ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion – A MUST READ!

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Deadly Clear

Yesterday was spent reading a brilliant new ebook ShellGame-MERS: Contrived Confusion by retired attorney/CPA Robert Janes. Not enough can be said about this powerful paper that accurately outlines the errors of the foreclosure machine. IT IS A “MUST READ”!

Robert Janes has previously written a book called “Fighting The Foreclosure Machine” and has a website with the same name, with great newsletters contained therein. It is all about the UCC and the material is in regard to making the banks prove who can enforce the Note.

This is fabulous information and used in a lot of Quiet Title actions and Oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgments. Judges are starting to listen to these arguments which is to put a stop to the fabrication of documents and fraud stemming from the “foreclosure machine.” Continue reading →

MERS – TOO MANY DEAD DUCKS

Posted on April 27, 2013 by Deadly Clear

While fishing for bank-related patents this gem surfaced and jumped into the net. At first it wasn’t apparent it was a keeper because the UETA issue has not been in the forefront of foreclosure defense. However, taking the time to dissect the document it became apparent that, as some of us have suspected, there is a mandatory methodology from the origination of the mortgage loan on a trip to the securitized trust that includes the EXPLICIT CONSENT of the obligor (homeowner).

Yup… It appears the road to securitization needs an electronic record that the “issuer” aka the “obligor” has explicitly consented to at the time of origination. Yeah, ya think maybe that was the real intention of MERS aka Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.? But it looks like it didn’t have all its ducks in a row. This is a lot to digest – but you need to know and understand this information in order to plead your case correctly before the courts. Continue reading →

JPMorgan Chase Beaten by Beaton, Pro Se! Hallelujah!

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Deadly Clear

Pro Se Plaintiff Deborah Beaton filed a Complaint against JPMorgan Chase wherein Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) joined in a Motion to Dismiss with Chase. In her Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Beaton alleges three causes of action:

(1) Violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against NWTS,
(2) Incomplete Indorsement/Chain of Title, and
(3) violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”).

USDC Honorable Richard A. Jones gave Beaton her causes of action (1) and (2) against the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss… and the beat goes on! Continue reading →

Bloomberg Terminal Iceberg – Tortious Interference?

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Deadly Clear

Who Forced BLOOMBERG TERMINAL To Shut Down ALL Audit Service Providers? Can You Say Tortious Interference?

A couple of weeks ago forensic auditors and attorneys ran into the Bloomberg Terminal iceberg when Bloomberg Terminal (a securities stock searching software program) locked them out of the loan finding program [LFND]). Without warning Bloomberg Terminal shutdown access to the loan searching program that had been used by numerous companies to research securitized trusts and the loans within in them. It appears too many loans had been found in trusts when the servicers were claiming ownership. What better way to stop the truth than to try to sink the ship?

Continue reading →

THE 3 STOOGES OF MERS – DISORDER IN THE COURT

Posted on February 16, 2013 by Deadly Clear

A landmark decision was made this week in Culhane v. Aurora in the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit without a complete set of facts set out before what appears to be its clueless judges.

The case decision, an APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS was to some degree based on the merits of standing answering the question: “Whether a mortgagor has standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage — an assignment to which she is not a party and of which she is not a third-party beneficiary — is a matter of first impression for this court.” Continue reading →

Computerized Robo-Signing: Is Green Tree Servicing Taking Robo-Fraud to a Whole New Level?

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Deadly Clear

Never let it be said that where there is big money invested, there won’t be crooks in the kitchen. It doesn’t matter how big you are there’s always a short cut that can that can potentially create more wealth – if you don’t get caught.

An investigator in the northwest uncovered just such a scam – so big that authorities claim it needs multi-state attention. It appears Green Tree Servicing has been flying under the radar and was hardly noticed until a recordation research team began uncovering similarly signed documents – yup, the old robo-signed Assignment of Mortgage trickery again… but this time new and improved via computer, maybe for speed and precision, ya think?

It appears the signatures are in the computer – no dummies needed to sign – just fill in the Continue reading →

Another Bandit Bernanke Multi-Billion $$$ Bank Bailout Blunder

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Deadly Clear

The National Memo – Markets Surge As Federal Reserve Offers New Stimulus

Oh Pleeese, who does Ben Bernanke think he is kidding?! Congress has the ability to say, “Don’t buy bad debt.”

The stock market surged today because the Federal Reserve announced it was going to take $40 Billion of our tax dollars per month “until further notice” and buy inflated, defective, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities (MBS) indefinitely from the banksters.

Does that really make any sense? Continue reading →

“MERS is not a “holder” under the plain language of the statute,” says the Supreme Court of the State of Washington

Posted on August 16, 2012 by Deadly Clear

Finally, the Rule of Law is followed by the brilliant masters of the Washington state Supreme Court system. Yea! This ruling affects over 67 million MERS mortgages – whether in foreclosure or not. As good as it is – there are still more facts that need to be adequately plead and addressed by the Court(s).

The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously today in Bain (Kristin), et al. v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., et al., No. 86206-1 defining the statutes to determine that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. – the mortgage industry’s controversial document-recording system) was not entitled to be a beneficiary in Deed of Trusts and Continue reading →

DOERS ALERT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL USES FRAUD AND DECEIT TO EVICT A HAWAII FAMILY – WHILE MAUI, HAWAII COURTS FAIL TO ACT

Posted on May 11, 2012 by Deadly Clear

Joe and Grace Barroga have been fighting foreclosure and a fraudulent assignment of mortgage since last year when they discovered a fraudulent, robo-signed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. assignment of mortgage made in 2009 by U.S. Bank National as Trustee for RFMSI Series 2006-SA4 Trust – a GMAC securitized loan trust. The Barrogas, like millions of other “responsible” homeowners, fell prey to for the defective Obama HAMP program that allowed banks to default good homeowners that asked for a modification. They are scheduled for eviction on Monday, May 14th.

Pursuant to the Trust controlling documents, Continue reading →

MERS vs. MERScorp – Looks Like They are One-in-the-Same

Posted on October 11, 2011 by Deadly Clear

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.]