Tue, 21 Feb 2012, 10:39am PST
Like Dislike Comment 2
When the banksters listed MERS as the beneficial owner on county legal mortgage creation documents, they failed to create a legal mortgage, thus, they created only an unsecured loan instead.
This is because, as courts have ruled, MERS is not a party with sufficient standing to claim ownership, as the filed documents professed. MERS lent no money or other thing of value, nor did it claim to own any of the properties it handled because it was only a listing service. A listing service is not a proper owner or transferee for the purposes of transferring title or other powers.
But, the flawed paperwork was then packaged, “sliced, diced” and repackaged into securities, and sold to investors. Those investors were told that their investments were secured by ownership rights in properties. But those rights were never secured, because they were never filed for by a party with standing to do so. Thus analysts who claimed to rate these securities were remiss in not discovering this failure, taking only the word of the issuers for the veracity of the paper.
If you are living “under a bridge” because of a foreclosure, you need to go to your county recorder to see if MERS ever claimed to own your property. If so, you very likely have a case, which may very well include your pain and suffering. Be sure to consult an attorney.
The Glass–Steagall Act prevented banks from owning exchanges. Banks had long sought to trade debt-as-securities on the existing exchanges, but these exchanges said NO! They did not believe such securities were worthy of investment grades.
When the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed, however, banks no longer needed the help of existing exchanges, since now they could buy and own exchanges of their own.
Then, with a wholly owned exchange to trade whatever securities they could create, they no longer had to carry mortgages to term. Instead they could simply write, write, write, mortgages, and replenish their capital by selling the mortgage off to investors. Thus, the more mortgages they wrote, the more products they had to sell, to investors who proved enthusiastic about owning high yield instruments.
The “race to the bottom” had begun. Each bankster needed more product than the next guy, or face takeover. So, to get those mortgages faster than their competitors, they each found ways to move the bar lower than the next guy. The ease of getting a mortgage, thus, caused property values to rise rapidly. Fraudsters moved in with “straw buyers and straw sellers”, to take full advantage of the easy money market. Fraudulent appraisals raised prices even further and more rapidly, while allowing people to buy lower and sell higher ever more quickly. They would get a drug dealer or homeless person a mortgage to buy a property they owned, sometimes with a front man in place, and then walk away with all of the money, having control of both sides of the transaction.
Honest people paid higher market prices because of all this activity. But, when it was discovered that there was fraud in the market place, the investors pulled back from those exchanges, depriving the banks of the money they needed to write more mortgages. Because of the fast and furious nature of the market, the banks could not quantify the fraud, so everything suffered as new capital could not be raised. Sales declined and property values fell. People were stuck with “low entry” mortgages with “high back ends”, that they could not refinance their way out of. The property values they had believed they could depend upon to save them, failed.
Then it began to come to light, that the mortgages written in haste, were not properly filed, so the rights that were supposed to have been legally in force, weren’t. County clerks documents claimed that MERS was the owner of properties, but MERS had not made a single loan, put up no money, nor was a party with standing to own any of the properties listed in it’s name. Thus there was, in reality, no legal mortgage on those properties. They were all unsecured loans, despite what investors had been told. Because the rights of ownership had been misrepresented in the filing documents.
There’s no way to cut off the “back tracing” of these flaws and frauds, because to do so would challenge the nations most basic real estate laws. So, unless and until some solution is found, we descend.