Colorable Claim of Agency

Wording in part from an opinion rendered by the Oregon Supreme Court to certified question asked by The United Sates District Court in Cause No. 311CV1390HZBranndrup (Plaintiff) v. Recontrust Company, N.A.; Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger with BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders Cwalt,Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-2CB, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates; and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (Defendant) reads in part: Defendants point to case law showing that Oregon recognizes that an agent, even one without a pecuniary interest, may engage in land transactions and hold title on behalf of a principal.[Emphasis added] See, e.g., Halleck v. Halleck et al., 216 Or 23, 38, 337 P2d 330 (1959) ("'Conveyances of lands * * * may be made by deed, signed by the person * ** or by his lawful agent'" [Emphasis added]) (quoting former ORS 93.010)); Bowns v. Bowns, 184 Or 603, 613, 200 P2d 586 (1948) (estate or interest in real property may be transferred by one's "'lawful agent, under written authority'") (quoting former ORS 93.020)); Kern v. Hotaling, 27 Or 205, 207, 40 P 168 (1895) (note and mortgage executed to member of brokerage firm as agent for principal [Emphasis added]) Defendants also point to the "bedrock" principle that "contracts, when entered into freely and voluntarily, shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts," unless contrary to some "overpowering rule of public policy." McDonnal and McDonnal, 293 Or 772, 779, 652 P2d 1247 (1982) (quoting Feves v. Feves, 198 Or 151, 159-60, 254 P2d 694 (1953)) That conclusion brings us to defendants' and MERS's alternative argument that MERS has authority as an agent of the original beneficiary and any successor [Emphasis added] beneficiaries of the subject trust deeds to take any steps that are required or convenient to carry out the nonjudicial foreclosure

process. The accuracy of that assertion depends on whether MERS qualifies as an agent [Emphasis added] of those entities for purposes of Oregon law. See Restatement (Third) of Agency 1.02 (2006) ("Whether a relationship is characterized as agency in an agreement between parties or in the context of industry or popular usage is not controlling."). This court has defined agency in the following terms: "[T]o be an 'agent' -using the well-defined legal meaning of that term -- two requirements must be met: 1 (1) the individual must be subject to another's control; and (2) the individual must 'act on behalf of' the other person." Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc., 346 Or 128, 136, 206 P3d 181 (2009). Attention is directed to an article published by HOUSINGWIRE titled Oregon bankers path back to non-judicial foreclosures1 published June 7, 2013 where is found these statement(s): To the benefit of foreclosing parties, the court held Oregons foreclosure statute does not require the recording of assignments of the trust deed by operations of law Still, the court gives MERS a way around this if it can show evidence of an agency relationship with the financial firms involved in the various real estate transactions. MERS responded Thursday saying it believes [Emphasis added] it can establish this type of authority. Direction turns to Blacks Law 8th Edition for the definition of believe: BELIEVE believe,vb.1. To feel certain about the truth of; to accept as true. Cf. SUSPECT. reasonably believe. To believe (a given fact or combination of facts) under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe. This writer notes that two additional definitions found in Blacks Law must be brought into light:
1

http://www.housingwire.com/news/2013/06/07/oregon-bankers-find-path-back-non-judicial-foreclosures

BELIEF A state of mind that regards the existence of something as likely or relatively certain. BELIEFACTION DISTINCTION Constitutional law. In First Amendment law, the Supreme Court's distinction between allowing a person to follow any chosen belief and allowing the state to intervene if necessary to protect others from the practices of that belief. Where one believes it so, does not make it fact of law. Under the current procedures of common day mortgage creation, two documents of contract are created, the Note contract and the Security contract securing. Cleary addressed by the Oregon Supreme Court opinion, agency subject matter was is not restricted to the Security contract. Where MERS believes it can prove up lawful agency relationship to this writer would be admitting guilt to aid in criminal acts. This writer finds it amazing that MERS in attempting to prove agency would be admitting guilt to conspiracy to commit fraud. Actually there are not implications of fraud; actual proof of fraud is found in many filing of public record. Whereas the court addressed the Security side of a two part mortgage contract, to comply with the opinion, establishing lawful agency relationship is now dependent upon the Note.

Under current law, instruments can be an Order instrument or a Bearer instrument. Law allows that an Order instrument can be converted to a Bearer instrument. Without legal agency relationship being provable by the security; agency relationship to allow an agent for a principle to enforce rights to the Note are now left to the Note. With an instrument being a Bearer instrument where no intervening discernable party can identified, principles of agency relationship fails as the principle is unidentified. Where public records do not reveal a subsequent principle and the Note does not

identify a subsequent Indorsee, no subsequent contract for agency relationship can exist.

Facts of law are applicable before an identified Indorser is allowed to negotiate an instrument under governance of law. Granted, an Indorser can convert an Order instrument into a Bearer instrument, but such conversion can not be done by negotiating an instrument in order paper terms, as Pay to the Order Of______. Where MERS and others believe and have conned the world to believe that such wording Pay to the Order Of______ makes bearer paper is absolutely wrong. Over the decades, in many state opinions and federal opinions it has been absolutely opined that Pay to the Order Of unidentified is an incomplete instrument with no Indorsee identified. Of course, the law allows that the unidentified Indorsee holding and in possession of the unidentified Order instrument can identify themselves, where the unidentified Indorsee never identifies themselves upon the face of the instrument agency relationship fails. Where intervening Indorsees remaining unidentified there is no negotiation or assignment of agency relationship.

BELIEFACTION DISTINCTION (BAD writers notation) Actions have occurred by those committing the fraud; therefore does the state have a duty to intervene to protect others and the people? Question presents, where one elected fails to intervene has one admitted to a treasonable act?

Believe as you will, the choice is yours!!! Where man believes, should man act? God Knows!!!