You are on page 1of 4

Caesar versus Who-we-Owe Opinion of One Voice of the Court of World Opinion

Within the scriptures, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke there are references to: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's..." This writer will leave the theology interpretation and meaning of the passage as applicable to God and Caesar to be explained by learned theologians and religious leaders.

For the record, Caesar has been dead for a number of centuries, but governments have fallen and risen since death. What is owed to God or Country is not what is owed between two parties that can be identified. Stating an obligation remains attached and perfected to a long unidentified dead party is not supported by laws of the land.

In modern mortgage contract parlance there is required to be (not or not to be) a series of tangible paper documents to be signed to execute the transaction. Confusion in aftermath as pertains to the Statues of Fraud is that if possession of real property is taken then the laws of the Statue of Fraud are not applicable, however the Statue of Fraud is applicable at the closing prior to taking possession of the real property.

Maybe this sounds negative to a tangible obligor (homeowner) but the laws protecting the contract process are lawful and just. What does Caesar have to do with modern day contracts involving land transactions? Answer, not a damn thing. However, “Who-we-Owe” is essential variable that must be

known, similarly in fashion as Caesar had to be a known as the party who to render too. As God is an intangible and what is to be owed to God is defined within the intangible contract. Where one’s contract requires proof maybe another’s does not, but in due time in accordance to each owns contract payment will be tendered and value will never be defined.

In applying the laws to attach and perfect an tangible interest in real estate such follows the local laws of local jurisdiction, unlike assigning an intangible interest in the personal property being the paper closing instrument which is an obligation created by an Account Debtor. The facts applying to the Account Debtors obligation to an Intangible Obligee (Securitized Trust) may not require identity to be known of local public records but such identity to meet the legal requirements of assigning the tangible obligation rights as to local law requires identity to be known. Wherein a review of local public records the last known perfected party of record applying to the security securing the Tangible Obligation is the Originating Lender as being the Tangible Obligee. The use of an electronic registry to assign intangible rights to personal property by use of contracts to identify is all well and good in the intangible world, but is legally insufficient to apply to meet legal requirements to identify a subsequent intangible purchaser of an intangible to be a identifiable party with tangible rights.

As local records identify upon the original filing the security instrument is a conversion of temporary attachment and perfection obtained at closing to a permanent record of notice which identifies the Originating Lender as the Secured Party, if MERS wishes to claim of contract their status is that of an

agent for the Originating Lender by nomenclature as being a nominee, this writer sees no real issue. For MERS to claim to be the Beneficiary to the security instrument, attention should be paid to Internal Revenue Publication 1635 as to the definition of Beneficiary. It is not hard to envision that if the application of beneficiary is misapplied at the tangible loan level and such definition has a different meaning at the intangible securities level, a tax consequence could readily be identified as this writer would see a deliberate attempt to mislead and misstate legal applications.

Whereas a tangible obligor has taken possession of the real property it appears that the Statute of Frauds becomes inapplicable and thus would be also be in applicable to applying to proving of failure to assign tangible perfection rights in the buying and selling of intangibles. So, one is left with making sure the identity is that of “Who-we-Owe” in accordance to local laws of jurisdiction.

Most time it is revealed that there is a tangible obligor (homeowner) who owes a debt (if remaining enforceable) to a tangible Obligee (Originating Lender) where as the tangible Obligee switches hats and becomes an Account Debtor with a pledge of an interest in personal property which is in value of the tangible obligation value which the Account Debtor secures with the payment stream Account Debtor (servicer as agent) receives from amount paid upon the tangible obligation to the intangible Obligee (trust) where such trust has issued certificates (2nd intangible) for purchase by investors.

From end to front, Investors would have a claim towards the trust, the trust would have a claim towards the Account Debtor, and the Account Debtor as tangible Obligee (Originating Lender or a properly proved up subsequent secured creditor) would have claim against the tangible obligor (homeowner). The process and procedures where MERS claims to be the beneficiary of the security instrument places a great risk in bankruptcy context, for if a party forces MERS into involuntary bankruptcy, there is a high risk that MERS being a beneficiary of real property could have such property be included in the estate of MERS, such risk was to be avoided but it appears not to be true.

By all the complexity employed, it is difficult and at times will be impossible to determine who pays what to Who-we-Owe so long as identities remain hidden and undefined in accordance to law.