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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Banks have tried many things to legalize their illegal activities, resulting in corruption of our title registries around the country and siphoning off money from investors, homeowners and and taxpayers that has brought us to the ever-present likelihood of collapse. MERS One of the tools they used to insulate themselves from activities they knew were wrong. They tried slipping in amnesty provisions from the proposed electronic signature act, which was almost unanimously approved by Congress, but then vetoed by Obama. They tried outright amnesty but that didn’t get very far in Congress or state legislatures. Now they want to propose MERS 2, which even realtors and title insurers think is a rotten idea.

They will keep trying. Persistence sometimes pays off. If they do succeed we will have allowed them to dodge the bullet. In the 1980’s the savings and loan scandal resulted in more than 800 people going to jail — people from the banking industry. In the securitization scam or “mortgage meltdown” as some refer to it, the number of high level people prosecuted is zero. CBS’ 60 minutes pointed that out last night. The real question is why aren’t these people in jail? The answer is because they are not being prosecuted.

Write your congressman, senator, state legislators and governor and tell them how unhappy you are with the stewardship of the economy and the housing crisis that caused it. Most of all tell them that MERS 2 is a bad idea and you will hold them accountable at the polls in November. And mean what you say — go to those polls and vote against the bank interests and the political lackeys that brought us to this point.

For those who don’t quite get what NAILTA is saying, it is simple. Title insurers are worried about liability. They know there is going to be a major test of their liability as cases float toward the courts and up the appellate chain, with suits alleging they should recognize the current title defects, admit that the defect was caused at closing, and that the exceptions on the policy did NOT exclude liability for title problems associated with the securitization scam. Title insurers are obviously not writing the same policies that they did when this scam was in full operation.

So the banks answer is to create more sham companies that will issue title insurance in order for them to sell the properties they stole. MERS 2 is an essential ingredient of being able to do that so that they can “rely” upon information over which the Banks have total control. This is akin to the “substitution of trustee” in nonjudicial states where Banks declare themselves to be creditors when in fact they are not and then go on to substitute themselves (a subsidiary or affiliate) as the “independent” trustee on the deed of trust. It is a sham and should be treated as such.

NAILTA Announces Opposition to “MERS 2” Proposal
Slade Smith

The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) has announced that it is opposed to a provision in legislation offered by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) that would create “MERS 2”, a federal mortgage registry modeled after and designed to replace the existing bank-owned MERS mortgage registry.

In its position paper on the Corker bill, Senate Bill 1834, NAILTA says that it “is opposed to any reconstituted MERS system because the MERS model is a deeply flawed system that continues to harm consumers, small business owners, and county governments across the United States.”

According to NAILTA, “[A]ny consideration of creating a new MERS without having successfully resolved the well-known flaws and inadequacies of the previous MERS system is a foolhardy exercise. S.B. 1834 proposes no solution to the prevalent flaws with the current MERS system. Instead, it merely seeks to establish MERS 2.0 based upon the MERS in use on the date of enactment.”  One of those purported flaws in MERS is that it “fails to reconcile 50 states worth
of mortgage recording and foreclosure law.”

NAILTA claims that MERS, a system “built by the mortgage industry, for the mortgage industry” according to its founders, has harmed the land title industry in particular by shifting the business of title insurance away from title professionals and toward banks. NAILTA says that MERS has also damaged land title records and deprived local governments of fees used for general purposes such as public safety.

NAILTA characterizes MERS 2 as a Federal Torrens title system– subject to the considerable expense and difficulty of reconciling states’ differing recording and foreclosure laws into one system.  MERS failed because of the same pitfall, and consumers, county governments, and title agents have borne this expense while only the owners of MERS have benefited, according to NAILTA.

NAILTA has contacted Senator Corker’s office and requested a meeting with the Senator, to express its “deep reservations and opposition concerning MERS and the specific problem we have with [the MERS 2] provision.”


23 Responses

  1. […] BANKS ARE TRYING MERS 2 IN EFFORT TO LEGALIZE THEIR BEHAVIOR « Livinglies’s Weblog. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  2. Well, nlight, apparently things have changed since the S & L debacle.
    30 years ago a thriller or science fiction author might write a book about aliens taking over the earth. Today an historical novelist might write a book about a systemic virus in global economy. When the government with all its forces tries to shut it down, a situation publicly blamed on a computer glitch or errant key stroke arises which causes the DJI to plunge 500 points in one day.

  3. William Black may very well be working on it as we speak. He was speaking recently at the OWS and spoke about how much bigger this crisis is from the previous housing crisis with S&L. Back then the we had a different kind of government, and judicial system, I think. Now the system is all ONE & THE SAME, banks government judges, etc, are aware of everything but refused to challenge the banks, makes you wonder if they are all in on it.

    There’s a lot out there that we don’t know or will ever know, all I gathered is that the people are seen as ponds, we are just the worker bees in a bee hive, the Queen is the 1%! When you realize that the laws are being broken purposely, and seeing how so many American families are kicked out to the curb by their own Sheriff, who’s paid by their own tax Dollars, makes you wonder.

    We need more than one William Black to fight this monster, because you would have to involve the whole system not just the banks. Someone is going to have to answer the question of where did all those Trillions went, and why were they given? Who is going to take on the whole system, and ask the right question? If our government wanted to fix the economy it would have bailed out the average person who uses the money he/she earns to move the economy, but instead they bailed out the bad guys (who took it all), go figure. And then our good government turns to us and say that they may default, because they are running out of money, so now we have to save them by what, the unemployment benefits?

  4. Can someone explain how William Black put all the criminals in jail in the 80’s S&L?? Why can’t he do it again with the banks or maybe someone else with his knowledge, persistence and guts. We need William Black to get involved with help from others. Is it too big for him to handle? I was sick watching 60 minutes last night. When asked why noone is doing anything about the banks, they answered I don’t know.

  5. foreclosureinfosearch said:

    “MER Corp is vulnerable by your acknowledging their standing as a beneficiary. Not by refuting it.”

    I really wish I understood what you are saying here, Maher. I kinda think I see what you’re trying to say, but then again, not really. What I mean is, MERS is NOT the beneficiary or mortgagee, by any reasonable understanding of the terms “beneficiary” and “mortgagee.” So how is MERS vulnerable by acknowledging that MERS is something that it isn’t?

    In my mind, it’s just the opposite of what you’re saying–MERS is vulnerable because it acts as a beneficiary when it really isn’t, so it then behooves one fighting MERS to point out how MERS isn’t actually a beneficiary/mortgagee even though MERS (and the DOT/mortgage) proclaims itself to be. It seems to me that if those of us fighting MERS say, “Yes, we agree that MERS is the beneficiary/mortgagee”–even if saying so would be for purely strategic reasons, not because it’s true–that doesn’t make MERS vulnerable, it’s conceding that MERS is what it says it is, even though MERS is actually clearly something completely different than what it says it is, i.e., the beneficiary.

    What I’m trying to say is that MERS itself acknowledges that it doesn’t lend money, isn’t owed money, doesn’t hold or own Notes, doesn’t acquire the property in foreclosure, and so forth. All of those things describe the role of the true beneficiary. So how does it benefit us to say “OK, MERS is right–they ARE the beneficiary”? The only possible way I can see that it might make them vulnerable is that by saying “Hey, I totally bought the premise that MERS is the beneficiary/mortgagee,” you can get MERS on fraud when or if MERS admits that it doesn’t do anything a beneficiary would do. But to get to that point, it seems to me that you’d have to explain that an actual beneficiary would do a whole lot more than what MERS is doing, which pretty much leads you to the conclusion that MERS isn’t the beneficiary…

    What am I missing?

  6. Okay, MS, it appears your ‘stuff’ is about accounting intracacies, which most of us are not now, not ever on our own going to get. Only a securities-type accountant or expert on securities laws and tax etc. treatments is gonna get what you’re saying. Still, I’ll keep trying fwiw. Please remember there is a lot of other ‘stuff’ here and elsewhere for us all to try to keep track of. It’s quite a challenge, at least to me. You might think well if they got what I mean, they could shine the rest of it. Problem is, as I said, we don’t, so we are forced to run down a zillion other avenues and keep abreast of ever changing interpretations of law relevant to the mess in which we find ourselves.

    Despite my own efforts, I miss a lot of stuff, including stuff linked here.
    So what I’m doing about it is I have created a new document in a file folder called “Links”, wherein I paste the links from here and date them, from where, etc., so I can get to them easily when I have time and so I don’t forget. If the name of one strikes a big chord, I’ll hit the link and then try to download it to that folder in case I have time to read it while I wait somewhere with no internet access. Just a thought for anyone who shares my frustration at missing ‘stuff’.

  7. Ann – fREE legal help? A half hour to pour out one’s heart and then what?
    Okay, we’ll take a look at it for 10k? Nice name given to your advertizing campaign, er, “program”, I must say. My sincerest apologies if I got this wrong. If not, I’d call it pretty mean even if a whole half hour is free.

  8. MS – I see you can write when you want to! I’ll read your stuff again and yet again and maybe I WILL ‘get it’.

    In the meantime, earlier I ref’d a case in NV where the homeowner alleges the “MERS” assignment bifurcates the note and dot. In its response, PHH admits on p. 6 that no, MERS can’t assign the note even though it purported to, as usual, in the assignment of the deed of trust. The third attachment is the borrower’s reply to Phh’s bs response. The response is full of a lot of mullarkey, imo. If you want a study in manipulation, I suggest a read:

    It’s been a while since I read this, burt if I remember correctly, the alleged allonges (two) to the note were both executed by the same woman, an employee of one of the entities involved in trying to take this home.
    I don’t see anything banksters won’t do to get what they want.

  9. Right on Neil:

    I am at the point of filing a Writ of Replevin
    A writ ordering a law enforcement officer (e.g., a sheriff) to recover personal property from one person and give it to another. When one person is wrongfully in possession of the property of another (e.g., by theft or default on a rental contract) the aggrieved party can petition the court for a writ of replevin to test the right of the party in possession and, if justice demands, to authorize the exercise of legal force to recover the wrongfully detained property.

  10. As far as I can tell, the NV DC in Vegas has been no friend to homeowners. Interestingly, the NV SC who apparently prefers the law to be followed, earlier this year took two cases sua sponte from the appeals court and ordered sanctions against two banksters for non-compliance with NV’s mediation statutes (pasillas and Levya). However, in the case of Karl v Quality Loan Services Corp, (attorney Terry Thomas for the homeowner) a NV DC judge initially ruled against summary judgment in QLS’ favor, finding certain notice of default notices to be mandatory and fatal to a non-compliant NOD, such as the one issued by QLS to the homeowner.

    But then, In a stunning decision at least to this kid, the judge granted SJ (as I recall) when QLS introduced an alleged pre-NOD letter to the homeowner from the bankster / servicer laying out the missing information! Why my exclamation point? The court had conceded the info missing from the NOD vitiated the NOD: it did not meet the mandates. Allowing information which in spirit if not literal word is required in a Notice of Default to be given in another format is bench law imo, but someone in the legal field needs to frame these arguments better because this is dangerous.
    The judge says the dot does not required the information to be in the trustee’s NOD but may be sent to the homeowner by someone else. Bah humbug. Further, the info ($ numbers) in the alleged ‘older’ letter would be stale, and therefore not relevant and would not impart the statutory notice. I hope to high-hell the homeowner sought reconsideration or appealed this abomination.
    BUT, if you are the recipient of a NOD, you may find my notes from Karl of benefit – in quotations from ruling:
    “The most common statutory defect in foreclosure in Nevada occurs when a foreclosing entity fails to adhere to NRS section 107.080, recording a NOD before it has been named as the trustee, and without any evidence of agency on behalf of the trustee or beneficiary of the underlying debt at the time of recordation. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(2)(c). Plaintiff does not allege a violation of this statute (dang – looks like he should have – sic), but rather alleges that the NOD failed to include certain notices as required under the DOT.”

    “QLS was apparently neither the trustee nor the beneficiary when it recorded the NOD. However, it claimed on the NOD to have been “AGENT FOR BENEFICIARY,” (see NOD 3), and it identified the beneficiary as UAMC, (see id. 1).

    LOOK!******”The only evidence in the record as to the identity of the beneficiary at the time the NOD was recorded is the DOT itself, which names UAMC as the lender, making it the beneficiary as a matter of law, REGARDLESS of the DOT’s language about MERS being a “beneficiary.” ******

    “Although MERS is not a beneficiary, its agency for the beneficiary under the DOT extends to administering the DOT for purposes of foreclosure.”
    jg: MERS is not anyone’s “agent”.

    “Whether UAMC directly commanded QLS to file the NOD or MERS commanded QLS to do so, there is no defect in foreclosure here under section 107.080(2)(c), as there is in cases where a purported trustee who is named nowhere on the DOT, and for whom evidence of substitution as trustee appears nowhere, files a NOD.”
    jg: I’m so confused. Didn’t the judge say above QLS had not been substitututed at the time of its NOD?

    “Plaintiff adduces no contrary evidence. There is no question of fact that QLS filed the NOD as the agent of MERS, who was the agent of the beneficiary UAMC, and the foreclosure was therefore not improper under section 107.080(2)(c).

    jg: Um, your honor, where exactly is the evidence of anyone’s
    “agency”? The record does NOT produce any such thing, so I would call these ‘allegations’, NOT facts in evidence. Oh, yeah, evidence. Remember? Hate to be smarmy, but you get the point.

    “Paragraph 22 (of the deed of trust – sic) requires (in all bold print) that prior to acceleration of the loan following default, the lender must notify the borrower of default, action required to cure, a date at least thirty days thereafter by which to cure, and that failure to timely cure may result in acceleration. (See DOT ¶ 22).”

    “QLS argues that such notices need not be in the NOD itself, but may be given via other methods.
    QLS then argues that because Plaintiff does not allege that such notices were not given, but only that they were not included in the NOD, it is entitled to summary judgment.

    The text of the DOT supports QLS’ reading of it; however, QLS’ characterization of Plaintiffs allegations are not convincing.
    Although Plaintiff indeed alleges that the NOD itself did not contain these notices, it is a reasonable inference from the Complaint that Plaintiff means to allege she never received such notices elsewhere, either.

    QLS provides no evidence of having provided such notices by separate communication, and they do not appear in the NOD.

    Rather, in addition to the fact of and amount of default, (see NOD 1), the NOD instructs Plaintiff: “NOTICE. You may have the right to cure the default. . . . To determine if reinstatement is possible and the amount, if any, to cure the default, contact: [ASC’s address and telephone number],” (id. 2).

    This is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement in paragraph 22 of the DOT that such information be directly provided to the borrower. Under the plain language of the DOT, the lender bears the burden of providing certain notices concerning default and cure to the borrower. The borrower does not bear the burden of seeking out the information….”


    “There remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the NOD was defective under the terms of the DOT, and the Court denies summary judgment on this basis.”
    If I were a suspicious person, I would say this whole stinking this were orchestrated. “Info is missing. Sorry, bankster. Oh, here it is? SJ for bankster!” Actually I AM a suspicious person when it comes to these cases, but I would hate to accuse a DC judge of such a thing, so I truly don’t. I mean truly don’t, but I don’t like it one bit. The judge says the notice by way of a pre-notice letter from the bankster in lieu of the info in the NOD cuts it pursuant to para 22 of the dot. Imo it’s just another erosion of homeowner rights and cuts a wide swath for more abuse by already abusive parties. Here I remind everyone, if I may, that the dot and non-judicial foreclosure was legislated as a convenience to lobbying lenders whining about the time and cost of judicial foreclosures. Gave them an inch….they took the country. Someone smarter than me needs to challenge this mallarkey. It isn’t insignificant. Those guys are organized and will share this case to stand on when their own NOD’s are found to be fatally defective, notwithstanding the salient matter of the staleness of the info in the alleged pre-NOD letter. So, two things:
    see your NOD for what must be disclosed to you upon alleged default (amt of default and what is necessary to cure and by when)and make sure you state you never got the info from ANYone if you didn’t. I’m thinking even if the bankster sent such a letter, the $ and cure provisions should be included in the doc which is recorded, and that is the NOD. Otherwise, the NOD is in fact nothing more than a bs formality which imparts about nothing. I’m not an attorney – these are lay-opinions and are not legal advice.


    Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk announces the
    Hundred Homes Project

    The law firm of Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk, PL announced today a new initiative called the Hundred Homes Project in an effort to help 100 families recover or keep homes that have wrongly entered foreclosure proceedings.

    According to attorney Michael Alex Wasylik, thousands of homes across the state of Florida have been wrongfully lost to foreclosure. “Unfortunately, banks pushed through many of these wrongful foreclosures through fraud, mistake or because the homeowner never even knew about the foreclosure,” said Wasylik. “This is a miscarriage of justice and we want to help consumers take back their homes.”

    The Hundred Homes Project is inspired by lawyers who use modern DNA techniques to free innocent men and women from prison, convicted of crimes they had never committed. “We want to take the same approach of intensely studying these cases, combing through every piece of evidence, to determine first of all if the foreclosure was wrongfully obtained,” said Wasylik. “If we can prove that the foreclosure was wrongful, the next step would be to take steps to restore the home to its rightful owner.”

    The firm will analyze closed foreclosure cases throughout the state of Florida. The types of cases that are typically eligible are those in which the foreclosure judgment has already been entered or the house has already been sold with a sale date of no more than three years ago and preferably less than two years ago.

    “While not every case will qualify, many will,” said attorney Jason Ricardo. “We conduct a detailed review of the court file and report our findings to the homeowner. From there, we plan a strategy in attempting to overturn the foreclosure.”

    Homeowners interested in applying for the Hundred Homes Project can do so through the website at or may contact the attorneys at Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk at or 1-888-830-0830.

    If you are in the process of a short sale of your home, we encourage you to call us for assistance. The lawyers at Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk can help in negotiating your short sale as well as providing you with the Title work needed for your sale.

    For more information, please call us at:


    About Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk and How We Can Help

    Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk, PL is a Florida Law Firm dedicated to helping consumers and homeowners face the current Foreclosure Crisis and Great Recession.

    If you are facing financial difficulty or foreclosure, we can assist you with:

    Pre-Foreclosure Loan Modifications
    Short Sale Transactions
    Foreclosure Defense
    Credit Card/Auto Loan Debt Settlement and Negotiations
    Personal Bankruptcy
    Family Law
    Ricardo, Wasylik & Kaniuk, PL is a growing law firm that uses technology to assist in representing the interests of clients throughout the state of Florida, across the United States and around the world. Regardless of where our clients are located, our focus has been and continues to be on helping them with their legal challenges and providing Efficient, Effective and Economical Representation.

    Free Legal Consultation
    If you or someone you know is facing Foreclosure, Bankruptcy or other legal matter, we will consult with you for one half hour for free. There is no obligation to hire Ricardo, Wasylik and Kaniuk, PL.

    Please call 888-830-0830 to set an appointment for your free consultation.

    Offer Expires: December 31, 2011

  12. MS said:

    ….”debt collectors are announcing Mers vulnerability for which you’re opposing it with a QWR. You oppose MERS and your kill your own standing to bring claims. By its own admission Mers Corp is the beneficial interest in the obligation and for benefit ……”

    Man, I get weary. Don’t we all. MERS does little but double speak; rather, the banksters’ attorneys wearing MERS-as-our-client- hats for the moment do. MERS members for MERS have said a lot of things.
    MERS most notably denied any interest in the loans and that would include being beneficiary in Nebraksa Dept of Banking v MERS when it wanted to avoid licensing. It’s called estoppel. Because I’m not an attorney and the devil is always in those dang details, I dont’ know if a party may be estopped from saying X in venue 2 when it very clearly said Y in venue 1, or if estoppel is limited to what a party said in any one case. If it’s the former, than MERS has admitted it is not the
    Now there are a couple cases of interest just now. Both are in NV.
    One homeowner represented by attorney Jeff W. has argued the assignment by MERS-read-member-self-assignment bifurcates the note and dot because the note is allegedly owned by a trust while the dot has been assigned to the servicer, as I recall. It’s on my list to see whaddup in that case. It is either in that case or another wherein, which is noteworthy, the bankster admitted “MERS” may not assign the note, as it (again read member) purported to do in the assignment of the dot. I ref’d this before here. I have the oral arguments but haven’t been able to listen to them yet. This makes, also, the assignment a false instrument, not the harmless nothing the bankster tries to make it out to be.
    Notwithstanding the arguments right now in NV, how is MERS our friend in this regard? In the Arizona MDL, the court ruled against bifurcation where MERS is named in the deed of trust. I haven’t read MERS pleadings in that case, either, but if history is a clue, MERS argued it is a mere nominee.
    Which reminds me. The Karl case…….

  13. About Mers Corp

  14. For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to a trust arrangement and generally, payments other than interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the Certification, but you must provide your correct TIN.
    Property foreclosed on 12/5/2008. The “Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustees” document prepared in Virginia date 12/5/2008. Signor is Vice Pres of MERS black seal stamp says Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. Corporation Delaware SEAL 1995. Is this stamp valid?

    MERS allowed for your claim to prevail up until the number of back payments were in excess of your means. MERS is prima fascia evidence of your lenders loss of the least color essential to foreclosure where a robust condition is lacking.

    Look at the President’s announcement for HARP. No matter how underwater you may be HARP will assist you. Make six payments subject to (hear that one before) and no appraisal…using a value substitution program (MERS and the deleted substitution of like collateral).

    MERS addresses the requirement for Robust conditions – Without new loans you cannot foreclose – get it. Under GAAP the fixed coupon dollar REPO transaction is reported as a security sold under agreement of parties to repurchase (financing) and not a sale. This is due to accounting FASB IASB rules whereby the sale and contemporaneous purchase of a similar security is a wash that should not disturbed the original transfer –

    (There is always more than meets the eye…M.Soliman)

  15. Comments – According to NAILTA, “[A]ny consideration of creating a new MERS without having successfully resolved the well-known flaws and inadequacies of the previous MERS system is a foolhardy exercise. S.B. 1834 proposes no solution to the prevalent flaws with the current MERS system. Instead, it merely seeks to establish MERS 2.0 based upon the MERS in use on the date of enactment.”

    M.Soliman – Here it is… crying out to the fact MERS should be left alone while it does work to your disadvantage – they are asking it not be changed. Why –

    . . . .there is no transfer of the note and loan as you are falling for the bait. NO TITLE COMPANY HAS EVER LOST A CENT ON MERS. I TESTIFIED TO THIS IN DEPOSITION FOR THE CA APPELLATE IN A REMAND. (not 4 hours not 12 hours but TWO DAYS of interogation by opposition…)

    No title company ever lost a cent on MERS and they want it left alone for a reason . The changes are perhaps BofA fears for release of proprietray information from terminated employees or whistle blowers.

    Change MERS and it will end these consumer right of claims while the claims are still valid. Believe me- MERS has standing and you prevail with the correct argument if MERS Corp is joined to your case – it will be absolute chaos in the courtroom.

    Cc: File

    Not an attorney and only an attorney is licensed to provide you with assessment of your rights. Call your state bar for details and information

  16. MER Corp is vulnerable by your acknowledging their standing as a beneficiary. Not by refuting it.

    Let’s try it another way —EMBRACE MERS – ***JOINDER***

    This is the proprietary advantage Bof A discusses in their 10K. This issue will not go away. Try to imagine the frustration when you consider or learn too late that the court likely knows this and your case is dead as you enter the venue.

    I make no appeal to anyone to listen here. Unless you see it in a case decided with application to every jurisdiction and with effect to every mortgage originated in the last 10 years – you won’t hear the message.

    By then it’s too late. Tooooooo late!

    MER Corp is vulnerable by your acknowledging their standing as a beneficiary. Not by refuting it.

    Your debt collectors are announcing Mers vulnerability for which you’re opposing it with a QWR. You oppose MERS and your kill your own standing to bring claims. By its own admission Mers Corp is the beneficial interest in the obligation and for benefit of the beneficiary, and therefore is the beneficiary. Believe me!

    Just park this comment somewhere safe and revisit it when someone out there eventually prevails.


  17. I just wrote to the president. Told him to fire Geithner, Holder, Bernanke, Walsh and Shapiro. Said there were plenty of fully-qualified unemployed people out there ready, willing and able to fill those positions. I also told him no more bailouts and let the banksters eat their own cooking. I said it was time we go Iceland on the banksters and claw back ill-gotten gains. Time to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate. Time to clean house.

    Yes, its just wishful thinking and it will fall on deaf ears, as he’s corrupt to the core too; but it made me feel good to unload.

  18. Abby – thanks for posting that easy link. I followed it and put in my two cents. It took all of about 3 minutes. Now I’m going to cut and paste that link and encourage everyone I know to object. Of course I encourage everyone here to do the same. It IS outrageous as you said. And like I said, following abby’s link and writing something only takes three little minutes. I wrote something like this to the pres: “Please don’t disgrace your office and our country by allowing our post offices to close.” THREE minutes, that’s all it takes to use the right you still have to a voice.


    So, the US Government bailed out the banks to the tune of trillions, yet our US Postal Service tracing its roots to 1775 and one of the few US Government agencies explicitly authorized by the US constitution is waffling with debt and budget problems to the point now where US Post Offices are going to be closed and just announced is that the US Postal Service will NO longer deliver first class mail on the next day.

    I strongly suggest you email President Obama -here is the place to go to do that:

    AND contact your local Congressmen to complain.

    Think about how outrageous this is!! Bailing out banks (profiteers tied to the stock market) but NOT our own United States Postal Service.

    Please express your outrage.

  20. Thanks you Trespass Unwanted and Ms Foster !

  21. Prosecuting Wall Street part 1, 00:14:28 and select from a list for part 2, 00:12:43.;storyMediaBox

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free and independent state, jure divino


    property foreclosed on 12/5/2008. The “Deed of Appointment of Substitute Trustees” document prepared in Virginia date 12/5/2008. Signor is Vice Pres of MERS black seal stamp says Mortgage Electronic Registeration System Inc. Corporation Delaware SEAL 1995. Is this stamp valid?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: