Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2008-AR2 Trust

HSBC Mortgage Corporation

(Nominal Lender on DOT)
LOANS
CASH
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A Wells Fargo Bank, N.A
(Seller/Sponsor/Servicer) (Master Servicer)
LOANS Parties
CASH Admitted
Wells Fargo Asset Securities CASH Lehman Brothers Special On
Corporation Financing Inc Page
Certificates
(Depositor) Bonds (Securities Underwriter) S-9
Certificates That the
LOANS Certificates Bonds CASH loans were
Bonds
sold for
Dealers cash
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed
Securities 2008-AR2 Trust Certificates
Bonds Cash
(ISSUING ENTITY)
Agents
Certificates
Bonds
HSBC Bank USA, National Association Cash
(TRUSTEE)

INVESTORS
 Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp, et al Admitted on Page “S-9”
Per Securities Exchange File # 333-143751-13, Accession # 1193125-8-38785, filed on 02/26/2008
at 4:48PM ET

CCaa
ssh
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

Lehman Brothers Special

Financing Inc

Wells Fargo Asset Securities

Corporation

Due
t
Trus o AIG
CASH Creditors
ts h Bail
DIS ave be out Received
SOL
VED en
The Wells Fargo Mortgage
Backed Securities 2008-AR2
Trust
TRUSTEE IS ACTING ULTRA-VIRUS

Borrowers signed the “NOTE” and investor received “BOND” and these both are not the same
 n
FRAUD UPON COURT t is i t
m en rus
t T
p oin ed of
p
o f A f De 24
ed o #
De ation tem
vio l i
HSBC
Mortgage
HSBC
Corporation
Mortgage
was nominal
Corporation
lender on Deed
Lacks
of Trust and
authority
Note and it has
and standing
sold for cash to
to appoint
Seller/Sponsor
the
/Servicer for
substitute
cash
Trustee as
required by
Item#24 of
Deed of
Trust

HSBS Mortgage Corporation Wells Fargo Bank, N.A Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. Lehman Brothers IncDealersAgents Investors
CHAIN OF TRANSFER OF TITLE WAS NOT PERFECTED, NO ASSIGNMENTS EXECUTED & No endorsement
on the Note AS PER “Pooling and Servicing Agreement
The Title of the Property has been clouded
 CC
HHSSBB hhoo
tthhee xx”” w
kk ffoorr cc w
woorr nndd ““DDoo eeaatitioonn
w
nnoott ”” aa ccrr
ddooeess ““LLPPSS ss ffoorr eennttss,,
ddnneeyy ooyyeeee ooff titiggaatitioonn uum m
iiaa VVaa eem mppll aall IInnvveess eeggaall ddoocc aannnnuuaall
Maarr
M
iiss aann eerr iilll eeiirr
aanndd nnddeerr FFeedd tteedd aanndd uuddss iinn tthh eess aanndd 11--
aa aa ititi
i 00
aarree uu ee,, ffaabbrriicc tthheessee ffrr ee SSeeccuurr iillee ## ## 00
kk hh FF
ooff ffaa ddm iitttteedd dd w iitthh tt eerr SSEECC
aa m llee w pp
aanndd KK fi
fi ss ssiioonn 00
rrtt 1100 m
m ii 11
rreeppoo nnggee CCoom m 33//2200
aa 0022//22
EExxcchh 55 ddaatteedd
33440000
  
SS””
ooff ““LLPP dd eem ppllooyyeeee
aann m
O--SSIIGGN NEERR”” rr aannootthheerr
OBBO
““RRO M.. LLaass
ttee
llllee M
Miicchhee
M

Bierman Geesing, Ward &

sharing the legal fees with “LPS” &”Docx”

Wood LLC is supervising all this fraud and

which are non attorney

???
IGNER
adney

????
ROBO-S
Maria V

Law Firm of
 Deed of Trust

Note especially the

reference to creating
two entities to MERS
exercise collection
and foreclosure
information
instead of one thus says, “ Servicer”
reinforcing the is
argument of financial MIN#
HSBC Mortgage
double jeopardy. The
MERS deed would Corporation
therefore be void, USA
Thus there would be
no security, probably
no note and maybe
no obligation either if
the “Lender” was paid
in full at closing by a
third party in the
securitization chain or
if the derivative
products were sold
and insured.

Page-1
Put one name on the note and another on the DOT as beneficiary (particularly when
the beneficiary is MERS and therefore an undisclosed principal) and you have direct
evidence that the intention of the parties was to separate the note from the
mortgage. MERS, named as
“Beneficiary” on the Deed
of Trust, when “MERS” is
not a creditor and there is
no name of “MERS” on the
This makes Deed of Trust “VOID” and Note becomes “UNSECURED” Note
“MERS CANNOT BE
BENEFICIARY BECAUSE
HSBC already sold what it had
sometime (Double Dipping) THE MERS IS NORT
CREDITOR”

“MERS” Cannot be
Beneficiary as
“MERS” is not
creditor

Deed of Trust Page-2

 When MERS is on the Deed of The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to
Trust then there is No Corpus, make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, without the agency
No Trust,(1). There must be relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in
clear intention to create a trust the event of default.
(2). There must be a
Trustor/Granter to create Trust
(3). There must be a Trust
Corpus or assets ( 4). There
must be duties assigned to
Trustee (5). There must be
ASCERTAINED or ASERTAINABLE,
beneficiaries 0r put another
way, there is no such thing as a
"STRAW" or "nominal"
beneficiary and, without
ASERTAINED or ASCERTAINABLE
Beneficiaries the trust
Instrument is VOID.( 6). Without
Promissory note (Asset &
Corpus) there cannot be a valid
trust and without a valid Trust
there is no longer need for any
security called Deed of Trust.
Corpus of the Trust is not there.
(7). The Deed of Trust is a Trust
Instrument and as such must
meet certain criteria to be valid.
SO IF THERE IS NO CORPUS NO
TRUST
Deed of Trust
Page -3
 MERS as beneficiary on Deed of Trust is a Portal between two Universes of
Commercial Law (Negotiable instrument) and Mortgage Law; There is NO Trust, No
“MERS” cannot Corpus, No Trust
be “Beneficiary”
Because it is not
Creditor

A beneficiary is not a beneficiary unless they are a creditor,MERS

in this case is not a creditor????MERS never received even a single
penny from the borrower's payment, MERS cannot be beneficiary]

Using a nominee
immediately creates the
question of agency. The
question of agency MERS' role
immediately raises the in acting as
question of "who is the a mortga-
principal?" As long as that gee of
question exists, the record in
nominee
statute is violated. If this
capacity is
statue is violated the simply a
deed of trust is void. tax evasion
, MERS is a break in the tool
chain of Title and is Deed
of Trust is void
Deed of Trust-Page-4