FOIA Requests Reveal the Truth About JPMC-WAMU “Purchase”

The bottom line is that JPM Chase did not actual purchase or pay for anything. The net “price” was negative including an IRS refund due to WAMU but transferred to JPMC.JPMC did acquire the book value assets and liabilities of WAMU and subsidiaries, but there was was litttle in the way of book value for assets which would have included loans — if there were any “loans” (debts+notes + mortgage liens) that were owned by WAMU at the time of its collapse..

The representation that loans originated by WAMU became the property of JPMC was always false and JPMC knew it was false. WAMU owned no usch “loans” or any rights to the transctions with homeowners. The fiction that it retained servicing rights was employed to pretend that somehow there still existed a creditor. That role was exintguished in the process of securitization.

Lawyers for Wall Street investment Banks can successfully argue, perhaps, that their style of securitization should be made legal. But they cannot argue successfully that it is currently legal. 

*

Hat Tip to Summer Chic, who made the FOIA  request to FDIC. Dozens of letters and notices from lawyers for JPMC were included in the response. They clearly show knowledge and intent of JPMC management about what they ere really doing despite what they were saying in court.

*

It is very interesting. Among other things, it clearly demonstrates that JPMC has taken the position that it cannot incur any losses unless it results from JPMC action. Anything that happened before 9/25/08 is the responsibility of the FDIC, which has indemnified JPMC against any losses for damages, costs or expenses.  It even shows that the FDIC allowed the settlement of such claims by JPMC even though the FDIC was responsible for reimbursing JPMC for any and all costs involved.

*
Further, it shows that no Power of Attorney ever existed in which the FDIC gave JPMC the authority to act for the FDIC or the WMU estate except as specifically set forth in the Purchase Whole Bank Agreement.
*
And it shows that WAMU subsidiaries sold off certificates contemporaneously with alleged loan closings such that there were few, if any, loans acquired by JPMC — although it is possible that JPMC preserved “Servicing rights.”
*
But if they were servicing and were not the creditor, they were agents without a principal. And that is the problem that runs throughout the securitization infrastructure created by Wall Street. And it is why the only rational conclusion is that securitization extinguishes the actual debt and replaces it with a faux debt that is only implied by documents. There can be no debt without a creditor to whom it is owed.
*
And it shows that what I have been saying for 16 years is the same thing that both JPMC and the FDIC accepted as fact —- JPMC repeats again and again that they acquired only the book value of liabilities and presumably the book value of assets as shown on the books and records of WAMU and subsidiaries.
*
I repeat that no schedule of “loans” has ever been prepared or produced that was attached to or offered as a supplement to the 9/25/08 agreement. The “book value” only gets reported under GAAP if there are corresponding entries based upon a memorialization of transactions conducted in the real world.
*
And it shows that the repurchase agreements, disputes, and settlements were rampant. This is the central reason why the banks want us to focus on the paper rather than the money trail. Because the ultimate question is to whom doe the homeowner supposedly owe money? It can ONLY be someone who owns their debt.
*
The repurchase obligations and settlements underscore the obscurity of the ownership of the debt and, therefore title since a paper transfer of the mortgage lien without a contemporaneous transfer (purchase and sale) of the debt is considered a legal nullity in all US jurisdictions.
*
In practice, you would want to see all repurchase demands and settlements (and lawsuits based on those demands) during the period in which JPMC was asserting ownership or serving rights over transactions that had previously been the subject (before 9/25/08) of securitization issuance and sale.
*
As a reminder, I will repeat the counterintuitive nature of this scheme. The fact that unregulated securities were issued does NOT mean that the certificates conveyed any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage lien. The fact that certificate holders exist does NOT mean they are beneficiaries of a trust. And the fact that a bank is named as trustee does not mean they possess any duty, obligation, or authority to act on behalf of the certificate holders.
*
If you don’t pay attention to the details, you are doing what the banks want you to do — lose.
================
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

4 Responses

  1. The fraud is huge with Ginnie Mae involved in the deal!

  2. Hold on here. What is being described here is either the biggest fraud in history upon the U.S. government OR the biggest fraud upon homeowners and the public – concealed by the U.S. Government. Which one is it??? Or both???

  3. Neil what is missing are the 1.3 million Fed Gov Backed mortgage loans that WAMU had in its Ginnie Mae pooling as I address with the SEC Whistleblowing Dept. Wells was the servicer for all of WAMU Fed Backed loans and how they got around these loan being a part of the Sept 25, 2008, sale issue was at a point in 2006 in a remote bankruptcy procedure, Ginnie looks to have seized the 1.3 million loan by having WAMU assign the Deed of Trust starting Dec 21, 2006 through Jul 2007, to Wells as if Wells purchased all but a handful of these loans as the titling on a few were not correct to be recorded as with my loan.

    So as the local register offices don’t require the Note or a purchase agreement when transferring the lien, so when Wells is mention as the assigner and a value was paid, it appears as if Wells purchased the loans before WAMU failed!

    As JPMC has verified to me that they did not have ownership of my WAMU loan that MERS acting as nominee for the originator in my case Great Western Bank (GWB) who I have received a letter from them and the FDIC as to the date of the sale of my loan which was Jul 21, 2003, making it impossible for Wells to purchase my loan from GWB on Oct 22, 2009 as MERS claimed in the assignment of deed of trust, which is over a year after WAMU was declared a failed bank. I am in the process of receiving the release of lien from GWB which with the letter that I already got show who was the successor and there was not assign.

    We know that Ginnie has a responsibility to make sure the issuer of Ginnie MBS are financially able to maintain the securities and at some point while the FIDC was shopping for a WAMU buyer it would have know WAMU was in trouble and the portfolio was in need to be seized, but this is a flaw in the Ginnie pooling as Ginnie cannot buy or sell a mortgage loan per US Congress!

    In 2012 the FHA reported past losses of $70 billion and the Dept of VA lost a few billion as these loans were not considered for HAMP, FHA HAMP, or VA HAMP just as they admitted to illegally foreclosing on Wells customers that filed for bankruptcy, that were only protected due to TARP that granted them the right to have these modifications!

  4. Nicely put Neil, thank you. And thanks Summer for all your work exposing these crimes.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: