Objective  --  To Finish the Circle on Foreclosure Mediation and Foreclosure Generally in Oregon


In 2009, the National Consumer Law Center rendered a comprehensive 44 page report recommending mediation as a partial solution to the nation’s foreclosure problem.  The Oregon version of that program has a glaring omission.  As does another important new Oregon website.  The regular homeowner has three strong defenses to a bank’s foreclosure schemes that are completely left out of all Oregon foreclosure websites;  all based on the issue of STANDING: 

  1.  MERS  --  Everybody now knows that the financial institutions use of a private bulletin board instead of proper filing of documents in the County Recording Office doesn’t work.
  2.  BLUE INK --  “True and Correct” copies can no longer be the gold standard as Natache’s case so painfully demonstrates.  There is no substitute for an in camera demonstration that companies such as Countrywide actually have the real origination documents.  They don’t.
  3.  HUMPTY DUMPTY  --  Everybody is looking the wrong way.  The U.S. Supreme Court in Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) tells us that once the banks break the egg it can’t be put back together again.  The consumer gets a free home.

Materials Needed


  •  A careful examination of ALL of the Old and New Websites from Oregon’s Department of Justice, Consumer Protection and Department of Housing and Community Services regarding mediation in foreclosure discloses they fail to tell consumers about 1-3 above.
  • A careful examination of ALL of the Oregon State Bar and Legal Aid publications along with their websites fail to tell consumers about 1-3 above.
  • A careful examination of all newspaper reports on the issue of foreclosure in Oregon fail to mention 2-3 above.  Sometimes they talk about MERS. Reporters are playing catch-up.
  • A careful examination of all of the judicial decisions in Oregon fail to demonstrate legal understanding of 2-3 above except Natache’s decision in 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Garr King.  



Procedures  --  There are two things necessary to complete the foreclosure mediation circle for Oregon consumers.  


  1. Legal Aid help in Oregon is missing in nonaction.  If you look at the National Consumer Law Center’s recommendations they emphasize the importance of knowledgeable legal help in foreclosure mediation.  Oregon’s FAMP fails to mention that.  LASO admits they help less than 20% of the poor in Oregon.  Portland’s eviction court is a good place for them to start.  
  2. Pro Bono Legal Help is everywhere in Oregon.  And there is not one connected dot between those that need legal help in foreclosures and those bright shiny pro bono lawyer faces.  Moreover, there are very few Oregon lawyers that really understand foreclosure issues in Oregon, the May CLE notwithstanding.  



  •   After all, didn’t banks want to do nonjudicial foreclosure to avoid the expense of a full-scale  litigation.  Is this just a bank ruse to avoid the MERS rulings since those rulings appear to NOT apply to judicial foreclosure proceedings?  
  •   Here is where the FAMP wheels are going to fall off.  ALL CONSUMERS NEED AN ATTORNEY TO FILE A QUIET TITLE ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT 
  • FIRST!!   Then mediate.  There are 360 foreclosure cases pending in U.S District Court of Oregon.  What a great place to mine for mediations.

WHY U.S. District Court first?  Because whichever Court FIRST acquires jurisdiction over the property -- KEEPS it.  Thus, instead of playing defense, the consumer should be on the offense.  To require the bank to prove up the original BLUE INK closing documents which most of them don’ t have.  The banks are playing so many games, the consumers need legal help.

Banks want the jurisdiction to be in State Court because, unfortunately,  they want to game the judicial system and the many State judges who do not well know the laws of MERS, the importance of the BLUE INK copies nor the law of STANDING.  I have the video.  


LAUREN PAULSON bulletinsfromaloha.org

503 470 9709


Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 08:07PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments1 Comment | References2 References

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
  • Response
    The Oregon version of that program has a glaring omission. As does another important new Oregon website. The regular homeowner has three strong defenses to a bank’s foreclosure schemes that are completely left out of all Oregon foreclosure websites;

Reader Comments (1)

livinglieswordpress blog, Neil Garfield ESQ

"... Editor’s Analysis: The banks are threatening to slow down lending because of the Oregon MERS decision. They want to be fear in the hearts of realtors and sellers alike who will no doubt be recruited to join in lobbying efforts to change the law in Oregon to allow MERS in the chain of title. People who live in Oregon should be VERY vigilant to see that such a provision doesn’t get tacked onto to some innocuous bill that has nothing to do with MERS, foreclosures, mortgages or even real property.

.. Here is the problem for the banks: The reality is that that under real property law in every state you must record transfers of interest in real property if you want to be able to protect yourself against subsequent buyers or lenders who nothing about prior off-record dealings. Recording is what stabilizes the market. Where the recording rules are followed then there is notice to the world of who has what stake in any particular piece of property. A buyer or lender can buy or lend without worrying if they are really getting title or a perfected lien.

.. MERS is an intentional parallel universe in which transfer are NOT recorded and someone can pop up later claiming to be the new owner, beneficiary, trustee or whatever. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace which is bad for business generally and no doubt is going to spawn thousands of lawsuits on title insurance and title claims because MERS by its own admission never handles a dime, never gets the origination documents, and never does anything except maintain a relatively unsecured technology platform in which the members make, change, alter or amend data relating back to the so-called origination of the loan.

November 20, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterAnon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>