We need to look at this issue with secured debts, like Humpty Dumpty.

The rhyme does not explicitly state that the subject is an egg because it probably was originally posed as a riddle.

HUMPTY DUMPTY – The Secured Debt

We shall include Fannie Mae as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are brother and sister and follow the same guidelines for the purchase of mortgage loans.

Fred/Fan typically purchase an “Electronic Digitized File” in which is stored a “Electronic Digitized Graphical Image” of the “Original Wet Blue Ink Signed Paper Homeowner Promissory Note” along with an “Electronic Digitized Graphical Image” of the “Paper Security Instrument”. There are no supporting laws for an “Electronic Negotiable Instrument/Electronic Promissory Note”.

Mortgage Bankers Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, banks, etc and title companies executed an advertising blitz that E-Sign and UETA have allowed for the use of “Electronic Negotiable Instruments/Electronic Promissory Notes”. 15 USC 7003 of the E-Sign Act excludes UCC Article 3, Negotiable Instruments and UCC Article 9. UETA has the same exclusions.

One procedure:

1. Homeowner signs a Paper Promissory Note and a Paper Security Instrument.
2. The Lender is named on the Paper Promissory Note and in the case of MERS, the Paper Security Instrument on it’s face identifies MERS as the Beneficiary and MERS as Nominee for Lender.
3. The Security Instrument is recorded in public records naming MERS as Beneficiary (Invalid Perfection). (Laws of Local Jurisdiction)
4. The “Original Wet Blue Ink Signed Paper Homeowner Promissory Note” along with “Paper Security Instrument” are scanned into an “Electronic Digitized File” and the relevant data is scrapped from the paper documents and attached to the “Electronic Digitized File” to create an “Electronic Mortgage Package”. The “Original Wet Blue Ink Signed Paper Homeowner Promissory Note” along with “Paper Security Instrument” in some cases were destroyed and in other cases vaulted for later retrieval if required in litigation.

(Writers Note: In cases where the Original Paper Note returns it often has an incomplete Chain of Endorsements which would reflect that Fred/Fan never achieved “Holder in Due Course”, UCC Article 3 – Negotiation of Instrument or it the item presented as “True and Correct Copy” lacks proper Chain of Endorsements.)

It is the “Electronic Mortgage Package” that has been offered up to Fred/Fan.
So Fred/Fan have purchased an “Electronic Promissory Note” and an “Invalid Perfected Security Instrument” based on the above scenario, there are variations but the results are similar that are “Worthless”.

Humpty Dumpty is Broken and there are no laws to support either side of what can not exist.

Humpty Dumpty was not written for the advanced intelligent minds of Engineers and Attorneys. Humpty Dumpty was written for the people and those that have read Humpty Dumpty do understand.


* (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

* (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

UCC 3-309 (a), Lost Note Affidavits, not only do you have to have the rights of enforcement as Holder in Due Course you must also comply with UCC 3-309 (b), prove up the terms and rights to enforcement.

Under the Rules of Evidence the presentation of a computer printout would be considered ―Hearsay‖, ―Murray, 804 S.W2d at 284 (computer printout is often simply ―the feeding back of data placed into a computer by a person; although the data may be in a different form than it was when it was fed into the computer, it retains its status as the statement or statements made by a person‖ and thus fits the definition of hearsay).


§ 7003. Specific exceptions

(a) Excepted requirements

The provisions of section 7001 of this title shall not apply to a contract or other record to the extent it is governed by—

(3) the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State, other than sections 1–107 and 1–206 and Articles 2 and 2A.

MERS as a replacement of Public Records, Secret Contracts and Fraud, will not dwell this topic.

UCC Article 8, Secondary Market, will not dwell this topic.

Transferable Records, they do have their place and will not dwell this topic.

Submitted by alviec


Humpty Dumpty is Broken – The Secured Debt