2 votes

REALLY Need Help: My home Foreclosure hearing is tomorrow. *UPDATED* 4-26-2010!!!

Can any one here give me some advice on how to make the lender produce the note (in a legal manner). Countrywide was the original lender (they no longer exist). Bank of America now supposedly holds the note. How would I go about challenging them without hiring an attorney? Any advice would be much appreciated!

Ok, so I woke up this morning not knowing what I was going to do, logged on to the DP, and after reading some of your guys posts from after I went to bed I got up the confidence to go down to the courthouse to see what I could do.

When the magistrate asked me if I had anything to say I said yes your honor, I would like BofA, formerly Countrywide Home Loans, to produce the genuine original promissory note for this amount, also, I want to be sure B of A has standing to collect on this alleged debt. (thank you esp to jules and wolfe, jules for giving me something to go with, and wolfe with letting me know non lawyers get more leeway)

Anyway, the magistrate says very good; have you filed and answer with the court? No your honor, I have not. Mag: Technically you should have done that already, but I will grant you till 11/27/2009 to file an answer with the court and mail to all concerning parties.

UPDATE* 11/24/2009

After much research I have finished my answer to the complaint. Im going to take it to a lawyer friend now to review it and hopefully file it today. I really think I nailed it. The burden of Proof is now on the bank. I want to thank the whole Daily Paul family so much for all your advice, info, encouragement, and support! Wish me luck!

UPDATE* 11/25/2009

Answer to complaint filed with the clerk of courts today. Copy mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail. My lawyer friend says i probably wont hear from anyone for a while now.

UPDATE* 2/18/2010 !!!!!!!!!!!

Out of curiosity yesterday i was checking the Clerk of Courts website to see if anything new had been filed and sure enough Bank of America has filed a motion for Summary Judgment. They didnt even notify me though it says they did in their affidavit. i got it today at the courthouse. They have two affidavits in support of the motion. I think i've got em but i need help.

In the affidavit a man named Greg Hige*** labeled as Assistant Vice President of BAC Home Loans states:

In such job position affiant has the custody of the accounts of said company, including the account of Mr. _____ , defendant herein. Affiant states that the records of the accounts of said company are compiled at or near the time of occurence of each event by persons with knowledge of said events, that said records are kept in the course of its regularly conducted business activity, and that it is the regular practice to keep such records related to the business activity.

2. Plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage which are the subject of the within foreclosure action. TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRODUCTIONS of the originals as they exist in Plaintiff's files are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".

3. Affiant states that there has been a default in payment under the terms of the aforesaid note and mortgage. The account is due for the August 1, 2008 payment and all subsequent payments. Plaintiff has therefore elected to accelerate the entire balance due.

4. Affiant states that there is due on said account a principal balance of 59,704.21, together with interest thereon from July 1, 2008 at 6.125 percent annum and as may be subsequently adjusted if provided for by the terms of the note, and advances for taxes insurance or otherwise expended to protect the property.

They didnt produce the genuine original note! All they did was submit another copy! Where do I go from here. My Answer specifically demanded they produce the Genuine original promissory note.

UPDATE!! 2-28-2010

Ive discovered that a lady who signed for the ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE listed as the Assistant Vice President for Countrywide has also in the last three years been listed as Assistant VP of MERS, VP of Countrywide, and Assistant VP of Bank of New York, constantly flipping back and forth signing these ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE. Also, I just discovered tonight via Fannie Mae's web site that they currently own the loan for my house. They are not listed anywhere in any of BOA's filings. I'm diggin!!!

UPDATE!! 3-17-2010

Back on March 5th I filed my Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment challenging BOA's standing as the real party in interest after I discovered that my mortgage loan was sold to Fannie Mae, and to this day are still claiming ownership. As well as the fact that the lady they had sign the assignment of mortgage as Countrywide's Assistant Vice President also signed on the very same day on six different occasions as the Assistant Vice President of MERS that i could find on file with the the County Recorder here in my county. Well, checked the docket online today and BOA has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to reply to Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment.

I really dont know what to expect now.

UPDATE!! 4-02-2010

From the docket today:


UPDATE 4-26-2010

The bank filed a reply in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. I'm so confused and overwhelmed right now. I really dont know if i have a chance now. They are now stating that they are the servicer for fannie mae among other things. not sure where to go with this now.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Demand a Statement of Assurance

Demand in writing, a Statement of Assurance from either the lawyer or the Senior Account Manager that the loan is legal. You are entitled to assurance that the lender is performing the loan within the law which is just one of the duties of expected performance. Here is a sample statement!

Demand for Assurance of Legal Performance.
As representative of (lender's name), I the undersigned do hereby verify this loan# is in full and complete compliance with all U.S Federal and State banking and securities laws and regulations. No transactions concerning this loan have been concealed from the customer.

Senior Account Manager or Representing Attorney

Date - Notary & Seal

You have a right to verification of legality and they have an obligation to provide it once you demand it. 99 times out of 100 they will not sign it. If they don't provide is within 30 days the contract is repudiated! Here is the law!

§ 2-609. Right to Adequate Assurance of Performance.
(1) A contract for saleimposes an obligation on each party that the other's expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired. When reasonable grounds for insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party the other may in writing demand adequate assurance of due performance and until he receives such assurance may if commercially reasonable suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed return.

(2) Between merchantsthe reasonableness of grounds for insecurity and the adequacy of any assurance offered shall be determined according to commercial standards.

(3)Acceptance of any improper delivery or payment does not prejudice the aggrieved party's right to demand adequate assurance of future performance.

(4) After receipt of a justified demand failure to provide within a reasonable time not exceeding thirty days such assurance of due performance as is adequate under the circumstances of the particular case is a repudiation of the contract.


so... in light of foreclosuregate, what happened?

I served the mortgage servicer with a Notice of Status

...to separate myself from the non-living legal fiction (artificial person) doing business with a capitis diminutio maxima name similar to mine.

Several months back, I was offered a HAMP modification. I responded to it with a 28 page conditional acceptance on the following conditions:

  • Your offer directs me to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury, saying that I understand your offer. Here is a list of things that I do not understand about your offer. Give clarification and disclosure.

  • If an action is carried out against me with a copy of a promissory note, whomever is the rightful, lawful holder of the genuine original promissory note, having lawfully come to be such a holder, can take subsequent action against me at another time. This creates undue liability upon me with no remedy provided. Therefor, prove that you are the rightful, lawful holder of the genuine original promissory note (proof of claim and standing and authority to make the HAMP offer).

  • Show, with full and complete accounting and disclosure, how you came to be my alleged mortgage servicer with any standing to foreclose.

  • Clarify whether your offer addresses me as the living soul or the artificial person as I can only speak as my self and not a corporate fiction.

  • You say you loaned me money. What money? What was the nature, denomination and form of the money? When and where was said alleged money transferred to me? Was it given to me directly, deposited into my bank account or given in some other form of negotiable instrument?

Now, for the last 4 months the alleged loan servicer has been trying to track down my death certificate, despite my repeated notices that I am alive and well as a living soul.

I've had 5 foreclosure sale dates scheduled within the last year (one actually went through and was rescinded) and they keep getting lifted with no (official) explanation from the loan servicer. I've not made any payment in well over a year, and will not do so until they provide a lawful response proving standing and claim, and clarifying other lawful matters.

great effort!!

and many thanks for keeping us updated.
and while I cannot imagine what this must be like for you, on a day to day basis.....
you are giving hope to the belief that what our founders left us still exist's. something that is real and is still revelent to this day!
peace brother, this is a battle that can be fought and won! your efforts have encouraged me to proceed down my own path....
hang in there, beat them at thier own game!

We filed a Motion For Injunction-


Plaintiffs Case No: 1:10CV00076SNLJ



COMES NOW Plaintiff, Dallas and Deborah Dugger, and pleads to the Court for a Motion for Injunction to prevent the fraudulent selling of the Plaintiffs property: 901 Adam Street, in the city of Poplar Bluff, in the state of Missouri. 63901 In the county of Butler. And to prevent the fraudulent eviction of the Plaintiffs from the foresaid property until their complaint with the Court has been decided upon. The planned selling of foresaid property will be at the Butler County Court House steps on 2nd day of June 2010, 100 N Main Street, in the city of Poplar Bluff, in the state of Missouri .63901. In the county of Butler. And for the Plaintiffs plead states as follows:
The Plaintiff states that there is no delinquency, nor default with the Defendant: Bank of America/Countrywide. MERS is claiming (it) is the solely nominee for Lender. MERS is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, not a person. We dispute this due to the fact that MERS has no proprietary interest in the Plaintiffs property. MERS is neither the lender nor financial party in interest.
MERS is not a person, nor the leader of the Plaintiff’s property, but yet (it) is being used to fraudulently foreclose and evict the Plaintiffs.
The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust." Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Mo. App. 2009).
The Missouri court found that, because MERS was not the original holder of the promissory note and because the record contained no evidence that the original holder of the note authorized MERS to transfer the note, the language of the assignment purporting to transfer the promissory note was ineffective. "MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force." 284 S.W.3d at 624; see also In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (standard mortgage note language does not expressly or implicitly authorize MERS to transfer the note); In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 517 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)

Wherefore the Plaintiff pleads to the Court to be granted the Motion for Injunction for the protection of their home and protection from the planned eviction by use of MERS.

901 Adam Street
Poplar Bluff, Missouri 6390

United We Stand

Can some one answer this for me???

I filed our case in Federal Court- against Bank of America/Countrywide

It doesn't matter which bank location -I served the papers on as long as it is with one of their banks- correct?

United We Stand

You are correct in that it *shouldn't* matter

However, a bank branch may look at what you served and say, "We don't know what this is or how to respond to it. Put it in the circular file (waste bin)."

You should have gotten some kind of notices from your bank's corporate office (loss mitigation, legal department, etc). Respond to any return address you find there. Also, pull the records related to your property from your County Recorder's office. Where you find any records related to taking your house, you should also find within those records something to the effect of, "After recording, return to [name/address/contact info]" of either the bank department which filed the record, or the bank's attorney. Serve those as well.

Just remember that most of the bank's employees are trained monkeys, doing a limited scope of work, and do not in the least understand legal documents - thus are likely to not handle them at all or just throw them away. You need to, if at all possible, be serving your bank's legal department/loss mitigation department.

I'm finally at a point in my situation where every single agent of my alleged loan servicer, save 3 high-level legal people, are completely locked out of my account, and even those 3 cannot speak with me or address me unless and until I fraudulently say that I am the legal fiction and not the living soul.

this covers MERS! a COURT CASE

Black's Law Dictionary defines a nominee as "[a] person designated to act in place of another, usu. in a very limited way" and as "[a] party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others." Black's Law Dictionary 1076 (8th ed. 2004). This definition suggests that a nominee possesses few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a principal whom the nominee serves.

. "MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force." 284 S.W.3d at 624; see also In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (standard mortgage note language does not expressly or implicitly authorize MERS to transfer the note); In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 517 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)


United We Stand


MERS is widely used by the industry to keep track of the servicing rights on home loans. In fact, the top 100 mortgage originators and servicers employ the system. Its repository includes information on over 60 million home loans electronically registered by lenders.
MERS was created to be a paperless property registry to facilitate the quick transfer of mortgages between lenders and the inclusion of the loans in mortgage-backed securities, and in certain jurisdictions, MERS has the authority to initiate foreclosures on properties listed in its registry.

MERS is often designated as the “mortgagee of record” as a nominee of the actual mortgage holder. The service was designed to get around the slow and clumsy process of recording deeds at a county registrar and is similar to a broker serving as stockholder of record for a client.
But the system has become the centerpiece of a number of lawsuits, with foreclosed homeowners challenging the naming of the electronic system as mortgagee.
Fannie Mae stated in its new servicing guidelines that when MERS is listed as the mortgagee of record, the servicer must prepare a mortgage assignment transferring the position from MERS back to the servicer, and then bring the foreclosure in its own name.
In the event that the GSE requires the foreclosure be brought in the name of Fannie Mae, the servicer must conduct that transfer assignment as well. In all cases, the assignment from MERS to the servicer or Fannie Mae must be recorded before the foreclosure begins.
“Fannie Mae will not reimburse the servicer for any expense incurred in preparing or recording an assignment of the mortgage loan from MERS to the servicer or to Fannie Mae,” the guidelines read.
Since 2006, Fannie Mae has required servicers to file foreclosure actions in their own name in judicial states where proceedings take place in the courtroom, such as Florida, Illinois, and New York.
Beginning May 1, 2010, Fannie is adding that same stipulation to foreclosure petitions in non-judicial states, such as California, Massachusetts, and Texas, which allow lenders to foreclose without involving the courts.

I have alread Filed in Fed. Court -

I recently attached this-

Dallas Leon Dugger/Deborah Ann Dugger
Bank of America/Countrywide
Re: Civil Action No. 1:10CV00076SNLJ

The Defendants stole the Plaintiff’s escrow savings of $926.00. When Plaintiff Mr. Dugger called Bank of America to inquire of the stolen funds- he was told that they purchased home owners insurance. Mr. Dugger had not received any letter prior of their intent, nor was ever questioned pertaining to his home owner’s insurance, because the Plaintiff already had purchased a year of insurance through Country Financial of Dexter Missouri.
The Plaintiff had an attack needing his nitro glycerin after the dispute that day on the phone. Plaintiff later called HUD and spoke to a Ms. Kathy Cheatum, who advised him not to pay till it got straightened out. She told him she was leaving for the holiday for a week and that she would get back with him. This was before New Years Day. Plaintiff heard nothing further from Ms.Cheatum. Documents are attached showing Bank of America/Countrywide’s theft of Plaintiffs escrow account with no notice of doing so till a much later date!
Plaintiff was sent modification documents the 26th day of January 2010, but dated 25th day of January 2010 and was requested to mail an amount of $485.02 with the modification. Under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP)- Bank of America/Countrywide did not just ignore Plaintiffs, but ignored TARP & HAMP Regulations by requesting fees upfront to modify their home loan which is prohibited under Federal Regulations.
The Plaintiffs were supposed to have from 1-25-2010 to 2-25-2010 for the modification. On or about 4th day of February Defendants sent notice of Foreclosure before the expired time. Bank of America / Countrywide denied Plaintiffs access to (TARP) & (HAMP) by requesting upfront fees and denied them the full 30 days that was assigned to them that is of record.

On the 27th day January of 2010 Plaintiffs called Bank of America/Countrywide requesting from Defendant to provide the Genuine Original...aka "wet signature” of Plaintiff’s contract with Bank of America/Countrywide in which Defendant’s employee Gabriel stated they did not have.
• Defendant does not own the mortgage. There is no affiliation between Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Bank of America / Countrywide . All three can not own the mortgage.

• Bank of America/Countrywide has not shown that they advanced any funds, goods or services to the Plaintiff. Thus they are not the creditor or owner of the mortgage. Bank of America/Countrywide may want to assert that they have the right to collect on the alleged obligation and foreclose on the said property: 901 Adam Street, Poplar Bluff, MO.63901 even though they are NOT the creditor. Millsap & Springer, P.C. is selling the above property on behalf of the alleged creditor, then I request / demand that they then disclose the creditor and name them as nominal, Bank of America/Countrywide thru Millsap & Singer, P.C. are selling the Plaintiff’s property on the 2nd day of June, 2010.

• I believe that Bank of America/Countrywide has no standing as there was fraud committed by Countrywide from the beginning. I request Bank of America/Countrywide provide the court with chain of title to make sure they are the holder in due course and that this specific asset was purchased, so that the Plaintiff can protect their right from damages. Plaintiff’s asset is their liability and therefore would like full disclosure. The Defendant has not shown evidence that the promissory note was transferred to them.

• There is no proof that they have acquired the note, because the government took over Countrywide and sold to Bank of America and Countrywide has been the subject of a class action securities-fraud civil lawsuit by various government pension funds and their managers. The lawsuit identifies more than 25 firms that helped Countrywide package and sell mortgaged backed securities.

• An endorsement with knowledge of defects, fraud or defenses, even if valid as a transfer of all rights to the note, is subject to those defenses. If fraud is involved in the execution or inducement of the note or instrument, then the ensuing holder cannot claim to be a holder in due course, (owner of the mortgage).

• A ‘lender’ is a term used by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) adopted by nearly all the states. The holder is just what it says --- the party that is holding the note physically. The holder is not necessarily the owner which is where holder in due course comes in. A holder is due course is a party who is holding the note without any taint of illegality, fraud, or conditions close to fraud.

• Plaintiffs have never been presented with any sworn affidavits that would provide validity that Bank of America/Countrywide is the Holder in due course / Owner of mortgage. It is Plaintiffs best and considered judgment that no such paper work or affidavit exists. Plaintiffs plead to the Court to request Bank of America / Countrywide please provide the Genuine Original...aka "wet signature” documents above.

• There are hundreds of examples of contracts not being legally transferable. Leases, phone/cable/power/water contracts, warranty protections -- are all examples of contracts which legally can't be transferred.

There are Four Legal Elements to a binding Contract that Bank of America/Countrywide is fraudulently claiming they have :
• A meeting of the minds between the parties demonstrating they both understand and agree to the essentials of the deal in which Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.
• Consideration (something of value exchanged by each of the parties, such as cash, goods or a promise to do something) in which Plaintiffs did not do, nor gain from Bank of America/Countrywide.
• An agreement to enter into the contract (typically evidenced by both parties signing a written contract) in which Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.
• The legal competence of each party, meaning the parties are not minors and are of sound mind. In which the Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.

Plaintiffs pleads to the Court to halt the sale of Plaintiffs home on 2nd day of June 2010 as stated by Bank of America’s : Millsap & Singer, P.C. , 612 Spirit Drive, St. Louis, MO 63005 letter attached.
Plaintiffs pleads to the Court for relief of $500,000.00 from Bank of America/Countrywide due to stealing $926.00 of the Plaintiffs escrow account , causing the Plaintiff an onset of heart attack. Creating mental anguish and hardship.
If Defendant does have alleged ownership of Plaintiff’s property then please consider the neglect of the TARP & HAMP provisions through the use of bailout funds that financial establishments like Bank of America/Countrywide are required to offer solutions, not request upfront fees of $485.02 restricted by the Federal Regulations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court render judgment on Plaintiffs’ behalf
as follows:

A. Award actual and punitive damages in an amount of $500,000.00 and to be determined at trial on Plaintiffs’ claims for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress ;

B. Direct Defendants Bank of America/Countrywide to pay the cost of this proceeding, including Plaintiffs’ filing fees as appropriate;

C. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Plaintiffs hereby demand that all issues of fact in the foregoing Complaint be tried to a jury.

_______________________ Date________________
Dallas Leon Dugger
_______________________ Date_______________
Deborah Ann Dugger
Copies made for :
Bank of America/Countrywide
Millsap & Singer, P.C. FC Department

ANY ADVICE WOULD HELP- I just found out yesterday
Tuesday 11, 2010

United We Stand

I just found out on Tuesday---

That IS LISTED UNDER MERS all documents that we got from our court house here in Poplar Bluff, from MERS does not have a seal- it just states- NO SEAL

Now I read that MERS is nothing more than a Confidential Electronic Registry System which exists only to TRACK mortgages and the changes of servicing-

There fore MERS has no Proprietary interest in Plaintiffs Property.

Unable to show any Party of the transactions as having Clear title to the mortgage- As stated by what I listed earlier here- A party must have a standing "proprietary interest--> MERS IS NOT THE LENDER

United We Stand

So HOW ---

So how can it (MERS) make Millsap & Singer trustee to sell our property ?

please someone call me or write:


United We Stand


MERS CAN NOT EVICT anyone from their home -

any way- did everyone go to sleep?

United We Stand

Mortgage legal expert needed over here!

Please help this gentleman with his question.

Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

another bump for help with mortgage issues

Go get 'em! I wish you the very best of luck! If I knew one actual case where the person got to keep their home, I might fight to keep ours, but all I hear is stories about people who know someone... The people who I actually KNOW who have fought this battle wind up living in limbo, are in and out of court, and constantly hassled by the banksters. I am just not up for that. Mistakes were made. Clean slate, drive on.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

This is the key

Documentation,Dates,names,and details.Way to go.

Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

if the bank wont give you

if the bank wont give you discovery, learn about subpoena duces tecum and how to properly execute the docuemnt and subpoena
424 b5 prospectus.

it will be a lot of reading but in these documents it should show that the ones bringing the action have no standing, not the holder in due coarse.

If you can force discovery,

If you can force discovery, which the bank will be deeply against and the judge may favor the bank, but if you can get discovery, the bank will settle.
http://commercialremedies.com/ has some good templates for discovery....FREE. Its important to understand the money system and have a series of questions that corner the bank in to admitting you funded the account they borrowed you, this is hardly a "loan" but rather switching currency. so a good question would be....what form of money am I to repay the loan back with? Was this material fact disclosed to you?

I believe the Mortgage Relief Programs are a scam

I believe they are intended to fix the paper trail of ownership with banks so they have the proper documents at foreclosure.


The banks get bailout money for every loan modification application they process.

Major- Print this- Found! Hope this helps us ALL!!

This article was sent to you by: duggerdebbie@mycitycable.com

Who OWNS Foreclosed U.S. Properties?, Part II: the role of MERS
By Jeff Nielson
In Part I, “Scam in the making”, I explained how Wall Street created the U.S. housing-bubble and its concurrent Ponzi-scheme – with the full assistance of its accomplices: U.S. rating agencies and U.S. regulators. I also explained why it had to be obvious before they started creating this bubble that it would end with an unprecedented wave of foreclosures. Because a big part of the bubble/Ponzi-scheme was “mortgage securitization” (which meant the bank originating the mortgage no longer held title to the mortgage), and because the U.S. financial crime syndicate knew there would be a huge wave of foreclosures, it had to invent an entity which could serve as a proxy in foreclosure proceedings – representing all of the players in these debt “daisy-chains”. This was why MERS was created in 1995. As I wrote in Part I, MERS is nothing more than a confidential electronic registry which exists only to “track mortgages and the changes of servicing rights and mortgage ownership”. In other words, it has no proprietary interest in these mortgages. The reason why that last fact is so important is because of the fact that Wall Street had created such convoluted chains of “ownership” that even in court proceedings the banksters are unable to show any party in these chain of transactions as having clear title to the mortgage. Wall Street's plan was to send MERS (nothing but a glorified, electronic clerk) to all these foreclosure proceedings and allow MERS to act as if it was the mortgage-holder in these proceedings. However, it is one of the oldest principals of our Western legal system that in civil proceedings any party wanting to bring an action before the court has to have “standing”. Typically, this is defined as a direct, proprietary interest in the subject of the trial. Clearly, MERS has no proprietary interest – and thus in several legal decisions it has been found to have no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings. As I pointed out in Part I (via an article by Edward Harrison), one of these court cases has already been upheld on appeal – setting the stage for courts to broaden the previous rulings. Until now, judges who have ruled that MERS has no “standing” have only done so narrowly, on a case-by-case basis. The next step in this natural legal evolution (the law always moves in “baby steps”) is for courts to rule that MERS has no standing, period! When that day occurs, it will immediately create two, huge legal ramifications. First of all, there would be no further point in the bankers even showing up to a trial over a foreclosure unless the bankers can sift through the deliberately complicated maze of transactions and clearly identify a party with genuine, legal title over a mortgage. Otherwise, not only would the bankers face a summary dismissal of their action, but it's very possible that the judge in question would simply nullify the entire mortgage – as recently happened in a case in New York. What this means is that any American homeowner whose mortgage has been “securitized” must take their case to court if/when a foreclosure proceeding is commenced against them. The worst-case scenario is that the foreclosure proceeding is dismissed and the homeowner can stay in his home, and not even bother with making any more payments. Why send cheques to a bank when you can live in your home for free – and never have to worry again about foreclosure? However, once MERS is found to ( broadly) have no legal “standing”, this will effect far more people than those about to be foreclosed. Another important concept in our legal system involves the concept of “discovery”. Its relevance in this particular situation is as follows. If Americans who have already lost their homes to foreclosure “discover” today that the party who was officially behind these foreclosure proceedings (which in many cases is MERS) never had legal standing to foreclose on their property (whether that took place five days ago or five years ago), this means that the foreclosure proceeding was legally invalid. What this means is that courts will very likely find that these “foreclosure victims” are still the legal owners of their homes. This not only is a crippling blow to the U.S. financial crime syndicate, but an even more serious blow to people who have been buying these “foreclosed” properties. If the bank who “sold” them the “foreclosed” property never had legal title then obviously that bank had nothing to sell to the “buyer”. In other words, many (if not most) of the people who have bought “foreclosed” properties in the U.S. over the last few years may own nothing. This becomes a double loss for the banks. Not only do they end up with nothing with respect to the original mortgage they claimed to own, but the subsequent buyer who is stripped of their purchase will then sue the banker for the full purchase price, all of their related costs (moving costs, furniture, etc.) plus the judge will very likely tack on some steep “punitive damages” to punish the banks for creating this legal nightmare and attempting to “foreclose” and “sell” properties they never owned. As I pointed out a few weeks ago (see “Bankster Sues Bankster – AGAIN”), even if Wall Street banks ca n survive the massive losses they are incurring as their Ponzi-scheme unravels, there is no possibility of them surviving the tidal wave of litigation which is just beginning. On a related subject, it was recently reported that the huge stash of money which Wall Street has in a “savings account” with the Federal Reserve now exceeds $1 trillion. Doesn't it seem odd that with Wall Street banks regularly bragging about how much money there are making with their own, in-house trading that they would leave a trillion dollars sitting in a savings account during this fantasy-rally in U.S. markets (which they helped to engineer)? Obviously the banksters dare not admit to their shareholders or the media that they have stockpiled a trillion dollars as a down-payment for all the pay-outs they will be forced to make in future litigation. Instead, they just hide this money with the Federal Reserve and pretend it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, as I also pointed out in a recent commentary, U.S. banks are holding at least 5 million already-foreclosed homes off of the market. No point in trying to “sell” these properties if they don't actually own them. There is one potentially serious consequence for average Americans as a result of this crucial legal precedent. If millions of Americans suddenly discover they have essentially “free homes” (and with actual housing inventories at least three times greater than what the NAR pretends), this could be the catalyst for another huge drop in house prices. A homeowner who loses his job, but then suddenly ends up with a “free home” will be willing to accept a much lower purchase price (as he down-sizes to a smaller residence) than a homeowner with an “underwater mortgage” desperately trying just to break-even. In short, we could be heading for utter chaos in the U.S. housing market. Millions of people who thought they had purchased a forec losed property could find they own nothing - and have to vacate those premises, remaining in “limbo” until they have successfully sued the bankers responsible for their problems. Millions of homeowners who thought they had lost their homes may suddenly have the keys returned to them. Perhaps most importantly, all “foreclosure sales” will essentially dry-up – since no buyers could be foolish enough to hand a banker a six-figure cheque when that banker may not even have title to the property. Can you imagine desperate bankers trying to show “clear title” to potential buyers when they can't even demonstrate that in a court-room – armed with a team of lawyers? The only thing which is absolutely certain at this point is that the U.S. housing sector cannot possibly be close to any “bottom” given that the pain is only beginning in this market.

Your MERS information

United We Stand

Call this guy

send me an email and i can give you Johns phone #. this guy know a lot and is able to help you out. And he loves to talk

HJR 192 was repealed back

HJR 192 was repealed back when Regan was in office, you'll have to do more research.

for more study

You could claim that not all

You could claim that not all payments have been put forth right and demand for an accounting, not just the payments on the mortgage but also the off balance sheets the federal reserve talks about in the modern money mechanics.

so suppose you owe for the mortgage - that is one part of the equasion.

if the bank funded the loan through remik account and you were the sponsor of that account, then they also owe you what you owe them.

The forms i believe that would force this accounting:
FR 2046
424 b5 prospectus

Im still studying but i believe these will show that the note was sold, or deposited and the one coming at you is not the holder in due coarse, they must have a financial interest to foreclose and if they already got paid, then they dont have a financial interest.

gavination; Has any of the Banks produced the Original NOTE yet?

You wrote; "The bank filed a reply in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. I'm so confused and overwhelmed right now."

What Bank?

Did this new Bank's “MOTION "in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment" include a certified copy of the original NOTE bearing your signature?

IF they DID NOT produce the NOTE yet, my guess is they don't have it either! That is more than likely your only defense. MAKE them produce the original NOTE!

Remember the mortgage is only the security instrument for the loan (NOTE) they made to you! Without the NOTE all they have is a security agreement!

It is my opinion that your Bank is actually CALLING your NOTE due and payable IN FULL, due to a breach of your contract with them. It is important to understand that ALL Bank loans are made in the form of a NOTE with a security agreement attached. Remember any bank can make a loan to you by NOTE only if they wanted too. BUT banks usually always insist on collateral (a car, equipment, real estate, etc etc), and use a security instrument to name the collateral protecting their NOTE. But the bottom line is that they still have to produce the original debt instrument (NOTE) you signed in order to foreclose properly.

At least this is my understanding of what the original attorney’s thought process was and is on “PRODUCE THE NOTE first”!

I’m NOT an attorney, but I am a real estate agent. I hope this helps a little.

The Winds of Change!


nothing to see here... move along, move along...

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

paul4won; lol not sure what you meant by that statement?

lol not sure what you meant by that statement?

The Winds of Change!

a repeated post

put in the wrong spot

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.