DELAWARE TO MERS: NOT IN OUR STATE!

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Delaware sues MERS, claims mortgage deception

Posted on Stop Foreclosure Fraud

Posted on27 October 2011.

Delaware sues MERS, claims mortgage deceptionSome saw this coming in the last few weeks. Now all HELL is about to Break Loose.

This is one of the States I mentioned MERS has to watch…why? Because the “Co.” originated here & under Laws of Delaware…following? [see below].

Also look at the date this TM patent below was signed 3-4 years after MERS’ 1999 date via VP W. Hultman’s secretary Kathy McKnight [PDF link to depo pages 29-39].

New York…next!

Delaware Online-

Delaware joined what is becoming a growing legal battle against the mortgage industry today, charging in a Chancery Court suit that consumers facing foreclosure were purposely misled and deceived by the company that supposedly kept track of their loans’ ownership.

By operating a shadowy and frequently inaccurate private database that obscured the mortgages’ true owners, Merscorp made it difficult for hundreds of Delaware homeowners to fight foreclosure actions in court or negotiate new terms on their loans, the suit filed by the Attorney General’s Office said.

[DELAWARE ONLINE]

Related posts:

  1. New York Working With Delaware on Criminal Foreclosure Inquiry via Bloomberg- New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he…
  2. AG Beau Biden Discusses His Fight to Investigate the Banks, MERS on The Dylan Ratigan Show [VIDEO] Beau Biden, Attorney General for the State of Delaware, has…
  3. A Fire Sale for Arsonists: The “Revised” Bank Mortgage Settlement Still Stinks Excellent piece by Richard (RJ) Eskow HuffPO- Imagine that a…
  4. Foreclosure deal near as banks win more immunity It’s official now and it’s very clear that the AG’s…
  5. California Takes the Bait, Is Wooed In Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Talks People NEED JOBS ..!! I don’t care if you refi…


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

« »

75 Responses

  1. johngault, on October 31, 2011 at 12:41 pm said:

    I’ve read some more county recorders MERS suits now. A couple of them are making claims under unjust enrichment. E. tolle, tnharry, isn’t unjust
    enrichment a remedy based on contract? Anyone? The county recorders had no contract with the banksters for such a claim. I sure would hate to see successful mtd’s on those suits.

  2. johngault, on October 31, 2011 at 12:36 pm said:

    Iris, do you not know MERS’, well Wm Hultman, appointed over 20k member employees as straw officers? This isn’t going to be very helpful to you, unless knowing you have a lot of company does you some good.

  3. iris, on October 31, 2011 at 8:03 am said:

    I WANT TO KNOW IF THIS PERSON EVER WORKED FOR MERS AS VICE-PRESIDENT.

    STEPHEN BROVIAK

  4. johngault, on October 31, 2011 at 12:52 am said:

    I’m reading the MN v Mers case. If I see one more anti-Mers party say MERS or its system “tracks” noteowners, I am going to pull out what’s left of my hair. First of all, if that database has anything, it’s the names of servicers, not noteowners. Since mid 2010, apparently the members are directed to throw in some sec’n trustee names. Well, isn’t that special.
    (To be fair and I’m seriously choking on this, maybe there were some alleged noteowners just not accessible to us peons, you know, the folks with the need to know clearance) Secondly, “track” is a verb. A verb denotes action. That database contains entries made by members on a strictly voluntary basis. That’s not “tracking” on MERS’ part. The word makes it sound like MERS actually does something, which it doesn’t. MERS doesn’t follow, or track, anything. The member-entries sit there dormant, untracked, uncharted, untended, unminded, unchecked, disconnected, and un-quality-controlled. There can be no
    quality control. “MERS” has nothing to compare anything to.

    And thirdly since apparently I’m not done venting, if MERS ever meant to track anything, anyone of us could have put our min # in and “tracked” our own loans. MERS never meant to track a d thing. It meant only to
    obscure and obfuscate and make a fortune doing so.

  5. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 11:46 pm said:

    @e tolle – the whole agency thing with MERS is a joke and illegitimate. I have other thoughts which I am not putting here because, well, there are bad guys reading here and they ain’t getting this heads-up. I sometimes think there are plants who throw out stuff to get our arguments. Apparently MS, for instance, was quoted on something he had written here. Catch 22 for us then, isn’t it, but we need to continue to share our information. I don’t think I am flattering this site when I say I think it’s monitored. Grrr…

  6. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 11:24 pm said:

    z – in another case and of course I forget which one, MERS member made some bs argument that it had an independent right to enforce the note, so the ‘assignment’ of the note in the dot assignment was merely “surplusage”. Grrr. Um, no, it’s called a false instrument and the intent was for reliance on it to steal someone’s home.

  7. iris, on October 30, 2011 at 10:37 pm said:

    AURORA LOAN SERVICES- i WAS MAKING PAYMENTS TO AURORA. I GAVE THEM 25,000 BEFORE I DISCOVERED DEFECT ON MY DEED OF TRUST THAT CAME WITH THE MORTGAGE DOCUMENTS.

    DOES AURORA LOAN SERVICES HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE?

    CAN MERS AUTHORIZE ON THE APPOINT OF DEED OF TRUSTEE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS FILED IN CLERK OFFICE. PROPERTY LOCATED IN VIRGINIA NON JUDICIAL STATE, LENDERS ATTORNEY TO BE SUBTIUTE TRUSTEE?

  8. iris, on October 30, 2011 at 10:32 pm said:

    MERS- who was the Vice president of MERS in 2008. Where can i get this information.

  9. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 10:23 pm said:

    Ian – well here’s the expected hot damn from me. yahoo! I’ll go read it. I still have to read the one e tolle ref’d the other day in MN. Did you read it? I may go sing ‘When the Saints Come Marching In’ if I can remember the words!

  10. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 10:08 pm said:

    @joann – Anon and prob Carie think I don’t buy their arguments. That’s not true at all, fwiw. It’s just that I do NOT know enough to sound off
    about those issues other than anything I already tried to figure out. If I were younger, I’d go get a job on wall street and make it my business to find out. I need to learn things inside and out. I have a hard enough time just trying to follow what is said about the debt being written off, truth be told. And I can’t even reconcile that with election of remedies, which for all I really know, may not even be applicable (tho I don’t know how it can’t be).

    I, for instance, am still not convinced of who the h owns those notes even if they were all endorsed per the psa’s. Is it really the depositor and the sec’n investors got hornswoggled? If so, did the investors only buy payments MADE? What is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about master servicer or other guarantees? Who all connected with the note benefitted from any type of insurance and what are the real ramifications?
    They’re not literally and never were literally Mbs’s? That was just a sales tool to aid in the illusion of expected return? I don’t know any of these answers and I don’t know how anyone can start at F and not A. I just know I can’t.
    re: your last paragraph: I’m not convinced that even if all the paperwork missing were not missing, it would make any difference to the ownership of those loans, for instance. And is that the sin WS most wants to keep
    from coming out? The investment groups who bought into this have more litigation funds than homeowners, for one thing. Plus, there is probably
    jail time involved if so, I would think. WS sold derivatives ( a word I only recently learned to even spell), packaged and marketed as something they weren’t at all, and on top of which the return to the investor was actually willfully set to fail by the same sellers who set themselves up to make out like bandits upon that failure?

  11. Ian, on October 30, 2011 at 9:50 pm said:

    joanne- I believe your quotes are from the suit filed on behalf of the Knights of Columbus in NYC.
    johngault- suit filed on behalf of all 67 Penna.counties against MERS, some good stuff in that one. It is posted over on DINSFLA.

  12. joann, on October 30, 2011 at 9:13 pm said:

    @johngault

    Don’t actually know about that charged off part- my comment came from inspiration from Carie and ANONYMOUS comments about charge off to “servicer” or default debt buyer or toxic debt buyer – swapped out ect.(and anonymous says it happened years ago) collection rights only – but then “someone” takes the house in a foreclosure. Actually would like to know how and when this happens and how the title transfers then… just a fake foreclosure in name of trust who doesn’t own it anymore?

    The tax write off is one of the ways all investors get paid when they take a loss on anything isn’t it? That is in addition to some investors betting on the failure of something.

    Quotes from an investor lawsuit:

    “…engaging in a deliberate strategy to ‘mark up’ the actual cost of services that are ultimately paid by each Trust… using affiliates to place on homes insurance costing up to ten times the price of regular policies, which premiums are ultimately charged to the beneficiaries of each Trust…”

    “Recent revelations from a variety of credible sources indicate that the Master Servicer may be acting for its own benefit rather than for the benefit of investors…..the acts detailed below indicate that the Master Servicer may be damaging the borrowers whose loans make up each Trust’s corpus and undermining efforts to restore economic prosperity to this Country.”

    “In the most common instance, the borrower in default on the loan lacks sufficient funds to pay the Master Servicer for these charges. Therefore, the Master Servicer takes its reimbursement for the default-related services from the amount recovered from the foreclosure sale of the home, which reduces the amount to be distributed to each Trust’s beneficiaries”

    “Without an accounting, the Trusts’ beneficiaries have no means of determining the amount that each Trust has been charged for these marked-up default-related services and/or whether such charges are on-going despite the consent order entered into with the FTC. As a result, the Trusts’ beneficiaries have no method of protecting themselves or the borrowers who fund each Trust with their mortgage payments against the predations of the Master Servicer”

    and this in the same lawsuit:

    “Based on the following allegations, it is apparent that the Defendant knowinglyfailed in its obligation to receive, process, maintain, and hold all or part of the MortgageFiles as required under the PSA. As a consequence, Plaintiff did not acquire residentialmortgage-backed securities, but instead acquired securities backed by nothing at all.”

  13. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 6:21 pm said:

    MERS quit allowing foreclsoures in its name, so the bankster started doing self-assignments of dots in MERS’ name and then foreclosing.
    Thanks to our increased familiarity with this scam, it will get put down, also.
    Anyone have an idea of what their next move will be? We need to get aggressive and not merely reactionary imo.

  14. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 5:08 pm said:

    @MS – please deign to comment on the bailment of a note and the UCC
    (the enforcement of a note held in bailment).

  15. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm said:

    joann:

    “Plus I guess nothing actually goes to a trust in a foreclosure. Charged off and tax write off due to servicer foreclosure mill making sure it can never
    cure.”

    Please expound on both sentences. thanks

  16. joann, on October 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm said:

    @johngault

    Thinking NOD should read xyz “securitization trustee bank” for the xyz “mbs trust” certificate investors who have the beneficial interest is now declaring you are in default. Thinking no one else can do it. At the very least verification of the default has to come from them.

    Only they can verify and validate the default using the trust records showing payments from all sources to the trust that reduce the loan amount. It really isn’t any different than the recorded trustee of record who uses third or fourth party default servicer records see Glarum vs. Lasalle – no first hand knowledge – not ok.

    Trustee bank is entrusted with the “loan files” and verification of assignments and endorsements for two or more salesthat occurred since origination. Trustee bank does not have an interest in underlying assets as per trust agreements. Trustee bank holds bare legal title. Same relationship as any trustee. Thinking they are the only one who can enforce the point of sale for the “beneficiary” if there is a “beneficiary. Only they don’t want to do this because they are missing these things and if no m in the mbs they can’t do it. Plus I guess nothing actually goes to a trust in a foreclosure. Charged off and tax write off due to servicer foreclosure mill making sure it can never cure.

    Thinking about trying to call this bluff.

  18. iris, on October 30, 2011 at 2:01 pm said:

    On DOT mortgage documents says MERS beneficiary and nominee.
    After foreclosure, filed in county clerk office Appoint sub of deed of trust states MERS owns note and original deed of trust. Draper and Goldberg (i got letter from them when the account went into delinquent) thats how I know they are debt collector attorney. However, Draper and Goldberg told my former attorney they are the lenders attorney and all parties.

  19. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 12:40 pm said:

    @joann – I’m not sure I understand your questions, but I’ll give it a shot.
    A dot trustee may be substituted and that substitution may only be done 1)by
    the lawful beneficiary and 2) the sub of trustee must be recorded to impart notice not only to the borrower, but to everyone.

    The dot trustee is a different trustee than the one on a sec’d trust. It does cause confusion, I suppose. There was once only ONE trustee to contend with – the one in the deed of trust whose duties I have tried to articulate.

    Now, as to the disclosure by the dot trustee identifying itself as a debt collector. That to me is a pandora box of its own. First of all, in identifying itself as a debt – collector, the dot trustee might be tacitly alleging it has some connection to the noteowner / party entitled to payment, because it is the note, not the dot, which represents the debt. Beyond that observation, I can’t say much more just now because as I say, I think it’s a pandora box.
    Didn’t used to be before MERS got in the act. But, briefly, moving the clock back, say 15 years, (when the players were identified) was the dot trustee a debt collector?
    Dang again. Maybe these sub’d trustees are willfully and errantly giving themselves that identity today to avoid their real duties as trustees. Identifying themselves that way sure looks like it. This just doesn’t end, does it? Why don’t we all just learn the alphabet again. That gang would have us
    learn new letters.

  20. joann, on October 30, 2011 at 12:15 pm said:

    From MERS Membership Rule 9:

    “MERS shall have no ownership rights whatsoever in or to any information contained on the MERS System.”

    From a mbs trust prospectus:

    “With respect to mortgage loans registered through the MERS® System, MERS® shall serve as mortgagee of record solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trust and will not have any interest in any of those mortgage loans.”

  21. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm said:

    I take that back – of course we’re supposed to get our notes back when paid, marked “PAID”. But I dont’ know about after foreclosure.

  22. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 11:56 am said:

    Iris – The Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance wanted MERS licensed as a lender in 2004. MERS (read members) fought it vehemently, stating among other things that it has no interest in notes and deeds of trust;
    therefore it need not be licensed. And Z is correct – there are many other
    actions wherein MERS disavowed any interests in notes. Any assignment which purports that “MERS” assigns the note is a false document. Filing a false document is a crime of one degree in all states. It’s also wrong to submit a false document to any court. Of course, that is the tip of the iceberg and pales in comparison to the other sins. This is RICO at its
    finest.

    Here is how MERS claims an assignable interest in a note:
    All members have MERS straw officers. That’s the racket.
    When a member wanted to foreclose in MERS’ name, the member was to make some kind of entry in the MERS’ computer system and pay the fee. Ditto on foreclosures done now by members in their own names and not in MERS’ name.
    It doesn’t matter to any of these bad actors who owns the note. Their whole trip is based on alleged possession of a bearer note. They saw to it that any endorsements bothered with ended with one in blank. In their tweaked deal, in order to foreclose in MERS’ name, the servicer is tacitly implying to “MERS” that it is in possession of the promissory note endorsed in blank, relying on an interpretation of the UCC that possession of a ‘bearer’ note provides legitimate right to enforce, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. The service should not have the note in the first place . Either that, or its a bailment. The reason the servicer has to tacitly imply possession of the note is because the servicer has an employee who is a straw / certifying officer of MERS; this, to MERS, equates possession by MERS of the note allegedly endorsed in blank and so the gospel according to MERS says MERS may foreclose, i.e., its member could foreclose in MERS’ name. Now that MERS allows no foreclosures in its name (Consent Order), the same hogwash dynamic is used to justify self-assignments in MERS’ name of the note and the deed of trust. MERS entered into the Consent Order, but in violation of its expressed terms and intent, has simply found another path to do the same thing it agreed not to do.
    To MERS and its no-law abiding members, possession of a bearer note by the straw officer somehow translates into the right to assign the note, though
    none of the actors has any interest in the note and will realize none by the
    “MERS” assignment. The assignment is also being used to try to create jurisdiction, a threshold issue, when litigation is on the horizon.
    All this is a description of “collusion” and RICO.

    If you want to read MERS’ appeal brief to Nebraska, which allowed them
    to dodge licensing, you can find it here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49703195/2004-10-14-MERS-v-Nebraska-Banking-Appellant-Brief

    There is a doctrine called “estoppel” which prevents litigants from taking
    inconsistant positions. One of these days, it’s finally going to bite that gang
    right where it hurts. I juz can’t wait.

  23. joann, on October 30, 2011 at 11:30 am said:

    @johngault

    Thank you for your post today re trustees. Very timely for me. Already strongly on same page with you on this but you articulated it perfectly. Trustees are the driving force in facilitating no rule of law. Working in tandem with servicers against both investors and homeowners – facilitating the false affadavits for thieves. May just be systemic business as usual or purposeful – doesn’t matter – against the law.

    Question. In a securitized loan – no mers – easy to see that original beneficiary is now replaced by the trust investors (not trustee bank) of course undisclosed and unrecorded until foreclosure proceedings begin and not even then in most cases in non-judicial. Not ok in trust deed state.

    What I want to know is – whether disclosed recorded or not or even if this is hypothetical question – isn’t the original trustee on DOT also no longer actual trustee – essentially a glorified servicer-collector often owned by same bank – isn’t the real trustee now the securitization trustee bank for the trust meaning there has to be a subsititution of trustee to that entity? Only problem is that entity also holds up the stick as nominal beneficary on behalf of the trust investors who have beneficial interest. Who exactly is the hypothetical party who should be the DOT trustee? Also if original trustee is identified on the DOT “We are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt” (same thing for servicer) – is this a new development in the language and relationship described on the NOD or is this how it has always been done?

  24. zurenarrh, on October 30, 2011 at 9:38 am said:

    Iris–look for depositions of R.K. Arnold and William or Bill Hultman. Also look on MERS’ website. All admit they do not hold or own notes. They either admit it outright or in a coded, “wink wink” manner. There are several other sources of this info I’m sure, like the MERS cease and desist or “consent order.”

    Also, MERS (by which I mean MERS Inc. as opposed to MERSCORP) has NO EMPLOYEES. This is also openly admitted. It is MERS Inc. that is named as beneficiary in DOTs (mine, anyway) NOT MERSCORP. So mortgages and DOTS literally have a non-human, digital/software/machine as their mortgagee/beneficiary, which is not only frightening, it’s IMPOSSIBLE.

  25. iris, on October 30, 2011 at 8:52 am said:

    MERS- you stated that MERS admitted they do not assign notes. Is their any case law regarding MERS admitting they do not possess note, they have no interest in property and they do not give loans. Lost my home 3 years DOT says MERS as a nominee and beneficiary.
    after foreclosure, they filed “APPOINTMENT OF DEED OF TRUST” documents states MERS has the original note an deed of trust and has the authority to appoint sub trustee. They appointed their attorney (actually a debt collector) to be a substitute trustee. This document was prepared in Virginia, notary public of the State of Indiana signed document for VP of MERS. Notary Public does exist. uhmm. Why would so call VP of MERS to go to Indiana to notarize a document?

    Hired an attorney did absolutely nothing. Paid him 11,000 dollars they took my home while I was paying my attorney. I filed a complaint at the D.C. Bar association, former attorney is disbarred in Washington D.C. Worst of all, he was not liscense to practice in the State of Virginia.
    Cannot afford an attorney. Looking for a competent attorney in Chesapeake Virginia who can take this case on contingency bases.

  26. johngault, on October 30, 2011 at 12:34 am said:

    @zurennahrr – you got that right! I’m with you all the way on that one.
    A promissory note is personal property. A deed of trust, a collateral instrument….hmmm. I’ve made that same argument, actually. I don’t think a dot qualifies as something which can be owned. I think a party has an interest in it or is a party TO it – that’s it. I mean, if I sign a collateral
    document to John’s Auto sales for my car, John and I are parties, but no one “owns” the document.

  27. zurenarrh, on October 30, 2011 at 12:13 am said:

    You know, here’s another screwed-up MERS deal–they claim to hold “title to the Deed of Trust” NOT title to the property. Is there even such a thing as “title” to a document? That seems to me to be one of MERS’ little weasel-y deceptions to make it sound like they have more than they actually have. That is to say, when you read the phrase “MERS holds title to the Deed of Trust,” your (or your judge’s) brain stops reading after “MERS holds title,” which is what MERS wants. They mean to imply that they hold title to the property while plainly stating that they only own “title to the Deed of Trust,” which as far as I can tell, “title to the Deed of Trust” doesn’t even exist.

  28. zurenarrh, on October 29, 2011 at 11:12 pm said:

    E. Tolle,

    I used that MN dissent line of reasoning in my own complaint. Here is a quote from my complaint:

    “Any assignment from the original beneficiary of the deed of trust is invalid as the original holder no longer holds the Note. Further, the “beneficiary,”–namely, MERS–was never a holder in due course and lacks any authority to assign any interest or to empower the trustee to conduct a trustee’s sale.”

    Another quote along the same lines:

    “…the beneficial interest of the subject Deed of Trust and Note–documents which are inseparable, with or without assignment–was
    transferred to parties other than MERS, which had only nominal, as opposed to actual, interest in the Deed of Trust but never the Note. Thus, the claim of MERS to be permanent beneficiary and/or nominee of the Lender and its successors or assigns is rendered invalid and the right of MERS to transfer or assign the Deed of Trust to anyone, despite the name of MERS appearing in the Deed of Trust, is nonexistent. Such a right of transfer or assignment or of any similar action by MERS is also nonexistent concerning the subject Note, as MERS was not named in the Note, never held the Note, did not lend any funds to Plaintiffs nor was owed any money or anything
    else by Plaintiffs.”

    And guess what? MERS admitted openly that they could not assign the note even though the pre-foreclosure assignment purported to do just that.

  29. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 10:49 pm said:

    fwiw, I read G Bryl’s deal linked below on MERS and I think he’s on to something.

  30. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 10:48 pm said:

    @e tolle – I have always felt MERS’ alleged status for
    the “successors and or assigns” in the dots needed to be attacked or at least analyzed. I never went down that path because, I guess, from the hip it appears mol like a deed restriction, to have MERS be the alleged anything
    (whatever they claim on any particular day) of successor and or assigns. (And you know what I think of MERS status in the first place. ) Maybe one of these days someone will.

    Speaking of sucessors and or assigns, I’m reminded of the Vargas case in CA where the court found that seeking relief from stay for ‘ABC, its successors and or assigns’ was an improper attempt to seek relief for unknown parties.
    And yet, it goes on and on without objection.

  31. E. Tolle, on October 29, 2011 at 10:07 pm said:

    I’d like to bring up what I believe is an important point concerning MERS, and what are obvious (to me) violations of not only their own membership agreements, but basic agency law as well. These are points that need to be paid special heed, as they’re being abused by the MERS model probably more often than any other of their abusive tactics, in my opinion, but remember, I’m not a lawyer.

    The following is the dissenting opinion from Justice Page from the MN Supremes in Jackson v. MERS, which btw, is probably the most MERS friendly piece of work ever crafted, due in large part to the “MERS Statute”, a bill written by MERS itself and adopted by the MN legislature in 2004. Basically, it grants MERS the moon on a platter and a warm and fuzzy spot as the nominee queen of all time.

    Justice Alan Page (btw, besides being a very smart JD is both a college and pro football hall of famer) makes some very astute observations on the deleterious affects of the other justice’s opinion in Jackson, and makes a very good point here that needs to be considered long and hard:

    MERS claims to hold legal title, but only legal title, to the
    mortgage being foreclosed. MERS also claims that in
    foreclosing mortgages it acts only as nominee for its
    members. But MERS can act as nominee for only the
    particular MERS member who holds the promissory
    note at any particular time and, when that promissory
    note is assigned between members, the member for
    which MERS acts as nominee, and on whose behalf
    MERS holds legal title, necessarily changes. In other
    words, the entity on whose behalf MERS holds legal
    title to the mortgage changes every time the
    promissory note is assigned.

    It often pays to study how these guys got to a decision rather than just hearing what it was they decided. What the above means (in my opinion) is that MERS cannot do what they are doing across the nation at this very moment; that is, create the illusion of agency between all MERS members simultaneously, over there at this moment, next over here. The fact that MERS’ members acting as servicers or other successors, assign loans to themselves from entities (defunct or otherwise incapable such as trusts who are not even MERS members) is in direct violation of this point.

    Pay close attention to how MERS, their attorneys, and the mills are violating this simple precept. Only he who holds the note has the authority, not some “MERS certified” officer. Bring this up repeatedly.

    Search and destroy. Moreover, demand to see written proof the agreement empowering these folks for specific duties that are afforded only to the rightful noteholders and attack the pretenders, otherwise you’ll just be ridiculed for filing “mere conclusory statements” in opposition to them. Not only does the tail wag the dog in many if not most of these cases, but at other times unseen ghostly forces step in to assign or foreclose for this shape-shifting demon without any authority whatsoever.

    Many thanks to Justice Page for being a stand-out guy in a time nearly devoid of people with that quality. If only the courts were full of the likes of him.

  32. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm said:

    cubed2 said:

    “and if you do not fulfill the obligations by monetary means if that is in the contract and it is secured by collateral, and the collateral now is returned and completes the contract, why one should still get the original contract returned and stamped, sealed, and delivered”

    From the time I took my first r.e. courses in 1977, I was taught that the trustee should be given the orig note and dot to foreclose, along with
    evidence of the default. Title companies were the trustees named in deeds of trust, which makes sense because they’re in the business and have staff attorneys and that’s all they do – real estate. Promissory notes have never been recorded – just the dots and assignments of dots. So what the trustee would get is the note with all endorsements and the dot with the assignments which had been recorded. I’m pretty certain the ‘blank’ end. on a note is a new creature created by securitization and MERS and its cronies, altho it’s always been available. The ‘old’ notes were likely endorsed to a party specifically and that was the party with the last assignment of the dot, also.

    The trustee’s job is to ensure that the party telling him to foreclose is the right party. Today’s trustees are not doing any such thing, and that is one of the CORE problems, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong. They dont get
    jack. What they might get is a password for the servicer’s database to go in
    and see if the database shows a default. As far as I can tell, there is no regard whatsoever given by the trustee for who owns the note and dot. This was true 100% before MERS deigned to 86 f/c’s in its name after entering into the Consent Order. Now there is a new order of criminality (bogus assignments done by MERS members to themselves).

    The trustees are actually vulnerable to a zillion lawsuits for breach of the ficuciary imposed by the deed of trust or alternatively or additionally for
    violation of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing. The trustee may only act for the beneficiary of the deed of trust, who to gain the benefit of the collateral instrument, the dot, must also own the right to payment evidenced by the debt instrument, the note. The dot only authorizes a
    trustee to act for the proper party, and all dots required compliance with
    all laws as well.
    We’re not gonna get our notes back , if we should, when the trustee doesn’t even have them. As evidence that the trustee isn’t getting these docs which define – for HIM – the proper party to command foreclosure, look at all our lawsuits. If a homeowner says abc is a stranger to me, they’d just get their original docs back from the trustee or else at least certified copies the trustee should have, but they don’t and can’t because he never got them.
    He never got them because the endorsements on notes and assignments of the deeds of trust are non-existant and missing. The original note is likely “missing”, also.
    This is the beginning of the crime (never minding other arguments about
    sec’n, swaps, insurance, never made it into the trust, etc.) of
    wrongful foreclosure. If all the rules had been followed by the banksters,
    the trustee would be given the appropriate documents he is in truth to be given. I’m sorry to say some attorneys and the judiciary got stoned and missed “deeds of trust 101”. They didn’t follow the rules and cannot produce these documents for the trustee. So today’s trustee’s are acting as collection agents for strangers, even to them.
    A deed of trust is not a mortgage. A mortgage is a two party instrument –
    the lender and the borrower. The dot is a three party instrument and the trustee was put in there to act on behalf of the other two parties – the
    beneficiary and the trustor (borrower) so lenders could skip judicial
    foreclosure – with the ‘aid’ of the trustee, a neutral party. But now trustees are just any yahoos with a pulse and they should be hanged
    for dereliction of duty.

    MERS enables all things evil, but that is still no excuse for the trustee
    not fulfilling his obligation to the terms of the deed of trust, and he just
    canNOT do this when he doesn’t get the documents. We need to start
    bringing suit against these rotten apple participants. They are not bit
    players, they are major players because it’s their mandate to follow
    the terms of the deed of trust and if they did, strangers wouldn’t be making off with our homes.

    I don’t know if we’re supposed to get our notes back or not when paid or after foreclosure. When the foreclosure does not fully cure the default,
    the legitimate lender might need the note for a deficiency judgment where allowed. But absent that, yeah, I think we should. I’d like to see Levitin or Peterson weigh in on this.

  33. Gregory Bryl, Esq., on October 29, 2011 at 11:04 am said:

    Here is my reaction to the Delaware suit against MERS: challenge MERS’ status as a “dummy” entity: http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/alternative-way-to-challenge-mers.html

  34. dan-o, on October 29, 2011 at 10:04 am said:

    it seems like everyone is filing suit against mers, from states to counties to ordinary citizens. how can mers possibly afford to defend all these lawsuits? you dont slay a giant with one blow, its done with series of them.. its seems thats the way this is headed. i hope massachusetts ag coakley finally gets moving on a suit to help bring this giant down, mers has destroyed the integrity of pretty much all of property records here in the baystate. its time to close these bastards down for good.

  35. Enraged, on October 29, 2011 at 8:05 am said:

    @Johngault and Anonymous,

    That’s what I’ve claimed all along: our judges don’t understand the extent of what was committed. That’s why I keep telling everyone to educate them and the idea of sending them a copy of Binden’s filing is great. I have a superior, supreme and district court in my city. So, it will be a bit of an investement but it’s worth it.

    I’ll also send it to my repugnicant-no-good attorney general who has yet to say the word “bank” since being elected 2 years ago (I think it’s part of those 4-letter words you get your mouth washed for…)

  36. The A Man, on October 29, 2011 at 8:03 am said:

    Occupy Wall street is the way to go.
    This blog is becoming more and more like a soap opera

    NEVER AGAIN

  37. The A Man, on October 29, 2011 at 8:01 am said:

    Here Anonymous William Black agrees with your last comment

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/10/28/william-black-occupywallstreet-on-arresting-banksters-video/

    Obama, Holder, Geithner need to go home.

    Obama is a demagogue He must go. Anybody even my dog will be better than Obama. Obama was put in as a smoke screen. He is the worse President in Modern History. Everything he does is a failure. Except for raising money for his campaigns.

    Eric Holder Geithner and the Bernanke The video will explain

    Michael Moore is starting to make more and more sense.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  38. ANONYMOUS, on October 29, 2011 at 6:47 am said:

    Going to agree with johngault — again. Quote —“it may be true that the occasional judge is bent, but by and large I think they are ignorant of who MERS is and isn’t and how they actually operate…”

    Courts are ignorant of the whole mortgage mess and fraud because the government has failed to investigate — and prosecute.

  39. cubed2k, on October 29, 2011 at 6:40 am said:

    @johngault.

    and for that matter………

    any contract one signs, whether it be a credit card agreement, bank account, personal contract with another, mortgage loan,

    and if you fulfill the obligations of that contract, why you should get the original contract returned to you, signed sealed and delivered as they say.

    and if you do not fulfill the obligations by monetary means if that is in the contract and it is secured by collateral, and the collateral now is returned and completes the contract, why one should still get the original contract returned and stamped, sealed and delivered.

    There is also something called Presentment in the UCC codes.

  40. cubed2k, on October 29, 2011 at 6:33 am said:

    @JohnGault

    If you get foreclosed on here in California, or any state

    wouldn’t the one being foreclosed on ask for the original wet ink note back, stamped foreclosured upon or something like that?

  41. cubed2k, on October 29, 2011 at 6:17 am said:

    I don’t get it. MERS created by the banks.

    How can something be created by the banks, without any approval or change in codes (laws),,,,,,,,,not voted on by any state

    and now we have to duke it out in courts to prove something is total BS.

    Cracks me up.

    Stay away from the banks…………

  42. colleen, on October 29, 2011 at 4:12 am said:

    To Me? the entire “government” registry is one big LIE!
    Where, remember when a robo-signer put on an assignment the word bogus? (they were probably having a bad day)-ha

    I read in the county records of another reason they “lost the note” was they couldn’t find an officer for the lender ?
    Well of course not cause… THEY were in bankruptcy!
    Do they state that? Of course not!-BUT, we can take the home anyway-and they did.
    Also with the same lender they out-right lie and sign some lawyers name as if they are STILL in business-as some of the loans don’t
    have the verbiage of MERS in them.
    It’s an incredible read-these doc-crocks as I call them.
    THIS proves the lawless society we are now livin in and as long as they keep allowing this crap on public records and other trickery?
    WE HAVE NO COUNTRY.

  43. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:52 am said:

    @e tolle – (sorry, folks) Got it.

  44. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:41 am said:

    e tolle – nope, that wasn’t it!

  45. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:17 am said:

    e tolle – It’s Jackson v Mers? found it if so

  46. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:13 am said:

    e tolle – got a better name for the case? ds wont’ let me have it ‘less I pay.
    I’ll get it from Pacer if I have enough info.

  47. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:03 am said:

    @e tolle – thanks. I’ll read it.

  48. johngault, on October 29, 2011 at 1:03 am said:

    @E.Tolle – It may be true that the occasional judge is bent, but by and large I think they are ignorant of who MERS is and isn’t and how they actually operate and how legally skewed (that’s being nice, of course) it has always been. I think the DE case lays it out pretty well. We need some very serious talent to fully expose them and stay on the offensive in litigation.
    One thing that would be helpful imo here and now is if if everyone here would take the time to print the DE suit and mail it to your local
    judges, at least the chief judge. It’s not that much work, but no one of us could do that much mailing alone.
    It’s lengthy, so probaby take a couple minutes to print and 4- 6 stamps.
    (good for the post office) Isn’t that a small price to pay for what could
    be a valuable contribution to seeing our cases ruled on appropriately? Anyone who could find this website – LL – can just as well find his local courthouse address.
    We all assume our judges should know this stuff. Maybe they don’t.
    Or, even if they do, we should put it in their faces because we can. Then they’ll know we know they know.
    We can’t afford apathy. Every one of us can be an activist at the cost of five minutes of our time and 4 – 6 stamps.
    I don’t kid myself that if every judge in this country got this info we would
    be done with this next week. But it’s a start.

  49. E. Tolle, on October 29, 2011 at 12:42 am said:

    @johngault, I have read the DE MERS paper, and I also share your disdain for MERS. Knowing your bent on this, you’d probably get a kick out of reading the MN MERS paper, that does a great job and probably served Biden as a roadmap.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10675150/MERS-S-Ct-Plaintiffs-Opening-Brief

  50. johngault, on October 28, 2011 at 11:38 pm said:

    A short time ago, a new DE corporation was formed: Merscorp Holding Co., Inc., i think it was called. Like within the last month. I doubt MERS is gonna be collectible. I’d bet a lot those rat-b’s insulated themselves. I really truly believe MERS engages in RICO activities and can be seized. As much as I would love to see those guys hang, seizure is on my bucket list hugely. And it’s not impossible to pierce a corporate veil and nail individuals. Not a walk in the park, but not impossible.
    If you read the whole suit, then you know the DE folks have familiarized
    themselves with MERS malfeasance, misfeasance, defeasance and
    lack of governance in any regard. Really, when we think about it, their
    audacity, among other things, is incredible. When I read their new guy’s interview, I thought ‘can he really be this ignorant’? I know the ‘mom’ deed of trust they crafted was done with what I’ve called ‘unbelieveable recklessness, it’s so messed up. We need to wipe this scourge off the face of the earth.

  51. johngault, on October 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm said:

    @iris – to understand a deed of trust, go to sourceoftitle.com and read my blog on trustees. Here’s a link which may or may not work. Trustees in dots initially used to be mostly title companies, who once upon a time were credible. Now the substituted trustees are just yahoo anybodys with as much integrity as a snake. Here’s a link which may or may not work:

    http://www.sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=776

    As to the potential success of DE v MERS, we know there will be deep
    pockets on mers’ side. DE needs to get the necessary talent to make this stick, and as I always say, here’s my 10 bucks. Tell me where to send it.
    I wonder if we actually could?

    MERS HAS TO GO
    We want our records

  52. E. Tolle, on October 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm said:

    MERS is not just a database, at least not in the eyes of the courts. How else is MERS still able to assign and foreclose daily on thousands of Americans? Will Biden be successful? I fear the power of the combined entities behind MERS. You know they won’t give up their land grab without a major battle. The looting has been so easy for so long. Their evil knows no bounds.

    One registry to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

  53. Enraged, on October 28, 2011 at 8:08 pm said:

    @Carie

    I agree that MERS is only a database. Merscorp, however, is a fully incorporated Delaware company. As such, it has to have declared a certain capital and it has to have articles of incorporations.

    My question is very relevant as it goes toward what happens and whether the directors are personally exposed (meaning that it may become the way to get our money back).

  54. carie, on October 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm said:

    MERS is ONLY a DATABASE. That’s IT. The banksters thought of EVERYTHING…
    They will all rot in hell…

  55. ANONYMOUS, on October 28, 2011 at 7:49 pm said:

    johngault

    Agree. Many were –like you — hopeful for Obama. He has blown his opportunity — and think he knows it. Problem is — alternative may be worse. And, he also knows this. Leaving us — in nowhere land.

  56. Enraged, on October 28, 2011 at 7:36 pm said:

    I still have the same question and it is not addressed anywhere on internet. Even my own attorney couldn’t answer it.

    The state of Delaware has sued Merscorp, Inc. Merscorp has no money. In the absence of any other defendant, who will pay for Merscorp’s defense costs? Is Merscorp solvent in any way and, if not, does that mean that the directors become liable? If you look at the roster of Merscorp directors, every bank is listed. How does that play out? As far as I know, it is the first time Merscorp alone is being sued.

    I think it is a crucial question. Either there is money somewhere and we ought to know where it comes from or there is no money and Delaware is simply wasting taxpayer’s money.

    The French have a say for any Wodunit: “Cherchez la femme (look for the woman)”. Americans have their own say: “Follow the money”.

    Don’t you guys think it is worth looking into?

  57. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm said:

    TRUSTEE AND SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE- Why do we have a trustee on the deed of trust. It is not the originator, it is someone else. Why is this? why substitute trustee? Geee, if the lender claims they give us money from their own asset, why do we have a trustee on the deed of trust and why a deed of trust document?

  58. johngault, on October 28, 2011 at 7:14 pm said:

    @colleen – MERS ‘records’ need to be seized. It’s a criminal enterprise imo and I don’t know anyone who would disagree. well, maybe Obama since he thinks what’s going on is legit or so professes. Pity, that – I used to be a big fan. Our records may have left the country since Merscorp entered into that 7 yr contract with Genpact, on info and belief headquartered in the Bahamas with workers in INDIA.
    Even tho I read Genpact’s release myself, I still hope it’s not true – that the records of our property are being handled in INDIA. Are they up to
    spoilation? Wouldn’t surprise any of us, would it?
    MERS HAS TO GO

  59. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm said:

    DEED OF TRUST- i have with my mortgage documents
    shows CB Services Corp as a trustee, I searched this trustee it does not come up. I don’t recall getting any letters from CB Service Corp when it went into default. I was making payments to Aurora.DOT says MERS as a nominee and beneficiary.

    After foreclosure what was filed on the county clerk” Appoint of deed of trust prepared by Draper and Goldberg ( now called Atlantic Law group. Draper and Goldberg merged with them on 7/15/2009. Draper and Goldberg was saunctioned by Virginia Bar association . I am afraid to go pro-se. Do you know of any attorney here in Cheapeake Virginia that would take this case on contingency case.
    Appoint of deed of trust states MERS is Beneficiary and authorize Draper and Goldberg to be substitute trustee. uhmmm

  60. colleen, on October 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm said:

    Iris, make the title company send you the list of the certified copies of all the ckecks and wired transfer WHICH prove who paid ALL of the “loan off”. I did with 2 properties. They didn’t want to do it and even used the excuse that hurricane “Ike” destroyed the docs.-always lying…..

    no-I had to push, and finally I got them. You paid it so demand for the entire file they have on your home also the lenders instructions so important.

  61. johngault, on October 28, 2011 at 6:57 pm said:

    Mr. O’brien(register of deeds) has got the right idea, but he’s still left of target imo. (taken from link below)
    He says he wants affidavits from banksters regarding the veracity of their stuff. NO! NO! NO! For pete’s sake, that gang has already proven its disposition to lie anywhere, anytime, anyhow. That’s not even a decent
    band-aid on a gaping gash. Aren’t we tired of band-aids that do nothing, like HAMP, for instance? We need evidence and rules followed.
    The trustee in the deed of trust is supposed to be given evidence the beneficiary is the beneficiary and the homeowner is in default and those same documents should be given to the homeowner by the trustee. Show me where it says these laws and rules may be 86’d in favor of some self-serving, lying affidavit. The dot trustee is NOT a collection agent with carte blanche for anyone who will pay him, despite the fact that that’s what’s going on right now. The trustee needs to start acting like one. yesterday. I took my first real estate classes in l977 and at that time or not that long after (I took more a couple years later), we were taught that the trustee was actually supposed to be given the original note.

    I know i’ve said this before, but I will say it again. The non-judicial f/c
    was a privilege granted to lenders so they could avoid the time and expense of judicial foreclosure. Most of us reading here are parents, right? If you tell your kid to stay in the yard and he goes to the neighbor’s pool every time, aren’t you gonna revoke his yard privilege?
    Lenders didn’t want judicial foreclosure. Great. They got non-j f/c.
    Now they want to treat non-judicial foreclosure, that PRIVILEGE, as if
    the terms of it don’t exist, as if there are NO rules.
    Getting rid of MERS is the first step. Filing suit against alleged trustees
    for breach of fiduciary and or violating the covenants of good faith and
    fair dealing is the next. These stinking companies acting as collection agents (sans the agency) for whomever drops the dime is bs. They’ve been making out like bandits and have been untouched generally for their participation in this RICO activity.
    So, no. No more lying affidavits.

  62. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm said:

    Is owning the debt or owning the obligation is it the same as owning the note? I am kind of confuse. Since I cannot afford attorney. I have no choice to go pro-se which is not easy and can be dangerous. Please advise.

  63. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 6:52 pm said:

    how do i check if it was a clear title or clouded title? should I contact the title insurance company I had on my documents before the property went into foreclosure?

  64. The A Man, on October 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm said:

    Occupy Wall Street against Fraudclosure

    http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-and-occupythehood-march-solidarity-those-forec/

    NEVER AGAIN

  65. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 6:43 pm said:

    The same notary public of the state of Indiana signed documents for asst VP Aurora loan services.

    property Chesapeake Virginia

    This is what is on the “Appoint of Deed of Trustee:

    1) prepared by and return to Debt collector attorney in Virginia
    2) appointed debt collector attorney to be sub trustee
    3) appoint of deed of trust states made on 12/5/2008
    4) MERS Delaware black seal signed VP no physical address is stated
    5) State of Indiana I check the state notary public does exist, notarized
    document for MERS VP on 12/5/2008.
    6) MERS VP on document does not appear on MERS directory, VP signor works for another lender (Irwin Mort)

    6) 0n 4/23/2009 same Notary Public of State of Indiana
    notarized document for Asst. Vice- Pres Chris Zimmerman for Aurora Loan service. Appoint of deed of trust does not state Aurora’s physical address. but from what i searched Aurora is out of Colorado.

    what should I do now?

  66. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 6:24 pm said:

    I did contact the state of Indiana. According to the state notary public cannot notarize out of its boundaries. However, the signors can be from different state.

    This is what is on the Appoint of Deed of Trust
    1) it was prepared by debt collector attorney in virginia
    2/) made on 12/5/2008
    3) State of Indiana notarize document same day 12/5/2008
    4) Delware seal no physical address
    5) MERS VP does not appear on the directory, the VP works at a different place.

    I lost everything, attorney I hired 6/2009, did absolutely nothing to the case. Former attorney was out of D.C. worst of all, he was not liscense to practice in Virginia. I filed complaint D.C. Bar Association, he is permantly disbarred in D.C.

    what next? what should I do with all the evidence I have. Cannot afford attorney and fear going pro se

  67. colleen, on October 28, 2011 at 5:59 pm said:

    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.

    I have SO much saved info that Neal would have to start a new weblog
    on this alone!

  68. Millie, on October 28, 2011 at 5:32 pm said:

    MERS is the “weak link” in this fraudulent financial fiasco that has cost millions of people their homes…and it is about time something is done to knock MERS out of the way so this entire tapestry of lies can be unraveled! I am a homeowner fighting in the trenches of this war alongside many other homeowner foreclosure fraud victims, and I thank ALL who are doing battle on our behalf! Thanks Neil for keeping us all updated!

  69. Enraged, on October 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm said:

    Merscorp has no money. Who pays its defense costs? Do the payors of said defense coasts have any exposure and can they be personally and individually held liable?

    I will ask until I am completely satisfied that we are not purposely being taken for a ride.

  70. colleen, on October 28, 2011 at 5:13 pm said:

    If you can critique rock music you can be read in Rolling Stone like Matt Taibbi who is focused like you on the magnitude of the fraud that is now being accepted as the price of owning a home in America.

    When the 50 AGs of the fifty states realize that MERS is a “private” corporation that is not bonded or insured for errors, misdeeds and fraud against the public interest in any state. And that it could declare private bankruptcy at any moment, freezing, nullifying or destroying 60 million records at minimum. Would they then pay attention?

    European banks are selling US mortgage backed securities at an extreme loss to move away from investing in America. There is where you will find the first domino falling in the nationalization of the too Big to Fail US Banking and Mortgage System.

    Homeowners are the “distraction” to raise the debt ceiling and provide more money to the banks to keep them afloat when the financial Tsunami hits in 2012.

  71. Ian, on October 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm said:

    Iris- check Indiana’s notary laws to see if Indiana notaries can legally notarized documents from another state. I know that Ca, expressly forbids this practice.
    Plus, if MERS is involved,and it appears that they are, then I wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

  72. BSE, on October 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm said:

  73. Enraged, on October 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm said:

    I’ve been asking the same question for a while and i still don’t have an answer from anyone: does Merscorp have any money and, if not, how does Delaware expect to collect the $10,000 fines per violation?

    No one else has been named as a defendant and Merscorp is an “Inc”.

    Is there any possibility whatsoever that the board of directors might be held legally liable or is this legal action an exercise in futility (other than to possibly shut it down) for what the damages claimed are concerned? When Marc Dann went after MERS a couple of weeks ago, he made sure to name everyone involved. Biden hasn’t and that bothers me…

    Speaking of money, who will pay for Merscorp defense costs? I would think that any of the banks involved will distance itself by any legal means.

    Anyone wants to give me something to sink my teeth into?

    @Tnharry, are you there with your legal mind?

  74. iris, on October 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm said:

    CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- property foreclosed 2008. Appoint of Deed of Trust states MERS has original note and authorized lenders’ attorney(most likely debt collector attorney) to be sub trustee. Originator not mentioned on Appoint of deed of trust document. Black stamp says MERS delaware, notarized in Indiana.

    HOW CAN I CHECK TO SEE IF TITLE IS CLEARED OR IF IT IS CLOUDED TITLE.

  75. Barbara, on October 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm said:

    READ THE COMPLAINT!

    It’s basically saying the securitization process may have failed. Also MERS info is inaccurate. They are done and about time.

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/10/28/state-of-delaware-v-merscorp-mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc-mers/

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: