36521121-Full-Deposition-of-William-Hultman-Secretary-and-Treasurer-of-MERSCORP[1]
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU WON’T FIND ANY MONEY, YOU WON’T FIND ANY DOCUMENTS, AND YOU WON’T FIND ANYTHING OF VALUE, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE AT MERS. THERE IS NOTHING — AT THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE AND NOW AT THE END. THE WHOLE THING WAS A SHAM, THE CHILD OF SOME FLEETING THOUGHT AT THE RATING AGENCIES THAT HAD NO MERIT, THAT WAS NOT LEGAL AND COMMITTED THE PLAYERS TO FRAUDULENT ACTS AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES FROM START TO FINISH. IN THE PROCESS THEY NOT ONLY ROBBED INVESTORS AND PENSIONERS, BORROWERS AND HOMEOWNERS, BUT EVERY PURPORTED SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING CLEAR TITLE. WE CAN’T FIX SOMETHING WE WON’T ADMIT IS BROKEN. DAWN WILL BREAK, BUT WHEN?
First I commend the attorney for an outstanding job of examining the “secretary” of MERS 1, MERS 2 and MERS 3. Yes, that’s in there too. Second, note that the creation, function and structure of the MERS entities was dictated by the rating agencies who were requiring that a “bankruptcy remote” entity hold title, meaning an entity that couldn’t go bankrupt and was separate and apart from any entity that could go bankrupt. Why couldn’t they go bankrupt? Because they had no assets, liabilities, income or expenses. Specifically at no time did ANY MERS entity claim any loan as an asset.
One of the many bottom lines in this deposition is that if it’s MERS it’s securitized. But if it’s securitized it doesn’t mean that there ever was any transfer of the loan. Sound paradoxical? It’s the difference between the documentation and the actual money. The only thing anyone was actually interested in was the money. THAT is what was securitized. The investors’ own money was securitized and the receivables from borrowers were bounced around like the ball in an exhibition of the Harlem Globe-trotters. The “securitization” of mortgage backed assets was a grand illusion. It never actually happened.
The shell game here is exposed in the full light of day as well as anyone could ever hope. If MERS is in your deal, then you have irreconcilable contradictions of fact and law. That doesn’t mean you don’t owe the money to ANYONE, it means that the holder of your mortgage or the beneficiary under your deed of trust, is an impenetrable cloud that is not subject to any authority or documentation that would satisfy any rule of evidence. The obligation that arose when you borrowed the money advanced by investors was NOT reflected in your closing documents. Thus the presumption that the note is evidence of the obligation and that the mortgage or deed of trust is incident to the note is false. Therefore the right of sale or foreclosure is not enforceable upon a declaration of default by an entity that was NOT a party to the loan transaction between the investor and the borrower.
In a nutshell, the obligation is legally unsecured in every MERS-related transaction. The note was a remote instrument that did NOT reflect the terms of the transaction with the Lender (investor) who received an entirely different set of documents. The loan is not only bankruptcy remote, it is also security remote. The rating agencies, the investment bankers and other intermediaries in the securitization chain were too cute by half. The attempt to foreclose based upon documentation that on its face misrepresented the real parties in interest is a fraud. The REAL parties are those who at this moment are sitting with money out of pocket. Once any entity attempts to invoke the power of sale or files a foreclosure action the game of musical chairs stops — and the chairs need to be filled with entities that are equitable and legal owners of the loan and the property.
Those real parties have thus far elected NOT to file actions for equitable liens and thus establish a perfected security interest. That failure has created a void. The problem is that most courts are filling the void with presumptions that are improper and invalid. A borrower should not be presumed to owe nothing — just as an alleged “holder” should not be presumed to be owed anything. Anyone seeking to claim a right of sale on a residence that involved MERS should be dismissed out of court or stopped by the Court unless and until they can plead and prove a credible story about how they were injured in the transaction. The way the Courts are handling this now, is the equivalent of letting an “eye witness” claim damages from a car crash he heard about from a friend.
When this story unfolds a little further, a prediction I made three years ago will come to pass. There will be a head-slapping moment when suddenly title carriers, attorneys, judges and administrative agencies and clerks suddenly realize that the monster created on Wall Street has its equivalent in the public records of counties across the nation. I doubt if more than 6-7% of all the foreclosures in the past 10 years have resulted in clear title delivered to anyone. And the only corrective instrument can come from the original owner. That homeowner is sitting in the catbird seat and doesn’t know it. Millions of people who THINK they have lost their homes still own them and if anyone wants a signature from those people to clear title, they are going to be required to pay dearly, which is at it should be.
Eventually the purse gets returned to the victim from whom it was snatched.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, HERS, investment banking, Investor, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, STATUTES, trustee | Tagged: MERS |
Can you refer me to an attr. in North Carolina (Charlotte, NC) area who knows what they are doing concerning MERS ? My mortgate is in jeopardy and I am almost certain it is a MERS mortgate. Thank you for your help and blessings for you for being willing to help people.
Ned Harper
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] quotes foreclosure expert Neil Garfield: “There will be a head-slapping moment when title carriers, attorneys, judges and […]
Hello,
First, when looking at the County Recorders Documents filed, in California, does the note have to follow the Grant Deed of Trust which secures the note into this place of record? I have found only the Deed here, is this separation of Title Docs?
Second how do you know if you have a Mers Mortgage?
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
followup to my previous posting about sueing BOA. My email is joel232neil@mail.com
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
BOA just foreclosed on my home in colorado on 9/22/10; BOA was the servicer for FMAC the investor. But I did my loan with countrywide in 12/05. MERS was elected as nominee by countrywide–all written on my foreclosure docs. If MERS cannot legally convey title, the chain is broken as I understand this and I still own the home. Therefore, the foreclosure was a fraud. Can I now sue BOA? At the time of the foreclosure on 9/22/10, I was told by BOA that I qualified for HAMP;
that is a loan modification but it could 30-45 days to get the loan forms. I qualified on 8/23/10, but they went ahead and foreclosed on 9/22/10. I need a lawyer who can practice in Colorado who is willing to see the merits in this case.
[…] courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court to prove […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] But courts have increasingly been holding that MERS breaks the chain of title. Foreclosure expert Neil Garfield argues that even in non-judicial foreclosure states, that means the investors have to go to court […]
[…] via livinglies.wordpress.com […]
[…] If You Have a MERS Mortgage – Here is Their Deposition Posted on September 1, 2010 by Neil Garfield […]
great depo!
So since MERS didn’t have employees and the people signing on behalf of MERS were unpaid shouldn’t that free labor be reported as income?
Is MERS in the slavery racket?
How do you have an unpaid/unreported corporate officer?
The best part is
oes MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.
Q To your knowledge has Mr. Hallinan ever
reported to the Board?
A He would have reported through me if there was
something to report.
Q So if I understand your answer, at least the
MERS officers reflected on Hultman Exhibit 4, if they
had something to report would report to you even though
you’re not an employee of MERS, is that correct?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.
etc…
How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A There are no employees of MERS.
I’m already on page 84 of the deposition. Interesting stuff.
Just like the Titanic, they (the perpetrators and all their accessories) are sinking.
This post just made my day. I feel so good I think I will light up the grill and slap on some steaks. Something I have not done in a long time.
Sounds to me like MERS is just trying to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.
Neil,
Great Job! You are right on the money.What a great blog.Thank you!
I would like everyone to also think about this scenario…..substitute MERs for Recontrust, wholly owned by BOA / BAC, when one calls their phone is acting as a “bill collector”. Recontrust carries the designation in their name as being, N.A……Recontrust Company N.A…… N.A. is a designation given or reserved for federal banking entities or assocations. Recontrust Company, et. al. and BOA /BAC et.al. are insulated and connected at the “hip”.
Rember, BOA took over the Countrywide Bankruptcy and morphed CW holdings into BAC.
Now to get a bit on track again (I’m in a court battle with these people) and found this statement in regards to the Demurrer filed by BOA / BAC…..
“The DOT states ‘Lender at its option’ may appoint a successor trustee and ‘without conveyance of property’, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title and power and duties conferred upon ‘Trustee’ by DOT and APPLICABLE LAW”.
What is wrong with the above statement??? Consider the progression of “sale” and chain of custody. From all appearance, kinda looks like the NOTE is in a cave somewhere, and the DOT is out there boozing it up with the big-boys!
The DOT follows the transfer of the NOTE from one party to the other, Not vise-versa..Without proper endorsements on the “original” NOTE the power to foreclose using the DOT is worthless. The DOT is a promise to PAY…..however what part of that promise can be conveyed to a borrower without full knowledge of the true holder in due course of Real Property, as in the true holder of the NOTE and Not some “trust” or other investment banking entity.
“The DOT states