MERS Cover-Up of REAL INVESTOR

More and more authorities are holding that in order for a claimant to prove itself to be the real party in interest to support a proof of claim or motion for relief from stay in bankruptcy, as well as to prove itself to be a holder in due course, they have to prove the entire chain of “ownership” and “holdership” of the Note complete with proof of “value paid to purchase the note ownership.” —  Lane Houk

Thanks to Ron Ryan

Editor’s note: If you really think about it there is no reason for MERS to exist EXCEPT to hide transactions under a veil of a “private” association of members, sidestepping the recording statues of every state and fooling Judges, Lawyers and homeowners around the state. Ron came up with the suspicion that Wells Fargo, HSBC and others were posting false entries on ownership of the note so as to dissuade homeowners from a “real party in interest” challenge.

He’s right and the information is starting to pop up showing this pattern of deceit, as you can see from the exchange below and MERS report below. Finding the creditor is this vast array of players is a task that must not be overlooked.

It’s just another example of why “auditors” and “analysts” need to include a complete review and research of the chain before they come to any conclusions about the TILA Report. These factors have a deep impact on APR, undisclosed fees and parties, and a host of other issues that are missed by most TILA Audits.

Brad Keiser’s Forensic Analysis Workshop will show you how to perform this analysis and research. If you are not already well versed in the securitization process and its impact on the mortgage, note, obligation and closing documents, you need to attend this workshop before you send out any more reports without referencing these factors.

——————————————————————–

Ronald Ryan: [It is highly probable] that HSBC, Wells Fargo and some others have come up with an extra creative way to hide the fact that a Note has been pooled into a MBS Pool. As many know, if one is able to obtain the MERS Milestone History and MERS Min Summary there is a great wealth of useful information. These documents are available online, but not to the public. It is not always easy to obtain these. Also, the information that is even on this is not perfect. The information that is shown depends on the information provided by the MERS Membership. I think that HSBC, Wells and others routinely list loans in which they are the Servicer as showing they are both Servicer and Current Investor. In other words, they publish on these secret data bases that they actually own and hold the Note in their own right, when they are really only the Servicer and the Note is pooled just like in every other instance of a Note executed between 2001-early 2008. The idea is that they know that attorneys for borrowers may obtain these documents, and this may dissuade an attack on their “real party in interest” status.

RONALD RYAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RONALD RYAN PC
1413 E HEDRICK DRIVE
TUCSON AZ 85719
(520)298‐3333
(520)743‐1020 fax
ronryanlaw@cox.net
http://www.ronryanlaw.com
MILESTONES for 1000302-0055800082-2
Description Date Initiating
Organization / User Milestone Information
Foreclosure Status
Update
11/27/2007 1000115 CitiMortgage, Inc. MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Foreclosure Status: Foreclosure
Pending (option 2), retained on
MERS
Quality Review: Y
Batch
Transfer of Flow
TOS/TOB
Servicing Rights
10/17/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
New Investor: 1000115
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Old Investor: 1000302 Cherry
Creek Mortgage Company, Inc.
Batch Number: 2785251
Transfer Date: 10/14/2005
Christy Martin
Transfer of Flow
TOS/TOB
Servicing Rights
10/17/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
New Servicer: 1000115
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Old Servicer: 1000302 Cherry
Creek Mortgage Company, Inc.
Batch Number: 2785251
Sale Date: 10/14/2005
Transfer Date: 10/14/2005
Christy Martin
Release Interim
Funder Interests
10/14/2005 1000108 GMAC Bank (1) MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Old Interim Funder: 1000108
Batch GMAC Bank (1)
Registration 10/03/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Servicer: 1000302 Cherry Creek
Batch Mortgage Company, Inc.
Page 1 of 1
https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mininfo/minviewmiles.jsp?aux=A968006867765676A
RONALD RYAN
From: RONALD RYAN [ronryanlaw@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 7:02 AM
To: ‘Lane Houk’
Subject: MERS RE: QUESTION AND REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
Attachments: image001.png; image002.gif
Thank you. That is very helpful. As to discovery on MERS, do you mean a subpoena or a request for production? I have
had them ignore subpoenas. Do you have a ruling on enforcement of a request for production against them, if they are not named? Also, see below. If you would like a copy of my latest briefing on the relevant issues, I would be happy to provide it to you for the assistance you provided. Thanks again.
RONALD RYAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RONALD RYAN PC
1413 E HEDRICK DRIVE
TUCSON AZ 85719
(520)298‐3333
(520)743‐1020 fax
ronryanlaw@cox.net
http://www.ronryanlaw.com
From: Lane Houk [mailto:Lane@thePatriotsWar.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 6:19 AM
To: ‘RONALD RYAN’
Subject: RE: QUESTION AND REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
Ron,
Your suspicions are correct. See attached milestone report… Citimortgage is listing itself as Servicer and Investor.
Citimortgage does not invest in the loans. At the very least, the owner is Citibank but more likely a private trust or public trust since the loan is a jumbo.
Also, another thing to note on this report is the 10/14/2005 milestone… “Release Interim Funder Interests” naming GMAC Bank as the Interim Funder. On this transaction, GMAC Bank was never named in any document, no disclosure,
nothing. Cherry Creek Mortgage Company was supposedly the “Lender” in this transaction and is listed on HUD‐1 as lender, was the entity which disclosed under the TILA.
The “Lender” on the Note and DOT is never the actual source of funds. Is it your position that TILA requires that the actual source of funding be disclosed?
When we got this milestone report, it prompted specific discovery for all bailee agreements subject to this transaction; still waiting on that. There will also be a break in chain of title since the only assignment they’ve ever produced/recorded is from MERS to Citimortgage.
When you say break in the chain of title, you mean break in the chain of ownership of the Note? More and more authorities are holding that in order for a claimant to prove itself to be the real party in interest to support a proof of claim or motion for relief from stay in bankruptcy, as well as to prove itself to be a holder in due course, they have to prove the entire chain of “ownership” and “holdership” of the Note complete with proof of “value paid to purchase the note ownership.”
2
Lastly, you can get these milestone reports through discovery served on MERS regardless if they are named.
Hope this helps,
Lane Houk, CLA
National Institute of Consumer Advocacy, LLC
Consumer Debt Analyst & Investigator

19 Responses

  1. In regards to MERS being or claiming to to be the lien holder: Wells F in our case responds to QWR with ” MERS continues to be the lien holder – WELLS F is the holder of the note and mtg. What are they trying to say. Why wouldn’t WELLS F just simply state that since they hold the note and mtg they are the ones with the foreclosure rights. BTW their note is an Electronically signed note and so stated by the right on the copy of the note they sent me in response to QWR.

    Any insight out there??

  2. […] MERS Cover-Up of REAL INVESTOR […]

  3. Does MERS listing an entity as your servicer and investor make it so?

  4. This is going to sound stupid but doesn’t the title company keep up with your title at all? I thought perhaps the place to begin tracking your loan from origination to end would be to start at the title company. What happens when the title company is out of business?

  5. Hey RAJA the SEC is a false sense of security (pun intended) along with the OCC HUD OTS FTC FHA CFR ATF CIA FBI and all those other so called federal agencies that the only way you’d be able to fabricate thier legitimacy in the Constitution would be to cut it up and rearrange the letter wichi is exactly what england wants to do. doesn’t anyone notice that the rapid creation and expansion of all these 3 letter fake @$$ protectors happend right after the FED revealed its ugly mug in our country. all they are is shepard outfits with matching staffs for the lowlife british wolves to wear (they got smarter & stopped using sheep)

  6. The FED creates money out of thin air and from that same thin air MERS creates mortgages assignments etc.. (hey look another bipartisan system that’s unAmerican) all the meanwhile we all put everything we had on the line up against thier funny money & hocus pocus.

  7. DyingTruth

    MERS is owned by these big thieves, Freddie Mae ,Fannie Mae and many more, all are beneficial owner of MERS. I have their filing papers they filed before SEC.

  8. Hey You Guys wanna hear a random theory about who MERS possibly is? I think theyre the right arm of the Federal Reserve System thus answering why MERS is pluralized. It would kind of make a lot of sense considering the fact that the FED is owned by 3 banking families who’s loyalty is to the london elites hell bent on destroying our great nation so they can rule the world. Think about it they needed another centralized Syndicate that could do everything they do monetarily, residentially that wouldn’t draw attention to them. Really though think about it the affect that MERS had in every aspect indicates negative intent and the same type of secrecy that the FED has, the consequences the recording system had on our states revenue was no coincidence it was part of thier strategy to weaken the power of the states so they would give in to the mostly already manipulated Federal Gov who’s already trying to sell us out to a NWO. & also why do you think that despite MERS’s sudden but huge domination on the mortgage industry, it seems that the FED, Treasury & the Administration makes sure they don’t mention thier name not even once, even though they are a large part of this disasterous mortgage recipe destroying our country. Any thoughts??????

  9. I’m now pro se in federal court. The f(_)ckers wanted it there, the judge knocked down my remand motion, so it’s ON! I’m not playing with these people. I wasn’t asking for damages before-the most the state court I sued them in could rule on was $250K. Well, now I’ll be asking for damages. Not saying I’ll get them.

    OK, bravado time over…

    What happened in my case is this: an employee of the servicer posed as an employee of MERS when signing the assignment of my Deed of Trust/Note from MERS to the servicer. That alone is enough to cast massive doubt on the whole enterprise.

    In other words, the servicer assigned the Deed of Trust/Note TO ITSELF but tried to make it look like it was MERS doing the assigning. But wait, it gets better–in its answer to my complaint, the servicer admitted that Fannie Mae held the Note at the time I sued them. Now it’s 7 months after this fraudulent assignment, and I check the Fannie Mae loan lookup tool, and just like always, Fannie Mae says they still own the loan.

    I know I’ve said all this before, but it bears repeating–BEFORE I sued the servicer, they said they “held the note” (in the notice of sale). AFTER I sued the servicer, they retracted that and said Fannie Mae “held the note.” So it doesn’t really matter at this point whether they produce a note or not–they just came right out and admitted their whole fraud.

    Oh wait, one more thing–turns out the judge in my case owns stock in Bank of America’s New Delhi branch. Bank of America is one of my defendants. The code of judicial conduct says that ownership in “a mutual fund or common investment fund” that happens to buy stock in a party to the case does not constitute a disqualifying conflict. However, it appears that the judge’s stock is not in a mutual fund or common investment fund. It appears that the judge has a Charles Schwab stock trading account of some sort. There is no mutual fund named on his financial disclosure, just a list of stocks and whether they were bought or sold and whether they pay dividends or not.

    Thanks Neil and Brad! And anonymous!

  10. Brad and Neil, true pioneers against this wave of crap that’s taken over our country, gentlemen please keep up the good work, every time i am about to give up a new article pops up that gives me hope and willingness to move forward “prosecuting” these dirty low life bastards call our “banksters” when in reality they are nothing but a bunch of licensed “gangsters”. Long live the true America, the America that our funding fathers meant for it to be, and not the pot of crap that these THIEVES have converted it into!!! To victory America!!!

  11. ANONYMOUS, Thanks a lot, in fact with this ILLEGAL entity(MERS) Corpus of trust is not there.
    . Deed of Trust IS a Trust instrument and, as such, must meet certain criteria to be valid. The key criteria are as follows:
    a. There must be a clear intention to create a trust (usually evidenced by the trust instrument).
    b. There must be a Trustor / Grantor to create the trust.
    c. There must be a trust corpus or assets
    d. There must be duties assigned to the Trustee
    e. There must be ASCERTAINED or ASCERTAINABLE Beneficiaries OR put another, way there is no such thing as a “straw” or “nominal” beneficiary and, without ASCERTAINED or ASCERTAINABLE Beneficiaries the Trust instrument is VOID.
    . Without Promissory note (asset & Corpus) there cannot be a valid trust and without a valid trust there is no longer need for any security called DOT. So the Corpus of trust is not there. You can not imagine if this illegal MERS declare the Bankruptcy then what will happen??. By creating this MERS I can just say ” It is commercial madness to suggest the right to Foreclose all residential loans could be SUCKED into One small “TITLE BITLEE” (MERS) company’s bankruptcy proceedings, even though that company never paid value for single loan(NOT A CREDITOR). MERS does not have any standing at all.

  12. RAJA

    Great explanation. But, as you state “MERS also frequently attempts to bring home foreclosure proceedings in its own name, rather than the name of the actual owner of the loan, which is often a trust owned by investors. This eliminates the need for the trust—a purely legal business entity with no employees, offices, or assets other than its loans—to foreclose in its own name or to reassign the loan to a loan servicing company to bring the foreclosure”

    Without “no employees, offices, or assets (other than loans)” – how the heck does a trust do a balance sheet accounting for the loan it claims rights to?

    This the focus of the new TILA amendment. No accounting – no ability to account for – means – whoops – no creditor.

  13. Thanks to Neil and Ryan for all this. Let me put some more fuel to burn the illegal son of all lenders(MERS)MERS acts as a nominee (a form of agent) for the servicer and beneficial owner of a mortgage loan in the public land records. MERS is designed to operate within the legal framework in all U.S. jurisdictions and did not require any changes to existing laws.
    In contrast, MERS takes the opposite position when confused loan officers and foreclosure attorneys press with pointed questions like “Under what section of law does MERS, if named ‘nominee’ have the authority to assign and/or discharge the mortgage?”; “Is a nominee like a power of attorney for the lender?”; and, “How ought the mortgage be recorded in the clerk’s office? “In response to these three questions MERS’ Vice President and Corporate Counsel explained: MERS’ position is no clearer in litigation. Interestingly, the company tends to argue it is an actual mortgagee or assignee when it brings foreclosure actions; but, when sued in cases alleging fraud, deceptive practices, or other statutory consumer protection claims associated with loans registered on its system, MERS argues it is merely an agent without exposure to liability.Indeed, the fundamental economic reality of MERS involvement in the mortgage lending industry suggests that MERS is not a mortgagee with respect to any loan registered on its database. A mortgagee is simply the party to whom a parcel of real estate is mortgaged. Or, as Black’s Law Dictionary explains, a “mortgagee” is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged; the mortgage creditor, or lender. — Also termed mortgage-holder.”Moreover, the venerable rule that a mortgage follows a negotiated promissory note belies MERS’ claim of owning legal title to mortgages.
    (“[T]he MERS system will render the public record useless by masking beneficial ownership of mortgages and eliminating records of assignments altogether. Not only will this information deficit detract from the amount of public data accessible for research and monitoring of industry trends, but it may also function, perhaps unintentionally, to insulate a note holder from liability, mask lender error and hide predatory lending practices.”)
    In this respect, MERS’ role in acting as a mortgagee of record in nominee capacity is simply a tax evasion tool. By paying MERS a fee; the parties to a securitization lower their operating costs. The second advantage MERS offers its customers comes later when homeowners fall behind on their monthly payments. In addition to its document custodial role, and its role as a tax evasion broker, MERS also frequently attempts to bring home foreclosure proceedings in its own name, rather than the name of the actual owner of the loan, which is often a trust owned by investors. This eliminates the need for the trust—a purely legal business entity with no employees, offices, or assets other than its loans—to foreclose in its own name or to reassign the loan to a loan servicing company to bring the foreclosure. Throughout history, executioners have always worn masks. In the American mortgage lending industry, MERS has become the veiled man wielding the home foreclosure axe. The most familiar application of this principal is found in the Uniform Commercial Code’s distinction between a security interest and a lease. The U.C.C. insists that the words used by the parities to a contract are not controlling. Contracts where the parties explicitly describe a transaction as a lease are universally construed as a security agreement where there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood of the “lessor” regaining possession of the goods after the “lease” term. Security agreements governing realty—mortgages and deeds of trust—are no different on this point. Contracts creating mortgages are construed as such even where the parties choose to describe the bargain with different language. It is equally axiomatic that where contracts do not create a mortgage, courts will not construe one to exist merely because of boilerplate language in the written memorialization of the deal. MERS is not a mortgagee (or an assignee) simply because ink on paper makes this assertion—rather the law compels courts to look to the economic nature of the transaction to identify MERS’ role.
    Indeed, the fundamental economic reality of MERS involvement in the mortgage lending industry suggests that MERS is not a mortgagee with respect to any loan registered on its database. A mortgagee is simply the party to whom a parcel of real estate is mortgaged. Or, as Black’s Law Dictionary explains, a “mortgagee” is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged; the mortgage creditor, or lender. — Also termed mortgage-holder.” MERS is not the party to whom family homes are mortgaged for at least three fundamental economic reasons. . First, MERS does not fund any loans. No money coming out of a MERS deposit account is tendered as loan principal to homeowners.
    . Second, no homeowners promise to pay MERS any money. To this effect, MERS is never identified as the payee in a promissory note and MERS is never entitled to receive any monthly payments from the mortgagor.
    . Finally, and perhaps most important, MERS is never entitled to receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. Instead, these funds go to the actual mortgagee (or assignee of the mortgagee) that is the true owner of the lien.

    In cases where MERS claims to own legal title to mortgages by virtue of assignment its position is no stronger. Unlike the investment trust that actually owns the mortgage in a typical subprime securitization structure, MERS does not pay the loan originator value in exchange for the mortgage. On the contrary, the originator or a servicer pays MERS to take the “assignment.” In these cases MERS is still not entitled to receive repayment of the mortgage loan. Nor is MERS entitled to the proceeds of a foreclosure sale. MERS is being paid fees to provide record keeping and foreclosure services, rather than MERS paying to own liens on family residences.Federal consumer protection and bankruptcy law also suggests that the MERS does not own legal title to loans registered on its database. For example, under both the Truth in Lending Act and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act a mortgage assignee can be liable for an original lender’s violations of those statutes. If MERS actually does own legal title mortgages it takes on “assignment,” then it would have taken on potential liability under these statutes for millions of the nation’s residential mortgage loans. Perhaps even more absurd, suppose for a moment that MERS were to declare bankruptcy. If courts ultimately agreed that MERS owns legal title to mortgage liens, it stands to reason that the company’s creditors would have a claim on that property. Yet it is commercial madness to suggest that the right to foreclose on over half nation’s residential loans could be sucked into one small company’s bankruptcy proceedings—even though that company never paid value for a single mortgage loan. Moreover, the venerable rule that a mortgage follows a negotiated promissory note belies MERS’ claim of owning legal title to mortgages.Mortgages are inseparable from promissory notes because of “the ‘dependent and incidental relation’ that a mortgage has with the obligation it secures….” The parties to mortgage securitizations do not generally negotiate promissory notes to MERS. Doing so would make no sense, since MERS does not pay value for the note and is not entitled to receive payment. Moreover, negotiating a note to MERS would expose MERS to assignee liability for misbehavior on the part of loan.originators by virtue of statutory and common law assignee liability rules.If a mortgage follows the note, then ultimately the mortgage is owned by the certificate and bond holders in the trust (assuming the securitization parities successfully complete their paperwork), to whom the note is eventually endorsed? Suppose for a moment that a disagreement arose between MERS and a securitization trustee over who had legal title to a mortgage loan deposited into a securitization trust: No one can seriously claim that courts would award legal title to MERS instead of the trustee acting on behalf of investors that actually paid for the loan. In thousands of cases around the country MERS’ counsel continues to recite the statement that “MERS holds legal title to the mortgage” as though it were the finance equivalent of some tantric mantra. Yet, any meaningful economic analysis of this claim exposes it as a simple falsehood. MERS does not own the lien because it does not own the proceeds of the sale rendering disposition of the property seized in exercising the lien. If MERS does not own the liens on which it is recorded as mortgagee or assignee, this naturally raises the question of where it gets the authority to bring lawsuits attempting to eject families from their homes. The concept of standing, or locus standi, refers to the capacity of a litigant to show a sufficient connection to the subject matter of a lawsuit to justify the party’s participation in the case.Indeed, MERS owns neither the beneficial interest in the debt that is owned by investors; nor does it own legal title to the debt because that is held by the certificate and bond holders.MERS is not an assignee at all, and therefore must base its claim to standing purely on its economically fictitious claim of owning a borrower’s home in title theory states, or on owning a valuable lien in lien theory states.. MERS made this easier by offering a super-generic placeholder that transcended the aborted life of lenders. MERS reassured investors that even when an originator goes bankrupt, county property records would remain unaffected and foreclosure could proceed apace. By serving as the true mortgagee’s proxy in recording and foreclosure, MERS abetted a fly-by-night, pump-and-dump, no-accountability model of structured mortgage finance. When the borrowers attempt to assert counter claims challenging the legality of mortgage brokers, lenders, trusts, or servicers, MERS hides behind its claim of nominee status.Recording mortgages in MERS’ name leaves a message signaling the existence of a lien. But it does not reveal who owns the lien or who has the right to release it.MERS’ claim to own legal title to a mortgage loan’s security interest, divorced from the promissory note and entitlement to receive loan payments, is in direct tension with precedent that has been well settled for over a hundred years. MERS’ role in prosecuting home mortgage foreclosures should bring it within the scope of the federal Fair Debt Collection Act—a statute that MERS has generally made little attempt to comply with. Indeed there is a compelling argument that loans where MERS is recorded as the original mortgagee should be avoidable by bankruptcy trustees in many states.MERS is an important cog in the machine that churned out the millions of unsuitable, poorly underwritten, and incompletely documented mortgages that were destined for foreclosure.In the aftermath of the mortgage finance crisis that has crippled the American economy, necessitated massive taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions, and left millions of American families ejected from their homes, the judiciary has an obligation to aggressively reexamine our financiers’ cut corners, false assumptions, and jaundiced legal theory.

  14. dying truth- I noticed the same thing, googled the addresses, found out the address given for Wells Fraudgo was a second servicer location. Judge Schack in NY brought this up, I don’t recall what the outcome was- obviously not an arms-length transaction, but is that illegal, or what? Also, any idea what happens if an assignment is “notarized” by someone who isn’t a notary? What does that do to the assignment and is there any statute of limitations or other exceptions. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

  15. ALSO IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT ANY PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORTS YOU’D NOTICE THAT WHEN ALLEGED ASSIGNMENTS AND TRUSTEE’S DEEDS FOR BENEFICIARIES ODDLY HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS THE SERVICER (CAN YOU SAY FRAUD) I’LL EMAIL A COPY OF A PRELIM TITLE REPORT THAT HAS HSBC AS FORECLOSING BENEFICIARY BUT HAS HSBC’s ADDRESS THE SAME AS LITTON LOAN’s

  16. G-D BLESS AMERICA AND PEOPLE LIKE NEIL GARFIELD BRAD KEISER ET AL

  17. Most judges are in the bank’s hip pockets, bought and paid for.

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

  18. THE JUDGES KNOW ALL THIS. THEY ARE BLINDED BY BEING PREJUDICE AT BEST AND CORRUPT AT WORSE.

    HITLER WOULD SAY 4 MILLION FORECLOSURE WITHOUT CHANGING THE LAWS IS A GOOD START. AT LEAST HITLER CHANGED THE LAWS BEFORE HE COMMITED HIS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: