Quote: Yes I understand the issues with MERS. My point is to present an A or B argument to a court. If the court chooses to legitimize the role of MERS, then they should recognize that legitimacy stems from the membership agreement and purported agency relationship. The membership agreement is not on a loan by loan basis. Without specific instructions to end the MERS relationship on a specific loan, any assignment by MERS to a MERS member results in MERS being beneficiary (as nominee). It doesn't matter who makes the assignment or which lender MERS assigns to. It could be the current lender or a new lender. With the agent agreement in place; MERS will be the beneficiary.
You totally fail to comprehend agency. See Mr. Roper's helpful posts on this subject.
The existence of an agency arrangement never precludes a principal from acting on its own behalf. Rather, it only additionally authorizes the agent to act on behalf of the principal.
Even when the agent lacks actual authority, a principal can later authorize an act by an agent through ratification.
Agency is distinguishable from guardianship or receivership. When a guardian is appointed for a person, the guardianship displaces the person's authority to act on their own behalf. Agency doesn't. Similarly, appointment of a receiver divests a person or board of directors of authority over the assets of an estate. In Bankruptcy, the trustee succeeds to authority over the assets of the bankrupt debtor.
You are way off into wingnut never neverland, pursuing unproductive avenues. Moreover, if you think you are helping yourself by trying to bring MERS primary documents into a case, you are probably headed in precisely the wrong direction. It is usually easier to deny MERS authority by pointing to the creditor's failure to get the MERS membership agreement and other primary materials into evidence.
It seems that you are resolved to put this material into evidence to assure your defeat.
You seem to fail to appreciate that the facts in a case are not the objective and actual facts, but rather only the facts in evidence before the court adjudicating the matter.