I don’t disagree and yet, too many people took everything he said at face value and started using his argument, without any understanding of how courts work and how detrimental to their cases some of those defenses were. I know for a fact that many pro se got thrown out of the court by judges who were irritated beyond belief at the suggestion that they ought to be given the infamous “free house”. As a result, many who could have saved the house and gotten a mod lost everything. As a paralegal, you know how courts are, right? Patience isn’t their strong suit…
Don’t get me wrong: people still have a duty to use judgment and critical sense but I think he knows by now who reads his site. Granted, Garfield does serve a purpose. But presenting the complete “security audit” which doesn’t come cheap either as the panacea for foreclosure, to subsequently declare that getting one plays in the hands of the banks (and it does) is wrong. And there is that little matter of coming up with all those theories and making people believe that they work while admitting to John Wright that they don’t and that even Max Gardner doesn’t use them.
The last point i don’t care for much is the idea that accepting a mod is almost stupid since the title is clouded. That “don’t settle for anything but a free house” doesn’t sit right with me: it’s hurt a lot of people.