the debate

5 Oct

Debunking the Gospel of Garfield

April 7, 2010 by admin · 15 Comments

Since starting MFI-Miami almost 2 years ago, I have received some pretty strange calls from people. I’ve had real estate agents call me who have bought 15 income properties and then try to claim they are victim of Predatory Lending. I’ve had people who have bought investment properties who thought because they watched two episodes of The Apprentice they’re as smart as Donald Trump. I have gotten calls from the conspiracy theorists who think the Obama Administration wants their property so they can build an internment camp on it when the armed UN hovercraft come skimming over the Everglades. These are some of the more interesting calls.

However, the most interesting calls I get are from Pro Se litigants. What are Pro Se litigants? Pro Se litigants are homeowners who represent themselves in court and usually have no training as a lawyer. They are usually people who think they know more than everyone else or have the attitude of “Why should I hire a lawyer when I can do it myself.”

As the saying goes, “An attorney who represents themselves has a fool for a client.” Here’s a case in point. I had a foreclosure client when I started MFI-Miami, who filed an answer to his foreclosure that he copied and pasted off Neil Garfield’s website, Living Lies. My client then tells me he was going file a federal civil RICO case against his lender because his wife’s “forged” signature violated interstate commerce laws which is a RICO predicate. When I asked him who told him he could do that, he claimed he read he could do it on Garfield’s site. I have since received dozens of calls from people asking me for free advice based on what they read by Neil Garfield.

I have received at least 6 calls in the past week from Pro Se litigants claiming that they don’t know what to do because their Florida judge laughs at them for demanding the wet inked copy of their note. This is one of those misconceptions out on the blogosphere that had its origin from the Living Lies site. The misconception is that if the servicer or the Trustee cannot produce the original wet inked note, then they lack legal standing to execute a foreclosure and therefore the debt obligation is now nullified. This is absolutely false. In Florida, the transfer affidavit or note must officially be on record with the county 60 days prior to a servicer or Trustee filing the initial foreclosure complaint. When the attorney files the foreclosure complaint, all they are required to do is attach a copy of the original note.

For those you who don’t know who Neil Garfield is, he is a self-proclaimed Foreclosure Expert who holds seminars across the country for lawyers and Pro-Se litigants helping them fight foreclosures. According to his biography, was an Economist, Accountant and he is a “Chairman Emeritus” of a consortium of financial service companies and claims to be the “ultimate insider” on Wall Street. (Page 4, Garfield Continuum Handbook) Yet, he never mentions which companies he has worked with or the positions he held. The state of Florida also has no license on file for him being an accountant.

If he was a Wall Street “Insider,” he was like Lon Chaney aka The Man of Thousand Faces because friends of mine in the media who cover Wall Street had never heard of him until he started doing seminars. He was a trial attorney in Florida from 1977 until 1993 and by his own admission to me when I attended his seminar in Orlando last May, has not done any litigation work since then.

He preaches that, “homeowners can walk into a foreclosure hearing and walk out owning their house free and clear.” (Page 5, Garfield Continuum Handbook)

He even preaches this on his website and it is over-simplified comments like this that draw people to his website looking for easy answers. Like a late night televangelist, Garfield delivers a lot of what on the surface appears to be easy solutions but in reality are very complex legal arguments. Unfortunately, for the homeowner, foreclosure defense is not easy. It is a lot of painstaking detective work and TILA rescissions happen in only one of out of 50-75 loans.

Neil Garfield’s theories make for great legal debate and table talk for foreclosure defense junkies and conspiracy theorists. However, in reality his theories are impractical for the average homeowner due to the astronomical fees of legal research and litigation that they would require. What Neil Garfield fails to understand or express to his seminar participants is that judges do not like going out on the proverbial limb and therefore will not make precedent making decisions.

In other words, Neil Garfield is great at talking the talk but is a little short on walking the walk. He lacks the practical litigation experience to transform his theories into reality. Even now if you read his blogs, attorneys as well as Pro Se litigants who are frequent contributors phrase their comments as if expressing opinion instead of fact.

Garfield has created a problem in judicial foreclosure states such as Florida. He has unleashed an army of Pro Se litigants who have clogged the courts trying to argue their foreclosure cases using theories they barely understand. They lack not only legal expertise but lending expertise. They are totally unprepared to argue their own cases and fail to learn or obey court procedure. Many of them go in to court trying to argue constitutional law or TILA and find themselves summarily dismissed by a judge. They then write comments on the blogosphere claiming the judicial system is corrupt and that corruption is a result of some mass government conspiracy.

What the Garfield seminars fail to express to these litigants is that foreclosure laws vary from state to state and if you are fortunate enough to live in a judicial state like Florida or New York, judges want to hear state statute not federal statute unless it is relevant to your case.

This also creates another problem for the court system. The problem consists of the homeowners who have been successful in getting their foreclosures postponed. Fed by what they read on Living Lies, these pro se litigants begin having delusions of grandeur and begin believing they are the next Alan Dershowitz or Gerry Spence. They begin dispensing legal advice on the internet. The reality is, it was not the Gospel of Neil Garfield or the Pro Se litigant’s superior linguistic or legal abilities that got the foreclosure postponed but forces beyond the homeowner’s control.

In his 683 page handbook which is riddled with errors, he claims, “Neil has come out of retirement with one purpose in mind – to do all he can to counter the effects of the mortgage meltdown and save the people and the country from the disaster of created by free money using derivative securities that not even experts understood and targeting the least sophisticated members of society.”
This may sound charitable, but don’t believe the hype. At the end of the day, it’s all about the Bejamins. Garfield and his partner Brad Keiser use these seminars to market future consulting work and forensic audits from law firms and Pro Se litigants that attend their conferences.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people making money and I don’t have a problem with the fees Garfield and Kaiser charge their clients, I do have an issue with what they preach and how they manage the expectations of what they preach to the average homeowner. This industry is filled with enough wannabe Elmer Gantrys or messianic types with no practical mortgage industry experience and the last thing it needs is to encourage more unqualified “healers” to come into this business which is what Garfield and Keiser are doing.



15 Responses to “Debunking the Gospel of Garfield”

  1. KevinG says:

    Steve, I’m just an average guy with properties that are upside down like alot of my friends whom I network with here in Las Vegas. Like Florida, Vegas has been hard hit with foreclosures. The State Fight Fraud Task Force trys to keep up with the foreclosure ‘consultants’ and even passed legistlation requiring registration and licensing. But, many innocent, ignorant and desperate homeowners are still being SCAMMED on a regular basis. Self procalimed ‘Experts’ like Garfield tend to flourish in ecomonic times like this.

    I have attended at least four local meetings her in Vegas that all pitch slight variations on Garfields approach to ‘fighting back’ with the tools he provides from ‘Living Lies’. I’ve met with an attorney listed as a reference for one of these companies who represents homeowers in predatory lending situations…he was not the least positive about the outcome. On the other hand, I’ve met with 60+ people in a $2,000,000 home with the owner who shared his personal experience in using this ‘Administrative Process’ to reconvey his property back into his name (I’m still trying to get eyes on proof of this claim). Every week I hear from somebody who’s considering trying this Living Lies strategy…mainly out of desperation.

    I’ve seen the paperwork and process and the claims, claims and more claims…but no proof as you say. I’ve even started to document this investigation to help inform and warn others like the gray haired lady and her elderly husband who asked at one of these meetings…”If I am already in the Foreclosure Process will your methods effect my credit rating?” That really sadden me to think that people really don’t know what they’re getting themselves into.

    I have looked for others in Nevada who can validate, proof positive, that Neils methods will work in Nevada. So far, I haven’t found anyone…except those who CLAIM sucess.

    His methods are also being combined with what’s called ‘Accepted for Value” …A4V for short. As I understand it, this involves paying your debts from your “Treasury Account” that is based upon your Birth Certificate. I’ve heard so many claims about this for paying credit cards, mortgages, etc. it’s amazing how much buzz there is about this. But, as I say again…how can the average guy or gal validate an of this with the IRS and Treasury Dept?

    Tonight is the first time I came upon your blog…based upon a search I googled for Neil Garfield. I have yet another meeting with yet another person making claims that they helped people by using the LIVING LIES principles.

    The report I am writing entitiled “Mortgage Elimination Education – Fact or Fiction” could use the input by someone with better creditials than mine. If you know of anyone … hint…hint… in Nevada whom I may confer with I would appreciate hearing from anyone both pro or con.

  2. skeptical-optimist-1 says:

    I also heard of a few others ‘educating’ people.

    Any comments would be appreciated.

  3. admin says:

    I have picked up on your hint. ;) Feel free to contact me at the phone number on the website or send me over anything you would like my opinion on.

    From what I’ve seen with the “Accepted For Value” programs (it also goes by different names) is that it is essentially the same thing as those Money Merge Accounts scams that were floating around about three years ago. It’s the BS but in a different package.

  4. Capt. Jack says:

    I’m not here to defend Neil Garfield or Brad Kaiser or the Livinglies website. I am here to question how you differentiate yourself from them.

    Where is your resume? Is everyone doomed without your service? Surely you are not suggesting you are the only one with the skills to defend against fraud.

  5. Capt. Jack says:

    What is the policy here on posting links? I see that mine were “trimmed” but others are allowed!

    Very revealing!

  6. admin says:

    There are several big difference between what I do and what Neil Garfield and Brad Keiser do. First, I don’t encourage people to play Perry Mason without a law degree. I will not take a client on unless they have either retained a attorney or have spoken to an attorney before they hire me to tear apart their mortgage. Matter of fact, I won’t do business with pro se litigants because of the problems they create. They exacerbate the problem of their foreclosure because they read on the internet that foreclosure defense is easy and they can simply walk into foreclosure hearing and walk out with a free house. Here’s a perfect example from the client I mentioned in the article. In his answer that he copied and pasted off Living Lies, he accused the Lender of violating “Florida mini-FTC laws”. This was actually in the sample Neil and Brad had on the website. There is a huge problem with this because Florida never called the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Florida Statute 501) a “Florida Mini-FTC”. Neil Garfield being a member of the Florida Bar and licensed attorney should know this.

    Second, I don’t give my clients false expectations of what the outcome will be. Myself and the attorneys I work with (4 have gone to a Garfield seminar) all give the client realistic expectations of what to expect if they fight their foreclosure. The attorney also explains to them any alternatives, they feel may be better for the client.

    I not saying and I never said foreclosure victims are doomed if they don’t use my services. I said the problem I have with what Neil Garfield and Brad Keiser do is that they do not manage the expectations of their clients or their readers. There are other companies out there doing excellent work. I will even bring on competitors to help me on files. If we are successful on file like Cindi Dixon (who operates Mela Capital Group) and I were on the Cirigliano file, I have no problem sharing the accolades or the credit.

  7. admin says:

    Your post was “trimmed” because you were plugging your sites. The links were the only things removed.

  8. Alina says:


    There is an old Texas saying – load your brain before you shoot off your mouth.

    Above you state that Florida does not have a mini-FTC statute. First let me begin by enlightening you. Every state’s UDAP statute is patterned after the FTC, therefore they are commonly referred to as the mini-FTC. If you want to proof of this, I have plenty of case law I can send to you. It appears from your statement and also from your disclaimer on the right of this site that you are not an attorney. But yet, you believe you have the right to negatively comment on an attorney’s work.

    The homeowner in your story was unprepared. He copied and pasted something for which he was not versed in. However, this is in no way Neil’s or Brad’s fault. The Living Lies site should be used as a starting point. From there every homeowner should be taxed with the duty to research their own state’s laws, rules, statutes. The site have a vast amount of invaluable information.


  9. This contradicts the MFI-Miami blogpost that appears above this one. There’s no way the courts are being clogged up by homeowners – the ones that know their rights and choose to defend themselves are few and far between. Comrad, you should embrace the fact that Mr. Garfield has enlightened many… for you to edit “snippets” of his site and brand him as an alarmist converting the masses into pro se litigants is completely BUNK. I think it is merely an attempt to use his name to further your stat counter!

    When I search your name I find the article “Steve Dibert at MFI-Mod Squad Leaves Consumers Confused” & “Another Smart & Feisty Chick Doesn’t Take Any Crap From Martin Andelman, Steve Dibert or Aaron Krowne.” But this doesn’t mean I would go out and spread bad words about you and your company.

    So what to do… post my comment and reply to me or delete my comment. I guess we’ll see what happens. Take care and please, lets try & stick together. We need all the help we can get (HB 1523).

  10. admin says:

    I didn’t say Florida didn’t have it’s own version of an FTC law, I said it’s not called “Mini-FTC” and no one in the legal profession here in Florida calls it that. I know because 90% of my business comes from law firms. They refer to as FS 501 or FDUTP. Again, the problem is that the majority of people who read that site substitute it for bona fide legal advice. As I told the other person who wrote a comment, I get 6-10 phone calls a week saying, “I read on Living Lies, I can do. . .” and usually followed by some theory the courts have already shot down. It’s usually some person with no legal training that thinks he’s Gerry Spence or Alan Dershowitz.

  11. admin says:

    I haven’t seen that article. It was probably written by Erin Baldwin who was a self-proclaimed “fraud fighter” because she couldn’t qualify for a modification and lost her house. I later exposed her for being a scam and being mentally unbalanced. If not, it was Krista Railey who is a friend of everyone’s favorite ex-convict and illegal mod company operator Moe Bedard, who was mad because the three of us said nice things about a mod company she was hell bent on taking down.

    I do agree about HB 1523. We need to put pressure on the Florida legislature to vote no on HB 1523. I will be posting an article about it Monday or Tuesday. Feel free to cut paste the information from the article. I’m also going to make up flyers people can print out and pass out in their neighborhoods. I have a call into some trial lawyers who are going to help. I will also spread the word with my friends in the Florida media next week as well.

  12. ppulatie says:

    I work with attorneys in CA, doing examinations. I have many of the same concerns as Steve. To give all an idea:

    1. Garfield talks about the “2nd Yield Spread Premium” paid to lenders. The YSP is based upon the purchase price of the bonds, and also when the interest rate changes on a adjustable rate loan. There is no potential way that these differences could ever be considered YSP and need to be disclosed.

    YSP is a payment to a broker for placing a borrower into a higher interest rate than what they were qualified for. It is a required disclosure.

    When a lender sells a loan, if they receive a “YSP”, it is not a requirement for disclosure. This “YSP” has occurred after the sell, so how could it be disclosed anyway?

    When bonds are sold, that is a completely different transaction, and cannot be considered a YSP. Those would fall under Security Laws, anyway, and not TILA or RESPA.

    2. In his seminars, Garfield quotes 226.34, the section that covers the requirement of the lender to determine the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. This sounds great, unless one knows that statute. 226.34 ONLY applies to HOEPA loans, of which there are very few done. It does not apply to 99% of the loans that were done. I see attorneys file complaints with 226.34 alleged, and I can immediately sees the flaws in the arguments. This should get tossed, if the lenders have competent attorneys.

    BTW, most attorneys and even auditors do not realize that the “CAP” on the interest rate is not to be used in determining HOEPA violations. It is the Fully Amortized Rate.

    3. Garfield and others have made representations that the securitization of the Note changes the character of the Note and that it might make the loan no longer forecloseable. Under CA Uniform Commercial Code, and I suspect most others, the Code covers this and allows for such foreclosures.

    4. Most of the cases that are posted on the website are preliminary rulings or they are the initial complaints. As such, they have not generally would their way through appeal, and until they do so, the cases are not much use.

    5. Garfield does not really expound upon the fact that case law is jurisdictional, and what might work in one jurisdiction, would not work in another.

    6. Foreclosure law is state specific. And Non-Judicial v Judicial foreclosures are completely different animals.

    7. The Countrywide/B of A Class Action in Washington that Garfield posted, has major issues with the complaint. It alleges violations of HAMP. I tried to point out these issues, with regard to the fact that HAMP does not guarantee a loan modification, nor is there likely a Private Right of Action, among other issues. Furthermore, many of the claimants in the action would not qualify for HAMP, but unless the attorneys fully understand this, and only a few do, then it will pose issues for determining Class members. Garfield deleted my post for this. This occurs each and every time that I right something contradictory to what he writes.

    Garfied also deleted my post ragarding a case that Max Gardner, the BK attorney posted. Gardner made mention when “MERS transfers the Note”. I called him out on this and suggested that either Gardner “mis-wrote” or he was in error. The reason is that MERS does not transfer a Note. The Note is endorsed, usually in blank, and transferred by the original lender to the Trust. MERS only transfers the Deed. (I also explained other issues that could be exploited.)

    Well, that post was deleted as well. And Gardner’s comments have not been corrected. If Garfield is not willing to correct false or incorrect information, then what good is he?

    8. Most attorneys that I know who went to his seminar in CA, also say that much of his info is useless, if not garbage.

    9. He promotes seminars, whereby he will train people in forensic analysis and expert witness testimony in just a couple of days. This is pure bunk. There is too much to know and understand in just a couple of days. The concepts and the statutes and case law are just too complicated. Especially so when you consider California, whereby one court will rule one way, and another court will rule the opposite, both in the same day, and the merits are the same.

    Expert Witness? That is a joke. There are only a few people I know that are competent to be an expert witness. And those people have no desire to be one. That is because the “true auditor” can look at a file and see not just lender fraud, but also broker fraud and borrower fraud. The lenders that know what I do would love to get me on the stand because they know that I would be able to also indict most borrowers, if questioned correctly. That is why each of my Predatory Lending Exams, I provide the attorney a separate Comment Sheet, apart from the Exam, which details the other issues and how the lender will discredit the borrower.

    I do not do Pro Se litigants either. They end up wanting me to act as an attorney for them, and I am not one and do not pretend to be. It is just that over 30 months of doing this, I understand how CA courts work, and what works in the court and does not.

    When a homeowner calls, I will talk with them a bit, to find out what is going on. I then refer them to an attorney. I will not work with a homeowner without an attorney who litigates. I will not work with attorneys who simply do loan modifications. I do not contact lenders, servicers or other entities, because under CA law, I then become a foreclosure consultant. I have been checked out twice by the CA DRE and both times, they have concluded that I am doing things “right” and in accordance with CA law.

    I make no representations about what I do and what it can accomplish. In fact, I tell people that there are no guarantees about what will occur. The best that can be hoped for is to bring the lender to the table for a loan modification. There will be no principal reductions, or getting homes for free. Better to be realistic, that give them false hopes.

    That said, I am working with three different Class Action law firms, to attack lenders on specific items I have discovered. These are very narrow issues, and are designed to prevent Federal Preemption arguments, but they do have a Private Right to Action. These will be interesting to see what happens. They won’t help everyone, but they will help many.

    I know that the Garfield followers will likely not care for what I write. But, it is time to address the issues and let the chips fall where they do. I am tired of the blatant misrepresentations or errors by so many people who claim to be “auditors” and other foreclosure assistance personnel. Unfortunately, there are too many “scam artists” out there, epecially in CA, and no, I am not calling Garfield a scam artist, and are just preying on homeowners in trouble.

  13. Elvis says:

    Really…the axe you are grinding with Garfield and Keiser just discredits you. First, like you I have attended the Lawyers seminar. They both are very clear that their target audience is Lawyers and that homeowners need to have “competent” local counsel and the objective of their seminars is to surface competent lawyers willing to take foreclosure defense cases that homeowners can be referred to, since you are not a lawyer you may not have picked up on this… So your whole diatribe that they have “unleashed an army of Pro Se litigants” is patently false.

    I have followed the blog for sometime and I know you used to post frequently and include the link to your site to solicit “loan audit” business.

    Essentially, you were “trolling” the Livinglies site for customers for loan audits. Since you say you have four lawyers that you work for that have attended the Garfield seminar, I can only assume you like many other “loan auditors” (including Mr. Pulatie who posts here)have also used the list of lawyers posted to benefit homeowners the site as a prospect list to solicit business. Just curious have you ever sent a dollar of donation to the Livinglies blog site? I bet not. I have.

    If homeowners cannot find competent lawyers to represent them and have to go Pro Se and use the internet, well you have to admit the Livinglies site is a good resource for them. The fact is there are not enough lawyers to serve the homeowners that need help, but like “loan auditors” there are even more lawyers that will take homeowners money an DO NOTHING…because they don’t know what to do.

    So really this whole article is misguided, Garfield and Keiser have as another poster here commented “enlighted” thousands, maybe hundred of thousands to the reality of the fraud taking place with these foreclosures, helped many lawyers and homeowners who they will probably never meet and you want to take issue with “snippets” of their materials. Really we all need to work together. I do have to hand it to you if this was a strategy to increase the stats/hits on your website its not a bad angle. If you have the “nads” to actually allow this comment to be posted, then good for you. If not you will be confirming that you are just another fringe player out there trying to leverage Livinglies and the work that Garfield and Keiser have done to enlighten the marketplace and homeowners to the facts for your own benefit.(I think you used the term “its all about the Benjamins”)

    Oh and by the way a recent post on Livinglies re: “Produce the Note is Not Enough” kind of contradicts your point that Garfield originated that angle…it was April Charney long before Garfield came along, I like to give credit where credit is due…but since you only started your business a little less than two years ago you may have not known that…did you by chance attend their Forensic Mortgage Analysis Workshop a couple weeks ago? I talked to a couple folks who did and they were very impressed and felt it was worth the money. I am just hoping they will do one in the East sometime soon.

    Hopefully you actually allow this comment to be posted…if not I understand your agenda.


  14. admin says:


    First, I don’t have an “axe to grind” against Neil and Brad. If you actually read the article you would have known that. You and other Neil Garfield Groupies make a lot of assumptions about how I run my business, how I market my company and my motivations. I find it interesting all of you want to question my testicular fortitude but none of you have the spine to post your real names on these posts.

    Besides, I really don’t need to start a blog war with Neil Garfield to increase my SEO. I get plenty of traffic from the exposure I get from international media. I find it interesting that the people helping drive traffic to this site are the upset Garfield Groupies who keep pasting the link and spreading it around.

    Those quotes where from his handbook were not “snippets.” They were the actual quotes from his hand book. Look at both page 4 and 5 of his handbook.

    Tell you what, if you can show me 5 cases of a pro se litigants who were awarded a free and clear title to their home using the what they learned at a Garfield seminar without the help of a lawyer, I will retract the article.

    Also, why would I “donate” to a website that is clearly a marketing tool for a for-profit venture. Does that mean I should ask you for an $11 donation for my Go Daddy bill next month?

  15. ppulatie says:

    For the record, I do not recommend any attorneys from the Neil Garfield website. Heck, most of those who attended the CA seminars quickly understood that CA law is different from Florida, and what works in Florida does not work in Ca. I only accept work from attorneys who I interview, and know that they will do good work. I work for very few attorneys as a result, because most attorneys really haven’t got past the first three months of a learning curve that is needed in CA.

    CA Civil Code 2924 is considered “exhaustive” and as such, Produce the Note does not work. 2924 has no requirement. Nor do other arguments that Garfield talks about.

    I will say that I was more than happy to see that Garfield did write recently about using reasonable arguments and not theories that courts were not ready for. But prior to that post, he had never mentioned such before, and so large numbers of homeowners were led astray. I know, because I have read the complaints filed by these Pro Se litigants, and I have talked with large numbers on the phone. That is a major reason why I do not do retail audits, and only work through attorneys.

    BTW, the post previous to this one was the very first one I had ever done on this website. I only respond to your post to explain that I do not work with attorneys on Garfield’s list.

    Also, I should note that I do not do audits outside of CA and a couple of other states. That is because the laws are so different and the case law per state takes months to really understand. To be proficient in other states, a person must understand what is going on and tailor the exam to what the courts in that state will accept. Otherwise, the exam is a waste of money. That is why I have consistently turned down offers to take my operation nationwide.

    Also, I have found that to train an examiner, it takes at least a year of very hard work and effort. It is not about plugging information into a software program, as most so called auditors do. It is about understanding the statutes, the lending process, underwriting process, and knowing and keeping up to date on case law. As well, it is an intuitive feel for what happens in the loan process.

    That is why I differentiate my operations from others. I don’t do forensic audits. I do Predatory Lending Exams. That is far beyond what all but a few companies will ever do, because they don’t understand the full process. Most were former loan officers who decided to jump into this business long after people like Steve and I developed it. They never took the time to learn the law, go into court and watch what happened, and they never tried to read the case law and understand how it related to loans.

    And that is why, when I start working with knowledgeable attorneys, they come back time and again.

4 Responses to “the debate”

  1. Zinger October 5, 2010 at 6:58 am #

    I blog on this topic (see name link) and I must say much of Garfield stuff is not adequate. BUT you cannot overlook that much is HELPFUL and useful. Without Garfield many would not have known of problems or have 1/2 a chance to fight or at least put issues out for national discourse.

    I dont’ know any PRO SE people that dont’ shake in their boots and would prefer to just get things settled. Some have learned enough and witnessed enough in court to do a fairly credible job and have had minor successes.

    But that is all the lawyers in Phoenix at this time can claim too. There have only been a couple GOOD lawyers that understand things up until recently and yet only 1 major win in AZ. 1 in bankruptcy and not in Phoenix.

    I think your warnings are great that people should be careful. Our local pro se group is against all that patriot stuff you are talking about because it gets people IN JAIL.

    I am in local pro se group that learns about court as well as the issues. For many of us it is just fending off total decision until ARizona wakes up and starts following some of the laws.

    Without Garfield a lot of fraud would not have come to light for a few more years… much of the news would not have been spread nationally. I dont’ know the people you talk to… some sound like kooks. There are kooks everywhere, in every group setting.

    SHAME ON THE POSTER that won’t do work for PRO SE people… these people are flapping in the wind because the economy has depleted their life savings, they have a short time to get up to speed, and THE LAWYERS here in AZ cost a fortune and don’t have time for clients. What do you want them to do – go in without any ammo? Set your boundaries; other auditors have and done so successfully.

    On my blog I have a referral page for the few lawyers that get it, the auditors that get it and support type groups that help.

  2. Jimmy Rivera October 5, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    I want to respond to this post, however, I am very confused as to who started this, as I thought it was Timoty McCandess, yet I read references (in the replies or comments saying the poster is noi an attorney, and tere are these references to MFI wich seems to be an unralated blog. Please help an old man understand this.

    • timothymccandless October 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

      I re posted it…. and why??? you may ask because it shows the difficulties in dealing with these issues. I personally wholeheartedly support Niel Garfield I was with him at the start in Santa Monica in September 2008; and I went to the training and participated on his attorney panel in Orlando in 2009; and attended the Expert workshop in Phoenix this year 2010. I posted it to demonstrate the difficult issues facing homeowners when faced with the prospect of self representation. The difficulties in understanding the burden of proof in judicial foreclosure states and non-judicial states. Representation in unlawful detainer cases and stopping the foreclosure and attempting to get a modification. The other issues dealing with bankruptcy and other issues dealing with the real party in interest and standing to foreclose and or to sue. Mr Garfield is just attempting to keep the debate alive and constantly being in flux. As one can see this week alone 3 lenders have suspended foreclosure in 23 states and I would contend partly because or as a result of Mr. Garfield’s efforts he simple presents the arguments and we as attorneys and or pro se plaintiffs can use it and research it and apply as best we can the site is free. This criticism is simple because he is on a national stage and when you live in a glass house somebody is going to throw stones.

  3. Tim November 1, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    HEY TIM, You know as well as I nobody really knew anything about Ca 2924 two years ago. Where all learning and trying to fight back the best we can. Now that the appeals court has ruled 2924 inclusive then that opens up the argument that it is federally unconstutuional. Not allowing due process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: