*this totally explains why people like Christina Trowbridge & Stacy Spohn (employees of CHASE) are executing assignments to CHASE.

In essence, CHASE is/has been assigning mortgages to themselves. How is it that assignor & assignee are one and the same? You don’t get lawful ownership of anything assigning it to yourself… do you?

Oh yea, they assign for MERS AND MERS as nominee for CHASE (on multiple AOM’s). Can someone please help me figure this one out.

Mr. Hultman… what say you?

Huh? Oh that’s not true at all.

I agree with Karl here, but I was equally appalled by the next response (not stated here) from the interviewer, who replied, “I don’t disagree…” and Hultman’s utter shock that the interviewer had just said he didn’t disagree!

Where do these ignorant people come from who are handling these investigations?

I also was shocked during one of the December 2010 hearings (judiciary committee) when one of the committee members had to ask someone on the panel of witnesses to EXPLAIN MERS! How can any of us expect a good outcome from all the investigations with such uninformed and irresponsible people asking the questions?

What happens when we have an electronic system (registry) where only “some” people know the real parties of interest?

MERS was used much differently with new home builders (who owned their own mortgage and title shops). The note goes in one direction (at closing) but MERS as nominee of the so called “Lender” (who might not have been the same party that loaned money) remains fixed on the Mortgage.

Here you have deliberate intent of separating the NOTE from the MORTGAGE and creating two separate sets of accounting. ENRON anyone?

So the mortgage and the title policy name MERS while the NOTE travels in a totally separate direction.

If you can’t trust a mortagage & title company to properly conduct a settlement and follow the terms of the MORTGAGE CONTRACT (which states that the NOTE can be sold – only if the Mortgage goes with it), then who can you trust?