EXCERPT:
Q. But, for example, looking at this assignment,
document, isn’t the signer, Bethany Hood, attesting to
the fact that MERS wants to assign the Deed of Trust to Indymac Federal Bank?
MR. SPOONMORE: That’s a
mischaracterization, I object. Bethany Hood isn’t
representing; MERS is representing. That’s a gross
misinterpretation of the document.
MS. HUELSMAN: No. Ms. Hood is signing on
behalf of MERS; therefore, she is making an affirmation
on behalf of MERS.
MR. SPOONMORE: MERS is making the
affirmation.
MS. HUELSMAN: She’s making it on their
behalf.
MR. SPOONMORE: Yeah, as MERS is the one
making the affirmation.
Q. So could you please answer the question,
Mr. Allen?
A. MERS is making the reaffirmation.
Q. Mr. Allen, you’re not allowed to parrot
your attorney’s response. Please-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: He’s-
MS. HUELSMAN: –answer–
MR. SPOONMORE: –answered your–
MS. HUELSMAN: –the question.
Are you coaching him, Mr. Spoonmore?
MR. SPOONMORE: No. I’m saying the
premise of your question-
MS. HUELSMAN: well-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: –is–
MS. HUELSMAN: –a speaking–
MR. SPOONEMOORE:–misleading–
MS. HUELSMAN:Â –objection is providing
your client with an answer –your client with an
answer to a question, and that’s improper.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Well, and a misleading
legal premise to your question is clearly
objectionable, because this client is not an attorney.
When you represent Mr. Hood is representing, that is
a gross legal mischarachterization of this document. I’m
allowed to correct that.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, I disagree. When
people sign documents in their capacity as alleged
officers of the company, they are, in fact, making a
representation.
If MERS can figure out how, as a corporation,
which doesn’t exist except on paper, it can can sign
documents itself, then, in fact, it can say it’s
doing so without the assistance of a person.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Legally it is MERS making the representation. People are authorized to sign on behalf of MERS. That doesn’t make them making the representation; it makes MERS making the representation.
Q. Okay. So when did MERS tell Ms. Hood that
this is what it wanted to do?
A. I would think within the –when granting the
signing authority.
Q. No. When did MERS specifically say to
Bethany Hood, We want to assign our interest in the
Deed of Trust referenced herein to IndyMac Federal
Bank? When did that occur?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Counsel knows very well
that MERS can operate through counsel, which is their
agent. Again, you’re asking misleading questions of
this witness, and you know it. You know that MERS’s
counsel made this request, and that an agent of MERS.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, then, you can explain
to Regional Trustee why they they violated their duty to-
to the Deed of trust doc by acting on behalf and as an
agent for somebody when they’re suppose to be acting
as a neutral in conjunction with a foreclosure sale.
Is that your representation, Counsel?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: That’s not us. You can
go after who ever you want, but as far as what we’re
doing, you’re way off base here.
Q. When did MERS give instruction to Bethany
Hood to assign this Deed of Trust? Whether it came
through Regional Trustee or Santa Clause, I don’t care.
When did MERS give this instruction to Ms. Hood?
Continue reading below…
[ipaper docId=45566348 access_key=key-8tg8q7bgg0l1way58dj height=600 width=600 /]
When a person signs a document of this type, or on behalf of a corporation, that person, attests under penalty of perjury, that they are signing, the document to be correct, so there for, The person, did sign, for herself, not as the corporation.
And if they didn’t know this, then the heads of the corporation, the fiction, should be dissolved, and the person’s that signed the papers for these unlawful fictions and their Attorney’s should spend time in the prison systems while learning the right way of doing things.
Just because they went to a school of higher, education, doesn’t mean they are smart people, just that they have means, and someone that can bail them out when their in trouble.
by:Melissa Seaver
landrightsnfarming
either i watch to much tv or i thought when you go to court you sware to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god. if you lie under oath it is purgery and you go to jail.. why does that only pertain to us who own the homes but the banks get away with purgery. this is atrosity what is happening to the american people. IF i whom has a wells fargo loan and live in a place called weeki wachee florida can find my 2006 mortgage paper work and find appraisal fraud then we are all in big trouble and will not be able to get out of this our selves. i have 50k invested in my 260k home now appraised for 126k.
my 2006 appraisal that wells fargo never looke at:
1. comp 1: on market for 51 days at 225k sold for245. another 19k added to match ammenities of my home (pool 10k, sq ft, extra Bedroom ect)
2. comp 2. bought in in march 2005 for 230k, sold in oct 2005 280k that is an increase of 10k per month.
3. comp 3. and comp 4 both 280s sold in 3-10 days no history on appraisal of the last sale of these homes.
4. my home was a double dipp. builder/husband of realestate agent who took a construction loan and lot loan with co worker for 160k and 40kin 2005 home never lived in finished 2/2006 sod for 260k
big profit for a home never lived in . this is house flipping gone wild. someone needs to step in and help us
“When a person signs a document of this type, or on behalf of a corporation, that person, attests under penalty of perjury, that they are signing, the document to be correct, so there for, The person, did sign, for herself, not as the corporation.”
Even if we take this argument to be true (which it’s not), the commenter misses the fact that assignments are not attesting documents. Therefore (not “there for”), the signer is not liable for perjury because these assignments are not statemetns made to the court.