Living Lies Defend The Foreclosure
Call 844-583-5341 Directions
«
»

Advice of Counsel on MERS: Covington's Legal Opinion

Jan 26, 2012

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR REQUIRED

Covington 2004 Legal Opinion to MERSCORP

Editor’s Comment: In my opinion the purpose of this letter was to provide CYA to MERS and its founders and members. Since it was dated in 2004 and questions were already emerging about the legality of MERS and what it would do to the title registries, MERS sought a legal opinion so that they could say they were proceeding “on advice of counsel.” Generally, this takes the operation out of range for criminal prosecution, but not always. It could land both MERS and the lawyers (including members of the our justice department in hot water depending upon the full circumstances surrounding the request from MERS and the answer from Covington.

Considering the fact that the leading members of the department of justice worked at Covington, it is imperative that we have an independent special prosecutor appointed to review the whole process. Such action has been taken on a lot less facts than what we have now.

The letter implies that a private system of title registry is legal and valid without committing itself to the fact that such a private registry would and should have no probative value in case there was litigation regarding the transfers. MERS was not certified or even allowed to proceed as a substitute for the public records of each state nor did they even apply for such status. Records of MERS should be ignored in any contested proceeding.

But the big question is what would this opinion look like if they had been told that the parties were manipulating the data, fabricating documents, forging signatures and otherwise violating the documents of record?

Particularly troublesome is this quote from the opinion issued by Covington:

“In this manner, the eRegistryenables the rightful eNote owner to demonstrate conclusive legal control of the transferable record.Further, it is our understanding that, in performing initial registration of eNotes,the eRegistry: [Editor’s Note: They are parsing words. They are saying that by contract the party claiming ownership of the RECORD has it. That might be true, but what about the actual existence of documents referred to in the record and whether they were validly executed, prepared and filed? They don’t answer that. Instead they bootstrap the reasoning to mean that if a contract exists concerning some bookkeeping records, then everything supporting those entries in the record must be presumed as true — binding the State, who was not a party,, the borrower, who was not a party, and the investor who was not a party.
confirms the validity of the issuer; -[never happened]
confirms that the registration dataset is complete; -[never happened]
confirms that the eNote is not already registered by assigning a uniqueMortgage Identification Number (MIN) and hash value to each eNote;
creates a unique registration record; and -[never happened]
sends a confirmation to the issuer. -[never happened]
Likewise, in recording a transfer of eNotes, the eRegistry:
validates both the transferor and transferee; -[never happened]
compares the hash value stored in the eRegistry with the value submitted by the transferor; and
10
In brief, the person who controls a transferable record has the same rights as a holder of an equivalent paper instrument under the U.C.C., including, where applicable, rights as a holder in due course. -[never happened]
 MERSCORP, Inc.October 21, 2004Page 5
requires confirmation by the transferee within a specified time period after the transfer request [never happened]
See
UETA § 16(d); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(d). Likewise, the obligor is entitled to the defenses that it would have under the U.C.C. See UETA § 16(e); 15 U.S.C. § 7021(e). “[pretender lenders ignore this part admitting that the borrower has the same rights against the ultimate “owner” as they would have against the originator]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |

Search Our Blog

Subscribe to our Blog!

* indicates required

Categories

  • Bankruptcy (3)
  • bubble (2,855)
  • Corruption (3,340)
  • discovery (255)
  • Eviction (3,307)
  • evidence (473)
  • expert witness (346)
  • Fabrication of documents (218)
  • foreclosure defenses (337)
  • foreclosure mill (329)
  • Foreclosure Questions (23)
  • legal standing (220)
  • Modification (389)
  • Motions (203)
  • Pleading (388)
  • securities fraud (3,067)
  • Servicer (538)
  • Wells Fargo (10)

    • Contact Our National Headquarters Phone: 844-583-5339

    Connect with us

    Contact Our National Headquarters

    • 844-583-5339
    • Available 24/7
    • 200 S. Andrews Ave. Ste. 604
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

    Practice Areas

    Preliminary Document Review Administrative Strategy
    Case Analysis Report View More