Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 1 of 6



DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO ALVIE LYNN CAMPBELLS MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL AMICUS BRIEF Yet another disappointed pro se litigant seeks to inject himself into this action. In this instance, Alvie Lynn Campbell seeks leave to file both an amicus curiae brief and a supplemental amicus curiae brief in this action in order to provid[e] a different perspective of an obvious governing law seemingly obscure from state and federal courts.1 Mr. Campbell previously lost a case that he brought against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) in Texas state court, challenging the foreclosure of his property. His largely unintelligible briefs would not assist the Court in deciding the issues in this case, and he fails to demonstrate an interest in this lawsuit. The Court should deny the motions. I. Mr. Campbell is an individual residing in Williamson County, Texas. In 2010, he sued MERS and Wells Fargo for wrongful foreclosure, claiming that Wells Fargo lacked authority to

Request for Leave to File Amicus Curiae (Motion) (Nov. 18, 2013) (ECF No. 135) (First Motion); Request for Leave to File Supplemental [sic] to Amicus Brief (Supplemental Brief) (Dec. 4, 2013) (ECF No. 138) (Second Motion).


Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 2 of 6

foreclose on his property because the note and deed of trust had been bifurcated.2 The trial court granted the defendants no-evidence motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. After Mr. Campbell appealed, the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed,3 and in so doing issued a ruling that rejects one of the main theories that Plaintiff Nueces County has advanced in this action: When, as here, the deed of trust names MERS as the nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns and the deed of trust is recorded in the local real-property records with MERS as the named beneficiary, MERS remains the mortgagee of record if the note is transferred between MERS members, and there is no requirement that the deed of trust be rerecorded each time it is transferred. Campbell v. MERS, 2012 WL 1839357, at *4 (Tex. App. Austin May 18, 2012) (emphasis added). Mr. Campbell and James McGuire who filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in this case, which the Court denied on September 9, 2013 operate nearly identical websites, and Both websites contain a link called Alvie Explains It, where Mr. Campbell posts various MERS-related articles like MERS Magick Trick, Theft by Deception, and Alvie Explains what James has explained many times, Texas Style.4

Memorandum Opinion, Campbell v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 3-11-00429-CV, at 3 (Tex. Ct. App. May 18, 2012).
3 4

Id. at 3, 12. See 2


Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 3 of 6

II. Mr. Campbells amicus filings will not aid this Court in resolving the issues before it;5 indeed, he does not even identify any pending motion or issue to which his amicus filings relate. The content of his briefs is primarily a critique of technology, alleging that because the MERS System database is electronic, MERS, the corporation, cannot hold security instruments because they are made of paper. See, e.g., First Motion at 6;6 Second Motion at 1.7 Along those same lines, he expresses concern that would-be litigants cannot depose a computer system.8 Both filings are filled with long, meandering discussions of MERS and supposed electronic

Appearing as an amicus curiae is a privilege, United States v. La., 751 F. Supp. 608, 620 (E.D. La. 1990), and [t]he extent to which the court permits amicus briefing lies solely within the courts discretion. United States v. Olis, 2008 WL 620520, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2008). To earn this privilege, a party must show its participation would be useful or otherwise necessary to the administration of justice. Id. Thus, a district court lacking joint consent of the parties should go slow in accepting an amicus brief unless the amicus has a special interest that justifies his having a say, or unless the court feels that existing counsel may need supplementing assistance. Club v. FEMA, 2007 WL 3472851, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2007) (quoting Strasser v. Dooley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir.1970)).

In particular, he argues: You can attach a scanner, a printer, a camera, a keyboard, a mouse, a monitor, or any other peripheral to a computer, but you cant attach paper. So, how can a party named in a tangible [paper] deed of trust, attach and perfect the deed of trust to an intangible [electronic] transferable record? This is exactly what MERS members are attempting to do, so that MERS, a computer, an electronic agent, can somehow hold a paper deed of trust, while a MERS member holds an electronic promissory Note. Even that hair brain scenario cannot function logically or lawfully.

How does a computer know it has rights? How does an electronic agent, a computer system know it has a right to power of sale? How does a computer know what a deed of trust is? How does a computer know what a human is?

He explains, Has anyone tried to depose an electronic agent? Has anyone tried to depose a credit card machine? Has anyone tried to depose an ATM machine? There is a serious Constitutional issues with book entry system, in Texas whether this thought has ever rolled around inside those pea brains out there. First Motion at 10. 3

Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 4 of 6

transfers of interests in loans.9 Not only are the arguments nonsensical they are totally irrelevant to the issues in this action, a case filed by a Texas county seeking damages and other relief against Defendants concerning the legality of documents recorded in county land records and whether an assignment of deed of trust must be recorded when a promissory note is transferred. Because Mr. Campbells brief would not assist the Court in resolving the issues in this case, the Court should deny the Motion. Mr. Campbell also fails to carry his burden of demonstrating that he has an interest in this case that would justify amicus participation.10 Although he claims to have an interest as a Texas taxpayer[],11 Mr. Campbell does not explain how state taxpayer status gives him a resident of Williamson County an interest in a case about Nueces Countys public land records. The lack of a cognizable interest in this case provides another ground to deny the Motion.12 For these reasons, the Court should deny Campbells motion for leave to file an amicus brief and his motion for leave to file a supplemental amicus brief.

9 10

First Motion at 2-10; Second Motion at 1-12.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are silent on amicus participation, courts in this District assess such requests under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. Club, 2007 WL 3472851, at *1; U.S. ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 F. Supp. 2d 920, 928 (S.D. Tex. 2007)). That rule requires a potential amicus to set forth its interest in the case in seeking leave to participate.
11 12

First Motion at 1; Second Motion at 1. See, e.g., Leal v. HHS, 2009 WL 1148633, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2009). 4


Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 10, 2013

/s/ Thomas Hefferon Thomas M. Hefferon (admitted pro hac vice) Joseph F. Yenouskas (admitted pro hac vice) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 901 New York Ave., NW, Suite 900 Washington DC 20001 202.346.4000 Telephone 202.346.4444 Facsimile

Darrell L. Barger HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP 800 North Shorline Blvd. Suite 2000, North Tower Corpus Christi, TX 78401 361.866.8000 Telephone 361.866.8039 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, National Association /s/ Robert M. Brochin Robert M. Brochin (admitted pro hac vice) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300 Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Telephone: 305.415.3456 Facsimile: 305.415.3001 E-mail: David J. Levy State Bar No. 12264850 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston , Texas 77002 Telephone: 713.890.5000 Facsimile: 713.890.5001 E-mail: Attorneys for Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.


Case 2:12-cv-00131 Document 141 Filed in TXSD on 12/10/13 Page 6 of 6

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on December 10, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of Electronic Filing by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system.

/s/ Thomas Hefferon Thomas Hefferon