GREAT POST BY MATT WEIDNER
even if the instant motion was timely, the explanations offered by plaintiff’s counsel,
in his affirmation in support of the instant motion and various documents attached to exhibit F of
the instant motion, attempting to cure the four defects explained by the Court in the prior May 2,
2008 decision and order, are so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they
should have been authored by the late Rod Serling, creator of the famous science-fiction
televison series, The Twilight Zone. Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., appears to be
operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe.plaintiff’s counsel claims that the assignment is valid because Ms. Gazzo is an officer of MERS, not an agent of MERS. Putting aside Ms. Gazzo’s conflicted status as both assignor attorney and employee of assignee’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., how would the Court have known from the plain language of the September 10, 2007 assignment that the assignor, Ms. Gazzo, is an officer of MERS? She does not state in the assignment that she is an officer of MERS and the corporate resolution is not attached.
The MERS Mortgage Twilight Zone- Judges Not Afraid to Do What’s Right
Posted on July 17, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
Editor’s Note…This discusses the newly famous “Twilight Zone” decision by a judge in favor of a NY homeowner. What it would be like to be the first attorney or homeowner on your block to enter….”The Twilight Zone.”
http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com
The MERS Mortgage Twilight Zone- Judges Not Afraid to Do What’s Right
Today, July 17, 2010, 2 hours ago | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
http://www.4closureFraud.org
Discussion
“The instant renewed motion is dismissed for untimeliness. Plaintiff made its renewed motion for
an order of reference 204 days late, in violation of the Court’s May 2, 2008 decision and order.
Moreover, even if the instant motion was timely, the explanations offered by plaintiff’s counsel,
in his affirmation in support of the instant motion and various documents attached to exhibit F of
the instant motion, attempting to cure the four defects explained by the Court in the prior May 2,
2008 decision and order, are so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they
should have been authored by the late Rod Serling, creator of the famous science-fiction
televison series, The Twilight Zone. Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., appears to be
operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe. Rod Serling’s opening
narration, to episodes in the 1961 – 1962 season of The Twilight Zone (found at
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt005250/quotes), could have been an introduction to the arguments
presented in support of the instant motion by plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C. – “You are
[*7]traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A
journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.”
With respect to the first issue for the renewed motion for an order of reference, the validity of the
September 10, 2007 assignment of the subject mortgage and note by MERS, as nominee for
CAMBRIDGE, to plaintiff HSBC by “Nicole Gazzo, Esq., on behalf of MERS, by Corporate
Resolution dated 7/19/07,” plaintiff’s counsel claims that the assignment is valid because Ms.
Gazzo is an officer of MERS, not an agent of MERS. Putting aside Ms. Gazzo’s conflicted status
as both assignor attorney and employee of assignee’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., how would
the Court have known from the plain language of the September 10, 2007 assignment that the
assignor, Ms. Gazzo, is an officer of MERS? She does not state in the assignment that she is an
officer of MERS and the corporate resolution is not attached. Thus, counsel’s claim of a valid
assignment takes the Court into “another dimension” with a “journey into a wondrous land of
imagination,” the mortgage twilight zone.”
New York trial court judges Arthur Schack and Jeffrey Spinner have received international attention for their “courageous” opinions denying foreclosure to banks when the banks present absurd foreclosure cases in front of them and demand judgment.
The really absurd thing about all the attention these judges have gotten is that there isn’t anything courageous about the opinions at all. Not to diminish at all the good work of these judges and the other judges that are actually challenging the absurd standards of the foreclosure mills–because they really are acting courageously–the point is that opinions like the ones they get attention for could be written by every single circuit court judge in this state if the judges would take a deep breath, step back from their courtrooms and really think about what they are doing.
Sometimes we all need to take a step back and view our world and our work from a different perspective. I implore each of you to read the attached MERS Mortgage Twilight Zone opinion. Print this opinion out and share it with every judge you come in front of. Share the opinion with the new senior judges.
They may scoff and disregard you at first, but you’re not seeking a “kill” right there. You may not convince that judge to change his or her perspective on the spot, but I am convinced that if the judges take this opinion home and read it not in the pressured environment of their courtrooms, but in the quiet space of their homes, they will start to see absurdity playing out in their courtrooms. I’ve learned how important it is to share my work with my significant other and with folks who are not immersed in this world. Recognition is the first step. Solutions come next. Read the opinion in its entirety and think about how it applies directly to each of the cases you find yourself involved in…
Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, HERS, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: fraud on the court, MERS INC |
MERS is definately a sham. The only thing you can be sure of is if MERS says it, its a lie.
MERS DECLARES VICTORY IN MISSOURI
Posted on July 19, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
Editor’s Note…Learned this today from one of our blog readers, haven’t seen the ruling on Notice yet, we will be checking it out, more to follow. I am glad to hear that there is still Due Process for MERS, maybe homeowners can have some too.
http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/
2010/07/19 at 4:23 pm
MERS is declaring “victory” on its website. Same case?
“Court Recognizes MERS Constitutional Right to Due Process
Federal Court Victory Reaffirms MERS Standing as Mortgagee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karmela Lejarde
703-761-1274
RESTON, Virginia (July 14, 2010)—A federal court in Missouri has upheld the constitutional right of due process for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee of record.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled July 1, 2010 that MERS, as the recorded mortgagee, has the right to receive notification of the tax sale and right of redemption under the United States Constitution and Missouri state law. The court ruled the Collector’s Deed issued to the defendant in the case is null and void because notice was not provided to MERS. The Court noted that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that claims similar to the lien rights MERS holds as nominee for its lenders are property entitled to due process protections.
“This is not just a victory for MERS, but a victory for holders of property rights across the nation,” said MERS President & CEO R.K. Arnold. “The decision is an affirmation of our basic, constitutional right that says government cannot take away private property without first giving prior notice.”
For loans registered with MERS, borrowers agreed to MERS serving as mortgagee when they signed their closing documents. The Missouri ruling reinforces that, when MERS is the mortgagee of record, MERS has a right to receive notice. “
Great information about how the foreclosure process can be unfair.
Here’s the link to the ruling:
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/merstwilightzone.pdf
Making a comment without having read the opinion.
I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know nothing.
I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.
I don’t want to knock the post that are advertising their help, but they did say what I keep saying, the documents have a flaw and if you can find the flaw you don’t need to fight. These are ‘trust’ documents.
Settlor (you)..not named as Settlor but a Settlor creates the trust and you created it with your signature.
Grantor, (you), Beneficiary (bank), Trustee (attorney holding legal title to the home)
If you could just open your eyes to the fact that a trust cannot be interfered with by outsiders, and just READ THE THING!, you’d know that everything people are doing, if it isn’t in the provisions ITS NOT ALLOWED.
No one should be losing their home if they READ WHAT THEY SIGNED, and saw that things that happened on the outside was not written.
Not trying to go spiritual but the bible would say stuff like
As it is written so shall it be done.
If it’s not written, it can’t happen. And if you think it can, the other side relies on you to ‘believe’ it can, and it’s your ‘belief system’ that has caused you to lose your home.
I’m saddened to see so many toss the problem to an attorney, hoping they can help you, but some problems have to be faced by you, and dealt with by you. You lose certain powers when you stand behind someone else and ask them to talk for you (ie attorney) but you retain and gain certain powers when you handle your own business.
I will NEVER say anyone deserves to lose their home, but just like getting into this mess, we have a role to play because we signed and created these documents without modifying them to our terms, AND we have a role to play if we lose our homes and have no idea what our document says and that someone has perversed, or bastardized our documents and made it appear they had a right they did not have, and we LET THEM take our home because we didn’t know what we had.
If a thief steals your wallet and you think he has a right to do it, you won’t say anything, you will just tell people a thief stole your wallet. If a thief was stealing your wallet and you told him, it’s mine, I paid for it, we don’t have an agreement where you can take ownership of my wallet, etc..then you have at least let the thief know he doesn’t have a ‘default’ right to owning your wallet.
Many, have just said, ‘let them have it’, and STILL have not read those documents to see if there was ANYTHING done wrong.
I’m still in mine, or I’d tell you about 25 things done wrong. Slight exaggeration, but there are so many flaws that all it takes is one to make the entire house of cards fall.
A case is as strong as it’s weakest link.
Appears in this opinion, the judge saw the weakest link, regardless of what the other paperwork that was submitted in the case tried to build the case up to.
Even a judge knows how to look at the beginning.
The rest built off the beginning is no good if the beginning is flawed.
This case had nothing to do with securitizations, or investors, or accounting, it went back to the beginning, and knew that the provisions of the Deed/Mortgage did not allow the purported assignment that supposedly took place.
I’m telling you….look..but then again, I don’t know anything.
Light and Love,
Making a comment without having read the opinion.
I know nothing and if I think I know something, I know nothing.
I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.
If anyone can use this information to get their homes back, then by all means raise this with the court that ruled on your foreclosure.
States have a statute of limitations regarding this. One state, I read this about the statute of limitation…nice thing is there’s the option for damages if the home has been resold.
If you can show two or more people worked concertedly to remove you from your home, maybe a Deceptive Trade Practices or some other act showing culpability can bring enough money to take care of your displacement and dispossession. (If damages paid were multiplied by the value of the property, times the number of people in the family displaced’ that would be a great judgment for damages)
————————–
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations may be a barrier. With minor exceptions,
an action to set aside a sale must be initiated within
four years. And, if the property has been resold during the
interim to a purchaser unaware of the irregularities, the action
to rescind the sale (but not for damages) may be lost.
————————–
I bet some people ignore my posts because I know nothing.
You can learn from anyone.
Light and Love.
NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND.BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE! WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. POSSIBLY GET PRINCIPAL REDUCTION AND IN SOME CASES INTEREST RATE DEDUCTIONS. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK …………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C OR YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH INDYMAC OR ONE WEST BANK CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-274-1905 AND GET RELIEVE FROM YOUR PROBLEM.