Banks and Foreclosure Mills Stepping Up Attacks on LivingLies Through Proxies

Apparently my most recent posts have produced a flurry of activity from proxies who are supported by investment banks acting through their conduit Servicers and Foreclosure Mills. They are aiming to discredit my academic and practical research and analysis into the securitization of debt and the impact on foreclosures of real property.

So the main point is that nobody with credentials equal to or exceeding my own has come out and said or explained why I am wrong about anything I have written. Nobody ever, despite the fact that I have filed declarations in hundreds of cases. If I was wrong it would seem that the obvious strategy would be to show that I was wrong rather than calling me names. Another obvious strategy would be to explain how I had duped senior judges into ruling in favor of borrowers. But that hasn’t come up either.

If you have any actual questions about the veracity of any allegations against me or LivingLies please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com. Most of the “new” stories merely recycle old stories, some of which may have a grain of truth as to past employees. But there are a few new allegations, or at least to new to my eye. Some of you are forwarding them to me.

As the old saying goes, the more flack you get the more certain you can be that you are over the target.

My latest salvo encouraging lawyers and homeowners to simply demand answers to questions and demand documents for production to show actual transactions where money exchanged hands seems to have disturbed a lot of people. While the untitled and frequently unidentified authors use the word “fraud,” they do not point to any benefit we received on account of such encouragement. On the contrary, the benefits flow entirely to the lawyers and homeowners who use such strategies.

Add to that my suggestion that homeowners might consider demanding disgorgement of borrower payments and disgorgement of undisclosed compensation (arising from the commencement of the loan) as an affirmative defense in any judicial foreclosure action. Back in 2008 I was told point blank by an attorney for a foreclosure mill that this was my most “obnoxious” allegation.

While the question is not completely settled, it is apparently true in most courts that the statute of limitations does not bar an affirmative defense for disgorgement and set off up to the amount claimed in the foreclosure. However, a separate claim in the form of a counterclaim or collateral lawsuit would most likely be subject to the statute of limitations.

Also there is my support of briefs that are being filed with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking to prevent any court from using “interpretation” to simply rewrite the TILA Rescission law despite the clear wording of the statute and the ultra clear wording written by Justice Scalia, in a unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski.

I get that if TILA rescission were taken seriously it would undermine the value of mortgage “bonds” (certificates). I just don’t think that complaining loudly about your toys being taken away should change the fact that they are toxic and you shouldn’t be allowed to play with them.

In any event, I am pleased at the attention the banks are giving me as it merely highlights the importance of my work, which in turn might hasten the day when the banks, the servicers and the foreclosure mills are brought to justice. This is coming from people who hide behind proxies on the internet and who commit fraud every time they make a claim for collection or enforcement of a mortgage loan.

Don’t worry, they won’t stop me.

Posted in Uncategorized |