PersonalRealPropertyRight(s)

The Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 and the states equivalence provide governing law for attaching and perfecting and provide the direction for maintaining continuous perfection of a security interest to secure a Note. Article 9 provides various method and means, such as taking possession, assigning rights and terminating rights relating to the security interest securing the Intangible Note. Article 9 does not distinguish a difference between a negotiable Article 3 instruments (Tangible) or a non-negotiable (Intangible) not govern by Article 3. However, Article 9 governance is limited to personal property security interest. Within the current process of securitizing real property mortgage notes it is not uncommon to notice and improper use of applying Article 9 law(s) to apply to real property security interest(s) in Note transaction(s) where such Note transactions are in fact non-negotiable transaction. Many assume that only a single monetary obligation exists while in fact two monetary obligations exist in the securitization process. Known fact is where a real property Obligor creates an Article 3 instrument and secures that obligation with an alternate means for collecting value by granting rights as found in the security instrument created to secure the tangible obligation. A common unknown fact is that the monetary value contained within the tangible obligation and the security instrument securing was offered for sale in the secondary

market as an Intangible Obligation. Thus a second non-Article 3 instrument was created. The existence of the non-Article 3 instrument is dependent upon the existence of the Article 3 instrument. To provide a security interest to allow for an alternate method to collect value for the non-Article 3 instrument, the maker of the non-Article 3 instrument pledged as collateral the Article 3 instrument and its underlying security interest (instrument). Actually such actions would be in compliance with all applicable state and federal law. However for the non-Article 3 Obligee to have a perfected and continuous alternate method to collect value, the non-Article 3 Obligee would in accordance to state law need to assign rights to the security securing the Article 3 obligation. Article 9 provides an Article 9 (Intangible) Obligee can take possession and enforce the rights contained within the Article 3 Note and the security securing. However in not assigning the security rights securing the Article 3 Note, the non-Article 3 Obligee has taken possession of a tangible paper Article 3 Note less the rights securing as should have been found if the security securing the Article 3 Note had been assigned in accordance to laws of local jurisdiction. A Question which needs to be asked by law enforcement? Was the Intangible Obligee as an organization mislead to believe that all tangible rights were perfected and assigned or was it a few individuals acting alone that believed? For the maker of the secured Article 3 Note such is not to argue failure of the intangible obligor/obligee for the

maker of the Article 3 Note by a failure not of his own is left with an unsecured-Article 3 Note. Where MERS acts as an electronic agent, one needs to inquire as the electronic agent is a computer, how is discovery presented? Alarming is the fact of misleading statement by many of the representatives of the Intangible Obligees, in paraphrasing, we are not required to file an assignment when servicing rights are sold. This appears to be a common maneuver to misdirect from the argument was assigning real property lien rights to be filed of record which would memorialize a tangible Article 3 Note negotiation. Article 9 personal property security interests are governed by Article 9 and real property security interests are governed by local laws of jurisdiction. Thus both Article 9 and real property laws apply in securitization of a real property mortgage loan