What the dot trustee should get is the note with all endorsements and the dot with

any and all assignments (which should have been recorded). There's no reason a borrower should not get copies of the note with its endorsements, at least on request. As to the assignments, the borrower must have notice of anyone's claimed interest in his real estate and how they got it. The final endorsee on the note should be the same party with the final assignment of the dot. Without notice, nothing is enforceable against a homeowner or his property. The trustees job for one is to receive and review the allegedly defaulted note and all endorsements, the deed of trust, (if he doesnt already have certified copies of the originals, which imo as the trustee he should have gotten upon his initial appointment or sent to anyone upon this substitution) and all assignments of the deed of trust. The trustee must ascertain that the party telling him to foreclose is the right party. There is no reasonable argument against this. Todays trustees are not doing any such thing, and that is one of our CORE problems. This failure is right there at the heart of what ails us. They don t get much of anything. What they get, I m told, is a password for the servicers database to go in and find the default $$ in the database. (And it s my understanding this gives them carte blanche access to other borrower s private information, including social security numbers, which for all I know, really bad apples might sell.) There is no regard given by the trustee for who owns the note and has rights under the dot. If he doesn t get the documents, he simply cannot know this. How could he? The trustee seems to be relying solely on the default showing in the database at the (alleged) servicer s. (Why alleged ? Because if a servicer were appointed pursuant to a PSA, but the loan never made it into a trust in the first place, the servicer isn t really the servicer.) Given that up until mid 2010, MERS made no attempt to show the noteowner (or whatever they are calling anyone) in its own database, which information was made as a strictly voluntary entry by its members with no oversight in the first place, it could not be said that trustees has ever had or does have other sources of information beyond the default figures $$ shown in the servicer s system. Even if a trustee could have or could now access noteowner / investor what the heck information in MERS database, by its own admission, MERS does not stand on the accuracy of that information: "DISCLAIMER: MERS makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or reliability of the information provided. MERS disclaims responsibility or liability for errors, omissions, and the accuracy of any information provided. MERS does not input any of the information found on the MERS System, but rather the MERS Members have that responsibility regarding mortgage loans in which they hold an interest. Users of this information have the responsibility to verify the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information. The information does not constitute the official legal record and is for informational purposes only...." There is also no reasonable argument that such reliance (on MERS "records") by a deed of trust trustee, a party with such an important task, would be appropriate. MERS rules do not the law make.

The trustee may only act for the beneficiary of the deed of trust, who to gain the benefit of the collateral instrument, the dot, must also own the right to payment evidenced by the debt instrument, the note. (see also Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages, Section 5.4(c) as cited in MERS v Johnston, Rutland Sup Ct, VT, Dkt No. 420-6-09. The dot only authorizes a trustee to act for the proper party. It does not authorize him to act for anyone else aka pretenders. The trustee cannot do his job without the requisite evidence. The issue then, of course, becomes what evidences anyone s rights and I opine it s the note with all endorsements signed by people whose authority is not merely presumed but is properly evidenced (evidence means something is evident, does it not?) I sometimes say the record does not produce evidence of this or that . If a homeowner can t see it because it is not evident, neither can the trustee or a judge. One reason, but only one, this is mentioned is because certain entities are having their own employees execute multiple endorsements as officers of this and that company along the note s way to securitization five minutes before they are forced to produce the note with zero evidence of that officership or authority (because there is none). The trustee not fulfilling his obligations is the start of foreclosure bad news for homeowners, otherwise known as wrongful foreclosure. And while some judges have chosen to make light of the provisions for substitutions of trustees, if a trustee is not duly - key word appointed, there is no real substitution, and that trustee s deed would be as worthless as the paper it s written on. If all the rules had been followed by the lender, its successors and assigns, the trustee could and would be given the appropriate documents he is IN TRUTH to be given to perform his duties. This is only logical. Today s players didnt follow the rules and cannot produce these documents for the trustee. So todays trustees are acting as mere collection agents for strangers, strangers even to the trustee. The deed of trust is a three party instrument and the instrument was created that the trustee would act on behalf of the other two parties the beneficiary and the trustor (borrower) - so lenders could skip judicial foreclosure with the aid of the trustee, a neutral party. Someone is getting the benefit of this non-judicial foreclosure bargain, and it clearly isn t the homeowner. The homeowner is pretty much subject to one abuse after another by what was a lender-privelege in the first place. "Trustees" these days outrageously are any yahoos with little more than a pulse. When trustees abandon their duties to the deed of trust, they should be called out in whatever manner possible, starting with dereliction of duty and breach of fiduciary. It s clearly my take that MERS enables and participates in a lot of bad acts, but that is no excuse for the trustee not fulfilling his obligations to the terms of the deed of trust. He just canNOT do this when he doesnt get the documents. Trustees are far from bit players; they are major players because its their mandate to follow the terms of the deed of trust, to protect the very significant interests of the other two parties, and if they did, strangers wouldnt be making off with real property. One won t find these things in any statute. When these issues, "issues"

being defined as the trustee shirking his duties to the deed of trust, are brought before a court, as well they should be, one can reasonably stand on two things: the language in the dot which only authorizes a trustee to act for the beneficiary (not a pretender) and logic. Logic dictates that a trustee cannot do his job if he does not ascertain that he is being asked to foreclose by the proper party. And he cannot properly disclose the amount of arrearages in the notice of default if he does not first ascertain what if any amounts were paid on a borrower s note by third parties. It s important to remember and perhaps remind the judiciary that is was not the homeowner who set out in a business plan which would compel the production of a tome of information / evidence. It id singularly the machinations of Wall Street and its securitization-business-plan. If a homeowner ends up with a "free" home because that choice of business plans fails to disclose anyone s right to take a home, then so be it, because whether the judiciary or any of us agree in principle or not, that is the Law.