A pattern with Wells Fargo that we have seen is that they make the representation that they are the holder of the note and the investor,which is a blatant lie in most cases. Then AFTER they get the order they want, they admit that through “inadvertence” they misrepresented the facts to the court. Then they say it is not a material misrepresentation and they produce some additional fabricated documents like a limited power of attorney which upon close reading grants nothing to anyone, is subject to many conditions that are not readily determinable and is signed by party of dubious authority and dated under questionable circumstances (if the document existed before why didn’t they use it?).Editor’s Note: I think the following addresses the MERS and nominee issue very well. The entire proceedings can be seen at delasallemtdargument.
The very basic question that ought to be asked is why any of these intermediaries exist. When you think about it, there can only be one reason: to hide what they are really doing and to provide a mechanism to diminish the possibility of multiple claims from multiple participants in the securitization chain. Nobody needed MERS or any of these other foreclosure entities when the identity of the creditor/lender was clear.
Now they don’t want it clear. The success of foreclosure in both non-judicial and judicial states depends entirely on creating the appearance of propriety through a maze of unnecessary entities whose sole purpose is to provide plausible deniability to the pretender lenders if and when it comes to light that the wrong party is attempting to foreclose and they are doing it contrary tot he interests of the real creditors (investors) and contrary to the interests of the homeowners who are now subject to financial double or multiple jeopardy.
A pattern with Wells Fargo that we have seen is that they make the representation that they are the holder of the note and the investor,which is a blatant lie in most cases. Then AFTER they get the order they want, they admit that through “inadvertence” they misrepresented the facts to the court. Then they say it is not a material misrepresentation and they produce some additional fabricated documents like a limited power of attorney which upon close reading grants nothing to anyone, is subject to many conditions that are not readily determinable and is signed by party of dubious authority and dated under questionable circumstances (if the document existed before why didn’t they use it?).
“The note and the mortgage are inseparable. The former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it. An assignment of the latter is a nullity.”
MERS, Your Honor, has corrupted this basic black letter law of mortgages that makes a split of the security instrument from the note impermissible.
First, it names itself as the beneficiary of the deed of trust, thus splitting the deed of trust from the note, and then it attempts to rectify the split by stating that it is acting in some form of restricted agency relationship solely as the nominee for the lender.
In doing this, MERS attempts to do two things that are inconsistent at the same time, and it is this ambiguous contradictory language that fails the title. Why?
First, because as the beneficiary of the deed of trust, MERS has suffered no default. Only the current holder of the note has suffered a default, and only the current holder can enforce the note.
And secondly, even if it could be argued that MERS is the agent for the original lender, America’s Wholesale Lender — and Your Honor, it is important to note that within the four corner of the document, within the four corners of the deed of trust, there is nothing that establishes that agency relationship.
But again, even if you argue that it exists, there’s nothing that establishes an agency relationship between MERS and the alleged current owner of the note according to the bank servicer, Bank of America; U.S. Bank as trustee for the structured adjustable rate mortgage, 19 excess 2005. They are apparently, allegedly, they are the current holder of the note.
Yet, MERS takes the position that through the deed of trust all of these agency relationships are implied, and that it can go forward based upon these implications and foreclose even though the four corners of that document, of the deed of trust, carries only one signature, mine, not the signatures of MERS, nor its principals.
They seem to contend that with this implied agency agreement that is in violation of the statute of fraud that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Carpenter v. Longan prohibiting
the splitting of a mortgage from the note can somehow be ignored.
Your Honor, it cannot. It cannot be ignored without the U.S. Supreme Court going back and reversing Carpenter v. Longan.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: agency, assignment of mortgage, assignment of note, Bank of America, Carpenter v Longen, DEED OF TRUST, MERS, splitting note and mortgage, Supreme Court, trustee, U.S. Bank |
[…] Pro Se Litigant’s Eloquence on MERS Split of Note and Mortgage Posted on March 13, 2010 by Neil Garfield A pattern with Wells Fargo that we have seen is that they make the representation that they are the holder of the note and the investor,which is a blatant lie in most cases. Then AFTER they get the order they want, they admit that through “inadvertence” they misrepresented the facts to the court. Then they say it is not a material misrepresentation and they produce some additional fabricated documents like a limited power of attorney which upon close reading grants nothing to anyone, is subject to many conditions that are not readily determinable and is signed by party of dubious authority and dated under questionable circumstances (if the document existed before why didn’t they use it?).Editor’s Note: I think the following addresses the MERS and nominee issue very well. The entire proceedings can be seen at delasallemtdargument. […]
[…] http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/pro-se-litigants-eloquence-on-mers-split-of-note-and-mort… Comments RSS feed […]
Similar to credit card debt that is satisfied and paid but resold over and over again. There are no excuses.
Okay People here is the deal on how & why they do this So Listen Up ( Neil You Should Know This But It’s Possible you Don’t Because It’s a Fairly Recent “Legal” Developement ) Yes Legal. Because there are a bunch of Notes somewhere out there(prob multiple copies too) with our names out there saying “I Promise to re-pay $XXX”( Despite there being no proof we ever got $XXX )”If I Do Not Pay FFFinc. they can Sell my House”(BMFinc gets caught up for cuttin the note up into pieces sold it to foreigners with the impression that all of them could each have each piece redeemed for full face value) so along comes LLCky (usually same people from BMFinc after they got fired) who makes some business relationships with a few Lawyers(who are good friends with some judges) and a couple of Politicians( who have some pull in Congress ). Now they all make a pact(PLCky) after cutting a loophole in the Law that says because the homeowner had not paid it off in full himself or recorded as satisfied we can continue to have all these notes draw upon as many times as we want as long as we imply we are the agent of the real party in interest but do not state who that party is we assume a small amount of legal risk for having giving nothing and risking the same, but if the homeowner by consent happens certify by the info relied upon that the note(s) is/are payable to PLCky (because technically according to public record it/they remainunsatisfied) then PLCky is legally entitled to receive those benefits for having assumed the legal risk.
When we consider how many ways property may be acquired without merit, and lost without crime, we ought to spurn the idea of making it a criterion of rights.
– Tom Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, quoted, p.423
I meant oops it’s my I phone needs calibrating
Poop I’m
just waiting on wells Fargo to
pull this one onme. After requesting info re the real
party in interest the investor they finally after I beat them
in bk court tell me ummm wells Fargo is by the way master servicer of securitization trust XXXXXXX deed says mers WAS nominee and beneficiary Until foreclosure time then it’s assigned back to indymac under oath ofcourse so it’s starting to become very predictable what is wrong with our government and our courts THEY KNOW
Jan van Eck,
Please send me your info on AWL. Although not being sued by, is the original “lender” on my wife’s DOT and would love to know what you’re referring to. You have no way to be contacted directly from your posting. Mine is: charles@bayliving.com
Thanks,
Charles Cox
Jan
My loan was created by a broker for America’s Wholesale Lender, i just found out that the loan was notarized with out me being present, or my knowledge, and am in contacts with state regulators on the issue, but so far, looks like my loan is null and void already, just from that!
I’d love to know what other information you have on them, just in case i need it. Contact me at Transmut12002@yahoo.com
Oh, and my loan also has MER’s as it’s nominee, for AWL, lots of contradictory statements.
Jan Van Eck:
Please post contact info or email me at mike@mikerooneylaw.com to talk about the AWL wormhole.
Thank you!
My foreclosure suit is entitled
“THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-OA10 MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OA10.PLAINTIFF
THE LOAN ORGINATED IN JUNE 2007 AND NOT UNTIL OCT 2009, 30 DAYS BEFORE FILING THE FORECLOSURE, COUNTRYWIDE USED “MERS” TO ASSIGN THE MORTGAGE TO THE TRUSTEE. I GO TO MY INITIAL HEARING FOR MOTION TO DISMISS ON MARCH 23. ANYTHING YOU CARE TO ARM ME WITH?
Just to add to the above record, everybody who is being sued by the entity as plaintiff “Americas Wholesale Lender,” as named plaintiff, or where the Complaint reads that AWL is a Party to the Action, get in touch with me directly. There is a Worm-hole for your spacecraft to travel through, which will be very much to your liking.
About time the world knows the truth.
James
[…] Se Litigant’s Eloquence on MERS Split of Note and Mortgage Pro Se Litigant’s Eloquence on MERS Split of Note and Mortgage Posted on March 13, 2010 by Neil Garfield A pattern with Wells Fargo that we have seen is that […]