Tag Archives: subornation of perjury

WHEN JUDGES LISTEN … AND WHEN THEY DON’T!

(OP-ED) — The author of this post begs your consideration of the following foreclosure-related news item from the SE Texas Record (a journal published to highlight cases where the banks win and the homeowners lose, among other things) … for educational purposes only …

Notice the above Defendants?  

It should be well-decided among the legal community that suing MERS is fruitless, but people still listen to these half-baled arguments that MERS knew or should have known that its so-called “members” (which really are user-subscribers to the MERS® System) freely use MERS’s name (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) to assign notes and mortgages to anyone the servicers’ employees are told to assign them to, regardless of whether MERS really has any authority to do so.  Yet some attorneys are still smoking “legal crack” and are still naming MERS as a Defendant.

When will the legal community wake up to this grievous error?   MERS is a database run by Wall Street’s Intercontinental Exchange Inc. and NOT an entity with money or answers to anything.  An electronic database (nor its officers, of a shell corporation) are willing and able to give any plaintiff any discovery.  The real issue here is what the chain of title would have revealed if carefully analyzed.

Read the appellate ruling from the 1st Division of the Texas Court of Appeals if you like, for educational purposes only about how to get cases removed to federal court, where the federal judges (who are appointed for life) bend you over, screw you with no lube and hand you back to the state court after you beg for mercy.

Hernandez v MERS et al, 1st App Ct Tex No 01-18-00468-CV (Oct 22, 2019)

While not attempting to be so graphic, can you imagine the money these folks spent trying to stay in their home, to no avail?

Notice two of the Defendants … LSF8 Master Participation Trust and Caliber Home Loans, Inc.?  These two are married in a third-world debt collection scheme to screw homeowners.  LSF8 is no more of a trust than the LSF9 that this blog posted recently lost in a court battle in West Palm Beach, Florida at roughly the same time and space in the foreclosure world.  This is why I call it the “LSF8 (or 9) Masterbatory Participation Trust” because these jerk-offs do nothing more than spin third-party debt sell-offs into a package they claim is a “trust” but is nothing more than junk, defaulted mortgage loan pools and then call them “equitable instruments” and using their phony documents (where they incorporate MERS into the equation) to steal people’s homes.  U.S. Bank didn’t suffer any harm here because U.S. Bank as Trustee didn’t really pull the trigger.  Caliber Home Loans did.  I’ll bet if you looked at these folks’ assignments, Caliber Home Loan employees were using MERS to convey these toxic assets into these debt pools for the purposes of foreclosure … and they do it within the time frame that homeowners could challenge them anywhere.  In Texas, the state’s Civil Practice and Remedies Code (§ 16.033) allows you to challenge a recording that is less than two years old … and I can tell you … Caliber is stupid enough to file stuff within that challenge timeframe because it wants to steal your home, by any means possible. They’re greedy, remember?

MERS, Robosigners and Perjury

Sadly, these attorneys don’t realize that anyone signing as an “Officer” of MERS has to have a $5,000,000 fidelity bond and an errors and omissions policy covering their signing activities.  That requirement is mandated under MERS Rules of Membership for all robosigners.   So why aren’t these robosigners being sued in a Cancellation and Expungement action and made to produce these documents to prove they’re a legitimate, bona fide, MERS “Certifying Officer”??? (which is a joke in of itself) because these people have no idea what they’re signing at any given moment.

In my world, we don’t sue assignees and we don’t sue MERS.  We sue the robosigner and the notary (if the notary doesn’t have a bond) on the assignments, because the devil is in the details within the assignments, NOT THE NOTES!  When you start arguing NOTES, you lose because judges won’t listen.  Judges don’t care about assignments in foreclosure courts either.  If the party bringing the foreclosure has the note (somewhere in their possession), that’s good enough for the judge. How they got the note doesn’t matter to the judge either.  The judge just wants the case off their docket and YOU are nothing more than a statistic to them.  They can go home and sleep at night, knowing they put you out on the street, because they were simply doing their jobs.

In any scenario (and I don’t care what foreclosure defense attorneys have to say about it), MERS should never be a defendant. The parties who sign the assignment have a different story to tell (other than the stories MERS vomits in court).  These people are minimum wage employees (generally) that randomly sign hundreds of documents a day into these junk debt pools, because they can’t be foreclosed on and sold any other way.  The chains of title are so screwed up that it would take an Einstein to figure out how to quiet them in a quiet title action.  Sadly, they sell these junk debts to investors who buy them (like Fannie and Freddie’s crap) who attempt to peddle them or turn them into the nation’s rental pool.

Most people don’t recognize that if you hold the robosigner’s feet to the fire, you might find out that:

  1. The law firm doing the foreclosure had something to do with the manufacture of the assignment (subornation of perjury);
  2. The person signing the document as an officer of MERS didn’t have the required fidelity bond and E&O policy (lack of authority, perjury);
  3. The notary who acknowledged the document was part of the bigger picture in the scheme (notary fraud, false swearing); and
  4. The attorney bringing the case to court knew or should have known about the chicanery behind the scenes (especially if the law firm had the document returned to them after the dastardly deed was done).

All 50 states have laws against perjury on the land records … and they are all felonies.  Some states have stronger laws that recommend that these false documents be turned over to prosecutors to have these robosigners “dealt with”.  Yeah, right.  This is America.  No politician (dressed in district attorney or state’s attorney’s clothing) will risk their asses prosecuting someone connected to the scheme of things because they might find out the real truth … this stuff occurs on a grand scale all across America!

My take on this is doing a cancellation and expungement action on the phony document BEFORE the case gets to foreclosure. Ah, but wait!  We all sit idly by and don’t bother checking the land records for clues, do we?  Part of America’s complacency, I guess.

This is the sad state of America.  This is why you should NOT deal with banks and other financial institutions who sell their paper into the MERS® System.  Portfolio loans, owner finance on a clear title or nothing. Your choices are few.  Make good choices.

Coming to the Clouded Titles website in February … ONLINE CHAIN OF TITLE ASSESSMENT CLASSES … stay tuned!

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

MERS AND ITS ROLE AS A PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT … OR THE LACK THEREOF!

(OP-ED) — This is an educational overview as to what has taken place in the American legal forums in the last two decades and my take on what it all means:

UPDATE: Please see my comments to Lori’s question in the comments section as to Bank of America’s claimed “successor by merger” BS to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, especially using MERS to hide the real truth!

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

On January 1, 1999, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and its parent MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”), surfaced as a new brainchild of the mortgage industry after two previously-failed efforts to put an effective electronic database into useable form.

MERSCORP is the “brain” part of  the “brainchild” … Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the “child” part of the “brainchild”.

The acronym known as “MERS” was attached to the “brainchild” to further confuse the system of things from being able to specifically identify whether the parent or the baby bastard child is coming into play at any given moment.

According to research done by Robert M. Janes, J.D. (retired attorney) in his work SHELLGAME MERS, Contrived Confusion (available at esprouts.com), the “MERS” known in mortgages and deeds of trust as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. HAS NO “MEMBERS”, despite what attorneys for “MERS” have told judges all across America.  The entire system of things has bought into this crap.  Our entire judicial system has been permeated with lies.  As Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels stated (paraphrased), “tell a lie long enough and often enough and people will come to believe it as truth.”

MERSCORP however owned everything known as the MERS® System, up until the time that Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”, who also owns the New York Stock Exchange) bought MERSCORP and all of its assets and transferred all of the MERS servers to Mahwah, New Jersey, where ICE’s data servers are located.  This happened in October of 2018.  From February of 2012 until October of 2018, MERSCORP was merged into MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and operated as such until ICE acquired it.

MERSCORP had all of the “Members” who technically are users and subscribers of its “MERS® System”.   They have an executory contract with MERSCORP.  As far as I can tell, when ICE acquired MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., ALL of the databases, memberships and every other facet of MERS went with the sale and transfer to ICE.

These latest developments also beg the question: Do I have to sue Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. if I want to go after MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., since ICE now owns MERSCORP?   That’s a question for counsel to answer; however, I personally wouldn’t sue either one of them, knowing what I know about NOT giving MERS a “leg up” … and given the fact that MERSCORP is now backed by the power of Wall Street funding!

MERS WANTS TO BE “ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE”

Unfortunately for MERS, one State (Tennessee)’s Supreme Court gutted MERS’s business model like a chicken in the Ditto decision.  See attached:

MERS v DITTO_TN Supreme Court rules against MERS!

Unfortunately for the other 49 States, their respective Supreme Courts did not issue a ruling as succinctly as Tennessee’s ruling was.   Only Washington (Bain), Oregon (Niday and Brandrup), Montana (Pilgeram), Maine (Greenleaf and Saunders), New York (Agard, Bresler, Collymore and Silverberg), Kansas (Kesler), Arkansas (SW Homes), Nebraska (Dept. of Banking and Finance) and Missouri (Bellistri) did some damage to the MERS® System, but nowhere near the damage inflicted in Ditto.

Sadly, for the rest of the country, especially in Minnesota (Jackson) and Michigan (Sauerman), where the foregoing cases have propelled the MERS business model into fruition, homeowners in those states (except Minnesota and Michigan, where homeowners are essentially f**cked) have a long, uphill battle against any securitized trust that made use of the MERS® System to do its bidding.

REPUDIATION AGREEMENTS: A POTENTIAL WAY OUT

If you were lucky enough to have a mortgage loan originated by New Century Mortgage Corporation or Fieldstone Mortgage Company, you may have a legal solution as a possibility to consider in maneuvering through the legal pitfalls created by the use of MERS in your mortgage security instrument.

To date, to my knowledge and research, these two entities were the only two entities that had executory contracts with MERSCORP (or any form thereafter) repudiated their contracts with the MERS® System and its owner/parent MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.    See the attached below:

NCMC Notice of Repudiation

The foregoing repudiation was validated in the case of DiLibero v. MERS in Rhode Island.  I like to use this case because the Rhode Island Supreme Court likes to rub homeowners’ noses in MERS’s bullshit every chance it gets because Little Rhody’s lower courts have bought into the lies propounded by MERSCORP-retained attorneys.

See the case here: DiLibero v MERS_2015-13-190

In a previous post, I talked about the positive outcome of using the repudiation agreement as a means to assert the lack of standing of the Plaintiff Bank, unlike what happened in the Cruz v MERS case, where Cruz lost because he didn’t use the repudiation agreement. Duh?  (Was Cruz or his attorney even aware of this?)

See the case here: Cruz v. MERS_2015-12-136

The second known notice of repudiation was filed in the bankruptcy case of Fieldstone Mortgage Company, in a rather voluminous omnibus filing:

Fieldstone Mortgage Bankruptcy

As I teach in my COTA Workshops, repudiation of a contract in a Chapter 11 proceeding is like taking a dump.   Getting rid of excess baggage that could potentially weigh you down as to legal issues coming back to bite you in the ass.

In what I’ve just presented, both entities unilaterally decided they didn’t want to play in the MERS® System any further because they deemed it a potential liability and thus NOTICED MERS that they were ending their relationship with MERSCORP.  This has provided at least one homeowner with an “out”.

In what I deem is a “new twist” to the equation, the New York-based law firm of Jenner & Block (where Neil Barofsky works), issued a memo, dated January (2019), entitled “Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law”, wherein Section 9 talks about “executory contracts” and where the debtor in possession (of whatever is part of the debtor’s estate or business) does not need court approval to repudiate (or cancel) an executory contract (see below):

NOTE: Click on the picture to see it in full size!

For a full copy of the report (in PDF format): Recent Developments in Bankruptcy Law, Jan 2019 (Jenner & Block)

What does THIS SAY for Chapter 11 petitioners who repudiate MERSCORP executory contracts NOT needing court approval?   How do you know a MERSCORP executory contract with a so-called “MERS Member” was cancelled by the Chapter 11 debtor unless you ask about it (in discovery)?   Would you care to go rummaging through bankruptcy court filings (at ten cents a page)?   The repudiation agreement by the defunct lender or notice of such may not even be in there!

MERS AS A PLAINTIFF

In the states that allow Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to file a foreclosure action against a borrower, MERS is simply claiming that it’s exercising its right to foreclose per the language in the security instrument.  In some cases I’ve seen, MERS’s attorneys even come in and attempt to claim a surplus after the sale, even though MERS itself receives no payments, incurs no financial harm, etc. (see Restatement of Mortgages, Third § 5.4), which I think the law firm is clearly attempting to pilfer whatever surplus it can get for its own gains and not those of MERS or its parent.

The problem I have with MERS being anywhere near a foreclosure is not so much the contractual angle, but the damage angle, based on the Spokeo v. Robins decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  How was MERS damaged?    In the Robinson case in California, MERS plead to the 9th Circuit (as part of getting the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s ruling) that its business model would be harmed if the appellate court didn’t rule in its favor.  You see how the lie permeates into the appellate court system?

Sadly, I liken MERSCORP CEO Bill Beckmann and his Board of Directors as a little Hitler and his band of little crony “yes-men”.   They all need to be in jail!  And speaking of Hitler …

MERS AS A DEFENDANT

The main reason that MERS (as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) is listed as a Defendant in foreclosure cases is because the Plaintiff REMIC or servicer (posing as the party claiming to have the right to enforce the security instrument) wants to notice MERS in order for MERSCORP employees to check the database to make sure that there aren’t any other “mesne assignees” hiding somewhere within the chain of custody of the electronic trading going on involving that alleged loan, in order to provide a “clearing” of potential unknown Defendants that may come in later and file a claim in the case.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS (TO DATE) NOT ALLOWED ANTI-MERS CASES TO COME BEFORE IT

Writs of Certiorari have tried and failed.  However, I still believe that we will continue to see more MERS-related decisions appealed to the nation’s highest court until the matter of MERS’s flawed business model and the damage it has inflicted on over 80-million homes finally gets resolved.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS STILL THE ASSIGNMENTS: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS! 

Again, if you go into the back of The Quiet Title War Manual, you will see state-by-state listings of statutes that cover certain elements of law involving quiet title, declaratory relief, deficiency judgment law, etc. … and below that section, three individual paragraphs on actionable statutes and case law involving violation of statute in the recording of documents into the land records which contain false information (many of which are felony-rooted in nature) or violate provisions of state consumer protection act laws.  We are now (based on my past posts) seeing the use of these mechanisms in attacking the banks’ attorney(s) (because sometimes there is more than one attorney or law firm involved in any given foreclosure) in turning a statutory violation into an ethical violation!

When a foreclosure mill attorney is put “at risk” of being suspended or being disbarred for suborning perjury, committing perjury or some other ethical misconduct, do you really think he (or she) is going to want to stay in the fight?   Further, what future substituted law firm would want to step “into the pile of poop” created by the first law firm, knowing it would put itself “at risk” of having its Errors & Omissions insurance policy attacked?

Things To Watch Out For …

  1. Any entity that has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy before 2010 … as to whether they got court approval to repudiate the MERSCORP executory contract.

This provides you with a potential argument (or at least an affirmative defense to a foreclosure) that MERS and its alleged “agents” (“officers’)  for the “nominee” has any authority that was repudiated by the originating lender (debtor-in-possession);

2.  Assignments dated AFTER the originating lender filed for bankruptcy (easily discovered on Google or Google Scholar).

You especially want to check for language within the assignments (of mortgage or deed of trust) that says, “together with the Note”, because MERS cannot transfer what it does not have an interest in.   Secondly, not many people argue that there is no specific right delegated to MERS to “assign” anything.   Thirdly, NOTES ARE NEGOTIATED … not transferred or assigned; and

3.  Any mortgage foreclosure complaints, notices of trustee’s sale or similar notices that reflect that MERS has any authority to do anything, specific to the state of the union you are in.

Certain states, as I’ve mentioned before, do NOT allow MERS to do much of anything, while in other states, MERS can pretty much steamroller over homeowners.

My question is, why are you still living there?   Or better yet, why haven’t you attacked the assignments in Consumer Protection or statutory claims?

The Devil Is In The Details

Always check the assignment of mortgage or deed of trust for:

  1. Self-dealing (by the servicer and its employees);
  2. Claims that the note was “assigned” in addition to the mortgage or deed of trust by MERS;
  3. Names and addresses of law firms involved in the assignment;
  4. Names and addresses of title companies involved in the assignment;
  5. Names and addresses of servicers involved in the assignment that claim the Plaintiff’s address is in c/o the servicer’s address;
  6. Names of known robosigners involved in the assignment;
  7. Names of notaries participating in the assignment that are acknowledging under PENALTY OF PERJURY;
  8. Phony MERS addresses (like their alleged Ocala, Florida address, which actually belonged to Electronic Data Systems);
  9. Dates of assignments that well post-date the REMIC’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus Cut-Off and Closing Dates;
  10. Post-dating or back-dating of the assignment; and
  11. Documents created in one state that are executed in another state.

Any of these “details” can be used as evidence to go after the law firm attempting the foreclosure!   And THAT my friends … is how the system of things should work!

Coming soon …

P.S.: Hat tip to David A. Rogers, Esq. of Austin, Texas for the Fieldstone materials!

11 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues

THE SYSTEM OF THINGS: ANOTHER MINI-VICTORY IN FLORIDA!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — This is not legal advice!  The author of this post is bringing you the latest mini-victory courtesy of Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 … and its applicability to defeating the banks’ servicer’s motions!  Read these briefs for your own educational benefit and understand that we are using “the system of things” to move the cases forward! 

(VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA) — A judge in Volusia County Circuit Court has DENIED the Defendant’s Motion to Strike in a mortgage foreclosure case.

SEE THE COURT’S ORDER HERE: motiontostrike-denied

The arguments posited in this case deal with what I’ve previously discussed on this blog site … statutory violations!

Not every state has the same kind of statutory components as Florida (some do) that offer a civil component that could bolster a homeowner’s claim that the bank and its servicer AND its law firm knew of should have known that what they proffered to the court through their pleadings and exhibits could come back to bite them.

Whether you are an investor who is faced with a legal conundrum  over an acquired property or a homeowner who is facing foreclosure, you should understand that there are statutes, which I explain in detail in the back end of THE QUIET TITLE WAR MANUAL, on a state-by-state basis, that covers statutory violations as well as your common law right to bring an action under consumer protection act statutes or based on a criminal component that could be brought into the mix in the civil realm.   For example, perjury is a felony.  If you are in a civil trial and you commit perjury giving false testimony, the matter now becomes a criminal matter … subject (of course) to the discretion of the court.   If the attorney representing the bank or the servicer lies to the court and misrepresents the truth or relies on false and misrepresentative exhibits as part of their presentation and pleadings, then what do you think the court should do to them?   It happens all the time in court yet homeowners’ attorneys seem to turn a blind eye to it.  Well, not EVERY foreclosure defense attorney turns a blind eye to it, but a lot of them do because (after all) we can’t “rat out the brotherhood now, can we?”

If an attorney for the bank tells the bank’s witness to misrepresent the truth on the stand (or in a deposition) and it is discovered through an evidentiary hearing that the attorney suborned perjury … well, that’s a felony too!

If you’ve read my posts on “Gutting the Underbelly of the Beast” … I’ve explained the process of what happens (and what’s available) by running a misconduct complaint up to the state bar’s disciplinary board.  You (as a pro se litigant) will NOT have the same results as a bar-licensed attorney who files the same complaint before the tribunal.  Statutory violations can thus be turned into ethical violations when the bank’s attorney doesn’t play fair and doesn’t tell the whole truth or misrepresents the truth in his pleadings and exhibits.

Now for the real slice and dice … 

Here’s the motion put forward by the homeowners, as Plaintiffs, which prompted the bank’s motion to strike:

amend_cc_08.20.18

This is WHY the judge denied the motion to strike and placed this matter for trial.

The way I’m reading this, it’s the perfect set-up for the ethical violations and eventual reporting to the bar of the charges so the bank’s attorneys would stand to be disciplined.  It’s the way the system of things is supposed to work!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED