I say Unknown Evil as MERS is new to the Mortgage industry and claiming ownership during foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings.



I am currently dealing with MERS, and I just got the Answer to my Complaint from their lawyer here in Hawaii and it states: "MERS affirmatively states that it is the owner and holder of the subject Note and Mortgage."; "MERS denies that the Promissory Note and Mortgage were not given adequate consideration from the Lender to purchase the agreement."; and that "MERS affirmatively states that FREMONT provided consideration for the promissory note."



Last I understood, according to MERS' own handbook, "MERS serves two pruposes. First, it is a national electronic registry for tracking servicing rights and beneficial ownership interest in mortgage loans. Second, MERS acts as Nominee for the servicer and beneficial owner of a mortgage loan in the public land records."



I didn't know that a documentary depository could speak on behalf of and have first hand knowledge of the cosideration and value of a Note. Sounds like heresay to me. Secondly I did not know that they could be holders and owners of a Note and Mortgage. I thought you had to have possession, perfection, and given value and/or consideration. Last I checked MERS did not have that capacity, unless they are secretly the owners of the mortgage and funded the Note and I didn't know about it. Last I checked, the Note was funded by me. Hmmmmmmm?



Its also interesting that MERS is claiming that they are owners of the NOTE and MORTGAGE that I am dealing with by virtue of assignment that was recieved on October 7, 2004 and recorded on October 14, 2004. Hmmmm? I've been dealing with their dishonor since last September and filed my UCC-1, noting my SA that has my documents listed on, last September and specifically noted the MORTGAGE in question with one of the three originals attached to it and claiming the rights to any and all corrosponding originals of the like on September 15, 2004. Sounds like perfection was done by me and not them. Wondering how they can claim ownership when they haven't produced the original, and I have already perfected on all three original copies.



Yet the lawyers for MERS submits a declaration and an account ledger that just has two entries on it indicating that the Account ledger is from Chase and the declaration proports that it is from the LENDER. Hmmmm? Last I checked on the Note it states that Fremont is the Lender.



Regardless of all of the evidence that I have submitted to the Court, they do not look at what I have, but points to the things submitted by MERS. They question my intentions, but not that of MERS. I just submitted a Judicial Misconduct complaint into the case and filed it with the DOJ and Judicial Conference for documentation of malfesense. Well see if this helps the Judge realize that he has a Consitution to uphold and not the colorable law he is operating in his courtroom with. Who knows what will happen. Strange things are happening everyday.



If anyone has any MERS nightmares, please let the rest of us know. They are an animal that appears to operate as a cameleon that changes its colors when they see fit. Even if they are not what they proport to be.