This page once existed within the main page, now removed.
Sounds like a litigation case,
right? Click the link. Its a "summary judgment", public records
style. I imagine when this MERS debacle is figured out; these guys
and gals at SHAPIRO & ZIELKE, LLP will be expecting something like the
D.O.J., or maybe more?
Lawrence P. Zielke - 152559, Diane F. Mach - 273788, Melissa L. B. Porter - 0337778, Randolph W. Dawdy - 2160X, Gary J. Evers - 0134764, Tracy J. Halliday - 034610X, Attorneys for Mortgagee, 12550 West Frontage Road, Suite 200, Burnsville, MN 55337, (952) 831-4060, THIS IS A COMMUNICATION FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR ,16-103336, 5/12-6/16
Did you notice no mention of "deed of trust", but only "MIN#: 100177700000172411"?
I really would like to hear the story these men and women of iniquity will explain as to how they contract with a computer system, more specifically an electronic agent? And since they are BAR buddies, they did take an oath, and conduct was to be with "due diligence", so, how do they explain it? Nothing like stealing real property, eh? Isn't that fraud by non-disclosure? Do they know of U.S. v. Tweet? So, do they know they are committing crimes, or were they misled, just like all the rest of the chums?
False Claims Act; a primer [ D.O.J.]
Just how ignorant is this world? If a reader cannot understand what is written, how will the reader understand anything? Take for instance a court opinion stating;
MERS has changed this recording practice for millions of mortgages. MERSCORP is a privately held company that was created in the mid-1990s. It operates a national electronic registry called MERS that tracks servicing rights and mortgage ownership in the United States.1 MERS is a membership organization whose members include residential mortgage lenders and servicers, such as Bank of America.
1. Because their corporate identities are not relevant in this appeal, we refer to MERS, MERSCORP, and the MERS system all as “MERS.”
Whether that particular court, or any other court provides a footnote as such above, it is certain the courts do not understand what MERS is except for repeating previous cites like a parrot from other court parrots that know nothing about MERS. Here is why; MERS clearly states its corporation is an electronic agent.
And the courts claim they do not uphold an unconscionable contract? The courts only prove they do not understand MERS. Eat that Mark D. Hopkins, Austin Texas! He and the court know what I am speaking of right Mr. judge of the 277th District court Williamson County Texas?
Do you know anything about what an electronic agent is? I did place a few links on the "information links" page. And if that is not enough, and you are too lazy to look for yourself, send me an email, I'll add more to the list. Quit plagiarizing our work an learn something so you can teach others, not squawk like a parrot.
Maybe you could read about Merky MERS.
Assent by Silence
Here is a link from Berkley Technology Law Journal, look into it. It is the UCC for computer information transactions. I tell you, when you hear the word "UCC" your mind never thinks about UCITA does it? MERS members, or whatever you care to call them, play this world like a fiddle.
If you pay attention to articles, you can see when and why certain UCC articles changed to assist in the "intangible" crime, like this article called "UCITA: An Act of Promise or Peril"
While you are at it, maybe you need to know the definition of Assent?
ASSENT [Black's Law, 8th Edition, page 355]
assent,n. Agreement, approval, or permission; esp., verbal or nonverbal conduct reasonably interpreted as wil-lingness. See CONSENT. — assent,vb.
“The requirement of ‘assent,’ which is fundamental to the formation of a binding contract, implies in a general way that both parties to an exchange shall have a reasonably clear conception of what they are getting and what they are giving up.” Marvin A. Chirelstein, Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts 66 (1990).
Here is what UCITA say about "manifesting assent" the agent;
At some point, you and the entire world will figure this eScheme out? It is criminal.
1 ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT WAREHOUSE LENDER Lender Org ID _______________ Borrower Org ID _____________ THIS ELECTRONIC TRACKING AGREEMENT dated as of ____ ________, 20__ (this “Agreement”) among __________________ (“Lender”), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (“Electronic Agent”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and ________________ (“Borrower”).
With such "electronic agreement" can you not understand the whole damn MERS eScheme is a farce? MERS members have mislead this country into a secondary intangible market collapse. You do know that the MERS documents are nothing but "intangibles", right? If not, you need to learn something pretty fast. But, what you should do is understand the "electronic agent" and how there is no way possible, logical, or legally the MERS and electronic agent could be a party to a real estate mortgage loan as a beneficiary, or nominee, especially a party to a deed of trust, mortgage. MERS member use Article 8, and allude to Article 9, carefully staying away from Article 3.
MERS website also clearly states MERSCORP Holdings is the parent company of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. And MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. owns and operates the MERS® System, a national electronic registry system that tracks the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans that are registered on the System.
Let me ask you this?
How does an "electronic agent" know it is a parent company, or how does an "electronic agent" own and operate a computer system? You really don't know anything about electronic agents do you? I know this because if the world did, this MERS thing would be headlines by now. Does the world not realize an "electronic agent" can be considered a corporation? What better way to mislead everyone into believing MERS actually has physical agents, when the reality of it is MERS is the agent, the software, of choice for floating toxic mortgage loans to the government and other investors?
Of course you will not hear much from Fannie or Freddie because who owns them? They are private corporations. Don't you think this would be the best way to make this scheme happen? From a so-called trusted source like Fannie Mae? Why do I reference ole Fannie? What deed of trust is used primarily for real estate mortgage loans? A Fannie Mae Form Deed of Trust. Who places MERS in that FNMA form deed of trust, the borrower? Either you use MERS, or you can't sign a deed of trust. You can't get a real estate mortgage loan to Fannie without using MERS, bottom line. At some point you will realize these deed of trust are adhesion contracts created by the very entities whom seemingly own all the certain "vehicles", alluded to as "corporations" to push trash to investors.
In a 2016 bulletin from Fannie Mae, those whom own Fannie provide the following information for “Lenders”; [It is made to sound as if the lender has a choice, yes, or no, to register with MERS.]
Naming MERS as the Nominee for the Beneficiary in the Security Instrument A lender that wants to register a newly originated mortgage (but not a co-op share loan) with MERS may prefer to designate MERS as the nominee for the beneficiary in the security instrument, thereby eliminating the need for a subsequent assignment of the security instrument should the lender sell (or transfer servicing of) the mortgage to another lender that is a member of MERS. In such cases, the applicable security instrument must be modified to:
· show MERS as the nominee for the lender,
· define and name the originating lender, and
· obtain the borrower’s acknowledgment of MERS’ role in the mortgage transaction.
Changes that must be made to create a standard MERS security instrument for each jurisdiction may be found in the Instructions document for each state-specific security instrument (see Security Instruments), with the exception of loans secured by property located in certain geographic areas. As described below, a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Rider (MERS Rider) (Form 3158) must be used in these jurisdictions, and the security instruments must be changed in accordance with the Instructions to the MERS Rider, which is posted on Fannie Mae’s website. As the MERS Rider must be used in these specified states, post-closing assignments into MERS are prohibited.
The lender is responsible for the accurate and timely preparation and recordation of the security instrument and the MERS Rider, when applicable, and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the information on MERS is updated and accurate at all times.
What about "Signing Authorities"?
And what about all the MERS signing authorities? You know, the vice presidents, assistant secretaries? How does the electronic agent contract with them? Or how does the electronic agent negotiate with a living being like a man who call himself an attorney? How did this intelligent attorney contract with the electronic agent to provide services, or litigate for the electronic agent? Is it an intelligent electronic agent? Wow! The world really should wake from its slumber before chaos comes like a thief in the night.
If "electronic agent has you stumped. think of it this way because I know you've been there with practically anything electronic, whether it is software or apps.
Scenario: This scenario is dealing with any on-line agreement, or in other words, an agreement that you do not physically sign. When you join a "group" or sign up for a certain membership, you are provided with disclaimer of some sort that states "blah, blah, blah, and then you have an option to "agree" with the terms, or disagree with the terms. If you agree, or disagree you are required to either check some box on the screen, or select an "agree" button, or a "disagree" button. After you've made your choice of pressing a button, or checking a box, agreeing, or disagreeing, you completed the electronic contract, and you are allowed to either continue with the process if you agreed to the terms, or you leave because you didn't agree to the terms. More on this later.
The scenario described above is most likely witnessed by many whom make use of computer technology. Most do not realize the "box", "button", or "agree", or "disagree" is more than just something of appearance, it is an "agent". When you press the "agree" the agent allows you to move forward in whatever you agreed to. If you press the "disagree" the agent sends you on your way and you are not allowed to proceed any further past the "agent" who knows your choice. This "agent" is electronic. This "agent" can even be considered an intelligent agent. It can even be called a corporation. Nonetheless, it is an electronic agent. So, if you understand this, you can understand that MERS, the electronic agent either allows you to agree to use MERS the alleged corporation, and you cannot disagree else you can't sign the deed of trust. Just as the many "terms of service" or whatever the "disclosure" may be called, is according to many laws, and courts, an adhesion contract, and at some point the world will realize, so is the deed of trust an adhesion contract. You do know what an adhesion contract is? If not, in essence it mean that the party opposite of you writes an agreement which you have no opportunity to change the terms of the agreement. One-sided, if you will. Surely at some point you will understand, right?
A type of estoppel that prevents someone from asserting something when that person had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier, and his or her silence put another person at a disadvantage
"Indeed, they were of such a character as to create surprise that intelligent investors should have believed their statements to be true." - Wiser v. Lawler, 189 US 260 - Supreme Court 1903
Here, read James' take on Wiser
Ever Look at Patents? Maybe you should?
Did you know the negotiable instrument has a patent? Yep, dates back to 1909. Maybe what you should do is go look at patents. Yes patents. That is where the alleged "rights" in various systems, software's, applications, apparatus, or agents are submitted for the mortgage industry and this intangible debacle. I believe that if the courts were to understand MERS, homeowners would not be losing homes as easy as MERS members have made it. But, as it appears, justice is either blind or judges are protecting their pensions. Now that is an act of ignorance. It appear these men in robes do not know the difference between a paper transaction and an electronic transaction. God help us all because the courts are too ignorant to protect the people. Check this one out since it appear to be related to "paper", its called "Electronic mortgage document certification" and of course the assignee is Fannie Mae. It does bring into question whom is the "certification agent"? The patent reads;
Electronic documents corresponding to executed paper documents are certified. A certifying agent receives an electronic document and a corresponding paper document that had been executed pursuant to some transaction. The certifying agent compares the information contained in the paper to that in the electronic mortgage document. If the paper adequately corresponds to the electronic document and is otherwise sufficient, then the certifying agent certifies the electronic document so that other parties can reliably engage in transactions involving the electronic document without having to possess or otherwise inspect the executed paper document. Certification involves application of some form of indicia of certification to the electronic document, such as updating the value of a field corresponding to certification in the electronic document and/or applying a digital or electronic signature corresponding to the certifying agent to the electronic document.
So, is the certifying agent "electronic", or human? It is a different world from the days of "paper", and if you don't question, you do know what assume does, right? Oh, and you might take a look at the "referenced" patents also.
You probable didn't even think of electronic money in back in the 1990's did you? Citibank did. Take a look at this patent called "Electronic-monetary system" And while you are at it, look at all the Citibank inventor's other patents. He does mention things like "trusted agent", you know, like MERS? The thing with these "money" patents is they seem to circumnavigate the Constitutional powers of the government to create money. What is happening to our country? We might as well use Easter eggs for currency? At least you can eat them before they go bad, right?
E-SIGN is legal for electronic signatures, and transferable records. E-SIGN is an integral part to the transfer of electronic records governed by that law. E-SIGN is for electronic signatures. Yes, E-SIGN is legal, but E-SIGN is not legal if it is used beyond its means. The biggest problem? IT is unsustainable. Like every ponzi scheme, it will tank,
Enotes are not the easiest thing to explain because most can't seem to understand Enotes are legal electronic promissory notes; and not governed by Article 3. But eNotes are legal Notes in the invisible world. There is a difference. You see, if the electronic Note were in "writing" it would be an Article 3 Note, but its not. It's electronic Note and governed by E-SIGN. So, you have the law of contract for e-Signatures, bits & bytes; and then you have contract law for physical signatures, "wet ink". Duh? Here, read Two-Faced
Actually the problem really comes down to why did Congress allow a certain section in E-SIGN to cause all the confusion in the world of electronic promissory notes? In 15 USC 7021, the definition of a transferable record states;
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section: (1) Transferable record.--The term ``transferable record'' means an electronic record that-- (A) would be a note under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code if the electronic record were in writing;
The problem with the "would be a note under Article 3" is that the MBA, Mortgage Banking Industry attempted to change the world of negotiable law. However, the MBA apparently failed to persuade the Commission who modifies the Uniform Commercial Code to make the change needed for the electronic promissory note to be governed by Article 3. Is it a possibility the "industry" is awaiting for a latter time to change Article 3? Anything is possible. Remember the "Check 21" Act? Why did Congress pass that? Maybe because there was no lawful way for the banks to cash tractor-trailer loads of scanned "checks" because there was not a law in the U.S. to support it? You may say; "Hey, that was in 2004, E-SIGN was around", the banks used it. Nope. the banks found that the scanned images of the checks were not within the guidelines of E-SIGN, just like today's problem with scanned real property mortgage loans. The homeowners promissory note was scanned, just like the check was. So, still, there is no U.S. law to support it. Do you think the parties were hoping this would not be discovered like the check problem was? If you don't know, go look. While you are at it, you will find student loans, car loans, you name it, even commercial loans are involved in this scam.
Take a look at this "Q&A" from Fannie Mae;
Q2. What is an eMortgage? An eMortgage is a mortgage loan where the critical loan documentation, specifically the promissory note (eNote), is created electronically, executed electronically, transferred electronically and ultimately stored electronically. An “eClosing” produces an “eMortgage” only if the promissory note is signed electronically. NOTE: This can still include a traditionally wet -signed security instrument.
Pay attention to this "Note" part of the answer and be not confused by words; "NOTE: This can still include a traditionally wet -signed security instrument." The "security instrument" is the alleged homeowner's wet ink Note, not the deed of trust, though it may be included as an illusion to an underlying "secured debt". The security instrument provides evidence for the account debtor, so the account debtor can get a loan from the creditor, and if the account debtor fails to repay its obligation, the creditor has the account debtor's "collateral" that was pledged for the loan. So when you see an ad with someone smiling at the "eClosing" table, you are assuming they are signing the traditional real property mortgage loan? eClosing's are for personal property. Does any of this make sense to you?
So, if a state like Texas contains a property law code like the Texas Property Code, and that code has a requirement that a lien on real property created under that code or another law of the state of Texas in favor of a governmental entity must be recorded", and mortgages are allegedly sold to a governmental agency like Ginnie Mae, FHA, or the Veteran's Administration after origination for example, where are those recordations? In our incident, the "mortgage" Well Fargo Bank allegedly claimed by is alleged attorneys, was actually a GInnie Mae loan, in which there is no evidence of Ginnie Mae in public records in the county where the real property is located, Williamson County, Texas. Only an intangible assignment assignment of the account debtors alleged assets, in the guise of a "MERS" "assignment". Not only was my family robbed of their real property, so was the Federal government; the local government; and the state government, were defrauded according to the laws that govern. It is truly a shame that the judges turned a blind to my complaints and the law. Good ole boys are the thing in Texas. If they only realized they committed acts of treason, by violating the Constitution(s). Audit the collateral file?