|
Landmark Decision Promises Massive Relief For Homeowners And Trouble For Banks By Ellen Brown September
22, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- - A landmark
ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to
avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas
Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is
an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks
changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose – on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American
mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with
MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are
dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound. Eliminating the "Straw Man" Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability The development of "electronic" mortgages managed by MERS went hand
in hand with the "securitization" of mortgage loans – chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors.
In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle
them into "financial products" called "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), ostensibly insure them
against default by wrapping them in derivatives called "credit default swaps," and sell them to pension funds, municipal
funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS
supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and
it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed
securities, but it has served as a sort of "corporate shield" that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning
predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this: "[MERS] has reduced transparency in the
mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn
the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS,
repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its
own name – even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for
or equipped to provide responses to consumers’ discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses.
In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory
origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer’s home. . . . So imposing is this opaque
corporate wall, that in a "vast" number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing
the original note – the legal sine qua non of foreclosure – much less documentation that could support predatory
lending defenses." The real parties
in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose.
The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS’ relationship "is more akin to that
of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer." The court
opined: "By statute, assignment
of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. . . . Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates
interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become
unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note
is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the
deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks
the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because
only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage
loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust."
[Citations omitted; emphasis added.] MERS
as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender
lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a "security."
The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in
the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot
satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract
proving he is entitled to relief. The
Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages The
banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could
not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file "lost-note affidavits"
with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal
judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its
right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with
similar rulings.Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San
Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against
the banks. Olender wrote: "The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities,
many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value –
right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage
rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at
face value if there was fraud in the origination process. ". . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face
value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available
at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest
U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded
bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . . "What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy
it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back." Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials
went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed
through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as
CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty
to Goldmans’ massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, a principal beneficiary
of the AIG
bailout.In a December 2007 New York Times article titled "The Long and Short of It at Goldman
Sachs," Ben Stein wrote:
"For decades now, . . . I have been receiving letters
[warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world . . . . [T]he closest I have recently seen to such
a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high
advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator." The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them.
But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they
need to exert some serious leverage on Congress – serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the
powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall. Ellen
Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest
book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private
cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier
books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from "the money trust." Her eleven books include
Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored
with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com .
News Release June 6, 2008 (emailed to Sovereign Trust members)The attached AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF DEBT comes by way of Public Notice that has now matured, total recorded
debt owed by the CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE (CIBC) to Sovereign Trust is now more than $1.5 Billion USD. This Public
Notice is designed to inform the people of the truth and to apprise all government regulatory authorities that CIBC continues
to hide the truth from the world. CIBC has failed to publish the truth about the $1.5 Billion USD lien that had been recorded
in several united States. CIBC is in deep trouble; recently, the criminal corporation agreed to an out of court settlement
in the Supreme Court of the United States to pay ENRON victims approximately $3 Billion USD. They were also engaged in many
shady deals like the recently published sub-prime mortgage scandal that took another $1.4 Billion CDN hit against their empty
treasury. This corporation
is totally insolvent, they only exist because the Canadian judiciary a mere facade for the CANADIAN (CRIMINAL) IMPERIAL (meaning
they are owned by the emperors - the banksters) BANK OF COMMERCE gives this criminal organization the license to commit crimes
in public - in open court. This
Public Notice is also designed to tighten the screws that are now jammed tightly against this criminal corporation. They must
not be allowed to continue malicious prosecution of Sovereign Trust members by CIBC such as the ones carried out and still
being conducted by their criminal lawyers, Barbara K.H. Damm of Toronto and George H. Richard of Surrey, B.C.; both of these
lawyers are recorded as Judgment Debtors in the official Public Notice. These individuals are jointly and severally responsible
for causing this massive debt against themselves and CIBC for their open and blatant demonstration of lawlessness and total
regard for honesty, integrity and morality of the individuals or "persons" who hide behind their BAR licenses that
gave them open permission to destroy the lives of many people, mostly "Canadians" just so they can collect through
false claims and false judgments backed by no evidence other than badly smudged, barely readable documents that have been
photocopied multiple times and which source cannot be identified. The individuals named in the Amended Certificate of Debt, especially the lawyers named herein are all guilty
of multiple counts of fraud against all Sovereign Trust members who were maliciously prosecuted with the open participation
and complicity of various judges who signed various default judgments against our members in their Kangaroo Courts without
demanding any valid or verifiable evidence from CIBC and its lawyers. These Kangaroo Court Proceedings are all recorded and
transcripts are available to all who would like to search out the real truth for themselves. These public records are recorded
evidence of all the fraudulent and corrupt activities being done within our so-called justice system (more accurately –
the injustice system).This is
not a standoff, nor a stalemate, Sovereign Trust is winning, well-capitalized by the now Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)
now in a safe-keeping account held by Sovereign Trust. Sovereign Trust is also backed by $500 Million USD note drawn against
the U.S. Treasury. Sovereign Trust now has enough capital to buy out a whole bunch of shares and practically take over CIBC
for good. Although this may sound very tempting, Sovereign Trust is not interested in investing its capital in a criminal,
oppressive and corrupt organization such as CIBC. We would rather invest in our own banks that are outside the jurisdiction
of the criminal mafia that is running CIBC. This bank recently reported a $1.4 Billion CDN loss. Could that loss have anything
to do with the public debt CIBC now owes Sovereign Trust? Or are there more losses CIBC have not reported at all? Why would
anyone buy any of their plummeting shares? The
$5.2 Million USD checks that have been distributed to various Sovereign Trust members and who deposited these checks to various
CIBC accounts held by them will now be replaced by checks from Sovereign Trust's insurance provider, Ponderosa Holdings once
the total amount of checks (estimated to be more than $3.1 Million USD) are accounted for. All Sovereign Trust checks certified
by Sovereign Trust are insured for 10 times the amount of the face value of each check. This insurance settlement will be
distributed to all Sovereign Trust members very soon. Once the checks are received and honored by Ponderosa, the insurance
company will commence court action against CIBC and their lawyers for various fraud, conversion, theft, breach of trust, breach
of fiduciary duties and many more other serious charges against all the Judgment Debtors named herein.Ponderosa will endeavor to create more judgments against CIBC for compensatory and punitive
damages in Canadian and US. Courts. Sovereign Trust will proceed with Notarial Protest against CIBC to obtain its own administrative
judgment on behalf of Sovereign Trust members.We
don’t need their courts, a Public Notice that is based on truth is outside the jurisdiction of their illegal courts
is therefore proof that exposing these criminals to the public is the only way to obtain proper Public Judgments against them.
As the Sovereign said: those who do not have the truth hates the light. CIBC and its band of thieves can no longer hide behind their courts and man-made laws. This Public Notice
is now irrevocable, non-appealable and therefore without recourse. Trusting in the Sovereign,John R. Dempsey Trustee,
Sovereign Trust
Amended Certificate of Debt
|