Counsel for MERS calls Dan Pennell of Naked Capitalism - Says administration has to make MERS legal. READ what else he implies "Banks Will Walk away from loans of those who Stand Up and Sue"

The legal counsel for MERS called Daniel Pennell of Naked Capitalism yesterday.  What Richard Anderson of MERS told him, is so typical of the big banks and what they believe will or will not happen!  It shows they believe they are ABOVE the law and the White House will twist the laws to make MERS foreclosure FRAUD legal!

What is also very interesting is him saying "That they would rather walk away from loans right now of those WHO FIGHT foreclosures than to have MORE judges RULE AGAINST THEM!

Did you get that?  In other words - STAND UP RIGHT NOW AGAINST A FORECLOSURE!  MERS banks would rather WALK AWAY than go to court to have more RULINGS AGAINST THEM!  This is very important to understand right now!  I believe there is a window of time, where the banks are running scared!  Most Judges around the country are ruling by the law, there are some who still will not.  But those cases can be appealed to a higher court which rules by the law.  That has been happening around the country also!

Richard Anderson displays such cockiness as to say - MERS banks will do as they want and that Judges should not rule against them, due to the amount of mortgages they have in the U.S. (60% of mortgages are MERS).

Portions of article:

Mr. Anderson was in fact calling in response to an email I had sent to MERS last week (see below) asking how MERS intended to manage its response to the Agard case in N.Y. where judge Grossman clearly said (or in Mr. Anderson’s words “opined from the bench”) that MERS did not have the legal standing to assign mortgages.

As regards the Agard case in N.Y, Mr. Anderson first pointed out that MERS has 300 plus cases that support its legal position. He then went on to tell me that Judge Grossman did not understand or chose to ignore the laws of N.Y. and that his comments regarding MERS were nothing more than his “opining from the bench” and therefore had no legal relevance and because it was nothing more than an “opining” that there was nothing for MERS to appeal.

When I pointed out that the MERS announced changes to its membership agreements that followed so quickly on the heels of the Agard decision seemed to align almost exactly with the comments made by Judge Grossman, Mr. Anderson said that it was just a “coincidence of timing” and that the changes were just intended to avoid any potential legal issues and to improve and secure the MERS business process. It’s interesting in light of Mr. Anderson’s remarks that a Naked Capitalism reader reported yesterday that banks have been settling cases where MERS is at risk of getting an unfavorable judgment. As he wrote:

That’s not unexpected behavior–better to cave with small dollars than to lose plus have adverse law become embedded in the case law for an entire federal district. That makes it appear to non-specialists that the jurisprudence in favor of lenders/MERS is static.

I want to make sure everyone UNDERSTANDS the SIGNIFICANCE of the above Statement!!!!!!!

He is basically saying - They will WALK AWAY from people WHO SUE the banks, right to foreclosure!  That is how I read it!

Here is another portion - of SUCH ARROGANCE on the part of the MERS lawyer

Mr. Anderson said that he could not comment on the OCC investigation or actions but then went on to say that no administration would allow, nor would it allow a judge’s ruling, to threaten the legal standing of a MERS member to take a home. He pointed out that MERS has some relationship with 60% of the mortgages in the country worth in the trillions of dollars. In other words, in his opinion, regardless of the law or the findings of the OCC, MERS is too important because of the dollars associated with its operation to be allowed to be found to be acting illegally.