Letter to AG Martha Coakley | Bristol County Board of Commissioners: MERS Cost Registries MILLIONS of Dollars

Bristol County Board of Commissioners: MERS Cost Registries MILLIONS of Dollars

Taunton — The Bristol County Board of Commissioners sent a letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley on Tuesday concerning the “deceptive practices” of a mortgage process streamlining corporation, which it says cost county registries millions of dollars in the last decade.

The commissioners say Mortgage Electronic Registration System, commonly known as MERS, skirt public recording laws about recording mortgage assignments with the Registry of Deeds. The board says MERS is able to do this by keeping a secretive recording system for its participants that is not accessible to others.

The Board of Commissioners is asking Coakley to investigate and determine a course of action.

The commissioners said MERS, for more than a decade, has acted as a “nominee” for lending institutions that participate in its operation. After recording an original mortgage from a borrower to the lender with local registries, MERS does not do so thereafter, the letter says.

Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/archive/x1132534471/Bristol-County-Board-of-Commissioners-MERS-cost-registries-millions-of-dollars#ixzz1NOYPx0aA

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
8 Responses to “Letter to AG Martha Coakley | Bristol County Board of Commissioners: MERS Cost Registries MILLIONS of Dollars”
  1. Pamela says:

    Are these people just waking up or what?Talk about being dense and not listening to whats being told to them.They act like kudos and congrats. are inline for them with this great little idea.What a joke we must look like to the whole rest of the world.!!!!!

  2. debi J says:

    It seems as though the AG’s are in a coma. The truth of the matter is they have no idea what to do. They know there has been vast fraud upon our records, the courts and the people. Our civil rights are being taken away and the AG’s are helping the banks and lawyers to do so. Our private information is being exposed to every servicer out or in the country. This is truly fraud upon america and no one has the balls and brains to do it. Pam bondi in Florida is a perfect example of bait and switch when u buy the seat. She doesn’t think defrauded homeowners should get a principle reduction…why? I’m sure she is in on the scheme too. Or can she be illiterate or stupid ? Which is it. Fraud upon america is eazy to see. Trillions were stolen from the people by the people we so called elected to represent “us”. How embarrassing that some one like pam is pretending she’s watching out for floridians. MERS has been defrauding people since its inception. This information is easy to access but no one wants to do it. I guess it takes our court system to go bust to really get the courts attention right?! Or is it another lame excuse to take more civil rights away? Why were the counties allowed to invest in subprime? Who did those contracts and made those decisions? That’s so reckless and shame full please Read those reports on risk and the perspectus would be good. The prospectus details risk and there’s 400 plus pages of it normally. I could go on forever I am sorry. We need to hold the AGs accountable or get them off the field and start over. I have a feeling they are sucking on our budgets too and do nothing but avoid the truth. I’m sick of this really. They are ALL involved in the largest ponzi scheme designed specifically to drain all the wealth from the nation. How did they do so far??? When is it too far gone to recover?? I feel like it may be too late. The radiation has contaminated it all. The government the courts the officials the bankers the insurers the servicers(ie LPS) the reo managers (ie LPS)the information tracking companies ie (lPS) and the judges….oh and of course the brokers…..Americans we’re duped–once by the brokers who changed loans @ the table and now by our own government who helped evolve this scheme to cover up their greed and irrational decisions ?? WITH OUR MONEY? This is so Insane. I will pray that this AG has some brains and some balls because if someone doesn’t take control of this its game over. Enough now and may MERS rot in HELL with its makers and meet the DEVIL face to face. . Debi. 561-389-9339

  3. Tim Bryant says:

    Now if only Martha Coakley would actually do something!!!

    • Debi j and Tim

      The SEC just opened a Whistleblower tip sheet. Keep complaining. I know it is very frustrating but throughout history the rightous were always in the minority. What sense does it make for nom principle reductions. Last house they got from me said they needed $112K from me but siold it for $30K

      Stan
      Wis.

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Here is the SEC’s response… They only care about investors…

        Dear Mr. Bryant:

        I appreciate your taking the time to talk to me and provide me with information regarding your concerns about mortgages that are securitized through mortgage-backed securities. The US Securities and Exchange Commission is always interested in hearing from members of the public, and you may be assured that the matters you have raised are being given careful consideration in view of the Commission’s overall enforcement responsibilities under the US federal securities laws. It is, however, the Commission’s policy to conduct its inquiries on a confidential basis — so this may be the only response that you receive regarding the matter.

        The Commission conducts its investigations on a confidential basis to preserve the integrity of its investigative process as well as to protect persons against whom unfounded charges may be made or against whom the Commission determines that enforcement action is not necessary or appropriate.

        If you want to learn more about how the SEC handles inquiries and complaints, please visit the SEC Complaint Center at http://www.sec.gov.

        I also note your email asking for exemption from Section 29 of the Exchange Act dated April 8, 2011 and subsequent emails regarding the same matter. Section 29 addresses the validity of contracts that are made in violation of the securities laws. As discussed in our phone conversation, a waiver of Section 29 would not result in the relief you are seeking—namely, an exemption for borrowers from any obligations under a mortgage loan. Under federal law, the SEC’s jurisdiction is limited to requiring full and fair disclosure of material information about transactions so that investors can make informed investment decisions.

        We appreciate your interest in the work of the Commission. We also appreciate your taking the time to send us your suggestions and comments. We hope that you will bring to our attention any other matters which you believe might warrant our interest. To the extent that you would like to report a tip or complaint, please consider directly forwarding that information through the SEC’s Website (http://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml) dedicated to efficiently processing such information.

        Sincerely,

        Katherine Hsu
        Chief
        Office of Structured Finance

      • Tim Bryant says:

        This was my reply to that…

        Thank you for your response. I still take the stance that RMBS contracts are made in violation of Securities laws. The applicable law of mortgage contracts are the laws of the jurisdiction in which the property resides, not New York or wherever the RMBS is sold. This, to me, is a material misrepresentation to investors, and is creating major havoc to them. Also, in my case, the origination docs created to secure the loan were falsified to show that I 100% owned a property that does not, and has never, existed. These same docs were changed after the loan origination to show the actual status. This occurred because of the “no doc” loans that were allowed to happen. The banks and originators were allowed to put down whatever information they wanted to, and because no one ever saw the originals, nobody was the wiser. In my case, the attorney’s office sent the original docs, I would imagine, by accident. Not to continue my argument, but to just condense it, this loan was a packaged, premeditated fraud, that was to be sold in the securitization market. This was perpetuated by the numerous purchasers throughout the process, that violated the original terms and conditions of the mortgage documentation. None, have ever disclosed, as per the mortgage docs, that they were purchasers or holders of the debt obligation. This continues to this very day, even at the request of my attorney. This created an estoppel of the debt, which has not been paid since October 2010, because there is no entity claiming to owe any fiduciary responsibility to the account. Whatever money, if any, investors are receiving on my loan, is 100% being paid by Bank of America, who has never shown they ever owned any interest in the loan.

        I have been trying to assist you in preventing investors from continuing to be defrauded. I will assume that you are looking into it, and I will cease and desist from providing you any additional materials to support my claim. Under 29(c), I was not seeking exemption from my mortgage obligation. I was seeking exemption from any entity claiming to hold a security interest on my loan under any RMBS, which I have not been made party to, in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the original contract. This contract’s applicable law is Massachusetts law, which requires public recording of changes in property records. This has not occurred because of MERS, and I believe, the specific language listed in the RMBS I believe my mortgage was pooled into.

        I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope and pray that the SEC takes this seriously. From the disgorgement penalties on behalf of the investors for fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of securities, levied against Countrywide executives, I know you do for the investors sake. Hopefully, the SEC will take a harder look at how the third-party beneficiaries, and holders of the collateral securing the debt, had frauds and misrepresentations perpetuated against them, concerning the securitizations of their loans. To aid you in this endeavor, if you had an “open period” for public discussion, we could show you the extent of the problems. These will ultimately effect the investors, when they are reviewed in court. We could be invaluable to the SEC in any future proposed rule-making efforts, to avoid the mistakes of the past. I, as well as many others, are not looking to seek relief from our debt obligations under our mortgage loans. We are looking to have the original contracts remain valid, and not subjugated to any pooling and servicing agreements which void the original debt obligations. More specifically, it is relief from any debt obligations under a residential mortgage-backed security which is in violation of the applicable laws of the original contracts. This creates title claims issues for not only us, but the investors. I believed that the SEC had authority under Section 29 to this issue. If I am mistaken, forgive me for my ignorance.

        Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.

        Sincerely,
        Tim A. Bryant
        80 Bradford Drive
        Feeding Hills, MA 01030

Leave a Reply

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