As Neil Garfield says…The Pretender Lenders have now tried to use all the major parties and some of the minor parties in foreclosures and when tested have failed to prove standing.

Standing is a jurisdictional matter and it basically boils down to

“You don’t belong here, you have no rights to enforce, you have no interest in this litigation, so get out of here and don’t come back.”

They tried MERS, Servicers, Foreclosure Specialty processors, Trustees, originating “lenders” and they come up empty. why because they are all intermediaries and as Judge Holloway put it, the note is not payable to them, the mortgage does not secure them, the obligation is not due to them and therefore they can’t proceed. In non-judicial states they get around this requirement unless the homeowner brings suit.

Bottom Line:  These banks lie and fabricate documents to put them in a position to win.  Don’t let them.  If you are sick and tired of fighting the bank and their seemingly endless supply of tricks don’t give up.  We beat the bank every month and you can too.

- The Bank Slayer

Hon. Arthur M. Schack does it again!

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v George

2010 NY Slip Op 50786(U)
Decided on May 4, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 4, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4, Plaintiff,

v.

Gertrude George, IVY MAY JOHNSON, GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DANIEL S. PERLMAN, et. al., Defendants.

10865/06

Plaintiff- JP Morgan Chase Bank
Steven J Baum, PC
Amherst NY

Defendant- Gertrude George
Edward Roberts, Esq.
Brooklyn NY

Defendant- Ivy Mae Johnson
Precious L. Williams, Esq.
Brooklyn NY

Judge Arthur M. Schack, J.

_______________________________________________

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the order to show cause of defendant IVY MAE JOHNSON, to vacate the January 16, 2008 judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 47 Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4600, Lot 55, County of Kings), pursuant to CPLR Rule 5015 (a) (4), because plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4, lacked standing to commence the instant action and thus, the Court never had jurisdiction, is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, the instant complaint of plaintiff JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4 for the foreclosure on the premises located at 47 Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4600, Lot 55, County of Kings) is dismissed with prejudice.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

___________________________

Hon. Arthur M. SchackJ. S. C..

Why stop now?  You have unlimited U.S. taxpayer money.   Everyone NEEDS to have a home.  More loans, more loans, more loans.  A mortgage loan in every pot.  Say it together.

Bottom Line:  Until homeowners are educated on the true and total cost of home ownership AND brokers stop gouging folks, a tweak here or there will be countered by lenders needing to make a fast buck and will continue to dupe borrowers.

- The Bank Slayer

Fannie Modifies Criteria for Purchase and Securitization of ARMs

Citing the need to protect borrowers from mortgage payments that potentially balloon out of control, Fannie Mae (FNM ^[1]: 1.22 -3.17%) is putting forward new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products. The government sponsored entity is also tweaking its rules on interst0only products.

– The Bank Slayer

J.P. Morgan Chase / LPS Produced a Fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage! Memorandum of Law of The United States Trustee in Support of Sanctions Against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank National Association

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. GERBER,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Diana G. Adams, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York (the “United States Trustee”), respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of the request of Silvia Nuer (the “Debtor”) for sanctions against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National Association (“Chase”) in connection with Chase’s Motion for Relief from Stay (the “Motion For Stay Relief”) as servicer for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche”), as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-2 (“Long Beach Trust”), with respect to a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) as to property located at 1651 Metropolitan Avenue, 7C, Bronx, NY 10462 (the “Property”).

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The United States Trustee supports the Debtor’s request for sanctions. Chase has filed documents that appear to be either patently false or misleading in connection with the Motion For Stay Relief. In the Motion For Stay Relief, Chase took the position that it was acting only as the servicer of the Mortgage. Chase at the same time attached documents which supported a different position. Specifically, an assignment showed that Chase held the Mortgage and was assigning that Mortgage to Deutsche. Not only was the assignmentdated post-petition, but it was signed only a few days before Chase filed the Motion For Stay Relief. The assignment was also prepared several yearsafter the last actual assignment of the Mortgage. When afforded opportunities to correct this matter, Chase, through supplemental filings, continued to produce documents that were confusing and contradictory, and presented anaffirmation submitted by a witness who apparently had no direct or personal knowledge of the facts or the chain of ownership of the Mortgage. However, what is clear is that, whether created through inadvertence or a deliberate act, the assignments created by Chase in connection with the Motion For Stay Relief appear to be false or misleading.

This is not the first time that Chase’s conduct with regard to motions for relief from the stay has been questioned in a bankruptcy case. Although Chase has recently taken remedial steps to address concerns expressed by courts in connection with other cases, based on Chase’s past and current conduct, the United States Trustee supports the Debtor’s request for sanctions in order to deter further conduct such as that seen in this case.

Recently, members of our team confronted the Trustee that was about to auction off the homestead of one of our clients.  In our hand was the Temporary Restraining Order, the ink still wet from a Judge’s signature; effectively stopping the foreclosure sale and saving this home owner.

When the TRO was handed to the Trustee he feigned surprise and acted as if he didn’t care one way or another if some local Judge had ordered the foreclosure sale to stop.  Why? He was on a mission for the bank or possible his buddies.  Sell the house.

As he glanced at the TRO our team said, “I guess that’s all you need.”  The Trustee’s retort, “You going to stick around to see if I still sell the house?”   Incredulously we said, “I trust you’re going to follow the Judge’s order.”  His curt reply, “There is no trust in this business.”

Amazing huh?   Sadly this Trustee who is supposed to sell a home to the highest bidder and show impartiality between the bank and the homeowner is untrustworthy.

Just take a trip down to the foreclosure auctions.  You’ll quickly see that homeowners are getting the shaft.

We have witnessed trustees high fiving each other after clearing the sale board.  why? Not a single house sold to a third party buyer, in other words they bid back every house to the bank.

Bottom Line: You can’t trust the trustee.  Want another example…read on below.

- The Bank Slayer

Department of Justice Press Release – Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

For Immediate Release
April 16, 2010 United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of California
Contact: (916) 554-2700
From Dan Edstrom:

Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

SACRAMENTO, CA—United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner and Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced today that Anthony B. Ghio, 43, of Stockton, pleaded guilty today before United States District Judge Edward J. Garcia to conspiring to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County.

These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

According to Assistant United States Attorneys Robin R. Taylor and Russell L. Carlberg, who are prosecuting the case with assistance from Barbara Nelson and Richard Cohen of the Antitrust Division, Ghio admitted in his guilty plea that he conspired with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices.

Court documents show that after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second private auction. Each participating conspirator would submit bids in the private auction above the public auction price. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the noncompetitive price at the public auction and the winning bid at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. Ghio participated in the bid-rigging scheme from April 2009 until October 2009.

Ghio is charged with bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory sentencing factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visithttp://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm, or the FBI’s Sacramento Division at 916-481-9110, or the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California at 916-554-2900.

Media inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be directed to Lauren Horwood at 916-554-2706. Media inquiries regarding the department’s Antitrust Division should be directed to Gina Talamona at 202-514-2007.

This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

QUESTION:  So what is to be done with this evil smoke screen called MERS?

ANSWER: A good ‘ol Texas butt kicking.

What needs to happen in Oregon is the same as in other states.  MERS has to be busted for being what it is…a smoke screen.

I can tell you that we love when homeowners ask for help and they are being pursued by MERS.

We are crushing MERS here in Texas and have yet to lose a battle against the lender scumbags who use MERS to hide.

Call us today if MERS is threatening your home.

- The Bank Slayer

MERS SHOWDOWN LOOMING IN OREGON

From the desk of Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

The appellate courts of Oregon, like many states, have not yet spoken on the numerous issues surrounding MERS, including what MERS really is (legally); what alleged authority MERS has (notwithstanding boilerplate language in Deeds of Trusts or Mortgages); what MERS can or cannot do; and whether MERS assignments are of any legal effect. For those of you following the emerging case law on these issues, you know that the Supreme Courts of Kansas and Arkansas; the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the Districts of Nevada and Idaho; the state courts in Missouri, Vermont, and South Carolina; and other courts which have actually dissected the MERS language in Deeds of Trusts and Mortgages have consistently said “NO” to MERS: that MERS is not the “Beneficiary”; that MERS has no authority to transfer the promissory notes because it was never the owner thereof (as one cannot transfer what it does not own); that MERS is limited in its authority by its choice to designate itself “solely as nominee”; and that MERS thus essentially has no power to do anything. These recent court decisions are consistent in their holdings, and cite the same group of recent cases.

MERS is also limited by the very language of its contract which it has with lenders and servicers, as found by the Supreme Court of Nebraska which was cited in a decision from a state court in South Carolina. This language in MERS’ own contract provides that MERS agrees not to assert any rights to the loans or the properties mortgaged thereby. MERS’ own attorney affirmatively represented this to the Supreme Court of Nebraska when MERS was trying to get out of paying certain taxes. However, MERS then turns around in other states and tries to take the position that it has rights in a mortgage instrument and note sufficient to further a foreclosure, which is in fact the assertion of a right both as to the loan and as to the mortgaged property, which is in direct contradiction to MERS own contract provisions! Talk about speaking with a forked tongue!

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the recent decisions have seen through MERS’ doublespeak and inconsistent positions, and have struck down MERS’ authority to do anything other than to function as an electronic tracking entity for mortgage loans, period. Certain older decisions, where certain courts blindly accepted the MERS language in a mortgage instrument without really examining what MERS is and what MERS limited itself to, continue to be rejected or are in the minority.

If you are facing a lawsuit in regards to your home or want to file a lawsuit against your mortgage company, please seek out a credible and experienced attorney that has experience in real estate and/or mortgage law.  A good tip is to go to the District Court Clerk in your county (or go online) and look for suits in which mortgage companies are being sued.  See which attorneys (or law firms) are representing homeowners in your area.  You don’t want to be the practice case for a lawyer unversed in the subject matter.

Thanks to Jeff Barnes for writing the piece below.

–  The Bank Slayer

DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME III: MORE HORROR STORIES OF PRO SE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE DISASTERS

Some years ago, there was a tv commercial where a couple had a leaky kitchen sink. The husband, obviously not a plumber, told his wife “Don’t worry honey, I can handle this; it’s simple”. Needless to say, after many hours and a flooded kitchen floor with the pipes shooting water like a fountain, they called a plumber who remedied the problem in minutes, but only after having to spend quite a bit of time remediating the damage done by the husband.

In the last 2 days, we have received more than 8 horror stories from pro se borrowers who have tried to defend their own foreclosure cases, both in judicial and non-judicial states. Despite all of their efforts using concepts either gained from internet surfing or talking to other non-lawyers, the bottom line was the same:

“Help! My case is screwed up!”

“The Judge dismissed my lawsuit!”

“The Judge will not compel the original note!”

“The other side is trying to get attorneys fees against me!”

“My home has been sold even through I sued!”

We have repeatedly cautioned non-lawyers from trying to engage in the practice of law especially in this ever-evolving field of law where many states do not even have case law on the problems with MERS assignments, the necessity for proof of chain of title in order to foreclose, the elements of legal standing, etc., and where many of the Judges, through no fault of their own, have just not been presented with these issues yet. Although many of the legal concepts in proper foreclosure defense have been around for decades, they have not been applied to the complicated securitization sceanarios attendant to the generation of millions of mortgage loans from 2001 through 2007.

Two other problems which invariably result from “do-it-yourselfers” are, first, that once they get backed into a corner by the Judge or the opposing attorney and then try to retain an attorney, the attorney’s job has been rendered more difficult because the attorney has to first attempt to undo the damage caused by the pro se’s mistakes before even getting a chance to try to advance legitimate issues and defenses. As such, the attorney has to spend more time on the case than he or she would have if they had been given the case from the getgo, which means higher retainers and more fees. The second problem is that the pro se has probably angered the Judge and the opposing attorney to the point where the new attorney is facing a lion’s den going in. We have had to cope with this situation many, many times over the last couple of years.

For those who insist on proceeding by themselves, there are several “theories” which have been uniformly rejected although they continue to be bandied around the internet, to wit:

(a)  “Claims in Admiralty”. Admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive Federal jurisdiction for claims which occur on “navigable waters”, which is a legal term essentially meaning that the waterway is one on which a boat can be piloted using maritime navigational maps. Thus, unless you live on a houseboat on a active waterway which has been mapped and platted, “Admiralty” does not apply.

(b)  “Presentment bonds”. These have been universally rejected. A bond is collateralized by either full cash or other tangible property (e.g. gems, real estate, etc.) so that if a claim is made on the bond, the collateral satisfies the payment. “Presentment bonds” do not quality.

(c)  “The bank did not lend me money”. This is practically frivilous. Whatever the “bank” did, it permitted the borrower to either pay off the existing mortgage (on a refi), allowed the borrower to obtain cash out (on a HELOC or cash-out refi); or obtain a home (on a purchase-money first mortgage). Attempting to advance this theory to defend a foreclosure is like walking through a dynamite factory smoking a cigarette: you are going to cause everyone to explode, including the Judge and opposing counsel.

Yes, litigation is expensive. Yes, attorneys are not cheap. However, someone who tried to play attorney and then gets hammered is going to either (a) lose their house, or (b) wind up paying an attorney double or triple to TRY to fix the damage caused by the do-it-yourselfer, assuming it can even be fixed and assuming the Judge is not already thinking negatively about the case because of the nonsense advanced by the pro se who has, in the Judge’s opinion (and rightfully so), wasted the court’s time.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

REALTORS:  Whether you are assisting a homeowner with a short sale or loan modification, it will be for naught if the homeowner is foreclosed upon.     Stopping the foreclosure is critical and one of the best ways to do it is to leverage the hidden gems that appear in a forensic audit of the mortgage and current foreclosure process.

Don’t lose another home to a foreclosure.  Contact our office today!

Thanks to 4closurefraud.org for this interesting find.

- The Bank Slayer

Mortgage Fraud – DOCX, LLC - FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE ASSN.

Action Date: March 9, 2010
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

ON MARCH 9, 2010, researchers for Fraud Digest easily found at least 10 Assignments, for combined loan amounts well over $2 million, with the Assignment Effective Date listed as 09/09/9999. These were all prepared by Docx, LLC in Alpharetta, Georgia, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Servicesin Jacksonville, FL. These are the same “document preparers/officers of too many banks” that prepared and filed Assignments where the grantor or grantee was listed as “Bogus Assignee for Intervening ASMTS” and also the same people who listed the grantor or grantee as “A Bad Bene.” All of these documents are witnessed and notarized (by other Docx employees).

Fraud Digest researchers are now attempting to quantify the number of Assignments (in the hundreds or more likely thousands) where MERS is stated to be the original mortgagee. If the assignment is not effective until 09/09/9999, many homeowners will be able to stay in their homes a VERY long time. Each of these assignments effective in 9999 was to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Assn.

—————————————-

Now I don’t know which is better, having a BOGUS ASSIGNEE, a BAD BENE or a somewhat official looking Assignment of Mortgage that isn’t effective until09/09/9999.

Funny how these types of things keep popping up in LEE County, home of Clerk of Court Charlie Green and his quote “there should be a way to foreclose quickly against deadbeats who are destroying neighborhoods by neglecting or abandoning their homes”

By Lynn Szymoniak, Esq.

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 50 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 simply holds mortgage liens in a nominee capacity and through its 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 holds the mortgage lien as nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
• MERS, in a nominee capacity for lenders, merely acquires legal title to the security instrument (i.e., the deed of trust or mortgage that secures the loan).
• MERS simply holds legal title to mortgages and deeds of trust as a nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
• MERS immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
• The 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.
• In effect, 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.
• 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 holds 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.
• When a promissory note is placed in the hands of a servicer employee who is also an MERS officer, MERS asserts that this transfer of custody 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.
• Even when the promissory note is physically placed in the hands of the servicer’s employee who is 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.
• MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the prior holders of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court.
• 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 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.

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 escrows for taxes and insurance.
• MERS does not provide 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 must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage loan promissory notes.
• MERS 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’ 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, 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, do not routinely 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.

Below you’ll find a short summery of how MERS is involved but bottom line is this…If MERS is on your loan docs you can be virtually assured it has been sliced/diced/pureed and the actual owner or holder of your original Promissory Note is out of the picture.  Meaning what?  You should strongly consider challenging you current mortgage servicer to cut you a better deal then you have now.  How about 2% interest rate?  Sound like a fairy tale?  It’s reality in our office.

-          The Bank Slayer

MERS Summary

During the securitization process, a mortgage is initiated – and then immediately sold to a 3rd-party.  Once holding this mortgage, bankers slice-and-dice them until they can package and sell them in neat little bundles until no one can tell who holds clear, legal title to these mortgages.   So how can any investor of a mortgage-backed security know that it really has some collateral (mortgage)?

This is why the banks created MERS.   As Pam Martens, whom has worked on Wall Street for 21 years writes, “MERS is nothing more than a confidential electronic registry which exists only to ―track mortgages and the changes of servicing rights and mortgage ownership”. In other words, it has no proprietary interest in these mortgages. The reason why that last fact is so important is because of the fact that Wall Street had created such convoluted chains of ―ownership that even in court proceedings the banksters are unable to show any party in these chains of transactions as having clear title to the mortgage. Wall Street’s plan was to send MERS (nothing but a glorified, electronic clerk) to all these foreclosure proceedings and allow MERS to act as if it was the mortgage-holder in these proceedings.”

However, it is one of the oldest principals of our Western legal system that in civil proceedings any party wanting to bring an action before the court has to have ―standing.  Typically, this is defined as a direct, proprietary interest in the subject of the trial. Clearly, MERS has no proprietary interest – and thus in several legal decisions it has been found to have no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.

Here are some interesting data points we’ve uncovered from various sources…

• 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.