Note to Readers: The attacks are against me, not on what I am saying.

So here is the central point: Article 9 203 UCC adopted in all states verbatim requires any claimant in foreclosure to have purchased the underlying obligation for value. In any case remotely related to some securitization structure that doesn’t happen. Homeowners tend to win when they test that proposition and lose when they don’t. 

Since I began this effort 16 years ago I have been attacked in a variety of ways all designed to diminish my personal or professional credibility. And now once again I have people encouraging me to respond. Since I have sharpened my writing and rhetoric the attacks are coming at and furious which is good. It means that I again have the same banks worried — i.e. the same 16 banks and 16 law firms that in 2008 took my deposition as an expert witness for 6 straight days, 9am-5PM (and never had it transcribed)

First I am attaching my resume which anyone can read and confirm. You can see that I am a published author, an Approved CLE lecturer for legal education credits and the recipient of multiple awards for outstanding academic excellence. None of my detractors posts any resume but I have not found one licensed attorney who knows anything about trial law or securitization among the people who post negative remarks. I have found many who are directly paid by Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citi to undermine articles that oppose the current practice of securitization insofar as it promotes false claims. RESUME NFG December 2020 version

Second, I have begun the process of barring such individuals from commenting on my blog as though it was their own to spew out false reports about me, the law and the process of foreclosure. The basic message is either “give up!” or “Neil Garfield is not a lawyer!” My message is to fight on and not necessarily with me. I have stated that in more than 2.3 of cases that have been contested and properly litigated to the end, the homeowner either won the case, flat out with a finding of fact from a judge that the claimant had failed to produce evidence of the debt or its ownership

And third is my renewed invitation for ANY licensed attorney with knowledge of foreclosure and securitization to come forward and debate my central points about the prospects for homeowners in foreclosure litigation. They can do so either in writing or in an appearance attended by anyone who wants to see it on Zoom. So far that invitation has been spurned despite my obvious impact on the willingness and success of homeowners to defend their homes. 

The reason nobody with credentials will come forward is that doing so gives my work oxygen. For 16 years they have been trying to shut me up and I won’t go. I might add that lawyers who have attempted to defeat me in court have mostly lost. Note the word “mostly” — nothing is guaranteed when you go to court.

So here is the central point: Article 9 203 UCC adopted in all states verbatim requires any claimant in foreclosure to have purchased the underlying obligation for value. In any case remotely related to some securitization structure that doesn’t happen. Homeowners tend to win when they test that proposition and lose when they don’t.

Posted in Uncategorized |