Chase-WAMU: Is it time to Declare Non Judicial Foreclosure Unconstitutional As Applied?

Faced with a notice of foreclosure sale from a company claiming to be the trustee on a deed of trust, homeowners in judicial states are forced to defend using well known facts in the public domain that are not evidence in a court of law. This is particularly evident in scenarios like the Chase WAMU Agreement with the FDIC and the US Bankruptcy Trustee on September 25, 2008.

In my opinion the allowance for nonjudicial foreclosure in circumstances where a new party appears under a lawyer’s claim that the new party is the beneficiary under a deed of trust under parole claims of securitization is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional  statutory scheme.

All such foreclosures should be converted to judicial and the claimant must prove the essential element under Article 9 §203 UCC that it has a financial interest in the debt because they paid for it. Forcing homeowners to prove that such an interest does not exist is requiring homeowners to have access to knowledge that is unavailable and solely within the control of the party falsely claiming to have the right to enforce the deed of trust and promissory note.

In my opinion this is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory framework. In plain language it favors expediency and moral hazard over truth or justice.


GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

I have received questions, most notably from Bill Paatalo, the famed Private Investigator who has provided so much information to lawyers, homeowners and a=everyone else about the foreclosure crisis relating to non judicial foreclosures and the Chase-WAMU farce in particular. Here is my answer:

If what you’re saying is that the FDIC never became the beneficiary under the deed of trust, that is correct. But the legal question is whether it needed to become the beneficiary under the deed of trust. As merely a receiver for WAMU the question is whether WAMU was a beneficiary under the deed of trust and the answer is no because they had already sold their interest or presold it before origination.

If WAMU was an actual beneficiary then the FDIC was the receiver for the beneficial interest held by WAMU. If that is the case the FDIC could have been represented to be beneficiary on behalf of the WAMU estate for foreclosures that occurred during the time that FDIC was receiver.
If WAMU was not an actual beneficiary and could not, as your snippet suggests, sell what it did not own, then the FDIC’s receivership is irrelevant except to show that they had no record of any loans owned by WAMU.
One key question that arises therefore is what is a beneficiary? In compliance with Article 9 §203 UCC I think all states that a beneficiary is one who has paid value for the debt, owns it and currently would suffer a debit or loss against that asset by reason of nonpayment by the borrower. Anything less and it is not a beneficiary. And if it isn’t beneficiary, it cannot instruct the trustee to send out notices as though it was a beneficiary.
So any notice of substitution of trustee, which starts the whole foreclosure process is bogus — i.e., void as in a nullity. The newly named trustee does not possess the powers of a trustee under a deed of trust. Hence the notice of default, sale and trustee deed are equally bogus and void. They are all nullities and that means they never happened under out laws even though there are lawyers claiming that they did happen.
Despite the Ivanova decision in California declaring that such foreclosures can only be attacked after the illegal foreclosure, this is actually contrary to both California law and the due process requirements of the US Constitution.
With more and more evidence of fake documents referring to nonexistent financial transactions, the time is ripe for some persistent homeowner, with the help of a good lawyer, to challenge not only the entire Chase-WAMU bogus set up, but to get a ruling from a Federal judge that the abr to preemptive lawsuits to stop collection or foreclosure activity is unconstitutional as applied.
In nonjudicial states it converts a statutory system which is barely within constitutional bounds to an unconstitutional deprivation of property and civil rights without due process, forcing the homeowners to come up with answers and data only available to the malfeasant players seeking to collect revenue instead of paying down the debt.

29 Responses

  1. Poppy, anyone other than someone who knows how to attack the mortgage transaction is a con man. This isn’t high math, problem is you have these scammers, which includes stall attorneys like Weidner, Stops, already disbarred, and these chain of title/securitization/forensic auditors throwing mud in clear water.

    A lot of these attorneys have already been disbarred and/or sanctioned already for making these stupid arguments. And almost everyone who hasn’t been in a coma, knows the aforementioned audits are worthless. You’ll see more and more as we continue to expose them on my Fraudster’s Radio Show,, and

  2. Storm, MS is Master Servicer…a con man who was on here, years ago. There have been many cons on here, abrasive and full of themselves, talking about things they are not familiar with. Some people on here got burned for money.

    It’s hard to know who you can trust online, even in person for that matter. Many take your money and run…but you know that already.

    Most lawyers have no earthly idea what to do. They too, take the money and run. Frankly, they should be sanctioned or disbarred for deceiving desperate homeowner’s. My last attorney said, quoting here: no need to show up for the de novo hearing, it’s not like a real appeal or anything….it’s just a hearing off the clerk’s order. After I lost at the de novo, he wouldn’t answer my calls, texts or emails (have copies), 11 days later (10 days to enjoin or appeal) he said: “it worked out they way we thought it would”, yawn-yawn. Now, I am faced with this crazy situation and the judge says, get counsel. Like where? I have called Weidner asking for guidance only, actually spoke to Gardner in NC and previously have spoken with Bob Hurt. Not like I haven’t tried. Honestly, I didn’t know enough about my case when I spoke to Bob, back then.

    Anyhoo, you get the point…not many know enough to handle this…and it is expensive if the research isn’t done, which we have in our possession. At a point I did not realize the parties and how they all tie together either…so now I am working on a joinder, before it’s too late.

  3. Javagold, your comment:”I don’t see it helping anyone.” Have you ever read the testimonials on our website, that even includes the pictures of clients and attorneys in most cases. Have you not read all of the press releases, where attorneys that use our services sing our praises? If not, you should.

    Now, to your other comments. 1st of all, I don’t know who “MS” is, and whether they are even qualified to analyze a mortgage transaction. Lawyers aren’t qualified; I only know a few people that are, and they work for my firm.

    2nd, I don’t know what you were expecting that MS “didn’t prove himself” to you.

    3rd, my firm “saves homes” in the context most people think, but in reality that’s not a true statement. My firm doesn’t save homes the evidence we adduce can. As I explain to everyone, if you were to receive multi-millions it was nothing my firm did, it was the egregiousness of the wrongdoing that we elicited. We can’t make things up, like these chain of title/securitization/forensic auditors do. What’s there, is there. And the best part is in most cases, one doesn’t even need a lawyer, because contractually both parties agreed to settle matters with a letter, but none of these stall attorneys, or other scammers know this because they’ve never read a mortgage contract.

    Feel free to contact me by phone, if you’d like to discuss your situation.

  4. Storm. I will challenge you like I challenged Master Servicer (MS) look over my documents over the past 11 years and show me what you do and prove to me you save houses. I will pay you for your effort. You can agree with my belief we have been harmed or not. Whatever your work tells you I’m ok with. I want an honest and explanation in simple terms. No crybaby here. But I will only give you a 5 star Review to all I know if it’s deserved. MS didn’t prove himself to me. You and Bob talk a tough game, but I don’t see it helping anyone.

  5. Bob Hurt just recommends us, he isn’t qualified to analyze mortgage documents.. Short answer we save more homes in a week than all of these stall attorneys and gurus have done in their careers.

  6. Storm. How many homeowners did you help get wins ??? You and Bob Hurt but suck at what you do.

  7. I am no self-styled guru….this has been building for a decade. In the beginning I sat silent while many encouraged chasing “ghosts”. Spent a lot of time and money going nowhere. I just did not understand. If just one thing I say helps anyone, it’s a good day.

    Having spent tens-of-thousands (over 100k actually) of dollars with lawyers, getting nowhere and the cost to purchase the property, with improvements that I paid for, initially making payments, paying the cost to maintain,which is far above what one would consider normal, maintenance…I have changed. Got off my can and started reading, anything and everything I could understand. Defining terms, gathering court documents, requesting QWR’s, scouring every affidavit-document-reading it carefully, etc…even been sued over the flooding.

    Ten + years of my life invested here. You cannot rent the property, sell it or otherwise use it for its intended purpose. This should not be happening to anyone, even if they have no property defects. Most have title defects and they are paying the wrong people, and have no recourse. This was intentionally done to us.

    In the scheme of things, I am a nobody, but maybe my story will help someone else. At this point: I will let none threaten me with debtor-creditor issues, if I can learn enough. This is the only bill I will not pay, Period. I am not a deadbeat…they are.

  8. First: Just passing along what has been my experience to date: when the record is contaminated, it is a task of monumental proportion, to cleanse it, if possible. Having no idea what was to befall me, and little experience at the time, I did nothing to stop it. What a mistake. When standing in Federal Court, the judge says: this has been properly adjudicated and the order was a valid, final judgment on the merits…I was flabbergasted, speechless. 100% certainty the judge was drawing conclusions of law, not making fact based, independent determinations of exhibits-documents.

    The point: let nothing get on the record, uncontested or unchallenged. It follows you through every court. Even the opposing lawyers mock you and laugh…I found myself confronting one of them. I asked him: something funny here? You think this is a joke?….as he lied to the judge.

    Secondly: pro se’s get beat down, we all know this. Our lack of understanding procedure, court decorum, and presentation of evidence is used against us. The lawyers, in my opinion, have complete disregard for the court. I say his because, they do more than is required. They intentionally withhold important facts, they hide documents, they leave you until the last minute to respond, they do not submit discovery and hide under privilege and proprietary information….garbage all of it. Knowing who your creditor is, is not covered under any of these doctrines.

    I am sick of these lawyers. At this point I tell them, whatever. One subtly threatened me, admonishing me, telling me not to contact the servicer, alleged holder (which are one in the same), or anyone else disclosing the property defects, with pictures. Me, I told him, back off. As the homeowner-self-representative what you gonna do? I’ll talk to who I want, when I want. I’ll put a bill board up….with the pictures, address.

    And the other issue: these guys have the property listed in as a “hot buy”….auction price is over $200,000 more than the “real value”‘ attempting to dupe another decent, moderate income family into this horrible situation. Diligence is very difficult on this property, except for title info. Footnote: the property defect goes unknown until there is a driving rain….they know it and do nothing. Honestly, they are even cheating any lender. A survey was done and disappeared. The property floods from an abutting retention pond, that is way too small….the cost to repair estimate: $150,000 or more.

    These people are not innocent purchasers of anything. ‘Nuff said…

  9. No matter our disagreement’s here, the time for non-judicial foreclosure is over. The selling of notes to strangers/investors has changed the tide. Portfolio loans are a thing of the past. I can say personally, the state court is a ruse, in part. They can only hear Statutory elements of the transaction, leaving us without equitable defenses. And from what I can tell, a REMIC Trust which is what they use to create the illusion of “a secured interest” is just that, an illusion. And further, the state courts should not be hearing diversity jurisdiction matters, that concern contracts in other states.

    Then most clerks are woefully inadequate in these matters. In my state North Carolina, a clerk can be a former teacher, policeman, a sister of the judge, etc…footnote here: had three different attorney’s and they could not get it done. Took money and blew the case. They postponed the case and never offered even a legal defense. It is my opinion, most lawyers do not understand this stuff either. They get lost in the deception or alternatively, they are complicit.

    For Example: unattached allonge, 03 August 2012, Ocwen-“alleged” servicer assigning note from bankrupt NCMC (02 April 2007) to the CSMC Trust, five (5) years after trust closed…really? How does this work…one example.

  10. Bob G, I guess it’s fairly obvious I have total disdain for people that are ripping off homeowners. I could make all of these points on my Fraudster’s Radio Show, and on blog, but I would rather make them to his face, so he’ll think twice before he comments on matters he knows, or should know are factually and legally incorrect.

    Most people, would like to have the truth, because “When an honest man discovers he’s mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken, or cease to be honest.” There’s only one way to find out, and that is to confront the person making statements the courts have found to be specious. He can take all the time he needs to try and explain, but saying hundreds of learned judges are wrong, and he’s the only one that is right, doesn’t cut it in the legal world, or with people with common sense.

    He knows his audits are worthless, because nobody has ever won their case using one. But he’s not alone, another scam group CFLA who’s done thousands has doomed their clients to the same fate. Matter of fact, as proven by Professor Whitman, securitization, assignment, produce the note, must own the note, ad nauseum arguments are utter nonsense. Hence all types of these worthless audits are just a waste of money, and give homeowners false hope. In any other industry people would be calling for those responsible to be put in jail. And I predict, once the truth gets out, you’ll se more disbarments, and people going to jail.

    If you want a small sampling, you can go to, or Google Scholar and put in Garfield’s name and CFLA name; every case a loss where they were involved. Macklin, who used to do audits for Garfield lost his case; same with Paatalo. Charles Marshall Garfield’s protege just got nailed for ripping off homeowners.

    So, feel free to listen to whoever you want, but I try to warn as many people as I can that they had better demand prove before they give up their hard earned money to people with unsuccessful track records

  11. once again, Mr. Bradford, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. all your points can be made with more civility. it’s garfield’s blog, not yours. we are all merely guests here.

  12. Bob G, I appreciate your philosophical platitudes, but we’re dealing with people losing their homes because of misinformation; we’re dealing with people who are contemplating homicide & suicide over losing their homes. So, when I see or hear someone that’s making factually and legally incorrect comments; I’ll call them out. And maybe next time, they’ll think twice before they say something that could end up hurting someone in the long run.

    My philosophical platitude, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

  13. Poppy, feel free to call me Monday, and let’s see if your case is still salvageable. Gratis of course.

  14. The are ALL fakes – the original “lender”, the servicers, the Trustee, the Trust. It is all FAKE.

    Check with your bank who is a FINAL payee of your mortgage payment . Ask your bank that you need the name for a Bank of Final Deposit who received your payment.

    It will tell you who is a real party in your loan.

    I deal with this situation right now. A “Lender” (impersonator on BOA’s payroll purportedly “sold” me a mortgage. In fact, this “lender” was merely an agent who covered up for an another con artist – Caliber Home Loans (fna Countrywide) (who actually “approved” my loan and later purportedly “purchased” it from for original “lender”

    In May my loan was purportedly “sold” to a new Servicer “PennyMac (fka Countrywide) who as of today swamped me with a binder-worth of absurd runarounds coming from Las Vegas and Los Angeles , at the same time claiming that all letters are coming from LA (post stamps are from CA and NV on identical letters)

    When I checked who was the Bank of Final Deposit of my payments to Caliber, it was BOA who visibly has no relationship to my loan

    BOA, whose presence is highly secretive in my loan, received ALL my payments which I sent to purported “owner” Caliber.

    While PennyMac, current “owner” of my debt – is unable to validate my debt and respond to my simple question – that is the name of Ginnie Mae Trust who holds my Note, SOMEBODY sends me billing statements even though its a glaring violation of FDCPA and UCC.

    Recently I received a letter from purportedly “PennyMac” from their offices in Temecula, CA.

    PennyMac does NOT have any offices near Temecula.

    BOA has its office in less than 2 miles away from the post office where PM has a PO Box.

    When I googled the physical location of the post office , BOA popped up by default on the map.

    Apparently, BOA rents most PO Boxes at this post office to act under glimpse of different companies – which is a corporate identity theft.

    Guys, here are NO lenders, NO servicers, NO Trustees – all are con artists who cover for an investment bank who collects your payments

  15. Mr. Bradford,

    I, too, have disagreed with a good deal of what NG has posted here. However, I try to do it in a civil fashion. I may disagree in principle and/or theory, or I may disagree based on my own experiences and my knowledge of the law, chiefly, NY law.

    However, I always try to remember that I am a guest on Mr. Garfield’s blog, and conduct myself accordingly. I suggest that you consider doing so as well.

    Decades ago when I was in my twenties I was dating a woman several years older than I was. She made two comments to me that have stuck with me ever since.

    The first was that since I was not perfect myself, I had no right to demand perfection of any other human being.

    And the second was, that long after I had made my point, and people had even forgot what my point was…they still remembered how I made my point.

    Thus endeth the lesson, Mr. Bradford. take heed.

  16. Ok, Storm…your point is well taken. I personally, have not purchased any of these products. I have tried over 10 years to research, analyze and verify every piece of paper. My son is helping. He and I have been to the Delaware Court (New Century bankruptcy proceeding), in 3 Federal Courts (District Court appeal, right now) and 7, yes seven, state court proceedings. I have just filed a Rule 65, a 60(b), which I am not sure will help honestly, and a Rule 45-21.34 for hearing…and I have major defects in the land itself. This is grueling. Frankly, the assistance is not really out here. I chased down worms holes for a long time, to no avail.
    Do you have any suggestions to help? We are very close to getting this right, but will the judges listen? ‘Cause I am listening…and eager to learn.

  17. Poppy, this is just more proof that these TERA, chain of title audits and securitization audits are scams. And anyone that has purchased one should be asking for their money back, and report whoever supplied it to the Attorney General in the state it came from.

  18. Poppy wells said!

  19. It is not easy attacking the mortgage transaction…Storm, when they call it a ‘bearer instrument”…bearers instruments are not REMIC’s. Yup, having problems in the courts, but I am not blinded to the courts shenanigans. Contract law is really the core issue and no one is fighting this. They have most chasing their tails. Including me…they made it that way, not me.

    The fact is; I have no contract with a Trust of any kind. Never disclosed and agreed to, by me. The originators-lenders have a contract for the note performance and guaranteed it, I did not.

    Further, the REMIC’s are being used in every non-judicial hearing and court proceeding, deceptively. The lawyers are lying to the court and know it. These notes are not secured properly to the deed of trust, period. Most of these cases are baloney and proper parties are not before the court. The case should be thrown out, just for that.

    And let’s not forget for one moment: no borrower, no trust. I like others, am a party to the trust agreement. When they converted my note to beneficiaries, I am now a creditor to that transaction, not a borrower any longer. This is not a law….it is a contract, they made with a third party to create revenue for themselves. Nothing is signed by me to create revenue for an investor of my payments and land. A transfer of paper, is not a right, without a contract (contract 101) i.e. offer, acceptance and “consideration”…very simple, actually.

    They are the one’s who have no rights…all lies.

  20. Ginnie Mae requires that each and every mortgage Note goes through the UCC3 process where the Note is endorsed in blank meaning that whomever is in possession of the Note owns the Note, however, owning the Note does not grant ownership of the debt which must be purchased.

    Unlike Fannie or Freddie who are listed as owners of properties that are foreclosed in the county records because they do purchase the debt and create their MBS, Ginnie Mae is never put in title because only the “holder in due course” can place the lien against the property and thereby having the right to call the debt due.

    So now we come to why UCC9 is applicable as the Notes are endorsed in blank and anyone who has possession of that Note owns it, but must be able to produce to the court that them paid value for what they are claim to be owed!

    Why is this made to be so hard when the code is simply asking non-originators to provide proof you paid someone x amount of hundred thousand of dollars. Your business is lending monies yet your telling the court you cannot produce proof of that lending you are alleged to have done? The non-judicial process for WAMU titled loan stopped when it was declared a “failed bank” as that moment it failed it not any longer a member of MERS because the WAMU stopped existing. Ginnie Mae is not a member of MERS as a lender as it cannot produce, buy or sell a mortgage loan!

  21. Poppy, you sound like all of these so-called gurus who’ve never won a case: “I disagree with these judges, and I guess win lose or draw…”. Yes, you will “lose” just like they do making frivolous arguments, when it’s so easy attacking the mortgage transaction, the road to victory!

  22. “Mortgage Note over to anyone that takes physical possession of the Note”…

    this statement is untrue. Charles has a valid point…the language in the note is intentionally meant to confuse. Only a “bearer instrument” can be taken and cashed-in to anyone who holds it. A REMIC Trust instrument and rights, with no liabilities, such as a “holder-in-due-course” would have, is “very, very specific”…and their rights are established with representation and warranties, with proper indorsements. Acquiring rights to collect are in the assignments. They want the courts to think the interest in our notes is a “secured” interest, so they can tie the sale of the property from the DOT language to themselves and use those rights of sale.The courts have commingled this language and the faux lenders use the same language in every state for a reason. Deceit.

    Holding is theoretical concept and the courts do not dig deep enough. I can hold a Monet, doesn’t mean it’s mine to sell. Why does anyone think these cats keep the illusion of the REMIC in play? They are telling the courts, they have rights…all BS.

    For what it’s worth, I am no legal eagle, but have scoured documents until my body aches….a thousand hours over ten years. I disagree with these judges and I guess win, lose or draw, I’m staying on my track…the Rules are specific and not flexible. They are twisting this stuff.

    The best I can come up with: these financial creeps are so ingrained in our system, if we take them down, the entire system is in peril. Nothing else makes sense…

  23. No, you should believe and are bound by what the courts hold.

  24. However, UCC9 does refer to originator of mortgage loans not having to show proof of ownership but for a non-originator must provide the court with simple proof of purchase. You cannot simply allow an action under the code where ownership of a Note is handed over and the indebted and the court are not aware as to how that party has any financial interest in the debt. Only the “holder in due course” has the ability to call the Note due!

  25. Bradford, So we are to believe that you can give a Mortgage Note over to anyone that takes physical possession of the Note, yet the code does not instruct how to collect on that debt. So the Notes are endorsed in blank in every single loan that is attached to the Ginnie Mae MBS, so untangle it when Ginnie admits to not owning the debt! Because Ginnie is not list in the Note and does not purchase the debt as WAMU does not exist any longer, should there had been a decision for the Bankruptcy Court as to who was an actual debtor!

  26. Either way…I have written to get before a congressional hearing and my state Senator about the non-judicial foreclosures…the point: non-judicial foreclosure. Then the outcome is judicial in nature. The state in which these heatings and adjudications are allowed, the thieves run with impunity and steal daily. I am no legal expert, but the documents used to take land are “all” contradictory and do not meet the evidence standard. IMHO Bullshit, all of it.

  27. Once again, Garfield is shows he’s not literate in the law. UCC ARTICLE 9 DOES NOT APPLY TO MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS. See U.C.C. 9-109(d); HRS § 490:9-109(a)(1) (Article 9 applies to “[a] transaction, regardless of its form, that creates a security interest in personal property or fixtures by contract”); see also In re Cabebe, 2016 WL 5844484, at *8 (Bankr. D. Haw. Oct. 5, 2016) (noting that the UCC “does not apply to mortgages and other interests in real property”) (citing Bank of Hawaii v. Davis Radio Sales & Service, Inc., 6 Haw. App. 469, 479 (1986)); In re Endresen, 548 B.R. 258, 269 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2016), appeal dismissed (July 1, 2016) (“Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to the `creation or transfer of an interest in or lien on real property . . . and the proceeds thereof.’ Put simply, it does not govern trust deeds and mortgages.”); Cummings first argues that RCW 62A.9A-203, part of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, determines who is entitled to enforce the deed of trust. THIS ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT.

    CUMMINGS v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, (Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2016) (RCW 61.24.030(7)(a), the controlling portion of the Deeds of Trust Act, states who is entitled to enforce a deed of trust that secures a delinquent note. Case authority makes clear that Article 3 controls the right to enforce a note and deed of trust under this statute.ARTICLE 9 HAS NO BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT OF A NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST.)

    I guess he forgot, he was already spanked by the court in CONNELLY V. U.S. BANK NAT’L ASS’N (In re Connelly), 487 B.R. 230 (Bankr.Ariz., 2013) (“Plaintiff solely relies on his expert’s assertion… Article 9 applies to the sale of promissory notes.” Garfield Aff. 9:9–12. Even if this opinion testimony by a witness who has not been qualified as an expert could be considered by the Court, it would be rejected because it directly contradicts VEAL…Plaintiff’s argument that only Article 9 applies to the transfer of the Note fails.”)

    Moreover, Paatalo is another known scammer who lost his cases as well making stupid arguments. It goes without saying, anyone who listens to losers will end up being a loser to.

  28. Did not the FDIC settlement for $3.6 billion w/Chase and Deutsche void/extinguish anything claimed to be held in the 99 named “defective” trusts?

  29. The larger fraud with WAMU is the 1.3 million Fed Gov loans of WAMU that Wells Fargo Bank started servicing on Jul 31, 2006. WAMU created Ginnie Mae MBS which the loans are not purchased by the investors of the MBS.

    So WAMU as why my Dept of VA loan had and did relinquish the Note which under UCC3 they endorsed in blank which I forced Wells to present to the OCC which I then requested under the FOIA a copy of it. Clearly there is the blank endorsement on page 3 of the Note and at the time that WAMU was declared a “failed bank” by the FDIC, WAMU stop existing and would never again possess the Note which because the actual property of Ginnie Mae who never purchased the debt which they are not authorized by US Congress to ever purchase a mortgage loan.

    So I thrown the ball into the Dept of VA court to explain how they purchased my property from Wells Fargo who never owned my debt. The Dept of VA going to have to defend me or defend Wells. Wells has already admitted to my US Senator that they did not own the loans and they further go on to say that they don’t see were WAMU owned the debt? The Note shows that the originator endorsed the Note over to Wells and the originator provided a letter to me and the FDIC that they sold the loan to WAMU back on Jul 21, 2003!

    I received under the FOIA from HUD the verification that my loan was placed into the Ginnie Mae MBS on Aug 6, 2003, which was 3yrs before Wells started servicing the loan. All these Fed Gov program loans are handled in a uniform manner and never is the debt purchased by Ginnie but all the Notes must be relinquished to Ginnie. To get around UCC9 the originator does not have to present proof of ownership because they originated the loans, however, in the case of WAMU originated or purchased loans after Sept 25, 2008 it is an impossibility for the standard of UCC9 to be meet as WAMU stop existing!

    What Wells does is get an outside law firm to forge the titles as if Wells purchased the loan debt, so you got a forged Title and Notice of Default!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: