Kanye West Stupidly misunderstands the 13th Amendment (it has no “trap door”)

An Open Letter to Kanye West –

A few days ago, on 11 October 2018, Negro rapper multimillionaire Kanye West (@kanyewest) delivered a rant in his televised meeting with multibillionaire President Donald J. Trump.  In his rant, West demonstrated his understanding of the danger that the US Constitution’s 13th Amendment to Negroes, particularly those in Chicago because of their adverse mental health.  West said this:

“There’s a lot of things affecting our mental health that makes us do crazy things that puts us back into that trap door called the 13th Amendment.

“I did say “abolish” with the hat on. Because why would you keep something around that’s a trap door? If you’re building a floor — the Constitution is the base of our industry, right? Of our country, of our company. Would you build a trap door that if you mess up and you — accidentally something happens, you fall and you end up next to the Unabomber? You end up — you got to remove all that trap door out of the relationship.

“The four gentlemen that wrote the 13th Amendment — and I think the way the universe works, it’s perfect. We don’t have 13 floors, do we? You know, so the four — the four gentlemen that wrote the 13th Amendment didn’t look like the people they were amending. Also at that point, it was illegal for blacks to read — or African Americans to read. And so that meant if you actually read the Amendment, you would get locked up and turned into a slave.

“Again — so what I think is, we don’t need sentences; we need pardons.”

In other words, to paraphrase West’s rant, Negroes do crazy things that result in cops arresting them and the juries convict them and the judges sentence them, and the wardens imprison them, all because of the language of the 13th Amendment, and the courts should liberate them instead of jailing them.

Excuse me, Kanye, but you are delusional AND ignorant.  You seek to blame the Constitution for the plight of Negroes – the fact that their crazy criminal behavior results in their doing jail/prison time.  You seem to ignore the reality that jail time separates criminal Negroes from the society that they would, if not incarcerated, continue abusing with their crazy criminal behavior.  In reality, Negroes get arrested, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned because they commit crimes, not because of a trap door in the 13th Amendment.

To clarify, let’s look at the language of the 13th Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Throughout all of recorded history, societies have imprisoned and/or killed the criminals in their midst. They have done this partly to punish and rehabilitate the criminals, and partly to separate the criminals from society so that the criminals cannot continue committing crimes against the law abiding public.  Yes, in prison many prisoners can and do commit crimes against fellow prisoners or prison administrators who expect such criminal behavior from convicts.  But at least the convicts cannot continue abusing innocents who expect to live without criminal interference.

Thus the phrase “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” does not constitute some new “trap door” by which the 13th Amendment sneaks up on and snags Negroes who crazily commit crimes.  The phrase applies to everyone, not merely Negroes.

But the crux of the matter lies in the phrase “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”  This 1865 Amendment outlawed slavery (of Negroes and others) in the US and its territories.

But the 13th Amendment left undisturbed the practice of all societies to convict and imprison criminals.  It thus excepted from the antislavery language those people convicted of crimes.  That allowed continuation of the custom and law of enslaving convicted criminals, and of making them work without compensation, both as punishment for their crime, and in recompense for their room, board, and oversight and discipline by their warders.

West made a [h]uge mistake in his anti-13th Amendment-trap-door rant.  He failed to address the effect of low average IQ as a major reason that so many Negroes commit such a huge percentage of the crimes in America.  Low average IQ, not mental health problems, causes Negroes to make stupid choices in life and to follow them with stupid, often criminal, actions.  Myriad IQ tests for the past 100+ years have shown the average IQ of US Negroes at 84 to 85, fully 15 points lower than the average IQ for US Caucasians.

That means that half of US Negroes lack the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, a feat requiring an IQ of at least 85 (unless administrators have dumbed down the curricula and testing just to allow the dummies to graduate).

And that means that half of the US Negroes cannot compete effectively against the other half, or against 67% of US Caucasians, for the better jobs and mates, and so they gravitate to crime and welfare abuse to get by. Then their crimes get them apprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned.

So the trap door is stupidity (whether Negro, Caucasian, non-white Hispanic, etc.), not the 13th Amendment’s exception to the prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude.

In other words, Kanye (yes, I write this to you), you should confess like Pogo did, “We has found the enemy, and he is us!”

And then, Kanye (yes, I mean you), you should start working with high-IQ non-Democrat Negro leaders (maybe you can find some) to devise programs to raise average Negro IQ dramatically.  Here, I’ll provide you with some starter ideas that will work wonders:

  1. Suggest that (with bribes as necessary) all welfare recipients, habitual criminals, and public school dropouts (especially Negroes) undergo voluntary irreversible sterilization
  2. Establish competitions for Negroes with outstanding academic performance to meet, marry, and procreate abundantly.
  3. Promote temporary sterilization of all girls (especially Negroes) from puberty until they get married.
  4. Promote legislation that denies welfare benefits to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation welfare applicants.
  5. Promote legislation to criminalize the infliction of a life-long debilitating disease (stupidity) on an innocent child.

Sincerely,
Bob Hurt

 

 

 

Advertisements

Stay-In-My-Home takes over Mark Stopa Failed Foreclosure Pretense Defense Law Practice

Mark Stopa
Mark Stopa before disbarment

 

Look at this mess.  Florida Foreclosure Pretense Defense Attorney Mark Stopa loses his bar license, and a well-intentioned attorney takes over his business.  The below email had an attached letter that includes the Florida Supremes’ order suspending Stopa from the practice of law and says his law firm has been dissolved.

It happened because Stopa cheated Foreclosure Defense clients.

Mark Stopa photo
Mark Stopa, Hammered

Right: Mark Stopa getting hammered in court for bad behavior.

That attorney called me on 21 September 2018 to tell me that he found the Stopa law practice in such a mess that he decided to shut it down for good, and that he hoped Stopa’s foreclosure victim client base would reach out to me for help.
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Help
Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 12:55 PM
Subject: Important Time Sensitive Message

Dear Client, Attached is an important letter concerning your case with Stopa Law Firm, P.A. Please review attached letter and stipulation. It is important that you respond.  We thank you for your attention to this matter.

———- END of Forwarded message ———

Why Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Deserve Censure

Now it’s time for a little honesty.  Mark Stopa and thousands of attorneys like him deserve censure and public humiliation because of their horrific record of cheating their desperate foreclosure victim clients out of money and an honest advocacy.  Such attorneys have built their practice on pretending to defend clients against foreclosure, but without doing any research to discover precisely who injured the clients in the loan transaction and how the injuries happened.

If they had done honest research, they would have discovered that upwards of 90% of home loan borrowers have suffered appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, contract breaches, regulatory violations, legal errors in their documents, servicing abuse, and/or legal malpractice by the attorneys they hired to help save their home.

Why Typical Foreclosure Defense Attorneys Cannot Help Mortgage Borrowers in Trouble

Even the attorney taking over Stopa’s failed practice thought he could help keep foreclosure victims IN their homes.

But, he concluded that he can’t keep the clients in their homes.  He could only do what Stopa did – delay the client’s loss of the home while charging absurd annual and/or monthly fees for the hand-holding until the inevitable foreclosure final judgment and sale of the home occurs.

Why?  Because Stopa and other Foreclosure Pretense Defense attorneys NEVER do the full investigation required to prove that someone injured the borrower in the loan transaction.  And so, they DO NOT KNOW whether and how the borrower got injured.  Therefore, they cannot take legal action against the perps to win compensation for their mortgage victim clients.  SO, they can only DEFEND by seeking a dismissal without prejudice for failure to fulfill conditions precedent to foreclosing, or for lack of standing, or tolling of the statute of limitations.  That means the right creditor will correct his errors and foreclose again, this time winning a final judgment.

What It Takes to Win Compensation

Unless the practitioner PROVES someone involved in the loan transaction or associated activities INJURED the borrower who faces foreclosure for breaching the note, then the vast majority of such borrowers will lose their homes to foreclosure, and the pretender defender attorney will merely delay the process while bilking the foreclosure victim out of monthly payments for the privilege.

In order to discover such injuries, a professional team must analyze the background story of the loan and examine every document in the loan transaction from day-one to present time, including litigation documents, servicer correspondence, closing papers, appraisal, loan application, forbearance agreements, loan modification efforts, etc.  Few if any (NONE that I know of) foreclosure pretense defense attorneys have such skill.  Even if some have the skill, they will charge upwards of $15,000 to $20,000 at their hourly rates to do the examination, analysis, and reporting, which take 40 to 60 hours.  What foreclosure victims can afford that?

Why Foreclosure Pretender Defenders Commit Legal Malpractice

The foregoing explains why foreclosure defense attorneys only pretend to defend against foreclosure, and never win actual compensation for their client’s injuries.   And yet, those attorneys hold themselves out as experts in the law.  Think about this.  The creditor accused the borrower of breach of contract by failing to make timely payments.  Doesn’t it make sense that the defending attorney should investigate the circumstances and documents related to the contract in order to find out whether the contract is valid and whether the client suffered injuries in it?

An attorney commits legal malpractice who takes on such a client and fails to perform a comprehensive investigation and go on the attack for the injuries discovered.  And that can justify a legal malpractice action against attorneys like Mark Stopa.  But again, what foreclosure victim can afford such an action?

The Ultimate Solution for Mortgage Victims

The only solution to the above dilemma lies in finding an affordable mortgage examination service.  The borrower should buy that service, and use the information in the examination report as the basis for demanding settlements from the injurious parties, or for filing actions for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of regulatory laws.  In the vast majority of situations, the injurious parties far prefer settling with the borrower than fighting the borrower in a court case that the borrower will surely win.

For more information on the right way to attack the validity of the loan, see http://mortgageattack.com, and fill in the contact form.

Bob Hurt
Consumer Advocate and Mortgage Attack Maven
727 669 5511
Clearwater, FL

Two 9th Circuit opinions crush Commie/Dem Gun Law Insanity

Duncan V Becerra

November 2016 – Idiot Californians approved the Proposition 63 1 July 2017 ban on high-capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds), adding to California’s already oppressive and convoluted gun laws. The proposition, citing certain exceptions, requires owners of high capacity magazines to surrender the magazines for destruction, remove hem from the state, or sell them.

May 2017- Virginia Duncan and a handful of other plaintiffs sued the California Attorney General Becerra in California Southern District USDC in May 2017, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the ban on high-capacity magazines, maintaining that it violated the 2nd Amendment and the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. Judge Roger Benitez ruled against the state and for the gun owners, granting the preliminary injunction. See Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106 – Dist. Court, SD California 2017. The court acknowledged as follows (p 1116):

“The Supreme Court also recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantee includes firearms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. Millerimplies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment.[7] Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute to the common defense, requires only a modest finding.”

17 July 2018 – Virginia Duncan v. Calif. A.G. Becerra – 9th Circuit panel affirmed the opinion of USDC SDCA Judge Roger Benitez, allowing the injunction against Proposition 63’s ban of high-capacity gun magazines, saying Benitez did not abuse his discretion in ruling against the state because the magazine surrender, removal, or sale provisions of Section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right and violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”). One of the three judges, Wallace, pedantically dissented in a long-winded, irrational diatribe, attempting to substitute his own discretion for the trial judge’s. See Duncan v. Becerra, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.

We can expect more litigation on this issue as the plaintiffs seek a full ruling that Prop 63 is unconstitutional.

Young v Hawaii

12 June 2012 George Young sued the County and State of Hawaii in Hawaii USDC 42 USC 1983 for violating his 2nd Amendment rights by denying his application for a permit openly to carry a firearm. Judge Helen Gillmor granted motions to dismiss under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and sent George off to sulk. See Young v. Hawaii, 911 F. Supp. 2d 972 – Dist. Court, D. Hawaii 2012.

12 Feb 2018 George Young appealed the adverse ruling to the 9th Circuit. The panel reversed as to the County, dismissed as to the state, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. See Young v. Hawaii, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2018.

9th Circuit upholds crush on high-capacity gun magazine ban 17-56081.pdf

9th Circuit holds open carry Constitutional 12-17808.pdf

Ken Ditkowsi on illegal immigration

The Chan case is of particular interest today. Many well meaning people are upset by the media blitz concerning the separation of children from their mothers. The hue and cry was virtually zero up until the media found that the Trump Administration *****.

I am not arguing for any policy, except equal protection under the law. Equal protection of the law is a hallmark of America that the Political Elite from time to time ignore to foster political expediency.

The DEMAGOGUES have staked a position fueled by half truths and deception. People who resort to this type of tactic are a clear and present danger to democracy and follow the tenets of our enemies.

The Obama administration placed children in cages not because they were monsters or precursors of the Trump Administration – they were following the law. The law as written is indeed harsh, and was engaged by congress. Congress when it enacted the law thought it was acting in good faith and indeed most of the good people who address this charged political situation agreed. Only the hypocrites and demagogues have closed minds.

The law separating children from the parents accused by our society of committing crimes has its origins in parents patrie. It is cruel and unusual punishment to submit a child to prison because the parent has been charged with a crime. The harsh conditions of prison were deemed not appropriate for children, ergo children are relegated to the care of close relatives or government protected facilities. The law is generic and makes no exception for people illegally trying to enter the United States.

The ploy of seeking amnesty/Asylum is in most situations exactly that. Under Law Asylum is not an option, unless it is Mexico (i.e. the country of origin) that is threatening the life of the applicant. Indeed, you and I have had experience with Amnesty/asylum .

Chan, was an engineer by trade living in China. The Red Guard went on a government sponsored rampage and killed all of his family except his grandmother and he. He was shipped to a camp for retraining. When he returned he returned to his job as an Engineer; however, it was not long and the Red Guard became active again. This time they killed grandmother and Chan barely escaped with his life to Hong Kong.

For a finite period of time Chan resided in Hong Kong; however, with the Red Guard sentence of death it was not long before his life once again was in clear and imminent danger. The family arranged for Chan to obtain employment on a Ship (as a seaman) and to travel to the United States. When the Ship arrived in the US, Chan slipped over the side and began his new life. He sought employment in his engineering trade.

As the US takes a dim view ASIAN illegal entry, INS 7 years later seized Chan, he was arrested and charged with the crime of making an illegal entry into the United States. Chan was ordered deported but before this could occur the family arranged for him to come to Chicago. In Chicago the family made the rounds of the immigration bar in anticipation that Chan would be rounded up again. The Bar told the family that Chan was "dead meat" and would be going back to his DEATH in China via Hong Kong.

When Chan was arrested he was immediately prepared to be expelled from the US. I was retained and I filed a petition in the Administrative Court provided by INS. I asked for suspension of the deportation order based upon the fact that Chan’s life was forfeit the second that he arrived in the orient.

The ASA, and the Judge were amused by my petition. The judge ridiculed me by asking me if I knew something that he did not know. I informed him that indeed I did, but assured him that he also knew things I did not know. The Judge then asked me if there was a foreign relations problem with Britain that he had not heard of informing me that the last conflict we had was in 1812. Under the law to be entitled to HC or amnesty Chan would have to prove that the elements required were all in play NOW! The amnesty/protection would then be afforded Chan as they related to the country that he was going to be deported to! In other words – the fact that China would kill Chan on sight, he was not going to be deported to China – he was going to be deported to Hong Kong – Hong Kong was administered to by England. As we had no current problem with England and England was not a danger to Chan my plea was 180 degrees wrong. My petition was to be denied. CHAN WAS GUILTY OF A SERIOUS CRIME – i.e. entry into the United STates illegally – he could either be sentenced to jail or deported. The government chose to deport him. (I recall that Chan had married and had a young child – however, this issue was not raised or considered – Chan would have been separated from his child under our law. If Mrs. Chan was illegal both would have been separated = the child is a CITIZEN and cannot be removed without the consent of his parents. The family would be reunited when returned to the country of origin)

With hat in hand I asked for 24 hours to amend my petition. I read the statute word by word and was confronted with the proposition that Chan having been in the United STates and acting as good person was eligible to a hardship consideration. I presented a "hardship" petition. It was granted and Chan was given a priority admission to the United States from Toronto – Canada.

As you are aware, I was delighted and spraining my arm patting myself on the back when I realized that to get in Canada Chan needed PAPERS. I tried the Chinese– they invited Chan and me to the consulate to talk – I knew that Chan once in the consulate would be a prisoner, so I declined. The US government refused to grant me any considerations and in fact I was told: "If you don’t know what you are doing, you should not do it" I had on the surface no way to get into Canada. The smart ass ASA suggested that I sneak Chan into Canada.

I did not sneak Chan into Canada. As you recall I complied with Canadian Law and accomplished my goal. (I called the Canadian immigration and arranged for an exclusion hearing for Chan – the hearing was scheduled for late in the afternoon so that it had to be adjourned until the next day.) Mr. Chan was paroled into my custody and we went to the American consulate, picked up the papers required for the priority entry, returned to the Court, agreed to the exclusion and Chan was deported to the United States complete with the documents necessary to complete a priority LEGAL admission.

Chan has since become a citizen of the United States of America.

The pictures of caged children and the wild allegations of the demagogues are all political deceptions calculated to advance the political adventures of dishonorable members of the Political Elite and no friends of the proposed immigrants. The hate mongering and intolerance is deplorable and the concern for the immigrants is an oxymoron. If the demagogues had a scintilla of humanity in them, they would address the problem honestly and directly – however, they do not want to do so.

As an example, the demagogues could propose a bill in congress to exempt the immigration scenario from the parens patrie separation of children from their families! Watch – not one of these miscreants will join in proposing legislation or passing such legislation — it is easier and more profitable to continue their policy of deception and fraud.

Ken Ditkowsky

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Winston Shrout Sentencing Delayed again. He must be CRAZY.

Arch Scammer Winston Shrout’s defense team is just Full of tricks, getting the sentencing postponed again. A grand jury indicted him, the Oregon USDC tried him, a jury of his peers convicted him, and he has skillfully avoided sentencing for over a year.

Anna Reizinger, Pope of Cow Plop, your future is calling.

04/21/2017 109 Jury Verdict as to Winston Shrout regarding Winston Shrout (1) Guilty on Count 1s-7s,8s-10s,11s-13s,14s-19s. (bp) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

Here are the most recent docket entries, showing an effort to get him declared mentally incompetent. He must be crazy to spread cow plop regarding paying debts and taxes with international bills of exchange and harvesting unwarranted tax refunds through the 1099-OID scam.

01/23/2018 126 ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 123 Third Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing Date as to Winston Shrout (1) for the compelling reasons submitted in defense counsel’s materials. The Court advises there will be no further extensions for any reason. Sentencing is set for 5/17/2018 at 10:00AM in Portland Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. Sentencing set for 2/20/2018 at 11AM is STRICKEN. (bp) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
03/07/2018 127 Unopposed Motion for Authorization to Travel by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
03/08/2018 128 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 127 Motion for Authorization as to Winston Shrout (1) to travel per request in the defendant’s motion and return before his scheduled sentencing on May 17, 2018. ORDER allowing Pretrial Services to return the defendant’s passport and defendant to return the passport within 72 hours of his return. (bp) Modified on 3/12/2018 regarding passport (bp). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
04/16/2018 129 Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/16/2018 130 Motion For Order To Seal by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
04/19/2018 131 Motion Motion to File Government’s Response Under Seal filed by USA as to Defendant Winston Shrout. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Langston, Lee) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/19/2018 132 ORDER Granting 130 Motion for Leave to File Declaration of Counsel and Exhibit Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1). Signed on 4/19/2018 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (sss) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/23/2018 134 ORDER Granting 131 Motion to File Government’s Response Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1) Signed on 4/23/2018 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (sss) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
04/25/2018 136 Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/25/2018 137 ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 136 Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1). (bp) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
04/26/2018 139 Scheduling Order by Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout. Oral Argument is set for 5/7/2018 at 11:00AM before Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland Courtroom 10A. (bp) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
05/07/2018 141 Minutes of Proceedings: Granting 129 Motion for Hearing as to Winston Shrout (1). A hearing will be set after the expert witnesses are available for a hearing. Motion Hearing before Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout held on 5/7/2018. Sentencing hearing set for 5/17/2018 at 10AM is STRICKEN and will be reset at a competency hearing. ORDER: The court is ordering a competency evaluation by Dr. Lopez at OHSU with a report due no later than 6/29/2018. A competency hearing will be set in July after the evaluation has been completed. ORDER: Defense counsel will submit an unredacted copy of Dr. Martin’s report to the Court. Stuart A. Wexler, Lee Langston present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Ruben L. Iniguez present as counsel for defendant(s). (Court Reporter Jill Jessup.) (bp) (Entered: 05/07/2018)

Crooked Neil Garfield Warns Consumers about Crooked Lawyers

Crooked attorney Neil Garfield, ever concerned about public exposure to crooked or incompetent attorneys, writes to readers of his Living Lies blog:

Warning: Conduct your Due Diligence on ANY Attorney you Hire

by Neil Garfield Before you hire ANY attorney for a phone consultation, to conduct an analysis of your case, or retain them to represent you, please conduct your due diligence first. A simple google search with their name will usually suffice.

In fact, before you hire Neil Garfield for a consultation, case analysis, or other legal matter I suggest you conduct your due-diligence like you would when hiring any professional.

Always use caution if the Bar has publicly reprimanded an attorney.

If you believe you have been a victim of an unethical Florida foreclosure attorney, please report your experience to the Florida Bar at: https://www.floridabar.org/public/acap/assistance/

Contact me at:

Neil Garfield | March 27, 2018 at 2:54 pm

In the same spirit of consumer advocacy, I decided to help crooked Neil Garfield spread the word about crooked lawyers, in this case Neil himself. Here’s a little information on Neil:

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548048

JAX DAILY RECORD MONDAY, AUG. 1, 2016 12:00 PM EST

Supreme Court disciplines 32 attorneys

The Florida Supreme Court disciplined 32 attorneys — disbarring six, revoking the licenses of two, suspending 16 and publicly reprimanding eight.

Two attorneys were also placed on probation and another was ordered to pay restitution.

The attorneys are: […]

  • Neil Franklin Garfield, Parkland, to be publicly reprimanded. (Admitted to practice: 1977) In at least four instances, Garfield accepted money to represent clients and failed to follow through. In one case, Garfield did not perform the work and, when asked for a refund, denied knowing the client. In other cases, he failed to communicate, charged excessive fees, failed to return refunds upon request and failed to timely respond to Bar inquiries.

Frivolous Filings and Bogus Legal Theories

Neil Garfield’s frivolous filings and bogus legal theories have already cost at least one client, Zdislaw Maslanka, a wad of attorney fees in an utterly frivolous action to get his house free even though he remained current in his mortgage payments. As the docket entries below show, the Florida 4th District appellate panel affirmed the 17th Circuit’s dismissal of the case and ordered Maslanka to pay the attorney fees of the two mortgage creditors that he sued.

  • 4D14-3015-Zdzislaw E. Maslanka v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Embrace Home Loans
05/12/2016 Affirmed ­ Per Curiam Affirmed
05/12/2016 Order Granting Attorney Fees­Unconditionally ORDERED that the appellee Embrace Home Loans Inc.’s September 2, 2015 motion for attorney’s fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorney’s fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee
05/12/2016 Order Granting Attorney Fees­Unconditionally ORDERED that the appellee Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s September 3, 2015 motion for attorneys’ fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorneys’ fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee.

Last but not least, here is the text of an 8-page report that Neil Garfield charged Vincent Newman THOUSANDS of dollars for, advising a foreclosure defense and TILA rescission strategy. Newman obtained a pick-a-pay loan in 2010 to purchase a home, then defaulted. Garfield idiotically suggested mailing a notice of TILA rescission in 2016, and then suing to enforce it, without regard to the fact that the TILA statute of repose of 3 years for conditional rescission had already tolled, and the creditor had not violated TILA. Garfield thereby illustrated his delusional misunderstanding of conditional TILA rescission which the law allows only for non-purchase-money loans like refinances and HELOCS in which the creditor failed to give the borrower required disclosures of the right to cancel and the cost of the loan not more than $35 understated. No such TILA violation occurred in Newman’s case. Thus, Neil Garfield’s incompetent advice, had Newman heeded it, would have caused Newman expense and embarrassment through a frivolous, failing TILA rescission effort.