By The LendingLies Team
In an ongoing California Appeal (that will go unnamed at this time), a homeowner’s attorney obtained a routine MERS corporate disclosure statement in response to an opening appellate brief he had filed. The attorney shared the disclosure statement with a colleague in Hawaii who noticed that MERS claimed it was owned by its holding company who was owned by Maroon Holding, an LLC. Further research revealed that Maroon was more than 10% owned by “Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.” (“ICE”). Additional digging revealed that ICE was listed as the parent corporation for the New York Stock Exchange. At that point red flags were raised.
The attorney, flabbergasted, after years of trying to peel the layers off of the proverbial MERS onion, discovered that ICE purchased the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) for around 8 billion dollars, and it is now worth over 11 billion dollars (huge profits fueled by trillions of dollars of foreclosures and the unrecognized devaluation of the dollar) (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ice-closes-11b-acquisition-nyse-135835485.html) The attorney discovered that ICE also claims to have purchased MERS (so Maroon could not own MERS if ICE does) and when looking into ICE, it is traded (oddly being the NYSE) on NASDAQ.
NASDAQ lists 51 pages of stock ownership in ICE which includes virtually everyone and anyone involved in the financial fraud and corruption scheme. The pirates include Black Rock who fabricates the forged documents, to Bank of America, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; as well as Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Goldman Sachs, T Rowe Price (largest investor), Wells Fargo, Citi, etc… The list of participants goes on and on with billions of dollars and half a billion shares outstanding. Not to mention that the government sponsored GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are owners as well.
The risk is evenly distributed among the Too Big To Fail institutions with no party owning more than 10% ownership in shares requiring disclosure (of course). ICE’s ownership, like MERS, is buried in Delaware corporations with 3 different entities claiming the exact same name. This shell game of mergers and name changes makes it nearly impossible to identify who actually owns anything since no court in the country will enforce discovery or any subpoena on them since each county/pension is invested themselves.
For additional information check out these links:
The bank’s attorneys are also playing the obfuscation game by failing to identify who retained them.
This same attorney reports that he has attempted to sanction opposing counsel for claiming to represent parties that (1) do not exist and/or; (2) were not sued. In this instance, the lead defendant bounced between two firms, and claimed to represent a party that does not exist. Nine months into litigation the lender finally admitted they represented the wrong party and then claimed to represent the lender the homeowner first sued instead of who they claimed to currently represent. The lenders use a game of changing entities, names, servicers and trusts to detract from the real issues while creating such a convoluted mess that plausible deniability can be implied at all junctions. Outside of foreclosure, no Plaintiff in any other type of litigation would be permitted to act in this manner without being sanctioned.
In this particular case, three different law firms have now made misleading statements and the court takes any lie they spin as fact. False representations of legal representations for trustees who don’t know or don’t care whether their name is used as Plaintiff or beneficiary are now the norm. Yet, there is no clear procedural method of challenging whether the law firm represents the servicer v REMIC trustee. In a Florida US bank case, the Plaintiff’s lawyer admitted to having zero contact with US bank and the attorney could not state that US bank retained him. It is all but impossible to identify who is truly pulling the strings and violates a consumer’s right to know who their creditor is.
The attorney who brought this situation to our attention writes, “Defendants and their counsel are attempting to obfuscate any ability to identify any actual owner, holder or holder-in-due-course of the purported debt, if such ever existed, its extinguishment notwithstanding.” When the homeowner, their attorney, the bank, opposing counsel and the judge can’t identify who the true creditor and imposters are, this leads to issues of:
- Slander and Disparagement of the Title to Plaintiff’s Property
- Lender’s Acts are not Privileged and are without Justification
- False Claims
- Pecuniary Losses
- Fraud on the Court
- FDCPA and FDCPA violations
- Claims are barred for Making False, Deceptive and Misleading Representations
- Unconscionable Allegations by Plaintiff
- Plaintiff had no Standing to bring Lawsuit
These are issues causing real damages and yet, the Judge in this case will likely ignore the blatant fraud, the use of pseudo-parties and the unconscionable consequences caused by a party with no standing to be in the courtroom. If you’re a bank you are not required to be honest or have any credible evidence of ownership. The presentation of fabricated and forged documents, shell companies, and a false affidavit is usually sufficient to foreclose.
Neil Garfield will provide more information on the MERS ownership issue in the next several weeks. Stay up to date at LivingLies.