CERVANTES OPINION CONTAINS ERROR ON MERS’ LEGAL TITLE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SEE CERVANTES 9TH CIRCUIT OPINION

DISTINCTION BETWEEN LENDER AND BENEFICIARY ROOT OF MESS

DARREL BLOMBERG points out that the 9th Circuit might be just as confused as trial judges about MERS. The Court acknowledges in the opinion that MERS owns nothing and in fact is intended to own nothing, acting merely as a placeholder for whatever entity is eventually “designated” by unknown players in the securitization game. Yet at page 16985, the court’s opinion contains the following paragraph:

“At the origination of the loan, MERS is designated in the deed of trust as a nominee for the lender and the lender’s “successors and assigns,” and as the deed’s “beneficiary” which holds legal title to the security interest conveyed. If the lender sells or assigns the beneficial interest in the loan to another MERS member, the change is recorded only in the MERS database, not in county records, because MERS con- tinues to hold the deed on the new lender’s behalf. If the ben- eficial interest in the loan is sold to a non-MERS member, the transfer of the deed from MERS to the new lender is recorded in county records and the loan is no longer tracked in the MERS system.”

Darrel’s point is that the court is confused, if it is reporting that MERS or any actual beneficiary is the holder of any title. The Deed of Trust is signed by the homeowner and vests title in a Trustee for the benefit of the beneficiary. If the beneficiary were the actual recipient of title, the non-judicial power of sale would be inapplicable. In order for non-judicial sale to occur, there MUST be an intervening “objective” party that provides some assurance of due diligence to protect the interests of the homeowner and the beneficiary.

It is possible that the Court was merely reporting the scheme of the “lenders” rather than the actuality, but if that is the case, the opinion is unclear. As it stands,  the opinion appears to be saying that the actual title is vested in the named beneficiary. If so, besides the point raised above, the deed on foreclosure would need to be issued and executed by MERS or whatever party was named as beneficiary. Thus the chain of title would be further corrupted by  having an on-record transfer from homeowner to trustee followed by an on-record transfer of title from beneficiary to whomever submitted the “credit bid.”

Darrel is right, I think. And I don’t think it is merely some scrivener’s error. It demonstrates the confusion of even the higher courts of appeal with the entire process of non-judicial sale, a CHOICE that is selected by “lenders” which was intended to be a very narrow window but has now become the greatest escape hatch of all time. Through that window pretender lenders are throwing millions of homes that otherwise could not have been foreclosed because the pretenders were just that — pretenders, who had no interest in the loan, and who had no right to submit a credit bid because they were not the creditor. How could US Bank or BOA et al submit a credit bid on a loan where they were neither the holder nor the owner of the debt, much less both the holder and the owner?

These parties are using non-judicial foreclosure to side-step the due process requirements of Arizona law and the law of other states that allow non-judicial foreclosure. If they truly could prevail in a well-pleaded complaint and prove their case according to established rules of evidence, they undoubtedly would have done so, just to prove that the borrowers’ cries of “foul” were mere technicalities and not based upon the reality that they took out a loan and now don’t want to pay for it. A few cases in each state and the argument would be over. The pretenders are avoiding reality — the one in which THEY are seeking to get a free house.

The 9th Circuit was mistaken in its language quoted above. MERS, or for that matter ANY beneficiary holds an equitable interest, not legal title. They are the beneficiaries of a trust enabled by statute in which the home is the asset, the trustor is the homeowner and the trustee is a party who will hold title until the loan obligation is satisfied. The beneficiary does not hold legal title. It holds no title at all. It is the beneficiary of the trust and is entitled to receive the proceeds of sale should the house be sold to satisfy the loan.

The error quoted here is an example of how the courts are attempting to accommodate the banks and in so doing trying to put their left foot in their right pocket. Adding the name “MERS” adds nothing to the rights of a beneficiary, because to even entertain any other construction would be to violate the enabling non-judicial statute, and violate the due process clauses in the U.S. and State constitutions. Where MERS is named as beneficiary, it has the right to receive the proceeds of sale if the home is sold in foreclosure. The problem is that MERS was intentionally named only as a placeholder (nominee, straw-man) and the deed of trust says so, because it distinguishes between the “lender” and the “beneficiary.”

Nothing in legislative notes in any state that I have researched indicates that this dichotomy between “lender” and “beneficiary” was considered, nor is there anything to suggest it would have been permitted by any of the legislatures if it had been considered. Quite the reverse is true.

The legislative presumption was that the lender and beneficiary were one and the same. The presumption was that non-judicial sale applied in non-adversarial  situations in which it was necessary to conduct a foreclosure sale, the lender was the beneficiary and therefore was also the creditor, and therefore capable of submitting a credit bid and worthy of receiving, without objection from the homeowner, the deed from the foreclosure sale. It is only in this context that enabling statutes for non-judicial sales are constitutional in their construction and application.

Here we have a different situation. MERS specifically disclaims any rights to such proceeds even though it is named as beneficiary. It does so consistent with the new distinction, created outside the enabling statutes for the power of sale, in which there is a  difference between “lender” and beneficiary.” So the “lender” is actually the beneficiary even though MERS is named as beneficiary. Although awkward, this might fly if the lender actually made the loan and was the creditor. But in most cases, the “lender” is also a placeholder. See any of the bankruptcy schedules and orders entered for mortgage originators that were designated as “lenders.”

Thus Cervantes stands on a loose foundation: we have a beneficiary that admits it is not entitled to anything and a lender who in fact is not entitled to anything because it was also just a placeholder for an undisclosed principal. Neither one of them can submit a credit bid and neither one of them has ever possessed the power to instruct the Trustee on the deed of trust to issue the notice of default and notice of sale. The original trustee would obviously have no part of a foreclosure sale in which it was receiving instructions from parties that never appeared on the deed of trust or the chain of title. And that, my friends, is the reason why we have yet another new entry of new terms without meaning: the substitute trustee.

When you think about it, the securitizers were obviously making it up as they went along, which is why there were lawyers who refused to draft any of these documents, because in their own words, they thought it was not just illegal it was probably criminal. By inserting a nominee lender and nominee beneficiary into the transaction without disclosing the principal from whom the loan was obtained and by substituting their own people as trustees, they were assured of grabbing millions of properties while appearing to comply with statutes. They neither complied with statutes nor with the standards of good faith and fairness required under those statutes.

But here is the rub for them which the banks are desperately trying to avoid: in the vast majority of transactions in which a securitized debt was involved, the use of a placeholder, in lieu of a real party in interest, was not just part of the transaction — it was the whole transaction. At the time of execution of the mortgage, there was no real party in interest named or described in the mortgage — the very thing that the legislature of each state meant to avoid when they passed recording statutes.

Thus at the time of execution, the homeowner borrower was being intentionally kept in the dark about the identity of the creditor. In fact, when the mortgage was recorded, the general public was being intentionally kept in the dark about the identity of the creditor. There is no state in which that kind of document gives rise to a valid lien against the property, nor could it. Recording is intended to provide notice to the world that someone has a lien. In the case of nearly all transactions involving securitized debt, the “someone” that had a lien was a fictitious character, like Donald Duck. In all such instances, state law provides that the mortgage  does not attach as a lien.

The promissory note is another story entirely subject to its own problems. Suffice it to say, that if you check with an attorney who is competent and licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located, you will find that your mortgage, while it exists, is not a lien against your property. That might sound like a contradiction in terms, but it is nevertheless true. Thus the obligation you owe, if any, is unsecured. Do not act on this until you consult with counsel.

70 Responses

  1. I always used to study paragraph in news papers but now as
    I am a user of net thus from now I am using net for articles, thanks to web.

  2. FLORIDA-
    MORTGAGE DOCUMENT- page 3 of 16 states-
    TOGETHER WITH- MERS holds only LEGAL TITLE. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

    1st page mortgage document states MERS is both mortgagee and nominee.

  3. Just a reminder: Recorded documents may be “judicially noticed” (the court will accept them mol), but recordation of a document and judicial notice of that document does NOT mean the document is legitimate – as a matter of law. A judge could, for instance, judicially notice my quitclaim deed to Bob Smith on YOUR house, but that doesn’t mean the qc deed is valid.

  4. If there is no NOTICE of an agent’s alleged agency with its principal, reliance on that agency may not be found. In practical terms, if there is no NOTICE to homeowners and the public of the agency by way of actual or constructive notice, the agency is not binding, is not good against the homeowner or anyone else.

    Actual Notice:

    Actual awareness or direct notification of a specific fact or proceeding. Actual notice occurs when an individual is directly told about something — for example, when a tenant notifies the landlord that a window is broken, the landlord has actual notice of the broken window. “Personal service” of court documents is another common method of delivering actual notice. Also called “express notice”.

    Constructive Notice:

    Constructive notice, also known as the Doctrine of Constructive Notice, is a legal fiction used in the law of both common law and civil law systems to signify that a person or entity is legally presumed to have knowledge of something, even if they have no actual knowledge of it.
    Real property: One of the most common examples of constructive notice is in the operation of the real estate recording laws. One of the purposes of these is to impart constructive notice of the contents of documents affecting the title that are recorded in the recorder’s offices in the jurisdictions where the real estate lies.

    If Tom Brown signs a document for Merrill Lynch, but there is no NOTICE of his authority to do so, the document is either invalid, void, or voidable.
    Look at every document impacting your home and see what turns up as to the people executing the docs. In my case, for instance, some guy signed the notice of trustee’s sale for Quality Loan Service (the alleged sub’d trustee) as alleged agent for QLS. First of all, there is no evidence that a dot trustee may delegate its authority (maybe they can – not sure). But for sure, there is NO notice, either actual or constructive, to me or anyone of that guy’s agency/authority with QLS. It ain’t so because he seems to think so. In order for such agency/authority to be effective as to me, I would have to get either actual notice: a certified copy of the agency agreement. In order for there to be constructive notice to me or the public, the agency agreement/authority must be recorded prior to the execution of the notice of sale.
    I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice, as usual. I’m a really angry American, a homeowner for the moment, and a lay-advocate trying to encourage people to explore their rights.

  5. From Levya v National Default NV Supreme Court
    July 7, 2011

    “Conveyance’ shall be construed to embrace every
    instrument in writing, except a last will and
    testament, whatever may be its form, and by
    whatever name it may be known in law, by which
    any estate or interest in lands is created,
    aliened, assigned or surrendered.” NRS 111.010(1)…………

    Here, both the statutory language …… provide
    that the beneficiary “shall” …. and we have
    previously recognized that “‘shall’ is mandatory
    unless the statute demands a different
    construction to carry out the clear intent of
    the legislature.” S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev.
    15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992); see also
    Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___. The
    legislative intent behind requiring a party to
    produce the assignments of the deed of trust and
    mortgage note is to ensure that whoever is
    foreclosing “actually owns the note” and has
    authority to modify the loan. See Hearing on
    A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and
    Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009)
    (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley).

    Thus, we determine that NRS 107.086 and the FMRs
    necessitate strict compliance.
    Because we conclude that strict compliance is
    necessary, we must discuss what constitutes a
    valid assignment of deeds of trust and mortgage
    notes.

    **Transfers of deeds of trust and mortgage notes
    are distinctly separate**, thus we discuss each one in turn. (**my emphasis added)

    NRS 111.205(1) (emphases added). Thus, to prove
    that MortgageIT properly assigned its interest in land via the deed of trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo needed to provide a signed writing
    from MortgageIT demonstrating that transfer of
    interest…..Absent a proper assignment of a deed of trust, Wells
    lacks standing to pursue foreclosure ………..

    The obligor on the note has the right to know the identity of the entity that is “entitled to enforce” the mortgage note under Article 3, see
    NRS 104.3301, “[o]therwise, the [homeowner] may
    pay funds to a stranger in the case.” In re Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011)…….

    A deed of trust is an instrument that “secures(s) the performance of an obligation or the payment of any debt. NRS 107.020.

    **This court has previously held that a deed of trust “constitutes a conveyance of land** as defined by NRS 111.010.”[5] Ray v. Hawkins, 76 Nev. 164, 166, 350 P.2d 998, 999 (1960). The
    STATUTE OF FRAUDS governs when a conveyance
    creates or assigns an interest in land:

    No estate or interest in lands, . . . nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall be created,
    granted, assigned, surrendered or declared . . . unless . . . by deed or conveyance, in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, ASSIGNING, surrendering or declaring the same, or by the party’s lawful agent thereunto AUTHORIZED IN WRITING.”

    Also, if you’re in California (or really anywhere, I guess), go in and look at your statutes (you cannot help yourself if you will not spend the time)regarding substitution of trustees. If your dot uses the word ‘shall’ or your courts otherwise apply the same meaning as NV to the word “shall” in regard to substitutions of trustee or if your statute use the word ‘shall’ in any statute in regard to interests in real property, beg to differ with your judges that “substantial compliance”, aka substituting the trustee after that trustee has sent your NOD etc., is not hoyle because in that case ‘substantial compliance’ does NOT cut it.

    Here are clues to find your applicable state laws. Search

    My State recording statutes
    My State deeds of trust statutes
    My State promissory note statute
    My State foreclosures (notice of default, notice of trustee sale)statutes
    My state judicial foreclosure (if your state uses jd) statutes
    My state mortgage statutes
    My state STATUTE OF FRAUDS STATUTES

  6. Does not matter whether mortgage or DOT — claims are based upon securitization — and THAT is the problem.

    As to subprime — nothing more than collection rights were securitized. Remember, securitization is simply a method of pass-through of CURRENT cash flows. Anything with a cash flow can be securitized. The problem is — that securitization is meaningless as to the creditor. Security investors — and trustees — in any capacity — are NEVER the lender/creditor.

    The fraud lies in the securitization fraud “process” — and the means by which the “loan” was procured. The “loan” — in subprime — was never a “loan” at all — at least NOT a secured loan — by mortgage or DOT. .Thus, dischargeable by BK.

    That is the issue.

  7. @zurrenarh – I don’t like in re Weisband much. In fact, the court imo does not address the objections – the judge drew conclusions which did not speak to the actual objections. But, Weisband is good for something:
    it articulates why a “MERS” (read member-self-assignment) assignment is good for nothing. If I sign a quit claim deed to you on your home or anyone else’s in which I have no interest, I have conveyed nothing because I have nothing to convey. It’s no different with “MERS”.

    As far as the dot goes, I think we need to stay focused on the impossibility of its terms as it concerns MERS, including the laws of agency and the statute of frauds. If we hop off to other subjects (other than the same scrutiny and analysis of notes), we may lose the ground we have made. I’ve opined before that i don’t think the judiciary is crooked by and large. I DO think many of the judges have a bent toward the banksters which means we need good ammo, really good ammo.
    Judges are not infallable and suffer themselves from faulty logic. It’s the judges we need to ‘educate’, even if this means mailing them ‘stuff’, which is exactly what I have in mind to do when I can.

  8. Catherine Austin Fitts, to my mind is in the truly elite group of American leaders that include Elisabeth Warren, Ellen Brown, Brooksley Born, Dean Baker, James Galbraith.

  9. @zurrenarh – No, i did mean in re Wilhelm. It’s Idaho bankruptcy and will come up on a yahoo search.

  10. johngault,
    Did you mean in re Weisband? There is discussion of ownership and holdership in that case, specifically beginning on p. 8. The judge in that case appears to use “holding” and “owning” interchangeably–that is to say, that “holding” is equivalent to “owning.” In my reading of the UCC Article 3, I don’t believe “owning” is ever discussed. “Holding” is discussed quite a bit, however.

    I think that most people, including judges, mean “holder” when they say “owner.” My understanding is that the only party that ever “owns” a note is the maker. I say this because the maker is supposed to get the note back after it has been paid off. The maker is the true “owner” of the note, therefore, and any other party (i.e., purchasers of said note) are merely “holding” it until it is paid off by the maker.

    But of course, since “holding” a note purportedly entitles a “holder” to payments from the maker, and because a “holder” gets to treat a note as an asset, it is easy to see how people can conflate “owning” a note with “holding” a note. Of course, this distinction is further blurred because the UCC also addresses the fact that a “holder” can be someone who is NOT entitled to payment from the maker (such as a document custodian). In most people’s minds, physically possessing a note without being entitled to payment is “holding” while being entitled to payment under the note is “owning” (even if the “owner” does not have physical possession of the actual document because, for example, it is warehoused with a document custodian). However, as I mentioned before, I don’t think that the UCC itself ever uses the term “owner” or “owning” when referring to notes. It’s always “holding” or “holder.”

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I CAN read–and there was a time several months back when I was trying to figure out this very conundrum and really read Article 3 pretty closely, scouring for mentions of “owner” vs. “holder” in Article 3 and didn’t find any mentions of “owner” therein. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

    So my conclusion is that the “holder in due course” is what most people would call the “note owner”. And I think the UCC avoids the term “owner” of a note for the reason that I mentioned above, namely that the maker of the note is the owner, as the note is supposed to be returned to the maker when the note is paid off. Any party besides the maker that comes into possession of the note is only a “holder” of the note, because the note is actually the property of the maker. The UCC doesn’t spell that out, by the way, that is just what I have surmised…

    So I think “holding” and “owning” are really

  11. zurrenarh – I think MERS is doing drugs and not sharing when it says it ‘owns legal title to the dot’. There is NO such thing.

  12. zurrenarh said:

    “The Note explicitly says I am to pay the party–called the “Note Holder” (not “Note Owner”) that fulfills BOTH of the following criteria: 1) taken the Note by transfer, and 2) entitled to receive payments due under the Note.
    That seems pretty simple, but the Note does NOT define what “taking by transfer” means, nor does it spell out the conditions under which a “Note Holder” could be said to be ……….”

    Transfer is defined in the UCC and was analyzed in several cases. One was in re Sheridan I think – probably comes up with a simple search, but I think the real analysis was one which cites to Sheridan and I can’t remember the name. But it might be In Re Wilhelm, which will also come up with a simple search, I’d bet. Could you look into that and then together we can try to answer the holder v owner question? (but if the note being held by the sec’n trustee is a bailment, than no one can be it’s holder meeting the criteria you cite).
    If you can’t find them, let me know. I have them ‘somewhere’.

  13. And johngault, I agree with you about the 3-party DOT. I am the trustor. I signed that shit. I don’t deny it. I created the trust along with the fake beneficiary (MERS) and the trustee. I am owed a duty by the fake beneficiary and the trustee as much as I owe a duty to them.

    In my mind, the “trust” was broken when they named MERS as beneficiary because MERS is NOT the beneficiary. MERS and my “lender” knew that and now I know it.

    But my point is, I am going to go before the judge and NOT run from the language of the DOT and the Note. I am going to embrace it. We’ll talk “four corners” of each document.

    Which brings me to another point–neither my Note nor my DOT say anything about “owning” the Note. The Note explicitly says I am to pay the party–called the “Note Holder” (not “Note Owner”) that fulfills BOTH of the following criteria: 1) taken the Note by transfer, and 2) entitled to receive payments due under the Note. That seems pretty simple, but the Note does NOT define what “taking by transfer” means, nor does it spell out the conditions under which a “Note Holder” could be said to be entitled to receive payments due under the Note. So what then–do we look to the UCC? That’s beyond the four corners…

  14. johngault,
    Here’s the statement I mentioned earlier…In response to my discovery, MERS asserted the following, and I quote:

    MERS “holds legal title to the Deed of Trust.”

    Note that it does not say MERS holds legal title to the property. MERS holds legal title to the Deed of Trust. I even gave them another opportunity to clarify that statement, and they basically said “We said what we meant and we meant what we said.”

    So my question is, is there such a thing as “legal title” to a Deed of Trust? When I read that statement of theirs, I was flabbergasted. Flummoxed. I had to ask myself, “Do they even know what they’re talking about?” Because my case is not about title to the Deed of Trust, it’s about title to the property. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that you don’t quiet title to Deeds of Trust, you quiet title to property. After all, I can’t live in a Deed of Trust, but I CAN live in the house that sits on the property in question.

    Anyone care to hash out that strange statement? Reading it again now, it still puzzles me.

  15. johngault:

    “But once again, I wearily state a dot is NOT a mortgage and it is not symantics, believe me. A mortgage is a lien which does not involve any transfer of title to real property.”

    Actually, in California, after a bit of back and forth, the Supreme Court says a mortgage and a deed of trust are indistinguishable — in nomencalture they’re different, but legally the deed of trust is a mortgage. There’s just a lien in California and the homeowner never gives title to anyone except the legal interest in a contractual power of sale:

    “‘deeds of trust, except for the passage of title for the purpose of the trust, are practically and substantially only mortgages with a power of sale . . . .’ In practical effect, if not in legal parlance, a deed of trust is a lien on the property.” Monterey S. P. P’ship v. W. L. Bangham (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 454, 460.

  16. ANONYMOUS:

    “Security investors are not the creditor — never were — and any trustee who represents them –on any level — is NOT the creditor. Security investors — and the trustee that claims to represent them — NEVER acquire Legal Title. And, equitable title holders — are not the creditor. Deed of trust — essentially the same as a mortgage — were NOT sold to trusts. Only the supposed Note was sold — (supposed indeed). Thus, no mortgages or deeds of trust were sold to trusts — they may have been “held” by custodian —- but were NOT sold. Legal title — therefore — remained with the original debt buyer bank.”

    I think you’re right.

  17. zurenarrh,

    “’As mortgagee or beneficiary, it [MERS] holds mortgage liens on behalf of promissory note owners. This explanation by MERS itself of its role in the mortgage scam points to what I was talking about below: the lenders gave away their liens to MERS….then every mortgage/deed of trust that names MERS as “mortgagee” or “beneficiary” is fraudulent since MERS didn’t put up any money (which they also admit in my case).”

    I think you’re right.

  18. @ John Gault,

    Salt Lake City Attorney Walter Keane explains the unfavorable ruling here:

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/8/prweb8684453.htm

    No more quiet title in Utah.

  19. zurenarrh, I’m a big fan of McGuire’s. Lost him, but know that he and I share the same ‘fondness’ for MERS. I’ll try to read his deal – had to become a member to download….still waiting for confirmation email. Wish he would get in the act on this site. Well, McGuire, how about it? Have a big audience here, you would.

  20. For Californians:

    Essential to the formation of a contract and, if not present, will affect its enforceability: (1) the parties to the contract must be capable of contracting; (2) the parties must consent to the agreement; (3) the contract must have a valid object; and (4) the contract must be supported by sufficient consideration. [Civ. Code §1550] In addition, most agreements affecting an interest in real property must be in writing. [Civ. Code §§1091, Civ. Code 1624(a)(3), (4), (6)]

    I doubt these statutes are inclusive – there are probably others.

    Seal Beach attorney Eugene Kinsey has been interpretting contracts since
    l976. Mr. Kinsey, we could use your experience.

    “Good Faith & Fair Dealing: Every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by which each party promises not to do anything that might injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement. The covenant requires a party to do everything the contract presupposes he or she will do to accomplish its purpose.”

    Does this mean the original lender should not do anything or plan to do anything which might injure the rights of the borrower? Is entering into a plan which puts the borrower, for instance, into the risk of a form of double
    jeopardy an injury to the borrower? MERS hides the noteowner and the
    true beneficiary, regardless of what any judge thinks an uninformed borrower agreed to. Does the borrower have a right to know? If so, this
    is an unconscionable provision in a dot? Yes, a dot says the note may be sold, but I guess I missed the part where it said the borrower would have to guess and or spend 25k to 50k to find out to whom. Or lose their savings and their health or have a nervous breakdown or forget what life was like before the banksters ruled the earth.

  21. I’m reading that CPA v Mers et al decision. I tell you, I do get sick when I am reading cases because they are often full of bad logic and arguments and it gives me a headache….literally. First of all, MERS if it ever could may only act for its members, your honor. WHERE is the evidence that the current noteowner is a MERS’ member? IF the note is in fact owned by investors (which I doubt) , why has the dot been assigned to the servicer, Citi? Now they’re for sure bifurcated, not to mention that MERS has no authority (if it ever did) to assign a dot for a non-member, such as sec’n investors. And your honor, did you know that the person who assigned the assignment of the dot is an employee of Citi? No? They forget to tell you?

    “In its second cause of action, CPA again seeks a declaratory judgment that MERS and Citi lack any interest under the terms of the Deed of Trust. In support of this contention, CPA argues that MERS, Citi, and any investors who invested in Home Buyer’s securitized debt, failed to obtain assignment of the Deed of Trust. Because of this, and in light of CPA’s claimed acquisition of the property as a “bona fide purchaser” for value without notice of the other parties’ claim under the Deed of Trust, CPA contends that MERS, Citi, and the securities investors cannot assert any rights under the Deed of Trust. As mentioned in the first cause of action, CPA attributes its lack of notice to MERS’s and Citi’s failure to respond to its information requests.”

    Now this is interesting and would be true in a chapter 11, I can tell you that. See in re Zitta, AZ for clues.
    What CPA is saying is that they took the property as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any assignment of the dot. That would be because there was none. CPA took the property for value subject to any dot of record, but no assignment was of record.
    CPA also attempts to show that securitization of the note bifurcated it from the dot, which is likely true in Utah, since Utah is a title-theory state and for lack of assignment of the dot to the sec’d trust, the bifurcation occurs. CPA didn’t finish it’s argument, however, at least as far as I can tell in the decision.
    I’ll bet if I wanted to take, which I don’t, the time to scour the UTAH statutes I would find some on point that essentially say unrecorded interests in real property are not binding on the homeowner and would also support the need for a complete chain of title for the dot, your honor. What about you? Did you search your own statutes, or did you rely on an archaic case involving a ‘mortgage’, a lien? He also did not consider the statute of frauds as it relates to interests in real property, as usual.

    When I was in court, the bankster’s attorney shouted, “assignments don’t have to be recorded!” I thought he was going to fall over when I said, yeah, well they do if you want them to be binding on the homeowner (NRS 111.315).

    And on and on it goes………the court did not consider the dot’s attempt to grant to MERS authority which only may be found in an explicit agency agreement or poa, or whether such a side-agreement may to be added to a legislated document. Now, does the dot contain language which appoints MERS as an agent? No, the bottom line is I have to say it doesn’t. MERS is named as a nominee and beneficiary and mortgagee, but later the document describes powers of an agent but without using the word. And again I say it’s because no one wanted the liability. Plus all the other arguments I’ve already made.

    This is the only thing new:

    “Impliedly, CPA argues that the statute prevents the original parties to the Deed of Trust from contracting in a manner that binds Lender’s successors and assigns.”

    I have often wondered about this but not pursued it. If the note references the dot, and I forget, it’s possible any new owner of the note who takes the dot by assignment does so with the condition of MERS in it , kind of like a deed reservation or an easement. One trouble they run into is that there are independent agreements (MERS’ member contract) which describe rights and duties of MERS’ members which impact the dot, etc., which are not a part of the dot. This other contract does not follow the dot, like a reservation or easement, say. Who cares? Everyone, because by that independent agreement, MERS may only act for members, and there is never, ever, never any evidence submitted that the current note owner is a MERS-member, for starters. IN fact, the beneficial interest, the right to payments, on the notes is held by non-MERS members in every loan which supposedly made it into securitization. The decision does not consider the validity of the terms of the deed of trust, it’s conflicts, or any other salient issue, as usual, nor were any arguments made regarding those conflicts and impossiblities, again as usual. This imo is because attorneys aren’t sharing ideas, whether it’s because they’re too busy or not organized, like the banksters network attorneys.

  22. A few months ago I asked my IndyMac servicer “How can a database be a beneficiary?

    This is what he wrote back:

    “Here is the answer about your question to MERS. MERS is a corporation that was established to maintain a database of assignments of promissory notes. So, although its principal purpose was to track the assignments of promissory notes since it is a legal entity – a corporation – it has the ability to act in other capacities, such as being designated as the beneficiary – for purposes of expediting the assignments — in the deed of trust or mortgage.
    Hope this helps.”

    Then I asked him to prove in writing that my payments were going to my “loan” that he claimed was in a “securitized trust”—“owned” by Deutsche Bank.

    He never responded.

    That was 5 months ago…

  23. johngault,

    Okay — my friend — start by reading the Fed Res Opinion — go straight to Section by Section Analysis. Now codified — now law.

    Then — give me your opinion.

  24. johngault,
    MERS does in fact claim to have an interest in the document, not in the property. At least that’s what they said in answer to my discovery. I will have to post it later. I think, if nothing else, you will find their response amusing. I’ll post later tonight when I get home from work.

  25. BTW, that little snippet concerning MERS being regularly named as the nominee was actually pulled from Christopher L. Peterson’s testimony that can be found here:

    http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Peterson101202.pdf

    A must read. It’s amazing that anyone could find anything whatsoever in his testimony that worked pro-lender. And it was taken out of context. It was obviously in no way an endorsement of MERS as nominee, simply a setting the stage statement. MERS would have probably preferred rectal cancer than the treatment they got from Peterson.

  26. “MERS is also increasingly named as a “nominee” on mortgage notes, a position intended to simplify the note holder’s ability to foreclose on a securitized mortgage.” Say it isnt’ so. Never heard of such a thing.

    As to this decision, the fact that laws weren’t created to allow homeowners to
    get windfall profits by way of ‘free’ homes is not relevant, altho one can
    understand the attempted reasoning. But the reason this is still errant is because it acts as if the intention of legislation in regard to this one fact is the only one in play. It absolutely is not. I suppose I better read it. But once again, I wearily state a dot is NOT a mortgage and it is not symantics, believe me. A mortgage is a lien which does not involve any transfer of title to real property.
    E. Tolle – since you cited to, can you post a link please so I don’t have to hunt for an hour? thanks

  27. zurrenarh – Haven’t read the link stuff yet. I forgot MERS also calls itself the mortgagee. And again I say what bunk. There is no ‘mortgagee’ in a deed of trust any more than the word ‘lender’ is appropriate in a dot. Now, a dot
    could probably say the lender (owner of the debt) is the beneficiary, but it’s redundant.

    The mortgagee/lender/beneficiary are the same party and any attempt at
    calling anyone who is the lender and party with the debt obligation anything other than the beneficiary in the dot is a crock.
    We got it now that the only three parties to a dot are the trustor, the trustee, and the beneficiary, right?
    MERS is not the beneficiary, not the nominee of a lender/party- who-can- be a party-distinct from the beneficiary, and not the mortgagee. MERS maybe, maybe can be the nominee of the beneficiary BUT they got stoned and called themselves something that is not possible. The only way MERS can be the beneficiary, which is the only role available to a party not the trustee or trustor, is if in fact the note and dot are bifurcated, which of course makes the note unsecured. They are bifurcated as Treva Hearne and partner Hager say because if MERS IS the beneficiary to the dot, another party owns the debt (the note). I dont know where they got off thinking they could make a dot a four party instrument. There’s no such thing.

    No one intended to bifurcate the note and dot. But if MERS is the beneficiary, that’s what they did. The alternative is the dot is a piece of junk which does not legally describe the facts and makes it unclear to the borrower who is who. Don’t you think?

    MERS may not ‘hold’ the deed of trust on behalf of parties who own the notes. I have always wondered just what the heck MERS claims it owns legal title to. A document? No one ‘owns’ the document. 3 people are parties thereto and have interests in it. The dot is a contract which evidences the agreement made by three parties. Only one of them sign it, which is weird to me, but not a deal-breaker.

    If you and I and Sarah enter into an agreement, does one of us “own’ it?
    No, we’re parties and have interests in it. What does MERS think it holds? There are certain rights of certain parties (normally) – three parties – spelled out in a deed of trust. MERS does not hold a mortgage lien. No one does in a title theory state – it’s all about title to real property. And it’s the trustee who holds that, not stinking MERS. The true beneficiary doesnt’ even ‘hold’
    anything in a deed of trust. Now in a lien theory state, the dot trustee holds
    equitable title while the borrower holds legal title, so again, there is nothing for MERS to ‘hold’ because the beneficiary holds NOthing in a deed of trust
    at least as to title.
    The trustor puts up his home as collateral, allows the trustee to hold legal title to his real property during the life of the loan, and the beneficiary has the right to tell the trustee to take the borrower’s equitable title and to get legal title from the trust in the event of default of the debt evidenced by the note (right after the beneficiary proves his case to the trustee). And as to that
    dot trustee, I have every right since I entrusted him with legal title to my home to believe and expect that he will look out for my interests.

    I’ll read your link and see if I can do any better.

  28. Sometimes reading the law can make one queasy, and would fly in the face of just about everything John Gault just argued (argued well, I thought). Such as the following, from COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY ADVOCATES, LLC v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., recently ruled on in Utah:

    “The note is the cow and the mortgage the tail. The cow can survive without a tail, but the tail cannot survive without the cow.”

    Fair enough…..I like this Mr. Rogers way of looking at it. But then there are these items:

    Essentially, an unsecured note is “economically wasteful and confers an unwarranted windfall on the mortgagor.”

    A windfall for the mortgagor is a result that is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and that does not coincide with the context of Chapter 1 of Title 57, which explains the foundational nuts and bolts of conveyancing….. Because “[o]ur clear preference is the reading [of the statute] that reflects sound public policy, as we presume that must be what the legislature intended,”

    “…..we interpret section 57-1-35 as ensuring the basic presumption that “[a] transfer of an obligation secured by a mortgage also transfers the mortgage unless the parties to the transfer agree otherwise….”

    “The plain language of the statute does nothing to prevent MERS from acting as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns when it is permitted by the Deed of Trust. Therefore, contrary to CPA’s liberal citation of section 57-1-35, we do not interpret the statute as preventing, implying, or somehow indicating that the original parties to the Note and Deed of Trust cannot validly contract at the outset “to have someone other than the beneficial owner of the debt act on behalf of that owner to enforce rights granted in [the security instrument],”

    My non-attorney take on this ruling is that for a borrower to strip the underlying security interest is considered unlawful, a boon if you will. However, for the lender to sell this note upstream to a trust, then turn around and sell the security interest at foreclosure is legal and AOK. I don’t know how anyone could not shake their head in disbelief at these findings.

    “The Deed of Trust names MERS as “nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns” and extends to MERS the right “to exercise any or all of [Lender’s] interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property, and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling th[e] Security Instrument.” In interpreting an identical trust deed provision, the United States District Court for the District of Utah has held numerous times that even in the face of securitization, the provisions of the Deed of Trust continue to grant MERS “the authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings, appoint a trustee, and to foreclose and sell the property.”

    This even after MERS has stopped foreclosures in their name, and is under a Consent Order.

    This ruling, although different in its nature, would seem to have the same effect as Jackson v. MERS in MN, as the court seems to be suggesting that the legislature wanted it this way, so deal with it. In the footnotes, they state:

    “MERS is a regular player in securitization and maintains a massive computer database that tracks the ownership and servicing rights associated with about half of all mortgages in the United States. MERS is also increasingly named as a “nominee” on mortgage notes, a position intended to simplify the note holder’s ability to foreclose on a securitized mortgage.

    It also happens to be simplifying the collapse of the planet as we speak. Note to self, buy more ammo.

  29. Anonymous – I’ll try to digest what you’re saying, but it’s not my forte!
    I have to read it a few more times. It would be good if we could get an agreement from A to Z in this mess.

  30. johngault,

    I am not an attorney — but — you may be on point — as to trustee — NO trustees hold legal title. With securitization — only securities trustee is relevant. Again from Opinion (now law). And, remember — a “covered person” is subject to section 226.39 — as the covered person — ONLY — is deemed a creditor. Those NOT covered — are NOT creditors. Trustees do not hold legal title.

    Quote — “To become a “covered person” subject to Section 226.39, a person must become the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation. Consequently, 226.39 does not apply to persons who acquire only a beneficial interest in the loan or a security interest in the loan, such as when the owner of the debt obligation uses the loan as security to obtain financing and the party providing the financing obtains only a security interest in the loan. Section226.39 also does not apply to a party that assumes the credit risk without acquiring legal title to the loans. Accordingly, an investor who purchases an interest in a pool of loans (such as mortgage-backed securities, pass-through certificates, participation interests, or real estate mortgage investment conduits) but does not directly acquire legal title in the underlying mortgage loan, is not covered by Section 226.39.”

    No trustee — in any capacity — can foreclose without identification of the creditor — the current creditor – because no trustee owns legal title. And, neither can a nominee — such as MERS. According to the law, the CURRENT creditor MUST be identified. And, if the current creditor who owns legal title is not identified in the foreclosure process — the foreclosure is fraudulent — with irreparable damage to the homeowner — due to the fraud.

    Security investors are not the creditor — never were — and any trustee who represents them –on any level — is NOT the creditor. Security investors — and the trustee that claims to represent them — NEVER acquire Legal Title. And, equitable title holders — are not the creditor. Deed of trust — essentially the same as a mortgage — were NOT sold to trusts. Only the supposed Note was sold — (supposed indeed). Thus, no mortgages or deeds of trust were sold to trusts — they may have been “held” by custodian —- but were NOT sold. Legal title — therefore — remained with the original debt buyer bank.

    The reason this happened — especially with subprime — is because subprime “refinances” — no longer contained a mortgage — there was no mortgage (or Deed of Trust) in subprime — only the collection rights to a charged off note — that once upon a time accompanied the mortgage — survived by subprime refinance. Unsecured.

    But, the important point here is to first get across to those in denial — that security investors are NOT the creditor. This is a starting point — if you cannot accept this — then way off base from the onset. Security investors — NEVER NEVER own legal title. NEVER.

    The TILA Amendment is law — the Fed Res Opinion is codified as law. In securitization, the representative trustee and security investors are NOT the Creditor — never were the creditor — and NEVER held legal title.

    If anyone here cannot distinguish properly between equitable and legal title, then they need to go back to base one — and start with reading the law.

  31. What we’re trying to decide is two things: Are the MERS-dots valid
    collateral instruments and 2) what is the true relationship of MERS-
    (allegedly) appointed (25k) straw officers to our homes by way of documents they sign, right? First of all and as a reminder, in the UPke (NJ) depo of Wm Hultman, the MERS corporate officer, it appears MERS never had a corporate resolution authorizing Hultman to appoint those people. The ony resolution stated that appt of officers was to be done by its board. So there’s that.
    If MERS can only be a nominee placeholder in public record, MERS itself with REAL corporate officers, because it is NOT a beneficiary, can’t even execute assignments. (Pick your poison, banksters – the note and dot are either fatally bifurcated or MERS can’t do anything, not to mention the contracts (dots) are tweaked. ) So there’s no way these yeahoo straw officers can.
    If MERS had identified itself in the dots as the nominee of the beneficiary,
    maybe an argument could be made that as nominee, they could. But wait – no, they couldn’t because of the statute of frauds. I don’t think a nominee is the same as an agent, but I can’t prove it today. But, again, MERS didn’t. They decided to make the dot a four party instrument, with both a lender and a beneficiary and to call themselves the lender nominee and the beneficiary itself. Not.

    The Koontz court (take 11) when apprised that the straw officer was not really a MERS’ employee threw out the assignment as a sham. I’d call it fraud. Btw, it’s a crime to record a false instrument in any state. Every time MERS (read member-straw-officer) alleged to assign the note in an assignment of the dot, it was a fraud and a crime. Lest we forget, MERS
    made it very clear it had no interest in anything in MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance. I think I’ve got MERS’ appeal brief at scribd.

    E. Tolle, help me out here. I know I’ve left some holes. This stuff wears me out! I need some more feedback at least. I think I got off agency because there is just so much to contend with.

    Oh, and dont’ forget, the assignments by the straw-officers are self-assignments. Theodore Schultz, for instance, who is an employee of Aurora Loan Services, signed the “MERS” assignment to his employer.

    Did anyone read Adam Levitin’s letter I linked regarding the UCC and enforcement of promissory notes secured by collateral instruments on real property?

  32. E. Tolle said:

    “….a claimant may not recover from the principal unless the agent is acting within the scope of employment.” Ah ha! No employee, no recovery! Where have we heard this before? Does MERS’ 25K non-employees come to mind?”

    Oh, boy, where to begin. I could kiss the ground that I don’t have to go this alone, and I so don’t mean to sound presumptuous, but thank you so much for getting this! What that means is that if one IS an agent, and the agent acts outside the scope of his agency, generally the principal may not be held accountable. This is why MERS chose to call itself a nominee instead of an agent. First of all, nothing in the legislative history of the THREE party dot authorizes the appointment in the dot itself of any other party to do anything. MERS knew that agency comes with liability and that’s the second reason it chose the word nominee instead. Then when the coast looked clear, MERS claimed agency. There is no such thing as a de facto agent when it comes to interests in real property, because the statute of frauds is implicated, and so agency must be explicit and may not be implied.
    And yes, any Virginia’s or doubting-Thomases out there, there is case law which I have, as usual “somewhere”.) And btw – those are the only two forms of agency – expressed or implied

    MERS crafted those honky deeds of trust which are I’m not sure what. Unenforceable? Void? Voidable? It would take a panel or at least two of us to unravel this. Now that, thank God and I do, we have agreement about the parties and their roles in the dots, we can look at the relationship to those parties MERS (or anyone else) might be able to have legally. There is no doubt, none, that if MERS is the beneficiary, the note and dot are fatally bifurcated (as the law firm of Hager and Hearne opine – Cervantes and MDL in AZ – and for the record, they say a bifurcated note and dot may not as a matter of law be rejoined). The only other option imo in the dot is that
    regardless of what it says, MERS is only the nominee it says it is. Problem one: they call themselves the nominee of the ‘lender’. But, they run afoul again because they crafted a collateral instrument which also names them as the beneficiary. So how many parties to this three-party instrument does
    MERS’-crafted dot try to create? They have tried 1) to separate the lender from the beneficiary, which is crap (unless they want bifurcation which in truth is bull because the lender IS the beneficiary in a dot) as if they are different parties. So there’s that. Now, let’s see what that looks like if MERS
    had only crafted a collateral instrument wherein it is named as nominee of the beneficiary (the only other party to a dot besides the trustee and trustor/borrower) or if courts acknowledge MERS as that nominee placeholder. Is that hoyle? I don’t know. If they had only used the nominee status for the BENEFICIARY (instead of ‘lender’ and simultaneously called themselves beneficiary), to do what they ‘sold’ everyone, that is, to expedite the sales of loans and be the nominee placeholder in public record, MAYBE okay. I’m not sure. If notice is a requisite at any and all times, even before a f/c action, then no, MERS
    can’t be the nominee placeholder in public records for the beneficiary, because then there is no notice either to the borrower or to the public.

    There’s no secret I opine the dot chain of title must be complete at least pre-foreclosure action (and the judge in AZ and the NV SC agree) and while maybe MERS may act as nominee placeholder for a season, once foreclosure is in the air, all those dot assignments which should have been executed if unrecorded, must now be recorded. Nevada has a statute, 111.315, which tells us that an unrecorded assignment of a dot is not binding on the homeowner.

    Well, I digress in my glee. Since MERS is not an agent, then we look at the members actions taken in MERS’ name. I have said many times that a principal may not be the agent of its agent. If MERS WERE the agent of its principals (members) then that dynamic would apply and so anything the members did under that guise is errant. MERS calls these criminals its ‘officers’. So in that case, the alleged agent has appointed an employee of its principal as its own officer. This is another guise to avoid agency altogether. Remember, MERS only pulled out agency during the time it wanted to steal your home.

  33. @ John Gault, yes, this Fannie doc has all the appearances of a smoking gun, or a poorly crafted plausible deniability statement. By distancing Fannie from the front lines, they appear hopeful that none of the obvious and known issues of the war would or could come back to bother them. But there’s just no way in hell that this could hold up, even in their tilted court system.

    I’m not an attorney either, but it doesn’t take a law degree to understand Agency 101 as it applies here. Fannie Mae’s attempt at firewalling is just that, a feeble attempt, in their words, a way to “guard against dishonest, fraudulent, or negligent acts; and to guard against errors and omissions by officers, employees, or other authorized persons”. And yet, how could these servicers conduct business without Fannie’s authorization and supervision? Here comes a clue, from my alma mater Wikipedia U. :

    “ ….a claimant may not recover from the principal unless the agent is acting within the scope of employment.” Ah ha! No employee, no recovery! Where have we heard this before? Does MERS’ 25K non-employees come to mind?

    This comedy skit from Fannie ends up saying, “to ensure that mortgage loans are serviced in accordance with sound mortgage banking and accounting principles….” Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!” There hasn’t been a sound banking or accounting principle coming out of D.C. or Wall Street in years! This is actually ring fencing the crimes so that they don’t wash up on Fannie’s shores.

    All of these players want to reap in the unfathomable profits and bonuses to be had through property theft, without wallowing in the mud, filth, and illegalities that accompany them, and you just can’t have both. They are, meaning…. since Fannie Mae has been taken into conservancy, WE ARE, allowing this bunch of maniacal assholes to set up the game pieces and knock them down whenever it serves them. Only when we decide we aren’t playing by their rules anymore will they have to stop this crap. Who need fear the Taliban when we have oppressors like this right here in the good old USA?

  34. I just read over my post again and noticed that mers was talking about note owners not note holders. my note mentioned nothing about a note owner, it only mentions a note holder. this seems to me to be the same kind of confusion between beneficiary and mortgagee. what the hell is going on?

  35. johngault,

    What do you make of this position taken by MERS? I include the highlighted Google cache to make the following quote easy to find:

    “As mortgagee or beneficiary, it [MERS] holds mortgage liens on behalf of promissory note owners. ”

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ACGW_enUS363US363&q=cache:bGbaJVFdAncJ:http://www.calameo.com/books/000339146efad4ef764ae+%E2%80%9CAs+mortgagee+or+beneficiary,+it+holds+mortgage+liens+on+behalf+of+promissory+note+owners.+%E2%80%9D&ct=clnk

    This explanation by MERS itself of its role in the mortgage scam points to what I was talking about below: the lenders gave away their liens to MERS. MERS says that in this quote–MERS says IT, and not the promissory noteholders, hold the “mortgage liens.” This situation is impossible if in fact the dictum that “the mortgage follows the note” is true. Note also the conflation of the terms “mortgagee” and “beneficiary”–MERS itself appears to make them mean the same thing. In my own case, MERS uses the two terms interchangeably. So if the two terms mean the same thing, and mortgagee=beneficiary=mortgagee, and “mortgagee” means the party that put up the money, then every mortgage/deed of trust that names MERS as “mortgagee” or “beneficiary” is fraudulent since MERS didn’t put up any money (which they also admit in my case).

  36. rciferri said:
    “Here’s another way of saying this: If a beneficiary (who holds only equitable title with the trustee holding legal title), is conveyed legal title, title merges in MERS alone and the Deed of Trust ceases to exist.

    You’re warm! If the true beneficiary (lender) held equitable title when the trustee holds legal title, the deed of trust would not be a deed of trust, because all the homeowner’s interest would cease, in which case there would be no trust. If there’s no trust, there is no deed of trust, of course.
    As I said, the borrower retains equitable title. The beneficiary holds nothing.

  37. I took a look at fnma’s edict to its ‘independent contractor’s” and am newly aghast. There are rhymes and reasons one is an ind contractor and not an employee, say, not to mention laws. I don’t have enough info right now, which is maybe what who was it E Tolle (?)was after, but clearly this relationship between fnma and servicers is tweaked to the max. FNMA has apparently blessed actions by servicers on its behalf which may only be blessed as to an agent or employee or poa. I tell you, I’m seeing red.
    It’s the same reason (well, one of them) MERS did not set itself up as an ‘agent’ in the first place. “Agency” comes with liability on both sides, that is, to both the principal and the agent. Puhlease understand this! FNMA appears to want the benefit of pawning legal actions regarding contracts and real property off on “independent contractors” to avoid
    employee (taxes for starters) liability and liability which would be found as a matter of law under ‘agency’ or poa. What a joke, what a ruse, what a crime.
    If servicers are authorized by FNMA to act in its stead as to the interpretation and or enforcement of contracts and specifically contracts regarding interests in real property, the statute of frauds is implicated (all agreements regarding the disposition of real property must be in writing
    and that applies to agency – it must be spelled out and may not be implied
    such as MERS wrongfully attempted and attempts). FNMA is kidding itself. These servicers are conducting the activities of an agent or poa without proper authority. FNMA may not shield itself from the servicers wrongful actions by pretending those servicers are independent contractors.
    I’m not a lawyer, so can’t figure this out totally, but if it didn’t involve
    actions on real property, the servicers would be found to be the de facto
    agents of FNMA and then hello, liability. I need to reiterate that because
    the actions taken are in regard to real property rights and interests, any agency must be explicit. The whole thing is tweaked. I guess there is no door we can open and not find a pile of garbage. Maybe someone with more smarts than me will finish this thread. It looks to me that as a matter of law, servicers are performing unlawful actions on behalf of FNMA.

    And as to MERS or anyone in a deed of trust holding “equitable title”, um, no, I think not. The borrower retains equitable title (in title -theory states) where the trustee holds legal (bare naked) title. The beneficiary holds nothing in regard to title in a deed of trust. The beneficiary is just that – the party for whom the trustee holds legal title in trust. The beneficiary does not also get equitable title – the borrower does, and there are only two forms of title (period) – legal and equitable. Still, I’ll try to find that
    19 -0- Early case cited by rciferri to see what was meant.

  38. Oh — and Tim — suppose the woman below (from Huffington Post article) — is also an idiot. There is a reason why “lenders” want you to default. And, because you are SO smart — and we are all idiots — figure it out yourself.

    Mortgage Mod Hell: Trapped Between Lenders, Collectors
    | By Ann Brenoff | Posted Sep 8th 2011 4:00PM
    111 Comments ∨
    6415292

    Kate Hanni is no stranger to public advocacy. After she was trapped in a plane on the tarmac for more than nine hours, she formed Flyers Rights, the largest nonprofit advocacy group for airline passengers’ rights. The result was the passage of the Airline Passengers Bill of Rights and the three-hour tarmac-delay limit for the flying public.

    Now Hanni — who blogged about her experience for The Huffington Post — is standing up for another cause that affects her personally: the housing crisis. This time, instead of an airplane, she’s trapped in mortgage modification hell. Her complaint? Lenders won’t talk to you unless you are behind in your payments, and then once you are, their debt collectors start harassing you with calls asking when you expect to pay up.

    Hanni, a real estate agent for 23 years, and her husband, who worked in the wine industry, were doing just fine until the recession dried up both their businesses. Their incomes shrank, along with the value of their Napa Valley, Calif., home. They turned to their savings to stay afloat, running through about 75 percent of their retirement fund and the money they had set aside for their son’s college education. And then — despite all she had read about the frustrations and failures of the loan modification process — Hanni decided to try for one.

    The first thing her lender, Bank of America, told her was that loan modifications were only for those who were behind in their mortgage payments, and since buying the house in 1997, Hanni had always paid on time. So in order to qualify, it became necessary to stop paying her mortgage and start ruining her credit.

    The collection calls started coming about three weeks after she was late with her first payment. “These calls just won’t stop,” Hanni says, despite her attempts to explain that she’s only doing what the bank advised her to do. “Bank of America is spending a zillion dollars having people make these calls, and it just makes no sense. Why not have a loan modifier call instead?”

    While Hanni’s story certainly can’t top that of Deborah Crabtree — the woman in Hawaii who claims in a lawsuit that Bank of America’s debt collectors called her up to 48 times a day, including at her husband’s wake — it does represent what a lot of homeowners are experiencing.

    Trashing Your Credit to Save Your House

    With President Obama about to announce mortgage reforms, we are a nation with crossed fingers, hoping that one of the practices he ends is the one in which lenders refuse to give you the time of day unless you first miss a couple of payments.

    Hanni, 51, and her husband, 59, “don’t have a whole lot of time to recoup” their spent savings, she says, adding, “every issue facing America is facing my family . . . unemployment, low resources, and being forced to destroy our excellent credit” to apply for a loan modification.

    “Forcing Americans out of their homes, removing their real estate residential interest tax credits, and crippling their ability to own again or even to get a decent rental due to a forced, reduced creditworthiness is insane,” Hanni says. “The outcome is that the home will still be devalued, drag down values in the neighborhood and create a worse situation for the former homeowner. Depending on their age, they may never recover from this disaster.”

    Judging from what happened the last time Hanni got passionate about a consumer issue, the banking industry had better watch out.

  39. Tim

    Your comment implies that Americans are idiots. Americans are not idiots — they are, for the most part, trusting. In subprime, the only money received was any “cash-out” — the rest of the “loan” was simply a modification of false default debt — masquerading as a “mortgage” with a fake note. All based upon falsely inflated home appraisals which those not -“stupid” Americans believed they could sell their home for. They also believed that they could refinance.

    Unfortunately, you cannot sell a home based on a fraudulent appraisal — and, Americans cannot refinance those high interest “mods” because the contracts were fraudulent to begin with.

    So — those Americans you call idiots — remain victims of the likes of you — and other investors — who demand that the fraudulent contracts be satisfied.

    Americans are not idiots — we will fight the likes of you and your crook investors — until we win – and, we will. So — to you — “Walk away, let it go, rebuild your life!” Find another source of income.

  40. “If the beneficiary were the actual recipient of title, the non-judicial power of sale would be inapplicable.”

    Here’s another way of saying this: If a beneficiary (who holds only equitable title with the trustee holding legal title), is conveyed legal title, title merges in MERS alone and the Deed of Trust ceases to exist.

    MERS’ “legal title” is to a security or — equity interest. The California Supreme Court said in a case that’s never been overruled: “That an action to quiet title will not lie in favor of the holder of an equitable title as against the owner of the legal title is a proposition settled by repeated decisions of this court.” Buchner v. Malloy (1909) 155 Cal. 252, 255.

    Hmm…

  41. Have always wondered how “negotiable instruments” came into being–especially interested in how it came to be that an “obligation” such as a promissory note can be paid off many times over (via sale/purchase of said obligation/note) yet still survive as an obligation of the original obligor. Turns out it was blessed by the custom of merchants, not because it actually makes any sense. Lord Holt is my new hero–check out this passage below from “The Law of Negotiable Instruments: Cases, Statutes, and Authorities” :

    “The next document which obtained the features of negotiability was a promissory note. In a bill of exchange there are, after accept- ance, two people who offer security to the holder, the drawer and the acceptor ; in a promissory note there is at first only the single security, that of the person who promises in the note to pay. The first case in which promissory notes were recognized by the Courts as negotiable instruments was the case of Shelden v. HentleyJ’ in 1680, where the Court held a promissory note to be a negotiable instrument, expressly * Oaste V. Taylor, 1 Cro, Jac. 306. 5 Sarsfield v. Witherby, Carthew, 82. . 6 Buller V. Cripps, 6 Mod. 29. 7 2 Showers, p. 160. 38 THE LAW MERCHANT. [AET. I. saying that ” it was the custom of merchants that made that good.” That decision for some years afterwards was followed in other cases till Holt became Chief Justice. Lord Holt set his face against the custom of merchants and against promissory notes as negotiable instruments. In the case of Clark v. Martin ‘ the reporter says : ” But Holt, C. J., was with all his strength against this action, (on a promissory note), and said that this note could not be a bill of exchange ; that the maintaining of these actions upon such notes were innovations upon the rules of Common Law, and that it amounted to setting up a new sort of specialty unknown to the Common Law, and invented in Lombard Street, which attempted in these matters of bills of exchange to give laws to Westminster Hall; that the con- tinuing to declare upon these notes upon the custom of merchants proceeded from obstinacy and opinionativeness, since he had always expressed his opinion against them.” It appears that Lombard street and the merchants therein thought that the ” obstinacy and opiniona- tiveness ” was upon the side of Lord Holt, for they continued to use these documents and to sue upon them; and in the next year, in another case of Buller v. Crispe,^ Lord Holt again expressed his opinion in strong terms, and said that these notes were not in the nature of bills of exchange, but were only an invention of the gold- smiths in Lombard Street, who had a mind to make a law to bind all that did deal with them. ” At another day Holt, C. J., declared that he had desired to speak with two of the most famous merchants in London, to be informed of the mighty ill-consequences that it was pretended would ensue by obstructing this form, and they had told him that it was very frequent with them to make such notes, and that they looked upon them as bills of exchange, and that they had been used for a matter of thirty years ; that not only notes but bonds for money were transferred frequently, and endorsed as bills of exchange,” and the reporter winds up significantly, “the Court at last took the vacation to consider of it.” Parliament stepped in and saved them from considering it any further, for by an act of the year 1704 ^ it was expressly provided that promissory notes should be deemed as negotiable as bills of exchange. The preamble of the Act began: “Whereas it hath been held that promissory notes are not indorsable over, within the custom of merchants, therefore to encourage trade and commerce be it enacted.” So in this case also the custom of merchants introduced an innovation into the law of Westminster Hall, although it needed the sanction of Parliament to induce Westminster Hall to recognize it.
    The next document which obtained the features of negotiability was a promissory note. In a bill of exchange there are, after accept- ance, two people who offer security to the holder, the drawer and the acceptor ; in a promissory note there is at first only the single security, that of the person who promises in the note to pay. The first case in which promissory notes were recognized by the Courts as negotiable instruments was the case of Shelden v. HentleyJ’ in 1680, where the Court held a promissory note to be a negotiable instrument, expressly saying that ” it was the custom of merchants that made that good.” That decision for some years afterwards was followed in other cases till Holt became Chief Justice. Lord Holt set his face against the custom of merchants and against promissory notes as negotiable instruments. In the case of Clark v. Martin ‘ the reporter says : ” But Holt, C. J., was with all his strength against this action, (on a promissory note), and said that this note could not be a bill of exchange ; that the maintaining of these actions upon such notes were innovations upon the rules of Common Law, and that it amounted to setting up a new sort of specialty unknown to the Common Law, and invented in Lombard Street, which attempted in these matters of bills of exchange to give laws to Westminster Hall; that the con- tinuing to declare upon these notes upon the custom of merchants proceeded from obstinacy and opinionativeness, since he had always expressed his opinion against them.” It appears that Lombard street and the merchants therein thought that the ” obstinacy and opiniona- tiveness ” was upon the side of Lord Holt, for they continued to use these documents and to sue upon them; and in the next year, in another case of Buller v. Crispe,^ Lord Holt again expressed his opinion in strong terms, and said that these notes were not in the nature of bills of exchange, but were only an invention of the gold- smiths in Lombard Street, who had a mind to make a law to bind all that did deal with them. ” At another day Holt, C. J., declared that he had desired to speak with two of the most famous merchants in London, to be informed of the mighty ill-consequences that it was pretended would ensue by obstructing this form, and they had told him that it was very frequent with them to make such notes, and that they looked upon them as bills of exchange, and that they had been used for a matter of thirty years ; that not only notes but bonds for money were transferred frequently, and endorsed as bills of exchange,” and the reporter winds up significantly, “the Court at last took the vacation to consider of it.” Parliament stepped in and saved them from considering it any further, for by an act of the year 1704 ^ it was expressly provided that promissory notes should be deemed as negotiable as bills of exchange. The preamble of the Act began: “Whereas it hath been held that promissory notes are not indorsable over, within the custom of merchants, therefore to encourage trade and commerce be it enacted.” So in this case also the custom of merchants introduced an innovation into the law of Westminster Hall, although it needed the sanction of Parliament to induce Westminster Hall to recognize it.”

  42. “Fannie and Freddie—-G­SEs—-could not just sell the Note- on performing loans—- this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) had to be falsely placed in default and charged-of­f in order to sell the “Note”—- but, when this happens the Note no longer exists—thu­s, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.
    Security investors fund the BANK—not the borrowers—­there is no direct relationsh­ip between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transactio­n—it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER the creditor.
    Collection rights transfers are not funded by borrower transactio­ns (ie fabricated refinance)­. Collection rights are transferre­d by assignment­—not NOTES (which is why NOTES are fake). When some people here talk about Non-Deposi­t “trust” non-member­s—they are referring to derivative transactio­ns—that “SWAP” out collection rights—alt­hough the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights—the­y use insurance for the purchase of the rights. This is why the subprime was so profitable­—the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transactio­n—but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throu­ghs to security investors.­.”

  43. Glad to see that the Fitts video is an interview from Infowars. Everyone on this board needs to listen to Alex Jones. Neil needs to get on the Alex Jones show…

  44. Along with johngault’s posts, in which a judge ordered servicers to produce assignments, agency agreements, and the like, I’d like to revisit Joan’s bombshell post from “Imperfect Liens Transferred By Imperfect Means”…

    She posted a quote from a Fannie Mae “Lender Letter” which states that servicers are NOT agents or assignees of Fannie Mae. Here is a link to that lender letter:

    https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2010/ll1011.pdf

  45. Rule 902 – Self Authentication – is lengthy. Here’s link:

    http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ure/0902.htm

  46. The rules of evidence are critical. further self-help, try googlescholar for cases to see application of these federal rules of evidence.

    RULE 901. REQUIREMENT OF AUTHENTICATION OR IDENTIFICATION
    (Think this is current)
    (a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
    (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
    (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
    (2) Nonexpert Opinion on Handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
    (3) Comparison by Trier or Expert Witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
    (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
    (5) Voice Identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
    (6) Telephone Conversations. Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if
    (A) in the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or
    (B) in the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
    (7) Public Records or Reports. Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
    (8) Ancient Documents or Data Compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form,
    (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity,
    (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and
    (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
    (9) Process or System. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
    (10) Methods Provided by Statute or Rule. Any method of authentication or identification provided by Act of Congress or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

    Also see law.cornell.edu/rules/fre or Legal Information Institute for notes on federal rules of evidence.

  47. Speaking of attorney Beth Findsen, I just found this at her website. It’s cause for yahooing on one hand, but dismal where it may allow self-serving declarations in lieu of what I’d call real evidence:

    New Guidelines for filing stay relief motions in cases assigned to
    Judge Charles G Case II:In light of the recent Panel decision(s) of In re Veal — B.R. —-, 2011 WL 2304200 (9th Cir. BAP, June 10, 2011), In re Sardana (unpublished and not for citation), and In re Matson (unpublished and not for citation) the Court adopts the following procedures for hearings on relief from the automatic stay for residential mortgage properties.
    1. A party seeking stay relief in order to enforce a secured obligation against real property has the burden of making a colorable showing that it has standing to enforce the note and deed of trust or mortgage. To meet this burden, Movant must provide evidence, in the form of assignments, endorsements or otherwise, demonstrating that it is a person entitled to enforce the note under the Uniform Commercial Code

    as well as a complete chain of title of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust or mortgage.

    Such evidence shall either be self authenticated under FRE 902 or accompanied by a declaration of a person with knowledge authenticating each document in a form sufficient under FRE 901. If the Movant is proceeding as a servicer or agent, evidence of the servicing or agency agreement must be provided, authenticated as indicated above. Absent such a showing, a hearing on the motion may be vacated and sanctions may be imposed.
    2. Any objection to standing must be made with particularity. If an objection to standing is made without an adequate basis in law or fact, the party making the objection may be subject to sanctions.”

    This is the second time I have seen a judge try to impose some rule of order in his courtroom. If judges follow the law in so doing (and not try to impose bench law), I’d say more of them should.

    The rules of evidence are critical. Next are rules 901 and 902. For further self-help, try googlescholar for cases to see application of these federal rules of evidence.

  48. A Man– America is AT LEAST as bad as we say it is–more likely it’s worse than we know!

  49. What I dont understand is How come the millions of families that were foreclosed on in the past few years are doing nothing.

    In Israel there are demonstrations started because the raised the prices of Cottage Cheese.

    What is wrong with America? Maybe it isnt as bad as we say it is?

  50. oops sorry Tim.

  51. Tom are you gonna give me my down payment back and the money I invested in remodeling my property? Are you gonna give me back the return on investment I could have had in another investment?

    Let it go Tom read the Comic Section of the newspaper.

    NEVER AGAIN

    NEIL BE STRONG AND COURAGEOUS

  52. Who gave us the money and where are our past present and future payments going? Can the Servicer give us clear title if we stay and pay or if we sell and pay?

    Tom it is not so simple.

  53. Tim, which bank do you work for? Or are you the secretary of the treasury? We won’t “let it go” because we know what we’re doing and we know what the bankerrorists are doing. And we’re well on our way to defeating them utterly.

  54. Yes, the lender is the beneficiary, not MERS. By naming MERS as beneficiary, the lender gave up its right to the debt and to repayment. Also, since MERS is NOT the beneficiary, the deed of trust itself is fraudulent and therefore void ab initio precisely because of this fraudulent misrepresentation. MERS talks about the distinction between itself as beneficiary and the “true beneficiary” in its foreclosure instructions for California (see MERS website). By not disclosing the “true beneficiary,” fraud was committed in the Deed of Trust itself. Remember that the term “beneficiary” is precisely analogous to the the term “mortgagee” on a mortgage. “Mortgagee”on obviously means the party who put up the money, and that’s what “beneficiary” means also. MERS is neither “mortgagee” nor “beneficiary.”

  55. from Neils commentary “It is possible that the Court was merely reporting the scheme of the “lenders” rather than the actuality, but if that is the case, the opinion is unclear.”
    ************************************************************
    I have seen language mirroring the courts wording in every SunTrust note I have looked at… yes the courts meaning is unclear ,, I believe they are merely restating the notes language.

  56. LET IT GO !

  57. Remember, you got the money, you can not plead anything else. The investor took the hit, not you. Walk away, let it go, rebuild your life!

  58. I think this speaks volumes….more than 69% of American’s believe that a 36 month contract is longer than 3years!

  59. I am quick to point out what I disagree with — but — quote — “The 9th Circuit was mistaken in its language quoted above. MERS, or for that matter ANY beneficiary holds an equitable interest, not legal title.”

    Absolutely correct — I agree.

    Again, an excerpt from the Fed Res Opinion (now codified as law) for May 2009 TILA Amendment —

    “Ginne Mae guarantees securities that are collateralized by mortgage loans. HUD’s letter states that, as the guarantor of these securities, Ginnie Mae obtains equitable title in the mortgage loans but further states that the issuers of the securities retain legal title to the loans that collateralize the securities. According to HUD, legal title to the loans is not conveyed to Ginnie Mae unless the issuer of the securities defaults in its obligations. If the securities issuer defaults, Ginnie Mae can immediately extinguish the securities issuer’s interest in the loans and take legal title. Based on HUD’S representations and legal opinion regarding Ginnie Mae’s status, the Board believes that the requirements of Section 226.39 do not apply to Ginnie Mae until it finds the issuer in default and acquires legal title to the loans.”

    Thus, the security underwriters retain legal title to the loans that collateralize the securities. The security underwriters are a subsidiary of the bank that actually purchased the loans, via subsidiary Depositors, and, therefore, at all times — the reporting bank (financial statements) retains LEGAL TITLE to the loans — until they dispose of elsewhere — or until the securities issuer defaults. Well — the securities issuers defaulted — hence the bailout.

    Pass-through of cash flow receivables — is an accounting conversion — removable of on-balance sheet receivables to off balance sheet securities. It DOES NOT change legal title — only equitable title — and equitable title beneficiaries are NOT the creditor — because — they do not hold LEGAL TITLE.

    What the government did in the bailout — by bank (security issuer) default — was to hold equitable title in securities — until the government can dispose of legal title, on behalf of the banks, to third party debt buyer “Investors.”

    Of course, as to the subprime “refinances” — these were never valid mortgages to begin with — there was no valid legal title — as these loans were simply purchases of (false) default debt/non-complaint “loans” by the banks from the GSEs. Thus, the banks were the original debt buyer “investor”/creditor — by fraud.

    Under any scenario — MERS does not hold legal title — and the 9th Circuit has made a serious error — by confusing equitable title with legal title. (In my opinion — MERS never even held equitable title — only a nominee).

    I urge everyone here to read the Fed Reserve Opinion (now codified) – as to the May 2009 TILA Amendment. Go straight to the “Section by Section Analysis.” No one here discusses this Amendment and FR Opinion. This is a serious error — and clearly — the 9th Circuit did not consider either (was not plead).

    Kudos to DARREL BLOMBERG.

  60. Thank you Carie,

    I am in full agreement with her analyzis of what has been engineered for the past 25 to 30 years in this country. And I am absolutely convinced that the answer is to go back to basics and return to a community-based system.

    It is slowly happening, even if we don’t see it. And government will lose its footing and stronghold, one way or the other. What i hope for is that it will not require a bloody revolution but it will happen.

  61. It is very simple Where is the Payments going? Which Bank accounts?
    Do the payments follow the Chain of Title or not?

    Do are payments go strictly to the Servicer? The Master Trust? to CWALT? or maybe to Muamar Ghadafi?

    The Judge is confused because nobody is telling him/her where our Payments have Gone?

    The Judge knows that we received the Money or the House or The Property. But the Judge does not know where the Payments have gone or will go in the Future.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  62. Subject: PETITION AGAINST FL FRAUD FORECLOSURE ACT – i Please sign the Petition. We need your support. If this horrible bill passes , there will be no more foreclosure defense.

    Ann

    CALL TO ACTION! PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TODAY!

    Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    We are about to get MASSIVE , CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR THIS EFFORT, but we need to make one more push to get a few more signatures!

    Your response has already been overwhelming and we have captured the attention of Moveon.org.

    PLEASE LOG ON HERE AND SIGN THIS PETITION!

    http://signon.org/sign/do-not-support-the-florida?source=c.url&r_by=533269

  63. Ted Kaczynski, deranged that he was, a Jekyl and Hyde if you will, possessed an undoubtable brilliant mind. He wrote a story “Ship of Fools” that pretty much sums up what Ms. Fitt’s opinion is. We are all screwed. Talking about irrelevant things and not seeing the bigger picture of the iceberg ahead of us. The Titanic is going down, and it does not matter who sits where (except for the few). I find it interesting to see Fitts realizes the more serious matter ahead, in that in the corporationalism model being foisted upon us, instead of democracy and capitalism, the food supply is the most dangerous target to enslave us, by wiping out the right to grow food by small farmers. What good is a house if you can’t buy food? The very basics of black letter law is being ignored in this massive fraudulent transfer of wealth, by first setting us up, and then crashing the market. The U.S. is enslaved, and the Media is the method of which to tell us lies. Soon we must all wear the Mark.

  64. AARP Discusses Delinquent Homeowners Staying in their Homes

    Posted on September 10, 2011 by Mark Stopa Esq.

    September’s edition of the AARP Bulletin discusses how delinquent homeowners throughout the country are staying in their homes given the snail’s pace at which foreclosures are processed. I am quoted in the article, as is a client of Stopa Law Firm, Chuck Light.

    I think how the ending of the article is a wonderful indication of the service that Stopa Law Firm strives to provide to homeowners throughout Florida. Mr. Light, a retiree, is quoted as saying he “doesn’t have anyplace to go.”
    Read more at
    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1719

  65. The AG Settlement Is Collapsing, The Banks Are Nosediving= The Price of Lawlessness
    September 10th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    The banksters have engaged in rampant lawlessness for too long. Too many courts all across this country have just looked the other way and in fact have become complicit in crimes and lawlessness of the banksters.

    I am terribly troubled by one area in our country where courts have just stopped holding hearings on the motions of the citizens the courts (theoretically at least) have a Constitutional duty to uphold. One judge recently exclaimed, “We’ve never granted those kind of motions here.” It’s kinda like law enforcement just deciding, “We don’t bother with that whole Miranda warning thing.” No it’s not kinda like that, it’s just like that. What we’re talking about here is the total collapse of our fantasy of the Rule of Law. Our courts have largely conceded victory to the banksters, deciding that it’s preferable to just ignore hundreds of years of law in favor of the banks, because, after all, we really should trust the banksters, shouldn’t we?

    Well, there are a few bright spots now and then. A few times when that little flickering light of justice reveals itself. (The rest of the time, the light is blown out by the hurricane force winds of corruption and corporatism.) That little ‘ole light shone a little brighter just last week, thanks to our friends over at Ice Legal…..have a little read of the story here. http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/09/09/banks-blow-off-doom-foreclosure-fraud-settlement-with-ags/ Desperate, dangerous times. What were you doing when the smoke started billowing on the ship?

  66. If anyone here didn’t get a chance to watch or at least listen to this video—do yourself a favor and listen to the whole thing…Excellent explanation by the former Assistant Secretary of Housing of why we are in the predicament we are in—MUST WATCH!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: