MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT: “NOTHING PLUS NOTHING EQUALS NOTHING”

Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products

===========================

For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

===========================

SEE 2015-08-10-0001

NOTHING PLUS NOTHING EQUALS NOTHING

On February 25, 2015 the Minnesota Supreme Court considered several of the conventional theories advanced by the banks in favor of their right to foreclose. And the Court also considered the procedural and substantive issues surrounding rescission in Minnesota whose statutes closely resemble rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

The court rejected the bank’s arguments and points out that even the dissent on the court made the same mistakes as the lower courts, which were obviously in a state of utter confusion. It should be noted that this decision was rendered approximately 1 month after the Jesinoski v. Countrywide decision. It is apparent that the Supreme Court of Minnesota was heavily influenced by the unanimous Supreme Court decision governing rescission under the Truth in Lending Act.

In the nearly 8 million foreclosures that have been allowed by the judicial system using deeply flawed reasoning, the banks have convinced the courts that piling up paperwork essentially creates rights even if none existed before. The Minnesota Supreme Court simply stated that nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If you start with nothing then any successor to any paperwork that was executed also gets nothing. This is well settled law.

The court also considered the issue of cancellation or rescission of a transaction in the light of a statute that is clear on its face. Since there are few appellate decisions since the Jesinoski was rendered in January, we must refer to the Supreme Court of Minnesota in this case as at least a starting point.

Starting with the fact that the statute was clear, the court concludes that no court had the authority or jurisdiction to “interpret” the statute. For at least 8 years before Jesinoski the banks convinced thousands of judges in hundreds of thousands of decisions to ignore a rescission or cancellation of the loan documents that was, according to the statute, effective upon mailing.

The banks convinced the courts to read into that statute the rules governing common law rescission, which clearly conflict with the statute. If the statute is clear then it is by definition not ambiguous. And if there is no finding of ambiguity in the statute, the court has established, whether it likes it or not, that it has no power or jurisdiction to change the outcome based upon the opinion of the judge as to which party should win. If the judge proceeds to interpret the statute anyway, it is a nullity. Here again we have the application of the simple formula proposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, to wit: nothing plus nothing equals nothing. In the case of TILA Rescission the issue is closed, to wit: the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court in Jesinoski was that the statute is not ambiguous and thus not subject to interpretation by ANY judge.

 

The third line of defense by the banks slight of hand — they make the transaction so complex and convoluted that it is impossible for the judge or even the homeowner or his attorney to follow it. The judge then relies upon the more sophisticated party (the bank) to clear up the complexity. But as we have recently seen in several Florida cases, and now as we see in the Minnesota Supreme Court, the judicial system has made an about-face and is now questioning whether there is any substance behind the paperwork and the complexity raised by claims of securitization which have been revealed in most cases to be false. Like the unanimous US Supreme, there is unanimity of findings and conclusions by regulators, legal scholars, economists, financial experts, and litigators, with tens of billions of dollars in settlements that were made public and hundreds of billions of dollars in private settlements. The conclusion is that the securitization failed — i.e., that it never really happened.

The Minnesota Supreme Court plunged into the midst of the complexity offered up by the various transactions involved in this particular case. The court succeeded in simplifying the matter by applying well settled law with no need to interpret anything or redefine anything.

While the facts of this case vary from the usual rescission issues under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, the principles applied remain the same.

However, the court places heavy emphasis on the time limits imposed by the statute for the exercise of the cancellation or rescission of a transaction. It may be expected that most courts will do the same. But it is also true that both the majority and the dissent seem to be in agreement that if the rescission was recorded the issue would have been less in doubt than it appeared in the court record.

Because it wasn’t in issue. this court has not addressed procedural issues, to wit: who has the burden of proof on the issue of timeliness? Under TILA Rescission it is the real creditor (the only one with standing). How do we know that? We know it because the borrower is not required to prove or allege timeliness. The rescission is effective when mailed. Practice Hint: In an action to enforce the rescission, the grounds for rescission need not and should not be in the allegations — the issue is limited to the sending of the rescission letter and the fact that the party being sued is attempting to use the void note and mortgage.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the party being sued (servicer, Trustee etc) for permanent injunction from using the void note and void mortgage may NOT raise issues of timeliness of the rescission because they have no standing to do so. The actual creditor, if there is one, would be the only party able to do that. That would be an action for wrongful rescission. Note that in Jesinoski, Justice Scalia makes the point that the statute makes no distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions. Hence “effective when mailed” means exactly that and the loan contract, note and mortgage are all canceled and void. If the issue of timeliness was still “out there”, then the rescission would not be effective upon mailing — which is exactly the point Justice Scalia was making. He didn’t say that the creditor could not file a lawsuit to vacate the rescission based upon timeliness. But that lawsuit would need to allege, first and foremost that the pleader had standing as a party who is being financially injured by the rescission. As I see it, no other party could raise those issues because they lack standing.

The most interesting point about this is that the lawsuit for enforcement of the rescission will not likely be against the creditor because the creditor is unknown. We only have access to the information given to us by self-appointed intermediaries who are claiming a right to enforce the note and mortgage. But since the rescission is effective upon mailing by operation of law, the effect is to make the note and mortgage void (as well as canceling the loan contract — if there is one). So the only defense from intermediary parties sued (to prevent them from using the note and mortgage) to the lawsuit for injunction or enforcement of the rescission is that the rescission was already vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is essentially never the case. This is why rescission is such an effective discovery tool as well, to wit: in order to challenge the “wrongful” rescission the challenge must be made by the party who has something to lose — like the current liability to disgorge all the money paid by the borrower, deduct all finance charges, and pay to the borrower all the money paid to third parties as compensation for origination of the loan.

Hence the lesson drawn from this case is that the rescission should probably be recorded in the county property records as quickly as possible. In Florida it would appear that this would be done by attaching a copy of the rescission letter to the notice of interest in real property and then recording the entire instrument with the exhibit. Combining the two issues of timing and recording, it would appear that if anything in the notice of rescission or cancellation of the transaction refers to the date of consummation of the transaction, that the rescission could be void on its face for not complying with the statutory time periods for action by the borrower. A reference to the date of consummation in the letter giving notice of the rescission or cancellation of the transaction would also appear to be an admission that the transaction was in fact consummated.

The lesson to take away from that analysis is that the date on which the documents were signed is not necessarily the date of consummation. The date of consummation would be when the loan was funded and the liability of the borrower first arose as a result of the funding. IN our first year of law school we are taught that the liability of the borrower does not commence when he signs paperwork; the liability arises when the borrower gets the money. If the funding didn’t come from the party claiming to have rights to enforce the loan by virtue of what was written on the note or the mortgage or deed of trust, then we go back to nothing plus nothing equals nothing. No loan plus assignment of loan equals no successor, no servicer and no owner of the loan.

That would mean that the borrower would prevail under either one of two theories, which you see developed in this case in Minnesota. It is either No Consummation or Rescission. Either the borrower is entitled to nullification of the entire transaction and nullification of the instruments that should never have been released from the closing table and were procured by at best a failure to disclose and at worst an intentional misrepresentation, or the borrower would prevail for having cancelled or rescinded the transaction.

The forth line of defense from the banks has always been that the borrower is seeking a “free house.” No such thing occurs in the event of either nullification of the original instruments or cancellation of rescission of the original instruments. The party to whom the money is actually owed still has claims and might even have claims for an equitable interest in the mortgage that was recorded. But it does not have claims to simply exercise the rights of the creditor as expressed in the note and mortgage because the actual creditor has no legal interest in the note or in the mortgage. AND THAT would require a court order AFTER a party enters the picture and alleges that it is the actual creditor and can prove it.

No money plus note plus mortgage equals no valid lien and no foreclosure. It is positively astounding that after 8 million foreclosures we are still arguing about a well settled principle of law, fairness, equity and justice — in order for the paper to be used there had to be an actual transaction with the parties IN THAT CHAIN.

 

The banks have bootstrapped their misuse of investor money together with false claims of securitization to create the illusion that some or all of them had some actual rights; but nowhere have they ever come forward and done what any creditor would do when challenged about the transactions: “here they are, with canceled checks and wire transfer receipts. Next question?”

A fifth issue emerges which the court could have avoided but instead met the issue head on. “It is of course elementary that delivery of a deed is essential to a transfer of title…Delivery of a deed is complete only when the grantor has put it beyond his power to revoke or reclaim it…An undelivered deed cannot transfer legal title even to a bona fide purchaser, because lack of delivery renders the deed void…In this case, although Graves physically transferred a quick claim deed to Wayman, delivery did not occur because Graves never put the deed beyond his power to revoke or reclaim it.”

The court concluded that since “Graves retained the power to revoke or reclaim the deed during the statutory cancellation period…which made deliver impossible during the cancellation period,” that delivery was never completed. The court concluded “without delivery of the deed to Wayman, the common law treats the quick claim deed as void.”

 

The reason this is important is that it is a hidden issue in all of the closings that have occurred, especially over the last 10 years, where loans were ostensibly approved and funded. The note is released for anyone to do anything they want to do with it usually within a few days or a few weeks from the date that the borrower executed the mortgage instruments. The mortgage itself is not only released but it is recorded. The problem with that is that it is incontestable that the borrower retains a right to rescind for the first 3 days on any grounds at all, and that the 3 days starts to run from the date of consummation.

If the party on the note as payee and on the mortgage as mortgagee did not consummate the transaction with the borrower and instead was a sham nominee or party to a table funded loan, then it would follow that the 3‑day period under the Truth in Lending Act had not commenced running. It would also follow that the 3‑year limitations in the Truth in Lending Act had also not commenced running. And the reason is the Minnesota court’s statement that “nothing plus nothing equals nothing.” It is obvious to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and should be obvious to the rest of us, that it would be completely inappropriate for a third party to the transaction to act as though the endorsements and assignments of improperly executed and improperly drafted instruments would somehow create rights that did not exist before.

If the banks would want to assert rights in connection with the meeting at which the borrower executed the usual pile of documents it would first need to acknowledge the fact that it was the real party in interest and to prove that fact. This would amount to an admission of a pattern of conduct that is described by Regulation Z as predatory per se. Anything that is predatory per se, is obviously against public policy. Anything that is against public policy is obviously evidence of unclean hands. A party with unclean hands may not obtain equitable relief. Since foreclosure is the most extreme remedy under civil law, and is a remedy generally considered to be equitable in nature, then it follows that no party with unclean hands should be allowed to foreclose.

The idea that any of this produces a free house for the borrower is wrong. In the first place, the borrower has invested a great deal of money usually in connection with the property on which there is a claim of an encumbrance. In many cases the property has been in the family for generations and would not be subject to mortgage but for the knock on the door from one of the tens of thousands of loan agents that were selling loan products from door to door. But assuming that the current system of foreclosures becomes subject to the conclusions of the courts in the judicial system that foreclosure is impossible, that does not mean that the source of funding may not make a claim upon the homeowner for repayment of the money that was used to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan.

In fact it is quite obvious now that we know that at least half of all the people who went into foreclosure were asking for modifications, that the losses attendant to the actual loans could have been minimized at the same time as keeping homeowners in the homes and enabling them to recapture over time their equity. In fact the evidence is clear that most homeowners would be happy to execute entirely new and valid paperwork with a party who was in fact the real creditor.

The Minnesota court decides that even if you are a bona fide purchaser because you paid valuable consideration for the mortgage in reliance on what appeared to be the facts, you still get nothing if you paid for something where the grantor did not possess an interest that could be conveyed. This is bad news for the banks. They introduce undated endorsements and undated assignments and powers of attorney and various other instruments in court laying paper upon paper upon paper making it appear, that the greater weight of the evidence shows that they are in fact possessed of the claim to enforce the note and mortgage.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If their chain upon which they are relying in their foreclosure is based on a non‑existent transaction or an incomplete transaction, then they have no power to do anything anymore than the original party did. The only exception to this might be in the event that a party was introduced as a holder in due course. But that would mean that the party described as a holder in due course paid real value for the rights expressed in the note, under circumstances where it was acting in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. Such an allegation might be made, but appears impossible for the banks to prove.

DELAWARE TO MERS: NOT IN OUR STATE!

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…


CAL. AG DROPS OUT OF TALKS WITH BANKS: AMNESTY OFF THE TABLE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: California has approximately a 1/3 share of all foreclosures. So Harris’ decision to drop out of the talks is a huge blow to the mega banks who were banking (pardon the pun) on using it to get immunity from prosecution. The answer is no, you will be held accountable for what you did, just like anyone else. As I have stated before when the other AG’s dropped out of the talks (Arizona, Nevada et al), this growing trend is getting real traction as those in politics have discovered an important nuance in the minds of voters: they may have differing opinions on what should be done about foreclosures but they all hate these monolithic banks who are siphoning off the lifeblood of our society. And there is nothing like hate to drive voting.

This is a process, not an event. We are at the end of the 4th inning in a 9-inning game that may go into overtime. The effects of the mortgage mess created by the banks are being felt at the dinner table of just about every citizen in the country. The politics here is creating a huge paradox and irony — the largest source of campaign donations has turned into a pariah with whom association will be as deadly at the polls as organized crime.

The fact that so many attorneys general of so many states are putting distance between themselves and the banks means a lot. It means that the banks are in serious danger of indictment and conviction on criminal charges for fraud, forgery, perjury and potentially many other crimes.

IDENTITY THEFT: One crime that is being investigated, which I have long felt was a major element of the securitization scam for the “securitization that never happened” is the theft of identities. By signing onto what appeared to be mortgage documents, borrowers were in fact becoming issuers or pawns in the issuance of fraudulent securities to investors. Those with high credit scores were especially valued for the “cover” they provided in the upper tranches of the CDO’s that were “sold” to investors. An 800 credit score could be used to get a AAA  rating from the rating agencies who were themselves paid off to provide additional cover.

But it all comes down to the use of people’s identities as “borrowers” when in fact there was no “Lending” going on. What was going on was “pretend lending” that had all the outward manifestations of a loan but none of the substance. Yes money exchanged hands, but the real parties never met and never signed papers with each other. In my opinion, the proof of identity theft will put the borrowers in a superior position to that of the investors in suits against the investment bankers.

NO UNDERWRITING=NO LOAN: There was no underwriting committee, there was no underwriting, there was no review of the appraisal, there was no confirmation of the borrower’s income and there was no decision about the risk and viability of the so-called loan, because it wasn’t about that. The risk was already eliminated when they sold the bogus mortgage bonds to investors and thus saddled pension funds with the entire risk of loss on empty “mortgage backed pools.” So if the loan wasn’t paid, the players at ground level had no risk. Their only incentive was to get the signature of the borrower. That is what they were paid for — not to produce quality loans, but to produce signatures.

Little did we know, the more loans that defaulted, the more money the banks made — but they were able to mask the gains with apparent losses as an excuse to extract emergency money from the US Treasury using taxpayer dollars without accounting for the “loss” or what they did with the money. Meanwhile the gains were safely parked off shore in “off-balance sheet” transaction accounts.

The question that has not yet been asked, but will be asked as prosecutors and civil litigators drill down into these deals is who controls that off-shore money? My math is telling me that some $2.6 trillion was siphoned off (second level — hidden — yield spread premium) the investors money before the balance was used to fund “loans.”

When all is said and done, those loans will be seen for what they really were — part of the issuance of unregistered fraudulent securities. And you’ll see that the investors didn’t get any more paperwork than the borrowers did as to what was really going on. The banks want us to focus on the the paperwork when in fact it is the actual transactions involving money that we should be following. The paperwork is a ruse. It is faked.

NOTE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT: FOLLOW THE MONEY. IT WILL LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH AND THE PERPETRATORS. YOUR EFFORTS WILL BE REWARDED.

California AG Harris Exits Multistate Talks
in News > Mortgage Servicing
by MortgageOrb.com on Monday 03 October 2011
email the content item print the content item
comments: 0
The multistate attorneys general group working toward a foreclosure settlement with the nation’s biggest banks suffered a blow Friday, when California’s Kamala Harris announced her departure from negotiations.

Harris notified Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and U.S. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli of her decision in a letter that was obtained and published by the New York Times Friday. According to the letter, Harris is exiting the talks because she opposes the broad scope of the settlement terms under discussion.

“Last week, I went to Washington, D.C., in hopes of moving our discussions forward,” Harris wrote. “But it became clear to me that California was being asked for a broader release of claims than we can accept and to excuse conduct that has not been adequately investigated.”

“[T]his not the deal California homeowners have been waiting for,” Harris adds one line later.

Harris, who earlier this year launched a mortgage fraud task force, says she will continue investigating mortgage practices – including banks’ bubble-era securitization activities – independent of the multistate group.

“I am committed to doing as thorough an investigation as is needed – and to taking the time that is necessary – to set the stage for achieving appropriate accountability for misconduct,” she wrote.

Harris also told Miller and Perrelli that she intends to advocate for legislation and regulations that increase transparency in the mortgage markets and “eliminate incentives to disregard borrowers’ rights in foreclosure.”

Harris’ departure is considered significant given the high number of distressed loans in California. In August, approximately one in every 226 housing units in the state had a foreclosure filing of some kind, according to RealtyTrac data.

Minnesota Prepares to Sue A Debt Collection Agency: Robosigning

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

“The Minnesota attorney general, Lori Swanson, accused Encore of fraud, saying it had filed false affidavits to collect consumer debt that was not owed or had been already paid off.”

HUGE POTENTIAL EFFECT ON FORECLOSURES

EDITOR’S COMMENT:

The significance here is not just that robo-signing was used, which violates even common sense rules of evidence. It is the fact that the false affidavits were used to collect debts that were not due or had already been paid. This is the same as the current foreclosure mess, where pretenders are using false representations, fabrications, forgeries and perjured testimony to collect on non-existent debt, and debt which has already been paid by parties who have expressly waived any right to subrogation, which means they paid, but they did not purchase the receivable — to protect themselves from being called “lenders” or being subject to claims from homeowners for fraudulent or predatory lending.

As you will see from the description below, this opaque construct of conflicting “deals” and “trades” created a context in which the borrower’s obligation would be paid, regardless of whether the homeowner made the payments or not. The pretender lenders stepped in to the void created by this scheme to enforce a void note, void mortgage and an obligation in which it was neither the lender nor the purchaser of the receivable.

The pretenders are able to do this under the noses of the people who were the actual lenders because the investors don’t want to accept any responsibility for the fraudulent and predatory lending and documentation.

On a basic intuitive level it would seem that if a borrower received the benefit of funding of a loan, that the borrower was responsible for paying it back, regardless of what back-room deals were made. But in the words of Renaldo Reyes, Chief Asset Acquisition Officer (i.e., “trustee”) for Deutsch bank, the whole thing is COUNTER-INTUITIVE. That is why the courts are having so much trouble with these foreclosures — AND THAT IS THE SOLE REASON FOR THE USE OF ROBO-SIGNERS, FABRICATED DOCUMENTS AND FORGERIES TOGETHER WITH PERJURED TESTIMONY.

If the creditor was actually named, the real issues would come out and the issue would be completely reframed — because the the real creditor doesn’t want the house or the foreclosure, and in many cases is still getting paid. This leaves a “floating obligation owed to nobody” which is what the pretenders are exploiting and using on their balance sheets as “assets.”

Payment came from third parties who expressly waived rights of subrogation — it is right there in the insurance, credit default swap and buy-out agreements in the bailouts. That was intentionally done to remove the insurers or counterparts from any potential liability for fraudulent or predatory lending claims. But you can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end. The payments were received by agents of the investors — and the servicers keep on paying the payments to assure the imposition of absurd fees and costs. So at no time is the borrower’s debt to the investor-lender ever in default despite representations to the contrary in court. AND THAT IS WHY THEY USE ROBO-SIGNING, FABRICATION AND FORGERY — BECAUSE IF THEY WENT TO THE ACTUAL CREDITOR, THE DOCUMENT WOULD NOT BE SIGNED. SAME THING WITH CREDIT CARDS, STUDENT LOANS AND OTHER CONSUMER CREDIT WHICH INCIDENTALLY WAS MOSTLY SECURITIZED AS WELL.

Minnesota Prepares to Sue A Debt Collection Agency

By REUTERS

Minnesota’s attorney general accused the Encore Capital Group of cutting corners by filing “robo-signed” affidavits in debt collection lawsuits, the same practice for which banks have come under fire in home foreclosures.

Encore shares fell as much as 10.3 percent before closing with a 3 percent loss on the day.

The Minnesota attorney general, Lori Swanson, accused Encore of fraud, saying it had filed false affidavits to collect consumer debt that was not owed or had been already paid off.

Encore is one of the nation’s largest debt collection companies, and often buys debt from credit card companies.

The allegations follow an Ohio federal judge’s preliminary approval on March 11 of a $5.2 million class-action settlement of similar claims against Encore’s Midland Funding unit.

An Encore spokesman, Mike Huckman, had no immediate comment.

Robo-signing is a term coined to describe employees’ signing of litigation documents without reviewing their contents. All 50 state attorneys general are investigating robo-signing and other practices by banks in the mortgage industry.

Ms. Swanson said such practices were pervasive in debt collection. Ben Wogsland, a spokesman for Ms. Swanson, said she was investigating about a half-dozen other companies that buy debt.

Encore, which is based in San Diego, had through year-end invested $1.8 billion to buy 33 million accounts with a face value of $54.7 billion, according to its annual report.

Ms. Swanson wants the Ohio court to clarify that the proposed class-action settlement does not bar government agencies from pursuing similar litigation. She is seeking to file her lawsuit in a Minnesota state court, Mr. Wogsland said.

MERS History Re-Re-Revised

Several comments have been posted in addition to other information about MERS which is bringing the entire MERS issue over the brink of the absurd. Who, what where is MERS? Write in with your MERS stories. Take note that we are dealing with at least four entities that I am now aware of —MERS, MERSCORP, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (note plural), Mortgage Electronic registration System, Inc. (note singular). Who are they? What are they in this shell game of “bankruptcy remote vehicles and why are the courts so deaf to the obvious implications of this game on the quality of title on each and every one of the 60 million homes that MERS alleges to have in its data base? Is our judiciary being run by politics — the one branch of government that is supposed to be independent of the executive and legislative branches that have been so useless in this crisis?

In a classic reverse of fortunes, the bad guys have taken control of the dialogue and using legal technicalities and their formidable size and names to impress the judge that it is the hapless borrower who is trying to get away with something on a legal technicality. In a perversion of lady justice, these people take homes that satisfy no obligation and keep the proceeds as a tip for keeping their mouths shut about the pornographic profits earned by Wall Street when these financial products were sold upstream to investors and down stream to homeowners. It is hush money to maintain the cone of silence about the huge profits earned on the down side when the mortgages went into default, just as they were always planned to do.

One reader writes in about Ohio: “I find it very interesting that here in Summit County Ohio, MERS USED to be listed as the Plaintiff in foreclosure actions within our court system. NOW, they are always listed as a Defendant. It’s like playing a game of MONOPOLY with my little brother here. When he found himself on the losing end of the game, he simply changed the rules.They CANNOT have it both ways.”
Another reader wrote in that in Florida the ONLY way MERS is registered to do business is as registered agent to receive service of process. If that is true their representations in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures has been false, fraudulent and flagrant. But of course we know that isn’t the only reason their representations have been false, fraudulent and flagrant.

Yet Minnesota seems to be sensitive to the banking interests, passing laws and interpreting statutes to give MERS status it was never meant to have. Bypassing those annoying provisions of the 5th and 14th amendment about due process, and 500 years of common law, they allow MERS to foreclose on a home and keep the house distributing the title and proceeds anyway it wants even though no MERS entity has EVER put one dime into the transaction and even though MERS is a total stranger to the transaction other than being named, without its knowledge but with its consent in tens of millions of real estate closings.

And California is allowing Judges to abandon 500 years of common law in allowing someone who is a stranger to the transaction to make claims at the cost, detriment and prejudice to the real parties to that transaction. Further, California continues to allow the procedural shell game in unlawful detainers wherein they use the law that was meant to be used in normal evictions and misapply to foreclosures in which the actors are impostors, blocking the homeowner from access to the courts or the right to be heard, and preventing the exercise of his/her rights to due process.

How do we know? Because if you go to the MERS website they tell you. And what they tell you is that they are a bankruptcy remote vehicle to be utilized in evading or avoiding laws on taxes, recordation, fees, and reporting. They tell the banks not to worry, they will never make a claim for the mortgage or the note or the obligation. They say they are only a bookkeeping service.

And from other sources we know they have about 17 employees, they have an automated attendant system to deputize anyone who knows how to access their system, and that ANYONE can sign as an officer of MERS even if none of the 17 people who work there ever heard of you or ever will hear of you.
It’s a shell game, and lawyers and Judges should be concentrating on this not because it is a legal technicality but because if we are a nation of laws, the protection of ALL interested parties should be our paramount concern. In each and every legal action neither the borrower nor the actual lender who advanced the cash for the loan is part of that equation.

In a classic reverse of fortunes, the bad guys have taken control of the dialogue and using legal technicalities and their formidable size and names to impress the judge that it is the hapless borrower who is trying to get away with something on a legal technicality. In a perversion of lady justice, these people take homes that satisfy no obligation and keep the proceeds as a tip for keeping their mouths shut about the pornographic profits earned by Wall Street when these financial products were sold upstream to investors and down stream to homeowners. It is hush money to maintain the cone of silence about the huge profits earned on the down side when the mortgages went into default, just as they were always planned to do.

This isn’t hard to understand. It is hard to accept. It is a challenge to us as citizens regardless of our political persuasions, to break up the oligopoly that controls Washington in BOTH political major parties and reinstate government for the people and by the people. I’m doing my part, what are you doing?

%d bloggers like this: