Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Buy Now $5.00
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
5Activity

Table Of Contents

2. Defendants Still Do Not Have Standing to Foreclose
3. Defendants’ Misrepresentation is a Material Fact at Issue
4. Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices
5. Defendants’ Breached their Fiduciary Duty
6. Defendants Actions Have Caused Their Unjust Enrichment
7. Defendants Have Slandered and Clouded Plaintiffs’ Title
8. Injunctive Relief is Justified Just Not as a Cause of Action
P. 1
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment

Ratings: (0)|Views: 542 |Likes:
Published by DeadlyClear
Plaintiffs assert that neither MERS nor lender possessed note and mortgage us a unit upon motions for relief in bankruptcy due to the MERS scheme that has become the 21st Century's new antitrust venue.

Plaintiffs theories of antitrust are based upon the MERS monopoly and a Supreme Court case, Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, where the subscriber was found to have standing to pursue claims based on restraint of trade.

"Denying Plaintiffs [subscribers] the ability to make payments or adjust the mortgage during an economic crisis or in force majeure because the MERS scheme created too many loans and was designed to be more profitable under default (force default – fast payout of insurance) is the very means by which it is alleged that MERS and ASB sought to achieve its alleged illegal ends and Plaintiffs’ injury was “precisely the type of loss that the claimed violations would likely cause."

The Plaintiff settled providing a $100,000.00 carve out.
Plaintiffs assert that neither MERS nor lender possessed note and mortgage us a unit upon motions for relief in bankruptcy due to the MERS scheme that has become the 21st Century's new antitrust venue.

Plaintiffs theories of antitrust are based upon the MERS monopoly and a Supreme Court case, Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, where the subscriber was found to have standing to pursue claims based on restraint of trade.

"Denying Plaintiffs [subscribers] the ability to make payments or adjust the mortgage during an economic crisis or in force majeure because the MERS scheme created too many loans and was designed to be more profitable under default (force default – fast payout of insurance) is the very means by which it is alleged that MERS and ASB sought to achieve its alleged illegal ends and Plaintiffs’ injury was “precisely the type of loss that the claimed violations would likely cause."

The Plaintiff settled providing a $100,000.00 carve out.

More info:

Published by: DeadlyClear on Aug 09, 2011
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved
List Price: $5.00 Buy Now

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
See more
See less

02/26/2014

$5.00

USD

pdf

You're Reading a Free Preview
Pages 9 to 12 are not shown in this preview.
You're Reading a Free Preview
Pages 22 to 40 are not shown in this preview.

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
odarkone liked this
odarkone liked this
LAWOSSY liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->