Emergency 911: Individual Loan-Level Data does Not Exist



Listen to Investigator Bill Paaalo and Attorney Charles Marshall discuss Proodian v. JPMC

Thank you to Investigator Bill Paatalo who is responsible for bringing the loan-level data information to our attention.

By  TL Anderson


Abstract – US Residential-Mortgage Transfer Systems – A Data Management Crisis


USBank ROG Response – NV – cannot acsertain amout paid for loan(1)

It is becoming clearer that the entire securitization fiasco is nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme feeding a shadow banking system.  The big banks have created a system that circumvents all safeguards and protections for investors and consumers and is in fact an illegal racketeering operation taking in trillions of dollars offshore beyond the reach of regulators.

Once upon a time we assumed there was individual loan-level data that would show information about when the homeowner’s payments were received and who the proceeds were wired to.  It was assumed that the loan level data would also indicate the trust, trust performance, individual loan data, extra payments made, default dates, insurance proceeds received, IRS information and any other relevant loan information that adhered to generally accepted accounting practices.  No normal assumptions apply when it comes to mortgage securitizations.

The entire securitization scheme was created to blur all accountability and traceability.  The FBI has admitted it cannot trace the individual loans or where the funds went, investors who sue discover they bought into a Ponzi scheme, and homeowners are unable to obtain clear answers from their loan servicer because their loan servicers don’t have the answers.

The truth is that there is no loan-level data and there is no wiring information for individual loans.  It appears that most loan servicers are not wiring your monthly house payments to any identifiable entity, or they are keeping the proceeds without wiring them to anyone at all.

In the 2012 abstract entitled, “US Residential-Mortgage Transfer Systems – A Data Management Crisis John Patrick Hunt from the UC Davis School of Law reveals the fiasco of securitization, “both prior to the crisis and currently, there is no loan-level information available for the mortgage collateral held as assets in the REMIC-SPVs at the date of the issuance of the prospectus supplement or the date of the initial offering of the certificates.”

On February 23, 2018, in a case entitled Proodian-V-Chase-Order, Chase admitted that it couldn’t produce a wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made and wired to any entity via transfer.  The judge ordered Chase to produce “wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo, or any other entity, via wire transfer.”  After a ‘diligent search’, Chase admitted it was not in possession, custody or control of the documents demanded by the order.

“Specifically, Chase does not maintain loan level information regarding its payments to the investor, Wells Fargo.”  In other words, Chase does not have a wire transfer history to Wells Fargo (or any other entity) for Plaintiff’s account alone or any other individual loans for that matter.

This admission from Chase shows a complete disconnect between the cash-flow between the borrower and alleged investor(s), and suggests that there is no way to prove, through verifiable accounting, that the alleged investors even receive payments from the borrower.

The records that Chase maintains show the total monthly payment (in millions of dollars) made to Wells Fargo, regardless of whether any individual borrower in the pool made their payment to Chase.  Therefore, how can there be any defaults if Chase pays Wells Fargo regardless if any individual borrower in the pool made a payment?  Wells Fargo, as Trustee, is not the investor-despite attempts to trick the court.  Once Wells Fargo receives the lump payment, where does Wells Fargo forward the money?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Chase is admitting a disconnect in the money trail they don’t want anyone to see.  Chase argues that the homeowner is not entitled to this loan-level information, and don’t have standing to demand the accounting information between the securitization participants.  This is despite the fact that the homeowner was duped into taking out a mortgage that masqueraded as a security without their consent.  The security ended up generating millions of dollars for unknown entities, while the homeowner carried all of the risk.

Chase is engaging in a diversionary tactic away from the fact that Chase cannot produce the money trail on the borrower’s loan, or any securitized loan!   In short, the documents that the homeowner sought, while not being in default in this case, were the subject of the Court’s recent discovery Order – i.e. to produce the wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account alone that don’t exist!

The reality is that there is NO WIRE TRANSFER HISTORY FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT SHOWING PAYMENTS TO ANY INVESTOR(S).  They do not exist- unless Chase decides to “cook” them up (much more difficult than slapping an endorsement onto a note).

Chase is effectively saying that it sends MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH MONTH TO WELLS FARGO ON BEHALF OF A POOL OF LOANS, BUT CANNOT BREAK DOWN THAT LUMP PAYMENT.  Chase cannot show the origin or source of these payments, and Wells Fargo, as Trustee, doesn’t want to know about the origins of these enormous sums of money or execute a formal accounting?  This is a brilliant way to launder money, the epitome of a Ponzi scheme, and a dangerous shadow banking enterprise that could destroy the United States economy.  Where is the FBI when American’s homes and economic underpinnings are at risk?  Out generating anti-Russian propaganda to divert from the reality that the American housing economy is a house of cards.

Investigator Bill Paatalo cites a USBank Interrogatory Response where they admit that “plaintiff cannot ascertain the specific amount for which the loan was purchased, for as it was purchased as a large pool of loans.”  US Bank admits that the pool contains $287 million dollars and consists of 2,472 loans, so it cannot assert how much was paid for any individual loan.

In Discovery, why not ask, “Provide loan-level data plus individual loan wiring receipt.”  Forget about every other document request and like Investigator Bill Paatalo continues to assert, “Show me the money!”​

The trusts, that are typically never funded, appear to have only the aggregate principal balance data at origination, the number of loans, and the geographic composition of the pool.  Another question that should be raised is how does a trust that doesn’t have a bank account, but only appears on paper to exist, accept these huge mortgage pool payments?  It is all an elaborate ruse meant to confuse.

The evidence continues to vindicate Attorney Neil Garfield who proposed a decade ago, that the banks had pulled off the ultimate financial crime.


Investigator Bill Paatalo

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC


6 Responses

  1. Wvayoheart@yahoo.com

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

  2. Going to try to re- post here. Louise — the million/billion — maybe trillion – dollar question!!!

  3. Jim:

    I hope you and your family are well. We made it back from Florida earlier today. This was a very interesting show. It confirms what I long suspected. I hope it represents the beginning of the end for these corrupt, scandalous, thieving so and so’s!!



  4. Excellent discussion thanks!

  5. HUD/Ginnie Mae pooling is a Ponzi scheme with the WaMu’s FHA, VA, USDA, because the bank is defunct and Ginnie as in every case does not purchase the debt so when they talking about the lender repurchasing the debt it a lie!

  6. I think an interesting question would be: when exactly did this Ponzi scheme start? It has to have a beginning.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: