I could use some direction on the next step. At this point I really don’t want the house and want the sale to close and at the same time I don’t want IndyMac to get away with what they seem to have pulled on me.

    I am no stranger to the concept that “loans” in this U.S. financial system are inherently fraudulent and not loans at all. Ref: Modern Money Mechanics book by the Fed Res Bank and other sources, but I have learned a whole lot more on how deep the doodoo really is and other fight back strategies through what you freely post here… thank you Sir Neil. This subject is fascinating to me in an intellectual sense and in the context of what knowledgeable and ethical loan mod practitioners can do with it to affect negotiations alleged lenders loss mitigation employees.

    Thanks for any response.
    Below is what I posted to the other page.

    To Neil and those that work closely with:

    Is there a possibility of putting on a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona for a group of people that I will round up. I thought I saw mention of one coming up here but can’t find it now. These people are already actively involved in mortgage mod negotiation every day. The company principals did not seem to know [maybe they were playing their cards close to their chest] about what I had to tell them which most of which I learned here on LivingLies. They are starting to hire to ramp up their services due to an effective prospecting model and could really do a lot of good. I’m possibly to be working with them and we could do a lot of good with a teacher as knowledgeable as Neil.


  94. Croc Dundee
    Lawyer, Homeowner or just interested reader…

  95. I filed an Answer to Complaint, several days later Plaintiff filed for Summary Judgment. Do I have to respond to the Motion for Summary or will a Hearing be set? This is FL. Thanks.

  96. Thanks Neil,

    Would like to be added to your e-mail list if possible. Thanks.

  97. does anyone have any posts or info on how to defend lost note, if the loan has been sold foru times and the orginal lender is out of business.

  98. Mark: Sue will contact you

  99. Neil,

    I would like to discuss the possibility of having you as a guest on the rule of law radio. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

  100. Will the oregon lawyer please contact me jimnpol@yahoo.com

  101. Podcast call was scheduled for Friday but had to be postphoned due to circumstances beyond our control. Stay tuned for upcoming podcasts and/or webinars

  102. Call in on the telephone on the day of the podcast. The number and access code is at the top of this.

  103. yeah how do you view these podcasts if you don’t have an ipod?

  104. How do I listen to your podcast on 1-23-09 at 7pm est.?

    Thank you

  105. I just came across your website. I am currently representing a debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case (I don’t want to post the case number to everyone) and have an evidentiary hearing on 2/10/09 re a motion for relief from stay by HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2003-OP1 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, successors in interest, agents, assignees and/or assignors and it’s servicing agent, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. We have also objected to their proof of claim and this hearing will also decide whether the Court will disallow their claim. The debtor defenses are the same for each issue:

    “The Register of Deeds shows that Option One is still the holder of the Deed of Trust. Based on debtor’s records, correspondence and/or communications, debtor has no knowledge of any conveyance, assignment or otherwise transfer of the Note or any portion thereof or interest therein. Debtor has no knowledge of any of the entities comprising the Creditor nor of any lawful claim that creditor has to any proceeds of the note. Creditor has not made a prima facie case that the claim is valid.”

    We requested the following:

    “1. Production of the original note setting forth the terms of the obligation.
    2. Production of any and all documents showing a complete chain of title, ownership, transfer or endorsement by Option One of the note or any part thereof resulting in creditor’s right or standing to claim any of the note proceeds.”

    HSBC’s attorney provided a copy of the note and an assignment dated December, 2008 (well past the proof of claim filing date and motion for relief from stay filing date).

    I am currently working with a retired attorney from Michigan and another attorney who specializes in predatory lending on these issues. The latter is going to appear in the case and attend the hearing to argue the timeliness of the assignment of the note from Option One and the creditor’s standing to be a creditor. I’ve never done a podcast before, but it seems that I just call the number mentioned and enter the id code#. Is there a visual podcast as well that might be saved to my computer? I would also be interested in any comments or suggestions that you have regarding my clients’ defenses.

  106. Friday the 23rd

  107. Neil–ok…I understand it takes a while to get those podcasts out there.

    Thanks so much for this!!

  108. Nice Victory in VA today, Will ask Brown, Brown & Brown to share with all of you.

    Stopped foreclosure and judge invited MERS and others to come to court !!!!!!!! :), apparently entities not registered to do business in the state or something like that. I do not have the details, but very important victory, small, but a victory nevertheless.

  109. BT: Yes we have seen this before. If the collection agency did NOT file suit YOU can file suit under the fair debt reporting act. If they HAVE filed suit, they are subject to the same defenses — where’s the note, who is the holder, who is the holder in due course, PAYMENT in full (by a third party) to the originating lender etc.

  110. Florida- How do you defend against a 2nd mortgage lender turning the 2nd mortgage debt over to a credit collection agency, instead of going through with foreclosure?

    I have heard this is the new trick for lenders to get around “lost note” and to get something out of property owners, that have properties that are upside down on value and the lender would get zero in second position at a Florida foreclosure auction, due to the devaluation of real estate.

    1) loan was sold to “big time” lender
    2) “big time” lender sues for foreclosure- files with the claim they “lost the note”
    3) voluntarily dismisses lawsuit for 2nd mortgage foreclosure with the court
    4) property owner calls to find out the deal. “big time” lender says they are now wanting to work out a loan modification and are turning the debt over to a credit collection agency.
    5) how do you fight this? the same way as the foreclosure…when the collection agency mails you a letter, dispute it? do they still have to prove the own the note and the rights to the debt?

  111. Patti: Thanks for the feedback

  112. TOM: Thanks. Our first try at it and I think it could use some improvement in format and content but I was pretty satisfied with it and so was Brad. If you need to reach Brad use the same email at fdg.clientservice@gmail.com and just put “Brad” in the subject matter along with a 2-3 word description of what you are writing about

  113. ABBY: the podcast link will go up after editing. First run might take a week or so and after that only a couple of days. We’re just learning here.

  114. can you post the podcast link so those of us who could not listen in live can hear the podcast?
    Thank you

  115. Hi Neil, the podcast was great. What is the contact information for the guy in Cincinatti for the Mortgage Audits? Keep up all the great work you are doing! It’s greatly appreciated :)

  116. Thank you very much – I learned a lot from listening.

  117. Goodmorning Neil.

    One other great option to add is to record the podcasts and post a link on the site to be able to listen anytime if anyone is not able to listen as scheduled and be able to add comments as this one underneath the audio for others to refer back to the podcast.

  118. The correct email address is:


    Dan Edstrom


  120. I suggest that you mute all calls. Do you want the questions emailed beforehand?

    Are questions specific to the points Neil raises or to issues we are having in our case load?

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,853 other followers

%d bloggers like this: