Attorney Generals Sanctions Fraud of Banks, THEY HAVE ALL SOLD THEIR SOULS TO THE BANKS FOR MONEY! THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE!

I read the 27 page settlement last night.  I have been so upset over it I have not been able to bring myself to post about it.  I really don't want to get arrested. 

Karl Denninger of Market Ticker did write about it.  He is allowing me to post his whole article and what he thinks about it here as I just can not bring myself to say what I think. 

I will say before I put his article up about it, why should we have expected the Attorney Generals whose responsibilities are to UPHOLD the Law to actually apply Law to the banks?  Gosh, I guess we should know by now there is one law for the banks and one law for the citizens of the United States! 

OH - One other thing.... due to the ABSOLUTE FRAUD OF MERS!  The Attorney Generals aren't touching that subject, they have in the report it is for a "later date of discussion"! 

All I can say is NOW I HAVE NO FAITH IN THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSE TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND IN INDIVIDUAL STATES!  THE ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE ALL SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR PAPER MONEY!  THE PEOPLE ARE NOTHING TO ANY OF THOSE IN POWER!  CALL YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TELL THEM "THANKS FOR SELLING YOUR SOUL TO BANKS"! 


Here is Karl's article on it:

Adam Levitin: Ad-Hominem Idiot (AG Settlement)

 

You know an argument has been lost when a writer reduces himself to ad-hominem before presenting his argument, as Adam Levitin does here:

Some bloggers on the left (e.g. here and reposted here) are upset with the servicing standard term sheet that got leaked because they think it just prohibits things that are already illegal.  This is an incorrect reading of the term sheet.  Let me give three examples.

Bloggers on the left? 

Certainly you jest.  My political views and positions have been called many things, but left has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever been used in the same sentence with my political leanings.

Steph over at FedUpUSA, incidentally, picked up my article wholesale (they do that over there on a regular basis, with explicit permission) and Yves, over at Naked Capitalism, didn't bother looking either.  I guess this sort of mis-attribution passes for some resemblance of investigation and fact-finding these days too, just as Adam does with his claim that I'm "on the left."

But let's deal with the substance of Adam's claims rather than just get into a whizzing contest:

1.  Prohibition on false affidavits and sworn statements.  

Filing a false affidavit or sworn statement with a court is likely already illegal in every jurisdiction. But what some bloggers have missed is that the definition of "affidavit or sworn statement" in the term sheet is broader than what the law already covers. At best, the law currently covers statements filed with the court--that means in judicial foreclosures. The term sheet mandates certain affidavits and sworn statements in nonjudicial foreclosures and includes them under the definition of "affidavits and sworn statements" to which the false statement prohibition applies. That's an important step.

It is? 

How many felonies do we have to see unprosecuted before we stop pretending that they will be prosecuted in the future?

We have somewhere around 150,000 admitted false affidavits filed with courts thus far.  I will cite from Florida's Perjury Statute:

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

We're a judicial foreclosure state.  Therefore, every one of these false statements ("I read the material" when all you did was look for the "X" and sign) presented to a court is a felony.  Exactly how many thousands, or is that hundreds of thousands, of felonies do we have to see before we stop pretending that future violations of the law will somehow be enforced?  Note that the documents in question may be true but that's immaterial in this case, since the affidavit swore the affiant read and had personal knowledge of the contents when in fact if they "robosigned" they knowingly did not.  That's the scienter test for perjury, and it's pretty clear it has been met.

2. HAMP requirements.
The term sheet appears to repeat some existing HAMP requirements.  What bloggers have missed is that the CFPB and AGs currently have no authority to enforce HAMP violations. The inclusion of these terms makes HAMP violations a violation of the settlement with the AGs/CFPB, which means that the AGs and CFPB can enforce these violations. Given Treasury's unwillingness to demand serious HAMP compliance, that too is an important step. 

Again: The State AGs have the authority to prosecute perjury in the courts of their states.  They have intentionally and willfully failed to do so despite apparent and clear admissions that those acts of perjury took place.  It is particularly-easy to prove a criminal case where the person or entity who you would charge has effectively admitted to the essential elements of the offense through a press release!  Incidentally, Florida's statutory "out" for withdrawal of perjured documents without liability expires when it becomes apparent you will be discovered, which means their window to do so expired long before the admissions in the press and mass-withdrawals took place.  

If an AG was unwilling to prosecute murder I would be less-than-enthralled with expectations that they would bother with a "mere" bank robbery, say much less jailing someone who held up a "mere" convenience store.

I agree that the US DOJ and Treasury have been unwilling to prosecute HAMP violations.  Where Adam and I differ is that I see the 50 State Attorneys General as nothing more than co-conspirators in that willing refusal to lay charges since they had and have every ability to do so with the bogus affidavits and didn't.  Therefore, until I have evidence otherwise I find that both the Federal and State "law enforcement" agencies are willfully and intentionally refusing to take action against the banks, because on the clear record that is exactly what has been and is occurring right here, right now.

3.  UDAP and Good Faith/Fair Dealing Requirements
I'm not entirely sure of the purchase of deeming violations of the agreement unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP). It might mean that the penalty for violation would track UDAP penalities for each state or CFPB. Or it might, just might, give homeowners grounds for a suit.

They already have grounds for a suit, which is the point.  This alleged "term sheet" does nothing to advance that case.  It does not, for instance, impose a defined penalty for such a violation and make it a matter of an administrative proceeding or otherwise enhance the penalties available.

This entire set of "requirements" is a fluff job and imposes little or nothing beyond what's already present.

I don't think the AGs and CFPB were just piling on fluff requirements. This settlement is a pretty extensive and well-thought through document designed to give the AGs and CFPB broad ability to reform the servicing industry, and the inclusion of these provisions seems well-thought out (although I haven't cracked the 3d one).

Baloney.

Essentially all of what is in this alleged "term sheet" is already black-letter law.  It fails to impress me when an alleged law-enforcement agency willfully and intentionally ignores the law for years and then says "now now be good in the future and don't break the law again", without having one single hard and defined "or else" present in the settlement on a forward basis, nor is there any actual prosecution of previous actions.

Oh, and how about MERS?  It's not in there.  Intentionally.

Imposing a one-time "cost of doing business" fine is not going to do it.  Locking some of the perjurers up in "pound-me-in-the-butt" prison and making clear that each and every incidence of perjury on a forward basis will be prosecuted would have quite an impact.  But that's missing from this document.

So would a requirement in the so-called "Settlement" that before a foreclosure could be prosecuted a clear and unbroken chain of ownership of the note and mortgage would have to be shown, documented with contemporaneous and sequential endorsements, allonges or actual change in possession that took place from origination to the current holder.  Homeowners (and investors) get exactly zero protection against the very-real possibility that the person standing in court (or filing in a non-judicial state) doesn't actually have legal ownership of the note in question, back-dated documents in a fraudulent manner, or worse, that the security interest under the UCC and the Note itself has been permanently lost and thus there is no right to foreclose at all!   That's missing too.  Oh sure, there's a "requirement" but there's also a back-door for it in the next point down, and once again that requirement already exists in State Law - but is being ignored. 

If the State Attorneys General refuse to bring the cases then all the ink on paper means nothing.

The problem with this "settlement" is the same as that with Pfizer years ago with their off-label marketing which, while a felony, led only to two fines - the second as a repeat offender!  It's a mere cost of doing business and does not deter behavior because it remains profitable to scam.  The only way to stop these acts is to hit people with either a fine that is so large compared to the potential profit that the risk of getting caught makes the activity unprofitable or start locking people up and seizing their assets as the product of a criminal conspiracy (as we do with drug dealers.)

Without deterrent value this alleged "settlement" will do nothing, and there is very little - other than the dual-track prohibition - that is not already a requirement under existing law.

Incidentally, that point - which I've been pounding the table on since this began and which you started with, is exactly what you said here:

The biggest question mark about the settlement and what everything, and I repeat everything, depends on is enforcement.  This agreement is not self-executing, and it doesn't appear to give homeowners the right to invoke noncompliance as a foreclosure defense. If the CFPB and AGs are vigorous in demanding strict compliance, then this settlement is huge. If they are lax in enforcement, then it's largely a paper victory.

What's the record of the AG's thus far Adam?  How many perjury indictments have been filed?

You owe me an apology Adam for leading with an ad-hominem load of nonsense. I'm sure it'll be forthcoming when Hell freezes.  Further, since you "covered" yourself well, I don't expect that when I hoist the "Told 'ya so" sign you'll recant either - you'll simply say "well, I did say that if they didn't enforce it....." 

Which, incidentally, was my entire point.  There's no evidence that the State AGs will do a damn thing when it comes to enforcement for the simple reason that they haven't thus far.

This alleged "tough settlement" is nothing other than yet another fellatio-job provided to the banks - this time by the State Attorneys General, selling out of their respective populations (once again.)

Mark my words: Not one homeowner will be protected against anything by this fluff piece.

I've generally been reasonably-impressed with Adam's work in the past, in that he's been willing to call out the banks as explicitly insolvent and go after MERS.  Where he gets the idea that this "settlement" will somehow address any of the underlying problems is beyond me.

The basic issues with MERS, modifications and Foreclosuregate is quite simple:

• It's just as easy to produce an actual original document bearing all assignments as it is to produce an affidavit.  This, of course, assumes you have the original and it's not defective in some fatal way.  Therefore, there's no reason to permit the routine presentment of these "replacements" for the real thing unless it is to cover up the fact that the actual document either was intentionally destroyed (which is kinda like tearing up a check on purpose) or is defective in some fashion (like, for example, the trust never got it as it was never assigned, which at best means there's no "holder in due course" status and at worst might mean the security interest has been severed and is irrevocable.)  We allegedly already have the protections in this document against this abuse, but it's not enforced.  Why would we believe it is going to be enforced now when there's no explicitly-agreed-to sanction for violations?
  
• The creation of balloon notes is insanely unsound.  If we want a permanent housing crisis with an outcome similar to the 1930s, this is how we get one.  That's idiotic.  It's also exactly what we've been doing with many of these HAMP modifications.  We must not permit balloon notes to be shoved down homeowner throats with the promise that this is a "modification" for their benefit.  It is no such thing - it's a fiction for the purpose of allowing the banks to claim they have performing paper when the loan is deeply underwater and will never recover actual value.  All these do is defer the recognition of a certain loss - to everyone's detriment.
  
• A law without an "or else" is no law at all.  At its core the flaw with this "settlement" is that it does not impose any new "or else" provisions on the industry in any sort of deterministic fashion.  Were it to do so - say, for instance, were it to include a stipulated administrative penalty of $5,000 paid to the State plus all penalties, interest, principal and attorney fees and costs on the loan in question rebated to the consumer for any violation of the settlement terms it would have teeth.  But it doesn't.  Without an "or else" this is just another set of suggestions and we already have hard evidence the Attorneys General will not bring charges - because they haven't up until now.

ALERT - BILL IN WORKS TO MAKE ALL FRAUD OF BANKS LEGAL RETROACTIVELY! ALERT - SERIOUS TIME FOR ACTION!

If Karl Denninger's Source is correct, that means Congress will be passing a Bill making EVERYTHING BANKS HAVE DONE ILLEGALLY - LEGAL!  This Bill would be Attached to another Bill that gets Signed!

SERIOUSLY CALL YOU SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN - BUT THEY ARE ALL BEING BOUGHT OFF BY THE BANKS!  BUT STILL HAVE YOUR VOICES HEARD!

Here is a site to find your Congress Person's Phone number etc.  

Here is the site to find your Senator's Phone Number etc.

THIS WOULD SERIOUSLY BE THE LAST STRAW FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I BELIEVE!  THIS WOULD SAY "NO MATTER IF BANKS/BANKERS RAPE, KILL, STEAL, BANKRUPT THE AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THE WORLD, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY PLEASE AND WILL NEVER HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN ANY WAY!

WE WILL NO LONGER BE A FREE COUNTRY NOR WILL THE BANKERS HAVE TO LIVE BY THE LAW - ONLY EVERYONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO! 

THIS ALSO WOULD MEAN, NO CONTRACT YOU SIGN CAN BE BINDING FOREVER - ALL CONTRACTS WILL BE SUSPECT, AS THEY CAN BE CHANGED AT THE WILL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BANKERS!

THIS MEANS THERE IS NO LAW IN BANKING - THERE WOULD BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FOR BANKERS/BANKS! 

WE WILL HAVE TURNED OUR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER TO THE BANKERS, AS THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND CAN DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT ILLEGALLY!

WE COULD NEVER HAVE CONFIDENCE IN SIGNING ANY CONTRACT WITH A BANK AS IF IT IN ANY WAY IS FOR OUR PROTECTION IT CAN BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE AGAINST US! 

THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THINGS OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD EVER DO - IT WOULD SERIOUSLY MEAN THEY ARE NOT FOR THE PEOPLE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, BUT FOR THE BANKS AND BANKERS!  IT WOULD MEAN BANKS AND BANKERS ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY RUN THE COUNTRY!

FROM MARKET TICKER:

After years of negative judicial decisions about the use of a straw-man on mortgages, MERS was about to lose its existence as well as its credibility. But now all of that is set to change as Wall Street money is pouring into the coffers of those who are receptive (i.e., almost everyone in Congress). The legislation is already being drafted under the interstate commerce clause to ratify MERS and everything it did retroactively. It appears that the Obama administration is ready to pardon all the securitization deviants by signing this bill into law. This information is corroborated by several people who are in sensitive positions — persons who would be the first to know such proposals. Fortunately, there are some people in Washington who have a conscience and do not want to see this happen.

Besides the obvious seediness of this maneuver, it runs roughshod over state property laws, and the rights of investors, homeowners and borrowers. It amounts to a permanent installation of a Federal system that supersedes the county records for recording property rights. Off-record comments I’ve heard from people in power are outraged at this assault on states’ rights. But these people are not legislators, who are getting promises larger than anything in your imagination, if they will support such a bill. It might be couched as a uniform law to be adopted by the states to get around the states rights issues, but it will permanently remove some of the power over property that lies solely within the jurisdiction of the states and place it preemptively within federal jurisdiction.
All of this is scheduled to happen during the lame duck session of congress between now and the end of the this year, 2010. That means in a manner of days, some bill that may look like it has nothing to do with property, mortgages or foreclosures is going to have attached to it a provision whose effect will go even further than the notarization bill that went through Congress like S–t through a goose and almost got signed by the President. We caught that one AFTER it was passed by Congress unanimously but before Obama signed it.

We announced it as an attempt at a presidential pardon to all those who committed crimes in the notarization of documents that were fabricated and forged, all those who committed forgery and perjury and all those who created counterfeit documentation that was presented to courts as original documents.

This time we got the information, we think, before it was stitched into some innocuous looking bill.  If we don’t find it and block it, the plight of homeowners will get that much worse.

That would be an ex-post-facto law, and is explicitly barred by The Constitution.

Such a bill, were it to be promulgated, would be an act of intentional subversion of The Constitution and a violation of the oath of office of every Congressperson who votes or argues for it.

If such a law is in fact introduced it would turn the rule of law on its ear and make clear that we now live in a nation where literal theft will be made legal retroactively by the Congress and President in an explicit form and with the impact of literally stealing millions of privately-held homes.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT VIDEO BY KARL DENNINGER! Bernanke and His Lies!

What an EXCELLENT VIDEO BY KARL DENNINGER FROM THE MARKET TICKER!

Excellent Info - Ruling AGAINST MERS Right to Foreclose! No Secured Trust! ALL MERS Mortgages ARE the Same!

Here is a Ruling Against MERS and it's Right to Foreclose From Market-Ticker Article

Please go to the Market-Ticker Link to Read the WHOLE article of Information, Good and Informative!  Thank You, Karl for being on top of the MERS Fraud, as you ARE!

Sections of Article:

Now we get to the meat of it.  That is, The Trust must bring the action, either through an agent or by itself.  But as soon as it does, it is then burdened with showing that it actually has the note, and thus has received conveyance.  

The Motion here certainly suggests that the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3 (or perhaps HSBC Bank USA in its capacity as indenture trustee for that trust) was the holder of the note on the June 24, 2008, petition date. But at the time of the final § 362(e) evidentiary hearing herein, the parties discussed and Movant ultimately conceded that (I) the Note contained nothing indicating its transfer by Fieldstone Mortgage Company, (ii) the Motion was devoid of allegations regarding the details of any such transfer, and (iii) the record lacked any other documents related to the issue.

Karl Denninger *Original Founder of Tea Party * On Russia Today - How the Tea Party Has Been Corrupted, A Joke and Taken Over by the Republican Right Wing

Karl Denninger of Market-Ticker was on Russia Today.  Karl was the Original Founder of the Tea Party, which he says is now a Joke, Corrupt and taken over by the right wing of the Republican Party.

Thank you Karl for Trying!  What do you say... Want to Start Another One, where it is By The People and For The People, without special interest or those affiliated with an already existing corrupt Party allowed?

Denninger - Market-Ticker Posted "We Have Problems" In regards to the Dollar is Crashing - SO Was Max Keiser Correct? The Big Investors Around the World are determined to take is Down fast and Make Gold and Silver Rise Tremendously Immediately? Looks Like that is What is Happening

Karl Denninger put a post up saying "We Got Problems"!   He has charts up and saying our Dollar is Dropping in a Disorderly Fashion.  It is NOT at all as Bernanke has/had planned.  The Fed wants Inflation, BUT they want to do it slowly.  But what is happening is ANYTHING BUT SLOW!

I had put in a video from Press TV, Tuesday with Max Keiser, being interviewed. 

Max Keiser said those around the world are totally Pissed at the U.S. and the Bankers of the U.S. due to the FRAUD of MERS and being Sold Fraudulent Investments, they have decided to take the U.S. Down Fast!

Here is Keiser's Quote:

I am hearing from my sources in Europe and in the Middle East, the Hedge Funds and Big Money, they plan to attack the US dollar tomorrow in a very substantial way. They are completely fed up with Walls Fargo, J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve Bank, they want to take the American economy offline completely, they are sick and tired of the fraud, they are sick and tired of the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who is a financial terrorist and they are going to push the price of gold up to 1400 dollars an ounce, possibly tomorrow, as a result of this fraud. The big money is sick of it and they are going to take American economy offline
So, it seems there are some who are working on taking the dollar down - due to it rising Fast!

Have you checked out the prices of Gold and Silver?  Silver did NOT even Blink as it passed $24.00.

Gold is LESS than 20 away from hitting $1400.

I will ASK this Yet AGAIN...... GOT GOLD AND SILVER - IF NOT...... GET IT NOW - PRESERVE THE VALUE OF YOUR MONEY AND WEALTH WITH IT!

****NOTE**** Yesterday I emailed Karl, due to reading a rumor he was considering "bugging out".  I asked him if that was true?  He graciously responded back, with this....

"Possibly, yes.

I said that it is looking increasingly likely that this will be necessary..... decision hasn't been made yet though.

If it is, it'll be on The Ticker"

EXCELLENT Article by Karl Denninger - Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Simply and Perfectly and WHY It IS FRAUD!

Karl Denninger who has The Market-Ticker website, explains the Foreclosure FRAUD and WHY MERS IS FRAUD - Simply and Perfectly!  EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!

I am reproducing it here -

My Hats OFF to Him for putting it in such a Great Way of Understanding for those who have not been sure what the whole Foreclosure Fraud has been about!  Especially if they think it is Just about "paperwork irregularities"!

Karl's Article:

The MERS Edifice Quavers....

 

And threatens to crumble into dust....
Yes, this is a draft.  But it is coming from a law school's scholarly paper mill - not exactly the sort of place you want to ignore.  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.11 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.12

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.13
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.15 For the first time in the nation’s history, there is no longer an authoritative, public record of who owns land in each county.

Oh yes there is.  It's at the county, where it always was.

Both the MERS-as-an-agent and the MERS-as-an-actual mortgagee theories have significant legal problems. If MERS is merely an agent of the actual lender, it is extremely unclear that it has the authority to list itself as a mortgagee or deed of trust beneficiary under state land title recording acts. These statutes do not have provisions authorizing financial institutions to use the name of a shell company, nominee, or some other form of an agent instead of the actual owner of the interest in the land. After all the point of these statutes is to provide a transparent, reliable, record of actual—as opposed to nominal—land ownership.

Conversely, if MERS is actually a mortgagee, then while it may have authority to record mortgages in its own name, both MERS and financial institutions investing in MERS-recorded mortgages run afoul of longstanding precedent on the inseparability of promissory notes and mortgages.

Yep.  Pick which way you'd prefer to die on this one.  Of course Banks don't seem to care about these pesky things called laws.... and haven't for quite some time.  How successful this will be on a forward basis is an interesting question (and one I'll explore to some degree later in this piece.)

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. Because MERSCORP is a company of relatively modest size, it does not have the personnel to deal with legal problems created by its purported ownership of millions of home mortgages. To accommodate the massive amount of paperwork and litigation involved with its business model, MERSCORP simply farms out the MERS, Inc. identity to employees of mortgage servicers, originators, debt collectors, and foreclosure law firms.22 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.23 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. 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.24 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.25

Oh Jesus.  So I can have an official MERS Corporate Seal for $25 and start recording things?  Uh, this is a wee problem, don't you think?

Never mind the logical fallacy of thousands of vice-presidents and assistant secretaries, none of which receive any renumeration from MERS in any form!

How can you be an employee - in any sense of the word - if you're not compensated?  The entire premise of employment is that of a contract, which requires (as do all contracts) meeting of the minds, consideration and performance.

If consideration is lacking, then there is no employment status and that's that.  Oops.

Worse, MERS may have literally "split the baby" and rendered millions of mortgages unsecured:

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.41

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

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.”66 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”67 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.68

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.69 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.”70

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.78 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.”79

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.”90

Oh yeah, I seem to remember this....

There's a reason that property law in most states require "wet signatures" and unbroken chains of assignment.  It's the same reason that The Statute of Frauds requires (under most state legal codes) that all agreements to be performed over more than a year's time, or in which interest in real property is conveyed, must be in writing and bear an actual signature by the party so bound.

The reason for these requirements is that contracts pertaining to real estate, for large sums of money, or where performance is envisioned to stretch over long periods of time are usually of such import that if someone gets ripped off they are grievously harmed.

No, "electronic records" do not suffice.  No, "the dog ate my homework" does not suffice either when one of the parties intentionally destroyed the originals, or intentionally used an electronic system so as to EVADE the requirements of the statute.

And grievous harm is exactly what has repeatedly occurred here. 

The "conveyances" established by the so-called "electronic" passage of records where such is a part of a contract that falls under these statutes are VOID!

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.

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....

Finally, the nation’s judges should recognize that, despite crushing caseloads, mortgage foreclosure cases are no longer routine matters. Putting the short term consequences of enforcing the law to the side, surely jurists will know that ratifying a security agreement which does not specify a true grantee—when never authorized by state legislatures or Congress to do so—is poor lawmaking. Perhaps we should not be too surprised that the mortgage finance industry’s bacchanal of “pump-and-dump” mortgage origination happened to coincide with a bizarre and unsustainable theory of land title ownership. But, ratifying a standard industry practice of conveying rights to realty without specifying a true grantee will inevitably cause hidden liens, cases of exposure to double liability, and fraud.

My only comment: IT ALREADY HAS.

Time to shut this crap down AND force all the not-conveyed paper back where it belongs - on the securitizers, whether it be the sponsor or whoever - and force them to eat it.

WE HAVE RESOLUTION AUTHORITY UNDER DODD-FRANK AND IT IS TIME TO USE IT.

Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC - Karl Denninger - on FORECLOSURE FRAUD on MSNBC - Video MUST WATCH!

MUST WATCH THIS!!!

What a GREAT Piece! Says Government has been part of covering up the Fraud of Banks and Foreclosures!

I am Shocked he was able to do this Piece - Very Good! Says Criminal and Civil FRAUD!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Karl Denninger - Market Ticker - Writes about MERS - Today He has Questions for the President of the U.S., Regarding MERS!

Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker, has written about MERS previously, today he has questions for Obama regarding MERS.

Questions 3 and 4 from article:

Question #3: If it is proved that (1) the securitizations were not proper in the first place, and (2) not only were they improper but they were knowingly put together with either actual knowledge or reckless disregard for this fact, will you force the banks that were involved in constructing these intentionally-defective instruments to eat them?

Question #4: Yes, I know that if you do what is asked in Question #3 the banks will all blow up.  Every one of them.  There is some $1 trillion of this bogus non-agency MBS trash out there.  I don't care.  Yes, I meant it when I asked if you would allow The American People some justice - just this once - from all the scams, frauds and schemes - even if it sinks your best friends on Wall Street!