MERS History Re-Re-Revised

Several comments have been posted in addition to other information about MERS which is bringing the entire MERS issue over the brink of the absurd. Who, what where is MERS? Write in with your MERS stories. Take note that we are dealing with at least four entities that I am now aware of —MERS, MERSCORP, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (note plural), Mortgage Electronic registration System, Inc. (note singular). Who are they? What are they in this shell game of “bankruptcy remote vehicles and why are the courts so deaf to the obvious implications of this game on the quality of title on each and every one of the 60 million homes that MERS alleges to have in its data base? Is our judiciary being run by politics — the one branch of government that is supposed to be independent of the executive and legislative branches that have been so useless in this crisis?

In a classic reverse of fortunes, the bad guys have taken control of the dialogue and using legal technicalities and their formidable size and names to impress the judge that it is the hapless borrower who is trying to get away with something on a legal technicality. In a perversion of lady justice, these people take homes that satisfy no obligation and keep the proceeds as a tip for keeping their mouths shut about the pornographic profits earned by Wall Street when these financial products were sold upstream to investors and down stream to homeowners. It is hush money to maintain the cone of silence about the huge profits earned on the down side when the mortgages went into default, just as they were always planned to do.

One reader writes in about Ohio: “I find it very interesting that here in Summit County Ohio, MERS USED to be listed as the Plaintiff in foreclosure actions within our court system. NOW, they are always listed as a Defendant. It’s like playing a game of MONOPOLY with my little brother here. When he found himself on the losing end of the game, he simply changed the rules.They CANNOT have it both ways.”
Another reader wrote in that in Florida the ONLY way MERS is registered to do business is as registered agent to receive service of process. If that is true their representations in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures has been false, fraudulent and flagrant. But of course we know that isn’t the only reason their representations have been false, fraudulent and flagrant.

Yet Minnesota seems to be sensitive to the banking interests, passing laws and interpreting statutes to give MERS status it was never meant to have. Bypassing those annoying provisions of the 5th and 14th amendment about due process, and 500 years of common law, they allow MERS to foreclose on a home and keep the house distributing the title and proceeds anyway it wants even though no MERS entity has EVER put one dime into the transaction and even though MERS is a total stranger to the transaction other than being named, without its knowledge but with its consent in tens of millions of real estate closings.

And California is allowing Judges to abandon 500 years of common law in allowing someone who is a stranger to the transaction to make claims at the cost, detriment and prejudice to the real parties to that transaction. Further, California continues to allow the procedural shell game in unlawful detainers wherein they use the law that was meant to be used in normal evictions and misapply to foreclosures in which the actors are impostors, blocking the homeowner from access to the courts or the right to be heard, and preventing the exercise of his/her rights to due process.

How do we know? Because if you go to the MERS website they tell you. And what they tell you is that they are a bankruptcy remote vehicle to be utilized in evading or avoiding laws on taxes, recordation, fees, and reporting. They tell the banks not to worry, they will never make a claim for the mortgage or the note or the obligation. They say they are only a bookkeeping service.

And from other sources we know they have about 17 employees, they have an automated attendant system to deputize anyone who knows how to access their system, and that ANYONE can sign as an officer of MERS even if none of the 17 people who work there ever heard of you or ever will hear of you.
It’s a shell game, and lawyers and Judges should be concentrating on this not because it is a legal technicality but because if we are a nation of laws, the protection of ALL interested parties should be our paramount concern. In each and every legal action neither the borrower nor the actual lender who advanced the cash for the loan is part of that equation.

In a classic reverse of fortunes, the bad guys have taken control of the dialogue and using legal technicalities and their formidable size and names to impress the judge that it is the hapless borrower who is trying to get away with something on a legal technicality. In a perversion of lady justice, these people take homes that satisfy no obligation and keep the proceeds as a tip for keeping their mouths shut about the pornographic profits earned by Wall Street when these financial products were sold upstream to investors and down stream to homeowners. It is hush money to maintain the cone of silence about the huge profits earned on the down side when the mortgages went into default, just as they were always planned to do.

This isn’t hard to understand. It is hard to accept. It is a challenge to us as citizens regardless of our political persuasions, to break up the oligopoly that controls Washington in BOTH political major parties and reinstate government for the people and by the people. I’m doing my part, what are you doing?

17 Responses

  1. […] MERS History Re-Re-Revised […]

  2. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/17/794358/-MERS-Losing!-Stop-Your-Foreclosure,-Share-with-Others

    I have been writing about MERS since September, 2008. You can find all my research at the website above.

    MERS had their Foreclosure plans in place in 1999! You can read the plan for your state here also.

    Enjoy! They really deserve a good spanking. Sadly, everyone who was anyone in the mortgage industry was part of this brain child.

  3. Jeff and Mike H,
    Thanks for your input. I think your points are correct and hold true in Mississippi. We did allege in our complaint that the Note has been separated from the Deed, in violation of both black letter law and the phrase in our Deed which says that the Note can be sold “together with” the Deed.

    I think it was Lisa E. who posted (on another thread) a mortgage fraud statute from Florida which said that mortgage fraud has been committed if any person files or causes to be filed a document which contains a misrepresentation. Mississippi has a very similar law but gets more specific when it says if anyone causes a deed of trust to be filed that contains a misrepresentation, it constitutes mortgage fraud.

    That being the case, anybody have any thoughts on alleging mortgage fraud against MERS (for causing to be filed) and/or my county recorder (for filing) my Deed of Trust, which contains the misrepresentation that MERS is the “beneficiary” of the Deed of Trust?

    After all, MERS is not a “beneficiary” of the Deed of Trust according to any legal definition or connotation of that term–MERS doesn’t receive funds from the borrower, never put up funds for the loan, etc. Therefore, the Deed of Trust does contain a misrepresentation.

  4. The bottom line, as in Florida, is that MERS is merely the “Registered Agent” for the original mortgagee and as such has no right to assign anything or take any legal action with regard to the
    debt or the property. Its true function is to receive
    notices and process for the original mortgagee and forward it on to the current owner of the debt.
    If the mortgage was not lawfully assigned at the same time that the Note was sold to a new owner, than the Note becomes unsecured, ie the Note holder
    has no equity in the property and can not use Equity
    Court to enforce the Note. The Note holder could still file an action at Law, obtain a judgement, and then do
    a sheriff sale of the property. In the latter case, since
    it’s an unsecured loan, bankruptcy court could modify it. Also in Homestead states like Florida and Texas
    the property could not be forcibly sold. The Judgement
    holder would have to wait for a voluntary sale to recoup its judgement. The judgement would remain a lein against the property until satisfied.
    If the Judges would just follow the law, all this confusion could be cleared up in a New York minute!

  5. Zure

    See if this helps, this is what the Judge said in my case, judicial state NY.

    In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2nd Dept., 1988] the Court held that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity and a cause of action for foreclosure must fail. In Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY 44 [1867] the Court of Appeals held that as a mortgage is but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure (cites omitted ), the logical conclusion is that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is assigned by it. The security cannot be separated from the debt, and exist independently of it. This is the necessary legal conclusion, and recognized as the rule by a long course of judicial decisions.” It should be noted that in MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 828 NYS2d 266 [2006], Justice Ciparick, in her concurring opinion specifically notes that the Court’s ruling left for another day the argument made by the County of Suffolk and various amici “that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against separating a lien from its debt

  6. OK. Got some questions.

    The well-known legal adage is that “the mortgage follows the note.”

    I don’t know if this adage is black letter law in every state, but it seems as though it would/should be. But if the adage DOES hold true for the most part, why was MERS even created? That is, if it is presumed (or contained in the law in so many words) that the mortgage follows the note, what real advantage does MERS confer onto the mortgage industry? Because if the mortgage AUTOMATICALLY follows the note, then no assignments would be necessary at the county recorder’s office, and MERS wouldn’t really save the mortgage industry any money by helping to avoid county recorders’ fees. Or am I missing something?

    Now, in my case, MERS seems to be attempting to do the opposite of the adage–they’re trying to make the note follow the mortgage. The document MERS filed with my county recorder is called a “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust” and purportedly “grants, assigns and transfer[s]…all beneficial interest under that certain deed of trust [on my property]…together with the note.”

    Hell, now that I read the document again for the millionth time, it occurs to me that “beneficial interest” is the PROCEEDS due under the note, and not the PROPERTY described in the deed of trust. In fact, “beneficial interest” is the term used in the Fannie Mae prospectus to describe what the investors are entitled to upon purchase of certificates.

    So what MERS appears to really be doing in this bizarre document is trying to make the deed, in which they are named, be the same thing as the note, in which they are not named. So instead of what I said above–that MERS is trying to make the note follow the mortgage–what they’re actually trying to do is make the deed BECOME the note, because they know that old adage: “the mortgage follows the note.” Could that be so?

    Now that I think about it, it seems that they are trying to pull a fast one, but in a different way than I’ve previously thought. I mean, there is no “beneficial interest” in a deed of trust, right? The deed of trust is a security instrument, not a beneficial instrument. And since they are the “beneficiary” of the deed of trust (perhaps I should take back what I just said about a deed of trust not being a beneficial instrument?), they are hoping to work some sleight of hand by essentially attempting to conflate the deed with the note and hoping no one, especially a judge, will notice.

    And one more thing regarding assignments. Today I read a bankruptcy case from Ohio which said that notes can’t be assigned. Specifically, the opinion says this: “Under Ohio law, the right to enforce a note cannot be assigned–instead, the note must be negotiated in accord with Ohio’s version of the UCC” (Kenneth and Michelle Wells, case no. 08-17639, Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren). I tried to look up whether or not this is true in my state of Mississippi, but what I found didn’t really answer my question. However, if it IS true for Mississippi that notes can’t be assigned, that is yet another blow against the defendants in my case, who supposedly were “assigned” a note.

    Any insight into these matters would be greatly appreciated. It has been an up and down day for me regarding my confidence about the strength of my case. Usually I’m convinced that my case is airtight or at least very convincing, but my lawyer said yet again today that the best that we can hope for is a modification. I don’t think that has to be or is the case, however.

  7. Foreclosure Fraud, you sir, are a trail blazer.

    Great info man!

    Also, peace to Mr. Garfield also for hosting such a fantasic forum. I wish you well.

    (Hetep)
    Peace

  8. folks check this out……plaintiff wells fargo,f/k/a norwest
    is not entitled to judgment as a matter of LAW..
    Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

    VERMONT GETS IT

    http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/TCDecisionCvl/2009-10-29-5.pdf

  9. you are exactly right neil,

    i experienced talking to the the VP of MERS in virginia, his name is bill hultman,
    i asked him how much mers sold my note because it says in an assignment of deed that for valuable amount mers is assigning the note to hsbc bla bla bla and he is very polite explaining to me about the legal lingo about the assignment and he told me there was no money involved about the assignment of , as he was trying to explained i told him that the assignment of deed is fraud and i have it reported to secretary of state of ca about the documents and it was indeed invalid documents because it was notarized outside ca. it was confirmed to me by a supervisor in notary department in sacramento. mr hultman was so upset with me and he said he gets used to be in the court all the time. mr. hultman thinks i m stupid and he just slam the phone and hang up on me. anyway, the one who notarized the document is under investigation by the state of PA and according to the counsel who handles the case PA has 14, 000 a year complaint received regarding notaries. stay tune.

  10. Martin
    I 2nd TW’s’ Motion
    If you want snail mail
    to me and I’ll scan and
    post.

    I gotta believe you have
    some buried treasure
    there if you SWAYED
    that attorney!

  11. Folks I’ve made a new posting about these issues at my blog page above. You must remember anyone beyond the originating lender has to prove to be a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

    This just isn’t a MERS issue! THE JUDGES ARE BLUNTLY STEALING HOMES. Then we have other JUDGES ENDORSING THEFT. Their also covering for the THIEVES…LOOK at LOGS.COM

    They are over 25 of the so called TOP LAWFIRMS! Yet they REPEATEDLY caught with PROMOTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY AN OFFICER OF THE COURT!

    It amazes me that we’re suppose to have adequate representation. Where? You can’t hire a GOOD ENOUGH ATTY!

  12. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
    Kevin Lamson

    •Basic Corporate Information

    •MERS is incorporated within the State of Delaware.
    •MERS was first incorporated in Delaware in 1999.
    •The total number of shares of common stock authorized by MERSʼ articles of incorporation is 1,000.
    •The total number of shares of MERS common stock actually issued is 1,000.
    •MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERS Corp, Inc.
    •MERS principal place of business at 1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310, Vienna, Virginia 22182
    •MERS national data center is located in Plano, Texas.
    •MERS serves as a “nominee” of mortgages and deeds of trust recorded in all fifty states.
    •Over 55 million loans have been registered on the MERS system.
    •MERS federal tax identification number is “541927784″.

    •The Nature of MERSʼ Business

    •MERS does not take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans.
    •MERS does not make or originate mortgage loans to consumers.
    •MERS does not extend any credit to consumers.
    •MERS has no role in the origination or original funding of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS does not service mortgage loans.
    •MERS does not sell mortgage loans.
    •MERS is not an investor who acquires mortgage loans on the secondary market.
    •MERS does not ever receive or process mortgage applications.
    •MERS is simply named as a nominee and its parent company MERS Corp Inc., maintains an electronic registry, tracks changes in the ownership of mortgage loans and servicing rights related thereto.
    •MERS© System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interests in mortgage loans.
    •MERS is not named as a beneficiary of the alleged promissory note.

    •Ownership of Promissory Notes or Mortgage Indebtedness

    •MERS is never the owner of the promissory note for which it seeks foreclosure.
    •MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”
    •MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage indebtedness.
    •MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
    •MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
    •MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
    •MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing rights related thereto.
    •MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).
    •MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans. The note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest, not to hold any interest in the note.
    •MERS does not hold any interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated with the mortgage loan.
    •The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay MERS on the note.

    •MERSʼ Accounting of Mortgage Indebtedness / MERS Not At Risk

    •MERS is not entitled to receive any of the payments associated with the alleged mortgage indebtedness.
    •MERS is not entitled to receive any of the interest revenue associated with mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •Interest revenue related to the mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as “nominee” is never reflected within MERS bookkeeping or accounting records nor does such interest influence MERS earnings.
    •Mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as the serves as “nominee” is not reflected as an asset on MERS financial statements.
    •Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not result in an accounting loss by MERS.
    •When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or enjoys the use of any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather would remit such proceeds to the true party at interest.
    •MERS is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor alleged to be in default.
    •MERS has never suffered any injury by arising out of any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.

    •MERSʼ Interest in the Mortgage Security Instrument

    •MERS is named on the mortgage as nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
    •MERS, in a nominee capacity for lenders, claims that it merely acquires legal title to the security instrument (i.e., the deed of trust or mortgage that secures the loan).
    •MERS claims that it holds legal title to mortgages and deeds of trust as a nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
    •MERS claims that it immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
    •The lender or investor continues to own and hold the promissory note, but under the MERS® System, the servicing entity only holds contractual servicing rights and MERS holds legal title to the mortgage as nominee for the benefit of the investor (or owner and holder of the note) and not for itself.
    •MERS claims that one of the advantages of its paperless systems is that the mortgage lien becomes immobilized by MERS continuing to hold the mortgage lien when the note is sold from one investor to another via an endorsement and delivery of the note or the transfer of servicing rights from one MERS member to another MERS member via a purchase and sale agreement which is a non-recordable contract right.
    •MERS claims that the legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust remains in MERS after such transfers and is tracked by MERS in its electronic registry.

    •Beneficial Interest in the Mortgage Indebtedness

    •MERS claims to hold legal title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note.
    •The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note and/or servicing rights thereunder.
    •MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage loan.
    •MERS does not acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature.
    •The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or the person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note (NOT MERS).

    •MERS As Holder

    • MERS is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary course of business.
    •MERS is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •MERS does not even maintain copies of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •Sometimes when an investor or servicer desires to foreclose, the servicer obtains the promissory note from the custodian holding the note on behalf of the mortgage investor and places that note in the hands of a servicer employee who has been “appointed” as an officer (vice president and assistant secretary) of MERS by corporate resolution. This technique is used by attorneys who purport to be representing MERS to feign standing by MERS to foreclose the mortgage by claiming that MERS is the holder of the promissory note. When in fact MERS, by its inventors design is never the holder of the promissory note.
    •When a promissory note is placed in the hands of a servicer employee that employee will then assume the position as a MERS officer de jour and pretend that this transfer of custody of the note into the hands of this nominal officer (without any transfer of ownership or beneficial interest) renders MERS the holder.
    •No consideration or compensation is exchanged between the owner of the promissory note and MERS in consideration of this transfer in custody. MERS is a bankruptcy remote corporation, and does not have any assets.
    •Even when the promissory note is physically placed in the hands of the servicers employee who is, at best, a nominal MERS officer, MERS has no actual authority to control the foreclosure or the legal actions undertaken in its name.
    •MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the owner of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent MERS.
    •MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the prior holders of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent MERS.
    •Since the transfer in custody of the promissory note is not for consideration, this transfer of custody is not reflected in any contemporaneous accounting records. MERS does not hold any loans nor pay any legal fees to foreclose any loans. MERS is essentially a shell.
    •MERS is never a holder in due course when the transfer of custody occurs after default.
    •MERS is never the holder when the promissory note is shown to be lost or stolen.
    •So-called “certifying officers” of MERS have submitted thousands if not tens of
    •thousands of affidavits in Court proceedings falsely claiming that MERS was the holder of the promissory note or that the note had been lost.
    •An increasing number of courts have learned of the fast and loose practice of various foreclosure attorneys preparing and the submitting affidavits signed by “certifying officers” of MERS wherein the statements contained in these affidavits are “disingenuous and/or outright misrepresentations”
    •Courts which have actually scrutinized the statements contained in these certifying officers affidavits have determined that these affidavit statements were not admissible because they were signed by people who had no personal knowledge of the facts
    •contained in the affidavits. They were therefore not competent to testify to the alleged facts.
    •The Hon. Linda B. Riegle, U.S. Bankrutpcy Judge, recently took issue with several affidavits that had been filed in support of several Motions for Relief from Stay by attorneys purporting to represent MERS. Judge Riegle refused to accept the affidavits of people claiming to be “Certifying Officers of MERS” which were submitted by attorneys purporting to represent MERS in an attempt to feign standing by pretending to be a holder of notes. Hawkins 2009 WL 901766 (Bkrtcy-D.Nev. March 31, 2009) The Court found that the affiants were not competent to testify concerning the underlying loans. “Ms. Mechs bald assertion that she has “reviewed the loan file” is inadequate to show that she is personally knowledgeable of the facts”.
    •Similarly the Hon. Terry L. Meyers, U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, recently rejected a post hearing submission of an affidavit sign by a lawyer purporting to represent MERS in motion to lift stay. Judge Meyers enumerated six (6) reasons that he was rejecting the affidavit which had been submitted in a last ditch attempt by legal counsel purporting to represent MERS to establish standing for MERS by claiming MERS was the holder of the underlying promissory note. Judge Meyers found the affidavit statements by counsel claiming to represent MERS was inadmissible because the lawyer as a witness was not competent to testify regarding various documents and a note the lawyers sworn statements “appeared to be based nit on the affiants (counsel) personal knowledge button the assertions of someone else . . . . the proffer of this “new” note as the “original” note directly contradicts MERSʼ prior representations that the Note attached to the Motion was true and correct and the operatice document in this matter”

    •MERSʼ Role in Mortgage Servicing

    •MERS does not service mortgage loans.
    •MERS is not the owner of the servicing rights relating to the mortgage loan and MERS does not service loans.
    •MERS does not collect mortgage payments.
    •MERS does not hold escrows for taxes and insurance.
    •MERS does not provide pr perform any servicing functions on mortgage loans, whatsoever.
    •Those rights are typically held by the servicer of the loan, who may or may not also be the holder of the note.

    •MERSʼ Rights To Control the Foreclosure

    •MERS Corp. must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage loan promissory notes.
    •MERS Corp. only acts when directed to by its members and for the sole benefit of the owners and holders of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage instruments naming MERS as nominee owner.
    •MERS Corp. members employ and pay the attorneys bringing foreclosure actions in MERS name.

    •MERS Access To or Control Over Records or Documents

    •MERS has never maintained archival copies of any mortgage application for which it serves as “nominee”.
    •In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not maintain physical possession or custody of promissory notes, deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments on behalf of its principals.
    •MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    •MERS as a corporation is not a custodian of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    •MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    •In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    •In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    •Copies of the instruments attached to MERS petitions or complaints do not come from

    •MERS corporate files or archives.

    •In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not input the promissory note or mortgage security instrument ownership registration data for new mortgages for which it serves as nominee, but rather the registration information for such mortgages are entered by the “member” mortgage lenders, investors and/or servicers originating, purchasing, and/or selling such mortgages or mortgage servicing rights.
    •MERS does not maintain a central corporate archive of demands, notices, claims, appointments, releases, assignments, or other files, documents and/or communications relating to collections efforts undertaken by MERS officers appointed by corporate resolution and acting under its authority.

    •Management and Supervision

    •In preparing affidavits and certifications, nominal officers of MERS, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, making representations under MERS authority and on MERS behalf, are not primarily relying upon books of account, documents, records or files within MERS corporate supervision, custody or control.
    •Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS authority and on MERS behalf, as a matter of routine do not furnish copies of these affidavits or certifications to MERS for corporate retention or archival.
    •Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS authority and on MERS behalf are not working under the supervision or direction of senior MERS officers or employees, but rather are supervised by personnel employed by mortgage investors or mortgage servicers.

    Doing my part,

    4closureFraud
    http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

  13. We all know that MERS is the very crux of the shell game these bastards play. It was formed for that sole purpose of their master plan.

  14. *Martin – is this something you could post on Scribd or send to me via email? I wrote our county manager, circuit court administrator & legal aid office. No response from the first two and legal aid at first was hesitant but now I think they are starting to “get it”. The information would be most helpful for those of us dedicated to spreading the good word. Thanks!

    TW
    twebster321@hotmail.com

  15. Martin,

    What state are you in? We are having a get together tonight with quite a few local foreclosure defense attorneys to do just that, educate them. It is a monthly venue that we have set up and it is getting a pretty positive response.

    4closureFraud
    http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

  16. I met with an attorney yesterday and brought him 2 folders worth of case law, UCC code, related articles….as well as reviewing a Foreclosure Complaint for a “friend” of mine with MERS as a mortgagee by assignment.

    I told him about securitization vs portfolio lending, I made him aware of MERS “employee for a day” program and I pointed out a fraudulent Note Endorsement, with no certification, notarization as well as proof positive backdating….and no accompanying assignment.

    He was blown away, and asked how this type of business could make them money. I told him that Counterclaims for Sanctions and potentially the extinguishment of mortgage debt are viable business opportunities for defense lawyers “who get it”.

    We need to meet with attorneys and educate them.

    At the end of the day I will never “make money” helping homeowners in distress, but I can forge great business contacts with attorneys who will help these homeowners and go after pretender lenders with counterclaims for fraud.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: