You should go even deeper. Let’s explore the reason in general for the bankruptcy remote vehicle. There is a reverse view of what they remote status was for. Start with the notes being actual securities as defined under 15 USC 78c10 due to the term of the instrument being longer than 9 months. Now you have a security and the game changes. The remote status is to keep the homeowner from claiming the security entitlement right to the instrument they created to make the money out of thin air so the banks can steal it and leverage it 90 to one then 90 to one again on the investor money. Should be just enough to pad the banker pockets and buy the most lobbyists in the world.

The notes are being treated as negotiable instruments which in many cases they can never be assigned let alone the requirement of securities needing to be transferred by an affixed allonge not a blank endorsement. Article 3 of the UCC does not apply. It is further that the illustrious Option ARM was never and could never be a negotiable instrument as it have a provision allowing for an increase in the principle amount. This violates the “fixed sum certain” definition under UCC 3-104. Now I wonder why they keep sweeping this junk under the rug.

Now we delve into the underbelly. They cannot have securitization without the Treasury as all of it needs to get chopped up through the STRIPS program 31 CFR 357 and the individual CUSIPs issued so they can be tracked. The security entitlement right is actually due to the party that signed the instrument since the banks are not actually lending money just accounting entries from think air. This is the fun part. Want to prove the RICO case? Lets check where the records are to be tracked.

The STRIPS program requires that they Treasury keep the securities entitlement rights in the National Book Entry System which no one want the “dead beat” homeowner to see as they are the creator of the actual energy and thus the fake money. Take that another step further and you can track the transfers public and private the records of the Depository Trust Clearing Corp. But that isn’t the only place to find this stuff.

The Department of Transportation mandated in 1986 that all agencies were to track all entries into the United States Standard General Ledger at the TRANSACTION LEVEL!!!! This means each and every entry, subsidiary ledger entry, Check, Credit Card transaction all are recorded and tracked. Uh Oh now why do you suppose the courts don’t let us have access to this? How about the IRS as they too have to allow the Original Issue Discount to go along with the STRIPS program so they can discount the paper and start the trading fun.

Who cares about legal standing when they are making serious coin on trading the worthless junk that is really owed to the homeowner. Dead Beat? Try stooge. Enter the fact that all financial transactions are within the admiralty and what do you get? PIRACY. Punishable by life in prison if we want to pursue it.

Wait, how do they get this to happen? Waiver of presentment and dishonor…In every note you sign and that lets them suspend the credit to the homeowner who should receive the credit for the note dollar for dollar. It is a closing or settlement of the transaction after all. Poor Dead beat didn’t know to claim the note and not send the payments. OOPs can you say extortion?

Who owns the notes? The poor dead beat slaves that continue to create wealth for the top 1 % of the criminal enterprise.

Sheila Bair wants this to go away so she isn’t forced to show how much the FDIC launders the money. The loans are required to be transferred to the Treasury before a bank goes insolvent to protect the homeowners surety 31 CFR 202.6 then the only thing transferring to the new bank is the servicing rights to continue the extortion.

Simple plan or decade long RICO enterprise. Wake up America, the sooner you do the better this can be. Peace be with you but watch yourself in church.

1) It’s not a PAPERWORK issue – it’s an OWNERSHIP issue. Whenever we see the word ‘paperwork’ describing the MERS scam, we should know that the correct word is ‘ownership’.

‘Paperwork’ is defined as: written or clerical work, as records or reports, forming a necessary but often a routine and secondary part of some work or job.

That is not the issue with MERS. The issue is one of fundamental ownership – which is determined by signed and recorded paper.

2) The most significant and basic nature of the MERS scam has not been discussed. It is, quite simply, that the obfuscatory nature of the MERS system allows the originating lender to sell the initial mortgage MORE THAN ONE TIME. I will demonstrate the implications with a simple example.

Now, it may never be possible to prove that the same mortgages were sold repeatedly. In fact, because of the very nature of MERS, it is likely that it would not be possible to show clear evidence. The point is, however, that by flaunting the existing, centuries-old state property laws, MERS allows for this to happen. It does not guarantee that it happened but it allows for it to happen. It may well be the real reason the chain of titles were broken and the ‘paperwork’ has all gone missing.

An example of the situation MERS allows and the financial implications:

Consider a pre-MERS/pre-securitization scenario for a real estate loan. Bank A originates a $500,000 loan. The $500,000 is used to pay the seller of the house. In exchange, Bank A will receive monthly payments for the next 30 years at (for example) 6 percent. If Bank A decides that it does not want to collect small amounts each month, then it may sell the rights to the bank that will pay them the highest price, Bank B. For whatever reason (its own belief on what constitutes a ‘good interest rate’) – Bank B may pay $525,000 for this loan. The assignment of the loan is done based on the stable, ancient property laws of the state, and Bank A has then made $25,000 profit on this transaction. Bank B then owns the loan and there is no ambiguity.

It would be hard to imagine Bank A being tempted to then sell the exact same loan to Bank C. The reason is that there is very clear evidence at the county recorder’s office that the loan was already sold to Bank B.

Now consider the same situation with the MERS system in place.

Bank A makes the same original loan for $500,000 which is used to pay the seller of the house. Now, when it is interested in selling this loan to the highest bidder, Bank A realizes that because the way things operate now (regardless of state laws), it will not be selling the loan directly to another bank (Bank B above). Instead, it has become customary for Bank A to ‘bundle’ hundreds of loans together and sell them all to ‘investors’ who are probably made up of entities such as mutual funds, city governments, foreign governments, etc. Each of these entities likely represents many people’s money – none of whom really have any idea of which individual loans they are purchasing.

Well, after all the bundling and selling to entities and stuff, it may turn out that, on average, Bank A gets $525,000 for each loan – and so in that way it made the same profit.

In this scenario it is not at all hard to imagine Bank A being tempted to sell this same loan again. Unlike before, when there was ‘Bank B’ and ‘Bank C’ and very clear records at the county recorder’s office, there is no ‘Bank B’ but only a mish-mash of bundled loans sold to investors/entities who do not know which loans they have bought — and by the way — the documents have been ‘lost’. In this scenario, it is all too tempting to sell this same loan to the securitized version of ‘Bank C’ – which is the same loan bundled with hundreds of other loans – sold to vague entities who do not know what they have really bought.

Comparing the two scenarios, one might think that Bank A has just doubled its profit. It has just sold the loan twice after all. Wrong! In the second scenario, Bank A has made more than 20 times its profit. In the original scenario, Bank A’s profit is ($525,000 – $500,000) = $25,000. Of course, if the loan is fraudulently sold a second time, then all of the $525,000 from that sale would be (illegal) profit because there would be no transfer of $500,000 to the original seller of the house, as was done with the initial loan. Therefore, Bank A’s profit would be ($25,000 + $525,000) = $550,000.

Bank A has increased its profit by 22 times simply by bundling/schmundling. Is that possible to prove? Probably not, given the destruction of so many documents and the entire system of banks/lawyers/politiicans/lobbyists, etc. But it is not necessary to prove any of this. It is only necessary to realize that the system allows for this, it encourages it, and it is likely the key driving dynamic to all we are seeing unfold. It is far more likely than the latest explanations in the media that banks “wanted to evade fees at the county recorders’ offices”.

It explains why we are where we are. The remedy, of course, is to adhere strictly to the state property laws which have been the same for centuries. These laws require clear, recorded, signed documents which do not allow the above confusion to exist. The courts must simply enforce these laws and let the chips fall where they may. If past foreclosures need to be voided, then so be it.

Fred Smith

It’s time for the homeowners to fight back. Clearly, the banks have much more incentive to squeeze the borrowers out of another year of payments and then take the house by foreclosure on top of that. The government’s $1000.00 “incentive” per permanent mod is laughable compared to all the incentives to foreclose.

So the way for the homeowners to fight back is to put the banks on a dual track system. It goes like this. Homeowner will pretend to negotiate a mod just like the bank is pretending to do so. At the same time, however, homeowner will file a Quiet Title action against the parties of record.

You see, most “bubble” loans, especially MERS loans, contain a latent defect. The defect is that the loan has been transferred away from the original pretender-lender, but the new party’s interest is not recorded. At least not until default, when the new party will start preparing to foreclose.

As long as that interest remains unrecorded (and that is that party’s choice and not your fault), the new party is not entitled to any notice as to any changes in the ownership of the property or adding/removing encumbrances, nullification of a prior deed of trust, etc.

So, if the homeowner successfully challenges the encumbrance (the deed of trust or mortgage) based on TILA/RESPA violations, table-funding, unrelatedness to the reality of the transaction (failure to name actual parties, etc.), and other defects, the pretender-lender will not even have a chance to defend against such challenge for the simple reason that its putative “interest” is unrecorded and they are not entitled to any notice, while the party whose interest is recorded does not care anymore, as they have sold/transferred the loan. Moreover, the original pretender-lender is likely long one, in bankruptcy, etc.

Those of you especially with MERS loans – its time to stop this loan mod nonsense at the expense of taxpayer bailouts and play hard ball. Put your bank, which doesn’t usually have a scintilla of interest in your home, on a dual track system of loan-mod/quiet-title!
Posted by Attorney Gregory Bryl ”

Found this in bryllaw.blogspot.com , I think this a track that has been proven to work as it it in UTAH.

In all states including non-judicial, and all those 65,000,000 loans with MERS on the DOT the note was split from the mortgage and the title chain is totally destroyed. Sue the original lender on record for quiet title, the rest are really non consequential. They would have to challenge you in court and prove they are who they are and have the rights the claim to have.

If anyone has the answer please post it!!! I have 5 days to present it to the Judge and im on my way to defeating these dirty, greedy, lying crooks. Help me out Web Family!!