Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why JPMorgan Chase did not purchase $615 Billion of WaMu Loans

Posted on July 24, 2017 by Neil Garfield

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/

Investigator Bill Paatalo questions the practice of using “Substitution of Trustees”.  Paatalo points out that WMAAC and WMMSC have never been dissolved and still exist.  Although the loans did not go through the FDIC, Chase executes assignments from the FDIC in order to substitute trustees.  In this article Paatalo demonstrates that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase ownership of $615 billion in Washington Mutal loans in three simple steps.

Please visit Bill Paatalos’s informative blog at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com.  Paatalo has investigated and exposed the fraudulent WaMu/FDIC/JPMorgan Chase fraud and is one of the most talented foreclosure fraud investigators in the country.

Posted by on Jul 24, 2017 in

Here is a simple “3-step Analysis” to show that “ownership” of at least $615,000,000,000.00 (over half a TRILLION Dollars!) of WaMu loans were not purchased by JPMorgan Chase from the FDIC.

STEP 1:

The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions.

See:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-investigations-subcommittee-releases-levin-coburn-report-on-the-financial-crisis

 

Pg. 116 –

From 2000 to 2007, Washington Mutual and Long Beach securitized at least $77 billion in subprime and home equity loans. WaMu also sold or securitized at least $115 billion in Option ARM loans. Between 2000 and 2008, Washington Mutual sold over $500 billion in loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, accounting for more than a quarter of every dollar in loans WaMu originated.

 

Pg. 119 –

“WaMu Capital Corp. acted as an underwriter of securitization transactions generally involving Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. Generally, one of the two entities would sell loans into a securitization trust in exchange for securities backed by the loans in question, and WaMu Capital Corp. would then underwrite the securities consistent with industry standards.

STEP 2:

See: Page 2. – PAA – (click here: FDIC-Chase – PAA)

“Assets” means all assets of the Failed Bank purchased pursuant to Section 3.1. Assets owned by Subsidiaries of the Failed Bank are not “Assets” within the meaning of this definition.”

STEP 3:

In the case of Fox v. JPMorgan Chase, a specific REMIC Trust is named in the action. To prevail on its argument that the loan was sold and transferred to the Trust, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee, both admitted / “stipulated” that the loan contained both investor codes “AO1″ and “369” in the loan transfer history, which means the loan was sold by Washington Mutual Bank to the subsidiaries prior to those subsidiaries transferring the loan into the Trust. AND, it was stipulated that the loan was NOT PURCHASED FROM THE FDIC.

(Click here: Chase Stipulated Fact – AO1 – WMAAC)

Stipulated Facts:

“8. Investor Code AO1 in the Loan Transfer History File represents WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.”

“9. Investor Code 369 in the Loan Transfer History File represents Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation.”

“10.  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not purchase the loan from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.”

 

In the Fox case, “JPMorgan Chase” and “U.S. Bank as Trustee,” have taken a position that universally applies to all $615B of these securitized loans.

Each one of these loan transactions will show either the investor code “AO1,” “369,” or both somewhere in the “Loan Transfer History” screenshots within the servicing system, and as such, the loans were not purchased from the FDIC.

The presumptions that Chase has relied upon in order to maintain its position in thousands of foreclosure proceedings that (1) it acquired the loans through the PAA, and (2) the assignments of beneficial-ownership interests to the loans unto itself as “

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: |

« »

17 Responses

  1. JR likens, on January 8, 2018 at 5:56 pm said:

    What if your loan was never securitized?

  3. Carol Sheppard, on July 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm said:

    @AnonymousNJ
    You might get some direction out of Dubin/Waihee’s discussion:
    May 8, 2016 – Host: Gary Dubin
    Co-Host: John Waihee
    Foreclosure Workshop #12:
    How And When You Can Use Either Rule 60(b) Or An Independent Action To Save
    Your Home Post-Judgment If Your Foreclosing Mortgagee Did Not Own
    Your Promissory Note And Mortgage When It Filed Its Foreclosure Complaint
    (click here to listen)

    RULE 60(b)

  4. Kalifornia, on July 25, 2017 at 2:58 pm said:

    @ Poppy

    Part 4 (Includes exhibits to the Goldman Sachs section of the Report.)

    frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_senate_hearings&docid=f:66052.pdf

  5. Kalifornia, on July 25, 2017 at 2:55 pm said:

    @ Poppy

    Part 3 (Includes exhibits to the Goldman Sachs section of the Report.)

    frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_senate_hearings&docid=f:66051.pdf

  6. Kalifornia, on July 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm said:

    @ Poppy

    Part 2 (Includes exhibits to the Deutsche Bank section of the Report.)

    frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_senate_hearings&docid=f:66050.pdf

  7. Kalifornia, on July 25, 2017 at 2:51 pm said:

    @ Poppy

    OOPS!

    Part 1 (Includes the April 13, 2011 Report and exhibits to the WaMu, OTS, & CRA sections of the Report.)

  8. Kalifornia, on July 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm said:

    @ Poppy

    5,800 pages of the Report, Part 1:

    frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_senate_hearings&docid=f:57323.pdf

  9. Melissa, on July 25, 2017 at 1:01 pm said:

    starfireblue22,
    Chase did not give you your house free and clear. You are still in foreclosure and Chase is still in the game. Look behind the curtain and you will find Chase. Deutsch and Chase are the 2 peas in the same pod.

  10. Roxana, on July 25, 2017 at 11:35 am said:

    My loan was with Wamu Oct 2007, how can I check if my loan is one of the loans that Chase didn’t purchase from FDIC, Chase tried to foreclose in 2008, and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution, they haven’t tried to foreclose since then, but, after the Bartram decision they are now sending me statements again

  11. Poppy, on July 25, 2017 at 11:33 am said:

    I’d like to know where the 5,800 page document is, from the committee? Love to read that

  12. California Reaming, on July 25, 2017 at 8:58 am said:

    I wonder what this was all about. I excised a lot, and am interested in the “ATTENTION” entry. The document is here:

    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html

    Information for Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, NV and Washington Mutual Bank, FSB, Park City, UT

    Status of Washington Mutual Bank Receivership

    Purchase and Assumption Agreement

    ATTENTION: The reference to “Schedule 3.1a” in Article III, Paragraph 3.1, (page 9) of the WAMU P&A Agreement is a scrivener’s error—there is no Schedule 3.1a. [Sounds like a Monty Python gag.]

    […]

    Group 1: JPMorgan Chase Notices relating to Washington Mutual Bank P&A in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center Reading Room. In addition, see also Group 2: JPMorgan Chase Notices relating to Washington Mutual Whole Bank P&A

  13. starfireblue22, on July 25, 2017 at 12:25 am said:

    Evidently Chase realized this error in my case and in an abrupt about face, Chase withdrew from its foreclosure proceeding and gave us the house free and clear. We made payments for five years on a 30-year mortgage. Boy, were we shocked.

    We are currently in a foreclosure proceeding with Deutsche Bank who supposedly was the recipient of IndyMacs mortgages. We were wondering if the same errors were made when IndyMac went out of business. Does anyone have any thoughts or information on the One West purchase of IndyMac’s assets?

  14. AnnonymousNJ, on July 24, 2017 at 10:34 pm said:

    What are the correct pleadings? Give us some examples please. Can I still raise this while my once WAMU owned …now servicer Wells Fargo foreclosing for Fannie Mae ..case is under appeal in NJ? Lack of standing is one of the points I’m appealing.

  15. usedkarguy, on July 24, 2017 at 9:11 pm said:

    this is a true story. the correct pleadings will get you out either with clear title or title and settlement. There are no judgments because those who know go quietly away with title in hand, under judgment orders of non-disclosure.

  16. Charles Reed, on July 24, 2017 at 8:41 pm said:

    Crazy is WaMu was a large Ginnie Mae pool creator just like the other large banks and Wells Fargo Bank started servicing these loan on Jul 31, 2006, and the was $140 billion in loans (1.3 million FHA, VA loans) Ginnie Mae pooled loans with the blank endorsed Notes cannot after the fact be transferred once the black Notes are relinquished to Ginnie Mae. Are you telling me that WaMu gets seized on Sept 25, 2008, and here in Jul 2017 we are talking about $600 billion in loans that who is thinking that JPMorgan purchased for $1.9 million from the FDIC. The American public is stupid!

  17. neidermeyer, on July 24, 2017 at 8:19 pm said:

    Plenty of these cases out there ,, what jurisdiction/state would be the best to fight this in?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: