Foreclosuregate – JPMorgan Chase and MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

So yesterday, early in the day, the associated press announced LINK – JPMorgan exits electronic mortgage tracking system…

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase’s CEO says the bank has stopped using the electronic mortgage tracking system used by major financial institutions.

JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, made the announcement in a conference call Wednesday to discuss the bank’s quarterly earnings.

Shortly thereafter some of the stories started to change throughout the internet…

Then CNBC Diana Olick reports LINK – JP Morgan Chase Drops Electronic Mortgage Clearing House…

It was news to me, and to the AP wires, but a spokesman confirms, JP Morgan Chase no longer uses MERS, the electronic mortgage clearing house, that is at issue now in foreclosure litigation across the country. They dropped MERS in 2008.

So I asked Kelly why they dropped MERS. First he said, “In truth some courts won’t accept MERS for foreclosures.” But then he said it was “a matter of policy.” I’m sure they don’t want to come right out and say, well, we’re not exactly sure MERS is all that legal.

So, now my question to you Mr Kelly…

If JPMorgan Chase dropped MERS in 2008, how the heck is your internal Robo-signer Barbara Hindman signing off on hundreds of thousands of documents on behalf of MERS transferring the mortgages to JPMorgan Chase?

LINK – Pigs Ass: Chase Dumped MERS Two Years Ago. (Send out an APB! Rogue JPMCB Robosigner, Barbara Hindman, on the loose!)

From Urban Dictionary: The term “pigs ass” is used in many situations. It is most commonly used when someone claims something is not true.

First you have got to get a load of this propaganda spin! “Chase doesn’t register retail-originated loans with MERS. Many of the correspondent loans we purchase are already registered on MERS as are some of the loans that we service for investors,” says spokesman Tom Kelly. CEO Jamie Dimon kind of mentioned it off-hand on the earnings call this morning without really elaborating. (here)

Oh, so Chase just dabbles in MERS?

Remember people, presumption of falsity. Everything that spews from these American predators, presumption of falsity!

Here are some assignments of mortgage in the name of MERS. What of these, Mr. Dimon? Featuring Barbara Hindman, robosigner for JP Morgan Chase, there are hundreds of thousands of these nasty things, signed by her & her coworkers, filed in land records across America! See how she signs, under the veil of MERS, for many financial institutions? See how she is masquerading as an agent of the grantor when she is really employed by the grantee? See how she’s just robosigning papers which effectuates the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars from any-entity-at-all to JP Morgan Chase?

  1. assignment1.pdf
  2. assignment2.pdf
  3. assignment3.pdf
  4. assignment4.pdf
  5. assignment5.pdf

If five examples aren’t enough, head over to LINK – to check out twenty more…

Remember, this is an employee of JPMorgan Chase robosigning papers while masquerading as an agent of the grantor (Multiple defunct financial institutions) when she is really employed by the grantee. (JPMorgan Chase)

For more on Barbara and others just like her, see my Guide to Looking Up Public Records for Fraud below.

The Guide was written over a year ago but the information is still relevant.



Guide to Looking Up Public Records for Fraud
[scribd id=24348139 key=key-yisubprs9n8ziiyh0bg]

6 Responses to “Foreclosuregate – JPMorgan Chase and MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems”
  1. My friend filed for Bankruptcy, and upon checking the local clerk’s office,she found that the entity that she thought was her mortgage holder, had changed beginning with Countrywide, Washington Mutual, MERS, then J.P.Morgan, Chase. She thought that her mortgage holder was Washington Mutual, however she was shock that now Chase states that they are the mortgage holder. What is going on with the entities and is this legal, when the consumer does not know who their mortgage holder is. And is Mers the servicing agent. Strange, if you can explain, please do.

  2. filotea says:

    In the rush of trying to make as much money as possible, in such a short period of time, I think the lenders simply forgot to consult their corporate lawyers! Or they really think they can pull off anyything under their hats!
    Many lessons to be learned by everyone in all the sectors involved. There are no short cuts. If it is too good to be true: then be wary. Self interest is tantamount to self destruction. How about the old adage of simply caring for each other’s welfare!
    Good luck to all of us. We float and sink together! [At least for most of us].

  3. Pat says:

    Is the dragging of feet with regard loan modifications related to this? Doesn;t the investor need to acknowledge a modification before it can be permanently approved? If no one knows the owner of the note how can they obtain approval?

  4. mannfm11 says:

    That is funny, the grantor being signed by a representative of the grantee. I have been looking in the Dallas county records and pulled up a few. Back to back, they were changing trustees. One was signed to change for GMAC, though it was a MERS Deed of Trust, the next signing for MERS. Both were signed by the same woman and notarized by the same person. This was the first one I had seen where the MERS signee hadn’t called themselves a Vice President. I saw another one where they were changing trustees and the signer was one of the new trustees. Just throw the old guy out and put a new one in. Maybe they will let me be trustee, where do I sign?

  5. wintermute says:

    Fantastic research as always. Well done.

    My thoughts. It appears that a major problem with MERS is that it is a faux company. It is really just a computer system masquerading as a company. This is the reason it has no employees. Each of the shareholder banks must provide running costs for the shared computer system which is the essence of MERS.

    Computer systems cannot own property. MERS incorporation is a little more than an artifice to make it a legal entity so it can own property. Technically fine, But it is a sham construction which the judiciary should view as such.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *