That the grant of authority to MERS was lacking in specificity, and lacking in being reduced to writing for real property as required by the statute of frauds, (check your state laws on real property: 1 year or more must be in writing, most verywhere.)

That no agency was actually created beyond a very narrow definition to record the mortgage. That the borrower OK-ing MERS as the mortgage defines it , is not a specific grant of authority by the lender in possession to MERS. And MERS membership contracts do not establish nor even mention “agent/agency.”.

And that in the example the recipient rather than the true holder gave the instructions to do the assignmen for the recipients benefit, which voided even the supposed authority for MERS to execute an assignment. If that holds across the broad spectrum, all the robo-signing, even if done more slowly and correctly is actually just as worthless to satisfy the law. That the robo-signors had very doubful legal authority to actually sign for MERS, and MERS actual members, can become almost irrelevant as well.

I say this as a general overview, respecting that each jurisdiction’s laws may vary.

To find the truth we must go to the Origination of the fraud. The head of the snake.

Sorry, SMOM=MOM loan in MERS.