HAWAII SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION S.C.R. NO. 39 – NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT ANDTESTIMONYBEFORE MARCH 13, 2012 at 10:15 A.M.
Deadly Clear-
In an effort to get the Hawaii Attorney General’s focus on the fraudulent documents filed in the Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, the Hawaii Senate drafted a Concurrent Resolution in cooperation with the House Representatives:
Could this deposition hold the key to take all of MERS V3 & MERSCORP down!
There is not 1, 2 but 3 MERS, Inc. in the past.
Just like MERS et al signing documents dated years later from existence the Corporate employees do the same to their own corporate resolutions! Exists in 1998 and certifies it in 2002.
If this is not proof of a Ponzi Scheme then I don’t know what is… They hide the truth in many layers but as we keep pulling and peeling each layer back eventually we will come to the truth!
MERS et al has absolutely no supervision of what is being done by it’s non-members certifying authority PERIOD!
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION – ATLANTIC COUNTY
DOCKET NO. F-10209-08
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Defendant(s).
___________________________________________
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Counter claimants and
Third Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Defendants on the Counterclaim,
and
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
MORGAN FUNDING CORPORATION,
ROBERT CHILDERS; COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP,
PHELAN, HALLINAN & SCHMIEG,
P.C.,
Third Party Defendants
——————–
Deposition of William C. Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERSCORP
Does MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.
Q To your knowledge has Mr. Hallinan ever
reported to the Board?
A He would have reported through me if there was
something to report.
Q So if I understand your answer, at least the
MERS officers reflected on Hultman Exhibit 4, if they
had something to report would report to you even though
you’re not an employee of MERS, is that correct?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.
etc…
How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A There are no employees of MERS.
What could be more embarrassing for the already floundering banks than the fact that their foreclosure, loan modification and short sale systems are a complete mess?
Well, a recent court decision in a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit in Pasco County, FL, revealed the banks, besides being disorganized, are apparently not above stooping to commit fraud in order to file foreclosure actions against homeowners. You can view the Court’s order by clicking here.
Many homeowners probably don’t know the bank has to prove it has standing to bring a foreclosure action. Standing is the constitutional right for a party to appear to bring a case in court. Without standing, a party has no right to be in court. But in reality, the bank must prove that they in fact own and hold both the mortgage and promissory note, and thus have the right to foreclose.
This becomes a problem for banks because they are so disorganized that the documents are often lost or misplaced. An even bigger problem occurs when the original mortgage lenders sell the mortgages and notes and convert them into a securitized trust. When these mortgages are assigned to another bank or a securitized trust, the assignment of mortgage must be executed and notarized. Within these assignments, foreclosure defense attorneys are finding all kinds of problems that are leading to foreclosure cases being thrown out of court.
Fraud in the Court
A problem found in an assignment of mortgage that was recently thrown out by the court was especially astounding. The Plaintiff, U.S. Bank, filed a foreclosure action on December 6, 2007, based on an alleged assignment of mortgage dated as of December 5, 2007.
However, during the course of the litigation, the homeowner’s attorney noticed that the Notary’s commission was dated to expire on May 19, 2012. Pursuant to Florida law, notary stamps are only valid for 4 years. So, the notary that signed the assignment back on December 5, 2007 could not have had a notary stamp that expired in May of 2012.
This fact was confirmed by a sworn affidavit by the Notary Bonding Company’s representative, confirming that this Notary’s stamp was not issued until April 2008, five months after the purported date of assignment on the mortgage.
Based on this evidence, the judge found that the assignment was “fraudulently backdated in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the defendant and this court.”
On these grounds, the Judge found the defendant homeowner was the prevailing party because the Plaintiff lacked standing to file the lawsuit on December 6, 2007, and granted the Defendant’ attorney’s fees as well.
Defending is Better than Default
This news brings hope to many homeowners and shows defending the foreclosure action is better than doing nothing at all. Additionally this teaches us we should never accept anything on its face and scrutinize every document produced by the banks to support their foreclosure complaint.
An argument can be made that Judges should be examining the authenticity of the documents produced by the Plaintiff before entering default and granting summary judgment against homeowners. However, in all likelihood, mistakes such as these are slipping through the cracks with the unprecedented number of foreclosure actions each judge has on their docket.
Thus, these kinds of problems truly exemplify why it is in every homeowner’s best interest to defend their foreclosure and not assume the court system will automatically protect their interests.
What could be more embarrassing for the already floundering banks than the fact that their foreclosure, loan modification and short sale systems are a complete mess?
Recent Comments