At some peril of boring everyone, I have posted the various briefs to the first of the three New York Romaine appeallate cases. The material is admittedly dated (2001-2). But some of the arguments are the same as those now being resolved in New York courts.
Moreover, these briefs, taken together, give Forum participants, and particularly those from New York, a sense of how arguments are developed and presented on appeal.
I will candidly tell you that I have NOT thoroughly read this material myself. Right now, I am finding the new information on the MERS and mortgage fraud meltdown to be gushing at a rather startling flow. In the Intel world, we describe this as "drinking out of a firehose".
I could keep the information to myself, but by posting it, perhaps someone with a little more time and focused interest, particularly in New York, can identify for use some overlooked tidbit amidst the past filings. This might be a case presented or an argument made in 2001 or 2002 that has since been overlooked, or it might just be the insight into how MERS has continued to talk out of both sides of its mouth and to decieve both the courts and its members in its criminal enterprise.
Here are the briefs from the first MERSCorp appeal:
MERSCorp Appellant's Brief (21 Nov 2001)
Edward P. Romaine's Respondent's Brief (17 Dec 2001)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Amicus Brief (25 Jan 2002)
(Yes, your tax dollars have subsidized this criminal enterprise!)
MERSCorp's Appellant's Reply Brief (05 Feb 2002)