Garfield Interviewed by CNN, Fox News, Canadian and US radio and TV

Securitized debt in residential housing was and remains a myth. It never happened.

And now the media are is starting to understand that the actual financial transaction is far simpler than the one the banks are reporting: the investors (pension funds etc.) loaned money to the homeowners.

Instead of writing the check directly to the borrower, the investor wrote the check to the investment banker. That money was supposed to go to a REMIC or SPV but never did, and the loans were supposed to be with authorized entities acting on behalf of the investors and they never were.

The  paperwork was smokescreen for the banks to use when they claimed to own an obligation they never funded nor purchased. The rest is history — everyone lost money except the banks. So don’t get lost in the weeds — follow the money trail and you’ll see the whole deal is really quite simple.

In the past week, articles have started running about me and this blog, and requests for interviews are flooding in as to my opinions and projections by many media outlets. Apparently people have been watching and my projections about the housing market, contrary to the “experts” has proven true: that while some markets may show temporary improvement the overall trend is still down and we will still lose another 10%-15% in home values over the next year.

It has been a virtual flood, including U.S. and Canada. Articles from this Blog have been picked up with permission and are running in major newspapers and other periodicals in both countries.

Of course the people in Canada want to know how to proceed safely in buying distressed properties where the title has been corrupted. There are many Americans looking for those bargains too but don’t want to buy into a lawsuit 2-5  years down the road.

Most people of course are starting to understand how the Banks have been manipulating the main markets in credit, housing and financial transactions generally. Since the Libor scandal broke, the opinions, strategies and legal conclusions expressed on this blog are now going mainstream. It has been a long wait — 6 years. And more people are feeling empowered to confront the banks and other pretender lenders and they are asking the right questions, like where is the evidence, who has the information on what was paid for that assignment, allonge, etc.?

In the meanwhile, the interesting aspect and something good for the blog staff and infrastructure is that after a double dip in request for paid services, the demand seems to be coming back — especially for the title search and commentary. As I stated in October, 2007, when all is said and done, it all comes down to title, who has it and whether they can maintain it.

Consultations with me are at premium because of my hectic schedule. I suggest you book as early as possible. Expert declarations and editing pleadings are also being performed by me and our experts, but this also is subject to time constraints. There are simply not a lot of people who understand enough about this mortgage mess that they can draft anything of value. Remember the simple message: DENY EVERYTHING AND WIN THOSE HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY. This takes, work and understanding of the so-called securitization illusion, and the rules of civil procedure and evidence. You need help even if you are an attorney doing this work.

Most of the complaints or other pleadings are defective in one main way: they admit all the necessary elements of foreclosure and then try to wiggle out of it. That is an insane strategy. You don’t have to be right to deny something, you need only to believe that that the alleged signature, note or mortgage is not the deal you signed for. Just because it LOOKS like your signature doesn’t mean it is. We already know the banks having playing with their computers and computer programs and color printers to make it look like they have your original note and signature.

You can deny that the signature is yours, that the note is evidence of any loan transaction in which you were a party etc. because you know that there is a high probability that the payee on the note, mortgagee on the mortgage or the beneficiary on the deed of trust had nothing to do with funding your loan. You already know that there were no financial transactions transferring your loan because investors owned your obligation even before you took the money. Why admit anything to the contrary?

Any order approving settlement should have as boiler plate a declaration of the rights of the stakeholders who are specifically named and specifically identified as to the description of their interest in the property. If you are in bankruptcy for example, the BKR Judge who signed an order saying Chevy Chase Bank’s motion to lift stay was granted and that Chevy Chase was the owner of the loan, then now matter how wrong we all know that was, the same Judge needs to say in an order approving settlement that the actual foreclosing party or whoever is doing the deal with you is now and forever more the only party with a claim, and that the claim is covered by the settlement agreement.

By the way, I know of one particular case that I have been following closely where the foreclosing bank, having done so without leave of court and without obtaining a lift of the stay, but was the one who ordered the foreclosure and submitted the credit bid, is settling with the homeowner with a 90% reduction in principal. It is all confidential or the deal doesn’t go through. The deal hasn’t been signed yet, but the offer is on the table, and it looks like the borrower is going to accept the offer. Once it is signed neither I nor anyone else can describe the deal at all.
AZTV7/Cable 13, Me-TV 7.2, RTV 7.3, Phoenix-Prescott, AZ

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |