Neil Garfield has an army of magical leprauchauns

Neil Garfield has an army of magical leprauchauns Bench opinion by Willis B. Hunt, Senior U.S. District Judge

This Order has just come to my attention and I cannot resist responding. Since it is public record, I figured I would respond in kind.

Dear Judge Hunt:

It is easy to understand how you and other Judges were both misled and misinformed. The magical beings to which you refer are the fictitious result of an overactive imagination. The documents upon which you issued your ruling were also the fictitious result of an overactive imagination as it became clear right around the time that issued your order that the fabrication, forgery and illegal notarizations were revealed and admitted by the very same party in whose favor you entered your order (robosigning etc.)

I thank you for giving the correct address of my website. But your description of the points I raise seems to be more a knee-jerk ideological reaction rather than a true rendition of my analysis — which has now been corroborated by courts all over the country including most recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I do not know the Plaintiff in the case where you entered that order and I do not know the facts. But I do know what I have said on my web site.

Simply stated, my proposition is that if the note does not accurately describe the obligation then the note is at the very most incomplete evidence of the obligation and cannot be secured by a mortgage document. The proposition is not that the obligation disappears like magic. It is that the note and mortgage are invalid. The obligation still exists even if it is not described in any valid legal document. It does seem that the obligation could hardly be considered as secured by the property without conforming to the state requirements of executing and recording a mortgage.

Thus my website is devoted to proper legal analysis without regard to political ideology. You accepted paperwork in which the obligation arose between A and B but the documentation was between A and C. If your order was followed in the marketplace, the opportunity for moral hazard would be infinite. For every obligation arising out of a transaction, the paperwork would create a second obligation either one or both of which could be enforced.

Whether the complaint posted on my website was crafted by me, I doubt, but I did post many examples of what litigants were filing. And I don’t recommend that people appear pro se anymore for the very reason that is illuminated in your ruling — possibility of a collateral benefit to the borrower is ideologically abhorrent to the person who does not consider all the facts and circumstances.

It is troubling that you seem to base your ruling on what you have seen in other cases. It implies that you have not read the complaint in this case. I haven’t either. But we do know with some certainty that the securitization of loans was a mirage because no transfer documents were prepared, executed or delivered. It was on the assertion without proof from counsel for EMC that you concluded that there was no merit to the homeowner’s position. Instead of requiring proof from the party seeking affirmative relief (EMC, who wanted the Plaintiff’s home) you worked off a presumption that EMC was indeed the mortgagee. This is the most common reason for error on the bench with these cases.

The point of my blog site is to assist people in pressing for the truth about their mortgage, their obligation, their note and all the aspects of their transaction. Under the collateral source rule in Florida, the payment by third parties without subrogation would need to be taken into consideration as to the amount due and therefore whether the loan was actually in default. Perhaps the same is true in Georgia. The payment of insurance proceeds and credit default swaps was under the expressed and specific waiver of subrogation. Those payments were made, in many cases courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Thus my defense here is for my blog and not the Plaintiff, as the complaint may in fact have been deficient. But if the complaint included allegations congruent with the assertions in this letter, it would be my opinion, and the opinion of law professors, judges and lawyers around the country, that the dismissal was in error.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil F Garfield

Posted in Uncategorized |