How the 2006 MERS eVault and Buckley Sandler White Paper Prove the Fraud Was Engineered from the Start

By: William Paatalo – Private Investigator / Expert Witness – bill.bpia@gmail.com

This follow-up article to “Government Contracts and Congressional Hearings Confirm the Fraud” expands on the overwhelming body of proof that MERS and its legal advisors knowingly implemented an electronic mortgage system without legal foundation. Drawing from the 2006 Buckley Sandler White Paper and the MERS eVault Brochure, we now confirm that the fraud Neil Garfield warned of—and which my abstract “How Your Mortgage Became a Wall Street Security Without Your Knowledge,” published May 20, 2025—dissected in full, was hardwired into the system years before the foreclosure crisis reached critical mass.

1. Buckley Sandler White Paper – 2006 (See:Buckley Sandler White Paper – eNotes and MERS Presentation on eNotes 2004)

This paper, drafted for MERS and other institutional actors, advocated for the adoption of electronic notes (eNotes) and digitized systems of control—but contained frank admissions that reveal the dangers:

Key Takeaways:

• UETA and E-SIGN Were Legally Unsettled: The authors admit few judicial interpretations of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the E-SIGN Act existed at the time. Enforceability of eNotes was theoretical, not established.
• Control Without Compliance: While MERS claimed to provide “control” of electronic notes under UETA, the paper concedes that such control could not be independently verified by courts. Compliance was assumed, not proven.
• MERS Not a Legal System of Record: Buckley Sandler openly states that MERS’ registry is not a legal proof of ownership. Legal enforceability depends on “documents outside the system.”

⚠️ This means MERS could never serve as lawful evidence of chain-of-title or debt ownership. The courts, however, were never told this distinction.

2. MERS eVault Brochure – 2006 (See: eVault Brochure)

Marketed as a breakthrough in efficiency and control, the eVault brochure proudly declared MERS’ ability to manage eNotes and loan data—but omitted the legal pitfalls.

Critical Admissions:

• “Constructive Possession” Without Legal Standing: The eVault relied on data control, not physical custody or verified ownership. Yet enforcement in court still required UETA compliance—a step routinely skipped.
• No Explanation of Note Transfer Protocols: The brochure never explains how notes would be legally endorsed or transferred under UCC rules. It assumed the appearance of legality without the substance.
• Centralization of Data, Not Legal Rights: The eVault’s true function was mass data aggregation—not lawful title registration. The system was built for servicing and securitization—not borrower protection.

3. Supporting Quotes from the R.K. Arnold Deposition (2009) (See: Depo RK Arnold – CEO MERS 2009 (1))

The following testimony from MERS CEO R.K. Arnold further validates that the system was designed around securitization, not lawful enforcement:

“At that point it’s been atomized into many, many, many interests.”

“It’s just a security. So it’s in everybody’s 401(k)s and all that.”

“The note doesn’t have to be endorsed in blank. It can move without endorsement.”

“The system… does not mean that legally the transfer of that interest took place. That is dependent on the underlying documents.”

“When MERS obtains possession of a note… they do not receive any compensation… True.”

These statements reveal MERS’ own internal understanding that:

• Notes were treated as securities from inception.
• Legal transfer and enforcement were often simulated.
• No consideration was exchanged, meaning no valid transfer under UCC.
• “Side documents” were required to legally support any system entries—yet often never produced in court.

Collectively, the Documents Validate the Entire Abstract

Issue Raised	R.K. Arnold Depo	Buckley Sandler Paper	MERS eVault Brochure
Notes as Securities	✔ Atomized into interests	✔ Called “financial instruments”	✔ Treated as digital assets
Possession Without Consideration	✔ “No consideration exchanged”	✖ Not addressed	✔ Constructive possession assumed
Transfers Without Endorsement	✔ “Moved without endorsement”	✔ Legal risks acknowledged	✔ Control assumed without legal basis
MERS System Not Proof of Ownership	✔ “Side docs required”	✔ Registry not legal evidence	✔ Legality bypassed via marketing

Conclusion: They Jumped the Gun

As early as 2004–2006, MERS and its legal architects—including Buckley Sandler—had already constructed the digital scaffolding of modern foreclosure fraud. But they did so before legal compliance was secured. Courts were led to believe that MERS systems established control, ownership, and legal standing. But as these documents now make clear:

• No such standing existed.
• The system was never designed for borrower protections.
• And most damning, the participants knew it.

Neil Garfield’s affidavit warned of this legal vacuum. My abstract, grounded in forensic evidence, confirmed it with specificity. These newly re-analyzed documents complete the circle.

The fraud wasn’t accidental. It was engineered.

Why the Administrative Process Is the Only Remaining Remedy

Given this structural fraud and institutional cover-up, consumer protection statutes and judicial forums have proven ineffective.

• TILA and RESPA were never built to address securities-based debt cloaking.
• The FDCPA fails when no one can identify the real “creditor.”
• Judicial forums assume facts not in evidence, giving benefit of doubt to bad actors.

This is why the administrative notice and demand process is critical:

• It forces the parties to produce proof of harm, ownership, and accounting.
• It creates a lawful record of dishonor and default when they fail.
• It establishes a basis for equitable remedies and legal standing on appeal.

“Show me the money” is no longer just a courtroom demand. It’s the foundation of a real due process remedy—outside the court’s default deference to fraud.