Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm
|
|
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688
|
Editor’s Comment:
Table of Contents- WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY
WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY?
Real Property, Mortgages and Foreclosures
Post-Securitization
A treatise, practice manual and forms for litigation of claims relating to claims relating to securitized loans
By Neil F Garfield, Esq. MBA, JD
Author and Editor of livinglies.wordpress.com
Published by GTC|Honors[1]
Disclaimer
IMPORTANT: The information presented in this workshop is general information and is not specific advice on the law of any state other than Florida.
No decision or action should be undertaken strictly on the basis of the information in this workbook or in the presentation without first consulting a licensed competent attorney in YOUR community or where your property is located.
The accuracy of the information is not guaranteed. State laws vary, and local rules vary from state to state and county to county. The style of pleadings, and the rules of when and how to file objections, motions, pleadings and discovery varies from state to state as well.
The presenters do not purport to know the rules and laws of all 50 states.
The purpose of this presentation is to provide you with informational guidelines about cases and situations OTHER than your own, and what that COULD mean in your case.
You should not use this workbook or this workshop as a basis for advising anyone other than within a jurisdiction in which you licensed to practice law, as it probably would be otherwise considered the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL). UPL is a crime in most states and carries substantial penalties and the risk of imprisonment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| TITLE | PAGE |
| About the Author | 5 |
| Arizona Mortgage Fraud Statute | 9 |
| Practice Materials Available | 12 |
| Forward: Prospects for the Housing Market | 13 |
FALSE CREDIT BID AS RACKETEERING |
16 |
| DIAGRAM: GENERAL PLAN OF ENGAGEMENT | 19 |
| DIAGRAM: SINGLE TRANSACTION | 20 |
| DIAGRAM SPECIFIC PLAN OF ENGAGEMENT | 21 |
| DIAGRAM: WIN AT THE BEGINNING NOT IN THE END | 21 |
| DEDICATION | 22 |
| GENERIC COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES AND CLAIMS OF BORROWER | 24 |
| NARRATIVE: SINGLE TRANSACTION AND STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE | 25 |
| BINDING COMMITMENT TEST | 26 |
| SELLING FORWARD PRESUMES SECURITIZATION | 26 |
| END RESULTS TEST | 26 |
| INTERDEPENDENCE TEST | 27 |
| NARRATIVE: DEMAND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING | 29 |
| DIAGRAM FIGURE 1: THE MONEY TRAIL | 31 |
| DIAGRAM FIGURE 2: THE MONEY TRAIL AND DEFENSE OF PAYMENT IN FULL | 32 |
| DIAGRAM FIGURE 3: STRUCTURE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE AND APPLICABLE LAWS | 33 |
| DIAGRAM FIGURE 4: RISK AND LOSS MITIGATION | 34 |
| DIAGRAM FIGURE 5: TRANCHE STRUCTURE AND BURDEN OF PROOF | 35 |
| OUTLINE: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS | 36 |
| RELATED SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS | 37 |
| INTRODUCTION — GETTING STARTED | 39 |
| HISTORY | 41 |
| INSTITUTIONALIZING WRONGFUL FORECLOSURES | 45 |
| SHOW ME THE MONEY | 49 |
| PATTERNS OF LENDING | 50 |
| CATEGORIES OF LOANS | 52 |
| THE ACADEMIC SECURITIZATION MODEL AS MYTH | 52 |
| THE TRADITIONAL HOME MORTGAGE LOAN | 54 |
| THE ACADEMIC “SECURITIZATION” MODEL WITH ERRORS | 54 |
| THE MYTHOLOGICAL “SECURITIZATION” MODEL | 55 |
| NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND | 58 |
| THE NEED FOR A FULL ACCOUNTING | 61 |
| TAKING CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE | 65 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 65 |
| OBJECTIONS AND PRESERVING YOUR RIGHTS ON APPEAL | 67 |
| OBJECTIONS BASED UPON FOUNDATION, HEARSAY ETC. | 69 |
| GLOP: THE STORY OF HOW CRAZY THE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND POLITICS CAN GET | 74 |
| STANDARD MORTGAGE TRANSACTION AND FORECLOSURE — No power of sale, no securitization, no MERS | 77 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 84 |
| CASE EXAMPLES OF FORECLOSURES PRODUCING THE WRONG RESULTS PRACTICE POINTERS — Association Foreclosures | 85 |
| RECORDING, MERS AND AUCTIONS | 88 |
| FROM THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BOARD (ALL PARTIES IN SECURITIZATION CHAIN HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BANKS AND SERVICERS) | 91 |
| STANDARD MORTGAGE TRANSACTION AND FORECLOSURE — Power of Sale, No Securitization, No MERS (NON-JUDICIAL) | 93 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 105 |
| 2008 Legal Memo at BKR Conference: Lying About Ownership | 107 |
| HOMEOWNERS MAY SEE VALUE RESTORED AS BANKS PAY FOR SIGNATURES | 111 |
| NON-STANDARD MORTGAGE TRANSACTION AND FORECLOSURE — Power of Sale, With Securitization Claims, No MERS (NON-JUDICIAL)[2] | 113 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 128 |
| SECURITIZATION ACADEMIC MODEL | 130 |
| EFFECT OF ACADEMIC MODEL OF SECURITIZATION | 137 |
| Manhattan U.S. Attorney Recovers $202.3 Million From Deutsche Bank | 139 |
| HOA LIABILITIES | 141 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 141 |
| NON-STANDARD MORTGAGE TRANSACTION AND FORECLOSURE — Power of Sale, With Securitization Claims, MERS (NON-JUDICIAL) | 144 |
| PRACTICE POINTERS | 164 |
| SECURITIZATION ACADEMIC MODEL: | 166 |
| EFFECT OF ACADEMIC MODEL OF SECURITIZATION: | 173 |
| ALLONGES, ASSIGNMENTS AND INDORSEMENTS | 220 |
| ALLONGE | 220 |
| ASSIGNMENTS | 221 |
| INDORSEMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS | 223 |
| VALIDITY OF THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN: WERE THERE ANY REAL TRANSFERS FOR VALUE OR WERE THE ASSIGNMENTS, ALLONGES, INDORSEMENTS ETC MERELY A SHAM? | 225 |
| SAN FRANCISCO STUDY
CORRUPTION OF CHAIN OF TITLE BY STRANGERS TO LOAN ORIGINATIONS AND FORECLOSURE TRANSACTIONS |
229 |
| BANKRUPTCY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES | 251 |
| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | 257 |
| CREDIT BID SHAM | 295 |
| National Notary Association to take Up Issue of Forgery, Robosigning and attesting to authority in corporate capacity | 297 |
| FIDUCIARY LIABILITY | 298 |
| DEFINITIONS AND BASIC REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF LOAN | 300 |
| SHORT SALES OR REO SALES IN CHAIN OF TITLE MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST | 329 |
| HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT | 330 |
| MERS | 336 |
| APR | 340 |
| Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 | 415 |
| REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT | 417 |
| USURY | 443 |
| FORCING MODIFICATION | 459 |
| Glossary and Guidelines | 462 |
| CONTACT AUTHOR: INFO@LIVINGLIES.BLOG.COM |
|
[1] Copyright Neil F Garfield 2012
[2] With two exceptions, the comments relating to non-judicial foreclosures also apply to judicial foreclosures. The first of the two exceptions are that the Notice of sale is executed by a “substituted trustee” in a non-judicial sale instead of a judge in a judicial sale. The second is that the sale is conducted by the “trustee” (who is under current practice a controlled party of the “new” creditor). Thus I have removed sections dealing exclusively with judicial foreclosures as they are now a subset of non-judicial foreclosures.
BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL
GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED
COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS


