Who owns the mortgage...........MERS

[Serpo]

The Cake is a Lie

And all the fuss about bad paperwork on mortgages is too. The real game is hidden on the dotted line.

by Jim Moriarty & Taylor Lindstrom

Back in 2008, The Economist painted a grim picture of what the Era of Foreclosure looked like as homeowners began to walk away from houses worth less than the mortgage payments they were making. For a while, it looked like homeowners were going to screw over their lenders.

Then the tables turned. Lenders started to foreclose on homeowners who didn't want to walk away. The headlines started to tell sad tales about middle-class families who had lost their jobs in the recession being turned out on the streets by super-speedy foreclosures with no room for re-negotiating mortgage payments. Most recently, we've been hearing terrifying stories about "foreclosure mills", who fudged the paperwork so that they could throw homeowners out more quickly - even if the homeowners should not have legally been foreclosed upon.

We hate to be the bearers of bad tidings, but these scenarios are hardly the worst of the foreclosure crisis. Homeowners sticking it to lenders, lenders sticking it to homeowners - it's bad, it's definitely bad.

What's worse is that both the homeowners and the lenders are getting screwed over by a third party.

And neither of them knows.

How Mortgages Work

In theory, the mortgage process is pretty simple. Jim wants to sell his house. Bob wants to buy Jim's house, but Bob doesn't have enough money, so he asks the bank for a loan. The bank agrees to buy the house for Bob and sell it to him gradually over time, so long as Bob pays the bank extra money beyond the house's value for the inconvenience of the bank taking the risk. Those payments are mortgage payments.

So far, pretty simple. Jim gets a benefit: he sells his house. Bob gets a benefit: he gets to own a house without having to put up all the money at once. The bank gets a benefit: they get to use Bob's house as an asset against which they can loan money.

And everyone is happy.

Until someone came up with the idea of securitization.

Half-Baked Mortgages

To understand the legal problems inherent in securitization would take several years of schooling and a strong stomach, so we'll defer to a metaphor.

Imagine you are about to open a bakery whose main product will be wedding cakes. You need money for your very first commission. So you ask friends to invest in the theoretical value of your cakes over time, which they happily agree to do. They wouldn't invest in one cake, because the chance that a single cake might fail is significant. But for lots of cakes, they think it's worth the risk of investing. Even if one cake falls flat, other successful cakes will make up the difference.

So you get money for the cake, and your investors get to see your cake shop thrive and become profitable. Since they want their initial investment in the cakes to continue to grow, they leave their money happily invested in your cake shop, while cake after cake proves its value.

Unfortunately, when it comes to mortgages, the cake is a lie.

When mortgages are securitized, banks sell shares in a group of houses to which they own the mortgages. During the housing boom, mortgages were theoretically a very solid investment. It was a given that house values would always rise steadily over time, so the investment would continue to grow and grow until the investor decided to back out of the deal.

Except that housing prices started to fall, and homeowners started to run delinquent on their payments. Investors started to back out of their deals while the getting was good, and banks moved to foreclose before the houses could lose more of their value.

Which is when they made a disturbing discovery: no one owns the mortgage.

Lots of investors own a crumb, but no one owns the cake.

The Name on the Mortgage

There is always a name on the mortgage. Legally speaking, someone - or at the very least, some entity - has to be the official owner.

Unfortunately, a great many people involved in the current rush to foreclosure seem to believe that the name on the mortgage does not have to be the actual owner.

This makes sense to a certain degree. After all, the "owner" of a property might be a pool of a hundred or more investors. It would be impractical, not to say impossible, to write a mortgage stating that each of those investors was an owner of one fraction of the property.

But perhaps someone should find a way to do so, and quickly. Because with all of the scrutiny surrounding the shoddy paperwork being filed by the foreclosure mills, a strange fact is coming to light: it seems no one has the right to foreclose.

The owner can foreclose. But there is no owner. There's only the name on the mortgage, which, in most cases, is the decidedly inhuman-sounding MERS.

MERS

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was originally created to track who officially owned a mortgage at any given time.

It is somewhat ironic that today the company's entire purpose would seem to be disguising that very ownership.

As with almost every national crisis, the problem began when people tried to cutting corners. MERS charges a small fee every time a new owner is added to a mortgage - which means a lot of fees when a mortgage is securitized to a pool of a hundred or more people. So lenders started to list MERS on their records as the official mortgagee - a title MERS justifies by claiming status as a "nominee" for the investors.

This means that the lender's name may never show up on the mortgage documents at all.

Which brings us to the current problem, the one no one is talking about: no one has the right to foreclose.

The banks could, if the banks' names were on the mortgages - but they're not.

The investors could, if the investors' names were on the mortgages - but they're not.

Foreclosures, it would seem, are rapidly becoming illegal.

The Gathering Storm

What we're seeing now in the foreclosure crisis is nothing to what's to come. Right now, lawyers are trying to figure out whether foreclosure documents have been properly filed, signed, and notarized, as well as whether foreclosure is even warranted, since there have now been multiple cases of homeowners being foreclosed upon without ever missing a mortgage payment.

But that's not the real problem.

The problem is that even when the homeowners are delinquent in their payments, even when they abandon the home because the actual value is less than the dollar amount they agreed to pay, even when the foreclosure papers are perfectly signed, filed, and notarized, there is still one problem that no one can fix:

No one owns the mortgage.

Which means no one can take it back.

When that single fact hits the general public, chaos will ensue. And we're simply not prepared for the consequences. It's time for the United States government - who happens to be our biggest investor in mortgages right now, since Wall Street dumped all those dwindling assets on them while the getting was good - to give up the idea of foreclosing and start renegotiating mortgage payments.

Being sure, this time, to put someone's name on the line that says "Mortgagee."

Someone other than MERS.

http://www.moriarty.com/ML_News/The_Cake_is_a_Lie/

[Silver Shield]

This will not end well.

[mick silver]

this is the best game in town ... wouldnt it be nice if everyone in the country would get there home for nothing . i have said all a lone there no paper work for all these loans

[Jazkal]

this is the best game in town ... wouldnt it be nice if everyone in the country would get there home for nothing . i have said all a lone there no paper work for all these loans

It is called a "Quiet Title Action".

[DMac]

Along the lines of MERS, fraud etc :D

4closureFraud Exclusive – President Obama Falls Victim to Chase Robo-Signer (http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/10/4closurefraud-exclusive-president-obama-falls-victim-to-chase-robo-signer/)

[palani]

If you should get a mortgage then you should have enough sense to get a RECEIPT for that mortgage.

Look at it this way: At the end of the day the banks books are going to balance. If they expended $200,000 to purchase your house from their reserves (or even if they just created the currency on the day you closed) then they accepted the mortgage and note in exchange for that expenditure. End result: books are balanced.

When you pay off the mortgage you had better be getting the ORIGINAL documents you signed back or you might find that a trespass has occurred. The trespass is that you have made all these payments to a financial institution that did not have the right to collect those payments. The ORIGINAL document holder is the one who needs to be re-imbursed not some intermediate financial institution that just got the paperwork started.

[7th trump]

If you should get a mortgage then you should have enough sense to get a RECEIPT for that mortgage.

Look at it this way: At the end of the day the banks books are going to balance. If they expended $200,000 to purchase your house from their reserves (or even if they just created the currency on the day you closed) then they accepted the mortgage and note in exchange for that expenditure. End result: books are balanced.

When you pay off the mortgage you had better be getting the ORIGINAL documents you signed back or you might find that a trespass has occurred. The trespass is that you have made all these payments to a financial institution that did not have the right to collect those payments. The ORIGINAL document holder is the one who needs to be re-imbursed not some intermediate financial institution that just got the paperwork started.

Ah.............tresspass. You keep spouting and shouting "tresspass".
Where and why are you thinking there is a tresspass?
What..................did someone say "tresspass" and now everything is a tresspass?
Look up "tort" sometime..........
I looked up tresspass and it appears you are confused and want to make a mountain out of nothing.
The original is electronically filed for the public to see and view. I even have a physical copy myself.
I can and have pulled the electronic version of my mortgage off the internet by accessing the recorders office.

Not everything is a conspiracy. You may want to beleive everything a conspiracy like 100% of all people who recently come out of a stuper and wake up.
But like all sleepiness it wears off eventually when enough research is done dilligently.

[palani]

If you should get a mortgage then you should have enough sense to get a RECEIPT for that mortgage.

Look at it this way: At the end of the day the banks books are going to balance. If they expended $200,000 to purchase your house from their reserves (or even if they just created the currency on the day you closed) then they accepted the mortgage and note in exchange for that expenditure. End result: books are balanced.

When you pay off the mortgage you had better be getting the ORIGINAL documents you signed back or you might find that a trespass has occurred. The trespass is that you have made all these payments to a financial institution that did not have the right to collect those payments. The ORIGINAL document holder is the one who needs to be re-imbursed not some intermediate financial institution that just got the paperwork started.

Ah.............tresspass. You keep spouting and shouting "tresspass".
Where and why are you thinking there is a tresspass?
What..................did someone say "tresspass" and now everything is a tresspass?
Look up "tort" sometime..........
I looked up tresspass and it appears you are confused and want to make a mountain out of nothing.
The original is electronically filed for the public to see and view. I even have a physical copy myself.
I can and have pulled the electronic version of my mortgage off the internet by accessing the recorders office.

Not everything is a conspiracy. You may want to beleive everything a conspiracy like 100% of all people who recently come out of a stuper and wake up.
But like all sleepiness it wears off eventually when enough research is done dilligently.


You are simply showing that your standards are too law (and your spelling even worse ... it is trespass and not 'tresspass').

I don't doubt that if you don't know how to spell it then you have absolutely no idea what it is. Let me help you out a little: What I recognize as a trespass someone else might believe is part of their communist benefits. The difference is private property. Some private property might be corporal but rather a larger percentage is incorporeal.

Now someone might show you a recorded copy and ask you "is that your signature". What they are really asking is "is this a monument to the contract you agreed to". Look at the document very carefully as ANY modification makes that document not the one agreed to. Only the one signing the document can proclaim that it is the original. Now why would you want to do that when it is not in your best interest? Course with YOU I can see why you would want to bend over and take another one in the butt for the team.

[7th trump]

If you should get a mortgage then you should have enough sense to get a RECEIPT for that mortgage.

Look at it this way: At the end of the day the banks books are going to balance. If they expended $200,000 to purchase your house from their reserves (or even if they just created the currency on the day you closed) then they accepted the mortgage and note in exchange for that expenditure. End result: books are balanced.

When you pay off the mortgage you had better be getting the ORIGINAL documents you signed back or you might find that a trespass has occurred. The trespass is that you have made all these payments to a financial institution that did not have the right to collect those payments. The ORIGINAL document holder is the one who needs to be re-imbursed not some intermediate financial institution that just got the paperwork started.

Ah.............tresspass. You keep spouting and shouting "tresspass".
Where and why are you thinking there is a tresspass?
What..................did someone say "tresspass" and now everything is a tresspass?
Look up "tort" sometime..........
I looked up tresspass and it appears you are confused and want to make a mountain out of nothing.
The original is electronically filed for the public to see and view. I even have a physical copy myself.
I can and have pulled the electronic version of my mortgage off the internet by accessing the recorders office.

Not everything is a conspiracy. You may want to beleive everything a conspiracy like 100% of all people who recently come out of a stuper and wake up.
But like all sleepiness it wears off eventually when enough research is done dilligently.


You are simply showing that your standards are too law (and your spelling even worse ... it is trespass and not 'tresspass').

I don't doubt that if you don't know how to spell it then you have absolutely no idea what it is. Let me help you out a little: What I recognize as a trespass someone else might believe is part of their communist benefits. The difference is private property. Some private property might be corporal but rather a larger percentage is incorporeal.

Now someone might show you a recorded copy and ask you "is that your signature". What they are really asking is "is this a monument to the contract you agreed to". Look at the document very carefully as ANY modification makes that document not the one agreed to. Only the one signing the document can proclaim that it is the original. Now why would you want to do that when it is not in your best interest? Course with YOU I can see why you would want to bend over and take another one in the butt for the team.

I'm asking because where is the "trespass" in your post? You make no sense!
Are you, as the one making the mortgage payment, receiving a trespass if the original document holder is not receiving the payment?
It would be logic and common sense if the original document holder didnt get the payments and therefore the original document holder is the one being trespassed upon, not the guy making the mortgage payment.
The mortgage payer is not causing a trespass nor receiving one, he is upholding the agreement to pay the monthly payments in course of the mortgage.
Myself as a mortgage payer could careless who gets the money. My arse is covered with the monthly payment stub.......................so wheres the "trespass"?
Maybe you should stop charactor attacking simple grammar mispelling and start understanding what it is you are saying in your posts.
Common sense goes a long way palani because I think you are confusing trespass of being evicted from making payments which is not at all the object of the subject.
I mean you do understand the difference of the object from the subject right?

[cedarchopper]

If you should get a mortgage then you should have enough sense to get a RECEIPT for that mortgage.

Look at it this way: At the end of the day the banks books are going to balance. If they expended $200,000 to purchase your house from their reserves (or even if they just created the currency on the day you closed) then they accepted the mortgage and note in exchange for that expenditure. End result: books are balanced.

When you pay off the mortgage you had better be getting the ORIGINAL documents you signed back or you might find that a trespass has occurred. The trespass is that you have made all these payments to a financial institution that did not have the right to collect those payments. The ORIGINAL document holder is the one who needs to be re-imbursed not some intermediate financial institution that just got the paperwork started.

Ah.............tresspass. You keep spouting and shouting "tresspass".
Where and why are you thinking there is a tresspass?
What..................did someone say "tresspass" and now everything is a tresspass?
Look up "tort" sometime..........
I looked up tresspass and it appears you are confused and want to make a mountain out of nothing.
The original is electronically filed for the public to see and view. I even have a physical copy myself.
I can and have pulled the electronic version of my mortgage off the internet by accessing the recorders office.

Not everything is a conspiracy. You may want to beleive everything a conspiracy like 100% of all people who recently come out of a stuper and wake up.
But like all sleepiness it wears off eventually when enough research is done dilligently.


You are simply showing that your standards are too law (and your spelling even worse ... it is trespass and not 'tresspass')


Classic foot in mouth....love it!

[palani]

I'm asking because where is the "trespass" in your post? You make no sense!
You bought a house. You signed a mortgage. Your signature is the only signature on the mortgage. The day of closing the bank sold your mortgage for 1% to 2% above the face value. Thirty years go by. Your mortgage is paid off. You receive your deed.

Question .... Where is your original mortgage? It was listed as an asset on the bank books that was then sold for the 1% to 2% above face value. Why was it sold? What function does an original signed document with your signature on it fulfill in the financial world? Thirty years have gone by, the house is yours but WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT you signed?

With fractional reserve banking any asset on the books can be used to loan out 10x that sum to somebody else. YOUR original is being used to fund fractional reserve banking. A $100,000 mortgage as an asset might bring in $1,000,000 or more in profit through interest payments to the financial business using it. It might fulfill this function for 100 years as far as you know. THAT is why you demand the original back and if you don't get it back you bring suit. You will have a better case if you had gotten a receipt for the original at closing.

Banks make so much money with the mortgage as an asset they don't even ask for the payments due them.... sort of a wink and a nod between thieves.

Does this give you a better idea of what trespass is?

[palani]

Classic foot in mouth....love it!

You love typos? Once is a typo. 7th misspelled 'trespass' six times. Go back and count them and then go face the wall and recite 100 times "I SHOULDN'T BE SUCH A MORON"

[cedarchopper]

Classic foot in mouth....love it!

You love typos? Once is a typo. 7th misspelled 'trespass' six times. Go back and count them and then go face the wall and recite 100 times "I SHOULDN'T BE SUCH A MORON"


I love watching someone calling out someone else for making mistakes while doing so themselves. In keeping with your pattern, you should recite "I SHOULD NOT CALL SOMEONE A MORON WHILE ACTING LIKE ONE!" ;D

[palani]

I love watching someone calling out someone else for making mistakes while doing so themselves. In keeping with your pattern, you should recite "I SHOULD NOT CALL SOMEONE A MORON WHILE ACTING LIKE ONE!" ;D

But.....but.....but ..... I never called anyone a moron.....and rarely act as one.

[7th trump]

I'm asking because where is the "trespass" in your post? You make no sense!
You bought a house. You signed a mortgage. Your signature is the only signature on the mortgage. The day of closing the bank sold your mortgage for 1% to 2% above the face value. Thirty years go by. Your mortgage is paid off. You receive your deed.

Question .... Where is your original mortgage? It was listed as an asset on the bank books that was then sold for the 1% to 2% above face value. Why was it sold? What function does an original signed document with your signature on it fulfill in the financial world? Thirty years have gone by, the house is yours but WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT you signed?

With fractional reserve banking any asset on the books can be used to loan out 10x that sum to somebody else. YOUR original is being used to fund fractional reserve banking. A $100,000 mortgage as an asset might bring in $1,000,000 or more in profit through interest payments to the financial business using it. It might fulfill this function for 100 years as far as you know. THAT is why you demand the original back and if you don't get it back you bring suit. You will have a better case if you had gotten a receipt for the original at closing.

Banks make so much money with the mortgage as an asset they don't even ask for the payments due them.... sort of a wink and a nod between thieves.

Does this give you a better idea of what trespass is?

Who cares where the original is...................you have the deed when it comes to the last payment!
You agreed to the mortgage regardless if the banks made hand over fist money on it.
Does a store care if I bought a log splitter and made 10,000 times more from it than what I paid for it?
I buy a hammer and use it to build several houses worth 1000's does the store care?

Really show me one mortgage where a bank didnt want its 30 year note mature.
I see a lot of assumption on your part Palani..................alot to think a "wink and a nod" between thieves.

[palani]

Who cares where the original is...................you have the deed when it comes to the last payment!
Does the original note/mortgage suddenly STOP being an asset on the books of the bank when the last payment is made?

I doubt if you have any idea how money is CREATED from scratch in the U.S. If you CREATED the money used to purchase your home then why would you abandon that asset just because you made a final payment?

But I admit defeat. The concept I am discussing is not for minds incapable of grasping an incorporeal concept. Have a cookie, go back to sleep and I am sure you will feel a lot better.

[7th trump]

Who cares where the original is...................you have the deed when it comes to the last payment!
Does the original note/mortgage suddenly STOP being an asset on the books of the bank when the last payment is made?
You have the deed dont you? Besides when are you going to provide any proof the assests are still on the books!

I doubt if you have any idea how money is CREATED from scratch in the U.S. (first define money) If you CREATED the money used to purchase your home then why would you abandon that asset just because you made a final payment?

Who said I would be abandoning an asset by getting the deed? Is having the deed in hand abandoning an asset? You dont know do you!
Where are you getting this conspiracy stuff at anyway?

But I admit defeat. (you should) The concept (a concept alright...........cant decypher fact from fiction) I am discussing is not for minds incapable of grasping an incorporeal concept. Have a cookie, go back to sleep and I am sure you will feel a lot better. (actually you need the cooky and a warm glass of milk.)

[palani]

first define money


MONEY, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it. An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.





Who said I would be abandoning an asset by getting the deed? Is having the deed in hand abandoning an asset?
If you don't get the original note/mortgage back then you have abandoned an asset. When did they STOP being an asset?


You dont know do you!
I sense that this is a filler while you try to think up something better.


Where are you getting this conspiracy stuff at anyway? Is this the best defense you can come up with? Do you see a conspiracy? Is everyone out to "get" you?

Should you decide not to go after the originals I doubt there would be earthshaking consequences. You would simply be perpetrating a fraud of sorts upon the rest of society. Don't let this ruin your life as this is probably a smaller fraud than you perpetrate daily by your other torts.

[sirgonzo420]

first define money


MONEY, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it. An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.





Who said I would be abandoning an asset by getting the deed? Is having the deed in hand abandoning an asset?
If you don't get the original note/mortgage back then you have abandoned an asset. When did they STOP being an asset?


You dont know do you!
I sense that this is a filler while you try to think up something better.


Where are you getting this conspiracy stuff at anyway? Is this the best defense you can come up with? Do you see a conspiracy? Is everyone out to "get" you?

Should you decide not to go after the originals I doubt there would be earthshaking consequences. You would simply be perpetrating a fraud of sorts upon the rest of society. Don't let this ruin your life as this is probably a smaller fraud than you perpetrate daily by your other torts.




Ya mean "trespasses"?

;D

[k-os]

Alright, if you two guys can quit making things personal . . . I would like to make it personal . . . about me. ;D

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

Since being on the open road, I have realized that my house is not my home. My home is where my heart is, and my heart is full of wanderlust, and as long as I have my dogs with me, I will never be lonely. Not to mention all of the fine GSUS freaks who have opened their homes and hearts to me, to whom I will always be grateful.

So, since my house is currently a really big liability with no current benefit to me (I would like to have it to take my dad in at some point), what should I do, considering this MERS thing? Stop making the payments? My credit score is of no concern to me, as I don't want to borrow FRNs for anything ever again.

My house is not underwater at the current time, based on a stupid internet website that tells me as much. It's probably worth what I paid for it in 2003, but that theory would be put to the test if I tried to sell. I love my house, but I think I could love anyplace that is warm enough. :imskerd:

What say you?

[1970 silver art]

Alright, if you two guys can quit making things personal . . . I would like to make it personal . . . about me. ;D

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

Since being on the open road, I have realized that my house is not my home. My home is where my heart is, and my heart is full of wanderlust, and as long as I have my dogs with me, I will never be lonely. Not to mention all of the fine GSUS freaks who have opened their homes and hearts to me, to whom I will always be grateful.

So, since my house is currently a really big liability with no current benefit to me (I would like to have it to take my dad in at some point), what should I do, considering this MERS thing? Stop making the payments? My credit score is of no concern to me, as I don't want to borrow FRNs for anything ever again.

My house is not underwater at the current time, based on a stupid internet website that tells me as much. It's probably worth what I paid for it in 2003, but that theory would be put to the test if I tried to sell. I love my house, but I think I could love anyplace that is warm enough. :imskerd:

What say you?


If taking your dad in at some point in the future is the most important thing for you, then I would keep making payments on the house. This may sound like a generic response but you should consider all of the consequences (financial, emotional, physical) before you make a decision on whether to stop making payments on your house.

[ShortJohnSilver]

k-os , the best thing you can do is 1) put together a spreadsheet so you have the exact financial info you need 2) ask them to produce the note.

this way 1) you can make a rational clear-eyed decision as far as finance go, 2) if they can't produce the note, keep the house and stop paying, perhaps...!

[7th trump]

first define money


MONEY, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it. An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.
(No, money is a unit of weights and measures)





Who said I would be abandoning an asset by getting the deed? Is having the deed in hand abandoning an asset?
If you don't get the original note/mortgage back then you have abandoned an asset. When did they STOP being an asset?
(when you get a deed what does it matter? It doesnt..........your arguement is frivolous. You on the other hand continue the chicken little scenario.)


You dont know do you!
I sense that this is a filler while you try to think up something better.
(I asked it because from your posts I can tell you assume much and cant provide the proof. I'm trying to get an answr out of you and you come back with..................oh, its a concept!
Huh................your giving advice based on a concept?)


Where are you getting this conspiracy stuff at anyway? Is this the best defense you can come up with? Do you see a conspiracy? Is everyone out to "get" you?
(hey nice little trick trying to turn the tables around. It was you who said it was a "concept".
Concept:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept" (ADWEEK).
)

Should you decide not to go after the originals I doubt there would be earthshaking consequences. You would simply be perpetrating a fraud of sorts upon the rest of society. Don't let this ruin your life as this is probably a smaller fraud than you perpetrate daily by your other torts.
(No, I dont need to go vafter the originals.............they are online at the recorders office.)

[ximmy]

Alright, if you two guys can quit making things personal . . . I would like to make it personal . . . about me. ;D

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

Since being on the open road, I have realized that my house is not my home. My home is where my heart is, and my heart is full of wanderlust, and as long as I have my dogs with me, I will never be lonely. Not to mention all of the fine GSUS freaks who have opened their homes and hearts to me, to whom I will always be grateful.

So, since my house is currently a really big liability with no current benefit to me (I would like to have it to take my dad in at some point), what should I do, considering this MERS thing? Stop making the payments? My credit score is of no concern to me, as I don't want to borrow FRNs for anything ever again.

My house is not underwater at the current time, based on a stupid internet website that tells me as much. It's probably worth what I paid for it in 2003, but that theory would be put to the test if I tried to sell. I love my house, but I think I could love anyplace that is warm enough. :imskerd:

What say you?


Not all MERS are bad... and even if your MERS has errors, the trouble occurs only if there is a foreclosure, since errors in original paperwork would have to appear before a judge, and this is the issue... fraudulent foreclosure paperwork...

This is my current understanding of the issue...

ximy

[7th trump]

Alright, if you two guys can quit making things personal . . . I would like to make it personal . . . about me. ;D

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

Since being on the open road, I have realized that my house is not my home. My home is where my heart is, and my heart is full of wanderlust, and as long as I have my dogs with me, I will never be lonely. Not to mention all of the fine GSUS freaks who have opened their homes and hearts to me, to whom I will always be grateful.

So, since my house is currently a really big liability with no current benefit to me (I would like to have it to take my dad in at some point), what should I do, considering this MERS thing? Stop making the payments? My credit score is of no concern to me, as I don't want to borrow FRNs for anything ever again.

My house is not underwater at the current time, based on a stupid internet website that tells me as much. It's probably worth what I paid for it in 2003, but that theory would be put to the test if I tried to sell. I love my house, but I think I could love anyplace that is warm enough. :imskerd:

What say you?


Not all MERS are bad... and even if your MERS has errors, the trouble occurs only if there is a foreclosure, since errors in original paperwork would have to appear before a judge, and this is the issue... fraudulent foreclosure paperwork...

This is my current understanding of the issue...

ximy

Exactly Ximmy!
The trouble only occurs if there is a foreclosure.
Those who are foreclosed upon are only dragging it out on a technicality.......................they still signed the damn mortgage at closing and if they hadden lost their source of income they would probably still get a deed at the end.

[palani]

(when you get a deed what does it matter? It doesnt..........your arguement is frivolous. You on the other hand continue the chicken little scenario.)

What matters is that every signature impairs your freedom in some manner. On your note is your signature. There is no need to get specific about exactly how or why your freedom becomes impaired. It is important enough that it does. If you were wise (indeed a very long stretch of the imagination) you would not have ANY documents with your signature on them once your obligation to perform was completed.


(I asked it because from your posts I can tell you assume much and cant provide the proof. I'm trying to get an answr out of you and you come back with..................oh, its a concept! Huh................your giving advice based on a concept?) (hey nice little trick trying to turn the tables around. It was you who said it was a "concept".
Concept:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept"

Just one of your many distortions and lies. Do a control-F and search on this thread for the word "concept" and you fill find that you are the initiator of the word rather than I. Then you go on to expand concept into conspiracy and suggest I brought up the subject. Goes to prove you will not stoop to subterfuge doesn't it?



(No, I dont need to go vafter the originals.............they are online at the recorders office.)
Are you so foolish you have no idea what a COPY is? Recorder keeps no originals at all. I could go to the recorders office and receive 50 certified copies of your documents and NONE of them will be an original. ALL will be CERTIFIED COPIES.

[palani]

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

You should be making your payments to the entity that holds your note/mortgage because the one you are paying is not going to be able to provide these documents when (and if) your performance is complete. Look at it this way ... the lender has the ability to foreclose when he can produce the originals. If he has no ability to foreclose then he has no standing at all (he cannot enforce his will upon you). This approach is risky because the state, judges, marshals and system as a whole are going to enforce this non-existent right as if it did exist.

Here is a link to an article about Donna Baran and an interview with her. Several year ago she got disturbed about the mortgage thing, I believe she had a mortgage for $160k and had paid $175 already in principal and interest when she just stopped paying. Her house was eventually taken around a year ago and she is still upbeat and fighting the system. In her case the original bank no longer exists and it was the state that forced her out (two homeowner ass. cops, two deputies and two homeland security grunts). She has the system pretty well tied up down in Florida. Interesting person (she is somewhat more discriminating that others).

http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/foreclosure-interview-with-donna-baran/

[palani]

Ya mean "trespasses"?
;D

Seems 7th is tort type of guy. He gets confused when trespass is mentioned. I believe he thinks it has to do with walking on someones land.

[7th trump]

(when you get a deed what does it matter? It doesnt..........your arguement is frivolous. You on the other hand continue the chicken little scenario.)

What matters is that every signature impairs your freedom in some manner. On your note is your signature. There is no need to get specific about exactly how or why your freedom becomes impaired.(The hell it doesnt matter. Thats like trying to describe to me something you have no idea what you are describing. Thats the problem I'm having with you Palani you say all kinds of crap and we are all suppose to take your word for it?) It is important enough that it does. (you have to proof your stance Palani, otherwise everything you say is nothing but snakeskin oil saleman hearsay) If you were wise (indeed a very long stretch of the imagination) (hahahahahaha.....I'm sorry I couldnt resist) you would not have ANY documents with your signature on them once your obligation to perform was completed. (Oh really..........? So I should not have any documents with my signiture describing I'm no longer required to make any monthly payments because the mortgage that I signed initially has matured in full? And after making 30 years of payments just who should I con into signing the deed to property.........YOU?)


(I asked it because from your posts I can tell you assume much and cant provide the proof. I'm trying to get an answr out of you and you come back with..................oh, its a concept! Huh................your giving advice based on a concept?) (hey nice little trick trying to turn the tables around. It was you who said it was a "concept".
Concept:
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept"

Just one of your many distortions and lies. Do a control-F and search on this thread for the word "concept" and you fill find that you are the initiator of the word rather than I. Then you go on to expand concept into conspiracy and suggest I brought up the subject. Goes to prove you will not stoop to subterfuge doesn't it?
(Gee...................more switch and bait here. I'm addressing your inconsistencies and made up concepts when all I get is a greased pig squealing to another corner of the room. You jump around so much from all these concepts you keep throwing out there its hard to follow you.)


(No, I dont need to go vafter the originals.............they are online at the recorders office.)
Are you so foolish you have no idea what a COPY is? Recorder keeps no originals at all. I could go to the recorders office and receive 50 certified copies of your documents and NONE of them will be an original. ALL will be CERTIFIED COPIES.
(The point was to address your problem with the original document holder.................its on the copies)

[7th trump]

Ya mean "trespasses"?
;D

Seems 7th is tort type of guy. He gets confused when trespass is mentioned. I believe he thinks it has to do with walking on someones land.

Actually its the other way around Palani................look up trespass and see if your arguement holds any water.
Tort is proper, not trespass. Why do you think I mentioned it in an earlier post............................whooooosh right over your head!
About the closest you are going to get using "trespass" would be addressing "rights", all the rest doesnt apply.
And I think you wouldnt last very long discussing "rights" in your arguement.
You being a "US citizen" dont get many Bill of Rights, but civil rights and dont think you are up to par on that issue.

[7th trump]

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

You should be making your payments to the entity that holds your note/mortgage because the one you are paying is not going to be able to provide these documents when (and if) your performance is complete. Look at it this way ... the lender has the ability to foreclose when he can produce the originals. If he has no ability to foreclose then he has no standing at all (he cannot enforce his will upon you). This approach is risky because the state, judges, marshals and system as a whole are going to enforce this non-existent right as if it did exist. (No, Chase bought the mortgage (mortgage holder) and the payment goes to Chase to service their dedt. (dont beleive anything Palani has to say about not having to pay your monthly mortgage because of a silly made up "wink and a nod" between theives concept. Palani has yet to show any of us one bank that doesnt require making the full 30 year monthly payments). Like Ximmy has said, it doesnt matter until a foreclosure because the foreclosure laws are specific.)

Here is a link to an article about Donna Baran and an interview with her. Several year ago she got disturbed about the mortgage thing, I believe she had a mortgage for $160k and had paid $175 already in principal and interest when she just stopped paying. Her house was eventually taken around a year ago and she is still upbeat and fighting the system.(she lost the house because she didnt pay the mortgage she agreed to. Yea real smart!) In her case (in her case she got greedy and lost by gunpoint) the original bank no longer exists and it was the state that forced her out (two homeowner ass. cops, two deputies and two homeland security grunts). She has the system pretty well tied up down in Florida (sounds like she is doing pretty good homeless). Interesting person (she has a concept). ( Like all concepts they fail)
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/foreclosure-interview-with-donna-baran/

[palani]

Actually its the other way around Palani................look up trespass and see if your arguement holds any water. Tort is proper, not trespass.
Ok .. here you are then. You not being a legal scholar is going to be a huge handicap if you ever wish to win any of these discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_on_the_case


The Writs of Trespass and Trespass on the Case are the two catchall torts from English Common Law, the former involving trespass against person, the latter involving trespass against anything else which may be actionable. The writ is also known in modern times as Action on the Case and can be sought for any action that may be considered as a tort but is yet to be an established category.

But then I forgot that you don't believe common law as established in the U.S. has anything to do with the English.


Why do you think I mentioned it in an earlier post............................whooooosh right over your head!
Rather I generally ignore nonsense.


You being a "US citizen" dont get many Bill of Rights, but civil rights and dont think you are up to par on that issue. I don't know where you came up with this nonsense but I stay as far away from any declarations of U.S. citizenship as is possible to get. And if you have any rights then why would you desire a Bill for them? Are you so used to paying up when demanded that you will do so at the slightest opportunity?

[palani]

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

You should be making your payments to the entity that holds your note/mortgage because the one you are paying is not going to be able to provide these documents when (and if) your performance is complete. Look at it this way ... the lender has the ability to foreclose when he can produce the originals. If he has no ability to foreclose then he has no standing at all (he cannot enforce his will upon you). This approach is risky because the state, judges, marshals and system as a whole are going to enforce this non-existent right as if it did exist. (No, Chase bought the mortgage (mortgage holder) and the payment goes to Chase to service their dedt. (dont beleive anything Palani has to say about not having to pay your monthly mortgage because of a silly made up "wink and a nod" between theives concept. Palani has yet to show any of us one bank that doesnt require making the full 30 year monthly payments). Like Ximmy has said, it doesnt matter until a foreclosure because the foreclosure laws are specific.)

Here is a link to an article about Donna Baran and an interview with her. Several year ago she got disturbed about the mortgage thing, I believe she had a mortgage for $160k and had paid $175 already in principal and interest when she just stopped paying. Her house was eventually taken around a year ago and she is still upbeat and fighting the system.(she lost the house because she didnt pay the mortgage she agreed to. Yea real smart!) In her case (in her case she got greedy and lost by gunpoint) the original bank no longer exists and it was the state that forced her out (two homeowner ass. cops, two deputies and two homeland security grunts). She has the system pretty well tied up down in Florida (sounds like she is doing pretty good homeless). Interesting person (she has a concept). ( Like all concepts they fail)
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/foreclosure-interview-with-donna-baran/


You are so lazy you just blend your comments into others making it impossible to respond to every point. Therefore I will just point out that you have no standards, have been previously adjudged a liar and have not bothered to respond and everything you write is delusional.

[EE_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juPz2bAp_ZQ&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAS2eLjeG2Y&feature=player_embedded

[7th trump]

Actually its the other way around Palani................look up trespass and see if your arguement holds any water. Tort is proper, not trespass.
Ok .. here you are then. You not being a legal scholar is going to be a huge handicap if you ever wish to win any of these discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_on_the_case


The Writs of Trespass and Trespass on the Case are the two catchall torts from English Common Law, the former involving trespass against person, the latter involving trespass against anything else which may be actionable. The writ is also known in modern times as Action on the Case and can be sought for any action that may be considered as a tort but is yet to be an established category.

But then I forgot that you don't believe common law as established in the U.S. has anything to do with the English.


Why do you think I mentioned it in an earlier post............................whooooosh right over your head!
Rather I generally ignore nonsense. (Actually you demonstrate you thrive on nonsensical issues and ignore logic. The problem rests around the law regarding foreclosure, and not purposely trying to get something for nothing by not paying the agreement to pay your mortgage. You are trying to justify fraud with fraud. Two wrongs dont make a right.)


You being a "US citizen" dont get many Bill of Rights, but civil rights and dont think you are up to par on that issue. I don't know where you came up with this nonsense but I stay as far away from any declarations of U.S. citizenship as is possible to get. (Really? Do you make "wages" that constitute taxable "income". Do you use zipcode when mailing or do you recieve mail with a zip code on it?) And if you have any rights then why would you desire a Bill for them? (Thats one ignorant statement on your part) Are you so used to paying up when demanded that you will do so at the slightest opportunity? (We all know what type of person would assume a statement like that. No need to say anymore about you)

Oh I know a lot about the Common Law form.
But what you dont understand is that for the most part the Common Law form has been removed or cannot be accessed when an American applies and uses a ssn. When an American uses an ssn that person operates in the Civil Law form. That person is "federal personel" 5USC 552(a) and not a "People of the United States of America".

[7th trump]

My home is a MERS thingie. I send a check for my mortgage payment to Chase. It seems that they don't really have a right to collect payment if they are not the actual Mortgagee of record.

You should be making your payments to the entity that holds your note/mortgage because the one you are paying is not going to be able to provide these documents when (and if) your performance is complete. Look at it this way ... the lender has the ability to foreclose when he can produce the originals. If he has no ability to foreclose then he has no standing at all (he cannot enforce his will upon you). This approach is risky because the state, judges, marshals and system as a whole are going to enforce this non-existent right as if it did exist. (No, Chase bought the mortgage (mortgage holder) and the payment goes to Chase to service their dedt. (dont beleive anything Palani has to say about not having to pay your monthly mortgage because of a silly made up "wink and a nod" between theives concept. Palani has yet to show any of us one bank that doesnt require making the full 30 year monthly payments). Like Ximmy has said, it doesnt matter until a foreclosure because the foreclosure laws are specific.)

Here is a link to an article about Donna Baran and an interview with her. Several year ago she got disturbed about the mortgage thing, I believe she had a mortgage for $160k and had paid $175 already in principal and interest when she just stopped paying. Her house was eventually taken around a year ago and she is still upbeat and fighting the system.(she lost the house because she didnt pay the mortgage she agreed to. Yea real smart!) In her case (in her case she got greedy and lost by gunpoint) the original bank no longer exists and it was the state that forced her out (two homeowner ass. cops, two deputies and two homeland security grunts). She has the system pretty well tied up down in Florida (sounds like she is doing pretty good homeless). Interesting person (she has a concept). ( Like all concepts they fail)
http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/foreclosure-interview-with-donna-baran/


You are so lazy you just blend your comments into others making it impossible to respond to every point. Therefore I will just point out that you have no standards, have been previously adjudged a liar and have not bothered to respond and everything you write is delusional.

I do that because you bounce all over the map. Easier is not lazy!
"Standards"...................... you bounce all over the map here Palani.
You call me delusional...........when you are trying to put square pegs in round holes?

[palani]

Oh I know a lot about the Common Law form.
There are two systems of law in the WESTERN world ... civil and common law. Neither is a 'form'.



But what you dont understand is that for the most part the Common Law form has been removed or cannot be accessed when an American applies and uses a ssn. When an American uses an ssn that person operates in the Civil Law form. That person is "federal personel" 5USC 552(a) and not a "People of the United States of America".
The topic is about mortgages and not SSNs. I would be most interested in a discussion of the SSN issues but this is an inappropriate place.

[palani]

I do that because you bounce all over the map. Easier is not lazy!
The issue is whether you would demand an original back when a mortgage is completed. My contention is that to leave a negotiable document in limbo when it should by rights be returned is a trespass upon my right to that document. Your contention is that as long as you get some form of a deed you don't care about the original even if it is being used by somebody else as an asset upon their books.

Now if that is the way you feel then I claim your daddy should have taught you better standards because to leave loose ends dangling is just plain sloppy and bad business all around.

Now does this sound like the terrain we have been dancing around?

You call me delusional...........when you are trying to put square pegs in round holes? Maybe I am attempting to let you look inside a dimension that you have no vision for?