Categorized | MERS



Just to be clear SFF will post any correspondence from within those we mention on this blog and use it as a plat form to communicate. 

Everyone is watching this site.

If you do comment please do so in a pleasant manner.



MERS submitted the following to Salt Lake Tribune Letter to the Editor. We have not yet learned whether they will publish it.


“The Tribune’s April 24 article on MERS was filled with errors and missing facts—facts that we had provided to the writer before the article was published.
Contrary to the article’s assertion, MERS does not remove land ownership information from public records because that information was never there to begin with. MERS fills an information void that the county records have never provided. We track the changes in servicing rights and note ownership, and we have helped numerous homeowners find their note owner. In fact, homeowners can contact their mortgage company through MERS and MERS can connect them with the note owner of their mortgage loan when the owner has agreed to be disclosed.
The borrower makes MERS the mortgagee with 100% transparency because they sign a document at closing acknowledging that MERS is the mortgagee. MERS also has a rule requiring that the note be presented at foreclosure.
Finally, the author failed to disclose that the article’s chief MERS critic, Christopher Peterson, is currently employed as a witness against MERS in a pending legal matter. This article provided a disservice to Tribune readers and they deserve better.”
Related Story:




This post was written by:

- who has written 9287 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

No Responses to “MERS CONTACTED”

  1. dcbreidenbach says:

    “MERS also has a rule requiring that the note be presented at foreclosure.”

    Well this is news! And if some outfit doesnt then what——–30 lashes with a wet noodle!

    Id like an original of this for use in another case–where MERS is in the chain but no note was offered—-

    It seems like this self serving document is designed to insulate MERS from the litigation as a co-conspirator, where they try to blow by the negotiable instruments with other documents

    MERS cannot serve as a clearing house for negotiable instruments-the custodians of the trusts are supposed to be the repository-so if a note was sold out by the custodian ——if MERS reports as belonging to another -we have those instances where there are 2 claimants -this letter is evidence that MERS is contributing to chaos by attempting to replace UCC


Leave a Reply



Please Support Me!

Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments