Comments on: Statement by CEO of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud.”

By: Robert Chaney

Robert Chaney — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 03:17:26 +0000

In my son’s case: (I’ll be brief):

On the day he signed the Note and Mortgage, the Note named Household Finance Corp. III as the “Lender.”
On that day, an “allonge” was attached (unknown to my son at the time) to the Note, purportedly, transferring the Note to Decision One. On that day, the Mortgage named MERS as the “mortgagee.”

Some time later, CitiFinancial held the Note. Then CitiMortgage held the Note (via a merger?). Citimortgage filed the foreclosure case and an “Assignment of Mortgage” (“AoM”) was executed two days later and recorded a month later. The AoM, purportedly, assigned the Mortgage, along with the Note, from MERS to Citimortgage. Evidently, Decision One and CitiFinancial never had possession or ownership of the Mortgage.

One of my son’s defenses is that the note and mortgage were “bifurcated.” Thus, the Note became “unsecured” on the day he signed the Note and Mortgage.

MERS is NOT transparent. My son can not get a complete “chain of title” from MERS. He can not get a chain of title from the Hall of Records, either.

What a mess. The people who created the mess should pay the consequences… banksters!

By: Jose

Jose — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:56:28 +0000

These MERS people believe we all are stupid, or that we still continue to w=get our dose intravenously.
Even if they did not directly acted on the fraud as a signer of the documents, by the same process that they did appoint their robo executives and secretaries. they gave blank check to a set of unscrupulous people to commit fraud using their name. As attorneys and the role they still play in the housin industry, theys erved as a voluntary shell for the fraud and are guilty either way. either by the fact of being a procuring cause and also by ommission.
.

By: Jose

Jose — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:50:22 +0000

Just another conspiring and home stealing shell created in the most hostile state in the nation for home owners

they have never paid a sent to Loudoun County, can they share their accounting to all of us?

By: Jose

Jose — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:47:52 +0000

Let me get this straight, they claim to hold the mortgage and the notes????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I have over 5000 copies of lost note affidavits signed by robosigners appointed by mers. NO NOTES.

By: Sagittarius

Sagittarius — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:45:09 +0000

A brief study of Trust Law reveals some fatal flaws in the MERS argument. Even though borrowers entered into a debtor/creditor contract, the law of trust really governs the powers and relationships of the parties involved. No one seems to be questioning whether or not the laws of trust are being followed and there are many contradictions just in the deed of trust alone. First of all, MERS claims to be the beneficiary or nominee for the beneficiary under the deeds of trust. Beneficiaries, according to all leading authorative trust law sources, hold beneficial equitable title of the trust property NOT legal title. At closing, legal title was vested and conveyed to the Trustee named in the deed, typically a title company. A trust splits title to specific property in half, legal and equitable. Legal title almost always vests in the trustee. Beneficial title vests in the beneficiaries. If MERS is claiming beneficial status according to the deeds of trust, then it should be claiming equitable interests, not legal interests. But MERS never dares to claim the beneficial title to the deed or note because they were never granted beneficial title in the first place. There is no wording anywhere in a typical deed that conveys beneficial title to MERS. Only a beneficiary has the right to take trust property or authorize the trustee to sell trust property. MERS is ordering assignments, substitutions of trustee and foreclosure proceedings without being a true beneficiary with the RIGHT to compel a DUTY. At best MERS is a co-trustee holding legal title alongside the trustee named in the deed, usually a title company like Alliance, First American or Fidelity. But then MERS will say that it’s only acting as an Agent on behalf of the “lender” of record. However, an agency relationship is very different from a trustee relationship. The problem is the “lender” of record assigned its beneficial interest in the note within 3 months of closing. So who and where is the beneficiary? Could the beneficiaries secretly be Freddie and Fannie…hmm…only a beneficiary gets to take and Freddie and Fannie seem to be doing A LOT of taking these days. MERS is full of shit. It becomes whatever entity it needs to become in order to steal property it has no right to. How convenient. It’s one thing to claim to be a beneficiary, it’s another thing to prove it and MERS has no paper whatsoever to prove a beneficial interest.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:42:09 +0000

In reply to MARKER. I give 'em less than 6 months.

By: MARKER

MARKER — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:28:14 +0000

The fact that MERS has made a statement to defend its role and “Victories”, is a clear indication that their lunch is about to be eating by the legal community.

By: Tim Barker

Tim Barker — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:57:22 +0000

Mers was created not to speed things up OR Mers was created to speed things up, make up your mind its one or the other.

By: Tim Barker

Tim Barker — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:54:30 +0000

I am sorry but this articles keeps bugging me and I keep coming back to it to vent, so please pardon me.

“Banks were originating loans at more than double their usual rate. Assignments – the document that names the holder of the legal title to the lien – primarily between servicing companies, were piling up in county land record offices, awaiting recording. Many times the loans were getting refinanced before the assignments could get recorded on the old loan. The delay prevented lien releases from getting recorded in a timely manner, leaving clouds on title.”

and whos fault is that? it must be the deadbeat homeowners, if you were trying to help us then why wouldnt it have made more sence to create a law which we all know you seem to have plenty of power to change the rules as you go.

why couldnt you have made a rule that you can not refinance for 6 months or even a year after a previous refi? so that our county records have the appropiate time to update prior instruments. seems fairly easy, right? No of course not because wall street wanted those loans ASAP to scam and defraud anyone willing to sign there name.

then get this next paragraph he wrote, did you catch this part? “MERS was created to provide clarity, transparency and efficiency by tracking the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests. IT WAS NOT CREATED TO ENABLE FASTER SECURITIZATION

Now didnt you just say about 6 sentences before this sentence, Mers was created because files were piling up in county land records causing a delay in new refinance deals, or in other words” I need to do this to speed up paperwork( or lack therof) so we can issue more toxic loans as soon as possible” condinsendling huh?

was this guy just getting home from a long night drinking with his croonies?

By: indio007

indio007 — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:09:25 +0000

I’ll shoot it down anyway … I’m bored today 🙂

IN RE MERS
This is completely disengenious. The statement ” The MERS System is not fraudulent, and MERS has not committed any fraud” is the heading of a paragraph! Then it goes on to say “Plaintiffs have conceded this point”

Secondly the Plaintiff pretty much sucked. Here’s another excerpt of the lack-luster pleading…
“no facts were alleged showing any fraud was committed by MERS or in the MERS system.” …etc..
“Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.”

“Thus, due both a lack of an underlying fraud and insufficient allegations of conspiracy, the facilitation gloss advanced by Plaintiffs in their responses fails to save their claims for conspiracy to commit fraud. The Court will dismiss these claims for failure to state a claim.”

Not much of a victory when the other side is unarmed LOL!

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16055101289176414591

IN RE Tucker ,
MERS presented the (allegedly) original note endorsed in blank at trial. The didn’t object to the authenticity or circumstances the acquisition of the note so pretty much any dolt would have prevailed.
http://www.mow.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy/opinions/federman/Tucker_&_Gragg_Order_re_MERS_2.pdf

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Bellistri

Can’t find this one but Tucker and RENKEMEYER v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc cite it.
It’s not much of a legal mystery that anyone with an ANY interest, even an incorporeal one, deserves notice.
There interest is one of duty. MERS needs notice in order to act on behalf it’s it’s principal and make the proper recordation.
If this is what MERS considers victories , I am now even more of the opinion they are getting desperate.