Tag Archives: eAlert

FANNIE, FREDDIE AND MERS: RECIPE FOR COLLUSION TO SCREW AMERICA!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant to trial attorneys and author of Clouded Titles – Mayday Edition, which exposed the corruption in banking in tandem with darker forces within the U.S. Government to fuel the largest housing grab America has ever seen.  The opinions expressed here are his own and do not constitute legal advice or seek to draw and conclusions of law. 

There has been a recent unveiling of sorts that discusses the conflict between the two GSE’s (government-sponsored entities) and MERS, which clearly shows who in fact spearheaded the push to turn the secondary residential mortgage market into a lying, conniving, deceiving bunch of thieves that have promulgated the use of electronic promissory notes (“eNotes”), which are uploaded into an electronic database called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS”), which, at its conception, was owned by MERSCORP, Inc.   Both of these entities were Delaware corporations based in Reston, Virginia.  But no longer.

After being merged into MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. in February of 2012, nearly seven years into the eRegistry (the database itself, which operates electronically to store information on the mortgage loans; e.g. the note and the security instrument), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. was acquired by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (hereinafter “ICE”), which also owns the New York Stock Exchange.  All of MERSCORP’s Reston, Virginia operations were moved to ICE’s data centers in Mahwah, New Jersey, where they exist today.

Collectively, MERS members pay $7.95 every time they enter a transfer of the eNote and its accompanying paperwork in the MERS® System.  Herein lies the rub.  The banking industry, in at least one letter to a judge (in 2009, in Florida), has admitted that once the paper “notes” are uploaded into the MERS® System and become “eNotes”, they don’t need the paper notes anymore and thus, they brag about shredding them.  On another note, there are “archives” all over the country that the megabanks claim hold the originals of the notes and mortgages, available within a reasonable time frame (to be retrieved) as a mortgage foreclosure case develops and the documents are called for.  But is that really the case?  What if these documents were actually “downloaded” from the MERS® System, printed out, and claimed to be (by the lender’s/servicer’s) the originals?

eNotes versus the Uniform Commercial Code (the “U.C.C.”), UETA and e-Sign

This recent article, authored by lawyers within the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, unveiled an eAlert which seeks to address potential issues which I thought might be useful for you and your attorney to know, or should they?  Due to the nature of the banks and their attorneys to play games with us and misdirect us at every turn with their propaganda … this article, whose link can be found here …

Potential Issues for Warehouse Providers with Electronic Mortgage Notes | Dorsey & Whitney LLP – JDSupra

… could be one major misdirect, according to our UCC guru Bob Janes, author of SHELLGAME MERS, Contrived Confusion, which can be found on the Clouded Titles website!

Here’s what Bob has to say about this article:

This paper shows an ignorance of negotiable instrument law and its interaction with Art 9 of the UCC. It appears to be a continuation of the effort to give appearance (operative word) of merit to the MERS system and the mortgage finance industries desire to profit by ignoring existing law and creating an sham appearance that might be able to help take people’s homes in future foreclosures without adherence to applicable law.

Secured interests under Art 9 are trumped (or is that a dirty word now?) by Art 3.  Only the person entitled to enforce the negotiable instrument has a right in the collateral (mtg or dot).  Whether the name of that person is in the chain of title for the mtg/dot is not important. 200 yr old common law, now codification by 9-203(g) are in unison: the collateral pledged to secure payment of the debt under a negotiable instrument always belongs the person entitled to enforce the debt pursuant to Art 3 of the UCC.  This paper does not address nor even encourage that the new e system design compile factual information necessary to determinations of enforcement right under the negotiable instrument law of Art 3.  The paper’s discussion of ‘perfection’ and ‘controller’ are irrelevant to determination of enforcement right under Art 3.  The paper shows no understanding of the importance of ‘possession’ of the note under negotiable law nor how and when possession is connected to the right to enforce the note.

The paper’s discussion of ‘holder in due course’ (“HDC”) also reflects the author’s ignorance or desire to misstate law.  The many elements of status as holder in due course are not addressed, nor is the system of maintaining eNote or eVault  requisite information/proof of the legal elements necessary to the right to enforce the note.   HDC is a subset of holders under the UCC.  Any person entitled to enforce the note pursuant to 3-301 (holder, nonholder in possession with rights of a holder, a person not in possession but with overwhelming evidence of having been the holder or nonholder entitled to enforce when the note was lost, stolen or destroyed) has priority rights in the mtg/dot regardless paperwork ‘perfection’ under Art 9.

The paper does not address the subservient role of Art 9 to negotiable instrument law and enforcement rights of Art 3.  This paper neither discusses the article 3 requirements for a person to be a holder in due course, nor does it demonstrate that information gathered and retained by the e-system will be useful in determining who has a right to enforce the note, and thereby, to enforce the mtg/dot.

Whether or not the enote/evault system becomes a reality, the homeowner defense against negligent or fraudulent foreclosure remains unchanged as long as the UCC remains as currently in the statutes of every state.  Merit requires discussion of the Art 3 detail necessary to establish enforcement rights in the note, and this paper is without demonstrated knowledge or effort to address the Art 3 requirements, policies, etc.

What do I think of this paper?  Not much.

The Continued Screw Job! 

So you see, Fannie and Freddie continue to peddle their toxic paper into our economy, further screwing with chains of title all across the country with every property their servicers stole on the back end of the foreclosure, which ended up getting transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You only see these two hoodlums on the back end of foreclosures, as they certainly wouldn’t rear their ugly head in the middle of one for fear of giving the government a black eye … and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?

It’s bad enough we have politicians polarizing America and screwing up everything they touch!  They don’t have the decency to quit interfering with the housing market by continuing to allow Fannie and Freddie to exist.

What’s worse, judges don’t really care about the UCC and are quick to misapply it.  Those who aren’t smart about what the UCC says (and turn their lamebrain lawyers loose in the courts repeating this bank’s diatribe) are sure to lose.  Yet we keep going to banks that don’t portfolio their own loans and keep doing business with them.  That’s on us!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues