MERS Scandal Exposed and Explained

Kevin Lamson Said,

So can anyone guess the name of “organization” that was formed by Countrywide’s, Anthony Mazillo and Fannie Mae’s, James Johnson ten years ago it start with an M? No not the Mafia. It’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. commonly referred to as MERS. Yes that’s right Countrywide and Fannie Mae were the lead organizers of MERS and are shareholders and “members” of MERS. Here are excerpts from an investigative report on MERS I have been working on for the last several months. This may help shed some much needed light on MERS and the cozy relationships many of its so-called ‘members” have between each other and with our congress. It may also explain why no one in congress has bothered to investigate MERS and it crazy “paperless” system that these greedy mortgage executives invented so they could line their pockets by originating and flipping phony mortgage loans into so-called mortgage backed security trusts and then selling trillions of dollars of bonds to investors around the world. By reporting false profits from these sales Fannie Mae’s and Countrywide’s executives were able to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “bonuses”.

Given the extremely close relationship that MERS, its many corporate members have with the politicians who run our state and federal governments, it is not surprising that MERS and it members were able to pull off this gigantic global financial scheme without raising the brow of a State or Federal law enforcement or regulators. Only now are a few politicians and regulators paying lip service to what they refer to as the “Mortgage Meltdown”. What no politician or regulator ever seems to mention is that a millions of the mortgages that “melted down” have the name Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. on them.

· The Fundamentals:

In the period beginning in 1999 and ending in March of 2008, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., a/k/a/ MERS, has been named as a “mortgagee” on over fifty million mortgages. Yet MERS has never originated a single mortgage loan nor loaned a dime to a single borrower. In 2001 the New York Supreme Court ordered the Suffolk County Clerk to accept MERS mortgages for recording as a purely ministerial duty. However the Court denied MERS request for a judgment declaring that MERS mortgages were “lawful in all respects”. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court’s order directing the County Clerk to record MERS mortgages. The Court of Appeals did not reverse the Supreme Court’s denial of MERS request for a judicial declaration that MERS mortgages are “lawful in all respects”. MERS, for obvious reasons, did not want a published opinion determining that MERS mortgages are legal nullities and/or that MERS has no standing to enforce a mortgage when it is not a creditor entitled to collect a debt. The New York Court of Appeals did address and frame these two issues but left them to be decided at a future date.

MERS members, mortgage industry executives, invented the so-called MERS paperless system to short cut standing mortgage lending safe guards and circumvent the legal requirements for originating mortgage loans and/or for selling and transferring these loans to subsequent holders. This would allow MERS members like Countrywide Financial, Fieldstone Mortgage, and Option One Mortgage to make loans to anyone with a heart beat and then quickly flip these questionable loans to other MERS members such a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers to name just a few. (”Secondary Mortgage Market Players’)

MERS and its so-called “system” was driven the strong desire of its founding “members” strong desire to report billions in profits as can be seen, in part, from a highly critical report issued by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise on May 23. 2006, detailing what it called “an arrogant and unethical corporate culture where Fannie Mae employees manipulated accounting and earnings to trigger bonuses for senior executives from 1998 to 2004″. . . “The image of Fannie Mae as one of the lowest-risk and ‘best in class’ institutions was a facade,” . . . “Senior management manipulated accounting; reaped maximum, undeserved bonuses; and prevented the rest of the world from knowing”. . . “Our examination found an environment where the ends justified the means”. The Ohio Attorney General recently sued another MERS founding member, Freddie Mac, alleging and its top executives for fraud with very similar allegations to the fact found by OFHEO relating to Fannie Mae.

These Secondary Mortgage Market Players would claim to package millions of these loans, with or without being delivered the promissory notes, into loan pools or “mortgage backed security trusts” and then flip the loans by selling trillions of dollars of bonds to investors around the world. The bonds were touted by Secondary Mortgage Market Players as producing safe yet high returns. The investors who bought these bonds included many of the world’s largest national banks. Initially MERS members reported windfall profits year after year by quickly originating, packaging into pools and then flipping trillions of dollars of mortgages loans to investors. Other MERS members, such as title insurance companies, also took their cut from each of the fifty million loans that were made while this high speed gravy train was rolling. MERS itself would earn over a billion dollars a year by charging its members $250.00 for each mortgage that MERS would be named as “mortgagee”.

The reported profits from the sale of these mortgaged backed securities would result in billions of dollars of salaries and bonuses being paid to the senior executives of many of MERS member corporations. Ultimately the bond investors who actually provided all the money would learn that their “safe” investment was anything but safe. As hundreds thousands and then millions of these loans fell into default. These bondholders would lose hundreds of billions of dollars. As of April 1, 2008, the largest banks around the world had already written off losses of one hundred and fifty billions dollars relating to bonds they had purchased. One Swiss bank, U.S.B., has recently reported 40 billion dollars in losses. These loses may only be the beginning. What many people refuse to admit is that because of the so-called MERS paperless “system” many of the so-called mortgage backed security trusts do not actually hold the promissory notes which evidence the debts that are supposed to be backing the bonds purchased by these investors. The situation is reminiscent to the Great Olive Oil Scandal in the late 1800’s when banks were duped into investing millions of dollars into Olive Oil only to later discover that the tanks which were supposed to be holding millions of gallons of olive oil backing their investments were mostly empty.

A June10, 2007 article in Forbes magazine details the carelessness in the securitization process by which mortgage loans were packaged and sold off to mortgage pools is now coming back to bite the trustees of these mortgage backed trusts who are now seeking to foreclose millions of loans that are in default:

· The financial engineering (i.e. mortgage securitization) helped oil the housing boom by making credit more available. But stalled housing prices and rising defaults have revealed a mess: In the rush to flip paper, lots of the new lenders or pools don’t have the proper paperwork to show they even hold the mortgage.

It appears that after MERS mortgage loans are flipped to the mortgage backed trusts the promissory notes are not actually delivered to the trustees. Nor are assignments of mortgages executed and delivered which evidence the fact the original lender has transferred the debt which is secured by the mortgage. This leaves the trusts with absolutely no paper evidence of ownership of the secured debt it purportedly owns. One informed lawyer who represents homeowners in Florida, April Charney, had foreclosure proceedings against 300 clients dismissed or postponed in 2007 for lack of standing. She is quoted as saying that “80 percent of them involved lost-note affidavits”. . . They raise the issue of whether the trusts own the loans at all,” Charney said. “Lost-note affidavits are pattern and practice in the industry. They are not exceptions. They are the rule.” Ms. Charney started challenging MERS and it members lost note affidavits after becoming skeptical of the lender could possibly lose hundreds of promissory notes.

At least two Florida judges shared Ms. Charney’s skepticism regarding the copious amounts of MERS lost note affidavits and they issued show cause orders, sua sponte, challenging MERS to show proof that it held and/or lost notes in numerous actions. After evidentiary hearings these two alert judges dismissed twenty nine (29) MERS actions to foreclose for lack of standing. One judge struck MERS pleadings as being sham.

A South Carolina court dismissed a MERS action to foreclose for lack of standing even though MERS filed an affidavit wherein a person claiming to be an officer of MERS claimed that MERS was holding a promissory note. The South Carolina court vetted the MERS affidavit claim that it was the holder of the note after the Court was apprised of the fact that MERS had previously told the Nebraska Court of Appeals that it never held promissory notes.

In late 2007 three Federal Court Judges in Ohio dismissed over fifty law suits brought by trustees of mortgage backed trusts where they could not produce the original promissory notes. Following these decisions the Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California adopted a rule of practice which requires all foreclosing trustees or other plaintiffs to produce the original promissory note when bring an action to foreclose a debt or face sanctions for not doing so.

It is disturbing to know that National Banks are the trustees of thousands of trusts that may be missing millions of promissory notes. This might explain why, to date, not a single National Bank has publicly disclosed the fact that they are not actually holding what may be millions of promissory notes which evidence ownership of debts supposedly owned by their respective trusts. An independent audit of these trusts would probably be quite revealing. This writer is also unaware of any such audits that have been performed to date. These National Banks, as trustees are accountable and therefore liable for missing trust property or the documents evidencing ownership.

As more borrowers, lawyers and judges learn that neither MERS nor these trustees are actually holding the promissory notes evidencing the debts they seek to collect through foreclosure, dismissals of these foreclosure actions for lack of standing will become routine. This will also means that bondholders from around the globe will be seeking to recover their loses from the National Bank trustees.

American courts should no longer tolerate or close a blind eye to the fact that the MERS has no standing to commence any legal actions relating to peoples properties because they do not hold any legal or equitable interest in the debt or in the properties. The Court’s must protect the integrity of our court system by enforcing our laws of commerce as they have existed and not allow parties to come into our courts and commence actions relating to debts that they do not own and/or have no proof of ownership.

MERS founders and members went about foisting their so-called “paperless” system on the American economy and indirectly upon the global economy. MERS studiously avoided seeking any legislative changes of long standing commercial laws relating to promissory notes, mortgages and public recording of assignments in any of the 50 states that it would ultimately be operating. It is possible that this blatant abuse, of the UCC and state recording laws might have passed itself off as the new way off doing business in our computer age. But MERS member companies, under clear instructions from their leaders, guarantied disaster by pumping up and them dumping these shaky loans onto investors through trust they set up for this purpose. These investor/bondholders are jut now discovering that they were duped. They just don’t know how badly they were duped.

Perhaps this is what the global economy is really all about. Seeing who can dupe international banks and governments out of trillions of dollars depositor and taxpayer money and do so with complete impunity. Yet, to my knowledge, after learning that they invested trillions of dollars into these questionable loan pools n/k/a/ cesspools, not a single National Bank has ordered an audit of these cesspools or trusts to determine the actual contents and the value.
As a matter of sound public policy our courts should not allow MERS or its so-called “members” to circumvent and/or violate long standing laws of commerce, simply because some greedy mortgage executives thought they could shoe-horn their so-called “paperless system” into the framework of our current system of commerce. Our system still requires such sundry instruments as promissory notes be used to evidence debts and also requires that these instruments to change hands when sold or transferred to a new owner. Our system also requires a new holder of a promissory note to record an assignment of security interest or mortgage in order to enforce a lien which secures the debt evidenced by the promissory note. No one should be able to simply ignore these long standing laws just so they can reap billions of dollars in illicit bonuses by quickly originating and then flipping loans without the attendant delivery of notes and assignments of mortgages. Our system of commerce does not operate this way. This is because we have laws of commerce including the UCC which regulates our system of commerce.

The MERS paperless system simply provided an expedient way for MERS and its members to fleece the investor on a global basis, by loaning money to people who couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the money back and then flipping trillions of dollars of these bogus loans to third party investors. The MERS system does not comply with our current laws of commerce. While the computer age has admittedly changed how business is transacted it has not eliminated or replaced the legal requirement for such things as promissory notes, mortgages and assignments of mortgages, when a loan is made, a mortgage given and the loan is subsequently sold and/or resold. This is precisely why a competent and prudent lender who makes a loan to a qualified borrower takes back a promissory note and if the loan is to be secured the borrower executed a mortgage or security agreement naming the lender as the mortgagee or secured party. The lender must then record or file its mortgage or security agreement to prefect its lien. If the lender decides to sell the debt it is owed to a third party it must endorse and deliver the promissory note to the third party. And in order for the third party to enforce either a mortgage lien or security interest the original lender must execute an assignment of mortgage or security interest, which must then be recorded or filed by the third party to give evidence and public notice of its status as assignee of the lien securing the debt it had purchased. Only the holder of the promissory note is entitled to enforce the note and/or any lien which secured the debt.

Given the extremely close relationship that MERS, its many corporate members have with the politicians who run our state and federal governments, it is not surprising that MERS and it members were able to pull off this gigantic global financial scheme without raising the brow of a State or Federal law enforcement or regulators. Only now are a few politicians and regulators paying lip service to what they refer to as the “Mortgage Meltdown”. What no politician or regulator ever seems to mention is that a millions of the mortgages that “melted down” have the name Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. on them. American courts should no longer tolerate or close a blind eye to the fact that the MERS has no standing to commence any legal actions relating to peoples properties because they do not hold any legal or equitable interest in the debt or in the properties. The Court’s must protect the integrity of our court system by enforcing our laws of commerce as they have existed and not allow parties to come into our courts and commence actions relating to debts that they do not own and/or have no proof of ownership.

This writer has been investor in real estate since 1976, and has owned properties in eight states and three countries. Over the last thirty two years I have witnessed and heard of many illegal or fraudulent schemes involving real estate finance. The MERS “paperless system” is the kind of scheme that is hatched in some internet boiler room in Nigeria, not in the boardrooms of our once prestigious American financial institutions. This gigantic scheme completely ignored long standing law of commerce. The effect of the system has already had a catastrophic effects on both the American and global economy. Yet many of the investment “trusts” which supposedly hold thousands of original promissory notes are hard pressed to produce them when legally required to do so. MERS admittedly does not hold any promissory notes. A party must have possession of a promissory note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Given these facts how will these investors ever recoup there investments if the debt they were suppose to own can not be legally enforce or collected? What will be the status of title to properties that were purportedly foreclosed by MERS where MERS admittedly had no legal right to foreclose or otherwise collect debt which are evidenced by promissory notes held by someone else. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or questions you may have: kev_o_shanter@yahoo.com.

44 Responses

  1. Expose the Attorners crimes by their silence/Acquiese
    Accept their Offer
    They Filed a COPY of youre YOUR NOTE in the case and recorded it in a public office (County Clerk)-
    Passing off a copy of a NOTE as an Original (without having a Certified Copy of the NOTE) Posturing as if they do have the original when
    IN FACT it is a counterfeit security that they filed into the case at the county clerks in a public office.

    All to create the illusion that they have Standing AND with a Forged Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage to Boot.

    No Standing—Court has No Jurisdiction–There is No Court w/out Jurisduiction

  2. For some reason the foreclosure attys seem to think there is some sort of exemption from RICO for them. Too bad –so sad. Seizures lie for criminals charged. When the big players turn on each other the little guys get thrown under thr bus. Lots ofvroom there for the foreclosure arttys. Do we think they will get a break on their loans? I guess rhat wou;d be criminal unless the state AGs give it away. They cant protect theives. Something uinthe Constitution about that. I think–if not should be. See how far they will go —–

  3. this giuy is not blowing smoke. See AHMSI vs LPS. Filed like 2 dys ago. There is no honor among theives.

  4. Any Assignment of mortgage signed by a VP of MERS is Forged and Fraudulent> PERIOD. Doesnt matter what there name is.
    They cannot assign or foreclose being a nominee lender and that hey never had any right title or interest.
    The Predatory Mortgage Servicer with the Criminal attorneys order an Assignment of Mortgage from LPS which is FORGED and FRAUDULENT.They file it as an exhibit in a court as the reason for their standing to sue you. The attorners should be fined and sanctioned. They are the ultimate criminals.
    The bank never lent you money. They were paid off when you left the closing. The buyer of your Note was lined up well in advance. When you left the closing there was a ZERO balance on the obligation you allegedly owed as the obligation was settled once they had your original signature on the Closing Docs.
    The best part is that the Bank KNOWS they NEVER lent you ANY money but yet they induced you to sign a mortgage contract to secure an alleged debt that does not exist. Instead the originating lender owed you a release of lien.
    This is called Fraud in the INDUCEMENT and Fraud in the FACTUM to be exact.
    The biggest scam in history. Why because the rigged stock market and counterfeiting of stocks just affectsthe people that actually have the Funds to even invest in the market. The mortgage bank scam affects average Homeowners that dont really have the Funds to lose or waste. A much higher popul;ation of the average John and Jane Doe. Essentially the Mortgage Servicers are preying on hardworking American people Cheating Forging and stealing money any way they can get it. Judicial immunity doesnt protect against ctrimes wether its a JUDGE or ATTORNER
    ATTORN= to twist and to turn

  5. Any Assignment of mortgage signed by a VP of MERS is Forged and Fraudulent> PERIOD. Doesnt matter what there name is.
    They cannot assign or foreclose being a nominee lender and that hey never had any right title or interest.
    The Predatory Mortgage Servicer with the Criminal attorneys order an Assignment of Mortgage from LPS which is FORGED and FRAUDULENT.They file it as an exhibit in a court as the reason for their standing to sue you. The attorners should be fined and sanctioned. They are the ultimate criminals.
    The bank never lent you money. They were paid off when you left the closing. The buyer of your Note was lined up well in advance. When you left the closing there was a ZERO balance on the obligation you allegedly owed as the obligation was settled once they had your original signature on the Closing Docs.
    The best part is that the Bank KNOWS they NEVER lent you ANY money but yet they induced you to sign a mortgage contract to secure an alleged debt that does not exist. Instead the originating lender owed you a release of lien.
    The biggest scam in history. Why because the rigged stock market and counterfeiting of stocks just affect people invested in the market. The mortgage bank scam affects Homeowners. A much higher popul;ation of the average John and Jane Doe.

  6. Anyone looking to share or discuss Everhome Mortgage, the predatory Mortgage Servicer , Bethany Hood or HSBC AS TRUSTEE jcam41868@yahoo.com

  7. I am very familiar witrh the fraudulent activities of Everhome Mortgage, Bethany Hood and have their fraudulent documents with a Forged QAssignment of Mortgage by Bethany Hood- Notorious robo signer

  8. Please…..I am in desperate need of help…single mother with three children…I am up for foreclosure, licensed child care provider..if i lose my home, i lose my job..homeless AND then unemployed !!!!!!!!!!
    sale date is scheduled in 10 day by IndyMac/One West, who IS NOT RECOrDED as having an interest in my home at the Resitry of Deeds IS CLAIMING TO OWN MY MORTGAGE! I have investigated this and have found the following…the last recorded with the Registry of deeds is my local credit ( IC Federal Credit UNion, who One West listed as the Mortgage holder in the foreclosure notice in the paper ( I know! very strange!) so I called them for an explanation, they said they have no interest in my home, have no idea why they would be mentioned. they were very helpful, and dug into it further and were able to find more than what appeared at the registry of deeds…..they found, the mortgage was brokered THRU IC to someone else then assigned three times with the last “holder” being MERS!!!!!!!!!!! ONE WEST SHOULD HAVE NO CLAIM TO THIS AT ALL AS THERE IS NO WAY ONE WEST WILL HAVE MY SIGNATURE ON ANY PROMISARY NOTE OF ANY KIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In order to buy myself a bit of time to fight this, I filed for bankruptcy so I will be afforded an automatic stay, but now I need to find someone to help me fight this in court as i do not know how to do this! I need an attorney and am looking for one who will work at a reduced rate. I am hoping there is someone who undertands situations like mine and supports this cause. I cannot afford to hire at full rate, I am a struggling single mom, I have approcahed Mass. justice league, Leagal aid…although I qualify, I cannot wait for and hope that I will be accepted and that there “may” be someone “available and qualified” to take me on “in my area”. The risk of waiting is not not worth it. Please, if anyone knows of anyone willing to help, I am leaving my eamil address so please, let me know privately. I am not happy that I have to be here publicly airing such a private situation, but I feel I need to do all I can to save my home from this wrongdoing! I am not looking for a free home…I have been looking for a modification. I am hoping to use this as a “tool” to force them into modifying me! I was first denied in Dec and my second attempt at a modifcation is currently in “review” yet they went ahead with the foreclosure! help me! I have lived in this home and run my business out of this home for 11 years. This is the only home my children have ever know. I can;t help the fact that I got divorced, the economy hurt my business and I am struggling….I am not one who lives beyond her means…I am the EXACT person who a modification shold be allowed,
    .
    .buying time seems to be my only hope right now until I can find an attorney…i have contacted sen jen flangans office… the div of banking, attorney gen office, will be filing a complaint with the fed. div of banking……can anyone suggest any other avenues that I should pursue? please…..any and all advice is needed!!!!!!!!! I will fiel anywhere you suggest, willcontact anyone you can think of…please…right now it is all about buying myself sometime PLEASE, we are all here for the same reason……PLEASE GIVE ME AS MANY IDEAS AS YOU HAVE…I WILL DO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!
    .
    I am grateful for this forum, sorry to have rambled, just feeling so very scared. Wishing you all peace and hoing you have all had positive outcomes.
    jmmandmjj@verizon.net

  9. I have an assignment signed by Liquenda Allotey, Asst. Secretary for Option One Mortgage Corporation.

  10. James M,

    I don’t think you can send a private msg on here, but you can send to

    dnd1190@gmail.com

  11. James,

    We are working on an Everhome file and would be interesting to hear what your findings have been.

  12. I have an assignment out of MERS as nominee for AHM Acceptance dated June 18, 2009——-it went bankrupt late 2007.

    Further the Trust to which the assignment was made did not receive the mortgage loan list–this is AHM 2004-4 Trust. The mortgage lists supposed to be filed with SEC and Delaware UCC were not filed—i have a FOIA requested letter from SEC confirming. Of 12 trusts created by American Home Mortgage , seven did not get filed lists. Thus, i cannot identify a class –they cant release me of liability on the missing note that they dont have —-and now they are sealing the court record re the newest way to circumvent the note UCC rules——-im test case for “compelled settlement agreement” -read up on statute of frauds and beware what your attys say that might bind you

  13. Dear Don-CA. I don’t know how to send you email or private message through this message board. (If someone else knows please tell me)

    I have multiple Bethany Hood signatures, plus at least one copy of her MERS appointment AND more importantly I have an assignment of mortgage executed by her AFTER the company she is signing (as nominee of) was out of business and in federal receivership.

    I am doing good with docs by Bethany Hood. Contact me. JamesM at the wonderful internet forwarding company of unforgettable dot com on the intertubes.

    Oh, and anybody else dealing with Everhome Mortgage or Everbank drop me a note too.

  14. MERS AND BERNARD MADOFF SCANDAL

    Rico violations and international money laundering, involving MERS and MERS Corp. Review documents on MERS Website page, satisfaction of Mortgage, UCC – 1 MERS MEMBERS and UCC-2, as well as UCC 1 Non MERS Members. All of the banks are apart of MERS, and they participated in gross money laundering involving international drug cartels through the usage of UCC filings of the NON MERS MEMBERS FORMS. The Onwer of MERS is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They violated the Federal charter once they participated in this global money laundering scandal. Review DEBT X, and note The following participates involving again 3,000 participates, The FDIC, GSE – Government Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Note the Resolution Trust Corporation expired in1995, Mers was created after which to consolidate the accumulated fraud since the 1930’s.

  15. mesmith26:

    email me at dnd1190@gmail.com

  16. Don-CA

    I have an assignment signed by one Christina Allen as VP of MERS. I would be glad to exchange some information with you.

  17. Reel Time!

    DIG … dig …dig

    That VP probably works for the LOAN SERVICER
    (in their Loss Mit Dept, Legal Dept, Bankruptcy Desk etc. DIG!) where you make your payments or works at the Foreclosure Mill that is assaulting you. Get their employee list or just pay them a friendly call and INQUIRE. Then subpoena them out of the “BLUE” when you are ready to attack.

  18. David,
    Your deposition needs teeth for them to appear. A subpoena will provide you with the teeth.

  19. fl
    fla defense ;question——–if the peops are out of state what do you do if they simply ignore your request for interrogatories etc? they dont seem to have much reason to respond ——–but i am just asking???

  20. There’s an old idiom – Give someone enough rope and they’ll hang themselves – couldn’t be more a more appropriate strategy in dealing with the MERS for a day employees. Homeowners take note: An inexpensive way in forcing the “fake VP of MERS” to perjur themselves or come clean (and ulimtately discredit their own affidavit of assignment) is to depose them for testimony under oath. Too complicated or expensive you say? There’s a little known method for discovery called Deposition upon Written Questions where the fraudster is forced to appear before a Court Reporter who swears them in and asks your prewritten questions. Perfect for out of state fraudsters who must appear before a local Court Reporter and can’t hide behind the local foreclosure mills skirts. You can even follow up with a 2nd round of questions that really turns up the hear after the first go around. Sun Tzu says check to your King.

  21. Does anyone have an assignment with the name Renee Hertzler a supposed vice president of MERS ??

  22. Don-CA

    Liquenda Allotey et al
    Her footprints are all over Google, she’s mentioned in many other posts on this site also.

  23. Looking to compare assignment signatures for the following individuals who are employees of Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. (FIS) in Minnesota taking on the role as VP’s of MERS and a few other banks.

    1. Bethany Hood
    2. Liquenda Allotey
    3. Christina Allen

    If you have any of those signatures, let me know.

    Thanks.

  24. I have assignments of mortgage signed by alpharetta georgia LPS/DOCX employees using different hands[ie forged] on different days–i need similar for the LPS office in minnesota ——does anybody have such deeds etc did u look at the signatures and compare from one assignment /foreclosure deed to another?

  25. Sarah Nemann:

    I too have had the same fraudulent assignments with Wilken/Allotey. Were you able to get the judge to strike the assignment?

    floridadefenseteam@comcast.net

  26. Department of Homeland Security November 19, 2008
    Secretary Michael Chertoff
    Nebraska Ave., Center, NW
    Washington, DC 20528
    (www.dhs.gov.) Via Fax: 1-202-282-8401
    Cc: Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm Office of Financial and Insurance Regulators FBI Counter-terrorist Units – Detroit, Troy, Grand Rapids, Clinton Twp., (All Offices)
    Updated Emergency Notification of Money Laundering and Terrorist Activity in Real-estate Residential and Commercial
    Dear Mr. Michael Chertoff:
    After I personally instructed International Title Clearing Inc., to provide the preceding correspondence dated November 14,2008, to place on notice to all individuals within the mortgage industry of Emergency Notification of Terrorist Activity in Michigan. Mr. Moore, received a number of calls from various Realtors/brokers, some seeking information and challenging the information which is/was being provided for the personal safety of these individuals unaware of the fraud being committed, with various properties alleging to be bank, FHA owned properties.
    Several individuals were directed to Detroit, FBI and were turned away, and provided with false information by a local agent. The purpose of the correspondence and supporting documents is to make these individuals aware of certain activity surrounding fraud, money laundering and often how it is linked to terrorist funds and drug trafficking funds. No one at any time ever represented them selves as a federal agency or connections with any federal entity.
    The information being provided is to assist these entities in identifying how they could be participation in assisting in covering up terrorist activity by listing properties which were apart of this scandal which I will provide a accurate breakdown. The levels of fraud, arc enormous and no one entity or individual could ever analysis these various activities alone, it took a cooperation of agencies inside and outside corporations to get to this point of understanding.
    It also appears that some of these agents are phoning in attempting to gather information for other unknown entities, which may be involved in knowingly participating in terrorist activity. One particular agent associated with Real Estate One, who would not provide her name, wanted information from me personally, she failed to provide her name, or rather she was a broker or Realtor, she stated that she knew federal agents.
    It is apparent when any agent or Realtor fails to provide basic information, it leaves a shadow of doubt on the company as a whole, Real estate One, should be aware of the activity of agents/or brokers. This Realtor phoned me on my personal cell phone from the following number: l-248-634-4362,( 11-18-08 AT approximately 5:59 p.m.) this unidentified female (alleged to be Caucasian), wanted information because she failed to identify who she was I failed to provided her with any new information. It is alleged that she may be attempt to collect information for entities which may be responsible for transferring these terrorist funds or drug warlords, attempting to gather intelligence through this unidentified entity.
    I informed this unidentified individual that is she would provide me with her company information I would be more than happy to forward information to her. This unidentified entity stated “this conversation is going no where and hung up”. This type of activity will be viewed and forwarded to the banking industry an unacceptable behavior.

    This correspondence is to serve as a double correspondence, 1st to set the standard to what is professional and ethical and what is not accepted. If any Realtor is seeking information please forward it in written form with point of contact and …….. will forward the request to myself, Real-estate Research Specialist LLC, and I will forward it to appropriate entity. Many departments which handle information such as this are not at the lower lever.
    For those Realtors/brokers who have expressed appreciation and respect for these restructuring efforts, I say thank you in advance for your cooperation, and we collectively can attempt to stabilize the mortgage industry for once again individual will be able to provide financial support for there families.
    International Title Clearing Inc., is and will be provided with information when requested in writing*. Realtors/Agents must provide solid evidence that they are entitled to certain information. A number of banks have been contacted and often due to the global collapse many of these entities are foreign and domestic this is not just a Michigan issue! No More Blind Phone Calls Please!!
    Provided in the information package which I will be willing to provide is information which will prove to be of value as it relates to understanding these complex issues which we all are facing in the current economic crisis which the global communities are facing. It is known and being provided that several Realtors have been murdered as well as individual in the mortgage banking and financial industry.
    These individuals may have been innocent and unaware of the fraud which was committed as it relates to title issues (undocumented and unrecorded). Elements of ownership of these alleged assets. Title insurance companies which have been shut down due to class action lawsuits mounting up by entities which have these alleged assets within there foreign and domestic financial portfolios. These restructuring efforts are to assist each and every individual involved in the mortgage, banking and financial industry.
    Explanation of fraudulent activity being committed – First and foremost I can say for fact that many of these real-estate being listed by agents/brokers, were involved in a global scandal which involved one asset being sold multiple time to various lenders, investors, pension funds, insurance companies etc. After tracking activity back to origination a number of complex financial scandals were uncovered, this correspondence will explain how these issues originated. It is too complex to include all scandals, however many are evident with the total collapse of the global economic structure.
    Second, all of these alleged debt collectors were alleged to be collecting on behalf of various lenders, banks, and financial institutions. After contact these financial institutions regard these actions the lawyers within the financial institutions were unaware of the activities by these debt collectors. It appears they served ad a decoy for the money laundering and transferring of these questionable activities.
    In Michigan, an entity known and Trott & Trott PC, which is the foreclosing agent for many of Michigan’s foreclosures, was allowed to provide Blank Endorsements involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as Ginnie Mae, as a result, someone took advantage of these activities.
    This activity was also associated with MERS – Mortgage Electronic Registration System, (and all Members) and prepared multiple fraudulent alleged securities and sold to the global community. After evidence of the fraud being revealed these multiple debt collectors would allege to be representatives of banks, financial institutions and often claiming representation of Trustees, of these unidentified securities.
    In some instances funds were allocated through Agriculture (Future Advanced Mortgage), which utilized stolen terrorist funds from the Colombian Cartels as well as Drug Cartels from Brazil. This fraud in addition to other scandals allowed Trillions to be laundered back through various debt collectors undetected until the financial collapse occurred.

    These alleged debt collectors participated in in-house fraud, often creating deeds A, B, C and D, then selling these documents as valid to all of MERS Participating Members, which included the all banks and financial institutions. Due to the Fact this fraud was/is in house no one know where the funds were being funneled from or through until murders started occurring within the mortgage, real-estate industry.
    Once these alleged mortgaged securities were packaged and sold to the global entities, they were alleged to be tied to current real-estate assets being listed by various Realtors, brokers, investment banks etc. However, no one knew the true value of these assets due to the fact that as many as 8 or more notes were created from the one asset. It is evident by several cases that some of these properties have unrecorded mortgages which far exceeds the value of the alleged asset, multiplied by 8. Note that this scandal has been on going for a number of years, masking each scandal with another to continue the cover up of events as far back as 1933.
    Once these alleged securities were packaged pooled and sold around the globe as valid securities attached to sold real-estate assets, everyone and everything in receivership of these fraudulent securities collapsed. Due to the level of funds which were transferred around the globe, it is evident and clear that these transaction involved drug warlords as well as terrorist funds. In addition, to MERS Scandal, another scandal involving FHA owned Properties (Alleged), and more than 28,000 properties being forfeited by FHA due to this same fraud..
    These participants of the fraud also utilized FHA, to collect multiple times, they received from FHA, funds for these alleged fraudulent foreclosed properties. Many of these properties which are being listed are included not because they were/is FHA insured, however, because these entities took Billions in default money through these down payment assistant programs in order to mask the fraud.
    Currently, Foreign and domestic investors which have purchased these alleged securities from Major Brokerage Companies here in the United States are all victims of the fraud committed here in Michigan as well as other states. A number of foreign terrorist attacks were a result of funds being transferred back to Michigan and other states to attempt to cover these activities up.
    Currently, a number of foreign and domestic investors are liquidation properties which were sold to them through United States Brokerage Firms, which are/were in receivership of these fraudulent mortgage and alleged mortgage backed securities. In actuality they utilized the structure of creating Mortgage Backed Security Trust (Unregulated) and Hedges these bogus securities against Pension fund assets, Hedge funds as well as Mutual funds.
    Once these entities attempt to liquidate these alleged assets, consumers who were paying mortgage payments homes were forced into foreclosure, primarily because the consumers where unaware of the fact that from their original mortgage other mortgages were created and the same alleged note sold to 4 – 8 different lenders at the same time. This restructuring effort is to assist everyone in working through this madness, and avoidance of any future terrorist attacks, because of attempts to transfer funds to continue to cover fraud. The United States can Enforce any all actions, however, private law firms will come to collect in behalf of these foreign entities.
    Respectfully yours,
    Ladelia Morris
    Real-estate Research Specialist LLC
    Enclosures Information Package

  27. Fidelity National Foreclosure & Bankruptcy Solutions Inc. (A Delaware Corpoartion)

    Having been through the process of protecting my home and having used the “find the note” strategy to good effect I forced the company trying to foreclose on me into a corner as NO assignments had ever been recorded even though “ownership” had changed hands three times!

    After my first hearing the bank had 21 days to cure the “problems”.

    In short they had to produce assignments.

    To my surprise they did manage to do this. As I am very cynical I investigated these 3 assignments.

    I found that all 3 assignments had been produced by employees of Fidelity National Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Solutions Inc, although they had signed them as Vice President of MERS, Vice President of SunTrust Bank and Vice President of EMC.

    Upon further investigation I found that a certain Liquenda Allotey had executed a warranty deed conveying a property in Araphoe County Colorado as an Assisant Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank.

    All assignments have been notorized in Dakota County Minnesota. (My home is in Florida)

    If any of the following names appear on any “new” assignment they are clearly fraudulent.

    Liquenda Allotey
    Greg Allen
    Christine Anderson
    Dan Arntsen
    Scot Barnes
    Pam Beck-Janssen
    Mark Cardenas
    Susan Carstensen
    Frank Coon
    Lawrence Dingmann
    Steve Gerths
    Dory Goebel
    Lynn McNamee
    Laura MacIntyre
    Sheryl Newman
    Matthew Rogina
    Scott Topel
    Elizabeth Anselmo
    Jennifer Anthony
    John Cody
    Doug Combs
    Joe Edlund
    Jeanelle Gray
    Joyce Helberg
    Thaoke Her
    Craig Hinson
    Sonja Lange
    Jon Menz
    Scott Walter
    Rick Wilken

    I dont know how these people sleep at night! This is just one small company willing and able to produce these assignments for Banksters. They need more publicity so this organized fraud cannot happen.

    My lawyer told me that they know many of the assignments are “ficticious” but proving this is time consuming. I am willing to help.

  28. There are a relatively few dozen “shareholders” who started, and own MERS. They are the ‘movers and shakers’ who designed a system of obfuscation and facilitation of creating and moving around, like peas under walnut shells, mortgages and beneficial interests.

    Evidence is now coming to light at the extent to which this is a vehicle to commit fraud.

    Anyone with a MERS mortgagee should rejoice at the opportunity to easily discover wrongdoing that can be used to block foreclosure actions and also overturn previously perfected foreclosures, but even more than that – to establish a pattern and practice of the operation of a criminal enterprise and lay the groundwork for measuring damages and going after them..treble PLUS legal fees.

    In my case, a foreclosure action was filed while I was waiting for a modification to a fixed, but the mill that filed it did it in the name of the wrong institution. So they then recorded an assignment prepared by the personal legal assistant to the head of this 800 person foreclosure mill PURPORTING TO BE AN ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS TO THE WRONG ENTITY.

    MERS first denied the person who executed the assignment was an employee of theirs, and then claimed the legal assistant was in fact their ‘Assistant Secretary’ of themselves as well. The entity denies knowing of what is going on or ever or now having any interest in my loan, which is showing as being fully satisified by the original lender and accepted as same by the bankruptcy court which dissolved it.

    MERS is a slick, highly organized and orchestrated shill, and we are way behind being as organized in dealing with this massive financial manipulation scheme of entrapping borrowers into predatory loans and then keeping them trapped in them only to eventually obtain ownership of the property in order to do it someone else while obtaining deficiency judgments in many cases agaisnt original borrowers.

    It is a massive fraud that probably needs to be sorted out by the World Court, as many, many overseas governments and entities have been victimized, as part of this scheme is to pass off the liability and losses to third parties – and government insiders in the U.S. have dirty hands in this scheme. The Obama administration’s promises have now turned into being an outright fraud upon the american public on a massive scale…with the federal government imposing involuntary taxation upon us and future generations to perpetuate.

    I would like to hear your stories for documentaries, books, articles, and legal cases, and share the information and documentation I already have with you, and help set up a network of sharing everyones progress in dealing with this abyss, which the OCC has deemed to facilitate…which is nothing more than private profiteering by those who see themselves as the ‘rulers of the world.’ and above reach.

  29. PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNING LAWSUITS BEING COMMECNED UNDER THE NAME MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. (“MERS”) AND SUGGESTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS IF YOU ARE SERVED WITH A LAWSUIT BY LAWYERS CLAIMING TO REPRESENT MERS.

    April 10, 2009
    MERS

    Basic Corporate Information
    · MERS is incorporated within the State of Delaware.
    · MERS was first incorporated in Delaware in 1999.
    · The total number of shares of common stock authorized by MERS’ articles of incorporation is 1,000.
    · The total number of shares of MERS common stock actually issued is 1,000.
    · MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCorp, Inc.
    · MERS’ principal place of business at 1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310, Vienna, Virginia 22182
    · MERS’ national data center is located in Plano, Texas.
    · MERS’ serves as a “nominee” of mortgages and deeds of trust recorded in all fifty states.
    · Over 55 million loans have been registered on the MERS system.
    · MERS’ federal tax identification number is “541927784”.

    The Nature of MERS’ Business
    · MERS does not take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans.
    · MERS does not make or originate mortgage loans to consumers.
    · MERS does not extend any credit to consumers.
    · MERS has no role in the origination or original funding of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS does not service mortgage loans.
    · MERS does not sell mortgage loans.
    · MERS is not an investor who acquires mortgage loans on the secondary market.
    · MERS does not ever receive or process mortgage applications.
    · MERS is simply named as a nominee and its parent company MERS Corp Inc. maintains an electronic registry, tracks changes in the ownership of mortgage loans and servicing rights related thereto.
    · MERS© System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interests in mortgage loans.
    · MERS is not named as a beneficiary of the alleged promissory note.

    Ownership of Promissory Notes or Mortgage Indebtedness
    · MERS is never the owner of the promissory note for which it seeks foreclosure.
    · MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”
    · MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage indebtedness.
    · MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
    · MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
    · MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
    · MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing rights related thereto.
    · MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).
    · MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.
    · The note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest, not to hold any interest in the note.
    · MERS does not hold any interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated with the mortgage loan.
    · The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay MERS on the note.

    MERS’ Accounting of Mortgage Indebtedness / MERS Not At Risk
    · MERS is not entitled to receive any of the payments associated with the alleged mortgage indebtedness.
    · MERS is not entitled to receive any of the interest revenue associated with mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · Interest revenue related to the mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as “nominee” is never reflected within MERS’ bookkeeping or accounting records nor does such interest influence MERS’ earnings.
    · Mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as the serves as “nominee” is not reflected as an asset on MERS’ financial statements.
    · Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not result in an accounting loss by MERS.
    · When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or enjoys the use of any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather would remit such proceeds to the true party at interest.
    · MERS is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor alleged to be in default.
    · MERS has never suffered any injury by arising out of any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.

    MERS’ Interest in the Mortgage Security Instrument
    · MERS is named on the mortgage as nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
    · MERS, in a nominee capacity for lenders, claims that it merely acquires legal title to the security instrument (i.e., the deed of trust or mortgage that secures the loan).
    · MERS claims that it holds legal title to mortgages and deeds of trust as a nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
    · MERS claims that it immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
    · The lender or investor continues to own and hold the promissory note, but under the MERS® System, the servicing entity only holds contractual servicing rights and MERS holds legal title to the mortgage as nominee for the benefit of the investor (or owner and holder of the note) and not for itself.
    · MERS claims that one of the advantages of its paperless systems is that the mortgage lien becomes immobilized by MERS continuing to hold the mortgage lien when the note is sold from one investor to another via an endorsement and delivery of the note or the transfer of servicing rights from one MERS member to another MERS member via a purchase and sale agreement which is a non-recordable contract right.
    · MERS claims that the legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust remains in MERS after such transfers and is tracked by MERS in its electronic registry.

    Beneficial Interest in the Mortgage Indebtedness
    · MERS claims to hold legal title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note.
    · The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note and/or servicing rights thereunder.
    · MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage loan.
    · MERS does not acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature.
    · The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or the person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note (NOT MERS).

    MERS As Holder
    · MERS is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary course of business.
    · MERS is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · MERS does not even maintain copies of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · Sometimes when an investor or servicer desires to foreclose, the servicer obtains the promissory note from the custodian holding the note on behalf of the mortgage investor and places that note in the hands of a servicer employee who has been “appointed” as an officer (vice president and assistant secretary) of MERS by corporate resolution. This technique is used by attorneys who purport to be representing MERS to feign standing by MERS to foreclose the mortgage by claiming that MERS is the holder of the promissory note. When in fact MERS, by its inventors design is never the holder of the promissory note.
    · When a promissory note is placed in the hands of a servicer employee that employee will then assume the position as an MERS officer de jour and pretend that this transfer of custody of the note into the hands of this nominal officer (without any transfer of ownership or beneficial interest) renders MERS the holder.
    · No consideration or compensation is exchanged between the owner of the promissory note and MERS in consideration of this transfer in custody. MERS is a bankruptcy remote corporation, and does not have any assets.
    · Even when the promissory note is physically placed in the hands of the servicer’s employee who is, at best, a nominal MERS officer, MERS has no actual authority to control the foreclosure or the legal actions undertaken in its name.
    · MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the owner of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent MERS.
    · MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the prior holders of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent MERS.
    · Since the transfer in custody of the promissory note is not for consideration, this transfer of custody is not reflected in any contemporaneous accounting records. MERS does not hold any loans nor pay any legal fees to foreclose any loans. MERS is essentially a shell.
    · MERS is never a holder in due course when the transfer of custody occurs after default.
    · MERS is never the holder when the promissory note is shown to be lost or stolen.
    · So-called “certifying officers” of MERS have submitted thousands if not tens of thousands of affidavits in Court proceedings falsely claiming that MERS was the holder of the promissory note or that the note had been lost.
    · An increasing number of court’s have learned of the fast and loose practice of various foreclosure attorneys preparing and the submitting affidavits signed by “certifying officers” of MERS wherein the statements contained in these affidavits are “disingenuous and/or outright misrepresentations”
    · Court’s which have actually scrutinized the statements contained in these certifying officer’s affidavits have determined that these affidavit statements were not admissible because they were signed by people who had no personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavits. They were therefore not competent to testify to the alleged facts.
    · The Hon. Linda B. Riegle, U.S. Bankrutpcy Judge, recently took issue with several affidavits that had been filed in support of several Motions for Relief from Stay by attorneys purporting to represent MERS. Judge Riegle refused to accept the affidavits of people claiming to be “Certifying Officers of MERS” which were submitted by attorneys purporting to represent MERS in an attempt to feign standing by pretending to be a holder of notes. Hawkins 2009 WL 901766 (Bkrtcy-D.Nev. March 31, 2009) The Court found that the affiant’s were not competant to testify concerning the underlying loans. “Ms. Mech’s bald assertion that she has “reviewed the loan file” is inadequate to show that she is personally knowledgeable of the facts”.
    · Similarly the Hon. Terry L. Meyers, U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, recently rejected a post hearing submission of an affidavit sign by a lawyer purporting to represent MERS in motion to lift stay. Judge Meyers enumerated six (6) reasons that he was rejecting the affidavit which had been submitted in a last ditch attempt by legal counsel purporting to represent MERS to establish standing for MERS by claiming MERS was the holder of the underlying promissory note. Judge Meyers found the affidavit statements by counsel claiming to represent MERS was inadmissible because the lawyer as a witness was not competent to testify regarding various documents and a note the lawyer’s sworn statements “appeared to be based nit on the affiant’s (counsel) persoanl knowledge but on the assertions of someone else . . . . the proffer of this “new” note as the “original” note directly contradicts MERS’ prior representations that the Note attached to the Motion was true and correct and the operatice document in this matter”

    MERS’ Role in Mortgage Servicing
    · MERS does not service mortgage loans.
    · MERS is not the owner of the servicing rights relating to the mortgage loan and MERS does not service loans.
    · MERS does not collect mortgage payments.
    · MERS does not hold escrow’s for taxes and insurance.
    · MERS does not provide pr perform any servicing functions on mortgage loans, whatsoever.
    · Those rights are typically held by the servicer of the loan, who may or may not also be the holder of the note.
    MERS’ Rights To Control the Foreclosure
    · MERS Corp. must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage loan promissory notes.
    · MERS Corp. only acts when directed to by its members and for the sole benefit of the owners and holders of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage instruments naming MERS as nominee owner.
    · MERS Corp. members employ and pay the attorneys bringing foreclosure actions in MERS’ name.

    MERS’ Access To or Control Over Records or Documents
    · MERS has never maintained archival copies of any mortgage application for which it serves as “nominee”.
    · In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not maintain physical possession or custody of promissory notes, deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments on behalf of its principals.
    · MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    · MERS as a corporation is not a custodian of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    · MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    · In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    · In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
    · Copies of the instruments attached to MERS’ petitions or complaints do not come from MERS’ corporate files or archives.
    · In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not input the promissory note or mortgage security instrument ownership registration data for new mortgages for which it serves as nominee, but rather the registration information for such mortgages are entered by the “member” mortgage lenders, investors and/or servicers originating, purchasing, and/or selling such mortgages or mortgage servicing rights.
    · MERS does not maintain a central corporate archive of demands, notices, claims, appointments, releases, assignments, or other files, documents and/or communications relating to collections efforts undertaken by MERS officers appointed by corporate resolution and acting under its authority.
    Management and Supervision
    · In preparing affidavits and certifications, nominal officers of MERS, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf, are not primarily relying upon books of account, documents, records or files within MERS’ corporate supervision, custody or control.
    · Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf, as a matter of routine do not furnish copies of these affidavits or certifications to MERS for corporate retention or archival.
    · Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf are not working under the supervision or direction of senior MERS officers or employees, but rather are supervised by personnel employed by mortgage investors or mortgage servicers.

    This should be a pretty good start for those of you faced with a foreclosure in which MERS is falsely asserting that it is the owner of the promissory note. Whether MERS is or was ever the holder is a FACT QUESTION which can be determined only by ascertain the chain of custody of the promissory note. When the promissory note is lost, missing or stolen, MERS is NOT the holder.

    If you are served with any lawsuit wherein MERS is named as the Plaintiff make sure you raise the issue that the lawyer or law firm who had signed the complaint is not actually representing MERS. Here are a series of preliminary Request for Admissions that should be served upon the lawyer of law firm who claims to be representing MERS as a Plaintiff in any lawsuit.

    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant John Doe in this case requires Plaintiff Bank of New York to admit or deny for the purpose of this case on the several facts hereunder specified within thirty (30) days as the time provided by Rules of Civil Procedure to admit or deny. Request for Admissions may include requests for admissions as to both factual and legal issues. Therefore you must admit or deny requests for both factual or legal admissions. The definitions contained in the Defendants’ Interrogatories are hereby incorporated as though fully restated herein.
    REQUEST NO. 1: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (“MERS”) did not retain or authorize Dewy Cheatham and Howe P.A. (“Cheatham”) to commence the above entitled action against John Doe or any other defendant relating to the Subject Property.
    REQUEST NO. 2: MERS did not provide any information to Cheatham used in drafting the allegations of the Complaint which Cheatham served and filed.
    REQUEST NO. 3; MERS did not have any direct or indirect involvement in controlling any other aspect of the above entitled action against John Doe.
    REQUEST NO. 4: MERS has no direct knowledge that Cheatham commenced the above entitled action against John Doe under the name of MERS.
    REQUEST NO. 5: MERS has never verbally communicated with Cheatham with regard to the above entitled action during any stage of the action.
    REQUEST NO. 6: MERS has never communicated with Cheatham in writing at any stage of the above entitled action that Cheatham has commenced against John Doe by simply naming MERS as the Plaintiff.
    REQUEST NO. 7: MERS could not have authorized Cheatham to commence the above entitled action against John Doe or any other defendant relating to the Subject Property, because MERS has no pecuniary interest in the subject property and therefore has no standing and/or authority to sue John Doe.
    REQUEST NO. 8: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    REQUEST NO. 9: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    REQUEST NO. 10: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    REQUEST NO. 11: MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage indebtedness.
    REQUEST NO. 12: MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
    REQUEST NO. 13: MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
    REQUEST NO. 14: MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
    REQUEST NO. 15: MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
    REQUEST NO. 16: MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing rights related thereto.

    REQUEST NO. 17: MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).

    REQUEST NO. 18: MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.

    REQUEST NO. 19: Mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as the serves as “nominee” is not reflected as an asset on MERS’ financial statements.

    REQUEST NO. 20: Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not result in an accounting loss by MERS.

    REQUEST NO. 21: When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or enjoys the use of any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather would remit such proceeds to the true party at interest.

    REQUEST NO. 22: MERS is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.

    REQUEST NO. 23: MERS has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.

    REQUEST NO. 24: MERS is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.

    REQUEST NO. 25: There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor alleged to be in default including John Doe.

    REQUEST NO. 26: MERS is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary course of business.

    REQUEST NO. 27: MERS is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.

    REQUEST NO. 28: MERS does not even maintain copies of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.

    REQUEST NO. 29: MERS did not retain Cheatham or obligate itself in any way to pay any legal fees to Cheatham with regard to Cheatham commencing the above entitled action.

    INTERROGATORIES
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Plaintiff, Bank of New York, answer the following Interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof, pursuant to Rule 33 of the ____________ Rules of Civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are to be deemed continuing so as to require prompt supplemental answers if additional information is obtained between the time Answers are served and the time of trial.

    INSTRUCTIONS
    A. Each Interrogatory is to be answered fully on the basis of information which is in your possession.
    B. In each of your answers to these Interrogatories, you are requested to provide not only such information as is in your possession, but also information as is reasonably available. In the event that you are able to provide only part of the information called for by any particular Interrogatory, please provide all the information you are able to provide and state the reason for your inability to provide the remainder.
    C. If you object to, or otherwise decline to answer, any portion of an Interrogatory, please provide all information called for by that portion of the interrogatory to which you do not object or to which you do not decline to answer. For those portions of an Interrogatory to which you object or decline to answer, state the reasons for such objection or declination.
    D. Every Interrogatory herein shall be deemed a continuing Interrogatory and you are to supplement your answers promptly if and when you obtain relevant information in addition to, or in any way inconsistent with, your initial answer to such Interrogatory.
    E. If any of the following Interrogatories can be answered fully and completely simply by referring to an exhibit number, page, and paragraph of the investigative file compiled by the Agency and furnished to the Appellant by the Agency in connection with this administrative complaint of discrimination, such references, if adequately identified to inform the Appellant as to your response, will serve as a satisfactory response to such Interrogatory.
    DEFINITIONS
    A. “Document” means any writing, record, notes, memorandums, correspondence, photographs, drawings, charts, tape or other voice recordings, or other graphic matter whether stored on paper, cards, computers or computer disk, magnetic or videotape, and shall include those which now are or ever were in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff.

    B. “Communication” means any conveyance of meaning or information, by any mode or medium, including but not limited to, telephone, telegraph, facsimile, e-mail correspondence, and any written or spoken language between two or more persons.

    C. “Identify” or “Identity,” with respect to a document, means (regardless of whether any claim or privilege is asserted), to set forth the following information, subject to the Option to Produce Business Records as provided by Rule 33.03, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure:

    1. Its nature (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.);
    2. The date it bears or, if undated, the date it was written or created;
    3. The identity of the person(s) who wrote or created it;
    4. The identity of the person(s) who received it;
    5. Its file number or other identifying mark or code;
    6. Its substance; and
    7. The identity of the person(s) in custody or control of it.

    D. “Identify” or “Identity” with respect to a person, means to set forth the following information:

    1. The person’s name;
    2. Present or, if unknown, last home address;
    3. Employer; and
    4. Job title or occupation.

    E. “Identify” or “Identity” with respect to a communication means the following information:

    1. Date and place of occurrence;
    2. Sender or initiator;
    3. Recipient;
    4. Identity of each person participating or present;
    5. Medium or mode used; and
    6. Its substance.

    F. “Person” or “Persons” means any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other entity.

    G. “You” or “your” means the parties, individually and collectively, to whom this set of Interrogatories is addressed and their officers, employees or agents.

    H. The “Subject Property” refers to the property that is the subject matter of the above entitled action located 1456 Humingbird Trail, Aviary Minnesota. .

    I. “Plaintiff” refers to.”MERS” refers to the Mortgage Electronic Mortgage Registration Systems.
    L. John Doe refers to Defendant John Doe
    M. “Closing” refers to origination of a loan and/or or mortgage securing a loan to Paul Homes by and between America’s Wholesale Lender to Paul Holmes.
    In answering these Interrogatories, the Plaintiff is requested to furnish not only such information as is available to the Plaintiff but also such information as is known to any of the Plaintiff’s agents, attorneys, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf of the agency.
    If any matter responsive to any of the interrogatories, the Plaintiff shall set forth completely the grounds for the asserted privilege. The Plaintiff shall identify as to each privileged communication or document:
    its date;
    its author(s);
    the business title or position of its author(s);
    its recipients(s);
    the business title or position of its recipient(s);
    it number of pages;
    its subject matter;
    the legal basis upon which the Plaintiff claims privilege;
    the specific portion of the interrogatory or document to which the communication or document is responsive.
    Each interrogatory and each part thereof is to be answered separately and fully. Immediately preceding your response to each of the following interrogatories, please set forth the full text of the question asked, followed by your response.
    Documents are to be labeled to indicate the interrogatory to which they respond.
    In order to simplify the issues and resolve as many matters of fact as possible before hearing, if, following a reasonable and thorough investigation using due diligence, you are unable to answer any interrogatory, or any part thereof, in full because sufficient information is not available to you, answer the interrogatory to the maximum extent possible, including any knowledge or belief you have concerning the unanswered portion thereof and the facts upon which such knowledge or belief is based. In addition, state what you did to locate the missing information and why that information is not available to you.
    When an exact answer to an interrogatory is not known, state the best estimate available, state that it is an estimate, and state the basis for such estimate.
    If documents once in your possession or under your control are requested or are the subject of an interrogatory, and such documents are no longer in your possession or under your control, state when such documents were most recently in your possession or under your control, and what disposition was made of them, including identification of the person now in possession of or exercising control over such documents. If the documents were destroyed, state when and where they were destroyed, and identify the person or persons who directed their destruction.

    All of the following interrogatories shall be continuing in nature until the date of the hearing, and you must supplement your answers as additional information becomes known or available to you.
    NOTE:
    IF YOU CONSIDER ANY INTERROGATORY OR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OBJECTIONABLE, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED BEFORE OBJECTING, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO NARROW THE QUESTION OR AVOID THE OBJECTIONABLE PORTION OR ASPECT.

    INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, employment position, and relationship to Plaintiffs of the persons providing information and/or assisting in the preparation of the Petition filed in the above-entitled proceeding.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the name, address, employment position, and relationship to Plaintiffs of the persons providing information and/or assisting in the preparation of the answers to the admissions previously served, these interrogatories and the request for production of documents.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify every person with knowledge of any of the facts alleged in the Complaint by Plaintiffs, and for each such person state in detail the facts that such person has or claims to have.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify every person or entity who has or who had possession, custody or control of any documents identified in Plaintiffs’ answers to these Interrogatories or in Requests for Production of Documents served on you contemporaneously herewith, and for each such person identify the documents the person has or claims to have and the date they came into such person’s possession.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the names, addresses and telephone numbers, employment positions, and relationship to the parties of any person from whom you have obtained statements or reports concerning the above entitled matter and give the dates on which such respective statements and/or reports were obtained.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all witnesses you intend to call at trial of this matter, and give a summary of the object matter of the testimony of each of them.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all document(s) you intend to introduce as Exhibits at trial of this matter and/or documents upon which you relied in making the eighty eight allegations in your Complaint. .
    INTERROGATORY NO. 8: As to any of the above Request for Admissions

    which you do not unqualifiedly admit, state:

    (a) Each fact upon which you base your denial.
    (b) Identify each person who you assert has knowledge of each such fact.
    (c) Identify each document, record or item upon which you base your denial,

    INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify and list each letter communication, notice or other written communication relating to the Subject Property by and between the Plaintiff and any of the following persons and/or entities:
    (a) John Doe.
    (b) John No One.
    (c) Richard Dewey.
    (d) Frank Cheatham.
    (e) Andy Howe.
    (f) Lender XYZ.

    INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the specific person or persons from MERS who authorized Cheatham to commence of the above entitled action.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 11:. Identify in whose possession the Promissory Note given by John Doe to ______________ Lender was at the time Cheatham commecned the above entitled action against John Doe to foreclose the mortgage.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify and describe what, if any, lenders title insurance policy may have been issued to MERS with regard to the mortgage which MERS is attemtpin to foreclose by the instant action.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify and Describe in detail the factual and legal basis supporting any of the allegations in the MERS Complaint, and identify all supporting documents and all persons having personal knowledge of said allegations.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Explain why MERS is suing John Doe to foreclose a mortgage that allegedly secures a debt evidenced by a promissory note held by someone other than MERS.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify who was the holder of the underlying promissory note which is MERS alleges is in default by its Complaint in the above entitled action.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for any and all claims MERS is asserting in this action, and identify all supporting documents and all persons having personal knowledge of said basis.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 17:. Identify and describe any and all communications by and between MERS and Defendant John Doe prior to commencing the action to foreclose the mortgage in which MERS is named as a “nomineee”. .
    INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify the date when MERS retained Cheatham and authorized Cheatham to commence the above entitled action against John Doe.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify and describe what, if any, communication MERS has had with Cheatham since the above entitled action was commenced against John Doe.
    INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify what, if any, obligation MERS has to pay Cheatham legal fees relating to legal services provided by Cheatham with regard to the above entitled action that Cheatham has commenced on behalf of MERS against John Doe. .
    INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify what, if any, other person and/or entity is contractually obligated to pay Cheatham legal fees to legal services provided by Cheatham with regard to the above entitled action that Cheatham commenced on behalf of MERS against John Doe.
    . REQUEST FO DOCUMENTS.
    It is hereby demanded, in accordance with Rules 34.02 and 26.02(3) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, that you produce and allow inspection and copying, or furnish copies to the undersigned, of the following documents (please categorize your responses.
    REQUEST NO. 1: All documents disclosed and/or identified in your responses to Respondent’s Request for Admission or Interrogatories herein.
    REQUEST NO. 2: All documents utilized or referred to in preparing your responses to Respondent’s Request for Admission or Interrogatories herein.
    REQUEST NO. 3: All documents which in any way relate to the claims and/or allegations made in the complaint filed by Cheatham purportedly on behalf of MERS in the above entitled action.
    REQUEST NO. 4 All correspondence by and between any Defendants and any person or entity with regard to the subject mortgage loan. .
    REQUEST NO. 5: Any and all closing statements, title insurance policies and/or any other written evidences from the closing of the loan made by _____________ Lender to John Doe. .
    REQUEST NO. 6: The Original promissory note from John Doe to _____________ Lender.
    REQUEST NO. 7: Any and all accounting ledger which was maintained by _____________ Lender or subsequent holders of the John Doe’s promissory note which records payments of principal and interest and/or penalties made by John Doe on the indebtedness that MERS alleges he owes under the promissory note given to ___________ Lender.
    REQUEST NO. 8: Any and all documents, ledgers, or other accounting records that were used as a basis for MERS’ to determine a default was made by John Doe under the promissory note he allegedly gave to _______________ Lender.
    REQUEST NO. 9: Any and all documents, ledgers, or other accounting records that were used as a basis for the calculation of amounts MERS claims is due and owing by John Doe under the promissory note he allegedly gave to _________________ upon which MERS has commenced an action for foreclose the MERS mortgage it claims to have been assigned.
    REQUEST NO. 10: Any and all evidence of MERS legal status as Delaware corporation, legally entitling MERS to commence a legal action in Minnesota without registering as a foreign corporation.
    REQUEST NO. 11: Any and all written communication by or from the MERS directing or authorizing the law firm of Cheatham to file a lis pendens and/or to commence the above entitled action on behalf of MERS.

    CLEARANCE DARROW ATTORNEY AT LAW

    Dated: _____________ . ________________________________
    Clearance Darrow Attorney No. 1
    Attorney for John Doe
    123 Expose MERS Road
    Foreclosure, MN 55117
    Telephone:

    I sincerely hope that dissemination of the aforementioned information concerning MERS will help educate and inform all Americans, including lawyers, judges, legal scholars and perhaps even the mainstream media as to just what MERS is and more importantly what it is not. I am hoping that this information will dispel any misconceptions that MERS is a mortgage lender, a creditor or the holder of any promissory note. Accordingly MERS, or more correctly, lawyers claiming to represent MERS are commencing legal actions in MERS name when in fact MERS has no pecuniary interest in the underlying debt and therefore has absolutely no standing to bring any legal action which is based upon an indebtedness that is owed to someone other than MRS.

    Lastly it appears that most suits that have been brought on behalf of MERS are lawyer initiated with no authorization, control or involvement from MERS. Legal fees for these MERS suits are never paid for by the MERS, but are paid either by the actual lender or creditor or the servicer of the loan who may of may not be holding the original promissory note. Foreclosure lawyers and law firms scattered around the country have been able initiate tens of thousands foreclosure actions, and eviction actions under the name of MERS because until recently most people thought MERS was a creditor, lender or servicer with standing to foreclose and officers who could testify as to the underlying loan. The many recent decisions dismissing MERS actions for lack of standing and court’s taking issue with affidavits submitted in conjunction with these pretended and unauthorized suits indicates a growing awareness of the MERS ruse.

    REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

    If you have any information regarding recent legal actions commenced by MERS and/or Bank of New York or recent court decisions wherein MERS and/or Bank of New York were named as Plaintiff’s please email the information to me for review and inclusion in my ever growing dossier.

    Kevin Lamson

    kev_o_shanter@yahoo.com

  30. SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
    No. 08-1299
    M O R T G A G E E L E C T R O N I C
    REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.,
    APPELLANT,
    VS.
    SOUTHWEST HOMES OF ARKANSAS,
    APPELLEE,
    Opinion Delivered March 19, 2009
    APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
    COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
    NO. CIV07-223-2,
    HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE,
    · AFFIRMED

    Arkansas Supreme Court determined MERS has no standing as a “nominee”. This scholarly decision exposes the some of the flaws in the so-called MERS system and rejects lawyers claims that MERS has standing as a “nominee” .

  31. Judges should not be allowed to dismiss a produce the note defense.

    The courts should make it illegal to use MERS in foreclosures.

  32. Does anyone have experience with Indymac bank as the servicer for Deutsch Bank, the purchaser of my mortgage?
    I am simply looking for an interest rate modification and the information I get from Indymac is totally confusing and conflicting: on the one hand they say “keep current with your payments” and on the other they say “Deutsch Bank will only consider a modification of you are delinquent”!
    Is Deutsch Bank reasonable to work with on a modification or should I continue putting effort into a refi via an “ethical lender”?
    Bernie in Ohio

  33. What is MERS doing now? appearing as co-defendant
    on foreclosures. What a trick….now MERS as a co-defendant does not file affirmative defenses in a foreclosure therefore creating an automatic Default. Plaintiff (in conspiracy with MERS) then file summary judgments based on MERS default!!!! becaise MERS is co-defendant (DN02) then while first defendant (borrower) is defending his/her foreclosure, is not aware that regardless of these defenses, MER is causing a default that will bring an automatic Sale Date….therefore a sale automatically …!!!!!!!!!

  34. I also have some countrywide loans that do not seem right. MERS list countyrwide as servicer but on the one loan the tilte list MERS – home Mortgage who was the original lender and listed onthe note. THey are now out of business. any suggestions on dealing with countrywide.

    Thanks

  35. I have MERS listed as appointee to America
    s Wholesale Lender as my Mortgagee (Countrywide Wholesale). For 2 years the Note and Mortgage was never assigned to Countrywide Home Loans, the transfer was not recorded until after they initiated foreclosure activity. In my Answer I ask for Discovery providing documentation showing chain of title and the Plaintiff refused to even mention the recording of the transfer even thought I asked specifically about its existence. I also asked for a copy of the pooling/securitization agreement and she refused citing claim of privilege.
    My next step is to meet with an Advocate and move to dismiss. I am going to see if there is any fraud or negligence on their behalf. Bottom line is, given the documents submitted in their Complaint, Countrywide Home Loans is not the mortgagee….its MERS. Therefore, they have no right to cure in the judicial state.

    Any thoughts to make my case stronger?

  36. With the MERS issue can I recall my foreclosed
    property. I send them a letter prior to trustee sale questioning the recordation of the substitution of trustee. They recorded deafult first before the substitution of trustee recording

  37. Thanks, Neil,
    The bloggers on your site have helped me greatly. I am determined to carry out the fight against Countrywide foreclosure no matter how long it takes!

    My friends and I have been studying for a year to become absolutely clear on fact, law and evidence.
    I haven’t seen “MERS” written on any served documents yet, but I know Countrywide uses it as pooler of their securitised mortgage-backed bonds — calling it a TRUST vehicle.

    QUESTION: Can I make MERS a part of my motion to dismiss on fraud perpetrated on the court?
    So far the Plaintiff is just the law firm as agent for Countrywide.

  38. Carol,

    You need to file a civil law suit. You can file bankruptcy, or a civil suit federally, as abby has stated, or a civil suit locally in your county court.(much easier).

    This suit consists of a Summons, Complaint, and a Lis Pendens, that is recorded against your property to prevent any attempts at transferring your title non-judicially. (Only a court order can remove clouds to title)

    Of course, there is so much more to what happens after that, but the initial filing will stop the transfer of title of your home.

    If you would like more information, please give me a call.

    1-800-552-9313 Ext 111

    Allan Hennessey

    Foreclosure Protection Expert

    AllanHennessey@gmail.com

  39. Carol- I’m not an attorney so I am offering merely a process that I used.

    You can file a bankruptcy on your own and for low cost. Most bankruptcy courts will have their forms and process locatd on the web. You will have to go down in person to file and bring cash, cashiers check. Usually you can do this on your own for less than $500 versus a bankruptcy attorney who will charge several thousand.

    Learn about Chpt. 7 versus Chpt. 13 for personal bankruptcy. In Bankruptcy court, you may be able to work?? with the lender to get the modification etc. The lender will not approach you with the mod….but you can try.

    In my case my chpt 7 took about 5 months before I came out of bankruptcy.

    The bankruptcy will put an immediate stay on the foreclosure sale. The lender will file papers to get the stay lifted off the property—that gives you the opportunity for getting the mod.

    I filed a chpt 7 then a 13.

    Do as much reading on this site as you can.

    Good luck.

  40. Also Mers is listed as beneficiary and the lawyers that are foreclosing on me are not the trustees that are listed on my deed of trust. I only have a matter of days before they put in the papers and set a sale date in Jan 2009. I need to know what to do to stop the sale and get it in court.

  41. can someone help me, what do I need to file to halt a foreclosure sale in a non judicial state. I know some type of lien, but I don’t know how, or what. Speaking of attorneys here ilook on the net all they talk about are filing bankruptcies or doing modifications. So I’m not dealing with any of them. I don’t have much money and I don’t want to waste it on those guys who are actually still working for this fiat system.

  42. I do not smell money yet, but there is something in the air. I thought it might be a pony.

    My lawyer emailed me a week ago with “great news.”

    “WaMu is withdrawing the foreclosure action filed against you. This means that within 20 days the action will be dismissed and you can proceed with the refi or reverse mortgage.

    I need your approval to sign the Stipulation of Dismissal. Please respond by Jan. 1st.”

    This is the man who has seen the payoff statement that is inflated beyond the original 1999 loan amount, each paragraph of which is punctuated with promises that the real payoff amount will actually be higher. The payoff amount quoted by their attorneys actually is higher, containing $2500 for their fees, and I got a call from Washington Mutual Collections this week with yet another figure.

    So why do they want to file a motion to dismiss? My guess is to screw up any possibility of refinance, but I didn’t agree to any payoff amount.

    I have been here before. I responded pro se to a foreclosure complaint filed by lender’s attorneys in January 2008 (while my payments were current). I learned of the complaint 2 weeks before the deadline to file and I know better than to represent myself. I did look for an attorney but because it was so late I drafted an answer and got it filed on time. The complaint contained so few accurate details that at first I thought it was written for someone else. Then I realized it had been written for anyone else – a generic foreclosure complaint. Content does not matter at all and the courts in Central NJ are fine with it.

    In April the same law firm took its motion to dismiss before an accommodating judge who took their word that defendant agreed to the motion ‘without prejudice or costs.’ I wrote to the judge, the lender, its attorneys and protested, but nobody would represent me against the law firm that liberated me from a foreclosure action. I see their point – it was not as if I would not get another chance to be in foreclosure ever again. They were merely creating default. I don’t agree with them but gave up looking. No matter which side the attorneys with whom I’ve been in contact represent, they belong to the same club.

    I will not allow this process to end here and now only to begin again with the threat of a sheriff’s sale at a time of their choosing. This time around I am fortunate not to have a fool for a client, although I may have one for a lawyer. Regardless, those facts do command a certain amount of restraint on the lender’s attorneys’ part. This time I received notice.

    The dismissal motion is identical in content to the one I got for free. There is no reference to a January 1 deadline – that is my attorney’s eager date to wash his hands of this matter (for which he was paid in advance). I am in the foreclosure twilight zone – everybody just gets paid.

    I am not going to allow lender’s attorneys to file their motion to dismiss – but I want to use this opportunity to demand documentation in preparation for trial. I can study foreclosure law until I can recite it but I am at a loss for learning mortgage-mill tactics to subvert it.

    I need a lawyer who can represent me in NJ or, failing that, someone who will at least guide me through the first motion. I have filled in most of the information on Neil’s questionnaire and intend to move forward with the Request to Perform Preliminary Loan Document Review, but I need to know what to do now.

    I have several herniated discs and need surgery. I have been putting it off all year and as the pain grows more intense, I get madder.

    Thank you for any advice –

    Virginia

    PS – Lender’s attorneys website:

    Mr. Such is a Freddie Mac Designated Counsel for both the State of New Jersey and the State of New York, and a Fannie Mae Retained Counsel for both states as well. The Firm has the distinction of being the only law firm in the country with a designation in more than one State. In addition, he is one of the few attorneys in New Jersey to be selected by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) as a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Commissioner, which gives him the power to conduct non-judicial foreclosures of certain government loans.

    When I write Shaun Donovan to congratulate him on his appointment, I’m going to ask about the wisdom of giving power to mortgage-mill law firms.

  43. I first saw mers some time ago and I found it to be a very curious part of a loan doc and a legal looking marking that,on its face seemed to not fit in.

    “Curious I thought,curious”.

    This kinda stuff would blast a red flag at me.I thought it may have been just my fantasy.

    My first thoughts were, wow what a money tree.I love mers,happied by their folly I began thoughts of winfall, in my favor.

    I began to smell the money.

  44. MERS. I noticed an odd reference to a Mortgage Electronic on a few of my foreclosure complaints over the past 7 years. At first I thought they were Cendant’s agents, but you have enlightened me. I did not know the loan had been passed on to them or who they were, but Wamu took it over in ’02 or thereabouts. I have been under threat of foreclosure ever since.

    WAMU recorded something to formally establish ownership this year. I demanded a copy of it but they’ve ignored me as usual. At my April foreclosure appearance I overheard the Judge advise counsel he really did need to get it done. Wasn’t that sweet of her? I felt sure there was a reason – plumping assets, avoiding tax – but this is very, very different.

    Paperless. Do you know how difficult it is to write this without swearing?

    Wamu has hunted me with the most bizarre foreclosure complaints for 7 years (3 this year alone.), keeping my credit in ruins and life on hold. How can I thank you?

    I have a good amount of equity in my home but have been unable to tap into it. My attorney notified their lawyers that I would be closing on a refinance in January and demanded a payoff amount. (In the past that request triggered a foreclosure complaint within a month.)

    Their mortgage payoff figure is $5,000 above the original loan taken out in 1999. Not one word of the 9 solid years of payments. I ought to have expected that, but didn’t. In researching I arrived at this very spot tonight because I knew that unless I found a way to hurt them and their attorneys, I would never be free of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: