Check out
http://foreclosurehamlet.org/
http://4closurefraud.org/
Litgant
Monday, September 13, 2010
MERS Racketeering Fraud & Assignments
Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is nothing more than a mortgage filing cabinet on computer. Members of MERS record images of their mortgages on MERS computer retrieval system. The mortgage companies appoint MERS as nominee meaning MERS can now act as an agent for the mortgage company in assignment of the mortgage over the term of the loan. But MERS is NEVER given nominee agency in regard to the NOTE because it is a negotiable instrument payable to the person who has legal assignment to have it, or if the note is endorsed in blank, it is a pay to the bearer instrument. MERS cannot and does not act as a holder in due course of the Note and therefore has no agency or authority to assign it.
If MERS could assign the Note, they would have to endorse it on the back as an assignor and deliver the note to the assignor. MERS cannot just make up an Assignment of mortgage and attach words that the Note is also assigned and there is no actual delivery of the original Note.
MERS has been involved in racketeering yet not a single attorney general in any state has taken this monster on.
All the assignments by MERS that try to assign ownership of the mortgage note is fraud. If such an assignment was filed in your case, enter a motion to strike the assignment and state the reasons why MERS cannot assign your note. It is not the nominee. It was not a holder in due course. It did not ever have possession of the original Note. And it did not endorse the Note on the back as assignor to an assignee.
MERS needs to be sued for damages to over 62 million Americans by the attorney generals in all the several states.
Litgant
If MERS could assign the Note, they would have to endorse it on the back as an assignor and deliver the note to the assignor. MERS cannot just make up an Assignment of mortgage and attach words that the Note is also assigned and there is no actual delivery of the original Note.
MERS has been involved in racketeering yet not a single attorney general in any state has taken this monster on.
All the assignments by MERS that try to assign ownership of the mortgage note is fraud. If such an assignment was filed in your case, enter a motion to strike the assignment and state the reasons why MERS cannot assign your note. It is not the nominee. It was not a holder in due course. It did not ever have possession of the original Note. And it did not endorse the Note on the back as assignor to an assignee.
MERS needs to be sued for damages to over 62 million Americans by the attorney generals in all the several states.
Litgant
Foreclosure Sanctions
Mortgage Note Bearer Instrument
Mortgage Note Assignment
Mortgage Note Endorsements
Mortgage Note Elonges
Mortgage Note MERS
Mortgage Note Judges
WEST LAW Mortgage Notes
Blacks Law Mortgage Assignments
Hillsborough County, Florida Judge Rulings Foreclosure
_______________________
Here are some sanctions imposed by other judges when MERS assignments were placed into the record and being used as the basis of foreclosure:
1.) Ordered that since the assignments were not perfected, the original lender is the only valid owner of the mortgage and the note.
2.) Ordered that since the plaintiff knew the Assignment by MERS was fraudulent because of perjured witnesses and the notary seal, that the plaintiff could not bring the mortgage note into the court.
3.) Ordered that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice because they were not a legal holder in due course.
4.) Ordered that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and gave 30 days to refile another complaint in the name of the proper parties of interest.
5.) Ordered that the plaintiff did not qualify for reinstatement of the lost mortgage and note because it had not proven its standing.
6.) Ordered that after a securtized trust had been closed, no Assignment by MERS or anyone else into the trust was valid. Therefore, any plaintiff acting as a trustee of the said assigned note was invalid.
7.) Ordered that since the note did not have proper documentary stamps on the note, the note could not be presented in court for foreclosure.
8.) Ordered that if a plaintiff was a bank or other trust, it must be registered in the state to transact business and pay the appropriate fees or it had no standing.
9.) Ordered that if a plaintiff did not have possession of the note on the date the complaint was filed, it did not have standing.
10.) Ordered that if the original note was made payable to some entity it was not a bearer instrument, and the plaintiff must have all the assignments in the chain of ownership including to itself, or it had no standing.
11.) Ordered the plaintiff to produce the original Note or it had no standing.
Judges are generally quite creative in ways to throw out plaintiffs without ruling in favor of a defendant.
Many judges believe the defendants are just trying to get a free house, when the fact is, we don't want to pay anyone except to whom we are legally indebted.
There is so much fraud in the mortgage business, and then add MERS to all of this with their perjured assignments and a system of racketeering demands arrest. But because no judge has ruled the conduct of a plaintiff or MERS as criminal and held their companies accountable, the defendant's have no recourse of justice.
We depend on the courts to right the many millions of wrongs by the mortgage industry and MERS.
Your Honor, please rule justly.
Litgant
Mortgage Note Assignment
Mortgage Note Endorsements
Mortgage Note Elonges
Mortgage Note MERS
Mortgage Note Judges
WEST LAW Mortgage Notes
Blacks Law Mortgage Assignments
Hillsborough County, Florida Judge Rulings Foreclosure
_______________________
Here are some sanctions imposed by other judges when MERS assignments were placed into the record and being used as the basis of foreclosure:
1.) Ordered that since the assignments were not perfected, the original lender is the only valid owner of the mortgage and the note.
2.) Ordered that since the plaintiff knew the Assignment by MERS was fraudulent because of perjured witnesses and the notary seal, that the plaintiff could not bring the mortgage note into the court.
3.) Ordered that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice because they were not a legal holder in due course.
4.) Ordered that the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and gave 30 days to refile another complaint in the name of the proper parties of interest.
5.) Ordered that the plaintiff did not qualify for reinstatement of the lost mortgage and note because it had not proven its standing.
6.) Ordered that after a securtized trust had been closed, no Assignment by MERS or anyone else into the trust was valid. Therefore, any plaintiff acting as a trustee of the said assigned note was invalid.
7.) Ordered that since the note did not have proper documentary stamps on the note, the note could not be presented in court for foreclosure.
8.) Ordered that if a plaintiff was a bank or other trust, it must be registered in the state to transact business and pay the appropriate fees or it had no standing.
9.) Ordered that if a plaintiff did not have possession of the note on the date the complaint was filed, it did not have standing.
10.) Ordered that if the original note was made payable to some entity it was not a bearer instrument, and the plaintiff must have all the assignments in the chain of ownership including to itself, or it had no standing.
11.) Ordered the plaintiff to produce the original Note or it had no standing.
Judges are generally quite creative in ways to throw out plaintiffs without ruling in favor of a defendant.
Many judges believe the defendants are just trying to get a free house, when the fact is, we don't want to pay anyone except to whom we are legally indebted.
There is so much fraud in the mortgage business, and then add MERS to all of this with their perjured assignments and a system of racketeering demands arrest. But because no judge has ruled the conduct of a plaintiff or MERS as criminal and held their companies accountable, the defendant's have no recourse of justice.
We depend on the courts to right the many millions of wrongs by the mortgage industry and MERS.
Your Honor, please rule justly.
Litgant
MERS Assignment of Mortgage and Note Invalid
Any and all rights of a Plaintiff to foreclose on a property by and through an Assigment of mortgage and note by MERS is invalid unless MERS is an actual holder in due course.
The courts are now ruling that if MERS is not the actual holder of the Note through proper assignments it cannot assign the Note to a plaintiff.
The courts are also ruling that if an Assignment of MERS claims nominee authority to assign the mortgage and note, MERS must provide proof they have an agency relationship to the original lender. If this is not produced, MERS and its Assignments are being rejected to give planitiff standings to foreclose.
US District Judge Kent Dawson in California upheld the ruling of a bankruptcy judge that the Assignment by MERS as nominee was invalid.
MERS has not appealed this ruling.
Here is what to do: File a motion to strike the Assignment if one was placed into the record. This Assignment becomes a cloud on the title and it is fraudlent. In most cases the signatures on the Assignement are false. The document is a perjured document. Now how to prove this? File a request to the state where the notary was comissioned for a copy of his or her notary application. It will contain his/her official signature. You may have to pay a fee to get the application file. Once you have this you can compare and see if the notary signature is valid. Many times the notaries are allowing others to use their seal and scribble some initials and they are not the signature of the notary. If the signature of the notary is purjured, the Assignment is invalid. Check all the witnesses signatures. Check if they are notaries. If they are get their notary files also. And see if the signatures match. Many times with MERS and OCWEN the are perjured and do not match. If you show this to a judge he will throw out the Assignment. The judge should then enter a sanction against the Plaintiff not to being any more Assignments into the court from MERS.
Fight against MERS Assignments.
Litgant, tired of being beat up by mortgage thugs
The courts are now ruling that if MERS is not the actual holder of the Note through proper assignments it cannot assign the Note to a plaintiff.
The courts are also ruling that if an Assignment of MERS claims nominee authority to assign the mortgage and note, MERS must provide proof they have an agency relationship to the original lender. If this is not produced, MERS and its Assignments are being rejected to give planitiff standings to foreclose.
US District Judge Kent Dawson in California upheld the ruling of a bankruptcy judge that the Assignment by MERS as nominee was invalid.
MERS has not appealed this ruling.
Here is what to do: File a motion to strike the Assignment if one was placed into the record. This Assignment becomes a cloud on the title and it is fraudlent. In most cases the signatures on the Assignement are false. The document is a perjured document. Now how to prove this? File a request to the state where the notary was comissioned for a copy of his or her notary application. It will contain his/her official signature. You may have to pay a fee to get the application file. Once you have this you can compare and see if the notary signature is valid. Many times the notaries are allowing others to use their seal and scribble some initials and they are not the signature of the notary. If the signature of the notary is purjured, the Assignment is invalid. Check all the witnesses signatures. Check if they are notaries. If they are get their notary files also. And see if the signatures match. Many times with MERS and OCWEN the are perjured and do not match. If you show this to a judge he will throw out the Assignment. The judge should then enter a sanction against the Plaintiff not to being any more Assignments into the court from MERS.
Fight against MERS Assignments.
Litgant, tired of being beat up by mortgage thugs
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Judge Rules Against MERS Assignments As Nominee
Decided on April 19, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
The Bank of New York, as trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2, Plaintiff.
v
Sameeh Alderazi, Bank of America, NA, New York City Environmental Control Board, Defendants.
Here is the end part of the judge's decision of MERS acting as nominee:
_________________________
Plaintiff submitted no other documents which purport to authorize MERS to assign or otherwise convey the right of the mortgagor to assign the mortgage to another party.
A party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence, Lippincot v. East River Mill & Lumber Co., 79 Misc. 559, 141 NYS 220 (1913), and “[t]he declarations of an alleged agent may not be shown for the purpose of proving the fact of agency”. Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v. Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25, 504 NYS2d 192 (2nd Dept 1986). See also Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc., 108 AD2d 218, 488 NYS2d 744 (2nd Dept 1985), Moore v. Leaseway Transp. Corp., 65 AD2d 697, 409 NYS2d 746 (1st Dept 1978). “The acts of a person assuming to be the resentative of another are not competent to prove the agency in the absence of evidence tending to show the principal’s knowledge of such acts or assent to them”. (2 NY Jur
2d, Agency and Independent Contractors, 26).
Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that the original lender, the mortgagee America’s Wholesale Lender, authorized MERS to assign the secured debt to Plaintiff.
Thus, Plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case that it is entitled to foreclose on the mortgage in question.WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for an Order appointing referee to compute amounts due to the Plaintiff is denied with leave to renew upon proof of authority.
This shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.
___________________________
Supreme Court, Kings County
The Bank of New York, as trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2, Plaintiff.
v
Sameeh Alderazi, Bank of America, NA, New York City Environmental Control Board, Defendants.
Here is the end part of the judge's decision of MERS acting as nominee:
_________________________
Plaintiff submitted no other documents which purport to authorize MERS to assign or otherwise convey the right of the mortgagor to assign the mortgage to another party.
A party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence, Lippincot v. East River Mill & Lumber Co., 79 Misc. 559, 141 NYS 220 (1913), and “[t]he declarations of an alleged agent may not be shown for the purpose of proving the fact of agency”. Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v. Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25, 504 NYS2d 192 (2nd Dept 1986). See also Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc., 108 AD2d 218, 488 NYS2d 744 (2nd Dept 1985), Moore v. Leaseway Transp. Corp., 65 AD2d 697, 409 NYS2d 746 (1st Dept 1978). “The acts of a person assuming to be the resentative of another are not competent to prove the agency in the absence of evidence tending to show the principal’s knowledge of such acts or assent to them”. (2 NY Jur
2d, Agency and Independent Contractors, 26).
Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that the original lender, the mortgagee America’s Wholesale Lender, authorized MERS to assign the secured debt to Plaintiff.
Thus, Plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case that it is entitled to foreclose on the mortgage in question.WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for an Order appointing referee to compute amounts due to the Plaintiff is denied with leave to renew upon proof of authority.
This shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.
___________________________
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Signatures of Scott Anderson and Leticia Arias
Within three weeks I will have the legal and official signature of Scott Anderson. We will then be able to compare it with all the perjured signatures done in his name.
Has anyone investigated Scott Anderson and see how well financially he is doing with others signing his name and he is not squealing?
_________________________
Has anyone investigated Scott Anderson and see how well financially he is doing with others signing his name and he is not squealing?
_________________________
Monday, September 6, 2010
Where Is Christopher Ledezma
In 2007 Chris was the shipping manager for mortgages with either Bravo Credit or Encore Credit in Irvine, California. If anyone knows where he is, can you have him to email litgant@gmail.com?
I have some questions he may be able to answer.
Lit Gant
Hillsborough County, Florida
I have some questions he may be able to answer.
Lit Gant
Hillsborough County, Florida
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)