County Clerk; Judge, Jury, and Executioner

Peace be with you,

First thing that comes to mind is a court judge, a jury of the court, and the one whom carries out the order of the court, right? It is not what you first think.

"A piece of evidence's authenticity is a prerequisite to admissibility." United Rentals, Inc., 445 S.W.3d at 813. The authentication requirement "is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Id.; TEX.R.EVID. 901(a).  - KMART STORES OF TEXAS, LLC v. Ramirez, Tex: Court of Appeals, 8th Dist. 2016

Letting the MERS member record electronically generated real estate filings into public records for "admissibility" purposes? Using a deed of trust for the illusion before your eyes? Did they? I'm for you, not against you. I know you are not a lawyer, but you need one that knows both civil and criminal to understand what happened to your "records". In fact, I think the Government code mentions that in chapter 51.

"[T]he predicate for admissibility under rule 901 may be proven by circumstantial evidence." Sanchez v. Tex. State Bd. Of Med. Examiners, 229 S.W.3d 498, 509 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.). "A document is considered authentic if a sponsoring witness vouches for its authenticity or if the document meets the requirements of self-authentication" set out in TEX.R.EVID. 902. Castro v. Sebesta, 808 S.W.2d 189, 195 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ)(op. on reh'g).  - - KMART STORES OF TEXAS, LLC v. Ramirez, Tex: Court of Appeals, 8th Dist. 2016

If you use the rule of law, the circumstances would reveal the deed of trust to be an unconscionable contract; and the "book entry system" is Non-Constitutional.

So, why do county clerks accept and record a paper copy of an electronic transaction from an electronic registration system when the AG says different????? - see fourth question

Contradictions of the court system, versus the Texas Property Code

"The MERS system is `an electronic mortgage registration system and clearinghouse that tracks beneficial ownerships in, and servicing rights to, mortgage loans.'" Bierwirth v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 03-11-00644-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7506, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 30, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citation omitted).

 So, the Texas Court system agrees the MERS is  "an electronic mortgage registration system and clearinghouse that tracks beneficial ownerships in, and servicing rights to, mortgage loans.". So, why is MERS 3rd party beneficiary status not is question by the courts as a constitutional question? Do the courts not clearly state a computer system which "tracks beneficial ownerships in, and servicing rights to..." is an actual party to a deed of trust? How can that be proven? Easy, make the county clerk the Judge, jury, and executioner? If I were a county clerk, I would not appreciate being the scapegoat to an intangible asset that is unsustainable, and will collapse, of which, is not related to real property other than appearance, because of a "Republic of Texas" style deed of trust is filed in my records. It may appear legit on its face, but the wording states different. And they use the UCC just like the so-called "Republic of Texas" members?  Honestly, the county clerks should be offended by the judges of the county and district simply because the judge does not question the eligibility of the deed of trust. Or are the judges in it for themselves? They do need to protect their future, right?

Fraudulent Filings

Fraudulent filings which carry a hefty penalty for attempting to file such ineligible filing.  With the deed of trust considered ineligible for filing, every subsequent instrument relating to that deed of trust filed are evidence of admissions that ineligible instruments were recorded subsequently.  There is no need to find un-recorded, or missing assignments. Cha-ching! But, how was the county clerk to know the deed of trust recorded into her public records was an adhesion contract? Now she does?

PURE FINANCIAL FRAUD DISTINGUISHED FROM SPURIOUS “COMMON LAW” DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE FRAUDULENT

a. Financial fraud – usually not apparent on face of the instrument, so clerk usually must file if filing fee paid because the document is regular on its face.

b. If questions about particular instrument – notify county or district attorney and/or sheriff, the Texas Attorney General, and perhaps federal authorities. **

c. Science of recognizing forgeries & counterfeiting – not your job. Although if reasonable suspicion – notify law enforcement, being careful to be nonconclusory/ non-accusatory. See suggested Form of Notice under GOV’T CODE § 51.901 below for general tenor of communications.

d. If the suspect documents were already filed (but newly discovered to be potentially fraudulent clerk may be obligated to notify victim. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 51.901 (discussed below).  source - Fraudulent filing

** Need a better understanding? [also, information provided on "contact us" page.]

A BETTER UNDERSTANDING?
Judge, Jury, and Executioner

Full Definition of judge

Judged - judg·ing

1.       transitive verb

2.  to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises

3.  to sit in judgment on :  try

4.  to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation

5.  govern, rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader

6.  to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially :  to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>

7.  to hold as an opinion :  guess, think <I judge she knew what she was doing>

8.       intransitive verb

9.     1 :  to form an opinion

10.                        2 :  to decide as a judge

judg·er noun

 Full Definition of jury

plural juries

     1 :  a body of persons sworn to give a verdict on some matter submitted to them; especially :  a body of persons legally selected and sworn to inquire into any matter of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence

     2 :  a committee for judging and awarding prizes at a contest or exhibition

     3 :  one (as the public or test results) that will decide —used especially in the phrase the jury is still out

 

Simple Definition of executioner

·         : a person who performs executions : a person who executes people who have been sentenced to death

How many homeowners in every county in the United States have lost their homes to a mortgage registration system? In essence, these homeowners lives were put to death as they witnessed the loss of their American dream. And it was all because of ignorance. Not ignorance of the homeowner, but ignorance of the county recorder. Let me explain.

 Here is the first question for every county recorder across the U.S.;

 Can an unconscionable contract [adhesion contract] be filed of record to establish that it has affect of law?

According to Uniform Commercial Code;

§ 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.

(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contractor any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

According to the United States Supreme Court, an unconscionable contract cannot carry an effect of law.

"Moreover, every specific contract defense that the Court has acknowledged is applicable under § 2 relates to contract formation. In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996), this Court said that fraud, duress, and unconscionability "may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2." All three defenses historically concern the making of an agreement. See Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U.S. 527, 547, 128 S.Ct. 2733, 171 L.Ed.2d 607 (2008) (describing fraud and duress as "traditional grounds for the abrogation of [a] contract" that speak to "unfair dealing at the contract formation stage"); Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411, 414, 10 S.Ct. 134, 33 L.Ed. 393 (1889) (describing an unconscionable contract as one "such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make" and suggesting that there may be "contracts so extortionate and unconscionable on their face as to raise the presumption of fraud in their inception" (internal quotation marks omitted))" -  At&t Mobility llC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 - Supreme Court 2011

U.S. Supreme Court cited Texas Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court in At&t Mobility llC v. Concepcion  cited also the Texas Supreme Court;

Unconscionable contracts, however — whether relating to arbitration or not — are unenforceable under Texas law. A contract is unenforceable if, "given the parties' general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clause involved is so one-sided that it is unconscionable under the circumstances existing when the parties made the contract." See In re Poly-America, LP, 262 SW 3d 337 - Tex: Supreme Court 2008

The court went on to state;

Unconscionability is to be determined in light of a variety of factors, which aim to prevent oppression and unfair surprise; in general, a contract will be found unconscionable if it is grossly one-sided. See DAN B. DOBBS, 2 LAW OF REMEDIES 703, 706 (2d ed.1993); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 208, cmt. a (1979) ("The determination that a contract or term is or is not unconscionable is made in the light of its setting, purpose, and effect.

Red FLAGImage result for red flag

This is the county recorders first hint that they did in fact become “judge, jury, and executioner” without even realizing what they are being led to do.  What many need to understand is that the county recorder is not to blame. But, the county recorder can make amends to the damage created to their public records. It is actually very simple.

Further Injury? 

To further injury, and because of ineligible deeds of trust being recorded into county public records, the ineligible instrument is then deemed worthy of the “effect of law”. This in turn provides an avenue for actors to persuade the judge of the court to believe in the instrument being a valid and “trustworthy” document for support provided for by various BAR members.

California  - "Procedural unconscionability exists when the stronger party drafts the contract and presents it to the weaker party on a "take-it-or-leave-it basis." (Ajamian, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 796.) - Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC, 235 Cal. App. 4th 165 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District

Question?

Are Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, or other form deed of trust naming MERS a beneficiary, presenting a take it, or leave it deed of trust? How does a potential "borrower" know this is a one-sided contract in favor of MERS of all deed of trusts across the country? Is this not a monopoly?

Come and See

The deed of trust containing two specific covenants provide evidence that the deed of trust is an unconscionable contract which is one-sided for a mortgage registration system and its members, of which are all private entities. MERS, or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is not governed by the “National Banking Act”. It is a private interest outside the scope of real estate mortgages, utilized by alleged national banks, all of which are private entities. There is no public interest for a bookkeeping system for private corporations. All are acting outside of the law.

Why is it that very few seem to question “why” MERS assignments cannot be challenged? Why is it that no matter whom the claiming party may be, MERS is a sore spot for every one of them? Why does MERS win every time? Why is it that when a homeowner goes into court to defend their property, they find there is no equality in the courtroom? Why are judges prejudice toward pro-se? I’ve witnessed a few in Williamson County, Texas, not to mention higher court justices. I am a witness. Here is the answer; It is simple, because the county clerk suspended the state Constitution. Pay attention, you’ll learn something? At some point, I know the world will catch on.

 

OATH OF OFFICE

Let’s look at the oath of office which each county clerk must take and file within public records.

County Clerk, Public Records of [XYZ] county; [They took advantage of your oath]

Oath and affirmation

After subscribing to (and, for certain officials, filing) the statement of elected/appointed official, elected officials (including the County Clerk) are to take the following Oath or Affirmation of office:

“I, ________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of _________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.”

 

My question to the county clerks;

You swore an oath that you would faithfully execute the duties of your office, and do your best to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, correct?

Do you realize that by allowing the MERS deed of trust to become recorded into public records, you, the county clerk, continually suspend the Texas Constitution, prevent litigants from a fair trial, prevent equal due process to name a few. Nevertheless, what ever state Constitution you took oath to, you should look into this a bit more?

When reviewing the Texas Bill of Rights, it can be very obvious how many sections of the Bill of Rights were violated. Whom ever thought they had this MERS scheme figured out, knew the public officials were not smart enough to see the whole picture, but only their compartmentalized portion of the cookie. That is what made it easy for them to accomplish this crime. Today, they laugh at you. Tomorrow you get them locked up?

Let’s start with possibly the biggest key to the Constitutional domino affect;

Domino #1
Sec. 28.  SUSPENSION OF LAWS.  No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised 
except by the Legislature.

 When the MERS deed of trust, an adhesion contract, is recorded into public records, it is allegedly given the “effect of law”, because the county recorder does not understand the MERS deed of trust. I suppose because it is filed of record by a MERS member? Or was it from the deceptive training by MERS members? Nevertheless, at this point, the Texas Constitution is suspended. Yes it is. You will know it yourself when you understand.

Domino #2

Sec. 26.  PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS.  
Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be 
allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.

Whether the Texas Legislature realized what they were doing or not, these elected officials enacted a law to allow for a monopoly, called MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. A private interest to various named banks within the industry of private, and national banks. Nevertheless, the Good Ole boys allowed for the suspension of the Texas Constitution by modifying the Texas Property Code to allow an ATM type machine to become “holder of security instrument”, which actually defies Carpenter v. Longan; and in Texas; West v. First Baptist Church of Taft which cited Carpenter v. Longan.

 

Domino #3

Sec. 16.  BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
  No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts,
shall be made.

Again, whether the Texas Legislature realized what they were doing or not, these elected officials enacted a law to allow for a impairing the obligation of contracts by allowing an ATM, called MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to deprive Texas Citizens rights in a court of law. MERS is a private interest of various named banks within the industry of private, and national banks.

 

Domino #4

Sec. 15.  RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.  The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency.  Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury. 

(Amended Aug. 24, 1935.)

By the county clerk unknowingly allowing the ineligible deed of trust to be filed into public records, the deed of trust, an unconscionable contract gains the effect of law. No matter how the homeowner attempts to defend what is their by “rights”, the seemingly ignorant trial court judge allows the “bank” lawyer victory via summary judgment. Thus violating the homeowner’s right to a trial by jury. What is the majick tool for the MERS members lawyer? The ineligible instrument recorded into public records.

Domino # 5

Sec. 3.  EQUAL RIGHTS.  All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

I have witnessed this in a few court(s) of law when a determined judge seemingly believed he could violate a litigants rights with his prejudice. His own oath affirms he is not allowed to do such, whether it be constitutional or fraternal.

His failure to understand equal rights under the law of the Supreme power is no excuse. The Almighty is the judge, not the man.

Again, due to ignorance, the judge will favor the ineligible instrument before he will look at the cause as a matter of law. Is it greed, or is it future job offers? There is One who knows.

Domino #6

Sec. 3a.  EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.  Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.  This amendment is self-operative. 

(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

By allowing the deed of trust, an unconscionable contract to continue with an ill-fated effect of law, deprives the citizen of Texas equality under the law. Why? The law was suspended. The county clerk being the judge, jury, and executioner, have unknowingly sealed the fate of many unfortunate homeowners by allowing such ineligible instrument to be filed within the county clerks jurisdiction.

Domino #7

Sec. 19.  DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW.  No citizen 
of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in 
any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

I believe the county clerk has the power to correct this serious matter before them. Suing MERS or the MERS members for “assignments”, recorded, or unrecorded is a lost cause. A case that cannot be won. However, fraudulent filings carry a large fee for felons carrying out such an act. Through this, the county clerk could recover for damages to its records?

 

Texas Government Code [Emphasis added]]

SUBCHAPTER J. CERTAIN FRAUDULENT RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS

Sec. 51.901.  FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT OR INSTRUMENT.  (a)  If a clerk of the supreme court, clerk of the court of criminal appeals, clerk of a court of appeals, district clerk, county clerk, district and county clerk, or municipal clerk has a reasonable basis to believe in good faith that a document or instrument previously filed or recorded or offered or submitted for filing or for filing and recording is fraudulent, the clerk shall:

(1)  if the document is a purported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an order, a directive, or process of a purported court, provide written notice of the filing, recording, or submission for filing or for filing and recording to the stated or last known address of the person against whom the purported judgment, act, order, directive, or process is rendered;  or

(2)  if the document or instrument purports to create a lien or assert a claim on real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property, provide written notice of the filing, recording, or submission for filing or for filing and recording to the stated or last known address of the person named in the document or instrument as the obligor or debtor and to any person named as owning any interest in the real or personal property described in the document or instrument.

(b)  A clerk shall provide written notice under Subsection (a):

(1)  not later than the second business day after the date that the document or instrument is offered or submitted for filing or for filing and recording;  or

(2)  if the document or instrument has been previously filed or recorded, not later than the second business day after the date that the clerk becomes aware that the document or instrument may be fraudulent.

(c)  For purposes of this section, a document or instrument is presumed to be fraudulent if:

(1)  the document is a purported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an order, a directive, or process of:

(A)  a purported court or a purported judicial entity not expressly created or established under the constitution or the laws of this state or of the United States; or

(B)  a purported judicial officer of a purported court or purported judicial entity described by Paragraph (A);

(2)  the document or instrument purports to create a lien or assert a claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property and:

(A)  is not a document or instrument provided for by the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States;

(B)  is not created by implied or express consent or agreement of the obligor, debtor, or the owner of the real or personal property or an interest in the real or personal property, if required under the laws of this state, or by implied or express consent or agreement of an agent, fiduciary, or other representative of that person; or

(C)  is not an equitable, constructive, or other lien imposed by a court with jurisdiction created or established under the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States; or

(3)  the document or instrument purports to create a lien or assert a claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property and the document or instrument is filed by an inmate or on behalf of an inmate.

(d)  If a county clerk believes in good faith that a document filed with the county clerk to create a lien is fraudulent, the clerk shall:

(1)  request the assistance of the county or district attorney to determine whether the document is fraudulent before filing or recording the document;

(2)  request that the prospective filer provide to the county clerk additional documentation supporting the existence of the lien, such as a contract or other document that contains the alleged debtor or obligor's signature; and

(3)  forward any additional documentation received to the county or district attorney.

(e)  A presumption under Subsection (c)(3) may be rebutted by providing the filing officer in the filing office in which the document is filed or recorded the original or a copy of a sworn and notarized document signed by the obligor, debtor, or owner of the property designated as collateral stating that the person entered into a security agreement with the inmate and authorized the filing of the financing statement as provided by Section 9.509, Business & Commerce Code.

(f)  In this section:

(1)  "Inmate" means a person housed in a secure correctional facility.

(2)  "Secure correctional facility" has the meaning assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 14, eff. May 21, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 407 (S.B. 1589), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 895 (H.B. 2566), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

My next question;

If the deed of trust is in fact determined to be an unconscionable contract, constructed to be one-sided for MERS and its members, the deed of trust would be ineligible for filing, thus a fraudulent filing.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies, Chapter 12;

Sec. 12.002. LIABILITY. (a) A person may not make, present, or use a document or other record with: (1) knowledge that the document or other record is a fraudulent court record or a fraudulent lien or claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property;

Sec. 12.003. CAUSE OF ACTION. (a) The following persons may bring an action to enjoin violation of this chapter or to recover damages under this chapter: (1) the attorney general; (2) a district attorney; (3) a criminal district attorney; (4) a county attorney with felony responsibilities; (5) a county attorney; (6) a municipal attorney; (7) in the case of a fraudulent judgment lien, the person against whom the judgment is rendered; and (8) in the case of a fraudulent lien or claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property, the obligor or debtor, or a person who owns an interest in the real or personal property.

Constructive Note; Established proof;

Due to the constructive notice provided when the deed of trust is filed, recorded into county clerks public records, such filed record provides evidence that cannot be rebutted by the actor filing such ineligible instrument.

Fraudulent instrument filings are the focus; not missing, nor unrecorded, nor intervening, assignments are the focus. You'll lose.  Bling bling……

The MERS members made the county clerks the executioners of many homeowners dreams. What a shame. I know it was not the intent of the county recorder, but it was the intent of MERS members to make the county clerks judge, jury and executioner.

Excerpt [written in 2000]

Imagine appearing before a court on behalf of a litigant. The theory for your position is grounded in a statute that lacks any statement of criteria. You have no idea what the legal elements of your position are. You have checked the case law, and not one opinion suggests a criteria or lists any of the elements. Yet you have found decisions that say your pleadings should be dismissed if they recite mere unsubstantiated conclusions.

If this isn’t enough, you have found many decisions indicating that courts know a valid claim arising under this statute when they see one! Now you are before the court and compelled by the enabling statute to limit your proof to matters that appear to have no direct relationship to the facts that brought your client into your office in the first place.

This nightmare scenario becomes all too real every time someone claims that a contract or lease, or a provision in a contract or lease, is unconscionable.

Anyone who asserts a claim of contractual unconscionability is, by definition, acknowledging that some-
one made a bad deal. Courts do not normally act to protect contracting parties from mistakes in judgment.

Exceptions are made only when the court is persuaded that the faulted action is per se
unfair or that it resulted from unusual circumstances usually beyond the control
of the complainant.


Fairness and restraint are the catchwords that are said to govern this process. When is a contractual provision so unfair as to be offensive? It’s far from clear.

Much has been written about the theoretical existence of contractual unconscionability, but little has
been said about what components actually make up such a claim. Rules do exist, but few courts have formally identified them. This article is designed to help both draftsman and litigants identify and understand potentially unconscionable elements. - PAUL BENNETT MARROW

Semi-Final Observation

According to the laws governing, whether it be for a certain office, or for other purposes, the county clerk has the ability to take the deed of trust to its attorney to demonstrate the ineligible instrument  that is, was, or will be filed in the county clerks jurisdiction. Should the county clerk refrain from determination of an ineligible instrument, specifically the deed of trust, the clerk is now knowingly assisting the MERS members in recording unconscionable contracts, in violation of various state laws. I know that is not what the county clerks intend to do. I am for you, I am not against you. If you can't figure it out, I'll help you figure it out. It is not that difficult.

NEW THOUGHT FOR YOU?

Do we know what an "Adhesion Contract" is?

ADHESION CONTRACT

An adhesion contract is a contract where one side has all of the bargaining power and the other side has to agree to the terms or walk away from the transaction. Adhesion contracts are an extremely common form of contract and an essential part of doing business. These contracts can be just as binding as regular contracts. However, on [o]ccasion, adhesion contracts – or clauses within the contracts – will not be considered enforceable Read more: http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/adhesion-contract.htm#ixzz45lDnu24i

You do understand the MERS is a take-it or leave it beneficiary? If MERS is not, why is MERS named within every Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, VA, FHA, or any other deed of trust naming MERS as a beneficiary recorded in public records? Does the "Borrower" named in the deed of trust have the option to strike the naming of MERS as beneficiary in the deed of trust before the "Borrower" signs the deed of trust? Did the borrower even know what MERS was?

Examples of Adhesion Contracts Adhesion contracts are contracts where there is no negotiation or mutual exchange between two parties.  The contract itself is one-sided-- a take it or leave it-- arrangement. The vast majority of contracts that people sign are adhesion contracts. Read more: http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/adhesion-contract.htm#ixzz45lELk6i4 

At some point, I suppose it will happen. People will realize why it is very difficult to litigate against MERS members. They created a contract to allow them to do so; they modified laws, statutes,, rules, and procedures to make it easier; they educated those on MERS in a deceptive way; They fooled judges, county clerks, legislators, many unfortunate homeowners, and many Texas tax payers.

I know you will understand this at some point. MERS is a scam. It was used to create intangible wealth for many. It may be legal in the intangible world, but it is unsustainable, it will collapse.

Oh, by the way, if you get a grasp on the "one-sided" contract thing, you may begin to wonder how these type contracts are being used everywhere. Don't think so? Install a piece of software and choose not to agree. What happens? It is not just software though. Pay attention the next time you "agree" to some electronic, or tangible agreement for membership, or other "join us" type agreement. If you do not agree to every thing in the agreement, you are not "qualified" to contract. One-sided? It is either "you agree to our terms, not matter what", or "you don't get anything".

Here is an <example> of an adhesion contract. It is alleged to be a "rider" for the deed of trust, deed Fannie Mae Form 3158; Either the potential homeowner agrees to use MERS, or else. Does the potential homeowner really get the blame for signing an adhesion contract?

"Bierwirth agreed to repay his loan by executing a promissory note, and he secured the note by executing a deed of trust. Both instruments identified Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. as the "Lender." "

"The deed of trust identified Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as "Beneficiary" and stated that MERS was the nominee for the Lender (Countrywide) and its successors and assigns.[3] The deed of trust specified that MERS had the right to exercise any or all of the interests that Bierwirth granted in the deed of trust, including the right to foreclose and sell the property and to take any of the Lender's required actions."

Ever wonder why Fannie removed "MERS" from the deed of trust and instead required a rider to assume the obvious? The deed of trust now reads; "Lender is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument ", and the "rider" states; "Lender, as the beneficiary under this Security Instrument, designates MERS as the Nominee for Lender ". So how will the Texas courts site MERS now? It was bound to show up at some point, right? How was MERS both "nominee", and "beneficiary" before, but now MERS lost ranks to "nominee"?

" “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is the Nominee for Lender and is acting solely for Lender. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501- 2026, tel. (888) 679- MERS. MERS is appointed as the Nominee for Lender to exercise t he rights, duties and obligations of Lender as Lender may from time to time direct, including but not limited to appointing a successor trustee, assigning, or releasing, in whole or in part this Security Instrument, foreclosing or directing Trustee to inst itute foreclosure of this Security Instrument, or taking such other actions as Lender may deem necessary or appropriate under this Security Instrument. The term “MERS” includes any successors and assigns of MERS. This appointment shall inure to and bind M ERS, its successors and assigns, as well as Lender , until MERS’ Nominee interest is terminated."

How is the deed of trust released "in part"? Both Fannie Mae deed of trust, and Fannie Mae Form 3158 include the following wording; [discussed afterwards]

Fannie Mae Form 3044w;

20.  Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance.  The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.  A sale might result in a change in the entity (known as the “Loan Servicer”) that collects Periodic Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note, this Security Instrument, and Applicable Law.  There also might be one or more changes of the Loan Servicer unrelated to a sale of the Note.  If there is a change of the Loan Servicer, Borrower will be given written notice of the change which will state the name and address of the new Loan Servicer, the address to which payments should be made and any other information RESPA requires in connection with a notice of transfer of servicing.  If the Note is sold and thereafter the Loan is serviced by a Loan Servicer other than the purchaser of the Note, the mortgage loan servicing obligations to Borrower will remain with the Loan Servicer or be transferred to a successor Loan Servicer and are not assumed by the Note purchaser unless otherwise provided by the Note purchaser.

Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action (as either an individual litigant or the member of a class) that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action.  If Applicable Law provides a time period which must elapse before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of this paragraph.  The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to Borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to Borrower pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this Section 20.

Fannie Mae Form 3158;

D. SALE OF NOTE; CHANGE OF LOAN SERVICER; NOTICE OF GRIEVANCE

Section 20 of the Security Instrument is amended to read as follows:

20. Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance. The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower. Lender acknowledges that until it directs MERS to assign MERS’s Nominee interest in this Security Instrument, MERS remains the Nominee for Lender, with the authority to exercise the rights of Lender. A sale might result in a change in the entity (known as the “Loan Servicer”) that collects Periodic Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note, this Security Instrument, and Applicable Law. There also might be one or more changes of the Loan Servicer unrelated to a sale of the Note. If there is a change of the Loan Servicer, Borrower will be given written notice of the change which will state the name and address of the new Loan Servicer, the address to which payments should be made and any other information RESPA requires in connection with a notice of transfer of servicing. If the Note is sold and thereafter t he Loan is serviced by a Loan Servicer other than the purchaser of the Note, the mortgage loan servicing obligations to Borrower will remain with the Loan Servicer or be transferred to a successor Loan Servicer and are not assumed by the Note purchaser unless otherwise provided by the Note purchaser. Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action (as either an individual litigant or the member of a class) that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action. If Applicable Law provides a time period which must elapse before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure MERS RIDER – Single Family – Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3158 04/2014 (page 4 of 4 pages ) given to Borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to Borrower pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this Section.

Is MERS a licensed "lender" in Texas? Did MERS single out the deed of trust and not the original note?Can a foreign corporation [electronic registration system, Delaware law] conduct business transactions in Texas under Business Organization Code? Is MERS registered in the state of Texas to do commercial business, commercial transactions? 

MERS subsequently assigned Bierwirth's note and deed of trust to BAC and recorded the assignment in the Williamson County real property records. The assignment identified MERS ("as nominee for Lender and Lender[`]s successors and assigns") as the assignor and BAC as the assignee. See Bierwirth v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 03-11-00644-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7506, at *2-3 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 30, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (addressing analogous facts).

The deed of trust provided for the use of MERS, and those provisions are enforceable to the extent of the terms set forth in the document. - Bierwirth v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Tex: Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2014

If according to E-SIGN, an electronic record is not required to be recorded, why are MERS electronic transaction contracts being recorded into public record to be given the effect of law? Is it lawful to file an adhesion contract into public records? Is it lawful to file a contract to harm someone?

MERS is a private corporation, it says so itself, existing under the laws of Delaware. So, how does a private corporation use the "national banking act" when the private corporation never lends money? How does the private corporation "assign", "sell", or "transfer" money [electronic promissory notes] if it is not a bank? Does MERS actually admit that the banks are conducting illegal acts using its own wording? And judges turn a blind eye?

It is actually back to "old school", the way it was once accomplished before MERS arrived in public records and created chaos in public records;

A county clerk has no duty to accept and record a paper copy of an electronically generated real estate filing  - Gregg Abbott, Texas Attorney General [ E-SIGN opinion from E-SIGN questions from Williamson County Texas.]

Everything, every paper copy relating to the deed of trust, aka "assignment of note and deed of trust", or similar, using MERS wording are an admission that they were electronically generated filings alluding to real estate. Ask yourself this; if you can electronically send an acknowledgement to another computer user, why would you need to print it out and take it to them? MERS claims it does not need to record the note, which is another admission simply because the "note" MERS refers to is an electronic promissory note, or E-Note which is not required to be filed or recorded. It's saved on the hard drive. On the face it looks real, according to law, it is not.

Bring back the rule of law.

 Wake up world. You trusted man, not the Father

Namaste,