Judge Buford Slams Mers for Its Own Confusion

Vargas_MTD_Tentative1

Judge Buford in Bankruptcy Court has no problem seeing the real issues. Here he is again stating that MERS has no standing and that MERS is confused as to whether it is acting in is own behalf or as agent for the note holder. He further makes it clear that the loan is not secured by the real property where MERS is the “nominee.” Since MERS admits, indeed advertises it will never make a claim to ownership of the note (otherwise nobody would use their service) there is absolutely no basis under law or equity in any court where it should be allowed to foreclose.

But they have done exactly that. So now that we know all those foreclosures were done illegally not for some procedural reason, but because MERS is not a creditor, what does that do to the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure sales that took place using MERS as “nominee” as the base of the chain. The answer, as anyone with knowledge of property law will tell you, is that the foreclosure sale is void, not voidable.

That in turn means that whoever owned it before the “sale” still owns it. Which of course means in most cases that there are hundreds of thousands of people who were homeowners that still own the property that was “foreclosed.” It also means, if the house is empty that they have the right to re-enter it. So you see, it is on this simple fact and basic black letter law that the entire foreclosure mess is proved to be an illusion. There is no mess. There is just a lot of paper that doesn’t mean anything.

If a Judge signed an order setting the sale date (as opposed to lifting the stay) THEN it is highly probable that in order to regain possession of the house you would need to file a quiet title action and quite possibly an action for damages.

25 Responses

  1. I second Dyingtruth. The judge’s are the liable party for proceeding without jurisdiction. The simple fact is these proceeding are for the purpose of recovery of payment on a promissory note. It is a vital foundation for the claim . If it doesn’t exist , no claim exists and the proceeding is coram non judice and an illegal act.
    If this stuff doesn’t come to a quick halt no one’s property will be worth crap because of the clouded title over a vast majority of it.
    The judge’s need to be attacked as trespassers.

  2. hey hardly working,
    If your really “on the front lines” let’s see you got some real balls and take some shots at the real enemies THE JUDGES. If judges are so impartial I’m sure they can take some constructive criticizm, if you can’t do that then that just shows your nothing but a court gimp obeying orders of a judicial dictatorship, but don’t worry you only have to prove that to yourself, because if your an attorney(or work for one) then everyone here already knows it’s true.

  3. Judge Samuel Bufford will be leaving Sept. 1 to take a teaching position at Pennsylvania State University.

    http://www.metnews.com/articles/2010/bank031210.htm

  4. “Working hard” you said, “Quoting one sentence out of a voluminous opinion is misleading.” In deference to your view I have posted below the entire document I referenced. I CAPITALIZED the “lone sentence”(it’s at page 6) for everyone here at livinglies to put in context for themselves.

    And also you said, “Once MERS can introduce its own evidence (on summary judgment or at trial) there will no longer be an issue.” Quite honestly I HOPE soon cases will come to the fore in which other Judges will reach a different conclusion than you are proposing. Considering this Judge allowed their claim to GO FORWARD; perhaps they will have a better result than Champlaie did and MERS will succumb in the process.

    Although I write somewhat offhandedly(I am not an attorney.) My desire is to learn from all here great and small. I thank you for your insights. But I differ with you about the “nut cases”. This financial catastrophe we are immersed in is affecting EVERYONE equally if they are in foreclosure. Hence I believe everyone should have access here who is suffering. There opinions may not hold “legal water”, but perhaps if the light of day is shined on them HERE some will avoid rude awakenings and further suffering in the courtroom.

    I do, thank you, once again for your insights and opinions in response to my question.

    ==================================

    CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

    DEMONFORT R. CARTER and LEANDRA L. CARTER, Plaintiff(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK

    NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, et al., Defendant(s).

    No. C09-3033 BZ.

    United States District Court, N.D. California.

    January 27, 2010

    ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
    DISMISS

    BERNARD ZIMMERMAN, Magistrate Judge

    Plaintiffs filed this action to prevent defendant Deutsche Bank
    National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS
    Capital, Inc. Trust 2006-HE8’s (“defendant”) from foreclosing on their property.[fn1] Defendant has moved under Rule 12(b)(c) to dismiss four of plaintiffs’ causes of action alleged in the Second Amended Complaint (“complaint”).[fn2]

    Page 2

    Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the
    plaintiff is unable to articulate “enough facts to state a claim
    to relief that is plausible on its face,” such that a right to
    relief is raised “above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp.
    v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, (2007). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the facts as stated by the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Everest & Jennings, Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court may also rely on documents which are alleged in the complaint and are properly the subject of judicial notice. See U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

    From the facts alleged in the complaint and facts which were
    judicially noticed, it appears that plaintiffs borrowed $925,000
    from New Century Mortgage Company and secured 80% of the loan with a Deed of Trust on a piece of real property in Castro Valley. The remaining 20% was secured by a second deed of trust. The “Trustee” was Financial Title Company and the “Beneficiary” was Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or “MERS.”
    CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

    Plaintiffs fell into arrears on their mortgage payments. At New
    Century’s request, Old Republic, whom MERS substituted in as Trustee, recorded a notice of default. Plaintiffs failed to cure the default, resulting in a Trustee’s sale, at which Deutsche Bank, to whom MERS had assigned the Deed of

    Page 3

    trust, purportedly acquired the property. Deutsche Bank then
    initiated foreclosure proceedings against plaintiffs, leading to
    this suit.

    Defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, second, and fifth
    causes of action turns on whether MERS, a non-party, had the
    ability to substitute Old Republic as trustee and assign the Deed
    of Trust to defendant.[fn3] Plaintiffs allege that MERS could not
    take either action because at all relevant times it was a
    California corporation and its corporate status was “Suspended”
    according to the California Secretary of State. Any actions that
    MERS took would therefore be ultra vires and void.[fn4]
    Defendant does not dispute MERS’s suspension in California.
    Instead, defendant claims first that MERS is a
    Delaware corporation in good standing, relying on what it identifies as a
    print out from the Delaware Secretary of State’s website, of
    which I am asked to take judicial notice for the truth of its
    contents. There are several problems with what defendant
    proposes. Defendant’s printout is not a document which plaintiffs
    referenced in the complaint. To the contrary, they attached a
    document from the California Secretary of State which states the
    MERS is a “Domestic Corporation.” Since the Delaware document is
    not referenced

    Page 4

    in the complaint, and since there appears to be a dispute over
    the status of MERS, this is not a matter which I can properly
    resolve on a motion to dismiss. Moreover the Delaware document
    itself states that “This is not a statement of good standing,” so
    that even if the document were properly before me, I would not
    accept it for the truth of the fact that MERS is a
    Delaware corporation in good standing.

    Defendant next contends that plaintiffs have admitted that MERS
    is a Delaware corporation when they referred to the Deed of Trust
    in their complaint, since it recites that MERS is a
    Delaware corporation. Defendant has cited no authority, and the Court is
    aware of none, for the proposition that a plaintiff whose suit is
    premised on what appears to be a contract of adhesion, is deemed
    to have admitted the truth of every fact that is recited in the
    contract. Given the significance that MERS’ status has for many
    of the claims raised in the complaint, it is better resolved
    pursuant to Rule 56 on a proper evidentiary record.
    CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

    Defendant goes on to argue that even if MERS were a foreign
    corporation which had been suspended in California, its corporate
    status in California is irrelevant, relying on provisions of the
    California Corporations Code which permit foreign corporations to
    transact certain business in California without qualifying to do
    business in California. Defendant initially relies on California
    Corporations Code § 191(c)(7) which states that a foreign
    corporation shall not be considered as doing business in this
    state based on “creating evidences of debt or mortgages, liens or
    security

    Page 5

    interests on real or personal property.” Defendant contends that
    when MERS assigned the Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank or when, as
    beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, MERS named a successor
    trustee, it was creating such evidences. Neither side has pointed
    to any authority on what this phrase means. However, it seems
    clear that whatever “creating evidences” means, it is something
    other than the assignment of loans. The plain meaning of the term
    is to create evidence of a transaction, such as an assignment,
    not to engage in the transaction itself. See U.S. v. Mohrbacher,
    182 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9 Cir. 1999) (undefined statutory term
    should be construed according to its ordinary meaning). Moreover,
    the Legislature provided in § 191(d)(1) that a foreign lending
    institution is not doing business in California solely by
    “assignment of loans *** if those activities are carried on from
    outside the state by the lending institution.” Obviously if the
    act of assignment was the same as creating evidence of the
    assignment, § (d)(1) would have been unnecessary. U.S. v.
    Mohrbacher, supra, at 1050 (statute should not be construed to
    make any provision surplus). See Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans
    Servicing, LP, 2009 WL 3429622, *10-11 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (holding
    that based on the complaint, MERS could not invoke
    sections 191(c)(7) and (d)(3) to exempt itself from the registration
    requirement).[fn5] The complaint alleges that MERS

    Page 6

    “assigned” a deed of trust to defendant without legal authority.
    Compl. 8. Section 191(c)(7) DOES NOT EXEMPT ASSIGNMENT OF
    MORTGAGES. Section (d)(3), WHICH DOES APPLY TO ASSIGNMENTS, WOULD
    ONLY APPLY TO MERS IF IT WERE A “FOREIGN LENDING INSTITUTION,”
    which is not claimed by defendant. Based on the allegations of
    the complaint, plaintiffs have stated a claim that MERS did not
    have the authority to substitute Old Republic in as trustee or
    assign the Deed of Trust to defendant. Therefore, plaintiffs have
    stated a claim in their first, second, and fifth causes of
    action.[fn6]

    Defendant also moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ sixth cause of
    action for violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices
    Act.[fn7] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The essence of this
    CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)
    claim is that New Century, the original lender, structured the
    loan to try to avoid California’s anti-deficiency laws and that
    Deutsche Bank, with knowledge of what New Century had done,
    implemented the practice that New Century had originated. The
    effect of this practice was to

    Page 7

    expose plaintiffs to the risk of a substantial deficiency
    judgment and force plaintiffs to incur attorney’s fees and
    sustain other damages. At oral argument, defendant asserted that
    it has not sought a deficiency judgment from plaintiffs and does
    not believe that it is legally capable of doing so. The
    plaintiffs did not dispute this assertion. Under these
    circumstances, even assuming that the practice of which
    plaintiffs complain violates § 17200, plaintiffs would be
    entitled to no injunctive relief and to no monetary damages. See
    Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266, (1992)
    (damages are not available for a violation of the Unfair Business
    Practices Act). The motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action
    as to Deutsche Bank is therefore GRANTED.

    For the foregoing reasons IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion
    to dismiss the first, second, and fifth causes of action is
    DENIED. The sixth cause of action is DISMISSED as to this
    defendant. Defendant is ORDERED to file an answer by FEBRUARY 5,
    2010.

    [fn1] All parties have consented to my jurisdiction for all
    proceedings including entry of final judgment, pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

    [fn2] Concurrent with the motion to dismiss, defendant filed a
    request for judicial notice of ten documents. The Court takes
    judicial notice of Exhibit 1, the Deed of trust. Plaintiffs did
    not object to the request for judicial notice of this document
    and repeatedly referenced this document in their complaint. The
    Court declines to take judicial notice of exhibits 2-10 as they
    are not relevant to the dispositive issue in this motion.
    [fn3] Earlier, defendant had claimed that the complaint was defective
    because it violated the “tender” rule. Having declined to submit
    further briefing on this issue, defendant’s argument is rejected
    for reasons given at the earlier hearing.

    [fn4] Since plaintiffs assume, and defendant does not dispute, that
    an action performed by a suspended corporation is void, the Court
    does not address that issue.

    [fn5] The Court is aware of decisions that have held differently. See
    Swanson v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 2009 WL 3627925, *9 (E.D.Cal. 2009)
    (finding that MERS properly acted as a beneficiary under
    Corporations Code sections 191(c)(7) and (d)(3)); Lomboy v. SCME
    Mortg. Bankers, 2009 WL 1457738, *3 (N.D.Cal. 2009) (same).
    However, neither decision addressed the threshold issues of (1)
    whether MERS’s activities solely constituted “creating evidences
    of debt or mortgages” under Section 191(c)(7) or (2) whether MERS
    qualifies as a “foreign lending institution” under
    Section 191(d)(3).

    [fn6] Because I have found that plaintiffs have adequately pled that
    MERS could not conduct business in California, I do not need to
    reach defendant’s argument that plaintiffs specifically
    contracted with MERS to allow the allegedly unlawful
    substitutions.

    [fn7] Unfair business practice is defined “very broadly” and includes
    “anything that can be called a business practice and that at the
    same time is for bidden by law.” Chabner v. United of Omaha Life
    Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000) citing Farmers Ins.
    Exch. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 377 (1992).

  5. MERS… Good for one thing & one thing only. So I can go out and sell your note (off record of course) to five different parties and after I’ve soaked each and every one of them (AS WELL AS COLLECTED ON THE DEFAULT INS, TARP, ETC) I come in through the back door sell the underlying asset.

    Sweet deal huh!!!

  6. Deontos,

    Unpublished District Court rulings are hardly unequivocal. Moreover, Carter and Champlaie do not stand for the propositions for which you have cited them. Quoting one sentence out of a voluminous opinion is misleading.

    The court did not find that MERS lacked authority to operate under 191. The hearing was on a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court found that by only looking to the complaint and judicially noticeable documents, Plaintiffs had stated sufficient facts to support a cause of action that MERS could not operate in California. No extrinsic evidence is examined on a motion to dismiss.

    Once MERS can introduce its own evidence (on summary judgment or at trial) there will no longer be an issue. IT can provide a declaration of good standing or other similar documentation. Further, Champlaie was dismissed on March 2.

    Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F.Supp.2d 1177 (N.D.Cal.2009) is the seminal foreclosure case in California. I am actually on the front lines litigating these cases and conspiracy theories, produce the note nonsense, and wild claims have done a disservice to homeowners in California attempting to use the Courts to challenge foreclosure proceedings. The nuts need to go.

  7. Libra 99 and Deontos,

    MERS is a Delaware corporation. It says so in your deed, “organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.”

    You do not have to be a California corporation to operate in California. You only need to register an agent for service of process with the Secretary of State.

  8. In california – an area to be examined closely are the so-called public auctions.

    Can a person declare under oath to be a “bidder at” public auction to which they where not present?

    The Devil is in the details.

  9. It’s all a shell game. Read carefully — MERS in Calif stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration System [singular]. MERS in general is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems [plural]. Subtle difference of literally ONE letter.

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

  10. Working Hard,

    So this BEGS a MERS, ^CA^ Corp and MERS, *Del* Corp
    kinda question?

    MERS(Faux) 2002 Suspended as a MERS, ^CA^ Corp right?

    MERS(Faux) as of 6-2009 a viable CA Corp AGAIN?

    WHEN, if ever was MERS, *Del* EVER registered as a CA Corp.?

    MANY LIVES HANG IN THE BALANCE OF YOUR ANSWER.

    If the record is MERS, *Del* was NEVER a Calif Corp? Then there will SURELY be some BIG class actions to pay.

    The recent rulings seemed UNEQUIVOCAL
    (Carter v. Deutshe, No. 3:09-3033 BZ
    (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)
    (page 6:2-9; footnote 5)).

    MERS, *Del* was acting ILLEGALLY in conducting business here as it relates to appointing Trustees and executing “Assignments of Mortgage”. (Think FORECLOSURES.)
    “Accordingly, section CCP §191(c)(7) DOES NOT EXEMPT MERS’s activity.”
    Champlaie v. BAC, No. 2:09-cv-01316-LKK-DAD (E.D.Cal.10-22-2009)
    (pages 23, 24)

    HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ILLEGALLY EXECUTED DOCUMENTS IN THE LEAST.
    Some talk of the “sound of one hand clapping”. Oh,
    but if I could hear one Judge GAVEL, “void ab initio!”

    Now to add to the brouhaha: MERS sues MERS for Trademark Infringement. Ha! Ha! Remove the suffering, misery and greed easily attributable to these people doing God’s Work and this episode would be ironically funny … instead of the Greek Tragedy it has become.

    Well “working hard” I guess I ask the hard questions and chicken out……. hope you can find the “hard answers”.

    Case files:
    (Below Info Courtesy of Comment:
    “CA 191 MERS || MERS — Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, on March 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm”

    You download everything here:

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5N-uuvBE4XKMDZhM2ZiZDktM2VlMi00ZDAxLWJiYWYtYzcwM2NjY2NiZDA4&hl=en

    It also includes evidence that the MERS registration that does come up when searching CA corporations is a fake, didn’t exist until June 2009, and has had it’s name changed since then, but not properly updated on the CA Secretary of State websites.

    For current proof, you need to do a Statement of Information on the same Corp id#. The website url is on the bottom of the report pages.

  11. What i’m really confused about, is why is my loan stating to look at these other states for laws, when i live in PA and i should be following those laws, not the other states. PA’s laws come first, any others, come second, if at all here.

    What i really love, is how the notary forged my loan docs, by sealing them with out me being there, i signed the documents myself, at home, and then mailed them back to the broker, funny how i never got a copy of all the stuff after it was signed.

    They notarized them the same day i signed them, but the mail would have taken a day, so there is no way they could have been that same date, would have to have been the day after, and thus that means they forged the date they sealed it.

    Also, where it says:

    Certificate of Residence (in bold)
    I (long underline) (the notary wrote in “The Subscriber”) , do hereby certify that the correct address of the within-named Mortgagee is P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026.

    Witness my hand this (long underline) (day of month i signed paperwork, not the day they sealed it written here) day of (long underline) (month of “August” written down).

    That stuff is from page 17 of 17 of my Form 3039.

    So, i’m assuming, that the part they wrote “the subscriber” was supposed to be my signature, yes?

    Because the only thing i wrote on that sheet when i signed everything, was my initials at the bottom.

    I already talked to and filed a complaint with the AG of PA and filed a complaint with the Department of Notaries of PA, because after talking with them, they said the notary forged it, and that the loan was null and void. So i’m hoping i get somewhere with that. Should know within a month or so, because the woman at the notary is still in business.

    The broker firm that made my loan shut down over a year ago, lucky me…

  12. just a few notes here re ; The Banks hiding behind the laws the paid for;
    1- Delaware is the state Mers is [was] incorporated in.Like 99% of all large corporations.
    i do not know the the particular “laws” but due to the fact this is the womb of the corporate birth you can bet your ass its because the laws of Delaware creates an untouchable entity .
    2- Mers has an agreement [ck the mers site] that members [ servicers & banks etc..] may designate employees as a “Mers affiliate or agent” for signing purposes.
    3- Here In ca the county records appear mostly useless in district court..
    Mr “Tony Brown ” i believe is his screen name here states; “he has the note signed paid in full” with letter of satisfaction , yet [B]ank [of] [A]ssholeo is walking right over the statues & law to foreclose on his Note & mortgage, Why? because they can!
    Just like all the other nightmare tales of victims posting here.

    We are Many ,and They are FEW.
    Let us gather OUR FORCES & VOICES as “private attorneys generals,”
    We will only weather this storm united, To be as ONE We are victorious !
    The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.

    http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

  13. Richard, trust me , not trying to be glib here, but that’s a good question to ask the VP of the United States of America the former senator from Delaware!

    But more seriously, you need to look at the laws surrounding establishing an entity in Delaware, most do, Trusts, Banks, credit card issuers, servicers, etc. for the obvious reasons , as well as Maryland over the last few years.

    MER is just operating out of Michigan, where they most likely got a PILOT or some other tax brake on the backs of Michigan taxpayers to bring ” job’s” to the area.

  14. Libra99

    Deleware, then why does my note say it’s in Michigan?

    Bold text will have $around it$
    Caps is stuff that was typed in by broker, except for “Definitions”

    Page 2 of 17 of my Form 3039 on my addendum sheets:

    DEFINITIONS
    Words used in multple sections of this document are defined below and other words are defined in sections 3, 11, 13, 18, 20, and 21. Certain rules regarding the usage of words used in this document are also provided in section 16.
    $(A) “Security Instrument”$ means this document, which is dated AUGUST 26, 2005 together with all riders to this document.
    $(B) “Borrower” is
    MY NAME

    Borrower is the morgagor under this Security Instrument.
    $(C) “MERS”$ bold is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a seperate corporation that is acting soley as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. $MERS is the Morgagee under this Secruity Instrument.$ MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has and address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.
    $(D) “Lender”$ is
    AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER

    Lender is a
    CORPORATION

    Organized and existing under the laws of NEW YORK
    Lenders address is
    P.O. Box 66094, Dallas, TX 75266-0694

    $(E) “Note”$ means the promissary note signed by Borrower and dated AUGUST 26, 2005
    The Note states that Borrower ower Lender
    ONE HUNDERED EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and 0/100

    Dollars (U.S. $184,500.00) plus interest. Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full not later than SEPTEMBER 01, 2035
    $(F) “Property”$ means the property that is described below under the heading “Transfer of Rights in the Property.”
    $(G) “Loan”$ means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest.

    Man, how many different state laws, except the state i live in, does my loan freakin follow?

    If i could post the pdf somewhere, i would, because there is no way i’m gunna trans scribe any more of that.

    Questions/comments?

  15. Libra99

    Deleware, then why does my note say it’s in Michigan?

    Bold text will have $around it$

    My loan section says this on my addendum sheets:

    DEFINITIONS

    Borrower is the morgagor under this Security Instrument.
    $(C) “MERS”$ bold is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a seperate corporation that is acting soley as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. $MERS is the Morgagee under this Secruity Instrument.$ MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has and address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.

  16. Libra99,

    That is a different MERS. That MERS is a California corporation. The real MERS is a Delaware corporation.

  17. I have a document showing MERS license to do business in the state of California as being suspended as of May of 2002. Not sure how “authentic” it is, but I’ll email it to anyone who wants it.

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

  18. To angry ( me too ) mers were named beneficiary on my deed but in the county records it’s payable to the table lender who “sold” to indymac for the sake of non judicial foreclosure process meres assigned to indymac ( servicer with not a dime in the game) to steal my home with the help of trustee Corp California foreclosure mil. Yes indeed the mers officer vice president for a day signed the deed over to indymac u der oath in a capacity of having actual knowledge of the default what a crock now I’m supposed to forget all that mosrepresentation because the FDIC say as re ceiver for crooked indymac where we the FDIC entered into a shared loss agreement with onewest who are Goldman sacs guys where we are telling you to drop indymac from the lawsuit because they are bankrupt and so are not accountable for their crooked carry on and we the Fdic are in charge now because we have the power granted to us by the government so little lady you loose so the web just got bigger but never say die I’ll fight this to the end of the line

  19. The time has come for Class Action’s, against MER. For goodness sakes, the main founder of this shell organization” The Mortgage Bankers Association” defaulted on their building in DC!!! Fannie & Freddie also associated with MERS has been bailed out by the American taxpayer, and how many other associated “member’s” of MERS have gone bankrupt.

    It is time to organize and march on every AG’s office in every state and DC demanding that MER and their members compensate all local governments for their financial fleecing of the County Clerks office and the fraud perpetrated on the unsuspecting homeowner.

    With that it is advisable for all people to go to the County Clerks office and get certified copies of all documents pertaining to their mortage NOW, even if they are not facing foreclosure.

  20. Sue MERS- the foreclosure mill has filed a fake signed MERS assignment doc in my foreclosure. The alleged MERS VP that signed is acutally a lender/servicer employee and the doc was made in Fort Mills, South Carolina.

    1) Sue Mers for Fraud to get them to admit that the VP that signed does not work for them? would this work? then use this info in my foreclosure

    2) any info on the Ft. Mills foreclosure mills please post it.

  21. Mike, everything seems simple to us. These judges just do not want to give so many people homes for free so they act stupid and hope that no one appeals.. All these cases whether you win or lose could be won. I’ve seen over 100 complaints and they all come from the same template and meaningless. I thought litigation was very complicated but not in these cases. We are not litigating medical malpractice suits and if we were I would feel bad about the stupidity being filed and the judges agreeing with it. This can not be anymore about these judges never seeing anything like this, this is about them turning a blind eye…

  22. It should be easy to see that MERS is merely the
    registered agent for service of process. It is a street
    name for the real owner of the Note much like a
    stock broker holds stock in its name for the true owner. Just as the stock broker can not sue a
    company for watering its stock, neither can MERS
    sue for any damages to the Note owners interest’
    Only the stock owner can sue the issuer of the stock
    and only the note owner can sue the maker of the Note. To me this seams simple. Why do so many Judges not “get it”.

  23. NY –

    I have a Quiet Title action someone sent me, I think it was drafted for Calif but I’m sure could be modified for another state. Email me and I’ll send it to you.

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

  24. Where can I get a copy of the latest judge Buford ruling?

  25. Does any one have a quiet title action sample?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: