that the County’s allegations that MERS violated recording statutes by failing to record assignments stated a claim for relief), In re Thomas, 447 B.R. 402, 412 (Bankr.D.Mass.2011) (applying Massachusetts law and holding that “[w]hile the assignment purports to assign both the mortgage and the note, MERS ... was never the holder of the note, and therefore lacked the right to assign it.... MERS is never the owner of the obligation secured by the mortgage for which it is the mortgagee of record”), and In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392, 404 (Bankr.D.Idaho 2009) (applying Idaho law and holding that MERS is not authorized “either expressly or by implication” to transfer notes as the “nominal beneficiary” of the lender), with Town of Johnston v. MERSCORP, Inc., 950 F.Supp.2d 379, 384 (D.R.I.2013) (<HOLDING>); DeFranceschi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 837
holding rhode island law does not require recording of assignments among mers members holding that minnesota law does not require recording of assignments of promissory notes among mers members holding that the mere absence of a tape recording or transcript does not mean that an alien is deprived of his due process rights holding that informant acted under color of law when fbi supervised recording holding that a letter describing discussions between board members did not support conclusion that the three members whom a jury could find individually acted with racial animus had an understanding among themselves to do so