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.
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
Affirmed Per Curiam Affirmed
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
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.
Dear Authors of Senseless (is there any other kind?) Gun Control Articles:
Why don’t our federal and state governments allow citizens to prevail in law suits against law enforcers for failing to protect the citizens?
First of all, governments claim sovereign immunity to lawsuits they don’t want to entertain. Courts have ruled that the First Amendment right to petition for redress does not require government to redress or even to read or listen to the petition.
Second, when two parties have a dispute, an intervenor on the scene has no way of determining who is right or wrong, or to what extent. The rules of evidence and of civil and appellate procedure allow the courts (judges and juries) to determine the facts and governing laws in any dispute. But many judicial activities are hopelessly crooked.
For supporting considerations read Criminal Law 2.0, 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s 2015 preface to the Georgetown Law Journal. He shows how flawed evidence gets through the holes in the criminal justice system, crooked prosecutors corrupt due process by manipulating grand juries and intimidating innocent defendants into pleading guilty, and police lie incessantly. Then he makes many suggestions for improving justice. He wouldn’t have done that but for the corruption and criminality of the criminal justice system actors. We simply cannot trust them
Now, then, why doesn’t government have the right to restrain the public from owning and possessing, and carrying dangerous arms (guns, knives, clubs, etc)?
First of all, the 2nd Amendment prohibits such restraint and acknowledges that militias require armed members and ONLY militias and armed individuals can repel tyrants, thugs, invaders, insurrectors, rapists, murderers, psychopaths, and sundry bad guys of any and all sorts.
Second, the people cannot trust Government to protect them from malicious treatment by foreign and domestic enemies; only fools think the law requires police to protect them. In fact, the people know that police don’t care who starts an armed dispute, for they will arrest both the non-government aggressor and the defender, and let the court sort it out. Law enforcers, of course, will not arrest government operative aggressors, and the citizen will just become a victim of that aggression unless he has sufficient arms to repel the aggressor and law enforcers.
You see the point here, right? NOTHING but the citizens’ arms and their indomitable will to use them stands between them and aggressors of all sorts. Any adult who has paid attention to news stories knows that many government operatives are just badged criminals intent upon abusing whomever they wish, without probable cause, often upon fabricated evidence.
I hope you will keep the foregoing realities in mind before penning further gun control advocacy pulp fiction.
Yes, crazy people can grab an AR15 sporting rifle, shoot up a school, and slaughter students and teachers while the FBI sleeps on complaints about the shooters and cops run for cover outside. You well know that gun control won’t solve that problem, for determined assailants can always find weapons for killing unsuspecting people.
But better arming and training for teachers and administrators, and better security procedures at schools, churches, and other public facilities can prevent such incidents. Crazed assailants usually duck and run when defenders start shooting back at them.
Yes, determined and clever aggressors can wear body armor or attack from long distances with bombs or sniper rifles. If they annoy government enough, government will go after them. But the people have no guarantee of it. That just means the citizenry and its militias need ever-more advanced weapons, technology, and means to track the aggressors to their source and eliminate them.
I predict that in due course Islamic Jihadis will perpetrate ever more devastating terrorist acts against the people of the USA. That means the Americanist citizenry must become ever more vigiliant, prepared, armed, and DANGEROUS to violent aggressors through its militias.
There is “no free lunch” when it comes to defending the homeland and its citizens against determined terrorists. I hate thinking of anybody becoming victim of them, but when terrorists come, I hope they come for you first. At least they’ll know that you don’t have any dangerous firearms to ward them off. And we’ll have lost an idiot who wants government to take away our automatic weapons and other means of defending ourselves, our families, our homes, and our communities.
The Florida Legislature prudently disagrees with the utterly stupid and Communist idea of banning assault weapons. Here’s a good reason: An AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle that can hold a 10, 15, 20, or 30-round magazine. That does not make it an assault rifle. An assault rifle like the M4 Carbine has a switch for selecting safe, semi-automatic, or either fully automatic (M4A1, see photo) or 3-round burst mode (M4). The automatic and burst modes are for target practice and and killing people, not game animals.
But more importantly, the individual responsible adult citizen has the constitutionally guaranteed right AND the DUTY as a local militia member to own and possess small arms as functional and effective as the best small arms the military provides to its soldiers. Dude. Yes. We should have fully automatic weapons suitable for slaughtering the enemy in a pitched or emergency battle, including individual or groups of thugs attempting or threatening to mug, rob, rape, pillage, or plunder.
Military service is not intended to pussify recruits into fearing dangerous firearms in the hands of responsible citizens. It is intended to turn recruits into disciplined combatants who can go into warrior mode and become intensely and lethally dangerous to a foreign or domestic enemy when the need arises.
Why does individual lethality become so important?
Because we, the people, cannot EVER depend upon Government’s military, sheriffs, or police to protect us from invasion, insurrection, or random criminal activity. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police have no legal duty to protect people, not even under an injunction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales.
The US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment provides this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t believe I have read a clearer, more concise provision in the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment. It acknowledges that the people must have combat weapons (arms) to function as soldiers in a militia, and that they must have those arms available at all times for defense of their persons, family, home, property, community, and other rights, including hunting, target practice, and drilling, maneuvering, and bivouacking with the militia. One armed citizen standing guard against rioters at the community entrance can constitute a militia.
People learn quickly in life how dangerous government can and does become through its laws, its armed investigators, its secret agents, its police and code enforcers, its courts and sheriffs, and its military. People intuitively know that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no means of enforcing its provisions.
How then do those provisions get enforced? They get enforced through the collective will of an armed populace, most especially through the militia. The militia IS the local, militant force of the people of the several states.
Federal law provides for a militia in the form of the National Guard of the United States and separate National Guards of the several states. The President runs the US National Guard, and the Governors run their state National Guards. The Constitution requires Congress and the States to organize, arm, train, and provide leadership for the militia.
But what happens when the people and the governments operate at cross purposes, or when the government fails in its duty?
Only one force stands between the people and an abusive, tyrannical government, or individual tyrants in government: the local militia organized, armed, trained, and led by the local citizenry. In case you haven’t stopped to notice, governments have sneakily, nastily encroached on numerous constitutional rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms, and the people have done nothing about it because we have no organized militia. If this bothers you, get busy organizing and joining a local militia today. And POUND on your legislators to remove restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
Take note that school teachers should demand for the schools or the local militia to arm and train them so that they can shoot and kill malefactors who threaten to hurt them or their wards.
Southern belle, structural engineer, and confessed liberal millennial, mother, and wife Anastasia Bernoulli blogged in favor of gun control. She attempted to use commonsense reasoning to engender disdain for public possession of assault rifles like the AR15, M16, or M4 carbine.
She began by explaining that as a former US Army soldier, she received training on and loved the accuracy and ease of use of the M4 carbine. Then she explained why she believes the American public has no need or use for such a weapon other than for killing lots of people fast, the very use to which several deranged militants have put the assault carbine.
She seems to think all such weapons should be locked inside an armory the way the military kept them when soldiers did anything but combat or weapons training. It goes without my saying, I suppose, that she also believes people with such weapons at hand should have no ammunition for them except during live fire at the shooting range or in sergeant-supervised combat. She flat-out believes that civilians with assault weapons could never successfully engage government troops with much more advanced and meaner weapons. She never experienced guerrilla war, I suppose.
That aside, Anastasia could quit her engineering job any day and switch to journalism. I like her writing style that much. And her liberal mind-set (inability to reason rationally regarding civilians possessing weapons of war) perfectly suit her move to such a career. Read her blog articles for yourself. I write my response to them below.
As much as I love the flow and style of your writing, I kept noticing logical fallacies in your arguments, particularly when you cite an analogy or example to support your point. I’ll cut to the chase here. Your idea has holes, but you could patch them up. Okay, now I’ll drone on…
Example of bad logic. You wrote that 18% of NYPD bullets miss the target and hit elsewhere, implying the bullets will hit innocent people, and if cops can’t shoot straight, then civilians certainly cannot shoot straight and will end up killing each other by accident.
“Dude. NO.” Every unarmed able person runs and hides when the shooting starts, leaving the shooter alone. Cops miss from adrenaline nerves, or from ducking and dodging while running for cover. But when the cops start shooting back, the bad guy’s aim goes bad, and he starts missing. If nobody shoots back, the bad guy just keeps killing. THERE you have the problem with your logic.
As for the effectiveness of a pistol, a person who knows the point-and-shoot technique fires accurately by pointing, without aiming. A 9mm can easily kill and maim at 50 yards, and most school shootings occur at much shorter distances indoors or in classrooms. That moots your rifle logic.
Schools should arm patrol guards with bullpup 5.56mm carbines like the Tavor with frangible rounds. They should arm teachers with compact 9mm pistols with frangible rounds- females can wear a bra or thigh holster to conceal it. And it will take only a couple of dead teen thugs to teach students not to try disarming the teacher, a lesson worth the grieving of parents who feel secretly glad to have lost their bad egg.
Genghis Kahn was said to have remarked that government doesn’t miss dead children because parents can make more of them in short order, but it sorely misses dead taxpayers and soldiers. I tend to agree. If allowed to thrive, bad eggs victimize many during their formative and adult years – society should nip them in the bud, along with the parents who produce and train them to iniquity. Besides, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs, right? How’s that for logic contretemps?
This brings me to the most glaring flaw in your “Dude. No.” gun control thesis. It ignores the salient reality that 25% of the nation’s population has an IQ barely higher than a bucket of rocks. That disease has no cure. Doesn’t everybody know that children inherit their stupidity or intelligence from their parents?
Use your engineering mind to evaluate the Gaussian distribution of IQ scores of racial groups. I found that roughly 22 million Negroes, 25 million non-white Hispanics, and 33 million Caucasians have IQ below 85, the minimum IQ one needs to graduate from a high school that administrators have not intentionally dumbed down to allow the stupid to pass.
That gives the USA 80 million people who have gravitated to crime and welfare abuse because they cannot compete for the better jobs or mates. They procreate without restraint, unlike their much smarter counterparts who, ironically, don’t seem to have the intelligence needed to procreate at a rate sufficient to sustain their gene groups.
Stupid people cause most street crime. Stupid children become miscreants in school because throwing them in with smarter students makes them feel frustrated and angry. Smarter students hate being around them, but have no choice.
Medicos administer Ritalin and other mind altering drugs to stablize children, but it can make them violent. Wherefore, school integration of the smart, the stupid, and excessive numbers from wildly alien cultures, has contributed to the craziness that leads to school shootings.
Pogo said it best: “We has found the enemy, and he is us.” America should not remain a breeding ground for intellectual maggots, and should not force children of extreme cultural and intellectual differences to interact with one another in an academic environment.
The abject absence of procreation controls, and incompetent immigration controls, have dramatically increased the percentage of irresponsible people in the population. Our schools hurry that process along by integrating the smart in with the stupid.
You know what that means – fecund children fuck, and procreate with, only those they meet in school or socially, and the smart seldom fraternize with the stupid outside of school. Thus, willy-nilly integration dumbs down the gene pool. But for schools, the stupid and the smart would never meet till after they have selected mates from their own gene groups.
Until America cures the foregoing problems, Americans should pack heat and keep an assault weapon handy at home in case things go really bad. That brings me to your apparent theory that only the government should control access to assault weapons.
Before I start, I ask that you keep the rabidly insane, mind-blowingly expensive military conflicts of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria in the background of your thoughts. The crazy-ass government put our citizens into centuries if not millennia of debt to send hundreds of thousands of our precious men and women into those actions to slaughter or become casualties. THAT INSANELY dangerous government wants to control OUR access to dangerous weapons.
Giving Government the benefit of the doubt (?!)… No matter what you wish, Government forces cannot go everywhere at once, and governments can and do go rogue, such as at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and recently in the Oregon Bundy land dispute.
No one can blame communities of people for arming themselves against such rogues. We can feel fortunate because we have not seen Nazi SS troopers invading our homes, bashing, raping, and looting. But European immigrants have witnessed it and their descendants comprise some of the staunchest advocates of gun freedoms. The news media has shown mobs of Negroes and Democrats intimidating, looting, and destroying. We trust that our government will stay essentially good and prevent or quash such public menaces, but nothing, absolutely NOTHING, guarantees it, and indeed, history exposes Government’s character as an evil empire.
Congress should organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and the state governments should provide its officers and training. The President commands only that part of the militia reserved to federal service. The National Guard constitutes the formal militias of the states under federal law, but the US military conscripted the National Guard for foreign conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing much trouble in the homes of the Guard members.
Theoretically a secondary state militia consists of all other able bodied people aged 17 to 64. I have not in my lifetime learned of any organization of a militia of such people by state or federal government. And frankly, having a state militia under total control of the President can easily run at cross purposes to the welfare of the people of the state, particularly when some branch of government becomes tyrannical. We have no choice but to presume that the states intend never to rely upon local militias, not even if reptilian people come running out of their holes in the earth to terrorize us.
But unless you have stinking thinking, you know that only the militias of the several states can enforce the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A populous, strong, responsible, and adequately armed militia keeps otherwise evil Government restrained on a short leash.
Until we see actual local militia organized under state leadership, and not under complete dominion of the federal government, we must surmise none does or will exist until a crisis has come and gone. In other words, the purported militia, the National Guard of each state, is nothing more than a federal government tool, so the people of a state cannot depend upon it to protect them from government tyranny.
It has become monumentally evident that governments OPPOSE any free militia because only a free militia can threaten government abuse of power. So, NOW constitutes the only viable time for a population to arm itself against invasion, insurrection, riot, mayhem, or the terrorism of Islamic Jihadists or government thugs disguised as law enforcers. Wherefore, our weaponry should suffice for that purpose. Otherwise why bother?
THAT shoots the biggest hole in your gun control theory. Yes your arguments soften our hearts, but your logic has an inescapable sourness to it, the faint but unmistakable stench of tyranny in the making through rank, namby-pamby negligence and lapse of the eternal vigilance necessary to responsible liberty.
By the way, let me address your argument that “we had weapons in the armory but we didn’t carry them around” on your military base. I’ll give you the main reason. In combat, you have a definite chain of command, operative, and in force. A sergeant has grilled, disciplined, and stood on the necks of his minions throughout boot camp and other training. And his commanding officer stands on him and all the troops through the chain of command, ensuring that they will follow orders or face severe discipline.
The command chain keeps subordinates under constant scrutiny and on a short leash, lengthening it only for soldiers of proven trustworthiness, and only for a given mission. But when soldiers go about their personal business unarmed, nobody stands by to scrutinize and control their behavior or pull them up short on that longer leash. This variety of leash length, so to speak, gives reasonable liberty and control to the organization and its members.
But take a look at the members, as young as 17 who might not have the intelligence to graduate from high school, depending on the branch of service and the crises of recruitment. Many, if not most, have lived under negligent to abusive parental supervision. The smarter ones would have gone to college if they could afford it. The military tries, but cannot, undo a lifetime of malingering, conniving, malfeasance, thuggery, wimpiness, pampering, or abuse at the hands of irresponsible parents.
That explains why a sergeant and a chain of command stand on the recruits 24/7 during basic training, and closely monitor them thereafter, hoping they will stand firm or advance bravely in the face of enemy fire, and officers stand ready to shoot any combat cowards. Government simply cannot trust its soldiers to behave according to orders, even after the rigors of basic training. Wherefore, it keeps combat weapons under lock and key except during weapons training or combat deployment.
The public has no chain of command upon which it can rely for highly trained, excellent leadership. Until a more selfless and enlightened ethos becomes the world pattern for living, the people must fend for themselves without good leaders or military-quality police to protect them and to prevent unauthorized access to their living quarters, business offices, training grounds, and streets. Furthermore, the citizenry have no reasonable assurance of freedom from abuse by the police and courts.
That might seem unfortunate to some, but liberty has its blessings to justify its curses. Many, I among them, believe that the legalized plunder that characterizes modern western governments has enslaved populaces through low productivity of the stupid and high debt and taxation on the productive. Corrupt government funds the miscreants and feckless of society, including corporate and foreign welfare recipients. That enslavement has taken on the hue of an evil force inimical to the welfare of intelligent and productive people. Only ONE force keeps that evil in check: the locked and loaded pistols, shotguns, rifles, and assault weapons of the more responsible elements in the populace, particularly when organized in militias with a will to use those weapons to suppress tyranny.
In summary, your Pollyanna misgivings about effectiveness of public possession of sniper, assault, and fully automatic machine guns against tyranny must bow to the history written in the blood of populations whom tyrants or poverty disarmed. So a few crazy bastards get their hands on assault rifles and take out a bevy of students or abortion clinic patients or night club revelers. In view of the history of tyranny, that loss constitutes a minuscule price to pay for the freedom to possess dangerous firearms and munitions. In time, government will find effective ways to keep crazy bastards from getting their hands on such weapons, without disarming responsible citizens.
So, Dude. Yes. Americans have good and sufficient historical reasons for acquiring assault weapons, training with them in local militias and at shooting ranges and sporting events, and keeping them stashed at home with a trove of ammo, easily owner-accessible, well-maintained, and ready for emergency use.
We never know when peace, good will, order, and public safety will go totally and quickly to shit. But we have examples: the slaughter at the October 2017 Las Vegas strip Harvest Music Festival slaught4er; the June 2016 Orlando Pulse night club slaughter; and the August 2014 rampaging Negro riots in Ferguson, MO. No National Guard militia attended those events. So, what advantage do they give us?
Let your engineering mind consider this: any reasonably well-trained combat marksman with a 9 mm Sig Sauer P320 pistol could have instantly terminated the recent slaughters at the schools, churches, movie theaters, and night club; and any combat marksman with an assault rifle could have terminated the slaughter at Las Vegas. I see no reason why school teachers could not receive training in combat marksmanship or become card-carrying, steely-eyed militia members with a “Fuck You – I Like Guns” attitude.
If recent episodes of mayhem worry you, start blogging about the need for state and county governments to form, train, and arm LOCAL militias for LOCAL use only, maintain local, fast-access militia armories, coordinate local militias with local police and sheriff deputies, and provide assault-weapon-armed, volunteer former US Marine/SpecOps citizens to patrol public assemblages that law enforcers simply cannot or will not accommodate.
I end my comments by pointing out the elephant in the room. Constitutional rights don’t belong to everyone in the USA. The 2nd Amendment applies only to people with a nexus to government such as those who might serve in a militia or back them up at home. Americans well-understand, and do not complain, that illegal aliens, felons, minor children, mental incompetents, and protection injunctees do not have the legal right to own or possess firearms under federal and state laws.
So, I construe your arguments as an exhortation to tighten the restrictions on the irresponsible, such as by stripping 2nd Amendment rights from users and addicts of mind-altering substances, habitues of vices that incline them to further criminal behavior, epileptics and others with bad motor control or seizures, mental defectives, people with IQ below 90, people who demonstrate profound irresponsibility like career welfare recipients, people with long arrest records, people with a history of bullying, threatening, intimidating, or unjustified violent behavior, people who taunt, tease, and tend to drive others crazy, and people with no firearms safety or marksmanship training. Maybe you can add other irresponsibles to the list.
To any who say, “Fuck You – I Like Guns” you might warn “Then behave responsibly, learn good manners, and DON’T make a nuisance of yourself, or else we’ll get the court to take your guns away from you and sell them at auction.”
Every southern belle knows that even angels lose their liberty when they cannot or will not behave responsibly.
See? You have a happy medium. You have no problem with bridled personal LIBERTY exercised RESPONSIBLY. Do you?
Anastasia, please forgive any confusion I caused by injecting to-be verbs or passive voice into my comments above. I don’t write for a living.
Storm Bradford of Loudon County, Virginia founded a litigation support company decades ago (see http://LawPartnerOnCall.com) to help attorneys win cases. As an adjunct to that activity, he founded Mortgage Fraud Examiners to aid attorneys for borrowers with mortgage problems. Bradford’s team examined every aspect of a loan transaction from inception to present time in order to discover who injured the borrower and how. THIS, according to Storm Bradford, was the ONLY way to beat foreclosure because it enabled the borrower to attack the injurious parties in court and win legal fees plus compensatory and punitive damages.
Around the same time, attorney Neil Garfield came out of retirement with a new and different business plan. He started delivering seminars across the land encouraging attorneys to take on broke mortgage foreclosure victims as clients, and charge them $500 to $1500 per month to drag out the foreclosure proceedings as long as possible, sometimes as much as 5 or 6 years. In that way, the attorneys could earn $20,000 to $50,000 per client and use only cookie-cutter / copy-machine pleadings without doing any real work other than leading the client by the hand into the inexorable jaws of foreclosure.
Those who learned first hand the value of Storm Bradford’s comprehensive mortgage examination from his web site http://MortgageFraudExaminers.com discovered that they could negotiate settlements with the injurious parties and never have to go through foreclosure. They looked at Storm Bradford as their “SAVIOR” because the examination report provided information that enabled them to stop the foreclosure and settle with the creditor.
“I’m NOT a home savior,” declared Bradford in an interview. “I just give the loan transaction the equivalent of an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging, Ed.], showing evidence of the injuries to the borrower, just as an MRI shows evidence of a brain tumor. A patient will need a competent surgeon to remove a brain tumor. A borrower might need a competent attorney to sue the servicer, creditor, lender, appraiser, mortgage broker, title company, or other party. But usually the borrower can negotiate a settlement because the injurious party wants to avoid the expense of losing in court.
“So, while borrowers might see me as a savior, actually, I just show them how they got injured in the loan transaction,” Bradford said, “and if artfully presented in court, that evidence is worth its weight in GOLD because it can win a judgment in favor of the borrower!”
These days, Neil Garfield still schemes to get clients for mortgage-related services that some consider worthless, and Storm Bradford still performs comprehensive mortgage examinations that give borrowers evidence of injuries, and their only possibility of prevailing in a dispute involving the foreclosure and related counter claims and cross claims. To many, Storm Bradford is both Hero and SAVIOR!
I have attached Winston Shrout’s jury verdict, guilty on 19 counts –
7 counts of making or producing a fictitious financial instrument
3 counts of presenting or passing a fictitious financial instrument
3 counts of mailing or shipping a fictitious financial instrument
6 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return (for years 2009 – 2014)
Patriot Myth Monger Winston Shrout will spend years in prison (and possibly die there) for practicing what he preached – bogus methods of obtaining undeserved money and of not paying taxes. He might have fared better by following David Myrland’s or Pete Hendrickson’s recommendations for avoiding payment of taxes one does not owe. See below Winston Shrout’s docket report as of today, from PACER.GOV.
If you have sat at the feet of a patriot myth monger, hanging on his every word, struggling to squeeze sense out of his preachments and absorb them into your being, pay heed to the fate of Winston Shrout. We don’t know its full impact on his life, and we certainly cannot envy it. He could have avoided the fate had he not tried to “Trick” the system by embracing mythological nonsense about the US Government and our status and obligations under the law.
If you have followed a patriot myth monger, seek competent legal counsel before you get into serious trouble.
Read James Damore’s employee memo (reproduced below) that started the uproar, and read Sundar Pichai’s idiotic response.
The memo called Google culture an echo chamber that suppresses honesty, and explained why women are biologically unable to do as well as men in tech jobs. Damore wrote this:
“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. … We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. … Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. ”
I’d extend that to say women don’t fare as well as men in military combat, and men don’t manage a domestic environment as well as women. The genders have their built-in relative strengths and weaknesses.
I personally believe women should, during their fecund years, stay home and rear, nurture, educate, and train their husband’s children, and employ them in the family enterprise to teach them a good work ethic, and cooperation at reaching mutual goals, as well as to earn more family income.
If women actually did this instead of competing against men in the workplace, America would have stronger, more productive families and better government, men would earn enough from one paycheck for a good standard of living for the family without needing a second income, children would grow up to become more responsible citizens and workers, more couples would marry and stay married, and more married couples could enjoy their sunset years in affluence.
Political correctness of the type promoted by Sundar Pichai at Google, constitutes a grave danger to American society because it encourages people to ignore statistical reality about the differences between men and women, shaming them into silence on any related topic, lest discussion of relevant issues appear as harassment, intimidation, bias, and discrimination. It also encourages embrace of the myth that men and women are equal. Pichai is a damned fool for perpetuating such nonsense.
Let us all try to remember that throughout the million years of human habitation of this world, women have traded sexual favors to men in exchange for security. Natural selection has ensured that the players in this woman-concocted exchange survive better than the non-players. Today that exchange characterizes the way men and women present themselves to one another and to society, in and out of the workplace. The genders might have remained somewhat equal, but thanks to women, they have not, no matter what today’s delusional feminists wish.
Now for the diversity memo…
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion
go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore – damore@
Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss
Reply to public response and misrepresentation 1 TL;DR 2
Google’s biases 2
Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3
Personality differences 4 Men’s higher drive for status 5
Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5
The harm of Google’s biases 6
Why we’re blind 7
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.  Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Compassion for the weak
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are due to injustices
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently cooperative
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is good (unstable)
Change is dangerous (stable)
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do.
This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education.
Women on average are more prone to anxiety.
Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology  that can irreparably harm Google.
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ  and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap . Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness , which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
 This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.