MERS or Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems has illegally foreclosed on millions of homeowners throughout the entire U.S. for years. MERS was an invention of the now defunct Countrywide lending corporation. Countrywide operated it's illegal network of corporations under a variety of names including MERS and CWABS inc. Countrywide advertised itself as the nation's home mortgage lender, loaned money to new homeowners and immediately sold their new mortgages to CWABS (Countrywide Asset Backed Securities) whose job it was to grade and bundle the notes into graded bundles labeled A, B, C and D according to the credit rating of those comprising the individual bundles. The A bundles were those with prime credit and brought the most money from investors. At the same time they had a clause in every mortgage naming MERS as their assignee and because it had such powerful backing MERS was able to convince other major lenders to use their services as well and got a nice fat fee for each mortgage assigned to them. They performed a variety of services such as beating counties and states out of unknown trilions of dollars in tax revenue while using the court systems to foreclose on millions of homes causing a further huge burden on the individual court systems throughout the U.S. Meanwhile, CWABS sold the bundles to so called trustees such as Bank of New York, Leyman Brothers, Duetsch bank and others who then broke the bundles down into tranches (a French word meaning a piece, as in a piece of a pie) of $25,000 per tranch and sold the tranches to investors worldwide. So in the hypothetical case of a $100,000 home, the homeowner could have 4 different co-owners each of whom live in a different country. If the homeowner defaulted Countrywide would have MERS do the foreclosures or in many other cases the plaintiff would be one of the trustees. The plaintiffs would sell the homes at sheriff's sales and would usually buy the house back and then resell them to unsuspecting new homeowners who never imagined that they could never really own their home even if they paid their loans in full. They could never truly own their home because the foreclosure was conducted without ever proving that the plaintiff had any right, title or interest in the home, never produced any notes as proof of ownership and even if the homeowner paid in full they would never see the note they signed again. Instead of getting the note back they simply got a receipt saying they had paid in full but all those notes are still out there somewhere and at least theoretically speaking anyone finding the note out there in some vault could come back years later and produce the note, claim it was unpaid and open and foreclose on the home if the homeowners could not prove they had paid the house off. The naked note would be far more than enough to prove the plaintiff's claim over the funny little receipt the homeowner could possibly produce. The scam began to unravel several years ago when people actually began to learn the truth and how to defend their homes without lawyers. They had a tough row to hoe because the courts never suspected what was going on and routinely ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. But normally speaking, those who stayed and fought kept their homes and those who didn't lost. Things really started to unravel in a Nebraska case against MERS wherein the State of Nebraska filed a case of tax avoidance against MERS who claimed they didn't owe any taxes because they never bought any homes in their own name. never sold any houses to anyone and said that they never loaned any money to anyone and nobody ever owed them anything and therefore they couldn't have owed any taxes to the State of Nebraska or any other state. They won that case and forever lost the right to claim they were the assignees and therefore had the right to foreclose on any homes. You cannot claim that you own nothing in one court and claim the opposite in another court. But in spite of that, they just kept on merrily foreclosing in other states as though nothing had happened. But soon people and courts began to learn about the Nebraska case and started using that and other ensuing cases to defend. There is now a case in U.S. Federal Bankruptcy court which should put the final nail into the MERS coffin but can also cause a new nationwide scandal as the courts try to figure out what to do about the millions of illegal foreclosures they were scammed into handing out. But even as they ponder a new wave of foreclosures is about to be unleashed upon them and this new wave of foreclosures which will start to happen in the next couple of months will be of such a magnitude as to stagger the imaginations of even the most informed courts. Congress and other legislative bodies and most court systems are already aware of what is coming at them but are as yet totally unprepared to deal with it. The first wave has totally demolished such hard hit cities as Detroit and Flint Michigan and others where huge tracts of homes are being de-annexed and bulldozed to reduce the burden on their infrasturctures, returning vast areas of land to it's natural state whatever that might have been. I have the entire story of the Nevada bankruptcy case posted on one of my websites which is in my signature line here. In the coming days I will be telling more and more about the mess. I have added the Kansas State Supreme Ct. case to the file. The story is much too long and involved to post here, is in a format which cannot be posted here and very well may not be of interest to many of our posters and viewers who are not homeowners and who may never be homeowners but to those who are homeowners or have been foreclosed on it will be of vital interst. To those who have been foreclosed on illegally, the foreclosure has decimated their credit reports and and their finances. Many thousands have been reduced to living in tent cities, with relatives or in city shelters for the homeless. Those people will find the articles of great interest.
Here is the teaser from the Nevada[ Bankruptcy case. EXCERPTED CASE FILE: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * * * * In re ) Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR ) Chapter 7 JOSHUA & STEPHANIE MITCHELL, ) ) Debtor(s). ) ) DATE: August 19, 2008 ) TIME: 3:30 p.m. ________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Mortgage Electronic Recording Systems, Inc. MERS) through various counsel has filed a number of motions to lift stay. Some of the motions were filed in the name of MERS, 1 while others have been filed in the name of MERS as the nominee for another entity. An order for joint briefing was entered because the substantially same issues were presented in the motions, and a joint hearing was held. Mitchell (#07-16226) has been designated as the lead case. The trustee or counsel for the debtor in these cases has opposed the lift-stay motions on the grounds of standing and that MERS is not the real party in interest. The initial response filed by MERS contained no evidentiary support. Rather it described the role of MERS and its members by relying on law review articles and the recitation of facts in other cases in other districts involving MERS. Prior to the initial argument, MERS attempted to withdraw the motions filed in all but four of the cases. MERS then filed a declaration at the court's direction explaining why the motions were withdrawn. The declaration of William Hultman was filed in Dart. The declaration, in addition to explaining MERS' rationale for 3 withdrawing the motions, also attached as exhibits copies of the MERS Membership Application, the MERSCorp. Inc. Rules of Membership, the MERS Procedural Manual, and the MERS Terms and Conditions of Membership. The court also requested appropriate evidentiary 4 support for the allegations concerning the relationship between MERS and the entities for whom the motions were brought. A supplemental declaration was filed in Michell, the lead case.5 As noted, MERS has attempted to withdraw all but four of its original motions, leaving only Dart (#08-11007), Hawkins (#07-13593), Ramirez-Furiati (#08-10427), and Zeigler (#08- 10718). MERS admits that it failed to follow its own procedures in the motions it wants to withdraw. The debtor, the chapter 13 trustee, and MERS subsequently stipulated to a lift of stay 6 in Ramirez-Furiati which the court approved with the acknowledgment that the order contained no finding about MERS' standing. This court will discuss the issues raised in the motions that MERS attempts to withdraw, and by this order issues its ruling in Dart and Hawkins, which are 8 the two cases that are now pending before it. 9 The court has advised the parties that it would consider any information contained on the MERS website at MERS - Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems unless an objection was made. No objection has been filed by either party. The court thus takes judicial notice of the contents of the MERS website. ����������.. CONCLUSION The lift-stay motions in Dart and Hawkins are denied. MERS may not enforce the notes as the alleged beneficiary. While MERS may have standing to prosecute the motion in the name of its Member as a nominee, there is no evidence that the named nominee is entitled to enforce the note or that MERS is the agent of the note's holder. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary, the note has been sold, and the named nominee no longer has any interest in the note. IT IS SO ORDERED. Motion
