Chase Laundered WAMU Loans Through Offshore Accounts with Fictitious Names

Bill Paatalo has once again made a breakthrough in analyzing and investigating the Chase-WAMU connection.


Here is what we know:

  1. Washington Mutual (WAMU) was in the business of originating loans  not lending money.
  2. WAMU sold every originated loan before, during or after loan origination. Its securities subsidiary pocketed the profits and was liable for buy-backs which everyone knew could never be funded.
  3. This process resulted in the origination of of approximately $1 Trillion in mortgage loans.
  4. No assignments of mortgage were ever recorded in which WAMU was the assignor and WAMU executed the instrument. Some were attempted by Chase as “attorney in fact.”
  5. No indorsements of any promissory note was ever produced or signed directly by WAMU.
  6. While the debt, note and mortgage were sold by WAMU contemporaneously with origination (actually for a fee where WAMU did not fund the loan), a gap existed in the title record. The purchasers of the loans could have corrected the record with affidavits and court orders which could have been easily obtained with proof of purchase. One of the purchasers could even have been a Chase subsidiary.
  7. No effort was ever made on or off record by anyone to clarify the owner of the debt, note or mortgage.
  8. WAMU went bankrupt in 2008, its estate subject to the control of the US Trustee in bankruptcy.
  9. WAMU was seized and liquidated by the FDIC in 2008, as receiver of the estate.
  10. The FDIC never issued any power of attorney nor any assignment or endorsement of any loan because  there were no loans to assign or endorse in the WAMU estate. The estate did not own the debt, note or mortgage of any loan.
  11. Chase bought the WAMU estate on September 25, 2008. This included the servicing rights, if they existed, on loans that WAMU had originated. Many of these servicing functions had already been sold or transferred prior to the sale. The consideration for the entire deal was zero.
  12. Chase claimed servicing rights on every loan originated by WAMU.
  13. Chase then claimed ownership of the debt, note and mortgage on each loan even though they had been previously sold. This was a blatant lie.
  14. Chase then foreclosed on thousands of homes as if it was the party entitled to enforce the mortgage — i.e., the party who had paid value for the debt — a condition precedent to enforcement under Article 9 §203 UCC.
  15. The success of Chase in these illegal foreclosures, in most instances by default, resulted in windfall profits, most of which were recorded offshore to avoid taxes. Each time a property was sold the money proceeds were distributed as revenue to the participants who aided in the illegal foreclosure activity.
  16. None of the proceeds of sales of illegally foreclosed property was ever distributed to any owner of the debt.
  17. Thus Chase successfully converted assets to revenue, avoided taxes on windfall profits, and will argue that it was return of capital (payment of principal amount of loan) even though they never invested one dime in any of the WAMU loans at origination or acquisition.

10 Responses

  1. But Storm — what if it affects title? Are not borrowers entitled to valid title?

    I know throwing in a monkey wrench — but if a paying loan can’t valid title to property- how will foreclosure defense survive?

  2. I hear what you are saying. “the contracting parties to the PSA did not intend for Borrower”…what they intended is specific to deny a debtor rights to the contract, it was intentional. No loans, no beneficiaries. All I am saying is: I pursued a loan for a specific property, with New Century, they were in bankruptcy, after defaulting on multiple warehouse lenders loaned them money. My understanding is: the money from warehouse lenders was used for corporate expenses, they defaulted on all of the loans. Then, they took escrows and borrowers payments, defaulting their loans, really?

    If this is my property we are talking about, what rules allow them to “misapply” funds and then have bankruptcy protection, while in some cases lenders were given loans (not theirs, a suit was filed over this, from the DOJ, I think, McMahon) as “collateral” for “their” debt, consideration was not paid…then an alleged servicer jumps in, with a lost note assignment, complaining to the court of injury? Possession is now a certified copy of the note? Where did the copy come from, if they are stating they have no possession of the note? Just asking…and lastly, I was a “creditor” of New Century at that point, not a debtor. A small amount of claims were paid on that basis…in 2016. White, Cromwell, Carr, Galope, etc…all with non-disclosure agreements.

    This did go to the Circuit Court, they lost. I would agree they lost on the “constructive notice”, not actual notice, which was part of the counter argument. Many of the borrowers had a right to actual notice of the bankruptcy. Questions abound.

    I get a homeowner’s breach….all day!

  3. Poppy, your statement” “I personally think, one is a party to these contracts.” Your thinking is incorrect:

    MORELAND V. U.S. BANK, N.A. (E.D. Cal., 2015) (“Section 11.09 of the PSA (“Successors and Assigns; Beneficiaries”) expressly enumerates a number of intended third-party beneficiaries, none of whom are Plaintiff or Borrower. The last sentence of Section 11.09 reads as follows: ‘No other Person, including any Mortgagor, shall be entitled to any benefit or equitable right, remedy or claim under this Agreement.’ It is clear that the contracting parties to the PSA did not intend for Borrower (or Plaintiff, as a member of Borrower) to be a third-party beneficiary of the agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the validity of any assignments made pursuant to the PSA.”); KEIFERT V. NATIONSTAR MORTG. LLC., 153 So. 3d 351, 352-53 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Standing to foreclose requires only proof that the foreclosing party held the note when it filed the action. Proof of prior assignments is unnecessary.).

    I could post hundreds more.

  4. You said: Chase bought the WAMU estate on September 25, 2008…then foreclosed. I am a little confused. Isn’t consideration the piece that has been missing for so many of us? Who previously bought the notes, before Chase? In my case I have no consideration, at least none has been produced in all these years. They “transfer” everything.

    The contract with the trust, PSA would indicate who was entitled to collect, would it not?

    My payments were not being applied from day one…to New Century, was the originator, and in bankruptcy, RBC is named as the lender on a HUD. Very muddy.

    I personally think, one is a party to these contracts. Guarantee’s to beneficiaries to a payment stream, 100% rely on me, as the homeowner, payment maker. No borrower’s = no income stream. I made my representation and warranty to a lender…not the seller of my note for the benefit of their certificate holders.

  5. Anon, not “attacking” Neil, making an observation that he continues to give credit to those who have no clue what they’re talking about, which is harmful to those looking for legitimate help.

  6. Java – right again. Banks Colluded in NYC to put arbitration agreements into credit card accounts (google it). So we had paid in full— via a refinance. And, you know what happened?? Credit cards remained recorded as currently delinquent.
    And, you know what they had told me before we paid in full??? You can’t get a refinance? We will get you one

    So when DOJ comes to MY HOUSE – years ago — they say — “foreclosure is not the goal.” I said – “I am not in foreclosure, but absolutely foreclosure was/is the goal.” Final response to me? — “Those damn derivatives” — just like Bush Sr,. and Clinton said. That is all they could say.

    Hey – they finally got the bogus credit reporting deleted. Too late – mortgage now involved. Pandora’s Box.

    As so my saga began.

    Storm — I said I would not answer you. Have no idea who you are – but know who TLC is. Don’t do this.

    You have good info? Share it. You don’t — just lay off. This should not be an attack on Neil for corrupt system. You know better. We need to stand together. Neither you or Neil will win alone. Won’t happen. Over our heads.

  7. You can’t assume anything just because a doc is recorded. That was the prob w CA law b4 homeowner bill of rights that chain of title taken as whatever was recorded. HUD found 90% of Chase loans had errors while Chase submitted rigged examples to NMS Monitor Joseph Smith w almost 0 error rate. Consistent w what Ive seen personally and counties across country Chase making false claims on anything WaMu and prob being paid by govt through settlements.

  8. And just Think about how many credit card holders they sued wrongly in court. I showed up and beat the lowlife debt collector attorney with one arm tied behind my back. He was begging the judge to not find in my favor as his bosses would be upset. Ha Ha. These guys are paper tigers. Fight back. Fear no one.

  9. We were a correspondent lender with WAMU and they did purchase the loans after we purchased after we funded them, as they purchased my loan that I locked the rate with WAMU.

    i got a letter from the bank that they sold the loan with a copy of the Note through the OCC FOIA that show the endorsement from Great Western Bank (Omaha) to WAMU and when WAMU attached the loan to their Ginnie Mae MBS they endorsed the Note in blank per UCC3.

    The question with WAMU that the easiest is knowing that on Jul 31, 2006 Wells Fargo Bank started mortgage servicing all 1.3 million Federal Government loans that WAMU owned.

    The Fed Gov has one way of attaching every single loan to the Ginnie Mae MBSs and that is all must first have a title and the Notes be endorsed in blank. In order for the MERS link of ownership to start is the title must first be recorded at the local land record office.

    Because Ginnie is not authorized to ever purchase a mortgage loan it can only stop the lenders/issuers from selling the debt by taking ownership of the Note but cannot buy the debt!

    Were Neil gone off the rail is that you can see online in several counties that WAMU is recorded as the lien holder, just look at Cook County ILL. In my case the originator failed to record the Deed of Trust in the time the owned the loan and recorded after the fact, however, WAMU never file for an Assignment of Deed of Trust as it would have tip off the local recorder that the initial recording was done after the sell of the loan debt. An Originator never has to record the DOT, however, they can file it 30yrs later as long as they never sale the debt before recording it. However, if the originator does not record the DOT before it sell the debt the DOT cannot be recorded after the fact as the originator stop having a financial interest in the loan and like anybody else just cannot file a lien against the property.

    What end up happening in my case is that up until Sept 25, 2008, WAMU was owed a non-secure debt but stop existing without owning the Note so it not owe a dime after Sept 25, 2008. No Ginnie pooled borrower ever sign an agreement with the agency or the investors of the Ginnie MBS!

  10. Paatalo is a mental lightweight, just another legal illiterate that has no idea what he’s talking about. Matter of fact he lost his cases in Oregon and Montana making the same factually and legally incorrect arguments.

    Posting lies like this harms homeowners, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: