Dale, even if MERS assigns the mortgage (detached from the Note, securitized, and owned by-who-knows-who) the back to the servicer, what does it really change? Will the new mortgage holder/servicer have any more standing in the court than the MERS itself?

You go and if you need my help I am well studied in law and the fraudulent banking system. Leave me a post.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/40770

I don’t believe it is even in the realm of possible for them to believe their own statements.

Have you gotten a clue yet.

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO JAIL

“When MERS forecloses, we require that the promissory note be in our possession endorsed in blank, making MERS the note-holder with the right to enforce it.”

Hmm,sorry MERS,your postion might just be legally invalid..lets see.

EVEN IF YOU HAD THE PHOTOSHOPPED NOTE IN YOUR POSSESSION, Did you,MERS. provide any consideration with regards to the transfer of the borowers underlying obligation?

Did you MERS receive the right to accept borrowers mortgage payments with regards to the security instrument?

Did you MERS clearly define what a “nominee” is in the borrowers mortgage contract?

WhY were you MERS, not designated as an agent or authorized party, BUT MERELY AS A “NOMINEE”?

MERS, DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT BY placing the security instrument with a completely different entity than the note holder(with a completely distictly separate address)you now possess a completely uninforceable mortgage? (hint See Powell on Property,and re-review the Landmark v. Kesler decision very closely).

Are you, MERS, therefore actually not in privity of contract with the borrower?

Are you MERS merely just another facilitator for this ponzi scheme?

Did you MERS not realize that the Quants who set this up,didn’t quite think through the individual state property and conveyancing laws,because they were so concentrated on recruiting PhD mathmeticians and Physicists (someNobelprize winning) to deveop highly complex formulas to base their quantitative investment theories to extrapolate was in which borrowers mortgage payments couldtheoretically be used to createthe facade of supporting this house of cards

Ah yes the pesky property piece,this was were you MERS were formulated by Mozillo & co..but MERS youas an entity are flawed, the investment folks, and the PhD’s didnt quitethink out this piece carefully enough, and unfortunately for you, once you get people to question the processenough toget beyond the typica”well the borrower isnt paying the mortgage so whats the issue stage, this really starts toget exposed for exactly what it is..a sick joke at the expense of America

Take heed, I will not rest until I bring you down MERS, along with the rest of the banks who help set you up, WHO ARE ALSO NOW TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE OFF RECORD ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE TO AN UNDISCLOSED SECURITIZED TRUST (OR FANNIE MAE)AFTER..THEIR ROLE AS ORIGINATOR CLEARLY BECAME SERVICER,YET THEY FRAUDULENTLY STATE BECA– USE THE MORTGAGE IS “RECORDED IN THEIR NAME” THEY “OWN IT”.

The TARP money was given tothe Banks forall of the “bad mortgages on their books”, right?

Question..exactly howmany bad mortgages were on the books of the “banks”?

Answer? ZERO..as all the “mortgages” were sold to securitized trusts long ago.

Trust me MERS I am not going away,I am your worst nightmare…you may want to scan complaints that I have filed for clients in Massachusetts. While you are at it, there is one in particular you just might want to review that will be heard towards the end of June.

The time has come to pull back the curtain and expose the larvae that have probably inflicted one the most serious blows to this nation’s future existence..

Remember, challenge everything, carefully review your mortgage documents, and the records in the county registry of deeds, as well as the prospectus supplement and pooling and servicing agreement make sure you see how all the dates do not matchup,most critcally that the cut off date was not complIed with.

This can and will be put to an end once and for all,if all of us pitch in.

Russ

I guess when you create a company to pathologically lie for other criminals, you keep the lies, frauds, and deceit going until you die or go bankrupt whichever one comes first.

One day, some judge or US atty is going to put them where they belong, in jail!

In this day and age one would think that it should be almost instantaneous to acquire the “required evidence”. The fact that MERS has admitted that destruction of the note on purpose has been done many times, would seem to fly in the face of the law, which requires that the holder in due course is the only one with the legal right to foreclose.If there is no note, how is that possible? As of February, in Florida, you are required to prove that you are the holder in due course or you aren’t “supposed” to even file.Of course that doesn’t stop to foreclosure mills from filing.

MERS is nothing more than an “open title vault” where anyone can log on, get a password and start signing assignments. Wonder what would happen if I showed up in court with an assignment to me signed by me!

Please see Riggs v. Aurora (Fl. 4DCA, Case No. 4D08-4635, decided 4/21/2010):

“The promissory note reflected an ‘endorsement in blank’… The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Aurora over Riggs’ objections that Aurora’s status as lawful ‘owner and holder’ of the note was not conclusively established… We agree with Riggs and reverse…”

So now you’re on notice that endorsements in blank — which, as you pointed out, you use as a routine practice — are void in jurisdictions under the 4th DCA appellate court of Florida.

That combined with Jerman v. Carlisle and your “misunderstanding” filing all those bad foreclosures means that whichever PR person wrote this should probably a) forward it to MERS, then b) make sure they pay you in advance: they’re about to have serious cash flow issues.