http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2410491" MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed in large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage recording process. This Court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50% of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this Court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.
In other words, take your "too big to be judged unlawful" argument and shove it up your butt!"
"Here is the beginning and end of the problem. MERS cannot prove that the note was transferred properly because it doesn't have it, never had it, and never touched it. It is simply a database.
Therefore, any "assertion" that the note was assigned is hearsay and inadmissible. MERS cannot form the foundation to be able to admit these alleged facts as evidence as you can't lay a foundation without the physical evidence necessary to do so and MERS is bereft of actual knowledge, since once again it never saw the note, never held the note and never negotiated the note. Therefore, all it has is a database entry which under long-standing legal precedent is a nearly-perfect example of hearsay and is thus inadmissible"
