New York Law Journal-
MERS and several banks who were sued by New York’s attorney general for allegedly initiating faulty foreclosure actions have struck back in the high-profile litigation by strongly defending their practices and discounting the office’s assertions as factually and legally deficient.
In February, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued MERS—Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems—and several major banks and mortgage servicers, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. The action contended the defendants’ use of the MERS system resulted “in the filing of improper New York foreclosure proceedings, undermined the integrity of the judicial process, created confusion and uncertainty concerning property ownership interests, and potentially created clouds of title on properties” across the state (NYLJ, Feb. 6).
[ipaper docId=91125534 access_key=key-be6todqqxo041gsxzy7 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Okay – you all need to read this and learn – to know how the enemy thinks is to stay ahead – read this motion to dismiss and you’ll find answers to your cases . . . thanks “D” for posting this!!
I have a question..
If the MERS system is a private business record why is it set-up and interfering with the business of the clerk’s office?
Article 75
ACTION By PEOPLE FOR USURPATION OF OFFICE, FRANCHISE OR CORPORATE RIGHT
§ 1217. Action by attorney-general for unlawful exercise of corporate rights. The attorney-general may maintain an action upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person.
1. Against one or more persons who act as a corporation withing the state without being duly incorporated; or exercises within the state any corporate rights, privileges or franchises not granted to them by the law of the state.
2…; or which within the state has violated any provision of law, or , contrary to law, has done or omitted any act or has exercised a privilege or franchise not conferred upon it by the law of this state, where, in a similar case, a domestic corporation in accordance with section one hundred and thirty-one of the general corporation law, would be liable to an action to vacate its charter and to annul its existence; or which exercises within the state any corporate rights , privileges or franchises in a manner contrary to the public policy of the state.