Bill Paatalo Investigations: Washington Mutual Bank Sold These 67,529 Toxic Loans, And Not One Single Foreclosure By The Investors?

 Having investigated the WaMu/FDIC/Chase fact pattern for nearly seven-years now, and having investigated hundreds of foreclosure cases where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, one fact is now well established – no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed. The reason for this fact is that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public. For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.

Chase Admits, Then Denies

In cases I have reviewed all across the country, borrowers have made and continue to make, inquiries to their servicer “Chase” for the identity of the beneficial owners / investor(s) of their WaMu loan(s) only to be told,

“Your loan was sold into a public security managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized by the security to handle any related concerns on their behalf” (See:   Chase Private Investor Letters ).

In both cases involving these two disclosure letters, after having made these admissions to the borrowers, JPMorgan Chase reversed itself in court by taking the position that it was the sole owner of the loans by virtue of the PAA, and there were no investors associated with these loans because “WaMu never sold or securitized the loans.”

But now Chase has tripped itself by disclosing an actual investor in complete contradiction of its publicly recorded assignment. (See:   Chase Discloses Investor WaMu 2007-FLX1 but assigns deed to itself in 2012.)

Here, Chase executes this self-serving assignment to itself from the FDIC declaring beneficial rights to the deed of trust even though they disclosed to the borrower that the owner of the loan is “Deutsche Bank Nat Trust Co as Trustee for WAMU 2007-FLEX1.” This particular investor trust was the subject of litigation within the Washington Mutual, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding (See:  WaMu Inc Investor Complaint 2010.)

According to the complaint, the WAMU 2007-FLEX1 was a part of three asset trusts set up by Washington Mutual Preferred Funding, LLC (WMPF), who purchased the assets from WMB in 2006 and 2007. The following asset trusts were labeled “Preferred Trust Securities”:


(Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I)

(WaMu 2006-OA1)

(WaMu 2007-FLEX1)


Per the Complaint:

16. On September 26, 2008, as a result of the FDIC’s takeover of Washington Mutual Bank and the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc., Plaintiffs’ investments in the Preferred Trust Securities automatically converted into preferred stock of Washington Mutual, Inc., and thereby rendered worthless.  

260. Upon seizing WaMu, the FDIC immediately sold off WaMu’s assets and bank deposits to the highest bidder. (WaMu’s debt and preferred equity securities obligations, such as those owned by Plaintiff, were not part of the transaction.)

Very little information is available regarding these “Preferred Trust Securities” outside of this “Confidential Offering Circular.” (See:  Asset Trusts Offering Circular.)

However, one thing is crystal clear. WMB sold “67,529” of these toxic loans totaling “$10,947,602,313.00” to WMPF, and was reimbursed for the sale of these assets. WMPF then sold all assets backing these “67,529” loans to investors in these securities. (See: “Appendix E” of Offering Circular.)

Combined Asset Trust Data 67529 loans

These loans were some of the worst, fraud-laced loans originated by WMB, yet my initial investigation has yet to find a single foreclosure action (judicially or non-judicially) in the name of any of these investor trusts. How can this be, you ask? Simple, because JPMorgan Chase has decided to claim ownership of these loans, and continues to foreclose and harvest these assets in its own name by concealing these facts, and denying in Courtrooms that WMB ever sold or securitized these loans. This fraud story, which Chase and its attorneys continue to stick to, is no longer believable or sustainable based on the cumulative evidence compiled in the public domain. I can pretty much assure that all 67,529 of these loans have a non-existent and fatally defective chains of title.

But here’s something even more dubious and suspicious. In “JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s” 10-K filings with the SEC for fiscal years 2009-2013, “Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I,” “WaMu 2006-OA1,” and “WaMu 2007-FLEX1” are all listed as subsidiaries of the company, but vanished as subsidiaries beginning in 2014. What I suspect is that these 67,529 loans, or whatever is left of them, were sold by Chase in hedge fund debt purchases in 2014, along with the non-existent chains of title. I’ll save that for another article.

These trusts were set-up as Delaware Statutory Trusts with REMIC status. In virtually all PSA agreements for DST’s that are visible, to which the DST’s are irrevocable and elect REMIC status, they are required to maintain complete separateness from any other person or entity. Chase’s naming of these trusts as subsidiaries certainly smells “fishy.” At best, Chase acquired servicing rights to these loans, but even this should not be assumed. How a servicer can take control of a REMIC Trust and claim it as a subsidiary on its 10-K is beyond me, but I’d sure like to see the documentation granting this authority.

In the meantime, someone explain to me how tens of thousands of foreclosures have been conducted in the names of private MBS REMIC trusts since the crash in 2008, and not one foreclosure appears to have occurred within this toxic group of 67,529 loans in the name of Deutsche Bank as Trustee for these trusts. The odds are virtually impossible.


Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411




19 Responses

  1. Equal to 12 years pari passu bond scheme using contra accounts

  2. Five years plus one

  3. Missing a few things that can bury Chase.

  4. The borrower got the loan in 1990 and defaulted 2 months later in 1990

    The maturity date on that particular mortgage was 1995

    So it must have been only a 5 year mortgage

    So this is why other courts and lawyers are looking at this case and saying that my argument and Judge Kaplan decision fails …

    They are saying that because this court looked at the stated maturity date of the original mortgage contract to start the 6 year CLOCK

    But what they fail to say that there was no accelleratikn or complaint filed in my case and Judge Kaplan’s bankruptcy case

    This case is skewed and misleading because it was only a 5 yr mortgage .. And the bank never filed and elected to accellerate when he defaulted in 1990

    The bank didn’t file until after the 6 years had run on the mortgage final payment date

    Still good for the borrower … But not helpful to others with a 30 year mortgage …as the courts and banks are saying they have until 6 yrs after the 30 year date of your mortgage to keep trying to forclose

    My argument is that once they file and change the maturity date, the 6 years begins to run

    Also the note is unenforceable after 6 years under NJ statute once it is accellerated …so they have to run together

    The new 20 year statute speaks only about the mortgage ..not the note

  5. I just took another look at the case in the link you provided …now it appears that the court is saying the 6 years SOL starts at the default.

    Well then what would be the purpose of the new 20 year statute?

    Very confusing …leave it to NJ

    I’ll have to ask my attorney for his opinion on this mess

  6. @ Kali …yes, that is the other case which was recently decided, but has a much different fact pattern than my case and the case that Judge Kaplan decided in NJ Fed Bankruptcy Court.

    In this case you posted …the mortgage must have been 5 years?

    Mortgage loan signed in 1990 …fixed date for last payment 1995

    So the court looked at the wording from the new 20 year rule …

    Bank has a right to foreclose 20 years from date of default OR 6 years from stated date of final payment or from maturity date

    This is where the Bankruptcy judge saw fit to give the borrower the free house …by saying the bank creates a new maturity date when it elects to utilise a clause within the mortgage contract, where they accellerate and trigger a new maturity date …which is articulated in the language of their foreclosure complaint and in the assignment ….saying they now want all of the money RIGHT NOW….no longer 30 years later upon the date of making your final payment.

    The judge in my case denied this argument and said he has to follow precedence and its up to the Appellate Division to change how the courts view this argument … Now my case will put this argument before the Appellate Court to decide

    My main argument is that the bank cannot have 2 maturity dates

    They have the option to work with the homeowner and NOT to file foreclosure and accellerate …they quickly ELECT to accellerate, thus changing the 30 year stated maturity date for making final payment ..into their newly elected maturity date …the date of the complaint where they elected to demand all monies due RIGHT NOW..TODAY.

    But it’s either one of the other … You cannot have 2 differing dates of maturity.

    This seems to be what the Fed Judge was saying…that the bank freely elects to demand all money due when they file the complaint ..he feels that they are thereby creating the new maturity date at that point and must successfully litigate their case within 6 years or be time-barred.

    I believe the true intent of the 20 year rule applies to those in default who had never had a foreclosure complaint filed against them after defaulting ….the lawmakers were concerned over the confusion about who actually owned the loans after the meltdown scandal exposed the faulty documents and missing notes …they were simply trying to help the banks by writing a new 20 year rule to foreclose …


    The Fed Judge pointed out that the NJ Statute governing notes remained the same …6 years from maturity ..and it gives more clarity by saying that a lender can change the maturity date by electing to call the whole sum due …he used this to explain that the note is unenforceable… Which means the mortgage is meaningless after the note is deemed done, over and unenforceable.

    So right now my note is deemed unenforcabke under NJ statute.

    Yet Wells Fargo is still attempting to steal my home under the mortgage contract …which no longer has an enfotprcable note ???

    Who is really trying to get a free house ??

  7. @ TravestyOfJustice

    The article referring to the NJ ruling appears to have been posted on LL, but nonetheless is as follows:

    15-4- 9718 Anim Inv. Co. v. Shaloub, N.J. Super. Chan. (Jerejian, J.S.C.) (13 pp.)

    The court found that N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1 of the Fair Foreclosure Act, which took effect on Aug. 6, 2009, applied retroactively to this action. It then found that N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1(a) was applicable and under that provision, the statute of limitations was triggered by the date fixed for making of the last payment or the maturity date, i.e., Oct. 1, 1995. Thus, applying the plain language of the limitations period described in subsection (a), an action to foreclose on the mortgage at issue was timely if commenced no later than six years from Oct. 1, 1995. Because the complaint was filed after the running of the six-year statute of limitations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1(a), the court found that it was untimely and plaintiff was time-barred from filing a foreclosure complaint. Therefore, the court granted defendants’ motion. [Filed June 30, 2016]

  8. Gordon Washington v. Specialized Loan Servicing ….

    In the Federal Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey .. Judge Kaplan wrote the famous decision where he reiterated his fellow judges mantra that says “nobody gets a free house” ..and then goes on to state that he will now hold his nose and gargle afterward since he sees no other way but to grant Me. Washington the “free house” …

    I used the language from Judge Kaplan’s decision where he thoroughly broke it down and dissected the law and NJ Statutes regarding the right to foreclose on property.

    SIDE NOTE: … After the mortgage meltdown of 2007-2008 and the wave of foreclosures that followed …a certain group of NJ politicians had created a new statute allowing banks 20 years to foreclose ..saying that it was needed because of the vast amounts of people defaulting, that it would be unreasonable to expect the banks to be able to get to all of these in such a short timeframe.

    New Jersey always had the 6 year SOL on the books, and still does ..which the Federal Bankruptcy judge pointed out. But the State Superior Courts had used the new 20 year statute as a reason to deny the homeowners 6 year SOL defenses and claims.

    The Federal judge pointed out that the language of the 20 year rule seemed to clearly state that 20 years to foreclose, or no longer than 6 years from the maturity date, etc., etc.

    Judge Kaplan pointed out that the bank elected to accellerate and call the total loan due in their foreclosure complaint and in the language of the assignment of mortgage. He ruled that they chose and elected to accellerate, which in turn created a new maturity date.

    The foreclosure accelleration clause inside the mortgage contract is a clause that the bank chose to trigger.

    The bank lawyers and state courts keep saying the Judge is wrong, that the majority date is the stated date of the mortgage ..30 years ..and that the new 20 year rule language that states “or no longer than 6 years from the maturity date” must be refering to the end of the mortgage or 30 years …

    So they are arguing that in my case … We refinanced in 2004

    2004 … Refinanced

    2007 … July 1, 2007 Rescinded under TILA

    2007 … SEPT. 25, 2007 Wells Fargo accellerated and called loan due

    2007 … Oct. 8, 2007 .. Wells Fargo fabricated & forged assignment

    2011 … Nov 2011 judge signs order vacating the final judgment and dismissing the COMPLAINT after WF submits the prepared order voluntarily after they refuse to comply with his order to produce witnesses to testify under oath regarding my fraud allegations that was the basis of my motion to vacate the final judgment.

    * this also raises issues can a COURT allow a party who is accused of fraud dismiss the case and stop the inquiry?

    Isn’t a courts duty to follow through to a finding on the fraud, before allowing the party to fold up their fraud scheme and walk away?

    They had already brought the fraud upon the court ..they had already gotten a judge to sign a final judgment based on the fraudulent docs.

    This judge was wrong to allow them to kill his order for the plenary hearing. The plenary hearing was in regards to my motion, not theirs. They were the party who had brought the fraud can they end the inquiry of a court into fraud ?

    Anyway …back to the Federal judge and 6 year SOL

    He held that the bank electing to accellerate does in fact create a new maturity date …and once 6 years is up, the bank is out of time.

    He also points out a separate NJ statute regarding notes …there is no doubt that 6 years is still in effect on notes ..once called due and attempts at legal collection begin ..6 years is all you get.

    So it boils down to the mortgage only … He says the note is unenforceable because of the NJ UCC statutes on notes …

    The intent of the w0 year rule that the stupid politician wrote was for those instances where a borrower defaults, but the bank doesn’t get around to filing a foreclosure complaint. The intent was under the guise of protecting marketable title , that if someone slipped thru the net , the bank could catch up to them and has 20 years to do it.

    It didn’t mean that the banks have 20 years to litigate , dismiss and relitigate a foreclosure case for 20 years until they get it right. That is ridiculous to even think it should mean that.

    Once you accellerate …you get 6 years to collect ..just like the statute that governs notes …judge Kaplan pointed out.

    He granted the borrower the free house.

    I used judge Kaplan’s language and derptailed explanation in my argument, but tailored it to my specific facts.

    **** Wells Fargo appealed the Bankruptcy court decision ****

    The District Court judge reversed Judge Kaplan ..but her written decision is weak and lame ..full of holes …she is no match for the more intelligent judge Kaplan ….she overturned him due strictly to the courts mantra that says “nobody gets a free house”

    Now Gordon Washington’s lawyers have appealed her decision.

    It is being decided right now as we speak.

    The female judge who reversed Kaplan is a lady who many felt was unqualified for the job …it was a political appointment done to satisfy some group of something … Also of interest..her husband attorney was almost dis-barred for something to do with his real estate practice where he was fleecing his clients out of money.

    In between all that drama ..was another recent case where a court affirmed the 20 year rule in NJ.. But what they fail to say is ..the difference in the cases is paramount ..the recent case had no foreclosure complaint filed after the default accelleration. So when the bank finally filed ..the homeowner tried to say 6 years elapsed ..but he lost because there was no complaint, no accelleration .. But the courts and lawyers are trying to already twist that to mean we should all lose ..including judge Kaplan case …but they are wrong ..Kaplan got it right.

    I don’t know ..the name of the appeal court … District Court of Appeals?

  9. @ TravestyOfJustice

    I hope you’ll keep a close eye on counsel of record for the appeal [Dwight].

    Also, I believe I saw a recent opinion affirming the 6-year SOL in NJ, and thought of its applicability to your case. I’ll look around for it, and if I locate it I will post it in this thread.

    Meanwhile, keep a close eye on counsel of record, and do not give up!

  10. Battery running out …

    To be continued

    Kali … Remember you helped me by suggesting that I object in writing after that second judge granted me oral arguments on my motion to vacate the summary judgment and dismiss the complaint with prejudice ..He later adjourned it twice …and then had it removed from the court calendar a day before my hearing.

    I did object in writing

    Also you advised me to request they take judicial notice of the Paatalo case …which I did too …and included it with my motion papers.

    Thank you

  11. Batter running out … To be continued … Note: I was able to finally find an attorney who understood the Jesinoski decision and the 20 days.

    He filed a notice of appeal in my case the day before the deadline.

    In the notice of appeal ..he raises








    They replied to CFPB and myself with a letter ..requesting more time and state that their reply to my concerns should be ready by SEPT. 6

  12. If anyone remembers me from my prior posts under my New Jersey screen name … Update: …. I have been fighting Wells Fargo since July 1, 2007 when I mailed them my TILA rescission letter. I was current on my mortgage payments thru June of 2007 … I stopped paying in July when I rescinded inside the 3 years to do so.

    The first foreclosure complaint was voluntarily dismissed in 2011 after the Judge listened to my arguments and pleadings on lack of standing and fraud ..including evidence of the assignment being fabricated to themselves and forgery of the notary signature … I asserted that the assignment was VOID.

    Also other points were raised about how they submitted a copy of the note that was missing an endorsement in blank from Washington Mutual who allegedly owned the loan after the pretender lender table funded the refinance in Oct. 2004 and endorsed the note Pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank …

    Fannie Mae claims they aquifer the loan in Dec 2004 …and MERS also claims Fannie Mae owns it.

    The WELLS FARGO reply to my QWR includes a loan info sheet that also states Fannie Mae owns the loan ..But states “since 2007” .

    Discrepancies all throughout …

    So instead of putting witnesses on the stand to testify under oath, they requested the Judge to sign an order vacating their final judgement, vacating the sheriffs sale and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. He signed it in Nov. 2011.

    Now they filed again in May 2014 using the same fraudulent VOID assignment ..same allegations that I defaulted in July 2007 (when I rescinded) ..same old story, different foreclosure complaint , their second attempt and bite at the Apple … Which raises a whole other argument about Res Judicata regarding banks attempting to argue the same cases over and over after the courts already ajudicated and water time and resources …but the bank chooses to dismiss because they see they are going to lose …res Judicata should apply to them too.

    So now my old judge from the first case remembered me and promised me on the record that “this case is going to trial” after I objected to him granting their motion to dismiss most of my affirmative defenses and counter claim ..which included me seeking a court declaration regarding my 2007 TILA rescission voiding the mortgage which this plaintiff is trying to use to foreclose on my property. This was filed in my pleadings before Jesinoski.

    After the Jesinoski decision, I submitted a motion for reconsideration of his prior order striking my TILA rescission event which I wanted the court to acknowledge ..which would have wiped out the standing of the plaintiff …who relies on a forged assignment that is dated AFTER my rescission … I rescinded July 1, 2007 … and their fraudulent forged VOID assignment is dated Oct. 8, 2007 …

    You can’t assign a mortgage after it has been rescinded, can you?

    Well my other arguments were the 6 year statute of limitations because they were out of time between the two complaints ..2007-2014

    The old judge denied my motions on everything and just kept telling me on the record “not to worry, because this case is going to trial and with discovery and the trial you’ll be able to address all of these things during the trial” ..

    Well the nice old judge retired before we got to trial. ..

    The new judge was a younger, meaner, sarcastic little man who had just spent 15 years on the criminal court bench ..sending murderers a way for life …sentencing drug dealers to long terms …horrible defendants that he had probably grown to hate more and more over the years …

    So along comes me … His first case in this courtroom …

    Not only am I fighting Wells Fargo Bank …but I’m a pro se to boot !!!

    I instantly kissed him off and put him in a bad mood.

    Long story …but needless to say he immediately granted Wells Fargo their Summary Judgment they filed on the day the old judge retired.

    I opposed their motion ..argued in court ..he ultimately decided that I had never offered tender when I rescinded ..he said the Jesinoski decision only held that a

  13. @ TravestyOfJustice

    I wish I had answers to provide, but all I have is an opinion.

    Generally, I believe that Yvanova stands on the rule of law that where a purported assignment of a deed of trust can be shown by some modicum of evidence to be a void event in the chain of title, and consequently some sort of invalid and unauthorized “break” in the chain of authority to enforce the promissory NOTE, then the foreclosing party must prove up standing to do so.

    However, in both the Kalifornia appellate, and federal district, courts there is already a splitting Yvanova hairs on its application to pre- versus post-sale in terms of standing to challenge the standing of the non-judicial forecloser — which the yvanova Court clearly declared as an injury subsequent to a “bounty hunter”, e.g., [servicers].

    I believe that the Yvanova opinion intentionally left many questions unanswered; if for no other reason than to make work for the lower courts, and generate revenue for the bar practitioners. Further, I believe that until the next Kalifornia Supreme Court ruling in the foreclosure occurs, the lower courts will continue to disregard the fundamental proposition that Yvanova stands for.

    As nonsensical as it is, until there is/are clarifying opinion(s) from the Kalifornia Supreme Court, the lower courts will do what ever they want to in reliance on erroneous opinions such as those that the Yvanova opinion debunked.

    Meanwhile, your eyes are clear, and for various reasons it is true that the rulings being generated in the lower courts continue to be both “…crazy and extremely unfair…” — for now in the very least, which is why it is so important for everyone to make a stand and fight onward.

  14. @ Kali … I clicked the link you provided and read the Q & A…and at the end it seems to have boiled down to Yvanova not being able to cite supporting case law , authority, precedent, etc. …..

    This is the frustrating and disturbing dilemma the victims of this criminal ponzi scheme face in the courts ..due to the nature of the fraudulent scheme and how it was only recently discovered and understood …. then its unfair and unjust for a court to fall back on the old “show me the existing case law and authority to support your legal theory” … Do you agree? … There is no existing case law because the fraudulent scheme is only being discovered, exposed and understood right now …there is no prior case law because this is a current event.

    Why are the courts unable and un-willing to just apply the rule of law, as they are written, and ajudicate bases on the facts , the pleadings and the law?

    Courts can’t create and establish their own precedent? They can’t rule on anything unless they see some supporting case law authority?

    Yet the SCOTUS in Jesinoski pointed out the hypocrisy of those same courts when it scorned them for legislating their own misguided laws via their misinterpretations and creation of bad case law regarding denying homeowners their Rights under TILA rescission.

    The courts have no problem reaching decisions without authority when it goes against homeowners …but those courts agonize over being cornered on what constitutes a “Void Assignment” and what that Void Assignment means to the plaintiffs case ..the courts hate it ..they do not want to simply apply the rule of law , when the homeowner gets them in a corner, the courts retreat and hide behind lame excuses in their attempt to deny justice to a certain class of people.

    Question : is a court allowed to decide a case without being provided with a prior case law of authority on the same exact issue?

    That seems crazy and extremely unfair if true.

  15. Because there is no recently relevant LL article to post to, herein is an IMPORTANT READ for LLers:

    Why didn’t Yvanova help Yvanova? Q & A with CA attorney David Seal

    “The foreclosure defense arguments of some California homeowners were given a big boost by the recent California Supreme Court decision in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage. In fact, just last week, we published an interview with one such homeowner, Sherry Hernandez: “First Yvanova, Now Hernandez—Courts Warming Up to Homeowner Arguments.”

    However, it was an open question at the time of that interview as to how—or whether—the much-lauded and progressive Yvanova decision would help the plaintiff herself. That question has now been answered in a decision (read it here) filed this past Friday by the Second District Court of Appeal and the answer is: the Supreme Court precedent which bears her name did not help her in her own case!

    To help us understand this unfortunate turn of events, we again turned to David Seal, the attorney who utilized the logic of Yvanova to help breathe new life into the case of Hernandez v. PNMAC both at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Our email discussion follows below…”

  16. The bankers are “insolvent”, by any stretch of anyone’s abacus (1200 Trillion is 20 X the combined GDP of every country on the planet; an impossible sum).

    There is zero allowance, within Article 1, Section 8, for a criminal, privately-owned and operated, English-based, central banking cartel, to manipulate the “Good Faith and Credit” of the American People.

    The 1200 Trillion are inter-bank, zero-sum game, criminal debts, predicated upon seizing homes in foreclosure, using fraudulent interest rates (LIBOR), forged documents (robo-signing) and counterfeit titles (empty REMIC Trusts designed to conceal the true “Holders In Due Course”) to the debt (mortgage) on the underlying collateral (the home).

    Every single, REMIC Trust is proving DEVOID OF ASSETS!!!


    The investors to the “Trusts (pools of loans)” and homeowners, alike, have been defrauded by the banks, in order to re-capitalize, in the wake of subprime lending and “Short Sale Derivative’s Speculation”.

    When the time, rapidly approaching, comes, the American Public must be made to understand the banks have destroyed themselves and the phony Federal Reserve, not the United States, its financial capability, or, “Greenback Dollar”.

    The 1200 Trillion are predicated upon “Naked Short Sale Bets” that are, in turn, collateralized by counterfeit titles to American Homes.

    see also, Lynn Szymoniak:

    The “MERS- Mortgage Electronic Registration System” is the first “shell company” used to “PRETEND” to “own” American Homes.

    “Residential Capital – RESCAP” is the second, “shell company”, used to “PRETEND” to “own American Homes.

    The Obama Administration is concealing the fact, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corp- an English-Chinese-hybrid bank), are PRESENTLY!!!! using American Pension plans to pay American “Mortgages”, by laundering terror and drug cartel money.

    See Judge Gleeson’s analysis of the “Deferred Prosecution Agreement”, here: Case 1:12-cr-00763-JG Document 23 Filed 07/01/13.

    At least two Federal Judges, first Gleeson and now, Donnelly, are aware the banks are in violation of “THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMIES ACT”, “THE BANK SECRECY ACT”, “THE ANTI-LAUNDERING MONEY ACTS”, “THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT”.

    The banks are using American Pensions to launder terror and drug cartel money and forged documents and fraud and counterfeit titles to homes they never owned, in the first place. Obama’s Justice Dept. under, first Holder and now, Lynch, are concealing these criminal, treasonous behaviors…

    American Soldiers died, at the hands of these cartels, while the Obama Administration covered for the cartels that killed those American Soldiers…

    If that isn’t “Treason”? I cannot imagine a better example…

    >>> And, the present, FBI Director, James Comey, sat, as an executive on the board of the English-Chinese-hybrid bank, “HSBC”, that gave the money to kill American Soldiers, while his banking playmates were busy robbing the families of those soldiers, of their homes, using forgery, fraud and counterfeit title.

    ~Michael Keane 8/26/16

  17. Good article and analysis, thanks.

  18. Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: