PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNING LAWSUITS BEING COMMENCED UNDER THE

NAME MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. (”MERS”) AND

SUGGESTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS IF YOU
ARE SERVED WITH A LAWSUIT BY LAWYERS CLAIMING TO REPRESENT MERS.

April 10, 2009

MERS

Basic Corporate Information

· MERS is incorporated within the State of Delaware.
· MERS was first incorporated in Delaware in 1999.
· The total number of shares of common stock authorized by MERSʼ articles of
incorporation is 1,000.
· The total number of shares of MERS common stock actually issued is 1,000.
· MERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCorp, Inc.
· MERSʼ principal place of business at 1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310, Vienna,
Virginia 22182
· MERSʼ national data center is located in Plano, Texas.
· MERSʼ serves as a “nominee” of mortgages and deeds of trust recorded in all fifty
states.
· Over 55 million loans have been registered on the MERS system.
· MERSʼ federal tax identification number is “541927784″.

The Nature of MERSʼ Business

· MERS does not take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans.
· MERS does not make or originate mortgage loans to consumers.
· MERS does not extend any credit to consumers.
· MERS has no role in the origination or original funding of the mortgages or deeds of
trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS does not service mortgage loans.
· MERS does not sell mortgage loans.
· MERS is not an investor who acquires mortgage loans on the secondary market.
· MERS does not ever receive or process mortgage applications.
· MERS is simply named as a nominee and its parent company MERS Corp Inc.
maintains an electronic registry, tracks changes in the ownership of mortgage loans and
servicing rights related thereto.
· MERS© System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interests in
mortgage loans.
· MERS is not named as a beneficiary of the alleged promissory note.

Ownership of Promissory Notes or Mortgage Indebtedness

· MERS is never the owner of the promissory note for which it seeks foreclosure.
· MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security
instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security
instrument for which it serves as “nominee”
· MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the
security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage
indebtedness.
· MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security
instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
· MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no
rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
· MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature
and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
· MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing
rights related thereto.
· MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e.,
the promissory note or other debt instrument).
· MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage
loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged
properties securing such mortgage loans.
· The note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest,
not to hold any interest in the note.
· MERS does not hold any interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are
secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated with the mortgage
loan.
· The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay MERS on the
note.

MERSʼ Accounting of Mortgage Indebtedness / MERS Not At Risk

· MERS is not entitled to receive any of the payments associated with the alleged
mortgage indebtedness.
· MERS is not entitled to receive any of the interest revenue associated with mortgage
indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
· Interest revenue related to the mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as
“nominee” is never reflected within MERSʼ bookkeeping or accounting records nor does
such interest influence MERSʼ earnings.
· Mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as the serves as “nominee” is not
reflected as an asset on MERSʼ financial statements.
· Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not result in an
accounting loss by MERS.
· When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or enjoys the use of
any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather would remit such
proceeds to the true party at interest.
· MERS is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the mortgages or
deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the mortgage
indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a promissory note for
which it serves as “nominee”.
· There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor alleged to be in
default.
· MERS has never suffered any injury by arising out of any alleged default of a
promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.

MERSʼ Interest in the Mortgage Security Instrument

· MERS is named on the mortgage as nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
· MERS, in a nominee capacity for lenders, claims that it merely acquires legal title to
the security instrument (i.e., the deed of trust or mortgage that secures the loan).
· MERS claims that it holds legal title to mortgages and deeds of trust as a nominee for
the owner of the promissory note.
· MERS claims that it immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory
notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
· The lender or investor continues to own and hold the promissory note, but under the
MERS® System, the servicing entity only holds contractual servicing rights and MERS
holds legal title to the mortgage as nominee for the benefit of the investor (or owner and
holder of the note) and not for itself.
· MERS claims that one of the advantages of its paperless systems is that the mortgage
lien becomes immobilized by MERS continuing to hold the mortgage lien when the note
is sold from one investor to another via an endorsement and delivery of the note or the
transfer of servicing rights from one MERS member to another MERS member via a
purchase and sale agreement which is a non-recordable contract right.
· MERS claims that the legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust remains in MERS
after such transfers and is tracked by MERS in its electronic registry.

Beneficial Interest in the Mortgage Indebtedness

· MERS claims to hold legal title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note.
· The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or person or entity whose interest is secured
by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note and/or servicing
rights thereunder.
· MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage loan.
· MERS does not acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any
nature.
· The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or the person or entity whose interest is
secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note (NOT
MERS).

MERS As Holder
· MERS is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary course of business.
· MERS is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for
which it serves as “nominee”.
· MERS does not even maintain copies of promissory notes underlying the security
instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
· Sometimes when an investor or servicer desires to foreclose, the servicer obtains the
promissory note from the custodian holding the note on behalf of the mortgage investor
and places that note in the hands of a servicer employee who has been “appointed” as
an officer (vice president and assistant secretary) of MERS by corporate resolution. This
technique is used by attorneys who purport to be representing MERS to feign standing
by MERS to foreclose the mortgage by claiming that MERS is the holder of the
promissory note. When in fact MERS, by its inventors design is never the holder of the
promissory note.
· When a promissory note is placed in the hands of a servicer employee that employee
will then assume the position as an MERS officer de jour and pretend that this transfer
of custody of the note into the hands of this nominal officer (without any transfer of
ownership or beneficial interest) renders MERS the holder.
· No consideration or compensation is exchanged between the owner of the promissory
note and MERS in consideration of this transfer in custody. MERS is a bankruptcy
remote corporation, and does not have any assets.
· Even when the promissory note is physically placed in the hands of the servicerʼs
employee who is, at best, a nominal MERS officer, MERS has no actual authority to
control the foreclosure or the legal actions undertaken in its name.
· MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the owner of the promissory note unless
ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent MERS.
· MERS will never willingly reveal the identity of the prior holders of the promissory note
unless ordered to do so by the court. Nor will the law firms who pretend to represent
MERS.
· Since the transfer in custody of the promissory note is not for consideration, this
transfer of custody is not reflected in any contemporaneous accounting records. MERS
does not hold any loans nor pay any legal fees to foreclose any loans. MERS is
essentially a shell.
· MERS is never a holder in due course when the transfer of custody occurs after
default.
· MERS is never the holder when the promissory note is shown to be lost or stolen.
· So-called “certifying officers” of MERS have submitted thousands if not tens of
thousands of affidavits in Court proceedings falsely claiming that MERS was the holder
of the promissory note or that the note had been lost.
· An increasing number of courtʼs have learned of the fast and loose practice of various
foreclosure attorneys preparing and the submitting affidavits signed by “certifying
officers” of MERS wherein the statements contained in these affidavits are
“disingenuous and/or outright misrepresentations”
· Courtʼs which have actually scrutinized the statements contained in these certifying
officerʼs affidavits have determined that these affidavit statements were not admissible
because they were signed by people who had no personal knowledge of the facts
contained in the affidavits. They were therefore not competent to testify to the alleged
facts.
· The Hon. Linda B. Riegle, U.S. Bankrutpcy Judge, recently took issue with several
affidavits that had been filed in support of several Motions for Relief from Stay by
attorneys purporting to represent MERS. Judge Riegle refused to accept the affidavits
of people claiming to be “Certifying Officers of MERS” which were submitted by
attorneys purporting to represent MERS in an attempt to feign standing by pretending to
be a holder of notes. Hawkins 2009 WL 901766 (Bkrtcy-D.Nev. March 31, 2009) The
Court found that the affiantʼs were not competant to testify concerning the underlying
loans. “Ms. Mechʼs bald assertion that she has “reviewed the loan file” is inadequate to
show that she is personally knowledgeable of the facts”.
· Similarly the Hon. Terry L. Meyers, U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge, recently rejected a
post hearing submission of an affidavit sign by a lawyer purporting to represent MERS
in motion to lift stay. Judge Meyers enumerated six (6) reasons that he was rejecting the
affidavit which had been submitted in a last ditch attempt by legal counsel purporting to
represent MERS to establish standing for MERS by claiming MERS was the holder of
the underlying promissory note. Judge Meyers found the affidavit statements by counsel
claiming to represent MERS was inadmissible because the lawyer as a witness was not
competent to testify regarding various documents and a note the lawyerʼs sworn
statements “appeared to be based nit on the affiantʼs (counsel) persoanl knowledge but
on the assertions of someone else . . . . the proffer of this “new” note as the “original”
note directly contradicts MERSʼ prior representations that the Note attached to the
Motion was true and correct and the operatice document in this matter”

MERSʼ Role in Mortgage Servicing

· MERS does not service mortgage loans.
· MERS is not the owner of the servicing rights relating to the mortgage loan and MERS
does not service loans.
· MERS does not collect mortgage payments.
· MERS does not hold escrowʼs for taxes and insurance.
· MERS does not provide pr perform any servicing functions on mortgage loans,
whatsoever.
· Those rights are typically held by the servicer of the loan, who may or may not also be
the holder of the note.
MERSʼ Rights To Control the Foreclosure
· MERS Corp. must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage
loan promissory notes.
· MERS Corp. only acts when directed to by its members and for the sole benefit of the
owners and holders of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage instruments
naming MERS as nominee owner.
· MERS Corp. members employ and pay the attorneys bringing foreclosure actions in
MERSʼ name.

MERSʼ Access To or Control Over Records or Documents

· MERS has never maintained archival copies of any mortgage application for which it
serves as “nominee”.
· In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not maintain physical
possession or custody of promissory notes, deeds of trust or other mortgage security
instruments on behalf of its principals.
· MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the promissory notes secured
by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
· MERS as a corporation is not a custodian of the promissory notes secured by deeds of
trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
· MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the deeds of trust or other
mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
· In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or
archive copies of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage security instruments
for which it serves as nominee.
· In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not routinely receive or
archive copies of the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
· Copies of the instruments attached to MERSʼ petitions or complaints do not come from
MERSʼ corporate files or archives.
· In its regular course of business, MERS as a corporation does not input the promissory
note or mortgage security instrument ownership registration data for new mortgages for
which it serves as nominee, but rather the registration information for such mortgages
are entered by the “member” mortgage lenders, investors and/or servicers originating,
purchasing, and/or selling such mortgages or mortgage servicing rights.
· MERS does not maintain a central corporate archive of demands, notices, claims,
appointments, releases, assignments, or other files, documents and/or communications
relating to collections efforts undertaken by MERS officers appointed by corporate
resolution and acting under its authority.
Management and Supervision
· In preparing affidavits and certifications, nominal officers of MERS, including Vice
Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, making representations under MERSʼ authority
and on MERSʼ behalf, are not primarily relying upon books of account, documents,
records or files within MERSʼ corporate supervision, custody or control.
· Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and
Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERSʼ authority
and on MERSʼ behalf, as a matter of routine do not furnish copies of these affidavits or
certifications to MERS for corporate retention or archival.
· Officers of MERS preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and
Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERSʼ authority
and on MERSʼ behalf are not working under the supervision or direction of senior MERS
officers or employees, but rather are supervised by personnel employed by mortgage
investors or mortgage servicers.

This should be a pretty good start for those of you faced with a foreclosure in which
MERS is falsely asserting that it is the owner of the promissory note. Whether MERS is
or was ever the holder is a FACT QUESTION which can be determined only by
ascertain the chain of custody of the promissory note. When the promissory note is lost,
missing or stolen, MERS is NOT the holder.

If you are served with any lawsuit wherein MERS is named as the Plaintiff make sure
you raise the issue that the lawyer or law firm who had signed the complaint is not
actually representing MERS. Here are a series of preliminary Request for Admissions
that should be served upon the lawyer of law firm who claims to be representing MERS
as a Plaintiff in any lawsuit.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant John Doe in this case requires Plaintiff Bank of
New York to admit or deny for the purpose of this case on the several facts hereunder
specified within thirty (30) days as the time provided by Rules of Civil Procedure to
admit or deny. Request for Admissions may include requests for admissions as to both
factual and legal issues. Therefore you must admit or deny requests for both factual or
legal admissions. The definitions contained in the Defendantsʼ Interrogatories are
hereby incorporated as though fully restated herein.
REQUEST NO. 1: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (”MERS”) did not
retain or authorize Dewy Cheatham and Howe P.A. (”Cheatham”) to commence the
above entitled action against John Doe or any other defendant relating to the Subject
Property.
REQUEST NO. 2: MERS did not provide any information to Cheatham used in drafting
the allegations of the Complaint which Cheatham served and filed.
REQUEST NO. 3; MERS did not have any direct or indirect involvement in controlling
any other aspect of the above entitled action against John Doe.
REQUEST NO. 4: MERS has no direct knowledge that Cheatham commenced the
above entitled action against John Doe under the name of MERS.
REQUEST NO. 5: MERS has never verbally communicated with Cheatham with regard
to the above entitled action during any stage of the action.
REQUEST NO. 6: MERS has never communicated with Cheatham in writing at any
stage of the above entitled action that Cheatham has commenced against John Doe by
simply naming MERS as the Plaintiff.
REQUEST NO. 7: MERS could not have authorized Cheatham to commence the above
entitled action against John Doe or any other defendant relating to the Subject Property,
because MERS has no pecuniary interest in the subject property and therefore has no
standing and/or authority to sue John Doe.
REQUEST NO. 8: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note
underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
REQUEST NO. 9: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument
underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
REQUEST NO. 10: MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage
indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
REQUEST NO. 11: MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the
mortgage indebtedness.
REQUEST NO. 12: MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness
underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
REQUEST NO. 13: MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a
mortgage loan is repaid.
REQUEST NO. 14: MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the
mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory
note.
REQUEST NO. 15: MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt
instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
REQUEST NO. 16: MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the
mortgage servicing rights related thereto.
REQUEST NO. 17: MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan
instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).

REQUEST NO. 18: MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account
of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to
any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.

REQUEST NO. 19: Mortgage indebtedness for which MERS serves as the serves as
“nominee” is not reflected as an asset on MERSʼ financial statements.

REQUEST NO. 20: Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not
result in an accounting loss by MERS.

REQUEST NO. 21: When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or
enjoys the use of any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather
would remit such proceeds to the true party at interest.

REQUEST NO. 22: MERS is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the
mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.

REQUEST NO. 23: MERS has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the
mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.

REQUEST NO. 24: MERS is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a
promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.

REQUEST NO. 25: There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor
alleged to be in default including John Doe.

REQUEST NO. 26: MERS is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary
course of business.

REQUEST NO. 27: MERS is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the
security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.

REQUEST NO. 28: MERS does not even maintain copies of promissory notes
underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.

REQUEST NO. 29: MERS did not retain Cheatham or obligate itself in any way to pay
any legal fees to Cheatham with regard to Cheatham commencing the above entitled
action.

INTERROGATORIES
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Plaintiff, Bank of New York, answer the following
Interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof,
pursuant to Rule 33 of the ____________ Rules of Civil Procedure. These
Interrogatories are to be deemed continuing so as to require prompt supplemental
answers if additional information is obtained between the time Answers are served and
the time of trial.

INSTRUCTIONS
A. Each Interrogatory is to be answered fully on the basis of information which is in your
possession.
B. In each of your answers to these Interrogatories, you are requested to provide not
only such information as is in your possession, but also information as is reasonably
available. In the event that you are able to provide only part of the information called for
by any particular Interrogatory, please provide all the information you are able to provide
and state the reason for your inability to provide the remainder.
C. If you object to, or otherwise decline to answer, any portion of an Interrogatory,
please provide all information called for by that portion of the interrogatory to which you
do not object or to which you do not decline to answer. For those portions of an
Interrogatory to which you object or decline to answer, state the reasons for such
objection or declination.
D. Every Interrogatory herein shall be deemed a continuing Interrogatory and you are to
supplement your answers promptly if and when you obtain relevant information in
addition to, or in any way inconsistent with, your initial answer to such Interrogatory.
E. If any of the following Interrogatories can be answered fully and completely simply by
referring to an exhibit number, page, and paragraph of the investigative file compiled by
the Agency and furnished to the Appellant by the Agency in connection with this
administrative complaint of discrimination, such references, if adequately identified to
inform the Appellant as to your response, will serve as a satisfactory response to such
Interrogatory.
DEFINITIONS
A. “Document” means any writing, record, notes, memorandums, correspondence,
photographs, drawings, charts, tape or other voice recordings, or other graphic matter
whether stored on paper, cards, computers or computer disk, magnetic or videotape,
and shall include those which now are or ever were in the possession, custody, or
control of Plaintiff.

B. “Communication” means any conveyance of meaning or information, by any mode or

medium, including but not limited to, telephone, telegraph, facsimile, e-mail
correspondence, and any written or spoken language between two or more persons.

C. “Identify” or “Identity,” with respect to a document, means (regardless of whether any

claim or privilege is asserted), to set forth the following information, subject to the
Option to Produce Business Records as provided by Rule 33.03, Minnesota Rules of
Civil Procedure:

1. Its nature (e.g., letter, memorandum, report, etc.);

2. The date it bears or, if undated, the date it was written or created;
3. The identity of the person(s) who wrote or created it;
4. The identity of the person(s) who received it;
5. Its file number or other identifying mark or code;
6. Its substance; and
7. The identity of the person(s) in custody or control of it.

D. “Identify” or “Identity” with respect to a person, means to set forth the following
information:

1. The personʼs name;

2. Present or, if unknown, last home address;
3. Employer; and
4. Job title or occupation.

E. “Identify” or “Identity” with respect to a communication means the following

information:

1. Date and place of occurrence;

2. Sender or initiator;
3. Recipient;
4. Identity of each person participating or present;
5. Medium or mode used; and
6. Its substance.

F. “Person” or “Persons” means any individual, firm, partnership, association,

corporation or other entity.

G. “You” or “your” means the parties, individually and collectively, to whom this set of
Interrogatories is addressed and their officers, employees or agents.

H. The “Subject Property” refers to the property that is the subject matter of the above
entitled action located 1456 Humingbird Trail, Aviary Minnesota. .

I. “Plaintiff” refers to.”MERS” refers to the Mortgage Electronic Mortgage Registration

Systems.
L. John Doe refers to Defendant John Doe
M. “Closing” refers to origination of a loan and/or or mortgage securing a loan to Paul
Homes by and between Americaʼs Wholesale Lender to Paul Holmes.
In answering these Interrogatories, the Plaintiff is requested to furnish not only such
information as is available to the Plaintiff but also such information as is known to any of
the Plaintiffʼs agents, attorneys, and any other person or entity acting or purporting to
act on behalf of the agency.
If any matter responsive to any of the interrogatories, the Plaintiff shall set forth
completely the grounds for the asserted privilege. The Plaintiff shall identify as to each
privileged communication or document:
its date;
its author(s);
the business title or position of its author(s);
its recipients(s);
the business title or position of its recipient(s);
it number of pages;
its subject matter;
the legal basis upon which the Plaintiff claims privilege;
the specific portion of the interrogatory or document to which the communication or
document is responsive.
Each interrogatory and each part thereof is to be answered separately and fully.
Immediately preceding your response to each of the following interrogatories, please set
forth the full text of the question asked, followed by your response.
Documents are to be labeled to indicate the interrogatory to which they respond.
In order to simplify the issues and resolve as many matters of fact as possible before
hearing, if, following a reasonable and thorough investigation using due diligence, you
are unable to answer any interrogatory, or any part thereof, in full because sufficient
information is not available to you, answer the interrogatory to the maximum extent
possible, including any knowledge or belief you have concerning the unanswered
portion thereof and the facts upon which such knowledge or belief is based. In addition,
state what you did to locate the missing information and why that information is not
available to you.
When an exact answer to an interrogatory is not known, state the best estimate
available, state that it is an estimate, and state the basis for such estimate.
If documents once in your possession or under your control are requested or are the
subject of an interrogatory, and such documents are no longer in your possession or
under your control, state when such documents were most recently in your possession
or under your control, and what disposition was made of them, including identification of
the person now in possession of or exercising control over such documents. If the
documents were destroyed, state when and where they were destroyed, and identify the
person or persons who directed their destruction.

All of the following interrogatories shall be continuing in nature until the date of the
hearing, and you must supplement your answers as additional information becomes
known or available to you.
NOTE:
IF YOU CONSIDER ANY INTERROGATORY OR REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OBJECTIONABLE, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED BEFORE OBJECTING, IN
ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO NARROW THE QUESTION OR AVOID THE
OBJECTIONABLE PORTION OR ASPECT.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the name, address, employment position, and

relationship to Plaintiffs of the persons providing information and/or assisting in the
preparation of the Petition filed in the above-entitled proceeding.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the name, address, employment position, and
relationship to Plaintiffs of the persons providing information and/or assisting in the
preparation of the answers to the admissions previously served, these interrogatories
and the request for production of documents.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify every person with knowledge of any of the facts
alleged in the Complaint by Plaintiffs, and for each such person state in detail the facts
that such person has or claims to have.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify every person or entity who has or who had
possession, custody or control of any documents identified in Plaintiffsʼ answers to
these Interrogatories or in Requests for Production of Documents served on you
contemporaneously herewith, and for each such person identify the documents the
person has or claims to have and the date they came into such personʼs possession.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: State the names, addresses and telephone numbers,
employment positions, and relationship to the parties of any person from whom you
have obtained statements or reports concerning the above entitled matter and give the
dates on which such respective statements and/or reports were obtained.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify all witnesses you intend to call at trial of this matter,
and give a summary of the object matter of the testimony of each of them.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all document(s) you intend to introduce as Exhibits
at trial of this matter and/or documents upon which you relied in making the eighty eight
allegations in your Complaint. .
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: As to any of the above Request for Admissions

which you do not unqualifiedly admit, state:

(a) Each fact upon which you base your denial.

(b) Identify each person who you assert has knowledge of each such fact.
(c) Identify each document, record or item upon which you base your denial,

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Identify and list each letter communication, notice or other
written communication relating to the Subject Property by and between the Plaintiff and
any of the following persons and/or entities:
(a) John Doe.
(b) John No One.
(c) Richard Dewey.
(d) Frank Cheatham.
(e) Andy Howe.
(f) Lender XYZ.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the specific person or persons from MERS who
authorized Cheatham to commence of the above entitled action.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:. Identify in whose possession the Promissory Note given by
John Doe to ______________ Lender was at the time Cheatham commecned the
above entitled action against John Doe to foreclose the mortgage.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify and describe what, if any, lenders title insurance
policy may have been issued to MERS with regard to the mortgage which MERS is
attemtpin to foreclose by the instant action.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify and Describe in detail the factual and legal basis
supporting any of the allegations in the MERS Complaint, and identify all supporting
documents and all persons having personal knowledge of said allegations.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Explain why MERS is suing John Doe to foreclose a
mortgage that allegedly secures a debt evidenced by a promissory note held by
someone other than MERS.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify who was the holder of the underlying promissory
note which is MERS alleges is in default by its Complaint in the above entitled action.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify and describe in detail the factual and legal basis for
any and all claims MERS is asserting in this action, and identify all supporting
documents and all persons having personal knowledge of said basis.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:. Identify and describe any and all communications by and
between MERS and Defendant John Doe prior to commencing the action to foreclose
the mortgage in which MERS is named as a “nomineee”. .
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify the date when MERS retained Cheatham and
authorized Cheatham to commence the above entitled action against John Doe.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Identify and describe what, if any, communication MERS
has had with Cheatham since the above entitled action was commenced against John
Doe.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify what, if any, obligation MERS has to pay Cheatham
legal fees relating to legal services provided by Cheatham with regard to the above
entitled action that Cheatham has commenced on behalf of MERS against John Doe. .
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify what, if any, other person and/or entity is
contractually obligated to pay Cheatham legal fees to legal services provided by
Cheatham with regard to the above entitled action that Cheatham commenced on
behalf of MERS against John Doe.
. REQUEST FO DOCUMENTS.
It is hereby demanded, in accordance with Rules 34.02 and 26.02(3) of the Minnesota
Rules of Civil Procedure, that you produce and allow inspection and copying, or furnish
copies to the undersigned, of the following documents (please categorize your
responses.
REQUEST NO. 1: All documents disclosed and/or identified in your responses to
Respondentʼs Request for Admission or Interrogatories herein.
REQUEST NO. 2: All documents utilized or referred to in preparing your responses to
Respondentʼs Request for Admission or Interrogatories herein.
REQUEST NO. 3: All documents which in any way relate to the claims and/or
allegations made in the complaint filed by Cheatham purportedly on behalf of MERS in
the above entitled action.
REQUEST NO. 4 All correspondence by and between any Defendants and any person
or entity with regard to the subject mortgage loan. .
REQUEST NO. 5: Any and all closing statements, title insurance policies and/or any
other written evidences from the closing of the loan made by _____________ Lender to
John Doe. .
REQUEST NO. 6: The Original promissory note from John Doe to _____________
Lender.
REQUEST NO. 7: Any and all accounting ledger which was maintained by
_____________ Lender or subsequent holders of the John Doeʼs promissory note
which records payments of principal and interest and/or penalties made by John Doe on
the indebtedness that MERS alleges he owes under the promissory note given to
___________ Lender.
REQUEST NO. 8: Any and all documents, ledgers, or other accounting records that
were used as a basis for MERSʼ to determine a default was made by John Doe under
the promissory note he allegedly gave to _______________ Lender.
REQUEST NO. 9: Any and all documents, ledgers, or other accounting records that
were used as a basis for the calculation of amounts MERS claims is due and owing by
John Doe under the promissory note he allegedly gave to _________________ upon
which MERS has commenced an action for foreclose the MERS mortgage it claims to
have been assigned.
REQUEST NO. 10: Any and all evidence of MERS legal status as Delaware
corporation, legally entitling MERS to commence a legal action in Minnesota without
registering as a foreign corporation.
REQUEST NO. 11: Any and all written communication by or from the MERS directing or
authorizing the law firm of Cheatham to file a lis pendens and/or to commence the
above entitled action on behalf of MERS.

CLEARANCE DARROW ATTORNEY AT LAW

Dated: _____________ . ________________________________

Clearance Darrow Attorney No. 1
Attorney for John Doe
123 Expose MERS Road
Foreclosure, MN 55117
Telephone:

I sincerely hope that dissemination of the aforementioned information concerning MERS

will help educate and inform all Americans, including lawyers, judges, legal scholars and
perhaps even the mainstream media as to just what MERS is and more importantly
what it is not. I am hoping that this information will dispel any misconceptions that
MERS is a mortgage lender, a creditor or the holder of any promissory note. Accordingly
MERS, or more correctly, lawyers claiming to represent MERS are commencing legal
actions in MERS name when in fact MERS has no pecuniary interest in the underlying
debt and therefore has absolutely no standing to bring any legal action which is based
upon an indebtedness that is owed to someone other than MRS.

Lastly it appears that most suits that have been brought on behalf of MERS are lawyer
initiated with no authorization, control or involvement from MERS. Legal fees for these
MERS suits are never paid for by the MERS, but are paid either by the actual lender or
creditor or the servicer of the loan who may of may not be holding the original
promissory note. Foreclosure lawyers and law firms scattered around the country have
been able initiate tens of thousands foreclosure actions, and eviction actions under the
name of MERS because until recently most people thought MERS was a creditor,
lender or servicer with standing to foreclose and officers who could testify as to the
underlying loan. The many recent decisions dismissing MERS actions for lack of
standing and courtʼs taking issue with affidavits submitted in conjunction with these
pretended and unauthorized suits indicates a growing awareness of the MERS ruse.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:

If you have any information regarding recent legal actions commenced by MERS and/or
Bank of New York or recent court decisions wherein MERS and/or Bank of New York
were named as Plaintiffʼs please email the information to me for review and inclusion in
my ever growing dossier.

Kevin Lamson

kevin_lamson@yahoo.com