How many times have you seen opposing counsel argue in a Motion to Dismiss that MERSCORP, Inc. should not be a Defendant in the lawsuit? They allege, for example: “Plaintiffs do not allege that they had any dealings with Defendant MERSCORP, nor that Defendant MERSCORP is a party to or drafted any of the documents relative to their loan, or took any action against them?” Well, folks – MERS and MERSCORP, Inc. are apparently one-in-the-same… it appears to be a “dba” at best…. New evidence, anybody? [Ed. note: I stand corrected referring to the comment below; not even “dba” is adequate. See AMERICA WHOLESALE LENDER v. PAGANO stating,“We conclude that, because a trade name is not an entity with legal capacity to sue, the corporation has no standing to litigate the merits of the case.” Check your state and local case law.]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office documents a MERS “name change” …
Or how do you like this one: “Plaintiffs fail to allege any conduct that would warrant the piercing of the corporate veil.” It appears alleging anything against MERS is the same as MERSCORP, Inc. and that’s where the money is – bases covered!
Pursuant to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, on May 8, 2003 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. changed its name to MERSCORP, Inc. Here is a copy of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office document of the MERS name change: assignment-tm-2731-0198 (1)….suitable for download… “MERS, MERS BoMERS, BoNANA, Fanna, FoMERS, Fe, Fi, Fo MERS – MERSCORP… the name change….”
And here is the MERS Corporation Certificate of Amendment filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office:
And the Certification of Authentication from the State of Delaware:
In my view the above interpretation by Deadly Clear correspondent is incorrect. A Corporation cannot use the name of a “Corporation, Inc.” as a d/b/a. A Corporation cannot do business as another corporation. You can do business as a “trade name” where the public is not misled (at least, in actual practice, not unduly misled). For example, Colgan Airways Inc. can do business as “United Express”, assuming it has a contract with United to do so, of course. You buy a “United” ticket but you are actually flying on some commuter airline operating under contract with United Airlines. Here, the removal of the name “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” and its new name as “MERSCORP, Inc.” means that all those phony “Assignments of Mortgage” and “Substitutions of Trustee” done after January 01, 1999 are indeed phony, as was long suspected. They might as well be signed by “Peter Stuyvesant” for “City of New Amsterdam, Inc.” and dated June 24, 1662.
They do back date do they not!
It appears Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was created 3 times (1995, 1998, 1999). The first two corporations were absorbed by MERSCORP, Inc. in the “name change” and then they created a “straw man” version – same full name was created again on 1/1/1999… now why do you think they would do that and not provide their trademarked name MERS® to appear on the mortgages?
Maybe there was a study that said borrowers might look up a trademark and rescind their mortgage when they found out who and what they were doing business with….
Pingback: 3 MERS for the Price of One! « Livinglies's Weblog
Pingback: 3 MERS for the Price of One!
Pingback: 3 MERS for the Price of One! | Challenge Your Lender
I have a copy of MERS Link Terms and Conditions dated Mar 2003 (V.20) for members expressly showing what MERS(with registration mark) is used for what purposes only. MERS AND MERSCORP is included on this sheet but it’s terms for members are different. Bouncing off Livinglies this a.m. and coming here makes me feel that you might want this pdf that I have. I also have the 2004 (written by MERS) promo with details regarding assignments and a trustee’s guarantee for a foreclosure. I know these are some of the important pieces but I just don’t know whose hands to get them into. Please let me know if you want these. Thank you!
I would dearly love those MERS terms!
MERS vs. MERS®
A fellow by the name of Ken Dost discovered the Trademark. A few of us researched the documents including the USPTO, incorporations and the state records to verify the following:
There were 3 companies all named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. created between 1995-1999 and MERSCORP, Inc. which absorbed 2 of them including the trademark MERS® which was used for the “system”; MERSCORP, Inc. created Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (III) with the acronym MERS (not to be confused with the trademarked MERS®) and this is the strawman entity in the mortgages with no employees or assets; the banks were all members of MERSCORP, Inc. – not Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (III), but the bank employees were actually working for MERSCORP, Inc. under the guise of (III); and that there was no disclosure to the homeowner of MERSCORP, Inc. who appears in the contracts with the homeowner and investors as the MIN# which does not belong to (III) but belongs to MERSCORP, Inc.
There were three (3) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.(s) created = (I), (II), (III).
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (I) originally formed in about 1995,registered a trademark in 1997 and MERS and conveyed a security interest to Nationsbank, N.A. (Bank of America) on or about June 1998; that was followed by the creation of another Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (II) which was also created on or about June 30, 1998 and per the Hultzman Declaration merged with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (I);
Then there was a name change of name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (II) to MERSCORP, Inc. on or about December 1998 which was to become effect as of Jan 1999. See the documents on DeadlyClear https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/mers-vs-merscorp-looks-like-they-are-one-in-the-same/ ;
This means that the MERS® belongs to MERSCORP, Inc. and it became ‘the system’ that was licensed for members’ use.
Shortly after the name change MERSCORP, Inc. created yet another Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (III) (per Hultzman) which is the “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” (strawman) in the mortgage contracts (not MERSCORP, Inc. and the “MERS” reference in the mortgages is just an acronym (not the registered trademark MERS®).
However, MERSCORP, Inc. is in the mortgage contracts but not disclosed to the borrower – the MIN # belongs to MERS® ‘the system’ not the strawman “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” (III).
The Trademark Documents (can be found in the Post https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/complaint-state-of-delaware-v-merscorp-inc-go-go-beau/ it is too large to email) that were used in a lawsuit against a California company help to support the timeline… this scenario wasn’t used by the CA defendant – I think it was so convoluted nobody ever figured it out – it was likely meant to be confusing on purpose.
REGISTRATION NO: 2084831 SERIAL NO: 75/031300 MAILING DATE: 08/29/2007
REGISTRATION DATE: 07/29/1997
REGISTRATION OWNER: MERSCORP, Inc.
Bottom-line is that there were 3 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2 were absorbed by MERSCORP, Inc., and the acronym MERS in the mortgages is the strawman Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (no employees or systems, shell) – not MERSCORP, Inc.’s MERS®.
There are no records of agreements, contracts, licensing, or assignments of license that have been filed in any business records in DE, NY, MI or Virginia or the patent office that I have searched or been able to find so far that link the Strawman to the MERS®.
Pingback: COMPLAINT | STATE OF DELAWARE v. MERSCORP INC. Go Go Beau! | Deadly Clear
Pingback: “MERS is not a “holder” under the plain language of the statute,” says the Supreme Court of the State of Washington | Deadly Clear
Pingback: ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion – A MUST READ! | Deadly Clear
Pingback: TBTF HAS MET ITS WATERLOO | Deadly Clear
Does anyone have any advice they can share to help others obtain their MERS Milestone Reports? MERS is denying people access to their information, and instead directing them to Servicers MERS departments. They too refuse or deny people access to the information, and the QWR’s have been utterly useless. I think it’s an important issue that should be raised in court if they intentionally withhold peoples information. There is no reason for any business to deny people their own information other than having something to hide.