Without MERS, the huge volume of Mortgage Backed Securities and CDOs could not have been created.
HERE IS THE SCARY possibility: Countries, retirement funds, states, counties, etc. invested in these bundled products, based on ratings from the likes of Standard & Poors, Fitch, and Moody’s only to find, when they opened up the bundles, that they were filled with JUNK instead of GOLD. So they lost all of the money they invested. You can watch PBS NOW to learn how junk became traded as gold:
Is it possible that the real money, given to Hedge Funds to purchase MSBs and CDOs, by banks and pension funds throughout the world, left the banks and pension funds virtually empty? Could this explain the rush to Capital Hill for huge infusions of Bailout Money? Did banks and pension funds lose everything on their bad bets? If you watch the PBS NOW program referenced above, it seems that is a strong possibility. They lost their money gambling on products said to be gold that were, in fact, junk. Good grief!
The bundles of MBSs and CDOs couldn’t have been so quickly created without the electronic power of MERS.
….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 of the great 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.
This problem with the missing trust assets/promissory notes manifests itself each time MERS and/or the trustees for the bondholders brings a legal action to collect on a debt through foreclosure. Because neither MERS nor the bondholders trustees are holding the notes, they lack proof of standing to maintain their legal actions and the actions are subject to dismissal.
Many foreclosure actions have been dismissed based upon lack of standing. This a problem that it is a direct result of MERS “system”….
THERE IS HOPE HERE. PASS THIS TO ANYONE FACING FORECLOSURE with MERS on their paperwork, PLEASE.
The details are found in the two sites listed in the INTRO.
Together we may be able to help families avoid so much suffering.
…….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 a 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 being 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 Angelas, 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. Several court in New York have been routinely dismissing foreclosure actions brought by MERS or its memebers because they continually fail to produce promisssory notes.
Here is a possible way to fight MERS or any foreclosure if they don’t have the proper, original documentation:
……To make matters worse many of the debts evidenced by these undelivered promissory notes were supposed to be secured by mortgage liens. However in place of mortgages being executed in favor of the original lender many of these mortgages were executed in favor of MERS. Because MERS never holds these notes or owns a debt it is not a creditor. MERS has no legal standing to enforce a debt, or so it told the Nebraska Court of Appeals in 2005. However this lack of standing defense must be raised by property owners who are sued.
The most effective economic way to raise this lack of standing defense is by bringing a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint to foreclose. In many states and in federal court this is called a Rule 12 motion. This motion is brought in place of answering the complaint. An honest attorney in most areas of the country should be willing to prepare and bring such a motion for $500.00 to $1,500.00 for a distressed homeowner. Or you might be able to find a lawyer to do it for you pro bono and perhaps a legal aid attorney. At least five judges around the country have dismissed these actions for lack of standing sua sponte, which means they did it on their own volititia. Perhaps more judges will feel the duty to do the same thing in the future.
Lastly, what might be disconcerting. Who at Fannie and Freddie Mac played along? Democrats? Republicans? Both? If both, now what?
Or did the likes of CountryWide play Fannie and Freddie? Playing within the rules? Could they have succeeded without inside help?
ADDITIONAL WEBSITES OF INTEREST:
1999 MERS plans for future foreclosures, in place at launch.
MERS list of Shareholders or a list of people getting bailout money:
How to buy a foreclosed home from HUD for $1.00, yes One Dollar:
A very informative website sharing the methods used to steal homes from HOMEOWNERS:
In conclusion, defenders of MERS says it is just an easy way to pass paper. Fine. However, when MERS took a Trustee position on deeds filed with Registry of Deeds, the problems escalate. Imagine, in the old days, listing your fax number as the Trustee on a deed, just because that is how the paper work was forwarded. How can a homeowner, facing foreclosure, work out a deal with a fax machine or its fax number?
For fun, here is Bush launching the Housing Crisis: