All court cases are important but these are the key ones. The first two are the crux. The rest hang flesh on the bones.
MERS v. Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance – State Appellate, MERS demands to be recognized as having no actionable interest in title. Their wish was granted. 2005. Cite as 270 Neb 529
The Boyko Decision -Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko of the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio Federal Court overturns 14 foreclosure actions with a well reasoned opinion outlining the failure of the foreclosing party to prove standing. This decision started the movement of challenging the standing of the foreclosing party. Oct 2007
BAC v US Bank – FL Appellate court upholds the concept of determining the standing of the foreclosing party before allowing summary judgement. All cases in FL must now go through this process. If you want to have fun, read the plaintiff's brief. 2007
Weingartner et al v Chase Home Finance et al - US District Court (Nev): Two pro se plaintiffs sue for relief re: MERS assignments. Very technical decision but two things are apparent. First, the court has little patience for pro se plaintiffs who throw everything out there wasting the court's time and second, even though the court threw out most of what the plaintiffs were arguing for, they did side with the plaintiff. Provides a good insight to the court's reasoning vis a vis MERS assignments.Also makes clear you shouldn't try this from home. Please seek legal counsel.
Schneider et al v Deutsche Bank et al (FL): Class action suit (the filing) seeking to recover actual and statutory damages for violations of the foreclosure process. Provides an excellent description of the securitization process and the problems with assignments. Any person named as a defendant in a suit by Deutsche Bank should contact the firms involved for inclusion in this suit.
JP Morgan Chase v New Millenial et. al. - FL Appellate which clearly demonstrates the chaos which can ensue when there is a failure to register changes of ownership at the county recorder's office. Everyone operates in good faith, then out of nowhere, someone shows up waving a piece of paper. The MERS system, while not explicitly named, is clearly the culprit of the chaos. 2009
In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 - Eastern District of CA Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title. "Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law." Scroll to page 4 to find the ruling.
MERS v Saunders - Docket: Cum-09-640 - Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: June 15, 2010. Decided: August 12, 2010. Confirms MERS has no actionable interest in title.
US Bank v Ibenez - Supreme Court of Massachusetts in affirming a lower courts decision to overturn a foreclosure sale pretty much repudiates the entire securitization business model. January 7, 2011. As of posting, slip opinion only.
There are others, all over the country; at district level, at appellate level, at the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) stage, at the State Supreme Court stage, in Federal Bankruptcy Court. The issue is so clear one federal suit was brought by the Federal Bankruptcy Trustee. They all speak to the same set of facts. MERS, by its very corporate construction, has no actionable interest in any title. They cannot assign, they cannot foreclose, they cannot deliver clear title at sale or pay off.
Read all of these cases and you begin to see clearly how it is MERS can neither foreclose nor deliver clear title. It is MER’s very essence. The very documents which created it precludes it. Furthermore, MERS has argued quite vociferously at the appellate level demanding the right to be recognized as having no actionable interest in title. The courts allowed it, and now we are seeing the results and ramifications thereof.
There is ample historical court precedent
stating clearly the concept that splitting the deed from the debt is not
possible. For example:
Carpenter V.
Longan 83 US 271,274, (1872) – In an
appeal from the Colorado
Territories,SCOTUS says “The note and
mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an
incident.
An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an
assignment of
the latter alone is a nullity.”For
that,they cite Jackson v. Blodget, 5
Cowan, 205; Jackson v. Willard, 4 Johnson, 43.These cases do not appear to be on the net,but
research seems to indicate they could go
back as far as 1822.
More
quotes from this case:
·“All
the authorities agree that the debt is the principal thing and the
mortgage an
accessory.”
·“There
is no departure from any principle of law or equity in reaching this
conclusion.”
·“The
fallacy which lies in overlooking this distinction has misled many able
minds,
and is the source of all the confusion that exists. The mortgage can
have no
separate existence. When the note is paid the mortgage expires. It
cannot
survive for a moment the debt which the note represents.”
·“We
think the doctrine we have laid down is sustained by reason, principle,
and the
greater weight of authority.”
Given
the body of judicial decisions preceding and following this ruling,it
seems the consensus is they are
correct.Splitting the debt from the
mortgage is a thought no rational mind can conceive – yet,they
did it anyway.No wonder we are all going crazy!~!
For direct citation of this case and seventeen
others dating back to 1831 all saying the same thing, please click
here
Here are some interesting depositions further substantiating who and what MERS is:
On the 20th of December 2010, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey issued the following orders to the leading foreclosing banks to appear before their representative to show cause as to why they should be allowed to continue to use the foreclosure courts of that state. These are the orders:
These orders are especially significant because of the unique nature of the relationship between the State Government of New Jersey and the Banking establishment of Wall St.
The dangers of having a parallel set of recordings, one public, one VERY private, should be obvious to all. The possibilities of fraud are rampant. While the concept of modernizing the paper intensive system is perhaps a laudable goal, it is something which must be done with public input through 50 state legislatures - not by corporate decree. A privately held set of recordings gives rise to fraud, abuse and an oligarchical class structure. This is the antithesis of the founding documents of this land. If we let it happen, we have lost the country.
Sixty two million mortgages at a conservative $150K each. That’s $9.3T. Truth of the matter is, the average mortgage is more likely $250K ea which works out to $15.5T
How do we bail that out?
Below are random pdf documents which are referenced other places on the net.
