False Claimants: Partial transcript of last night's Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Hi Neil Garfield here and this is Thursday March 7th, 2019.  Bill Paatalo joins me tonight since he has done so much work on this topic as a very capable private investigator. He’ll share his work with you in a moment.

Bill Paatalo and others have been working hard digging deeper and deeper into the trench that the banks have created in which the stench of corruption boils over into the fraudulent taking of homesteads across the country.

They kept pointing me toward a simple conclusion but I resisted because I overlooked that part of the lawyer’s work that means to start at the beginning. If I listened to Bill and others, I would have seen it earlier. I didn’t look, word by word, for the name of the claimant. Once I did, everything became simplified. Everything became clearer to me. AND I’m going to share that with you tonight.

I am broadcasting live from Duval County Florida and this show is brought to you by the livinglies blog, GTC honors, Lendinglies, AMGAR, and the Garfield firm, and this show is specially brought to you because of donations to the livinglies blog from listeners like you. Thank you. And for those of you who are not contributors we ask that you HIT THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE THE BLOG OR call 954-451-1230 or

202-838-6345  and pledge whatever you think you can afford. If this show has value for you, if  our work on the blog and our radio shows, without payment or other support has value to you then chip in. Please make a contribution to help us continue helping you and all consumers. I was just told that the link might not be functioning properly so if you can’t get through online please call 954-451-1230.

Bill was telling me, Dan Edstrom was telling me and even Charles Kopps was telling me but I didn’t hear and that is part of the problem of getting lawyers to represent homeowners who are being wrongfully foreclosed. Neither lawyers nor judges actually hear or believe a defense that is a complete defense to the claim brought in the name of a false claimant. Nearly everyone agrees to a false premise that the debt was not paid, and that the homeowner owes the debt to the claimant who is named in the foreclosure action.

LEGAL STANDING IS ABOUT WHETHER THE NAMED CLAIMANT EXISTS AND WILL, IF SUCCESSFUL, RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF PREVAILING ON ITS CLAIM. IF THAT IS NOT TRUE, THERE IS NO VALID CLAIM. WE NOW HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS BASIC PROPOSITION IS NOT TRUE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THE ORIGINAL LENDER WAS THE LENDER AND IS STILL THE LENDER.

This simple proposition is what is missing from today’s debate over foreclosures. It turns out that the named claimants are not receiving checks when the property is liquidated and yes that does matter because if they do not receive the money it is because they were never intended to receive the money. And in that case then they had not experienced a default and if they had no default then they had no right to declare a default. And if they had no right to declare a default there is no default as to that name.

So bottom line there is no default as to a claimant who either does not exist or who is not intended to receive the benefits of any remedy for that default.

WHY DO WE HAVE THIS ISSUE? THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS: MONEY. FOR VERY DOLLAR LOANED THERE ARE 10-20 DOLLARS IN GAIN FOR THE PLAYERS. THOSE PLAYERS, NEVER PRESENT IN YOUR FORECLOSURE CASE, ONLY SEEK TO PREVENT THAT $20 GAIN FROM BECOMING A $20 LIABILITY SO THEY CAN KEEP THEIR ILL-GOTTEN GAINS.

IF YOUR ATTACK ON THEIR PROOF REVEALS GAPS IN THE CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP OF THE DEBT, THAT UNDERMINES THE VALUE OF THE PAPER. IF THE PAPER IS UNDERMINED THEN THE DERIVATIVES, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS AND OTHER PAPER CREATED FOR THE SO-CALLED SECURITIZATION ERA MAY BE WORTHLESS OR WORTH MUCH LESS LESS THAN THEY PAID. AND IF THAT HAPPENS THEN THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT STARTED IT ALL HAS A LIABILITY FOR ALL THE MONEY IT MADE — 10X-20X THE AMOUNT OF EACH LOAN.

FORECLOSURE PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN MAINTAINING THE ILLUSION THAT THE LOANS AND THE DERIVATIVES WRITTEN OFF OF THE LOANS WERE ALL VALID AND LEGAL.  THEY WERE NOT.

After 12 years of thinking and analysis I have boiled everything down to one question: Does the party named by the lawyers ever get anything out of a successful foreclosure? I think the answer is always NO if the loan has been sold into the secondary market and worse yet if it has been subject to securitization claims which are almost always completely false.

If the lawyers have given a name of an implied entity that does not exist, the answer is obvious but sometimes you need to parse their words to even discover that they are naming a party that does not exist. If the lawyers name a legally existing entity then the question is whether that is the entity who will actually receive the benefit of foreclosure. Again the answer if you parse the words used by the lawyers the answer is no, whoever it is they named as claimant will never see the use or proceeds of the foreclosed property.

And then you have the hybrid. Like Deutsch or US Bank or BONY as trustee for a jumble of words that imply but do not identify a trust and refer to certificate holders without identifying the certificates that in all events disclaim any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage.

The certificates exist but they do not convey to the holders any right to the debt, note or mortgage. They merely receive a promise they will receive a stream of money indefinitely. They are not promised the principal amount of the debt.

They are not promised  the interest paid by the borrower. Because the certificates disclaim the interest the borrower does not owe the investors in so-called mortgage backed securities anything. AND by the way those securities are not securities and they are not mortgage backed.

BOTTOM LINE: If the lawyers know that the name they are using for the claimant is a fictitious entity or is an entity that has never received the proceeds of foreclosure in the past, then they know that the foreclosure is invalid and probably fraudulent but they do it anyway because they can and they get away with it until challenged aggressively by the rare homeowner who says hell no I won’t go.

If a third party is getting the benefit of the foreclosure that is an admission that the named claimant used by the lawyers in the foreclosure mill did not satisfy the requirement of Article 3 legal standing. That claimant does not satisfy the state requirements to be a beneficiary on a  DOT nor a mortgage on a mortgage.

The fact that they received an assignment does not create the ownership of the debt nor the right to enforce it if the debt is not owned buy the claimant whose name is ebbing used to seek the remedy of foreclosure when there is no expectation that the named claimant will actually receive the proceeds of sale when property is foreclosed. .

That named party or claimant does not have a claim and doesn’t expect to receive the benefit of the remedy for which the lawyers have applied in their name — if they even exist.

Welcome to the show Bill Paatalo. Do you think I finally got your message?

BONY CHECK mentioned by BILL. Check was made out to BONY as trustee but negotiated by Bayview on behalf of Chase. BONY was the named claimant.

“I don’t know who gets the proceeds of foreclosure sale.” from depo in Paatalo case

Banks need the foreclosure for Ponzi scheme that they call securitization not for so-called the payment from the proceeds of sale. Often it goes to the so-called Master Servicer under the guise of recovery of Servicer Advances which have themselves been “Securitized.”

Lawyer license issues and civil liability. There are more suits now than ever before brought by homeowners against the foreclosure mills AFTER they have won the primary foreclosure case.