So what’s the actual mechanism of this MERS wave, and how are the courts finding that this isn’t the metaphorical equivalent of a physics experiment, and MERS and the banks cannot just choose to collapse the wave of potentiality into particulate actuality at a time and place of their choosing?
1. As Yves says, it’s impossible to be both lienholder and nominee for the lienholder. [That reminds me of a sovereignty solecism, but I'll save that line of thought for another post.]
2. Where pressed, MERS claims to be the actual lienholder, but this is impossible without the note. Plus, MERS itself has admitted that it’s not a creditor nor a servicer, and we know it’s not a trustee, so how can it be a lienholder?
At any rate, in the 45 states where the mortgage is just an appendage of the note, it’s impossible to legally foreclose without holding the note.
3. In most states, the nominee can’t be a plaintiff; only the “real party of interest” can be. The nominee cannot take this action on its own. (How can a mere registry be a nominee anyway?)
4. No documentation establishes that MERS even is the actual nominee for the trust. Just as with all the other forms of paperwork, this is mere pseudo-paperwork trumped up after the fact.
I attribute the inconsistency between the two quotes (one saying MERS under pressure calls itself the nominee, the other that it calls itself the lienholder) to the chronology. The latter is from August, prior to when this started snowballing, while the former is from November and refers to subsequent MERS depositions. Evidently MERS decided to change its story about what it really is.
The Supreme Court of Maine:
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, No. 09-640, 2010 WL 3168374, (Me. August 12, 2010) The Court explains that the only rights conveyed to MERS in either the Saunders’ mortgage or the corresponding promissory note are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds. This comports with the limited role of a nominee. A nominee is a “person designated to act in place of another, usu[ally] in a very limited way,” or a “party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1149 (9th ed. 2009).
Also, according to the PSAs MERS can never hold the note
, which is required in at least 45 states. The whole notion that the lienholder (which therefore legally and according to the PSA has to be the trust) can authorize MERS to take the note and act upon it is part of their illegal obfuscation plan. But they sure want the MBS investors to take that BS at face value and not ask questions about it.
The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:
Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.
The nominee doesn’t have the note and therefore cannot foreclose. The trustee legally and contractually has to hold the note. No one can separate the lien from the note. If MERS is nominee for the holders of liens where it doesn’t hold the note, it has no standing. There’s no such thing as nominee for a note holder at all.
For all these reasons MERS can never be the note holder for anything that’s supposed to be in a trust, and therefore also can neither meaningfully hold the lien nor act upon it nor meaningfully be nominee on behalf of the lien holder.
So existentially the MERS wave has to remain merely a set of bogus potentialities. Since they claimed to be everything, we reply that they are nothing. Being nothing, they can do nothing.
Does the actual mechanism of MERS have a different character? Not at all!
We have been advised that the named plaintiff in the foreclosure action should be both the record holder of the mortgage and the owner and holder of the promissory note. This is typically considered to be the servicer because if the promissory note is endorsed in blank and the servicer has physical custody of the note, the servicer will technically be the note holder as well as the record mortgage holder. By virtue of having its employees become certifying officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer of possession of the note so that MERS is considered the note holder for purposes of foreclosing the loan. Therefore, MERS is both the mortgage holder and the note holder as nominee for the current servicer. Page 62
That from MERS’ own pseudo-legal gibberish. The gist is that to achieve this omnipotential status they start out with only a smeared out wave of potential “employees” among all the MERS member entities. When they want to collapse the wave somewhere and actually become a lien holder or note holder or nominee or whatnot, the plan was to simply deputize an actual employee at wherever the note was* as a fraudulent “MERS certifying officer”.
[*The fact that the note also wasn't there but had to be fraudulently vouched for by robosigners was just another layer of the fraud.]
How can Joe Lackey, officer of the servicer, hand over the note to Joe Lackey, officer of MERS?
1. How does this work according to all sorts of contracts and elements of tax status? Can you instantly deputize any random passerby as a corporate officer empowered to exercise responsibility according to pre-existing corporate contracts? Can one person have this bifurcated persona as two completely different officers? What about conflicts of interest? I suppose the MERS boilerplate language purported to cover all this. The “savvy investor” and genius borrower are assumed to have understood every bit of this and fully consented to it.
2. This is meant to obscure the fact that the note was never conveyed to the trust. MERS is supposed to be able to collapse at will into the role of nominee for anyone from servicer to trustee. But presumably the intentionally generated confusion here is supposed to let the MBS seller try to represent to the investors that MERS forecloses on behalf of the trust while in court it may be arguing something different.
3. Often the exact same fictive officer vouches for both the note and the loss of the note. (Never mind that the signatures often don’t match.) That’s so the MBS seller won’t be caught not having properly conveyed the note.
4. The whole MERS concept here is invalid according to the PSAs and REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) tax status, as well as legal foreclosure procedure.
As a practical matter, the incoherence of MERS’ legal position is exacerbated by a corporate structure that is so unorthodox as to arguably be considered fraudulent….MERSCORP simply farms out the MERS, Inc. identity to employees of mortgage servicers, originators, debt collectors, and foreclosure law firms. Instead, MERS invites financial companies to enter names of their own employees into a MERS webpage which then automatically regurgitates boilerplate “corporate resolutions” that purport to name the employees of other companies as “certifying officers” of MERS. These certifying officers also take job titles from MERS stylizing themselves as either assistant secretaries or vice presidents of the MERS, rather than the company that actually employs them. These employees of the servicers, debt collectors, and law firms sign documents pretending to be vice presidents or assistant secretaries of MERS, Inc. even though neither MERSCORP, Inc. nor MERS, Inc. pays any compensation or provides benefits to them… MERS even sells its corporate seal to non-employees on its internet web page for $25.00 each.
It’s simply impersonation. It’s like using a fake ID you manufactured yourself. (And selling them to others.)
(I wrote about other malign implications of this “employment” model here
Yet between these fraudulent deputizations and the undocumented electronic handshakes on the registry, MERS thought it had found a way to play an infinite shell game with the notes and the status of parties.
Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS’ technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.
In my first post I compared all this to the wave function collapse in quantum theory. So let’s review the way these crooks have made waves, and how we must stanch them.
A. The legal fact: A nominee has only limited powers and cannot assign or foreclose.
They say: MERS can be either the nominee or the actual holder, at the scam’s convenience.
We reply, turning this right side up: MERS is neither, and can do nothing.
B. Whether MERS were a nominee or the actual lien holder, only real MERS officers could take action. But MERS has no employees.
They say: Anyone we choose to deputize is momentarily a real corporate officer.
Right side up: MERS has no officers, and therefore no particular person can act as a MERS officer.
C. MERS wants to collapse the wave at the exact point necessary to foreclose, while remaining opaque to the investor and the public.
Right side up: The banksters broke the chain of title, and therefore no one can foreclose.
This one way prerogative to dictate the wave function collapse is universal in corporatism and the globalization organizations. Everywhere, in every detail, the goal is for the corporate actor to have zero responsibility, zero accountability, total rights, total prerogative, and not even an actual existence except at precise times and places of its choosing. At all other times and all other places it’s to be just a smeared out wave of irresponsibility and nothingness. Corporatism wants to achieve a literal Utopia, which means “no place”. Corporate Utopia is to be a no place from which nothing arises but precision assaults. But there’s to be no way to penetrate it, since other than those specific assaults, nothing “exists”.
The Germans have a term of great ambiguity, Vogelfrei. Nietzsche named a set of poems “Songs of Prince Vogelfrei”. It means literally “free as a bird”, and can be used to denote freedom. But it’s also the term that was used for medieval outlawry. The outlaw was free as a bird in the eyes of the law and could be killed on sight.
We can see how the corporations want to be outlaws in all the prerogative senses even as they still claim the protections of the law wherever convenient. And they want to turn the law into an instrument of oppression on their behalf.
So the right and responsibility of the people is clear. We must collapse all these waves at the spot demanded by our constitution and our humanity. That means we must enforce total accountability of all corporations while stripping them of all rights, since corporations never legitimately had any but strictly delimited rights, and they’ve proven they can’t be trusted with those. The corporations have forfeit all right to exist. Meanwhile the criminals who tried to shelter themselves behind these fraudulent pseudo-legal and anti-sovereign structures must be dragged into the light to face human justice for their crimes.
Since they chose to become outlaws, we must consent to their choice. But we can certainly turn this outlawry right side up. They wanted to be the kind of outlaw who retains his rights. But an outlaw has chosen to forfeit all rights. Being civilized, we the people shall overlook this and still give them their rights, most of all their right to justice for all.
They also chose to forfeit responsibility, as their most profound act. But no one can forfeit responsibility, and here we the people have no choice. We have no choice but to enforce this responsibility, since it’s the same thing as the right to justice. Again, civilization promises to give everyone his rights, and therefore we must force the corporate criminals to live up to their civilized responsibilities.
That’s far more than these barbarians will ever give us to the extent they have the power to destroy civilization.
So the prescription is clear. Corporations are barbaric psychopaths and must be eradicated. As for the Land Scandal itself, since there’s no one who can legitimately foreclose, the mortgages revert to unsecured loans. Whether or not anyone chooses to keep paying some allegedly legitimate servicer is, I suppose, a matter of one’s subjective sense of what’s right. But I’d say that since the banksters are waging war on the country and have already stolen tens of trillions of dollars with no end in sight, and seek to destroy democracy and civil society in themselves; and since none of us even knows if the entity to which we send the payment is the right recipient; and since under the incipient Depression the banks have inflicted upon us none of us can be sure of our financial futures; putting all that together I suggest that people should consider renouncing the mortgages and keeping the houses.
If enough people choose to collapse their particular waves in that way, it would surge to a tsunami which would wash away the banks forever.