More Foreclosure Info….cont’d 2

DISCLAIMER: This is not, by far, an exhaustive compilation of information and it also is NOT legal advice. For that, contact a lawyer. All this is is a simple list of points and information that is readily available online.

(See my previous post for points 7-9)

10. UCC Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 1002 and 1003 state that the original document should be produced in court when its terms are material to the argument and that a duplicate is NOT admissible if there is a genuine question raised as to the authenticity of the original or in circumstances that would be unfair to accept the duplicate in place of the original. So far, using the previous 9 points, you have given enough proof to not only question the fairness of accepting the duplicate filed in the case of your mortgage note, but also have given enough doubt as to whether the original even exists anymore.

11. Under Carpenter v. Longan, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument MUST follow the promissory note. But if the promissory note points to one party and the deed to a separate party, then the chain of title is broken. Bifurcation has occurred. Since you have shown that your loan was securitized, thus the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument being separated from the note, it is proof that the chain of title has been broken. And since every Deed of Trust/Security Instrument states specifically that it is subject to be applicable to state and federal laws, the assignment of the promissory note WITHOUT the corresponding Deed of Trust/Security Instrument, violates state law. Sec. 109(b) of Revised Article 9 of UCC which was enacted into law in every state provides in Comment 7, “… [O]ne cannot obtain a security interest in a lien, such as a mortgage on real property, that is not also coupled with an equally effective security interest in the secured obligation.” This is a serious breach of the terms of the Deed of Trust/Mortgage. When a party to a contract breaches that contract it makes the contract (promissory note) voidable. If the terms of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is shown to be in violation of state law, then it too is defective. If it is defective, then it cannot be used to give the lender the “due on sale” clause. The terms of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument must be respected in whole and one cannot pick and choose which part to respect and which part to ignore.

12. When a loan is changed into stock through the REMIC Trust, the shareholders of that trust became the true holder in due course. This could be THOUSANDS of them. With that amount of parties and with these parties changing hands literally daily, it would be impossible to track them at the County Record. So, the bankers got together and created MERS (Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems). In creating MERS, the banks could now circumvent county registration fees and not pay taxes. The banks feel that they will be insulated from this fraud because the mortgages were sold into the SPV/REMIC trust fund as a method of controlling their liability. The problem was that because they never actually transferred the note (and if they did, why didn’t they pay taxes, hmmm?) (as might be in your case if the transfer took place months after the closing date of the trust fund your note was sold into), so the whole creation of the SPV/REMIC trust fund was fraudulent. Banks are now looking at the choice of either tanking the entire portfolio back onto their books at MASSIVE losses (it would break the bank) or explaining to the states and IRS why trillions of dollars of taxes were not paid, which is Tax Fraud. MERS functions as a registry much like the County Recorder. But what is unique about MERS is that they are either named as beneficiary or a nominee on the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument. This causes several problems. The first being that to be a beneficiary, one has to put up the money to fund the loan. MERS never fronted even a dime for the loan. The second problem is MERS recordation is NOT official. The only legally recognized recordation on public record is with the County. The third problem is that MERS is NEVER a true “holder in due course” as the promissory note was never assigned to them. Thus, they do not have standing to assign it to anyone else. A recorder is just that, a recorder. They do not have the authority to appoint anyone or assign anything to anybody. MERS is NOT a real or beneficial party of interest and this has been validated in many Federal court decisions to include MERS themselves in an appeal they filed in Nebraska. Also, by MERS own words in a foreclosure handbook they made. In this handbook, they even describe how to get around the fact that they don’t hold the promissory note (they admit that the servicer holds it as well as being the record mortgage holder) by having the servicer’s employees be certifying officers of MERS so there can be an “in house” transfer of possession of the note so that MERS would be considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosure! (See footnotes on page 46 of the MERS Foreclosure Handbook). And the fact that mortgage lenders, banks and lawyers went along with this is just mindboggling and makes them as much of integral part of committing this fraud as MERS. In fact, MERS admits such in their appeal case and handbook and name some of the major banks. Look at your loan. It states that the LENDER from time to time may appoint a substitution of trustee. Nowhere does it state the NOMINEE may appoint one. If MERS can not assign it to anyone else, then they couldn’t assign it to the bank suing you. Thus, the bank is NOT the true “holder in due course” and does NOT have standing to foreclose, as the law and many court cases say that they must have to file suit. When we have a situation where state law is being violated through improper assignment, the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is made invalid. When the trustee is being appointed by some party, in this case MERS, that is not given the proper authority to do so, this also casts issue to make the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument defective. In filing an assignment in the County Record where clearly MERS has no right to assign anything and when the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is invalid or defective, this is considered Felony Land Record Fraud.

To Be Continued…..


1 Comment »

  1. Polly Jones Said:

    Wow, thanks for all of this info Debby!
    I’ve got you bookmarked and will return to mine your articles for all that they offer.
    Haven’t had time to look at this material thoroughly, and hope that i’ll never need it, but what a treasure.
    Thanks for all you do to unmask the putrefaction. That’s the first step the cleanup.

{ RSS feed for comments on this post} · { TrackBack URI }

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: