care about people and voters and stuff but I have a feeling that what's going on here is that judges are concerned about, well, evidence and proof and standing. If you're foreclosing on a mortgage note, it's probably a good idea (= required) to be able to produce the original note. Judges can, sua sponte ("on one's own motion"), issue orders to show cause, as mentioned here, regarding the notes:

At least two Florida judges shared Ms. Charney’s skepticism regarding the copious amounts of MERS lost note affidavits and they issued show cause orders, sua sponte, challenging MERS to show proof that it held and/or lost notes in numerous actions. After evidentiary hearings these two alert judges dismissed twenty nine (29) MERS actions to foreclose for lack of standing. One judge struck MERS pleadings as being sham. A South Carolina court dismissed a MERS action to foreclose for lack of standing even though MERS filed an affidavit wherein a person claiming to be an officer of MERS claimed that MERS was holding a promissory note. The South Carolina court vetted the MERS affidavit claim that it was the holder of the note after being apprised of the fact that MERS had previously told the Nebraska Court of Appeals that it never held promissory notes.

In late 2007 three Federal Court Judges in Ohio dismissed over fifty law suits brought by trustees of mortgage backed trusts where they could not produce the original promissory notes. Following these decisions the Bankruptcy Court in Los Angelas, California adopted a rule of practice which requires all foreclosing trustees or other plaintiffs to produce the original promissory note when bring an action to foreclose a debt or face sanctions for not doing so. Several court in New York have been routinely dismissing foreclosure actions brought by MERS or its members because they continually fail to produce promissory notes.

Courts have to have jurisdiction to hear a case and the judges in those courts are responsible for establishing that jurisdiction exists, even if the parties don't raise it. (The parties can't waive the jurisdictional requirements or, by not addressing them, sort of slide in.) If one of the parties. the one alleging that it holds the note, can't show that it holds the note by producing the original (courts are big on originals, which is why it's a good idea to sign legal documents in blue, rather than black, ink—it's easy to tell they're originals), it has no standing and the case must be dismissed. District Judge Christopher A. Royko (N.D. Ohio), in his In re Foreclosure Cases decision [PDF], made the whole thing crystal clear:

There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution’s favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit — to the contrary , they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing.

The same is likely true of state court standing requirements. (Judges probably do also want to tell those finally institutions to fuck off—you can see it in Judge Royko's reference to the plaintiff's somewhat suicidal “Judge, you just don’t understand how things work” argument—but, aside from a roiling populism, basic standing requirements are at issue here.)

Not being a lawyer, I can't offer legal advice...

That said, if our betters want us all to adopt the ethic of "Take what you can," they couldn't really be doing a better job than they are now.

to the person who holds your note. If the note wasn't assigned properly, then you don't owe any money to the person to whom it was assigned. So, you only owe the money to someone who can prove they hold the mortgage (that's the entire basis for the debt). If no one can prove they own the mortgage, then you don't owe anyone any money legally.

One of the interesting things is the suspicion that some of these notes are missing because the same mortgage was used multiple times in a securities package. That they disappeared to hide that fraud.

But if no one has the note (or is willing to produce it), then you don't owe anyone any money.