We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2025. All rights reserved.
Deadly Clear 
U do know that this was overruled on appeal and is not good law. No?
I believe it was overruled on other counts. What I found interesting in Agard is that the judge noted that the loans had been sold to non-members of MERS. taking that one step further we now know that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. did not have members nor does it own and operate the eRegistry. It is a separate and distinct shell corporation from MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. who is the real culprit that continues to blur the identities of the entities.
Note that decision is almost 3 years old (Feb. 10, 2011) & if you go to MERS’ website you’ll see them bragging on all the cases they’ve won, so MERS most assuredly is not “dead”.
I work on mortgage cases all the time & certainly use the points raised in the Agard decision as they are valid, but courts in different parts of the country & even different counties in the same State see things differently. And a major problem is that most attorneys & judges do not understand the complex “securitization” scheme & that the “traditional” mortgage idea has been turned upside-down. For example, in North Carolina, attorneys “assign” the deed of trust (“mortgage” in other States) & argue that the note (which has often not been endorsed to anyone) follows the deed of trust when we know it’s the other way around — the U.S. supreme court set that precedent over 140 years ago (Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) (“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”) & the Agard decision cites that case.
And way too many times lawyers get away with the argument that the “assignment of deed of trust” is enough, even though the NC court of appeals has already ruled that only the “holder” of the note can foreclose. See, e.g., In re Adams, 693 S.E.2d 705 (N.C.App. 2010), and In re Simpson, 711 S.E.2d 165 (N.C.App. 2011) (“(in order for the foreclosure to proceed, the clerk of court must find, inter alia, the existence of a ‘valid debt of which the party seeking to foreclose is the holder’, and a ‘right to foreclose under the instrument’ securing the debt. Establishing that a party is the holder of the note is essential
to protect the debtor from the threat of multiple judgments on the
same note.”)
So while the Agard decision is an important one, it didn’t put MERS out of business. But it is a good decision to know regardless of what State you’re in because the “Pooling & Servicing Agreement” for all of the “mortgage-backed security trusts” I’ve seen are founded on & controlled by New York (State) trust law, so regardless of what State the property / mortgage is in, if the mortgage is in an MBS, New York law probably applies to the PSA. Attorneys & judges have a hard time understanding that though — some do, the vast majority do not. So it’s up to you to make them understand!
A ten-year moratorium on foreclosures in Massachusetts is necessary to clean up the paperwork and the electronic transmissions and create the necessary new laws so ALL homeowners can have the legal and equitable title to their homes properly documented. We should ALL have a clear title or clear chain of title to our homes!
Petition Background:
I am petitioning the 188th Court of the Commonwealth with House Bill 938 through the Joint Committee on Financial Services headed by Senate Chair Anthony Petruccelli and House Chair Michael A. Costello, to consider a ten-year moratorium on foreclosures because of the illegal deceptive contract at the closing and the subsequent title clouding continued through securitization of the alleged legal loan and the MERS foreclosure scheme placed upon the unsuspecting homeowners and the courts. My intention is bring honesty to our private, secretive, non-transparent, debt-based, monopolistic monetary system. I intend to bring awareness to the legislators and general public of the deception that bankers and their lawyers and MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registry System) have perpetrated on homeowners. I will do this by showing how the initial standardized adhesion mortgage contract, created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at the closing is an illegal contract. These contracts were:
• not a meeting of the minds, ( the borrower had no idea they were creating the “NEW” money in our monetary system)
• had no consideration, (A loan was given, but no money was given to the homeowner, in fact the bank stole their money),
• was not signed by both parties, ( only the borrower signed)
• is an impossible to fulfill contract, (mathematically, if there was only one contract it would be an impossible contract to fulfill. How can a loan of $1,000 plus interest be paid if there is no money created to pay the interest?)
• and had inserted illegal clauses that caused the homeowners to give up rights that they possibly could not understand nor be totally aware of. (It is well established law that a party cannot contract away the protection that a statue is intended to protect.)
All this makes the contract void, not voidable, and that further deception was perpetrated on our courts through the illegal foreclosing on unsuspecting and financially ill-equipped to fight, homeowners, especially through the MERS scheme.
Basically, I am looking to level the playing field for the Citizens of Massachusetts to stay in their homes for at least ten years without the worry of being foreclosed upon because of the mathematical impossibility of ALL the homeowners ever paying ALL of the contracts. This usurious, debt-based monetary system is what has perpetrated the previously foreclosed upon homeowners and will affect the ability of the current and future homeowners to pay in the future. And I will be seeking reimbursement for the homeowners that can be found that were foreclosed upon illegally because the money made off of these homeowners that went directly offshore to the Cayman Islands and NOT to the third party beneficiary, the homeowner! All homeowners deserve to have the money made off of their money!