Before you get idea about me and claim as some have, that I am giving an opinion here, or on this website, and decide that I am not qualified to do such? Well duh? Is this not my website? 1st Amendment? May I remind you, the Lord provided us all with an ability of understanding, and a mind to do it with. If you research this yourself, you may have an opinion in the same fashion, or possibly similar to mine, or even better. It is about understanding, not opinion. As it is said; "Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one". Including judges. Oh, and I need to warn you, this website can be offensive to closed minds.

Things to Ponder

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. The private registry parties are similar to "account debtors" and "creditors" defined in the Uniform Commercial Code. If you feel this to be in error, look at Texas UETA, chapter 322, section 016, subsection (e), of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. 322.016(e) states;

(e) Except as otherwise agreed, an obligor under a transferable record has the same rights and defenses as an equivalent obligor under equivalent records or writings under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Do you think Texas UETA is defining an obligor to a real property mortgage loan? The UCC does not apply to real property transactions. Oh, and you will find this certain wording within 15 USC 7021(e)

Texas Difficulties

Why is it so difficult to obtain justice through the court system against a private registry that Mutilated Every Recordation Statute in Texas? Here is why. Texas courts purportedly follow the enacted laws of the Texas Legislature. So who keeps the Texas Legislature, and its enactments in check with the rights guaranteed by the Texas Constitution? The Texas Constitution shows the way; Look at Article 3, section 43(b)

Sec. 43. REVISION OF LAWS. (a) The Legislature shall provide for revising, digesting and publishing the laws, civil and criminal; provided, that in the adoption of and giving effect to any such digest or revision, the Legislature shall not be limited by sections 35 and 36 of this Article.

(b) In this section, "revision" includes a revision of the statutes on a particular subject and any enactment having the purpose, declared in the enactment, of codifying without substantive change statutes that individually relate to different subjects.

(Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 4, 1986.)

Did the Texas Legislature overlook section 35(b)?

Sec. 35. SUBJECTS AND TITLES OF BILLS. (a) No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject.

(b) The rules of procedure of each house shall require that the subject of each bill be expressed in its title in a manner that gives the legislature and the public reasonable notice of that subject. The legislature is solely responsible for determining compliance with the rule.

(c) A law, including a law enacted before the effective date of this subsection, may not be held void on the basis of an insufficient title.

(Subsec. (a) amended and (b) and (c) added Nov. 4, 1986.)

As the future [now] has revealed the past ]then], the "subject" was not really about whom could initiate foreclosure, the subject of chapter 51 is about a private registry used for private transactions between an account debtor and a creditor, conducting transactions electronically. An alleged "holder of a security instrument", and not an alleged holder of a debt as the statute once provided prior to the amendment in 2004, yet still "holder of the debt" is evident in certain parts of chapter 51 purportedly enacted prior to 2004 and cited as such; "Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1020, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995"


Even during an emergency, the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of Texas rules as so stated in section 62. Why was it so constructively impaired prior to any emergency?

Provided, however, that Article I of the Constitution of Texas, known as the "Bill of Rights" shall not be in any manner affected, amended, impaired, suspended, repealed or suspended hereby.

Many subsections of Article 3, Section 56 come into question with the currently enacted chapter 51 of Texas Property Code.

In Texas long, long ago....

As far back as 1840, Texas has continued a recordation system statute for each local government and there was no need to replace the current Texas recordation statutes with a private registry defined as a "national book entry system", in 2004.

On September 1, 2004 elected officials allowed grave errors to be placed into chapter 51 of the Texas Property code, that would become superior to long established recordation statutes within the Texas Local Government Code.

The current foreign entity being alluded to as a "book entry system" cannot prove it meets the definition within state or federal definitions of "national book entry system". To do so, state law would preempt federal law, which would usurp federal law, which would usurp securities law. Texas has no statutory definition of "national book entry system" in itself.

Chapter 51 provides for a definition of "book entry system" which allows a non-defined private registry to use the Texas Property code for the benefit of a non-defined private registry, or its members. The private registry cannot be defined as a "national book entry system", that definition is held for securities transactions regulated by the Federal Reserve, Securities & Exchange Commission, or other federally related securities agency regulations.

Chapter 51 allows an open opportunity for the private registry to record instruments of an unknown chain of title to many deed of trust in Texas, and such purported "known chain of title", is only known by the private registry, and not through the recordation statutes.  This avenue is offered for the private registry, and can be observed in 51.0001(4)(C).

Chapter 51 allows a private registry to bypass recordation fees which are an integral part of revenue for such county clerk’s duties in Texas. This certain chapter 51 also allows the private registry to bypass filing fees to the secretary of state.

Chapter 51 does not allow the requirements of chapter 192.007(a) of the Texas Local Government code to be fulfilled according to long established local statutory law. Allowing such private registry to replace the Texas recordation statutes denies equality of law for the people of the state of Texas. 

Chapter 51 allows for unknown parties of a private registry to enforce a deed of trust without the need of the promissory note the deed of trust was supposed to be attached to achieve the secured creditor status of the indebtedness as once noticed constructively in public records at origination of its recordation. This can be observed within section 51.0001, subsections (1) through (8).

Chapter 51 allows for a private registry to be called a “beneficiary”, “nominee”, “mortgagee” in a deed of trust, while Texas defines the private registry as a “book entry system” causing a confusion as to what the private registry is, a private registry. If this were as simple as a title, why was “beneficiary”, “nominee”, “mortgagee”, “holder of the security instrument”, not defined, or disclosed, that the private registry was such book entry system in the deed of trust? Silence hum's from the private registry?

Still Don't think anything is wrong?

If this has not helped you understand electronic promissory notes in a private registry are not supported by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, maybe you should read this letter addressing Article 3 among other articles, to be changed to allow for electronic negotiable instruments. Read it, you may see some strong selling on the electronic negotiable instrument part, even if it did fail in results? It started like this;

"Dear Gentlemen:
The undersigned financial institution organizations are writing to you to urge that electronic negotiable instruments be included within the scope of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) current effort to revise UCC Articles3 and 4. We believe this UCC Article3 and 4 revision project represents a unique and critical opportunity for NCCUSL to provide leadership to the states and the financial institution community on the timely and important issue of electronic negotiable instruments.

We were quite surprised by the announcement this spring that it had been preliminarily decided not to include electronic negotiable instruments within the scope of the UCC Articles3 and 4 revision project.

Blah, blah, blah

Electronic Negotiable Instruments never made it to Article 3, and reference to Article 3 in 15 USC 7021(a)(1)(A) was never taken out. Neither was it taken out of the Texas UETA. In fact, Article 7, Documents of Title was added to Texas UETA? That goes beyond E-SIGN boundaries.

Ponder this statement; and replace "usage", except one use, with MERS; "It seems then, that the issue here is not just related to time but it is mainly related to usage. The frequent practice of a usage turns it into a custom. Some usages [of  MERS] may require a long time to become a custom, whilst others may take a much shorter time. As such, the custom of operating transactions through electronic documents is likely to be upheld by courts in common law systems as well as by tribunals in civil law systems." How true as seen 17 years later. That statement was written back in 1999. The paper was about negotiabe of documents of title. Yes, it is from another country, the laws would be different, but how similar would the laws be in the U.S.?  What is MERS doing?

The private registry conducting transactions non-related to real property must be removed from Texas, before its too late to fix the problem.

Sign the petition to change chapter 51, Texas Property Code

 Onward through the fog

[ Click image above to move on to next page]

Oh, has anyone ever wondered if MERS actually had an agency relationship of any kind with the "lender"  when the potential homeowner signed the deed of trust, or was this just assumed by everybody? You do know what ass/u/me does? Don't feel bad, even judges assume. Else would they not ask MERS questions that matter?