A Florida Solution to the MERS Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis & Fiasco
and why Every Foreclosure of a MERS Mortgage done in Florida deserves to be reversed


The solution to the MERS Mortgage Crisis is right in front of your eyes – but can you see it? Do you have “eyes to see”?

”Ask of Jesus ‘eyes to see’. He has made it clear to me.” Wash off your eyes, because you are about to wonder how you could have been so blind.

The MERS mortgage contract is nothing more than a devil’s illusion, depending on the chief tool the devil has always used to mislead mankind, i.e., suggestion, with dependence on mankind’s tendency to jump to incorrect, invalid assumptions. For you to believe MERS can foreclose or assign in Florida, you have to jump to quick and easy but incorrect and invalid assumptions at many points where words are used to form suggestion(s): suggestions which when examined are found to be erroneous, and void. Let us look at the matter, examine it carefully.

In Florida, in the Dismissal of several cases styled MERS v Cabrera for sham on September 25, 2005 as "MERS is a Sham, says Judge", Judge Jon Gordon of Miami, Florida confirmed several things about MERS in his Hearing styled Order to Show Cause Why Those Cases Ought Not To Be Dismissed for Fraud and therefore he dismissed those cases ... namely Ohio Supreme Court Lets Wells Fargo v. Jordan Stand. Foreclosure Plaintiffs Who Do Not Own the Mortgage at the Time of Filing Lack Standing to Pursue Cases, and LANDMARK DECISION: Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for the Banks, as Kansas Supreme Court Says A Nominee Company Called MERS has No Right or Standing to Bring Actions for Foreclosure.)   Judge Gordon way back in September 2005 confirmed that:

1. MERS, by its own self-definition, does not own or hold notes or mortgages, and is not a vehicle for transferring interests (which means it does not assign, sell, convey, deed, bargain or assign interests), so MERS which does not own mortgages, cannot foreclose, yet (little realized) neither can it assign. The big banks constantly present purported mortgage assignments by MERS, many of them back-dated (though other business executives go to jail for back-dating financial documents), for the big banks are depending on us to believe so generally in “assignment” that we will ignore the reality that MERS cannot own – and it cannot assign what it does not own. MERS only records what is going on with others, while serving as “non-owning” mortgagee.

2. Thus, MERS, as the mortgagee in the MERS mortgage, is a crippled, invalid, impotent mortgagee, since as a non-owner, non-holder, it cannot foreclose, and as “not a vehicle for transferring interests”, it cannot assign.

3. But MERS is still on the MERS mortgage as mortgagee. (This is one place where people’s assumptions come into play: they assume that if one is called mortgagee, then one can foreclose, which is not always true. In Florida one must be the owner and holder of a note and mortgage in order to foreclose. MERS does not, MERS cannot own or hold notes or mortgages, and so it cannot foreclose; neither can it assign, for one may only assign what one owns, and MERS does not own.) No one else on the MERS mortgage is mortgagee. Therefore notwithstanding any lip service in the MERS mortgage alleging that any other party may foreclose, in view of the fact that an entity has to be a mortgagee (have to have a property mortgaged to it, and meet all the other legal tests, in order to foreclose on a property), no one else on the MERS mortgage document may foreclose, because no one else is named mortgagee, or has property mortgaged to it (there is no one but MERS named in the mortgage contract able to foreclose, because no one else is mortgagee). And MERS cannot assign anyone else a mortgage, because MERS does not own any mortgages and/or notes.

4. Mortgages and notes can be assigned, if someone owns them, but MERS does not own notes or mortgages, neither is it a vehicle for transferring interests, so MERS cannot assign what it does not own. The mortgage contract makes MERS, which cannot own notes or mortgages, the mortgagee, but it is a mortgagee which cannot own notes or mortgages.

But a mortgagee, to be able to foreclose a note and mortgage, has to be able to own mortgage and note in order to foreclose (and therein lies a solution even for non-“own & hold” states, for in every state a mortgagee has to at least “own” the mortgage in order to foreclose on it, and MERS, by definition, though made mortgagee, is defined as “does not own or hold notes or mortgages”).

MERS is thus an invalid and impotent, quite powerless mortgagee – yes, a mortgagee, but an inert mortgagee, a mortgagee which cannot do anything except record data in its own records. MERS cannot foreclose – yet MES is still the only mortgagee named in the MERS mortgage contract.

5. One might say, well, let us say why does not MERS assign its mortgagee status? But mortgagee status is not assigned or assignable: mortgagee “status” comes only by having property mortgaged to you. Only mortgages are assigned (by those who “own” them, but MERS does not own, so it cannot assign. Again, mortgagee “status” is not subject to assignment: it comes by having a property “mortgaged to you”. It is a matter of definition in the law of the mortgage contract. The “mortgagee” is the one to whom a property is mortgaged.

Mortgages are assignable, when they are owned; but MERS by definition does not own or hold notes or mortgages, neither is it a vehicle for transferring interests (even its own, which are none, anyhow, for it does not own or hold).

6. Again, MERS is the only mortgagee defined in the MERS mortgage contract. Conclusion: MERS cannot foreclose (for itself), does not own, and does not transfer interests. Since one may only assign what one has, be that an item, or rights, or powers, MERS cannot assign mortgages, or notes, or any right to foreclose, because MERS does not have (does not “own”). The MERS mortgage is thus a very crazy, badly written contract, because it makes MERS, which does not own notes or mortgages, mortgagee. Since MERS does not own or hold, MERS cannot assign or convey or foreclose, but MERS is nevertheless made mortgagee by the MERS mortgage contract, so any property mortgaged to MERS as mortgagee was plainly and simply mortgaged to a “mortgagee” which cannot own the mortgage, or transfer interest in it (which it does not have), or foreclose.

MERS, in effect, is a powerless mortgagee, a mortgagee which might be termed a nullity of a mortgagee. It does not own any mortgage, or note, so it cannot assign any mortgage, or note, but property is mortgaged to it – yet MERS cannot do anything with or about it.

7. But the MERS mortgage contract says (or has some lip service in it to the effect that) the Lender may foreclose at its option. What of that? Problem: the Lender is not the mortgagee. The lender has no property mortgaged to it. (And MERS does not own notes or mortgages, or transfer interests, so MERS cannot assign what it does not own, and cannot transfer.) The property was mortgaged to MERS, not to the Lender. It cannot get out of having been mortgaged to MERS, as mortgagee. Even if someone were to satisfy a note with a full term and/or amount of payments, what could MERS add to it? MERS does not own mortgages, so while MERS might be able to say (with no impact) that “a” mortgage “was satisfied” (if it knew, but it does not receive payments, so how would it know?), MERS could not say that “its” mortgage was satisfied, for MERS does not even own the mortgage. It is the mortgagee, yet it cannot own the note or mortgage, or foreclose. Who does own the mortgage? No one?

8. MERS did not lend, so MERS is not a valid creditor with any right to collect a debt, or enforce a debt, and it does not own mortgages, so it cannot foreclose. Neither can MERS assign any power it does not have. The property is mortgaged to MERS, but MERS is a mortgagee which does not own mortgages, or notes, or transfer interests, by a mortgage contract that made MERS, and only MERS, the only mortgagee, in spite of all its impotencies and inabilities. It is as if I put someone who is in a coma in charge of my life. Great job, Wall Street.

9. MERS is a crippled mortgagee, crippled by its own inabilities, its own powerlessness to own and hold notes and/or mortgages; by its own self-definition, from its creation.


So why do the big banks go to the charade of purporting an assignment of mortgages from MERS, even assuming the risk of attempting now ever-more-clearly recognized illegal “backdating” for which more and more corporate executives are going to jail these days, trying to put an earlier date on an assignment than the real date of execution of the assignment? (Purported, because, MERS still cannot assign what it does not own, and is defined as unable to transfer interests or any other thing it does not have.) Why do the big banks do it?

They do it, because they think you “expect” or assume assignment/s (you “believe” or “assume” that “assignment always works” (which is another untruth, but that would have to be explored at greater length, elsewhere). The big banks and their courtroom agents do it because they think you will turn your expectations into assumptions: they think you are too dumb to look, to examine, to ask, to question, and will fail to determine if there is any reality and/or validity behind the assignment(s) they purport. They want to make it “look right”, and they count on you to jump to the conclusion, the incorrect assumption, that such assignment “is” right, rather than what it true: that it is vacuous, empty, invalid, null, and void.  Look, open your eyes, and see.


The big banks are simply using terms you would expect – terms Judges would expect – to get the Judge to assume a reality which does not, in fact, exist, because the fact is that MERS is defined as an entity that does not own or hold notes or mortgages, nor transfer interests (in same), so any MERS purporting of assignment is null and void, by definition.

Again, the big banks would like you to think that MERS could assign “its powers” to the Lender (which is paid some lip service in the MERS mortgage contract), but the fact is that you can only assign powers you have, and MERS has no powers beyond recording data. It cannot own, cannot hold, and it cannot transfer. The assumption the big banks depend on you to make is simply a false and deceptive lie induced by deception with a reliance on you to jump to the wrong assumption (that what they purport has any reality). They depend on you to assume what is false, and grant them what they want by your failure to look and see, failure to examine, failure to inquire into the reality behind the claims.

MERS has no powers, nor does it own mortgages, so how can MERS assign what it does not have?

So there is nothing that could change the Lenders position mentioned in the MERS mortgage contract into a real, old-fashioned, conventional “mortgagee”, because no property was mortgaged to them, and the entity to which property was mortgaged (MERS) is not empowered to own mortgages, or notes, or assign them (which it does not own).

Actually, absent knowledge to the contrary, I think it is a crime for any entity to participate with the big banks in attempting to get away with back-dating a misleading assignment to suggest that they conveyed more than they conveyed at a time other than when they really executed the assignment. I think that is called fraud, as well as whatever technical term the back-dating of financial documents goes by. Maybe that term would also be fraud.

You can arrive at a verbal agreement to do an assignment (but I do not think any bank or MERS would waste its time doing such on a lost note, which mine was alleged to be), and a verbal agreement could give you grounds for suing for the actual assignment, if the other party wanted to back out of a true agreement, but you do not have an actual assignment until the document(s) is/are executed. You cannot date the assignment until it is actual, until it is executed. On that, on several other very important aspects of the legalities of these mortgages which have been turned into securities.
Washed your eyes yet? Have you figured out how/why you never could see that before?

But someone may say, “Well, ok, MERS cannot own the mortgage, but it was only made Mortgagee as Nominee of the Lender. What of that?”

We see therein that the Lender had the chance to be mortgagee, and to remain mortgagee, but Lender was talked into alienating its potential right(s) as “could-have-been” mortgagee, and chose to make MERS the mortgagee, instead, in spite of all MERS incapabilities, insufficiencies, and inadequacies. Now that MERS is made the mortgagee, the Lender has no way to get that role, that identity out of MERS, even though MERS cannot own or hold mortgages or notes, and so cannot assign them, o foreclose them. MERS is the mortgagee, in what might be called the Lender’s (or Wall Street’s) own game of “Lender Like It, or Not”.

As Judge Gordon asked : What is a nominee (mortgagee nominee)? What can it do? What powers does it have? What function does it have? Apparently none of that was looked at, beforehand, by the brilliant Wall Street lawyers who wrote the documents to enable Wall Street and the big banks to defraud the world, and then turn their talents to robbing the American people of their dreams.

If it were realized that the MERS mortgage is unenforceable for the big banks and Wall Street who created it - that every one of them which depended on an assignment by MERS ought to be reversed - would that be too bad? Or just about right?

Look, essentially, lots and lots of the banks in the banking system got misled into a Big-Bank-Directed Wall Street sale of lousy, misconceived mortgage product where most of the Wall Street salesmen probably did not even know what a lot of garbage they were selling with promises of mortgage nirvana; i.e., Mortgage Brokers and the Wall Street Sales Machine sold banks and investors all over the world a Big-Bank misconceived product, very poorly designed by the big banks (and/but when it began to unravel, the big banks, never ones to miss an opportunity to try to make money, tried to foreclose on everybody in sight to take advantage of the economic disaster).  Now aren’t you glad we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?   And the question now is, are we going to let them keep on robbing us?