ERIC HOLDER REPRESENTED MERS?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SUBMITTED BY MARY MALONE

Reuters and all Americans need to know that the reason there have been no prosecutions is: Attorney General Eric Holder is implicated in the cover-up.

Before joining the Obama White House, Holder was a partner at the white shoe law firm, Covington & Burling, who represented MERSCORP.

In 2006 Covington & Burling wrote the legal opinion that justified MERS business model to the lending and title industries.(letter on scribd.com)

AG Holder effectively squashed all FBI investigations into actions of TBTF banks in 2008, when he arrived in office. No actions were initiated until the s#$% hit the fan in October 2010, when robo-signing scandal bubbled up in national media.

Then, Holder directed his top lieutenants, Covington & Burling alumnae all, to launch investigations into mortgage fraud. The FBI was told to partner with the Mortgage Banking Association, the trade group for TBTF banks.

The FBI, in partnership with MBA, created a definition of mortgage fraud which does not include banks. It narrowly focuses on consumers and flim-flam artists.

So, if the definition of mortgage fraud does not include banks, banks will not be investigated.

Instead, the Federal Government has partnered with the trade agency whose members committed $11 trillion heist to arrest the people who who defrauded by the banks.

Ain’t crony capitalism grand?

34 Responses

  1. Everyone
    AG Holder needs to resign. Congress has seriously asked for his resognation with the Fast and Furious program that has murdered several agents ouw fellow citizens of the USA. Fast and Fusious was to follow the track of weapons that the AG’s office was supposed to track into the hands of the Mexican Cartel. Unfortunately the millions $$ of weapons purchased in the USA were lost track of and have been used in certain murders in Arizona. The Attorney General Holder claims to have been kept in the dark about Fast and Furious according to his testimony. Congress is not satisfied with Holder’s testimony. Obama does not need this baggage. Holder needs to resign NOW!
    Stan
    Wi.

  2. I am pleased this is finally getting the attention it deserves. I sent emails to several major media outlets months ago but have never seen any coverage of this incredibly important issue with obvious conflicts of interest by AG Holder as well as complicity by Pres Obama. By the way, IndyMac’s Perry who has been charged with securities fraud is represented by DC lawyer Jean Veta of guess what firm – Covington and Burling. Under SuperLawyers, Veta is listed as defense of white collar and banking crimes. Add this to the current conflicts of interest. Shouldn’t these issues give cause to removal of Holder from his position? And what about Pres Obama? Our congress tried to impeach Pres Clinton for lying about a sexual encounter. Which of the two issues – lying about sex or complicity in not prosecuting obvious banking crimes that directly affect every citizen – should be considered a serious miscarriage of the oath of office? Everyone I tell about this link between the oval office, DOJ and the MERS involvement in our financial crisis are totally shocked and outraged.

  3. I found the Covington & Burling legal opinion on the MERS site and it does not apply to what MERS does. MERS does not operate as a repository of eNotes. As we all know, MERS is the nominee on paper of mortgages. The letter appears below and it looks like Covington & Burling got conned into writing a legal opinion for MERS which MERS relies on in pitching its “service” but the legal opinion does not address what MERS actually does.

    ON COVINGTON & BURLING Letterhead and available on MERS site at
    http://www.mersinc.org/newsroom/trade.aspx
    Watch out for footnotes which are in the same type face in the text and are noted on each page at the bottom.
    Here it is in rich text format:

    DC: 1418337-1
    October 21, 2004
    VIA HAND DELIVERY
    Sharon McGann Horstkamp, Esq.
    Vice President and Corporate Counsel
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    1595 Spring Hill Road
    Suite 310
    Vienna, VA 22182
    Re: Validity of MERSCORP, Inc.’s eRegistry System
    Dear Ms. Horstkamp:
    You have asked us to evaluate MERSCORP, Inc.’s (“MERS”) system of registering certain transferable records – namely, electronic mortgage notes (“eNotes”) – with respect to the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce (“E-SIGN”) Act and the model Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”). Specifically, you asked us to consider whether either E-SIGN or UETA restricts the types of entities that may operate an
    eNote registry (“eRegistry”)1, as well as whether the eRegistry as designed by MERS is consistent with the requirements of E-SIGN and UETA for the establishment of a system reliably
    evidencing the transfer of interests in a transferable record.
    Based on our review of E-SIGN and UETA, and our understanding of the design of the MERS® eRegistry, it is our view that the MERS® eRegistry as designed satisfies the requirements of both E-SIGN and UETA for the establishment of a system reliably evidencing the transfer of interests in transferable records. Moreover, neither statute restricts the types of entities that may operate a system for transferable records; in particular, absent state law to the contrary, neither statute limits operation of such a system to a trust company or similar institution.
    1 The MERS® eRegistry is a system of record that identifies the owner and custodian of registered eNotes.
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 2
    In these circumstances, we conclude that MERS may permissibly operate the eRegistry as designed. Our detailed analysis is set forth below.
    I. Background
    A. E-SIGN and UETA
    UETA represents the product of an effort by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (“NCCUSL”) in the late 1990s to rationalize widely disparate state laws affording legal status to electronic records and signatures. Although a
    number of states adopted the UETA template for recognizing these records, the states often made significant changes to the model statute, thereby undermining NCCUSL’s goal of uniformity in
    interstate commerce. Congress intervened in 2000 by adopting E-SIGN2 to overlay the inconsistent patchwork of state laws governing electronic records and signatures. Notably, Congress did not seek to preempt UETA.
    3 Rather, it provided that any state law adopting UETA, in the form
    approved by NCCUSL, may “modify, limit, or supersede” E-SIGN.4
    2 See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000, Pub. L. No.
    106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq.).
    3 “[S]tate law can be preempted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an
    intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within the field is preempted. If Congress has
    not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law . . . .” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S.
    238, 248, 104 S. Ct. 615, 621 (1984) (internal citations omitted). Congress may express its intent to preempt state law explicitly (i.e., in the language of the statute) or implicitly (e.g., where
    compliance with federal and state law is impossible, where Congress has legislated comprehensively, or where there is implicit in federal law a barrier to state regulation). See La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 476 U.S. 355, 368, 106 S. Ct. 1890, 1898 (1986).
    4 15 U.S.C. § 7002(a)(1).
    In short, in adopting E-SIGN, Congress expressed no intent to “occupy the field” of regulation of electronic records. However, it nevertheless preempted state law to the extent such
    law either modifies UETA from the form in which UETA was adopted by NCCUSL in 1999, if such modification conflicts with E-SIGN, or otherwise is inconsistent with E-SIGN. See id.; see
    also 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)(1) (providing that an electronic record or signature relating to virtually any transaction “may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in
    electronic form,” notwithstanding any other law or regulation). Although at least one court has, in dicta, questioned the authority of Congress to preempt state law “in respect to transactions not
    in interstate commerce,” People v. McFarlan, 744 N.Y.S.2d 287, 293-94 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. (continued…)
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 3
    Both E-SIGN and UETA contain rules regarding so-called “transferable records.” UETA defines a “transferable record” as an electronic record that would be deemed to be a note
    or document for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) if it were a physical “writing,” provided that the issuer of the note or document has expressly agreed that it is a
    transferable record.5 E-SIGN defines “transferable record” similarly, although it limits its application to loans secured by real property.6 In light of these definitions, an electronic
    mortgage note may qualify as a “transferable record” under either statute and therefore is valid consistently nationwide.
    While both E-SIGN and UETA pertain to records that would be governed by the U.C.C. if they were paper instruments, the statutes also expressly state that they do not apply to
    records that are, in fact, governed by the U.C.C.7 In addition, the requirement that the issuer of the electronic record expressly agree that the record is a “transferable record” operates “to assure
    that transferable records can only be created at the time of issuance by the obligor.”8 Thus, a paper note cannot later be converted to a “transferable record” for purposes of the statutes.9 For 2002), no court in the four years since E-SIGN’s enactment has upheld a constitutional challenge to E-SIGN. It is our sense that a constitutional challenge to E-SIGN’s preemptive authority
    would face an uphill challenge; E-SIGN’s design indicates that Congress carefully balanced state and federal authority in devising the legislation, and struck a compromise that, we believe, is
    likely to seem to most courts to be within Congress’ Constitutional authority.
    5 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) § 16(a).
    6 15 U.S.C. § 7021(a)(1).
    7 Specifically, the statutes state that they do not apply to a transaction or record to the
    extent it is governed by “The Uniform Commercial Code other than Sections 1-107 and 1-206, Article 2, and Article 2A.” UETA § 3(b)(2); accord 15 U.S.C. § 7003(a)(3).
    Notably, the statutes exclude negotiable instruments, which are governed by Article 3 of the U.C.C. Under the U.C.C., a “negotiable instrument” is a “written” instruction or undertaking
    to pay money to another under certain conditions. See U.C.C. §§ 3-102(a), 3-103(a)(6), 3-103(a)(9), 3-104(a). Concerned about impacting the broad systems relating to payment
    mechanisms for such instruments (specifically, checks), the drafters of UETA limited the statute to apply only to electronic equivalents of paper notes and documents. See UETA § 16 cmt. 2
    (emphasis added).
    8 UETA § 16 cmt. 2.
    9 Id. (stating that “the issuer would not be the issuer, in such a case, of an electronic record”). Rather, the issuer must set forth its agreement to designate the electronic record as a
    “transferable record” in the electronic record itself or, arguably, in a contemporaneously issued record. Id.
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 4
    the most part, however, the substantive provisions of E-SIGN and UETA incorporate the U.C.C. provisions that would apply if the transferable record were a paper instrument.10
    B. MERS® eRegistry
    MERS has created and operates a national eRegistry that establishes the functional equivalent of an official promissory note holder for the real estate finance industry. Specifically, as we understand it, eNotes are registered with MERS and uniquely
    identified in the eRegistry for tracking and verification. The eRegistry does not store the actual eNote. Rather, the eNote is stored by a legal fiduciary (“eCustodian”) in a secure electronic
    repository (“eVault”). However, the eRegistry stores information regarding the owner (or “controller”) and the location (or “custodian”) of the eNote. In turn, the eNote contains specific
    language referring to the eRegistry to identify its controller. In this manner, the eRegistry enables the rightful eNote owner to demonstrate conclusive legal control of the transferable
    record.
    Further, it is our understanding that, in performing initial registration of eNotes, the eRegistry:
    􀂃 confirms the validity of the issuer;
    􀂃 confirms that the registration dataset is complete;
    􀂃 confirms that the eNote is not already registered by assigning a unique Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) and hash value to each eNote;
    􀂃 creates a unique registration record; and
    􀂃 sends a confirmation to the issuer.
    Likewise, in recording a transfer of eNotes, the eRegistry:
    􀂃 validates both the transferor and transferee;
    􀂃 compares the hash value stored in the eRegistry with the value submitted by the transferor; and
    10 In brief, the person who controls a transferable record has the same rights as a holder of an equivalent paper instrument under the U.C.C., including, where applicable, rights as a holder
    in due course. See UETA § 16(d); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(d). Likewise, the obligor is entitled to the defenses that it would have under the U.C.C. See UETA § 16(e); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(e).
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 5
    􀂃 requires confirmation by the transferee within a specified time period after the transfer request.
    Finally, we understand that the eRegistry performs additional functions, including
    (i) storing information about the location of an eNote; (ii) regulating access to the eRegistry by a controller or its delegatee; and (iii) providing functionality for handling the modification or
    liquidation of an eNote.
    As discussed below, the foregoing elements of the MERS® eRegistry are consistent with the criteria of UETA and E-SIGN for establishing a system that reliably evidences the transfer of interests in a transferable record.
    II. ANALYSIS
    A. The eRegistry As Designed Satisfies the UETA/E-SIGN “Safe Harbor” E-SIGN and UETA supplemented the traditional concept of “possession” of a paper instrument by a holder with an analogous concept of “control” over an electronic record.11
    “Control” in these circumstances serves as “the substitute for delivery, indorsement and possession” of a paper instrument.12 In order for such control of an electronic record to be given
    meaning and effect, it is necessary pursuant to UETA and E-SIGN to establish a single, unique version of the electronic record with respect to which the rightful holder may assert “control.”
    Specifically, under E-SIGN and UETA, “[a] person has control of a transferable record if a system employed for evidencing the transfer of interests in the transferable record
    reliably establishes that person as the person to which the transferable record was issued or transferred.”13 The statutes also contain a “safe harbor” provision, enumerating criteria
    according to which a system may be deemed as a matter of law to establish reliably the identity of the controller, provided that the criteria are satisfied. These criteria are:
    • a single authoritative copy of the transferable record exists that is unique, identifiable, and unalterable (except as provided below);
    • the authoritative copy identifies the person asserting control as the person to whom the record was issued or (if the authoritative copy indicates that a transfer has occurred) the person to whom the transferable record was most recently transferred;
    11 See UETA § 16 cmt. 3.
    12 Id.
    13 UETA § 16(b); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(b).
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 6
    • the authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the person asserting control or its designated custodian;
    • copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the controller;
    • any copy that is not the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as such; and
    • any revision of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or
    unauthorized.14
    Given the novelty of these issues, we think it likely that courts will seek to measure any eRegistry system against these criteria. Moreover, we expect that most courts will be reluctant to conclude that a system falling outside the safe harbor nonetheless reliably
    establishes “control” for purposes of the statutes. In this regard, we believe that the design of the eRegistry system created by MERS, in which MERS operates a single, authoritative registry of
    controllers nationwide, satisfies the foregoing safe harbor criteria.
    Specifically, the eRegistry system, as we understand it:
    (i) identifies a single authoritative copy of the transferable record that is unique,
    identifiable, and unalterable – which the system accomplishes by storing information regarding the controller and the custodian of the authoritative copy of the eNote;
    (ii) verifies that the person asserting control is the person to whom the record was issued or to whom the transferable record was most recently transferred – which the system
    accomplishes by confirming the validity of the issuer upon initial registration, and validating both the transferor and transferee in the event of any transfer;
    (iii) ensures that the authoritative copy is communicated to and maintained by the person asserting control or its designated custodian – which the system accomplishes by storing
    information regarding the controller and the custodian of the eNote, and requiring validation and confirmation for any transfer request;
    (iv) ensures that copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy can be made only with the consent of the controller – which the system
    accomplishes by requiring validation by the controller for any transfer request, as well as confirmation by the transferee within a designated time period;
    14 UETA § 16(c); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(c).
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 7
    (v) ensures that any copy that is not the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as such – which the system accomplishes by storing information regarding the location of the eNote, regulating access to the eRegistry, and requiring confirmation from the controller for any requested transfer; and
    (vi) ensures that any revision of the authoritative copy is readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized – which the system accomplishes by assigning hash values, MINs, and registration records to each eNote, which are verified upon any transfer request. Notably, although the safe harbor provisions require that the system “identif[y] the person asserting control,”15 the transferable record itself need not identify the individual by name. Rather, “[t]he control requirements may be satisfied through the use of a trusted third party registry system.”16
    As we understand it, in the MERS® System the authoritative copy of the eNote identifies the rightful controller by reference to the eRegistry. Based on our review of the legislative history and commentary to UETA and E-SIGN, it is our view that this design is
    consistent with the statutory criteria that the system “idenift[y] the person asserting control;” indeed, the comments to UETA state that “[a] system relying on a third party registry is likely the most effective way to satisfy the requirements of [the safe harbor provision] that the transferable record remain unique, identifiable and unalterable, while also providing the means to assure that the transferee is clearly noted and identified.”17
    Accordingly, it is our view that MERS’s eRegistry system establishes a reliable method for identifying the controller of a transferable record through the use of a trusted third
    party registry system, and that its design is consistent with the requirements of E-SIGN and UETA.18
    B. Entities Permitted to Operate eRegistry
    Separately, neither UETA nor E-SIGN imposes any conditions upon the types of entities that may establish or operate a system evidencing control over transferable records. Likewise, nothing in the background or implementation of E-SIGN or UETA suggests any such conditions. Indeed, E-SIGN and UETA were drafted in reaction to early state electronic signature laws, which generally required electronic signatures to be certified by a certificate
    15 UETA § 16(c)(2); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(c)(2).
    16 UETA § 16 cmt. 3.
    17 Id. (emphasis added).
    18 Id. (“The control requirements may be satisfied through the use of a trusted third party
    registry system.”)
    MERSCORP, Inc.
    October 21, 2004
    Page 8
    authority licensed by the state. The statutes were designed to remove such government control in order to minimize restrictions on the use of electronic records and signatures.
    We note that a state potentially could adopt legislation restricting operation of mortgage note registries to trust companies or similar entities;19 however, such a law would only be valid if it applied equally to electronic and paper mortgage notes.20 We are unaware of any state having imposed such a requirement, nor are we aware of any particular public interest or constituency that supports imposing such a requirement.
    In these circumstances, we conclude that MERS may permissibly establish and operate the MERS® eRegistry for recording interests in electronic mortgage notes.
    * * *
    We trust that the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any
    further questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
    Very truly yours,
    Mark E. Plotkin
    19 See UETA § 3(d) (“A transaction subject to this [Act] is also subject to other applicable substantive law.”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 7001(b)(1) (providing that E-SIGN does not “limit, alter,
    or otherwise affect” any rights or obligations under any other law or regulation).
    20 See UETA § 7(a); 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a) (providing that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form).

  4. a poster for nakd capitalism
    Paul Tioxon says:
    November 30, 2011 at 7:47 am
    The promise of the internet seems to be in allowing the global system of capitalism to function with even fewer people but also, without its traditional partner the state. The type of services offered by MERS, DOCX etc. is THE virtual market place streamlined of all disparate and costly local laws and fees, which are seen as barriers to efficiency and profit growth. Not all industries and sectors lend themselves to the utopian fantasies of corporate liberty or virtual markets with uniform features that provides for countless ongoing savings by reducing the variety of specific practices from corporation to corporation to one seamless back office of uniform standard operating procedures.
    What puts the real in real estate is land, and the improvements built on it, also known as people’s homes.
As Michael Olenick points out:
    “Robosigning is not a victimless crime. The reason we have careful, document-intensive processes for handling real property is that it is the foundation of a nation’s wealth. A home is most families’ biggest asset. The practice of having independent parties verify the validity of signatures dates back to the 1677 Statute of Frauds.”
    Land is the container of the nation state. Territorial boundaries define the nation state. It is the macro chunk of real estate that you can not just cross into without the consent of the government of the land of the free and the home of brave. To do so makes you an illegal immigrant, a smuggler, or worse, an invading enemy. The boundaries of land define the nation and they define who can have regular and free access to use and dispose of, as you please, openly and unencumbered, a piece of the land, along with any improvements, structures built on it. The ideal of personal property is so strongly felt, the even the momentary breach of the use of that space for a burglary makes a family feel violated, as if they were personally handled by the robbers.
    For private property to even exist, its publicly recorded and publicly verified ownership must be entrusted to a public agency which can confirm or deny actual ownership. Your right to own property can not be a secret, known only to you, or else you could not defend your claim to ownership. We legitimate one another in our communities but the open knowledge that property is privately held, not secretly held. It is others acknowledging our claim that gives us our privacy, that others know that they can’t just wander into each others home. That we knock before entering, that we call before we come over. But we know whose door we are knocking on and whose phone # we are calling. Privacy is not secret to the public, but public respect of individuality that not only allows someone to be free, alone with themselves in their home, but alos the decider and controller of what goes on in that space.
    The banking industry doesn’t give a shit about society. It wants what other industries have in the form of tremendous productivity gains from the information revolution. In the chemical industry, there is web base platform called ELEMICA. It was started over 11 years ago as primarily a business platform for the streamlining of the regular purchases of chemicals from one chemical company to another. Apparently in that industry, the biggest customers of chemical companies are other chemical companies. They frequently order the same basic compounds over and over again. Why not standardize purchasing and create a uniform automated market for all of this routine back and forth.
    http://www.elemica.com
    Today, it serves a huge customer base to manage the supply chain for manufacturers beyond the chemical industry, but the huge efficiencies from the internet are apparent. And MERS is just another one of those dotcom ideas that had traction with real paying customers. Unfortunately, the internet does not lend it self culturally, socially and legally to every institution we use to create and sustain our social order. While almost every start up bizplan contest usually revolves around some techie innovation or internet website portal for something or another, it does not mean the killer app will work in the real world, without killing the world of bricks and mortar it was meant to replace, or just improve upon by saving a few bucks.
    MERS just won’t work because it is a virtual solution to a territorial industry. And slapping a website and a nifty bizplan bizspeak gloss does not escape the reality that they are plain, old fashioned claim jumpers. And you know what they do to claim jumpers in these parts?

  5. Mary Malone here.
    The link in the earlier post has expired. Please click onto this one instead:

    I’ve archived a slew of articles and research at
    https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=0AA1F8EA3D902284&id=AA1F8EA3D902284%21103

    Check out the Covington & Burling folder, MERS elegal Opinion is the document some of you have requested.

    If you need anything else, please give me a shout.

  6. Mary Malone here.

    Apologize for leaving folks in the lurch –

    I’ve archived a slew of articles and research at:
    https://skydrive.live.com/cid=0aa1f8ea3d902284&Bsrc=EMSHGM&Bpub=SN.Notifications&id=AA1F8EA3D902284%21103

    The Covington & Burling folder includes the firm’s legal opinion that justifies MERS business model. It is named, MERS eregistry legal opinion, saved in PDF format. I’ve also included bios for Eric Holder and his top lieutenants.

    Holder was a partner at Covington & Burling from 2000 to 2008. The MERS opinion was issued in 2004. So, he was a senior executive at the firm during the time the MERS legal opinion was issued.

    This legal opinion is cited in all MERS marketing materials from 2004 to the present.

    Clearly Covington & Burling played a major role in sanitizing MERS violation of 400 years of settled property law.

    Holder and his top lieutenants have a conflict of interest and need to be held to a higher standard.

    Please read the documents in the Covington & Burling folder, along with all those included in the document dump and feel free to use them in stopping the state AG’s from signing off on the global banking settlement.

  7. they have another guess a coming. The law is the law and 250 years of title regularity will not be set aside for politics, The law will not adapt to politics but the politics will adapt to the law. If not we are all lost and no one will get a clear deed and no basis of property will have any value.

  8. Eric Holder??? A source of conspiracy??? Bad news.

    Need ways to get around him. Now that we know this, need to address it.

  9. @ Enraged

    and will be HONORED to solicit signatures from “THE PARK” on Wall Street.

  10. @ Enraged

    “I’d be more than willing to set it up, post it everywhere and send it to everyone.”

    I’ll fight everyone here for first signature place 🙂

  11. linda,
    What did you try to record? email me: cariemac9@gmail.com

  12. 60 Minutes is doing a decent job of exposing the bank and bank-related fraud and the personal injuries, yet any persons who try to emancipate themselves from the debt-slave system by becoming secured party creditors or sovereigns or whatever you call them, and tries in earnest to pay their debts via whatever means available to them, is chastised as undermining the American way of life, held out as a terrorist, dangerous, thrown in jail or killed, as a threat to society.

    Any person who rallies around the flag is even a suspect.

    I don’t get it.

  13. Our County Recorder in Norwalk, CA would not let us record any documents whatsoever. We tried twice. We were given a paper inferring that if we come back to record documents there could be a problem.

    Nice people, huh?

  14. Merry Christmas!!!

    This battle belongs to the Lord. All things work together for the good of those who love the Lord and who are call according to his purpose. Each and Everyone of us has a God given purpose stay strong and encourage yourself. We must Believe we can do all things though Christ who strengthens us. I know this fight is not easy however, I don’t believe he brought us this far to leave us.

  15. Would someone please post the legal opinion of Covington Burling. I have looked for it on scrib.com. This letter must be made available quickly. Wisconsin Congressional Representative Tammy Balwin has sponsored a Resolution to call for the FBI investigation of bank fraud and a denial of the immunity being contemplated by the state AGs’ proposed settlement. At the very least, a special prosecutor must be appointed if Eric Holder has a provable conflict of interest. Please, someone, post the letter. Congress needs to see it.
    Thank you,
    Attorney Wendy Alison Nora
    admitted to practice in Wisconsin and Minnesota

  16. So all of us who are being foreclosed on are screwed. We are going to loose the battle no matter what. So lawyers don’t know all of the loop holes around this and people just threw their money away on legal fees. I knew that this was going to happen. Now we have no where to go and no where to live. America has gone to hell.

  17. @carie

    “RE-DEED THE PROPERTY AND THE LAND TO YOURSELF!!! LAWFULLY!!!”

    There ought to be a way. Asking Santa. File a doc that says clouded title and I want my money back from anyone who pocketed it unlawfully. Does 1-1000 have at it. Make my day. Prove your ownership. Where’s the note? States ought to do it for every single mortgage.

  18. RE-DEED THE PROPERTY AND THE LAND TO YOURSELF!!! LAWFULLY!!!

    What say ye—E.Tolle?

  19. Yes, Eric Holder was an attorney at Covington & Burling. From Michael Powell and Gretchen Morgenson at The New York Times:

    This high-speed system [MERS] made securitization easier and cheaper. But critics say the MERS system made it far more difficult for homeowners to contest foreclosures, as ownership was harder to ascertain.

    MERS was flawed at conception, those critics say. The bankers who midwifed its birth hired Covington & Burling, a prominent Washington law firm, to research their proposal. Covington produced a memo that offered assurances that MERS could operate legally nationwide. No one, however, conducted a state-by-state study of real estate laws.

    “They didn’t do the deep homework,” said an official involved in those discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he has clients involved with MERS. “So as far as anyone can tell their real theory was: ‘If we can get everyone on board, no judge will want to upend something that is reasonable and sensible and would screw up 70 percent of loans.’ ”

    County officials appealed to Congress, arguing that MERS was of dubious legality. But this was the 1990s, an era of deregulation, and the mortgage industry won.

    “We lost our revenue stream, and Americans lost the ability to immediately know who owned a piece of property,” said Mark Monacelli, the St. Louis County recorder in Duluth, Minn.
    MERS admits that part of their reason for existing was to save money that would otherwise have gone to recording officials. In my book, that’s theft, and in and of itself should be enough of a reason to shut MERS down. But we all know that the real reason for MERS is to change the way property is handled and has been handled for centuries. While we sleep, they’re re-writing the laws across the land.

    Forever, basically, one could always find out who was the mortgagee of their loan. The need for this is not some quaint antiquated idea, some notion that should be viewed as “the way things were in the good old days”. It’s critical to anyone who owns property, and it would be simple to argue that our constitution points to that basic right as among the most important of rights. Little if anything was as paramount to the framers as property rights.

    As Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier point out in their book Decision in Philadelphia, those men had “an almost religious respect” for property, that “the rights of property were inviolable,” and that the Constitution itself is the embodiment of the rights of property as developed primarily by John Locke in the 17th century.

    Most startling of all, perhaps, was Forrest McDonald’s observation in his book Novus Ordo Seclorum that property rights were so important to the Framers that all but 4 of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention placed their protection behind only liberty itself as the sacred charge of government.

    Skip ahead to today. As Neil Garfield once wrote, “No mortgage can be foreclosed without the mortgagee producing the note and stating that it is in default and showing [proving] that this is so. In securitization, this is NEVER possible.”

    While we were busy watching the NFL, MERS came along and started the upheaval of all that our framers wrote. Everyone’s familiar with Carpenter v. Longan, which has been hardwired in property law for good reason since just after the Civil War. It states:
    However, for there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned.

    And yet, due to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in Jackson v. MERS, a lower court recently ruled for a motion to dismiss in favor of B of A, and against a homeowner who was attempting to find out the holder of the note in foreclosure, by stating the court’s interpretation of Jackson as follows:

    “….a reading of the opinion can leave no doubt that Jackson holds that a mortgagee is not required to have any interest in the promissory note in order to foreclose.”

    Say what? But what happened to Longan? To put that another way, the borrower doesn’t have a need to know WTF’s going on with their property….it’s none of their business, it’s a profit model that doesn’t concern the homeowner. It’s the same mindset that once sold slaves for $20 a head and farmed them till they dropped, and also decided that all that land just sitting there that the Native Americans occupied would be better off owned by (so called) civilized people.

    Another court in MN ruled likewise when it said:

    “Any disputes that arise between the mortgagee holding legal title and the assignee of the promissory note holding equitable title do not affect the status of the mortgagor for purposes of foreclosure by advertisement.”

    So, as we can clearly see, what the framers of the constitution thought was one of the most important rights of man is quietly being usurped in courts around the nation. Recently, Michigan’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of MERS as well:

    “….the Supreme Court clearly stated that MERS, by virtue of its status as mortgagee, has an ownership interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, and therefore has standing to bring a non-judicial foreclosure action.”

    After the Michigan ruling, MERS said this:

    “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms MERS business model and will allow the Michigan real estate industry to get back to business as usual,” said Bill Beckmann, president and CEO of Merscorp, the parent company of MERS. “This will allow homeowners to resolve title issues and buyers to move forward with the purchase of foreclosed properties, which is good for neighborhood stability,” Beckmann continued.

    When Beckman states that “this will allow homeowners to resolve title issues…” what he’s really saying is that from now on, ex-homeowners can rest assured that some bank or another took their home, and say it with certainty. Another thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that the “buyers moving forward with the purchase of foreclosed properties” will be whacking a hornet’s nest that will sting them for as long as they pretend to own the home. It will take 100 years to resolve the titling issues resulting from MERS, and you can take that to the bank.

    Earlier this month, the Connecticut Supreme Court said:

    “MERS holds mortgages, given in good faith for the purpose of securing a debt, for the security of creditors. To hold such mortgages void would be to frustrate the intentions of both mortgagors and mortgagees.”

    No, what’s really frustrating to mortgagors is having one’s house removed while the age old laws of the land are ignored and re-written.

    And just recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that having just the promissory note is sufficient for notice of trustee’s sale. They said:

    “While failing to record an assignment could make the assignee vulnerable to challengers from others with interest in the property, the court said, Arizona law expressly says unrecorded instruments are binding.”

    Now who is something like a faulty assignment really going to affect? How common could this be, considering the business model that MERS constructed? I mean, they rely on around 20,000 or so unpaid people to update their database, what could possibly go wrong?

    Well, I’ll tell you. Two separate banks own my loan, or believe that they do. Two separate assignments of mortgage point to each of these entities as having not only ownership in my property, but the right to foreclose as well. And notice how the previously mentioned court opinions so often affect people in non-judicial states. So the burden is on the homeowner to file suit to stave off certain foreclosure, a homeowner who is more often than not already asset stripped to the bone due to economic conditions, and is hardly capable of defending against the full frontal assault about to bear down on them by a team of well versed and well paid attorneys for the banks (paid for by zero interest taxpayer money thanks to the Fed, which it just so happens is operated by the very same banks that own MERS).

    So it’s my burden to prove the unmistakable lunacy behind this legal impossibility, that two banks own my loan, or lose the home that I built with my own bare hands. Not to mention that Fannie Mae admits to owning my loan, even though there’s zero transparency on that anywhere. So I am, as part owner in Fannie Mae (as a taxpayer) foreclosing on myself, all the while funding my opposition’s legal team (once again as a taxpayer through ZIRP), with little hope of defeating such odds and such heavily armed foes, partially due to the fact that the my Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has disallowed the funds that Congress approved in TARP going to homeowners who find themselves in trouble (that’s me again), all with the tacit approval of my president, who’s largest campaign contributors are the very same banks that are foreclosing on me and who own and operate MERS and the Fed, who made it all possible. How much fun is that?

    What would our framers of our constitution say to this? Exactly this:

    “Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.”
    Thomas Jefferson.

    My goal, although exceedingly difficult and uphill all the way, is to not only defeat these banksters who are attempting to take my property to add to all the lands and all the money that they’ve already stolen from the American people through their covert operations at the Fed and MERS and backdoor bailouts, but to see to it that the person who claimed an agency relationship when he transferred, in the name of MERS, my mortgage to two separate banks in their feeding frenzy….to see that he goes to prison for securities fraud. No small task that.

    I personally don’t buy the necessity to prove intent in a fraud case like this. If fraud was committed, it is by definition intentional. How can a person unintentionally defraud another out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the rights to property that our framers so cherished? If the perpetrator is so incompetent at business that he doesn’t realize he is defrauding someone, he’s too fucking stupid to be in business in the first place.

    True story. Recently in my state, a group of homeowners had to defend their property rights against their local city government, in a land use issue. The citizens kept addressing the city council with the constitutionality of the issue. Finally, the city commissioner said, “Quit bringing up the constitution!” The citizens were aghast. He continued, “I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed”.

    In Jackson v. MERS, the court writes, “Looking at the mortgage banking industry today, it is apparent that in many mortgage transactions a George Bailey no longer sits in the corner office of the Building and Loan Association in Bedford Falls.” That’s correct. Instead, a computer whirs away in Reston Virginia deciding the fate of millions of borrowers. And my guess is that the algorithm’s been skewed by its creators.

    We owe it not just to ourselves, but to our children’s children to fight MERS and the issues surrounding property and agency law in courts across the land with as much vigor as we would against any foe threatening the United States. As Supreme Court jurist Hugo Black once wrote, “Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.” Fuck MERS and the banks it rode in on.

    And Merry Christmas to all.

  20. @Louise ,

    Eric Holder is involved and has been involved in many bad things .. try reading the following…

    *********
    Why Eric Holder covered up the 1995 Trentadue murder

    http://www.coachisright.com/why-eric-holder-covered-up-the-1995-trentadue-murder/

    **********

    http://dissentradio.com/tf/000COURT_021607_NICHOLS.pdf

    This is an extremely enlightening file .. I encourage everyone to read it… the Oklahoma City story you know from the government and media reports is just that … a story.

  21. @Carie,

    Have you personally contacted your AG? OWS? The White House? Your senator/rep? BBB? Even the most irrelevant outfit might be able to put a word out. Don’t disregard anythong or anyone. You never know.

    Only by putting constant pressure will we obtain any kind of a moratorium.

    Takes a lot of work. Most of them won’t get back to you. But at least, you have the satisfaction of having knocked at every door. And remember: “Knock and you shall receive” doesn’t mean that you just knock once and wait. You got to keep at it and keep at it and keep at it.

    Hard work. It steals your life for a while. You know what I mean…

    Merry Christmas

  22. were gonna need more pitchforks!

  23. MORATORIUM ON FORECLOSURES NOW—

    CRIMINALS ARE STEALING HOMES—

  24. Neil
    Do you have the opinion written that MERS Mocel won’t work? Why doesn’t Holder retire?
    Stan
    Wis

  25. The banksters put in a minority figure to do the dirty work for them.
    A Vote for Obama is a vote for the banksters.

    NEVER AGAIN

  26. Obama + Holder = Pure Evil.
    Obama is the Demagogue for the Banksters. and the forces of evil in our society.

    NEVER AGAIN

  27. Eric Holder seems to be a “loser” from every angle. He is involved in running illegal firearms to Mexico and now we see he is up to his eyeballs in still more krap with MERSCORP, the author of illegal recording of mortgages, notes and titles and ripping off the states for their recording fees.

    Holder needs to be exposed big time. He should also be charged with crimes, tried and sent to prison. Unfortunately, we see way too may lawyers involved with the big shell game.

  28. It’s called chrony socialism, not chrony capitalism or the banks and auto manufacturers etc. would have been allowed to fail and we’d be in a far better position to actually star to recover by now. Otherwise, how true, what would you expect from this administration.

  29. Once again, the cat is out of the box. Those are the news items that need to be brought to public viewing via media such as 60 minutes. Letely, 60 minutes has been pushing for prosecutions. I’m sure they’ll continue.

    In the meantime, nothing stops us from starting a petition directly with the White House to fire Holder, Geithner, have Bernanke resign, fire all the bankers sitting at the Federal Reserve and call Bill black to service. Takes 25,000 signatures. It can be done if we unite. Until we do, nothing will be accomplished to clean up Washington.

    http://www.change.org/how-to-write-a-petition?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GST_USER_GEOT2_SCHT1_PERT1&utm_content=ae_how-to-write-an-online-petition

    If someone such as DCB or Tnharry was willing to write it (and it has to do with removing all bankers influence out of Whasington and government and starting to prosecute the banks), I’d be more than willing to set it up, post it everywhere and send it to everyone.

  30. And Eric Holders behavior is a surprise to anyone here? Why do you think he was a shoe in as AG….he’s a puppet!

  31. Hey Barrons, how about writing up a story on front page next saturday–Harpers cover is a great reat this week. You can do better.

  32. At last a reasonable explanation. Another “60 Minutes” expose mayhap?

  33. Swarm the banks – STFU , and yes , I will be happy to make you . Merry Christmas

  34. Hey Neil, you have a typo on the very last line of your article.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: