Comment

Comment by victory on May 4, 2013 at 2:10pm

looking for the following signatures:

David M. Gregory

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 2:18pm

It appears the entire financial system is organized crime and one big scam con game,  with political ties and actually run our government. Backing their crime with tax dollars, incase they fail.  What a crock!

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 2:12pm

Senator Pam Roach in WA State is pushing a bill to take away due process and our property rights and she has a MERS robo doc signed mortgage, a fellow advocate for justice and homeowners has pointed out to her.  Or at least had. She was very displeased to have that made public.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:52pm

Nearly Half of All Americans Believe “The Federal Government Poses An Immediate Threat To The Rights And Freedoms Of Ordinary Citizens” →

What Is MERS and What Role Does It Have in the Foreclosure Mess? (Hint: It Holds 60% of All Mortgages, But Has ZERO Employees)

Posted on October 13, 2010 by WashingtonsBlog

 

You’ve heard the name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or “MERS” mentioned in relation to the foreclosure problems in the residential real estate market.

But what is MERS?

It is the company created and owned by all of the big banks to process title to property in the U.S. Approximately 60% of the nation’s residential mortgages are recorded in the name of MERS.

MERS is a shell corporation with no employees, but thousands of officers.

As the treasurer and secretary of MERS admitted in a deposition:

 

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:52pm

Q Does MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.

***

A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.

***

How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
[Objection]
A There are no employees of MERS.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:52pm

 

(page 70, line 1 through page 72, line 8 )

In another deposition, a legal assistant at a law firm initiating 4000 to 7000 foreclosures per month in Florida held herself out as “vice president” and “assistant secretary” of MERS. She testified:

Q: The question was you have no job duties as an assistant secretary of MERS, correct?
A: I do not have any job duties other than signing the assignments and mortgage. Does that help?
Q: Yes. Here, I’ll try to rephrase this. Do you attend any board meetings at MERS?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you attend any meetings at all at MERS?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you report to the secretary of MERS?
A: No, sir.
Q: Who is the secretary of MERS?
A: I have no idea.

***

Q: Where are the MERS offices located?
A: I can’t remember.
Q: How many offices do they have?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Do you know where their headquarters are?
A: Nope.
Q: Have you ever been there?
A: No.
Q: How many employees do they have?
A: I have no idea.

(pages 11 & 12)

She further testified that her signatures on “these assignments,” which from all indications were and are at least several thousand in number, were in no way attestations that the statements contained therein were accurate or truthful. She further testified that she was the person with the most knowledge about the subject assignment.

For example, she testified:

Q: It says, ‘but effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008.” Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you get that date from?
A: I did not pick that date. That date was put in by the processor that prepared the
assignment.
Q: And who was that?
A: Off the top-of-my-head, I do not know who actually typed this assignment.
Q: Okay. But you are signing on behalf of MERS, and you are stating here that it is effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: At the time you signed this, what reason did you have, as agent for MERS, to make it
effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008?
A: I did not pick that date. And I do not recall this document.
Q: Sitting here today, you have no idea why it is that it says, “effective as of the 19th day of February, 2008.” Is that correct?
A: Looking at this one particular piece of paper, I do not recall or know the answer to that question, no.
Q: Is there some general practice, of which you are aware, that would give us information as to why this particular date was inserted?
A: That information was determined by the people that review the file prior to me.
Q: And what would they base that on, as a general practice?
A: I do not know.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:51pm

Q: You don’t know? Were, to your knowledge, any physical documents transferred on February 19, 2008?
A: I do not know.
Q: To your knowledge, does the 19th day of February, 2008 have any significance?
A: I do not know.
Q: Ma’am, if you signed this document on behalf of MERS, picking this date, this effective
date – -
A: I did not pick the effective date.
Q: But you ratified it by signing this; didn’t you?
[objection]
Q: Didn’t you attest to the accuracy of that date by signing this document?
[objection]
A: I would say, no.
Q: Did you attest to this document, as a whole, by signing it?
[objection]
A: I do not think that in my capacity of signing these assignments, it was my position to attest. My role was to be given a document that had been reviewed by an attorney, had been reviewed by a title examiner, had instructions from the client, and I was to sign the assignment as secretary on behalf of MERS.
Q: Right. And when you signed it as secretary on behalf of MERS, were you approving and agreeing with the terms contained therein for MERS?
A: I believe I was approving and agreeing to the fact that the mortgage needed to be assigned from MERS to another entity.

(pages 13 and 14)

In other words, assignments of title were never actually created, notarized and recorded, as required by state law. The “vice president” and “assistant secretary” MERS signing sworn statements under penalty perjury was simply making it up and doing what she was told.

In that light, Yves Smith’s report that “no one in the industry transferred the paper” makes perfect sense.

Why MERS?

But why was MERS created in the first place?

MERS, the banks and the mainstream financial press all say that it was simply to save fees by digitizing mortgage electronic.

But as Ellen Brown notes, there is in reality a very different reason that the big banks creat

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:50pm

ed MERS:

The rating agencies required that the conduit be “bankruptcy remote,” which meant it could hold title to nothing ….

Indeed, the secretary and treasurer of MERS admitted this in a deposition, stating:

As a requirement for mortgages that were securing loans or promissory notes that were sold to securitize trust, the rating agencies would only allow mortgages MERS — well let me step back. They required that a bankruptcy remote single purpose entity be created in order for transactions holding loans secured by MERS, by mortgages MERS served as mortgagee to be in those pools and receive a rating, an investment grade rating without any changes to the credit enhancement. They required that to be a bankruptcy remote single purpose subsidiary of MERS, of Merscorp.

(page 32, lines 9-20)

Indeed, many commercialmortgages may be held by MERS as well, and for the same reason.

 

And as a a forthcoming article in the Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal notes, saving fees was another motivation for the giant banks in running mortgages through MERS, but in a way which is shadier than routine cost-cutting efforts.

Karl Denninger summarizes the article (indicated with indented quotes), with commentary:

A few good cites will set the table for those willing to dig into what’s really not that hard to understand…

In the mid-1990s mortgage bankers decided they did not want to pay recording fees for assigning mortgages anymore. This decision was driven by securitization—a process of pooling many mortgages into a trust and selling income from the trust to investors on Wall Street. Securitization, also sometimes called structured finance, usually required several successive mortgage assignments to different companies. To avoid paying county recording fees, mortgage bankers formed a plan to create one shell company that would pretend to own all the mortgages in the country—that way, the mortgage bankers would never have to record assignments since the same company would always “own” all the mortgages.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:50pm

What do you call an artifice designed to evade the payment of taxes – which these fees are?

They incorporated the shell company in Delaware and called it Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Even though not a single state legislature or appellate court had authorized this change in the real property recording, investors interested in subprime and exotic mortgage backed securities were still willing to buy mortgages recorded through this new proxy system.14

What do you call selling something to someone that claims an ownership right as an inherent part of the bargain – indeed, it’s the only consideration that is offered in exchange for money, yet the state legislatures have not ratified this as proper, and in fact the county and state legislatures say it is not?

Because the new system cut out payment of county recording fees it was significantly cheaper for intermediary mortgage companies and the investment banks that packaged mortgage securities. Acting on the impulse to maximize profits by avoiding payment of fees to county governments much of the national residential mortgage market shifted to the new proxy recording system in only a few years. Now about 60% of the nation’s residential mortgages are recorded in the name of MERS, Inc. rather than the bank, trust, or company that actually has a meaningful economic interest in the repayment of the debt.

***

Astonishingly, MERS “vice presidents” are simply paralegals, customer service representatives, and foreclosure attorneys employed by other companies. MERS even sells its corporate seal to non-employees on its internet web page for $25.00 each. Ironically, MERS, Inc.—a company that pretends to own 60% of the nation’s residential mortgages—does not have any of its own employees but still purports to have “thousands” of assistant secretaries and vice presidents.

AP notes that banks hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines as foreclosure “experts”. Some of these folks testified in deposition that they hardly knew what a mortgage or an “affidavit” is, and admitted that they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud. While I have not yet seen any evidence that the folks signing on behalf of MERS were of this caliber, nothing would surprise me at this point.

But It Can All Be Fixed, Right?

Diana Olick notes:

A source of mine pointed me to a recent conference call Citigroup had with investors/clients. It featured Adam Levitin, a Georgetown University Law professor who specializes in, among many other financial regulatory issues, mortgage finance. Levitin says the documentation problems involved in the mortgage mess have the potential “to cloud title on not just foreclosed mortgages but on performing mortgages.”  [MY COMMENTS CAUSED BY MERS]

***

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:49pm

With the chain of documentation now in question, and trustee ownership in question, here is one legal scenario, according to Prof. Levitin:

The mortgage is still owed, but there’s going to be a problem figuring out who actually holds the mortgage, and they would be the ones bringing the foreclosure. You have a trust that has been getting payments from borrowers for years that it has no right to receive. So you might see borrowers suing the trusts saying give me my money back, you’re stealing my money. You’re going to then have trusts that don’t have any assets that have been issuing securities that say they’re backed by a whole bunch of assets, and you’re going to have investors suing the trustees for failing to inspect the collateral files, which the trustees say they’re going to do, and you’re going to have trustees suing the securitization sponsors for violating their representations and warrantees about what they were transferring.

***

Josh Rosner, of Graham-Fisher, put the following out in a note today, claiming violations of pooling and servicing agreements on mortgages could dwarf the Lehman weekend:

Nearly all Pooling and Servicing Agreements require that “On the Closing Date, the Purchaser will assign to the Trustee pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement all of its right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and its rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15), and the Trustee shall succeed to such right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and the Purchaser’s rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15)”. Also, an Assignment of Mortgage must accompany each note and this almost never happens.We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to the Trust in “blank” name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the Trust as required by the PSA.    [MY NOTE WAS ENDORSED INTO BLANK]

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:47pm

Rather than continue to fight for the “put-back” of individual loans the investors may be able to sue for and argue that the “true sale” was never achieved.

Quite the can of worms. Anyone who says that the banks will fix all this in a few months is seriously delusional.

Citi’s conference call is even more dramatic when you remember that CitiMortgage is one of the main owners of MERS. Here’s more from Citi:

 

MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) functions as a centralized electronic registry of mortgages and tracks ownership of mortgages. MERS allows mortgage ownership to change hands efficiently and relatively quickly since it is electronic and allows all parties to forgo making a filing in local land records. Indeed, MERS was designed to function as a substitute for local land records. [WITHOUT PERMISSION BY LEGISTLATION NOR ANY POLICY MAKERS. ]

Although MERS was designed to enhance efficiency in the mortgage assignment process, Levitin argued it may not conform with the law. “Slowly but surely” courts are issuing decisions which “cast validity on the MERS process.” Although ~60% of mortgages list MERS as the “nominee” which owns the mortgage, a handful of recent court cases have ruled that MERS has no standing in foreclosure actions either because (1) physical paperwork must be transferred when a mortgage is assigned by one party to another or (2) MERS has no true economic interest in the mortgage in question since it collects no payments from the borrowers.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:47pm

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=39207581&am...

CitiBank Report: Foreclosures Gone Wild

Finally, the above-described Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal article also comments on the illegality of MERS (the indented quotes are from the article; the rest is Denninger’s commentary):

Worse, MERS may have literally “split the baby” and rendered millions of mortgages unsecured:  SEE CARPENTER V LONGAN 1872 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW DISTINGUISHED LAW " THE NOTE CAN NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE DEED OF TRUST"]

Typically, the same person holds both the note and the deed of trust. In the event that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as a practical matter becomes unsecured. Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4. Comment. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Id. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. Id. The mortgage loan became ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. [BY MERS CONTRACT BILAWS MERS CAN NOT HOLD THE NOTE OR BE A BENEFICIARY]  MERS ONLY HOLDS THE DEED OF TRUST AND IN MOST CASES THE DEED OF TRUST WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THE LOAN LIKE COUNTRYWIDE AND WAMU TO ANYONE INCLUDING MERS.]

That’s an actual holding of the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:47pm

It gets worse.

If the growing line of cases asserting that MERS is neither a mortgagee nor a deed of trust beneficiary is correct, then courts must soon confront profound questions about the very enforceability of MERS’ security agreements. … There is a compelling legal argument that loans originated through the MERS system fail to create enforceable liens.

…..

The mortgage industry has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and the mortgage are inseparable.” If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist.

While this argument will surely strike a discordant note with the mortgage bankers that invested billions of dollars in loans originated with this simple flaw, the position is consistent with a long and hitherto uncontroversial line of cases. Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest when an eligible grantee is not named. Courts all around the country have long held: “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”  [I BELIEVE ALL THE DEEDS OF TRUST ARE VOID].

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:45pm

Now consider this – assignments of the Grantee in blank are thus invalid too. Oh, yeah, they went there.

Nonetheless, in Chauncey, the trial court, intermediate appellate court and New York’s highest court all agreed that the attempt to convey an “in blank” mortgage failed. The Court of Appeals explained, “No mortgagee or obligee was named in [the security agreement], and no right to maintain an action thereon, or to enforce the same, was given therein to the plaintiff or any other person. It was, per se, of no more legal force than a simple piece of blank paper.”

Double Oops.

And then, in a very nice throwback to something I wrote we get this:

In a stunning betrayal of the policies that ground the ancient statute of frauds principal commanding that we commit transfers of land interests to writing, mortgage bankers wrote millions of mortgage loans that did not specify who the actual mortgagee was. For over a hundred years, our courts have held that “legal title to real property may not be established by parole”….

Then there’s the little problem with REMICs that don’t actually have title because MERS claims to (well, sometimes)

And, all rights to a mortgage loan must be deposited into the trust for it to achieve tax exempt status under federal REMIC law—which does not contemplate the use of a proxy mortgagee. Yet, despite claiming sole ownership of mortgages sold to investors, in documents regularly recorded with county officials these same institutions maintain that MERS is the sole owner of the mortgage. The chain of financial institutions linking originators to securitization depositors collectively want to have their lien and sell it too.

That should go over well with the IRS.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:43pm

Communities around the country have elected and hired county recorders to act as their custodian of property rights. Those recorders who agree the MERS system poses a threat to real property records have an obligation arising from their office to reclaim and restore faith in land title records. While some individual county recorders may reasonably feel reluctant to take on a powerful national system backed by some of the nation’s largest financial institutions, this is precisely what they were hired to do. If county recorders do not protect county real property records, who will? A pathway to reclaiming authority over real property records could involve joining with other recorders to raise a unified voice. State and national county recorder trade associations could have a significant impact on pending cases by submitting amicus curiae briefs. Courts are likely to respect county recorders’ expertise in maintaining and preserving transparent records, both because of recorders’ experience but also because of their democratic mandate. Even more to the point, county recorders should consider appealing to the courts directly to stop financial institutions from recording false documents. In lawsuits to recover unpaid recording fees counties could hire private counsel on contingent fee agreements that would place no financial burden county taxpayers.

Yep.

It is time to take this edifice and throw it in the trashcan, after forcing its members to fix all the titles they have damaged – at their expense – and record true and correct assignment information.

Oh wait – that’s a problem isn’t it….. what if the assignments never actually happened, and the REMICs hold an empty box? Why that could get messy….. Hmmmm….

Indeed, as a prominent economist said recently: “At the root of the crisis we find the largest financial swindle in world history”, where “counterfeit” mortgages were “laundered” by the banks.

MERS was a large part of that laundering process.

Update: JP Morgan – one of the founders and largest owners of MERS – is bailing out.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:39pm

A law professor and attorney is on this journey to prove this: He sent me this email.

I’m working on a theory that some loan originators (e.g. Countrywide) digitized the original loans, assigned a MICR code and destroyed the originals.  “Magnetic ink character recognition, or MICR, is a character recognition technology used primarily by the banking industry to facilitate the processing and clearance of checks and other documents.”  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recognition

 

Hence, the holder only has, at best, a digital copy, not the original and the trusts never took physical delivery of the loans.  It seems to me the holder would be the trustee if the actual loans were delivered to the trusts as required by law.  http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/22/bank-of-america-mortgage-doc...

 

As we know, it was customary for the originator to maintain possession of the original note and related documents.  In fact, Freddie and Fannie guidelines mandated the original keep the paper.   However, Countrywide (and perhaps others) routinely and unilaterally destroyed records.  http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/countrywide-destroyed-required... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mortgage-lenders-seeking-court-per...

 

Why?  Perhaps they treated the mortgage notes like checks and applied a MICR code to expedite processing.  After all, both are negotiable instruments governed by UCC Art. 3.  The MICR code is similar to the MIN number used by MERS to identify loans. 

 

I examined a DOT and loan I have for a client and see at the top the county bar number and recording number.  But it also has two bar codes and numbers on the bottom of the first page of the DOT and note.  One set is 5 number and the other is 19.   I suspect that is the MICR.

 

What does this mean? 

 

First:  I believe the originals should look like the originals you file with the county.  In Thurston County, Washington, the auditor’s office puts a bar code tape on original documents (e.g. quit claim deeds), scans and return the original to you with the bar code tape.

 

Second: If the originals were destroyed, you can argue under UCC 3-604(a) that the obligation is discharged by destruction of the instrument. 

 

*BTW:  Truncation means, stopping the flow of the physical checks issued by a drawer to the drawee branch. The physical instrument is truncated at some point en route to the drawee branch and an electronic image of the checks (or promissory note) is sent to the drawee branch along with the relevant information like the MICR fields, date of presentation, presenting banks.  Truncation eliminates the need to move the physical instruments across branches and international boundaries, except in exceptional circumstances. This would result in effective reduction in the time required for payment of checks and promissory notes, the associated cost of transit and delays in processing, etc., thus speeding up the process of collection or realization of checks and promissory notes.

 

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:35pm

We hold that the act of false dating by a notary employee of the trustee in a
nonjudicial foreclosure is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and satisfies the
first three elements under the Washington CPA.

The trustee argues as a matter of law that the falsely notarized documents did not cause harm. The trustee is wrong; a false notarization is a crime and undermines the integrity of our institutions upon which all must rely upon the faithful fulfillment of the notary’s oath.

The trustee argues as a matter of law that the falsely notarized documents
did not cause harm. The trustee is wrong; a false notarization is a crime and
undermines the integrity of our institutions upon which all must rely upon the
faithful fulfillment of the notary’s oath. There remains, however, the factual issue
of whether the false notarization was a cause of plaintiffs damages. That is, of
course, a question for the jury. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass ‘n v.
Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299,314,858 P.2d 1054 (1993) (citing Ayers v. Johnson
& Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wn.2d 747, 753-56, 818 P.2d 1337 (1991)). We
note that the plaintiff submitted evidence that the purpose of predated notarizations
was to expedite the date of sale to please the beneficiary. Given the evidence that
if the documents had been properly dated, the earliest the sale could have taken
place was one week later. The plaintiff also submitted evidence that with one more
week, it was “very possible” Puget Sound Guardians could have closed the sale.
This additional time would also have provided the guardian more time to persuade
WaMu to postpone the sale. But given that the trustee’s failure to fulfill its
fiduciary duty to postpone the sale, there is sufficient evidence to support the juries
CPA violation verdict, and we need not reach whether this deceptive act was a
cause of plaintiffs damages.16

[...]

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:34pm

KLEM vs WAMU, QUALITY LOAN | Washington Supreme Court – Predating N...

Posted on28 February 2013.

footnote 11. We have not had occasion to fully analyze whether the nonjudicial foreclosure act, on its face or as applied, violates article I, section 3 of our state constitution’s command that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:31pm

See: http://www.allregs.com/tpl/Main.aspx [Sections 66.17 and 66.54].

However, Freddie and Fannie’s guidelines have evolved over time and you may find that there is no such assignment in most cases.   Unless there is a written assignment from the mortgage owner (Freddy or Fannie) to the servicer, the servicer cannot foreclose for the simple reason they are not part of the mortgage contract.   Simply put, only the mortgage owner can foreclose on the mortgage contract.  Moreover, if the assignment of the mortgage is invalid or fraudulent, then there is a “cloud on title” which should be identified by title and mortgage insurers.

Second, according to Powell on Real Property section 37.27 (quoted above),

It must be remembered that the mortgagee has two interests: (1) the debt or obligation which is owed to him, and (2) the security interest in land represented by the mortgage ….  In fact, the primary interest is the personalty debt obligation.  The interest in land which is available in case security is necessary because of the debtor’s default is considered a collateral interest.  Much trouble has been caused by mortgagees attempting to transfer only one of these two interests.  Where the mortgagee has “transferred” only the mortgage, the transaction is a nullity and his “assignee,” having received no interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless piece of paper.

Given what Professor Whitman describes as a “conscious policy on the part of mortgage sellers to retain, rather than transfer, the notes representing the loans they were selling,” it would appear that any alleged “sale” of the note or mortgage to Freddy and Fannie is a fraud.  By analogy, you cannot cash a check that is not in your possession or that is not made payable to or endorsed to you.  Not only is the sale of the note a sham where there is no delivery and/or endorsement of the underlying loan/note to Freddie or Fannie, if their records (per the website) “show that Freddie Mac is the owner of your mortgage”, then the unity of interest (i.e. loan/note and mortgage/security must be transferred together) is destroyed leaving Freddie and Fannie with nothing.[1]

This begs the question: why would Fannie and Freddy have such a policy given the laws governing mortgage contracts and promissory notes?  Consider the fact that Freddie and Fannie are Government Sponsored Entities [GSEs] albeit private corporations owned by the major banks.  It seems to me that Freddie and Fannie have been hijacked by the major banks and are being used to buy up bad mortgages and then seek a bailout from the taxpayers.[2]

Comment by Shelley Erickson on April 6, 2013 at 1:30pm

http://4closurefraud.org/2013/04/05/free-ebook-whistleblowers-revea...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 71
• Next ›
• Page