MERS TORN APART BY GEORGE BABCOCK IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

[AXJ USA]

MERS TORN APART BY GEORGE BABCOCK IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Attorney George Babcock rips into MERS (http://www.facebook.com/george.babcock.14 )

MERS BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER BY THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, PROVIDENCE, RI?

http://axj.com/axjforum/index.php?topic=154.msg162#msg162

Apparently things are looking very bleak for MERS as 60 to 80mm titles will be affected in the USA if the Supreme Court of Rhode Island does its job correctly and outlaws MERS altogether and presses criminal charges for a whole array of criminal activities such as misrepresentation, fraud, Ponzi, Rico schemes, etc. It would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the intent to defraud millions of American Homeowners of the accuracy of the land evidence records. We quote: "Allowing MERS to confer upon itself the status of mortgagee undermines the accuracy of the land evidence records, which in turn both delays foreclosure proceedings and impedes the City's ability to safeguard the basic health, safety, and welfare of it's citizens with proactive enforcement of health, safety, and welfare of it's citizens with proactive enforcement of health and safety codes. Accordingly, the City of Providence moves to submit the attached brief as an interested party and friend of the Court to underscore why MERS is not and cannot be a mortgagee and to highlight the extent and danger of the term's misuse."

City of Providence Amicus Curiae - MERS - "Intentional Misrepresentation"

Amicus Curiae submitted by the City of Providence (Bucci vs. Lehman Brothers et al)

Bucci vs Lehman Brothers Bank et al 3-7-2013 by chunga85

You have to read the whole thing folks but here are several excerpts from the brief.

    "The City of Providence is an interested party because MERS's intentional misrepresentation as a mortgagee and the Superior Court's erroneous decision to allow the perpetuation of this misrepresentation is harming the City."

    "Allowing MERS to confer upon itself the status of mortgagee undermines the accuracy of the land evidence records, which in turn both delays foreclosure proceedings and impedes the City's ability to safeguard the basic health, safety, and welfare of it's citizens with proactive enforcement of health, safety, and welfare of it's citizens with proactive enforcement of health and safety codes. Accordingly, the City of Providence moves to submit the attached brief as an interested party and friend of the Court to underscore why MERS is not and cannot be a mortgagee and to highlight the extent and danger of the term's misuse."

It's important to note that the Rhode Island Superior Court has been hanging it's proverbial hat on it's original *erroneous* ruling in the Bucci case for a very long time.

Also in Rhode Island we have banker Merrill W. Sherman running around masquerading as a quasi-judge in Federal Court making excuses for her foreclosure fraud pals.

I hope one of her deputy assistants can manage to read this to her.

This is indeed a bad turn of events for the Black Hat Bankers in the State of Rhode Island.

Source: http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/city-of-providence-...

DISTRICT JUDGE RULES ON PROOF OF NOTE OWNER AND MERS PRIOR TO FORECLOSURE

http://axj.com/axjforum/index.php?topic=156.msg166#msg166

The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Court Judge

John Knecht, et al v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

March 11, 2013

JOHN KNECHT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

"Show me the note" defense resurrected in Washington as federal judge rules DTA requires proof of note owner...."

Defendants complain that courts across the country, including federal courts in Washington, have rejected "show-me-the-note" arguments like Mr. Knecht's.

In the wake of Bain, this court suggests that it is time to retire the reductive "show-me-the-note" meme, at least in cases arising under Washington law.

In Washington, proof that the beneficiary holds the note secured by a deed of trust is a statutory requisite to a trustee's sale. RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a). Bain similarly highlights the need to demonstrate that the beneficiary holds the note. 285 P.3d at 39 (citing RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a)), at 47-48 ("If the original lender had sold the loan, [it] would need to establish ownership of that loan, either by demonstrating that it actually held the promissory note or by documenting the chain of transactions.").

Prior to Bain, many courts (including many in this District) believed that documents MERS executed purporting to assign interests in deeds of trusts or notes were sufficient proof. Since Bain, that conclusion is questionable, at best. To be sure, there is no requirement that a beneficiary or trustee "show the borrower the note." Instead, a trustee must "have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust." RCW § 61.24.030(7)(a).

Although there are probably many ways to satisfy the statute's proof requirement, the statute itself establishes one way. Id. ("A declaration by the beneficiary made under penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note . . . shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.").

There is no evidence that Fidelity had a declaration that complied with the statute before it recorded notice of any trustee's sale. More to the point, on a motion to dismiss, the court does not consider evidence. It considers the allegations of the complaint and documents subject to judicial notice.

The only "proof" described in the complaint is the Assignment, which transfers MERS's nonexistent interest in the Knecht deed of trust and note to DB. In light of the problematic Assignment, Mr. Knecht's complaint plausibly alleges that Fidelity lacked proof that DB holds the Knecht note. It thus plausibly alleges that Fidelity had no statutory authority to conduct a trustee's sale.

Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130311...