MERS: 50 Employees Rule the World of Finance and Ruin the Lives of Americans


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S COMMENT: It is really simple. The plan was flawed from the start. I personally have spoken with attorneys who were asked to draft the documents that would create and operate MERS. They raised objections stating that the plan was illegal and quite possible criminal. They quit rather than proceed.

By designating MERS on mortgage documents and even some notes and title insurance policies, they designated nobody. MERS is a fictional character like Donald Duck and the judges are quacking and quaking their way through pure nonsense. Just home much courage does it take to sit on the Bench, calls balls and strikes, and tell the players that the rules apply?

Life on MERS: Archive is at center of mortgage mess

Mon, Jul 18 2011

By Scot J. Paltrow

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A little-known institution in Reston, Virginia, has done much to help loan servicers produce foreclosure documents of questionable legitimacy, according to multiple recent court rulings and deposition testimony.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, has only about 50 full time employees. Yet it claims to own about half of all mortgages in the United States, roughly 60 million loans, and is involved in about 60 percent of new mortgages issued.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and several large banks established MERS in 1995, as a registry meant to speed up the recording and transfer of mortgages. Until then, this had to be done in individual county clerks offices and the process was glacial. The founders went ahead even though no state laws authorized them to bypass the required filing with clerks.

The purpose of MERS was simple: to make it possible to track the owner and servicer of each individual mortgage, and to make it easier to rapidly transfer mortgages. Lenders designated MERS as either the mortgagee (the legal holder of a mortgage, even though MERS had never paid a penny to obtain it), or as “assignee” (an entity to which a mortgage is entrusted). In either case, MERS was granted power to assign mortgages as they changed hands from one real owner (such as a bank) to another (such as a mortgage security trust) – even though MERS itself didn’t have a financial interest in any of the mortgages. MERS also claims the right to transfer promissory notes, even though it doesn’t own them.

In deposition testimony beginning in 2009, it emerged that MERS’s own employees did little but maintain the computer database. The real work was done by loan servicers — banks and other companies that do routine work for trusts that own the mortgages, including collecting and tracking payments from homeowners and filing to foreclose when a borrower defaults. For a $25 fee, employees of any of the 3,000 loan servicers that belonged to MERS could get themselves designated as a MERS “vice president” or “assistant secretary,” authorized to sign official documents on behalf of MERS.

This April, upon announcing settlements with 14 lenders over allegedly improper foreclosure practices, federal bank regulators required MERS too to sign an agreement to reform. The regulators said MERS had failed to establish adequate internal controls, and “engaged in unsafe or unsound practices” in transferring mortgages. Like the 14 lenders, MERS neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

In practice, when servicers needed to create mortgage assignments to replace missing ones for foreclosure cases, their own employees, signing as MERS officials, printed out newminted documents and signed their names to them. MERS has served in effect as an instant teller machine for mortgage assignments. Servicers simply have their own employees sign the needed documents as MERS officials.

For some time, most courts around the country rejected homeowners’ challenges to MERS and upheld the mortgage assignments. But recent decisions by state and federal appellate courts have been ruling that MERS doesn’t have the right to transfer promissory notes and mortgages. A New York State appellate court in June ruled that MERS, because it does not own the notes, has no power to transfer to servicers the right to foreclose. Federal district and bankruptcy courts in multiple states recently have issued similar rulings. (Bank of New York v Silverberg, 2011 Slip Op 05002, New York State Appellate Division, Second Department.)

A spokeswoman noted that judges in multiple states continue to uphold MERS powers. In response to pressure from regulators and the courts, MERS had said it is redrafting some of its procedures.

(Editing by Michael Williams)

46 Responses

  1. One of the simplest solutions of heading the judges of this country into unbiased decisions would be to not allow JUDGES PENSIONS to be invested in Banking and Housing REITS.

    It is only common sense to realize that the more the court sides with the banks and the REITS the bigger their pensions grow and the worse it is for WE THE PEOPLE

  2. Shelley
    I saw your video. Before seeing it I only knew bits and pieces of your story. You are terrific. And I am glad you are still in your home. I know how true it is what you said regarding how judges rule.

    I was at the front of the line. The original bank Fidelity NY FSB, that went under hid four of my mortgage payments, to fake a default, accelerate and demand legal money for the Banks credit.
    Astoria Federal S & L became successor in interest to Fidelity NY FSB

    That has led me on a long journey thru Bankruptcy court, a Federal Petition filed and docketed and removed by the Hon Louis L Stanton of Federal Court who demanded I write a letter for settlement etc. and eventually all the way into the United States Supreme Court where my case was docketed. The US Supreme Court advised the bank they could go to the solicitor general of the United States for assistance. (I don’t have my papers in front of me so I don’t have the exact words.)But what always happened when the bank came in they were able to pressure all the courts saying I WANTED TO CHANGE THE BANKING SYSTEM. Wouldn’t that have been a good idea for the court to pay attention to.

    I was pro se and when I first answered the foreclosure pqapers in NYSC thought this was going to be a simple matter since the first judge I had Edith Miller of NYSC ruled and gave me fourteen counterclaims to prosecute against the bank for fraud, malfeasance etc
    And what happened many times over, as soon as the banks attorney spoke with the Judge, they reversed themselves.

    I went to the district attorney with proof of the hidden checks and Judge Miller retired. He told me since it was a Federal Bank he didn’t have jurisdiction of this kind of issue and I should go to Janet Reno. Not knowing what that terminology meant I got in my car at 3:00 AM and drove to Washington to the Dept of Justice.

    At some point the corrupt attorneys were tired of my motions and just auctioned off my two condos with void ab initio judgments. When I insisted you can’t do this this is illegal, their answer was “who is going to stop us? They had straw buyers waiting one aptly named Cheetah Realty and the other a serial straw buyer named Fang Li.

    Void ab initio Judgment are a nullity and nullities have no statue of limitiations etc etc
    And that is why when I re opened my case I was in front of Judge Alice Schlesinger pursuant to US Elliot v. Piersol. ,Justice Schlesinger had no choice but to rule as decided in Elliot v. PIERSOL.
    But when the two corrupt attorneys Malone of Fidelity Title and Fiveson of a non existent title company he called Coronet Title told her they had “equity’
    she looked at me and said it doesn’t look good for you ruled against the Constitution Jud

    I was as brave as I could be back in 1997. Now that this massive fraud is surfacing
    it easier to get your message out since the Courts know the Country is watching
    Schlesinger is a criminal but she assumed no one would know. I was pro se and besides Fiveson was on the committee who gave out the Brandeis awards to Judges and Malone was from the infamous title company Fidelity .

  3. I am still in my house and on my property and never left, and should never have to leave by law. None of you should have to. Almost everyone I meet is ruined by the economic disaster caused by the banks and the judge are all of the know of this and allow the crime and fraud. Only a few good judges it is a crap shoot to find them.

  4. Modification & HAMP fraud was committed on me in 2009 and I immediately had an attorney send a letter of debt dispute afforded by the FDCPA, Never to be answered so I filed a notice of the default on answer on county records and a copy of the letter and certified mailing. And several other notices. Email me and I will send you a copy of what LaMar states about the trust and my notices.

  5. Totally unfair millions are living this American nightmare called the United States Twilight Zone not the American American Dream we thought we were living. A BS corrupt land and grab! Just like the days of the Natzi’s and the 1920’s. I have not finalized anything, but have a document by an expert witness that has been in the business for over fifteen years whom had the Bloomberg terminal before it was shut down, however has other means now. However LaMar had my records pulled before the Bloomberg terminal was shut down. Interesting though the feds that usually give records within two weeks to aid him have shut off any records also. I recorded some docs of truth backed by statutes that he agrees were recorded correctly and the banks recorded docs that were blantant fraud. That by all legal means I own my property out right. It will be up to a decent judge that is not bought and corrupt to rule by the rule of law. However this is a non judicial state and the recorded records when done correctly by statutes should be recognized. I would have to send it to you to show you what I means. The document is in the hands of my attorney now. Tired of being up against corrupt judges that defi the rule of law and use pro se’s for target practice.


    Here is the link to your show:


    correct words in Elliot v Piersol

    Under Federal Law which is applicable to all States, the UNITED States Supreme COURT stated that if a Court is ‘Without Authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentence are considered in law as trespassers.

  7. IS it true that you got your property back? WONDERFUL

    My issue in NYSC is I was under Federal JURISDICTION on Federal Questions when the NYSC JUDGE Carol Arbor signed two judgments of foreclosure void ab initio .
    Not a valid judgment. A judgment is either valid or invalid.

    At my Appellate hearing Judge David B Saxe asked attorney David K Fiveson, “Did the Supreme Court do them over when the case came back from Federal court? He didn’t know????
    T hat exactly is what had to be done.

    The banks long gone corrupt debt collector attorneys Mullooly, Jeffrey Rooney and Flynn with their corrupt court referee Penny Stark auctioned off my two NYC condos without ever owning them.

    Astoria Federal S & L new present attorney looking at the dates knew they never owned them and said we are stepping aside and the title attorneys are stepping in to indemnify.

    Two crooks stepped in Thomas Malone of Fidelity Title and David k Fiveson of a non existent sham title he called Coronet.

    These two paid a bribe to JUDGE Schlesinger and she ruled against Elliot v Pierson a UNITED States Supreme Court Case :

    Under Federal Law which is applicable to all States, the UNITED States Supreme C their opinion they state we are defiant ourt stated that if a Court is ‘Without Authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentence are considered in law as trespassers.

    The NY Appellate Court has been very biased against me a pro se litigant.
    In their decision the Appellate Court wrote –we are defiant !

    Seeing their bias, I made a motion to the NY Court of Appeals Chief Jonathan LIPPMAN decision states

    Motion for leave to appeal upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

    Several motions later the appellate court ruled “Motion to determine action within the meaning of the Constitution for purposes of an appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

    I am the legal owner and these properties. In unfair for me to have to live thru this but one by one they are getting the crooks .

  8. If Judges or their PENSION PLANS are allowed to invest in Banks
    isn’t that a conflict of interest and their silent agenda why so many
    Judges allow themselves to rule against the law.?

  9. Does anyone know more about the Judicial Pension Plans and is this why the Judges defiantly stick toge ther especially against pro se litagents.?

  10. M.Keith Attorney Shawn Newman needs Steven Pattons docs also and where abouts. Please email me at and I will get you with Shawn. Also have a possible email and place of employment for Steven you can send a certified letter signature required to get his signature.

  11. Hi livinglies guys,

    just here with another rant about Cook County Chancery here in Chicago, Illinois.
    I went to check up on the 2008 case, which is an active pro se case (the last filing (motion for substitute attorney) by Plaintiff made on July 5, the last filing by Defendant (motion objecting to substitution because first lawyer never withdrew) on July 13, and judge order striking a motion on July 26.
    The reason I had to go in person was because the online electronic summary only showed the Plaintiffs 7/5 motion and the judge’s 7/26 striking. Pretty misleading, to say the least. I mean, who’s motion was striken? Since it was a web summary (you can’t see what the contents are) one can’t be sure unless you go downtown.

    Well, in Rm 802 I asked the clerk for the file, and found that Cook County is in a hurry to archive any files pre-2009. She said that there are too many old cases and they are moving them to the suburban depository. I told her that this was an active case. She said they have orders to archive any Chancery case filed before 2009. She said that it goes up to Rm 1201 before archiving and I could check to see if maybe, since it had recent filings, it may be there. And yes, it was there, and according to that Rm 1201 clerk the file will soon be sent out to the suburbs.
    As far as the docket folder, the Defendants 7/13 filing was there, and I found that the judges 7/26 order was for Plaintiff Wells Fargo and against the Defendants motion (the Defendant didn’t show at hearing). The clerks both told me that the most likely reason that the defendant’s filing does not show on electronic docket is because it was filed manually as opposed to electronically (attorneys can get electronic access).
    OK, so that makes sense, but as of today the Defendant’s filing is still not on electronic docket and the defendant has never received notice of the order from the Plaintiff’s attorney.

    I think that that is pretty unfair to pro se plaintiffs who check on the web.
    I wonder, since the defendant’s file is to shipped out to suburbs and archived, if her filing will even be made part of the electronic record at all, as they are supposed to be electronically scanned to docket as they are filed. Filed, it is, it’s in the docket folder. But obviously it wasn’t scanned.
    I wonder if this is some kind of collusion between the Chancery court and the illegally foreclosing banks. Lisa Madigan, our Attorney General, is calling for a search into all the foreclosure filings – looking for improper paperwork like fraudulent affidavits and assignments (the defendant has such affidavit and the mortgage copy is altered, as well).

    Could it be that Chancery here is trying to hide paperwork from the AG? And if the AG is relying on the electronic docket, how many pro se defendants’ answers and pleadings is she missing?

    Heads up, fellow Cook County foreclosure fraud victims – I think something is going on in there at the municipal level (not surprising anymore, is it)

  12. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend
    after a responsive pleading has been filed. Yakama Indian Nation
    v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999).
    We are very cautious in approving a district court’s decision to
    deny pro se litigants leave to amend. See Lucas v. Dep’t of
    Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding
    that dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is
    proper only if it is clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured
    by amendment or after the pro se litigant is given an opportunity
    to amend). A district court, however, does not abuse its
    discretion in denying leave to amend where amendment would be
    futile. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv.,
    Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

  13. @m keith – here’s one
    ELDRIDGE v. BLOCK, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987)
    No. 86-5851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 7, 1987.
    Decided November 17, 1987.
    As Amended December 22, 1987.

    [12] Courts, in fact, “provide a pro se litigant with notice of the
    deficiencies in his or her complaint” to ensure that the litigant
    uses the opportunity to amend effectively. Noll v. Carlson,
    809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). While a statement of deficiencies
    need not provide great detail or require district courts to act
    as legal advisors to pro se plaintiffs, district courts must at
    least draft a few sentences explaining the deficiencies. Noll,
    809 F.2d at 1448-49.

    As you can see, this is in regard to the complaint itself. Can’t swear it
    would apply to motions, etc. It is mostly about rule 15’s liberal allowance
    to amend a complaint. That (12) is footnote 12.

  14. to all of us –

    “Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.”
    – Dale Carnegie

  15. mk- still looking for it. In the meantime I can tell you that “a court is to construe the pleadings of a pro litigant liberally and take up the strongest arguments they suggest.” Know that one by heart.

  16. @m keith – OK. It’s on my computer. I’ll start the hunt.

  17. johngault
    Re: “Case law says a judge is to advise a pro se litigant of any
    Specificity needed here – Which cases? Please cite.

  18. Case law says a judge is to advise a pro se litigant of any
    deficiency in his pleading before ruling and to allow the pro se to
    correct that pleading. Yeah, it’s true. fwiw

  19. harry, I think you meant Jan; and I will be the first to admit that the pro-se litigant cannot expect the judge to teach them civil procedure. It won’t happen. I’m lucky ’cause I got a 2nd chance. You can’t blame the court for your missteps.

  20. tnharry,
    you misunderstand my comment. With few exceptions the three judges that have held court over the 5 1/2 years of my defense have been exceedingly fair. My observation was of the defense attorneys and their assistants that fill the legal assistance firms and university pro bono activities. I contacted more than twenty such groups and would have been out on the street within months if I had followed their advice. They wanted no input from me beyond what was necessary to do the least demanding defense. They would not follow up on points I felt were of value and in several cases admitted that I knew more about recent case law than they did. They were very reluctant to challenge the judge or object to plaintiff’s assertions, etc.

    Contrary to my previous comment there is no Pro Se Litigants Handbook for Cook County (or any other). Apparently the helpful individuals who suggested I find a copy was repeating a type of hazing that they enjoy sending novice pro se litigants scurrying around in search of. There are handbooks for lawyers and most foreclosure statutes spell out in fine detail every step the attorney must accomplish to complete a foreclosure. I complain only that there is no comprehensive guide to methods of defending against the various, almost routine motions that Plaintiffs file, especially answering the complaint and summary judgement, which have tripped me up. Nor is there a similar guide as to filing answers, motions, supplementary material, withdrawing motions and all the important cautions and advice that attorneys take all those years to learn and use.

  21. Jan,
    You are seriously misinformed about life and your plot is pure rhetoric. If the courts are not our salvation, a rush to mob rule is beyond inadvisable, it is physically dangerous. Despite the seriousness of the mess this nation is in, why should we abandon all of our freedoms and our precious Constitution so dearly won over the centuries just so you or some other tyrant can rule over us. Shame, Shame on you and your ilk.

  22. c’mon ann, is that helpful at all?

    @m.keith – I haven’t witnessed an anti-pro se bias myself, although i keep hearing about it. if anything i suspect what is perceived as an anti-pro se bias is often nothing more than a reflection of the pro se litigant not putting forth good pleadings, claims, and arguments. my experience has been that the judges will many times bend over backwards to be patient with the pro se litigant, and the pro se person will either mis-state the law or otherwise do something fatal to their own case. i think the court will listen, but the court won’t actively help

    as to the courts being the villains in that they saw this coming and did nothing more than their jobs, what would you have had them do? in a perfect world, the court and judge is impartial. taking an active investigatory role in all of those judicials would have been just as improper as you say their inaction was

  23. File a claim for your rights to the money – the note is money- value.

    You have entitlement rights.

    It’s time we made the judges accountable. They know the banks are bringing fraud. Why don’t they do something about it? I’ll tell you why.
    The courts are securitizing the cases. They are being sold on wall street. Are they being sold before the case is even decided? Time to investigate the courts.

    Wall street has become one big paper pusher. Everything is traded, to unsuspecting investors in other countries. Well, one day they are going to come knocking on our doors to collect. I heard Stern sold his case paper to China. Then the banksters will just sail off to their private islands where they’ve hid all the money they stole from the bailout and just laugh about how they swindled America. I say we get out the pitchforks and start the march to DC and demand our spineless representatives get out before we throw them out for selling us out!

  24. johngault,
    Thanks for your advice. I agree with most of it, especially the need for pleadings examples. Illinois case law supports MERS assignments at the apellate level so I am following the anti robo-signer approach. Steven K. Patton was the original lender’s real VP who endorsed the Note to the Trust when it was sold. The signature has the appearance of being from a rubber stamp (in which case it will be identical to any others from the same stamp which is why I seek multiple examples). These will be on loans by Fremont Investment and Loan, a creature of Bear Stearns, at the time. Since the endorsed note was obtained by plaintiff’s attorney from a Greg Allen, a robo-signer at LPS in Minnesota and the affidavit that was submitted with plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement was signed by Amy Weis, another LPS robo-signer there, I may be able to convince the appelate court that their ruling in support of MERS was in error. I have had one default ruling and sale date vacated and am asking the Court to reconsider the summary judgement based on the above and others. I’m an old (80 next year) retired mechanical engineer. I’ve downloaded or copied and pasted 1,250,000 files on the foreclosure subject for material in the several books I am writing about the Chancery Courts, the true villans in this. They saw the escalation of the foreclosure volume first and did nothing about it except, bureaucrat like, their job, as the economy collapsed around them and us. Also there is a virulent anti-borrower bias, especially anti ProSe litigant bias that permeates the legal profession, with a few notable exceptions. When I asked where I could get a copy of the Cook County Pro Se Litigants Chancery Handbook I believe they said the Chicago Bar Association had bought all the copies and now no one can find them. This is still Alphonse Capone’s Chicago.

  25. Ann, thanks for posting that. A problem remaining is that the assignments will still be done by bankster employees or f/c mills posing as MERS’ v.p.’s and with no knowledge that even as such, “MERS” is the party with the right to execute an assignment.
    Some courts as we know have ruled MERS may not execute an assignment (and that’s without those courts knowing the true mechanics of “MERS’ doing assignments).
    The question becomes “for whom is MERS claiming nominee status?”
    Even if one believes MERS may execute an assignment, the relationship between MERS and that party must still be proved. MERS
    etal must demonstrate that the unknown party for whom it purports to execute an assignment is a successor or assignee of the lender named in the deed of trust. If that party is not, then MERS is not their nominee. And remember, MERS issued its own disclaimer that it makes no warranties or assurances of the info entered into its database. The info in its database is only as reliable as the jerk
    bankster who entered it (or failed to enter it).

    Here is a link to a case wherein the court denied the bankster’s f/c since the bankster didn’t have the assignment prior to initiating foreclosure. It may be helpful or buy some time, but the bankster will just get the bogus assignment and come back to foreclose. That’s why the underlying authority and or right to execute an assignment, even if it were done by Wm Hultman (real MERS’ officer) himself, must be challenged.

    I don’t know how this new MERS missive may be useful to those who have already lost their homes. It is to me certainly an acknowledgment their deal is “messed”. It will take good argument by a good attorney, I suppose. If history is a clue, these arguments will take time to develop.
    MERS and its ‘buds’ just sneaked up on an unwary public
    for a long time and it has taken a while to unravel all the bull.

  26. Attorney Walter Keane files successful QT actions in Utah based on broken chains of title (title-theory state) of the deeds of trust. These are state court actions and I haven’t been able to get my hands on a copy or two of his complaints. If anyone has one, it’d be good to post it / link. Mr. Keane sholudn’t mind: immitation is the best form of flattery.
    It looks to me like other QT allegations are based on a separation of the note and dot, which makes the dot a worthless piece of paper.
    Some argue that the note has been separated from the dot since
    MERS (alleges to) be the beneficiary of the dot.

    Here is a link to an interesting discussion on quiet title actions, about which I don’t know a whole lot:

    Maybe someone here would like to take up the banner…..

  27. @M Keith – you do understand that “MERS’ assigned nothing, right?
    The guy you’re looking for is an employee of either the servicer or the servicer’s foreclosure mil,,which apparently you get. Theoretically, that person was made a v.p, of MERS, one of thousands of straw officers, by MERS’ one and only William Hultman, and on info and belief WH did so with no corporate resolution from MERS authorizing that bogus appt. If it is not too late, you need to challege that guy’s authority to sign anything on behalf of “MERS”. You did see the “Koontz” case, right? Why don’t you ask the court to make them answer a reasonable querry: under what authority does whatshisface sign an assignment for MERS? He is not a MERS’ employee – MERS has none. This is a simplification, but still the right argument. In my case, we asserted that the signor was an employee of the servicer, and not MERS. We asserted this is self-assignment. My judge chose to ignore this. In retrospect, we should have filed an appeal.

    “MERS” at any rate, if at all, may only do ‘anything’ if the current owner of the loan is the successor and or assign (notwithstanding arguments that statement in the dot is bs itself) of the original lender named in the dot. Where is the evidence the current bankster is in fact a successor or assign to which this might apply? Even with an endorsement on the note to the bankster or in blank, there is still no evidence the bankster holds anything but an UNsecured note. “MERS” bs assignment does not change this when there is no evidence 1) the bankster is a successor or assignee of the original lender and 2) there were no intervening assignments of the dot to non-MERS members which would have 86’d MERS nominee/agent (as I always say, pick one) status to allow it to do an assignment.

    Everyone else – I could use some help here. It’s just peachy (and somewhat useful) to keep track of AG’s, etal’ actions, but none of that is going to lead you to a pleading in a court of jurisdiction to keep your homes. “Well, your honor, the AG in this state has been going after
    Bankster 109 for some time now for bs foreclosure practices” is NOT
    going to impress a judge nor keep you in your home.

    There are no homeowner-oriented attorneys actively practicing of which I’m aware weighing in here with real solutions. That leaves us. It’s all about the pleadings and finding paths to make the banksters cough up evidence. The rules of evidence have not left the building – the right arguments are not being made by homeowners and that includes some represented ones . I am an alumni magna cum laude of the School of Hard Knocks aka Wish I’d known all this Sooner.

    Right now I’m sitting here knowing after three intense years in that nasty school what I’ve done wrong. Unless you all want to join me, these discussions need to focus on the pleadings. Not as much fun as bashing the banksters, but way more productive.

    I comment about pleadings, and it goes nowhere, not even a ‘yeah but then’. ‘Yeah but thens’ are good – they lead to solutions. Telling me I’m high is useful. Devil’s advocate is useful. But nothing is nothing.

  28. Brand New – Hot off The Presses – MERS Policy Bulletin Effective July 2011
    July 24th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. After years of claiming that assignments don’t matter and the date of assignment certainly doesn’t matter, the MERS Monster has finally changed its tune, effective July 21, 2011:

    The Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the Security Instrument from MERS before initiating foreclosure proceedings or filing Legal Proceedings and promptly send the assignment of the Security Instrument for recording in the applicable public land records

    Well, harumph says I…what of all those damn post filing assignments? What about all them specious arguments made in courtrooms all across this country that said the date of assignment didn’t matter? What about the absurd argument that an “equitable assignment” had already occurred? (despite the fact that neither the pooling and servicing a agreement nor law permit such assignments) For foreclosure cases already adjudged this is problematic and for all those hundreds of thousands still pending, this change in policy is exhibit #1 in the argument that a post filing assignment cannot confer standing.

    This certainly ain’t “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead”, it’s just another stanza in “Humpty Dumpty Sat on A Wall”

    And all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    Humpty Dumpty is our real property recording system that was developed over hundreds of years in this country. A key read is Hernando Desoto’s “The Mystery of Capital” for a long explanation that our country’s success is tied largely to our real property record system that has been completely obliterated in just a few short years by all this mortgage madness. What is most astonishing (and the biggest indictment of the whole MERS madness) is the fact that no law, legislation or court decision was ever rendered to justify the MERS system prior to its widespread implementation. It was merely spread all across this country like a virulent virus that was transmitted and lay dormant in the property records impacting millions of homes all across America.

    MERS Policy Bulletin

  29. .
    Has anyone researched the legality of corporations trafficking in the data of customers?

    How does all this confidential personal data, entrusted to financial institutions, end up in the databases of thieves, without specific consent?

  30. Hi
    Does anyone have any suggestions about how to get BofA to foreclose quickly? We haven’t paid since Oct. 2010. We just received a debt validation notice that shows the debt is owed to:
    CIG HFI 1ST LIEN MORTGAGE. We thought Bank of America was the name of the creditor/mortgage the debt is owed.(ours is an ACORN loan processed in 2006). What should we do, and do you think this has anything to do with MERS? The amount we owe seems correct. Suggestions? We just want them to take control of the property ASAP. We have avoided all phone calls after we told them in Dec 2010 that our intent was foreclosure(we told that to a telephone customer service agent-we did not discuss options)

  31. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  32. I just found it , maybe some friends knows it already , but I sleep a little better today :

    Tuesday, July 5th, 2011, 12:44 pm

    A U.S. District Court rejected JPMorgan Chase’s (JPM: 42.19 -0.24%) motion to dismiss a lawsuit involving several home equity lines of credit the bank terminated.

    In the original complaint, which pulled in several different parties, the plaintiffs accused JPMorgan’s mortgage unit of reducing or suspending the homeowners’ lines of credit in a manner that violated state consumer protection laws, the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and other state laws.

    A representative with Chase declined to comment on the litigation and decision.

    In court records, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer with the District Court of Eastern Illinois agreed to let the case move forward saying “the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a violation of TILA and Regulation Z (part of the Truth-in-Lending Act), by alleging that defendant suspended or reduced HELOCs in the absence of a significant decline in the value of the property securing the HELOC.”

    The judge said the homeowners’ claim that the use of automated valuation models and the use of ‘unlawful triggering events’ cannot serve as a basis for their allegations alone.

    “Those practices are, however, relevant in all cases considering whether defendant reduced or suspended HELOCs even though the properties securing them suffered no significant decline in value,” Judge Pallmeyer said in her decision.

    Furthermore, the court decided several issues raised in the lawsuit “are sufficient to state claims for breach of contract” under applicable state laws in Minnesota, California, Texas and Delaware.

    The eight plaintiffs secured second loans on homes to pay for education, home improvements and medical bills, according to court records. In their initial claim, the plaintiffs admit JPMorgan had certain rights to suspend HELOCS when property values declined, but they believe the automated valuation models used to determine values lacked the mechanisms to ensure accuracy.

  33. >For a $25 fee, employees of any of the 3,000 loan servicers that belonged to MERS could get themselves designated as a MERS “vice president” or “assistant secretary,” authorized to sign official documents on behalf of MERS.<

    Wow, even state-licensed insurance, securities, and real estate brokers (and their agents) must undergo tens to hundreds of hours of study and intensive, monitored testing (plus obtain annual CEU "Ethics Credits" as part of their continuing, long-term education) to get the "right" to sign "corporate documents."

    Oh, yes, these "smart ones" must also pay hundreds of dollars per year… just to get the "right" to earn (sometimes occasional) commissions (after explaining detail after detail about wordy, complicated documents in the process of "educating" their prospective clients and customers.) Most of these ethical brokers and their agents also pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in marketing costs in hopes of "closing sales" in industries that are "non-forgiving" to the slack and less-motivated "players."

    "Ethical" or not, are these folks "too dumb" to not see "the opportunity" to spend just $25 to become a "Vice President" or "Assistant Corporate Secretary" of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar bank? Are they "too smart" to get a cushy job that requires nothing but sitting by a table for hours on end, getting paid to sign someone else's name to "legal documents" they don't have to understand (even though they get to sign affidavits saying they do and have "reviewed" and know all the parties involved?)

    … Why didn't someone tell "these dumb ones" they can get paid for forging names and documents to help banks steal homes (since, evidently, this kind of "business model" is now regarded as a virtue.) Why else would politicians dump hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money into banks … Banks who "rewarded" their "top thieves" with hundreds of millions of dollars of "bonuses" without even trying to "pass those dollars though to help out frustrated taxpayers? Maybe the "dumb ones" are the politicians who are just now realizing that "buying votes" doesn't work if the "benefits" don't get back to mercenary voters?

    What's wrong here? Are these the "smart ones" who must study and pass annual "ethics exams" just "too dumb" or "too proud" to participate in Ponzi schemes?

    Tell us, who are the "smart ones" again?…. Aren't they the Joe Schmoes and Linda Green's who simply forge fraudulent documents used to swap hard-working home owner equity into the Mega-bonuses of "investment bankers" and the "Judicial Pension Plans" of "jurists" and other "public servants"?

    Or maybe the "smart ones" are the "retired and soon-to-be retired" judges" who get to use their gavels in court to "rubber stamp" the interest compounding on the bonds in their retirement plans funded with "Residential Mortgage Backed Securities"…. (Their 403-B, 401-K, etc… "nest eggs.") ?

    Why not, Judge? As long as you "can do it because you can" and are getting to actually roast and eat the "goose that lays your golden eggs," you might as well make sure you "get more gravy" too…. What's so "wrong" with that?

    I'm confused… All I wanted was a job and an "old fashioned mortgage" so I could have a comfortable home to raise my children in, eventually pay my "note" off, and use for me and my wife to grow old together in, enjoy our "golden years" and leave as a "legacy" to my children and grandchildren. When did my "American Dream" become a "ForeclosureFraud " nightmare?

    But the MERS employees sound like a great management team, Who else could take only 50 employees and effectively manage tens of thousands of "Vice Presidents" and their secretaries, more than 65,000,000 mortgages, deeds to secure debts, notes, and keep up with countless investors? Surely out of the 50 Employees at MERS, there cannot be more than 10 mid- and top-level managers…… What skills they must have! Why don't we "draft them" and allow them to manage the entire government of the US?

  34. […] See the original article here: MERS: 50 Employees Rule the World of Finance and Ruin the Lives of Americans […]

  35. Boehner: “It May Be Pretty Hard To Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again”

    First honest statement out of Washington in a long time.

  36. Can someone please post EXACTLY how we PROVE that the “loans were never funded”?

    And if it was never funded, then this statement on my loan docs “Wire Instructions” is a fraudulent statement, correct?:

    “We will be wiring loan proceeds per the following wire instructions”.

  37. ? Is it difficult to get a temporary injunction a day before the notice of substitute trustee sale.

  38. LYTTLE v. BANKUNITED- Another Headscratcher of a Gingo Appelate Conundrum
    July 24th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    Here goes another spellbinding appeal written by that masterful author George Gingo. You really must sit down and study the attached appellate brief which reads more like a nail biting crime novel than some dry academic appeal.

    I mean, seriously. Put yourself in the moment, picture the courtroom, picture the homeowner defendant standing there and just read line after line as the transcript plays out. Shocking and maddening and just mindblowing….every single line…..


  39. Gwen Caranchini ,

    If you stop by this thread I have some questions for you from a series of replies to Anonymous back on May 19th and 25th about QT in state courts and how to go about it ,, keeping it “plain vanilla” to make the argument crystal clear ..

    brian_tracy AT

  40. Dylan Ratigan gets it…but they have a muzzle on him…A MUST WATCH:

  41. “…Until then, this had to be done in individual county clerks offices and the process was glacial. The founders went ahead even though no state laws authorized them to bypass the required filing with clerks.”

    This is very telling…MERS was all about the sociopathic materialists making as much money as fast as possible…
    They said: “Let’s de-regulate, then sneak in our own law to by-pass the tax fees and slowness of the county recorders office, (not to mention the fact that these loans are never going to be ‘funded’, etc.), and then put all our ‘fast’ money in off-shore accounts before the they know what hit them!”



    That’s going to be the name of my book…so don’t steal it!

  43. read this snipit posted on the Washington Blog. I found it under
    Global Economic Intersection.

    →A Nation of Secret Laws
    Posted on 29 May 2011 by admin
    Guest Author: Washington’s Blog. This article was posted at Washington’s Blog May 27, 2011 with the title “We’ve Gone from a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Powerful Men Making Laws in Secret”

    Preface: Some defendants are no longer allowed to see the “secret evidence” which the government is using against them. See this and this.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges can throw out cases because they don’t like or believe the plaintiff …even before anyone has had the chance to conduct discovery to prove their case. In other words, judges’ secret biases can be the basis for denying people their day in court, without even having to examine the facts. Judges are also becoming directly involved in politics with the other branches of government.
    Claims of national security are being used to keep the shenanigans of the biggest banks and corporations secret, and to crush dissent.

    But this essay focuses on something else: the fact that the laws themselves are now being kept secret.
    America is supposed to be a nation of laws which apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or power.

    Founded on the Constitution and based upon the separation of powers, we escaped from the British monarchy – a “nation of men” where the law is whatever the king says it is.

    However, many laws are now “secret” – known only to a handful of people, and oftentimes hidden even from the part of our government which is supposed to make laws in the first place: Congress.

  44. “For a $25 fee, employees of any of the 3,000 loan servicers that belonged

    to MERS could get themselves designated as a MERS “vice president” or

    “assistant secretary,” authorized to sign official documents on behalf of


    Maybe one day an attorney who understands the laws of agency will get involved with these cases. A principal may not act as the agent of its
    alleged agent. A principal may not act as the nominee of its allleged nominee.


    Regulators balk at demands for foreclosure reports


    Banking regulators refused to commit to releasing details of their investigations into illegal foreclosure practices by the nation’s largest banks.

    Appearing before a Senate panel Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh said they had not decided whether to release reports on illegal practices by individual banks

    Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J, had pressed them to release the reports, banks’ individual action plans and agreements with the consultants that investigated the banks. Menendez cited a report by the Associated Press this week that said banks are continuing to foreclose without doing the necessary paperwork, eight months after they had promised to stop.

    “We will have to evaluate the individual documents and see if there is anything that would be of a confidential, supervisory nature,” Walsh said, adding that his agency will release “some information.”

    Bernanke said the Fed plans to release a report that “will explain what the findings were and what the proposals were and what the reactions were.” But he said he must consult with his legal team before releasing any information about individual banks.

    Citing a legal opinion by his staff, Menendez said the regulators are permitted to release the information if doing so was in the public’s best interest.

    “It is not acceptable to violate the law, and it is not acceptable to do robo-signings,” Menendez said.

    County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as “robo-signing,” remain widespread in the industry, the AP reported Monday.

    Last fall, the nation’s largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork.

    Since then, suspect paperwork has been filed not only with foreclosures, but also with new purchases and refinancings. Critics there is a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. They say banks and mortgage processors haven’t acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry.

    Bernanke and Walsh were testifying before a hearing to mark the one-year anniversary of a sweeping overhaul of the rules governing the financial system.

    comment: “It’s all about obscuring the truth and hiding the fraud. Make some noise!”

    Sorry about the caps but I am really steamed. I have been successfully defending my self with Neil’s help for over 5 1/2 years in Cook County, IL, Chancery, and the future looks bright, knock wood. MERS fraudulently transferred the Mortgage to BOA via a Robo-signer, Greg Allen, et al. What I do need are copies of the signature of Steven K. Patton, Sr VP of Fremont I&L, circa 2004+.
    Thanks, Neil & all.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: