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 www.lendinglies.com. 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

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.

Veira v PennyMac and JPM Chase 4th DCA Finds What Everyone has Known all along — that PennyMac never has standing and Chase, most of the time, doesn’t have standing

Another case showing shifting attitudes toward illegal foreclosures. At the trial level there have been many such decisions, some with an expanded finding of fact showing that the foreclosure was a sham. On appeal, the courts were always looking for ways to sustain the foreclosure; they still do that but more and more appellate courts are starting to understand that there is no party who has standing in most instances — especially a creditor who actually paid value for the debt.

Note how they instruct that judgment must be entered for the borrowers — not dismissal.

And the other thing is that PennyMac is generally a sham in foreclosures. It doesn’t own the debt, it doesn’t own the mortgage, it doesn’t own the note and it probably doesn’t even own the servicing rights.

The big issue continues to be missed. Pleading is different from proof. Asserting standing may meet the requirements of pleading. Proving standing is all about whether the party claiming to be the creditor is the owner of the debt who has paid value for the loan. The presumption arises if the claimant has possession of the original note (if it really is an original and not a fabrication).

The presumption can be rebutted by simply showing that the indorsement was a sham and the assignment of mortgage was sham because there was no transaction in real life in which either party received or paid any money or other value for the loan. Article (§203 UCC prohibits enforcement of the mortgage under those circumstances.

It is black letter law in all jurisdictions that an assignment of mortgage without an actual transfer (purchase and sale of the debt) is a nullity precisely because all jurisdictions have adopted Article 9 §203 UCC.

“However, although the statute makes clear that an assignee has the “same means and remedies the mortgagee may lawfully have,” we have previously held that “[t]he mortgage follows the assignment of the promissory note, but an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee.” Tilus v. AS Michai LLC, 161 So.3d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So.3d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) );”[e.s.]

see VIEIRA v. PENNYMAC CORP | FindLaw

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 www.lendinglies.com. 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Interesting quotes for foreclosure defense lawyers. As usual with PennyMac, the search was on for the “lost” note, which we all know was destroyed contemporaneously with closing.

The allonge was undated and contained a signature by a JP Morgan representative, but no signature by a Chase Bank representative. The JP Morgan witness could not say when the allonge was executed or when it was imaged into any system.

we perceive the critical issue to be whether sufficient proof was presented at trial to show that Chase Bank transferred the note to JP Morgan, the original plaintiff, prior to suit being filed.

 

Through the JP Morgan witness, PennyMac also introduced into evidence the assignment of mortgage from JP Morgan to PennyMac.

Because it was substituted as plaintiff after suit was filed, PennyMac had to prove at trial that JP Morgan had standing when the initial complaint was filed, as well as its own standing when the final judgment was entered. Lamb v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 174 So.3d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Throughout the proceedings below, the note was lost. Thus, PennyMac had to prove standing and the right to enforce the note, using section 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 673.3091(1)(a), requires in part that “[t]he person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” (emphasis added).

Standing may be established by possession of the note specially indorsed to the plaintiff or indorsed in blank. Peoples v. Sami II Tr. 2006–AR6, 178 So.3d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); § 673.2031(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (“An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.”); § 673.2031(2), Fla. Stat. (“Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument ,including any right as a holder in due course ”).A plaintiff may also prove standing “through evidence of a valid assignment, proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer.” Stone, 115 So.3d at 413 (quoting BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean–Jacques, 28 So.3d 936, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ). That is because “if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor ” § 673.2031(3), Fla. Stat.

there are problems with PennyMac’s “multi-tiered evidence” arguments. First, it is unclear in what way Chase Bank and JP Morgan are “related entities.” No evidence was presented that JP Morgan and Chase Bank merged or that Chase Bank was completely bought out by JP Morgan. As we have made clear in the past, separate corporate entities, even parent and subsidiary entities, are legally distinct entities. See Wright v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 169 So.3d 251, 251–52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and distinct legal entities and a parent corporation cannot exercise the rights of the subsidiary corporation); see also Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So.3d 726, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (noting a conflict of allegations between affidavits and the complaint where the affidavits alleged PennyMac Loan Services, LLC was the servicer and the complaint alleged PennyMac Corp. was the servicer). There was no explicit testimony or other evidence that Chase Bank sold or equitably transferred the note to JP Morgan.

The major stumbling block is that the allonge was signed by a representative of JP Morgan, and there is no signature on the document by Chase Bank. Section 673.2041, Florida Statutes (2017), clearly requires a signature by the current note holder to constitute an indorsement and transfer of the note to another payee or bearer. § 673.2041, Fla. Stat. (“The term ‘indorsement’ means a signature for the purpose of negotiating the instrument [or] restricting payment of the instrument.”). We have previously said, “[t]o transfer a note, there must be an indorsement, which itself must be ‘on [the] instrument’ or on ‘a paper affixed to the instrument.’ ” Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 178 So.3d 523, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)(second alteration in original) (emphasis added)(quoting § 673.2041(1), Fla. Stat.).

 

The Big Hoax: Are “Sales” of “Loans” and “Servicing” Real?

References to sales of loans and servicing rights are usually merely false assertions to distract homeowners and lawyers from looking at what is really happened. By accepting the premise that the loan was sold you are accepting that the loan was (a) real and (b) owned by the party who was designated to appear as a “Seller.”

By accepting the premise that the servicing data and documents were transferred you are accepting that the transferor had the correct data and documents and that the designated servicer is actually in position to represent the accounting records of the party whose name was used to initiate the foreclosure.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

As Reynaldo Reyes of Deutsche Bank said in deposition and in recorded interviews, the entire structure and actual events are “counterintuitive.” The banks count on that for good reason. Most lawyers and almost all homeowners assume that at least some of what the banks are saying is true. In fact, nearly everything they say, write or produce as “business records” is a fabrication. But homeowners, lawyers and judges buy it as though it was solid gold.

In defending homeowners from foreclosure, lawyers who win more cases than they lose do so because of their willingness to believe that the entire thing is a hoax. Their withering cross examination and use of discovery reveals the complete absence of any corroborating evidence that would be admissible in court.

Even the most “biased” judges will concede that the case for foreclosure has not been made and they rule for the homeowner. But this only happens if the lawyer takes the opposition to task.

Chase did not acquire loans from WAMU and WAMU did not acquire loans from Long Beach etc. At the time of the claimed “acquisition” those loans were long gone, having been funded or purchased by one of the big 4 investment banks, directly or indirectly (through intermediate investment banks or simple cham conduit fictitious names or entities). In fact the ONLY time that the actual debt was clearly owned by anyone was, at best, a 30 day period during which the investment bank had the debt on its balance sheet as an asset.

So all sales from any seller other than one of the investment banks is a ruse. And there are no references to sales by the investment banks because that would be admitting and accepting potential liability for lending and servicing violations. It would also lead to revelations about how many times and in how many pieces the debt was effectively sold to how many investors who were NOT limited to those who had advanced money to the investment bank for shares in a nonexistent trust that never owned anything and never transacted any business.

Similarly the boarding process is a hoax. There is generally no actual transfer of servicing even with the largest “servicers.” They are all using a central platform on which data is kept, maintained, managed and manipulated by a third party who is kept concealed using employees who are neither bonded nor trained in maintaining accurate records nor protecting private data.

There is no transfer of servicing data. There is no “boarding” and no “audit.” In order to keep up the musical chairs game in which homeowners and lawyers are equally flummoxed, the big investment banks periodically change the designation of servicers and simply rotate the names, giving each one the login and password to enter the central system (usually at a server maintained in Jacksonville, Florida).

BOTTOM LINE: If you accept the premises advanced by the lawyers for the banks you will almost always lose. If you don’t and you aggressively pound on the legal foundation for the evidence they are attempting to use in court the chances of winning arise above 50% and with some lawyers, above 65%.

To be successful there are some attitudes of the defense lawyer that are necessary.

  • The first is that they must believe or be willing to believe that their client deserves to win. A lawyer who thinks that the client is only entitled to his/her time or a delay of the “inevitable” will never, ever win.
  • The second is that they must believe or be willing to believe that the entire scheme of lending, servicing and foreclosure is a hoax. Each word and each document that a lawyer assumes to be valid, authentic and not fabricated is a step toward defeat.
  • The third is that the lawyer must fight to reveal the gaps, consistencies and insufficiencies of the evidence and not to prove that this is the greatest economic crime in human history. All trials are won and lost based on evidence. The burden is always on the foreclosing party or the apparent successors to the foreclosing party to prove that title properly passed.
  • Fourth is arguably the most important and the one that is most overlooked. The lawyer must believe or be willing to believe that the foreclosure was not initiated on behalf of any party who could reasonably described as a creditor or owner of the debt. The existence of the trust, the presence of a real trust in any transaction in which a loan was purchased, sold or settled to a trustee, and the various permutations of strategies employed by the banks are not mere technical points. They are a coverup for the fact that no creditor and no owner of the debt ever receives any benefit from a successful foreclosure of the property.

Yes it is counterintuitive. You are meant to think otherwise and the banks are counting on that with you, your lawyer and the judge. But just because something is counterintuitive doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

Cal. 3d DCA: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — You Can Cancel the Assignment, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale and Reverse the Sale.

This decision “Not for publication” takes one more step toward unravelling the false claims of securitization that resulted in millions of fake foreclosures over at least 15 years. The pure nonsense being peddled by Wall Street investment banks still remains as the underlying basis for assumptions and presumptions that are contrary to fact and contrary to legal and equitable principles.

But the window is now open to include the investment banks as defendants in complaints for damages and disgorgement, because as this decision reveals, the courts may not be willing to take a giant leap of faith that someone must be the lender and that “someone” is part of the chain of players who are pursuing foreclosure. Without that leap of faith, without that bias, their “doctrine” is left dangling in the wind.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. 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.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

See http://lawzilla.com/blog/rainn-gauna-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank/

YES it does stand for the proposition that at least this court says that cancellation of instruments is the one cause of action that in fact does exist because the assignment was from an assignor that had no interest in the debt. I think that it is important to make it clear that the words “no beneficial interest” means “no ownership of the debt.” But the use of the words “no beneficial interest” implies the validity of the deed of trust by which the property was encumbered in favor of a “lender” (or its agent “MERS”) who was a sales agent and not a lender and from whom the borrower received no funds.

*
This twisted concept seems to be saying to the judicial world that we know that table funded loans occur but we are not going to invalidate the enforcement of contracts lacking in consideration because there must be someone in the mix who did provide consideration and who was in some kind of relationship with the sales agent. Hecne the courts are thinking that they are following substance over form and thus preventing a windfall to borrowers. Instead they are stepping over the facts.
*
The money came from an investment bank and yes the investment bank knew that the “originator” would be named as lender. The purpose of this arrangement was to shield the investment bank from liability for violations of lending laws of which we all know there were many spanning the categories of appraisal fraud, avoidance of underwriting risk (without which nobody could be considered a lender), to concealment instead of disclosure of terms, compensation etc.
*
You can’t pick up one end of the stick without  picking up the other. If we are going to accept the notion that in foreclosure cases we are going to treat a contract as enforceable even though it lacked consideration and nobody else that is named in the chain has ever paid value, then the assumption is that an unnamed party who actually did pay value, is the real party in interest. That is the investment bank. And THAT can ONLY mean that the investment bank was present in underwriting and granting the loan through its naked nominee, the sales agent or “originator.”
*

If that is so then the liability for lending violations MUST attach to the investment bank. And if that is so then at least in judicial states, by alleging those lending violations through the affirmative defense of recoupment, the foreclosure can be mitigated or defeated entirely. In nonjudicial states one would need to allege active concealment preventing the borrower from knowing the real party in interest with whom he was dealing.

*

This could be the end of nonjudicial foreclosures at least as to LBMT-WAMU-Chase. It should be treated as such. If I had time, I could literally write a book about this decision as it is so instructive as to pleading requirements and common mistakes made by trial and appellate courts like for example, assuming that a legal default exists when nobody who owned the debt declared such a default or even said that payment was delinquent in some way.

*
It also shows the lengths that many courts will go to avoid “fraud.” While they will accept the notion that something was wrongful and that the defendants knew it was wrongful, contrary to fact and law, they refuse so see it as fraud. A quick look at any FTC action will reveal that such restrictions do not apply if the same allegations come from a governmental agency.
*

The case is also instructive in that it repeats a very common scenario regarding the origination and progression of the loan. This court and other courts will eventually face the day when their assertions come full circle: for now, they are saying that just because there was no consideration between then named lender and the borrower doesn’t mean there was no enforceable contract.

*

Yes it does mean that in every context other than foreclosure litigation. But because of the rules in UCC Article 3 the maker of a note takes a risk when they execute the promissory note without having received any consideration because the note represents, under law, the right to enforce it, which if it is acquired for value might mean the enforcement would be free from borrower”s defenses. That liability does not create an enforceable loan contract. Even common sense dictates that for a loan contract to be enforceable there must be a loan between the parties to the contract.

*

PRACTICE NOTE: All that said, this case only stands for the proposition that a complaint is sufficient when it pleads that the party on whose behalf an assignment was made had no ownership in the debt. The proof of the pudding will be at trial. How will you prove this basic proposition. The answer is that you have taken the first step which is that you put the matter in issue. The second step is discovery. And the third step, if it ever gets to that, is establishing at trial that the supposed beneficiary under a deed of trust or the mortgagee under a mortgage deed had not satisfied its burden of proof showing an ownership interest in the underlying debt.”

*

The opposition to that narrative will be what it has always been. That possession of the “original” note raises the legal presumption that the named beneficiary under the deed of trust in fact was the legal beneficiary under the deed of trust. Possession of the note, they will argue equals ownership of the debt. If the judge accepts that proposition, the burden of proof will then fall on the borrower to rebut that presumption — a leap that most judges have already demonstrated they don’t want to make. So the persuasiveness of then presentation including an unrelenting march toward revelation of the truth is the only thing that carries the day.

*

The banks know that what they’re doing is wrong. But history shows that they can get away with it except with the apparently rare homeowner who aggressively and relentlessly defends the foreclosure.

How to Follow the Money

Ultimately all debts, notes and mortgages (or deeds of trust) are about money. They are not about property. The property is incidental to the deal and ONLY comes about if there is a dispute in which there is a claim that you didn’t pay money that is owed to the owner of the mortgage deed or the beneficial owner of a deed of trust. The mortgage deed or deed of trust is conditional, not absolute like your deed to your property that names you as owner. There is no such thing as a fee simple absolute mortgage or encumbrance. It doesn’t exist in our jurisprudence or for that matter any jurisprudence. 

The ONLY reason your property can be legally sold, denying you future title and possession of the property is that you owe money to the party who foreclosed — or on whose behalf the foreclosure was initiated. Mastering this one fact will pull your head and that you attorney’s head out of the weeds. 

We take it as a given that you owe money. The question is whether there is a party that can be identified as the the one to whom the money is owed. If so, who is that? What is the identification, address and contact information for the party who is actually owed money from you.

Spoiler alert: So far the banks have successfully skirted the question of money. From funding of the initial loan to the proceeds of sale fo the property nobody has actually disclosed where the money came from and where the money went when payments were made or the property was liquidated.

===========================

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
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. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 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).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
===========================

And the absolute immutable truth is that the so-called investors (i.e., the ones who bought “certificates” or “mortgage bonds”) do not receive your mortgage payments nor do they receive the proceeds of the sale your home. So who actually wants the foreclosure and why? The truth is that the investors get paid in the sole discretion of the underwriter of the “certificates.” Their payment is not conditioned upon your payment.

They get paid ONLY because the underwriter promised to pay them based upon certain conditions which does NOT include the receipt of mortgage payments. They do not get paid because you promised to pay the investors nor because your promise to pay was sold to either the investors or the trust. That sale never occurred. 

How do I know this? Because I have asked two questions thousands of times in the last 12 years. First, to whom were my payments forwarded by the self-proclaimed servicer? Answer: None of my business. Second, who received the proceeds of liquidation of the foreclosed property? Answer: none of my business. 

Knowing the banking industry as I do, there was only one possible conclusion: if they answered the question they would either perjury themselves or they would be admitting that the party named as being entitled to foreclosure was not really entitled to foreclosure. You see it is well established law — for centuries — that only the owner of a debt can foreclosure on collateral. 

For convenience sake a holder of a promissory note can enforce the note but only the owner of the debt is entitled to foreclose. If the foreclosing party claims a representative capacity the to establish a prima facie case it must disclose the party whom they claim to be representing and prove that the party being represented is the owner of the debt. 

So the one area, pointed out by Charles Koppa in So.Cal. a decade ago is what happens after the sale is authorized and the property is liquidated. He was figuring out the relationship between the bid amount and the amount the underwriter claimed as unpaid servicer advances (in the role of self-proclaimed master servicer for the nonexistent trust). Here we knew the answer but we were lucky enough to get hold of copies of a check made out to BONY/Mellon as trustee (Blah blah). BONY mailed it to the servicer and the servicer mailed it to Chase (i.e., the underwriter and master servicer doing business as the nonexistent trust, like a DBA.

No trust and no investor ever received the money. Chase got it and lest you forget, remember that Chase was all about selling loans and derivatives based upon loans and synthetic derivatives based upon the derivatives. It was never about actually making loans where Chase could lose money or buying loan as that were going to be worthless of worth less. It was about selling them. So the revelation is that BONY never had a claim to the money and either did the nonexistent trust that was ignored once the foreclosure court proceedings were over. 

Our investigations so far, with considerable help from Bill Paatalo, shows that multiple transfers of title occur AFTER the foreclosure sale or shortly before signaling the real player who is going to get the money. So you might want to think about the sale of your property title as the beginning rather than the end. It is the beginning of an action (lawsuit) to vacate the sale and award damages. 

Pay Attention! Look at the money trail AFTER the foreclosure sale

My confidence has never been higher that the handling of money after a foreclosure sale will reveal the fraudulent nature of most “foreclosures” initiated not on behalf of the owner of the debt but in spite of the the owner(s) of the debt.

It has long been obvious to me that the money trail is separated from the paper trail practically “at birth” (origination). It is an obvious fact that the owner of the debt is always someone different than the party seeking foreclosure, the alleged servicer of the debt, the alleged trust, and the alleged trustee for a nonexistent trust. When you peek beneath the hood of this scam, you can see it for yourself.

Real case in point: BONY appears as purported trustee of a purported trust. Who did that? The lawyers, not BONY. The foreclosure is allowed and the foreclosure sale takes place. The winning “bid” for the property is $230k.

Here is where it gets real interesting. The check is sent to BONY who supposedly is acting on behalf of the trust, right. Wrong. BONY is acting on behalf of Chase and Bayview loan servicing. How do we know? Because physical possession of the check made payable to BONY was forwarded to Chase, Bayview or both of them. How do we know that? Because Chase and Bayview both endorsed the check made out to BONY depositing the check for credit in a bank account probably at Chase in the name of Bayview.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

OK so we have the check made out to BONY and TWO endorsements — one by Chase and one by Bayview supposedly — and then an account number that might be a Chase account and might be a Bayview account — or, it might be some other account altogether. So the question who actually received the $230k in an account controlled by them and then, what did they do with it. I suspect that even after the check was deposited “somewhere” that money was forwarded to still other entities or even people.

The bid was $230k and the check was made payable to BONY. But the fact that it wasn’t deposited into any BONY account much less a BONY trust account corroborates what I have been saying for 12 years — that there is no bank account for the trust and the trust does not exist. If the trust existed the handling of the money would look very different OR the participants would be going to jail.

And that means NOW you have evidence that this is the case since BONY obviously refused to do anything with the check, financially, and instead just forwarded it to either Chase or Bayview or perhaps both, using copies and processing through Check 21.

What does this mean? It means that the use of the BONY name was a sham, since the trust didn’t exist, no trust account existed, no assets had ever been entrusted to BONY as trustee and when they received the check they forwarded it to the parties who were pulling the strings even if they too were neither servicers nor owners of the debt.

Even if the trust did exist and there really was a trust officer and there really was a bank account in the name of the trust, BONY failed to treat it as a trust asset.

So either BONY was directly committing breach of fiduciary duty and theft against the alleged trust and the alleged trust beneficiaries OR BONY was complying with the terms of their contract with Chase to rent the BONY name to facilitate the illusion of a trust and to have their name used in foreclosures (as long as they were protected by indemnification by Chase who would pay for any sanctions or judgments against BONY if the case went sideways for them).

That means the foreclosure judgment and sale should be vacated. A nonexistent party cannot receive a remedy, judicially or non-judicially. The assertions made on behalf of the named foreclosing party (the trust represented by BONY “As trustee”) were patently false — unless these entities come up with more fabricated paperwork showing a last minute transfer “from the trust” to Chase, Bayview or both.

The foreclosure is ripe for attack.

Forbes: TBTF Banks have $3.8 Trillion in Reported Loan Portfolios — How much of it is real?

The five largest U.S. banks have a combined loan portfolio of almost $3.8 trillion, which represents 40% of the total loans handed out by all U.S. commercial banks.

See Forbes: $3.8 Trillion in Portfolio Loans

I can spot around $300 billion that isn’t real.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

When interviewing the FDIC receiver back in 2008 he told me that WAMU had originated around $1 Trillion in loans. He also told me that most of them were subject to claims of securitization (i.e., they had been sold). Then when I asked him how much had been sold, he said that Chase had told him the total was around 2/3. Translation: With zero consideration, Chase was about to use the agreement of October 25, 2008 as an excuse to claim ownership and servicing rights on over $300 billion in loans. Chase was claiming ownership when it suited them. By my count they foreclosed on over $100 billion of those “WAMU” loans and, for the most part, collected the proceeds for itself.

Point One: If there really were $300 Billion in loans left in WAMU inventory, there would have been no receivership nor would there have been any bankruptcy.

Point Two: If there were $300 Billion in loans left in WAMU inventory, or even if there was 1/10th that amount, neither the FDIC receiver nor the US Trustee in WAMU bankruptcy would have allowed the portfolio to be given to Chase without Chase paying more than zero. The receiver and the US Trustee would have been liable for civil and even criminal penalties. But they were not liable because there were no loans to sell.

So it should come as no surprise that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase for falsely claiming the payments from performing loans and keeping them, and for falsely claiming the proceeds on foreclosure as if they were the creditor when they were most clearly not. whether the lawyers know it or not, they might just have filed the largest lawsuit in history.

see Young v Chase Class Action – WaMu Loans – EDNY June 2018

This isn’t unique. Chase had its WAMU. BofA had its Countrywide. Wells Fargo had its Wachovia. Citi had lots of alter egos. The you have OneWest with its IndyMac. And there are others. All of them had one thing in common: they were claiming ownership rights over mortgages that were falsely claimed to have been “acquired through merger or acquisition using the FDIC (enter Sheila Bair screaming) as a governmental rubber stamp such that it would appear that they purchased over a trillion dollars in residential mortgage loans when in fact they merely created the illusion of those loans which had been sold long ago.

None of this was lost on the insurers that were defrauded when they issued insurance policies that were procured under false pretenses on supposedly non-securities where the truth is that, like the residential loans themselves, the “securities” and the loans were guaranteed to fail.

Simplistically, if you underwrite a loan to an family whose total income is less than the payments will be when the loan resets to full amortization you can be sure of two things: (1) the loan will fail short-term and (2) the “certificates” will fail along with them. If you know that in advance you can bet strong against the loans and the certificates by purchasing insurance from insurers who were inclined to trust the underwriters (a/k/a “Master Servicer” of nonexistent trust issuing the certificates).

see AMBAC Insurance Case vs U.S. Bank

The bottom line is that inside the smoke and mirrors palace, there is around $1 Trillion in loans that probably were sold (leveraged) dozens of times where the debt is owned by nobody in particular — just the TBTF bank that claims it. Once they get to foreclosure, the presumption arises that everything that preceded the foreclosure sale is valid. And its very hard to convince judges that they just rubber stamped another theft.

CHASE BOMBSHELL! Investigator Bill Paatalo Follow-Up: JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust

Follow-Up: JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/jpmorgan-chase-ordered-to-produce-wire-transfers-of-borrowers-payments-to-trust/

On February 23, 2018 JPMorgan Chase filed an emergency motion seeking clarification and an in camera review. (See: Chase Emergency Motion – Proodian (1)  ) Here are some excerpts from the motion with my comments in CAPS:

II. ARGUMENT

A. Motion For Clarification And Request For In Camera

13. The Order specifically orders Chase to produce “(1) 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.

14. After a diligent search, Chase is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to the Order as phrased.

15. 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. [“DOES NOT MAINTAIN LOAN LEVEL INFORMATION TO THE INVESTOR?” THIS STATEMENT SHOWS A COMPLETE DISCONNECT WITH THE CASH-FLOW BETWEEN A BORROWER AND THE ALLEGED INVESTOR(S), AND CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE, THROUGH VERIFIABLE ACCOUNTING, THAT THE ALLEGED INVESTOR(S) RECEIVE THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS “FROM THE BORROWER.” WHEN IT COMES TO ACCOUNTING, PLAYING “HORSESHOES & HAND GRENADES” WHERE CLOSE ENOUGH IS ALL THAT MATTERS ISN’T GOING TO CUT IT, NOR SHOULD “TRUST US YOUR HONOR.”]

16. The records that Chase maintains, therefore, 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. [WELLS FARGO GETS PAID “REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY INDIVIDUAL BORROWER IN THE POOL MADE PAYMENT TO CHASE.” FIRST OF ALL, WELLS FARGO IN THIS INSTANCE IS THE TRUSTEE, AND NOT THE “INVESTOR” AS THEY WANT THE COURT TO BELIEVE. WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO FROM WELLS FARGO? AGAIN, HERE IS AN ADMITTED DISCONNECT IN THE MONEY TRAIL THAT CHASE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARALY SITUATED, DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE. IN FACT, CHASE ARGUES IN THIS CASE THAT BORROWER’S AREN’T ENTITLED TO, AND DON’T HAVE STANDING TO DEMAND ALL THE ACCOUNTING INFORMATION BETWEEN THE SECURITIZATION PARTICIPANTS. REALLY? THIS IS NOTHING BUT DIVERSION FROM THE FACT THAT CHASE CANNOT PRODUCE THE MONEY TRAIL ON THIS BORROWER’S LOAN, OR ANY SECURITIZED LOAN.]

17. Chase’s records will show (i) Plaintiff’s loan is part of the pool of loans; and (ii) that Chase makes one large lump sum payment to Wells Fargo each month for that pool, regardless of whether it receives a payment from Plaintiff’s.

18. In short, the documents that Plaintiffs seek and were the subject of the Court’s recent discovery Order – i.e. wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account alone – do not exis[t.] [THERE WE HAVE IT, FOLKS. THERE IS NO WIRE TRANSFER HISTORY FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT SHOWING PAYMENTS TO ANY INVESTOR(S). THEY “DO NOT EXIST.” I STILL FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE. CHASE IS ESSENTIALLY 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 SUM PAYMENT TO SHOW THE ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF THESE PAYMENTS? AND, WELLS FARGO ISN’T SEEKING TO KNOW THE ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF THESE ENORMOUS SUMS OF MONEY? WITHOUT ANY FORMAL ACCOUNTING, “RED FLAGS” OF PONZI SCHEMES AND MONEY LAUNDERING ARE FLYING HIGH.]

Bill Paatalo

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC

bill.bpia@gmail.com

 

Defunct (Bankrupt) Mortgage Lenders Network USA Keeps Showing up on Assignments

Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst, points out that what happened in Chase-WAMU and IndyMac-OneWest, is replicated in hundreds of other “chains.” It is peculiar to say the least that regulatory authorities call foreclosures “faulty” when the foreclosing party was relying upon an entity that did not exist executing documents long after the entity went into bankruptcy. We have often seen documents executed on behalf of an entity that never existed. That’s not faulty. It is criminal if it was done with full knowledge of what was happening. And how could they not have known that the nonexistent entity on whose behalf the foreclosing party directed the drafting of fraudulent documents to prepare a random bank or servicer to foreclose?

Your article today was right on point for other cases.  Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (“MLN”) went into a chapter 11 liquidation in February 2007, the plan was confirmed in February 2009 and the plan became effective in June 2009. At that point MLN ceased to exist and all assets and claims were transferred to the liquidating trust.
 *
A declaration filed in that bankruptcy states that all loans owned and/or serviced by MLN were sold in the ordinary course (and some not in the ordinary course) prior to the liquidation and that at the time of liquidation MLN did not own or service any mortgages whatsoever.
 *
And yet in July 2009 [one month after confirmed plan was effective] a 2nd assignment was executed and recorded from MLN to US Bank, NA as Trustee (without specifying a trust).  This conflicts with the first assignment executed and recorded in February 2009 where MLN assigned it to some bogus entity.
 *
And then during the homeowner’s previous bankruptcy, in October 2013 [4 years after the MLN BKR was completed] MLN again assigned the loan to a new and different party. They ceased to exist in 2009 so how could the 3rd assignment possibly be anything other then an attempt to perfect a pre-petition lien in violation of 11 USC 362(a)?
 *
All they have to do to prove us wrong is produce an actual financial transaction between a valid grantor and grantee where the transaction happened after May 15, 2012  (BKR filing date) and the date of the 3rd assignment.  Then we lose.

Chase-WAMU Letter Reveals”Expungement” and “Assignments” of Alleged Mortgages ” Not on the Books and Records of WAMU”

There is an old saying on Wall Street that “Bulls make money, Bears make money but Pigs never do.” The obvious circumstances of Chase claiming ownership to nonexistent loan portfolios contained within WAMU coupled with the admission in this letter to the FDIC, shows just how arrogant Chase felt when they informed the FDIC that they wanted to get paid by the FDIC for expunging documents and fabricating other instruments for “loans” that were not on the books and records of WAMU at the time of their purchase and sale agreement wherein Chase acquired the WAMU estate.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
see Letter from Chase to FDIC: chase-letter-to-fdic-2014
*
Hat tip to Bill Paatalo who reminded me of this letter that surfaced in the dispute over FDIC indemnification of Chase for the takeover of WAMU operations. Chase expressly admits to defects in the chain of title and erroneous mortgage documentation.
*
It has been central to the defense of foreclosures based upon alleged “loans” originated by Washington Mutual (WAMU) that Chase never acquired any loans. It is obvious from the the transaction where Chase agreed to pay around $2 Billion to the estate but received more than that in a tax refund due to the WAMU estate. So the consideration was zero.
*
Yet Chase has persistently asserted claims of ownership and direct or indirect authority to foreclose on loans that were not in the books and records of WAMU at the time of the FDIC sale to Chase.
Along with several others, I have stated the fact that Chase (1) acquired no loans (2) because they were not in the WAMU portfolio and that (3) a check of the WAMU books and records in the bankruptcy court will not show the loans that Chase says it acquired from WAMU. If WAMU didn’t own them then Chase could not have acquired them from WAMU.
*
In order to perpetuate this farce we have alleged that Chase was directly involved in the fabrication and forgery of documents to create the illusion of loans that didn’t exist on WAMU books and records and schedules in the receivership and schedules in bankruptcy.
*
Even a non-lawyer can see the problem for Chase. The letter in the link below clearly shows the lawyers asserting a claim for expenses in expunging records (i.e., destroying them) and fabricating other records which obviously leads to the issue of forging since the document itself was knowingly fabricated at the expense of Chase.
*
Somehow Chase came to the conclusion that having paid for the destruction of documents and having paid for fabricating documents, they were now entitled to call themselves owner of the “Loan portfolio” which according to the schedules never existed.
*
They admit to fabricating documents to create the illusion of a chain of title. Now they want payment from the FDIC to cover the expense of fabrication and forgery. Perhaps more importantly they admit “errors in mortgage documentation occurring prior to September 25,2008.”
  • Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

    Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

===========================

Email from Bill Paatalo:
Neil,
Have you seen this letter? The collusion between JPMC and the FDIC could not be any more transparent.
Excerpts from letter in italics:

The additional matters giving rise to JPMC’s indemnity rights relate to costs incurred in connection with mortgages held by WMB prior to September 25,2008. These costs have resulted from aspects of-and circumstances related to- WMB mortgages that were not reflected on the books and records of WMB as of September 25, 2008, and include:

[HERE IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT THERE IS A SCHEDULE OF LOANS “NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB.” IF NO SCHEDULE EXISTS SHOWING WHAT WAS “ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS,” THEN WE SHOULD NOW INQUIRE AS TO THE SCHEDULE SHOWING THOSE LOANS NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS.]

(a) Costs incurred by JPMC associated with individual assignments of WMB mortgages. Where JPMC has initiated foreclosures on properties associated with mortgages that were held by WMB prior to its Receivership, JPMC has performed individual assignments of the associated mortgages/deeds of trust and allonges to comply with a recent appellate-level court decision in Michigan so as avoid potential additional expense and/or liability. In so doing, JPMC has incurred additional recording and legal fees, Limited Power of Attorney costs, as well as quantifiable costs associated with increased staffing to address these issues.

[THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT ASSIGNMENTS AND ALLONGES ARE BEING EXECUTED BY JPMC (AS BENEFICIARIES AND MORTGAGEES) FOR WMB LOANS THAT WERE “NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB.”]

(c) Costs incurred by JPMC to expunge records associated with WMB mortgages as a result of errors in mortgage documentation occurring prior to September 25,2008, including erroneously recorded satisfactions of mortgages and associated legal fees and disbursements.

[“EXPUNGING RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH WMB MORTGAGES AS A RESULT OF ERRORS IN MORTGAGE DOCUMENTATION?” THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THE JPMC HAS DESTROYED RECORDS RELATED TO WMB MORTGAGE FILES.]

(d) Costs incurred by JPMC to correct various defects in the chains of title for WMB mortgages occurring prior to September 25, 2008, including recording and legal services fees.

[WHAT “CHAINS OF TITLE?” JPMC TAKES THE POSITION THAT THESE LOANS WERE NEVER SOLD BY WMB. THIS IS A DIRECT ADMISSION THAT JPMC IS ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT DEFECTS IN THE CHAINS OF TITLE FOR WMB LOANS THAT WERE NOT REFLECTED ON THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF WMB. THESE “CORRECTIONS” UNIVERSALLY INVOLVE ASSIGNMENTS OF BENEFICIAL INTERESTS FROM THE FDIC, AND/OR BY VIRTUE OF THE PAA.]

At the time of WMB’ s closure, the above liabilities were not reflected on its books and records.

Bill Paatalo
Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075

Write Your Senators to Deny Confirmation of Mnuchin

The stakes could not be higher. Mnuchin’s ascension to the position of Secretary of the Treasury is literally installing a person who will merely respond to the direction of the Wall Street bankers and who will be largely unresponsive to whoever occupies the Oval Office. This is a terrible decision and the resistance to him being confirmed must be intense to have any effect.

Wall Street obvious wants to retain the gifts allowed and perpetuated by Washington politicians in all branches of government. Banks were able to claim ownership of loans in which they had no interest. They received direct payments from the US Treasury to “save” them (from losing their expectancy of further illicit profits). They received more than $3 Trillion from the Federal reserve who “purchased” nonexistent or worthless certificates issued by REMIC Trusts that never existed or owned anything. And of course they received trillions of dollars upon liquidation of homes that were foreclosed without any moral, ethical or legal right, justification or excuse.

Political decisions allowing laws to be broken, fraud on the courts, fraud on consumers, and fraud on the investors were made based not on whether there was a case against the banks, but whether “policy” decisions dictated what should happen to the banks. The wholesale slaughter of the lives of tens of millions of Americans was an acceptable sacrifice in the interest of a completely erroneous perception of national security.

Mnuchin is objectionable not only because he committed those illegal acts and fraud, but because he willingly performed those acts at the behest of Wall Street banks by claiming OneWest ownership of nonexistent or third party loan contracts and then foreclosing on them, producing a windfall for OneWest. If all those loans were actually owned by IndyMac, it would never have collapsed.

This is the same story as the giant Chase fraud where it claimed ownership (not just servicing rights) of hundreds of billions of dollars in loans that were known to be NOT in WAMU’s portfolio in a merger that cost Chase less than zero dollars after receiving a tax refund due WAMU. Do you really think that if Washington Mutual owned loan portfolios valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars that (a) WAMU would have gone bankrupt or (b) that the receiver would have allowed the sale of those assets for zero consideration?

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
If — and that is a big “if” — the phones and mailboxes and email inbox of your senator fill up with thousands of objections to Steve Mnuchin he won’t be confirmed. Trump nominated him because Wall Street wanted him. Wall Street wanted him because he has been doing their bidding for years. Wall Street got Trump to nominate Mnuchin because they own a large part of Trump’s “empire” — with securitized loans amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars. If they yank that chain, Trump is done.
see https://www.ft.com/content/cc5036c0-d466-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51

The Neil Garfield Show Tonight at 6pm Eastern: The Illusion of Ownership: JPMC cannot prove ownership of WaMu Loans

 

The JPMorgan Paper Chase Live at 6 pm

         The WaMu-JPMorgan Illusion Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

 

Mortgage Fraud Investigator Bill Paatalo and Southern California Attorney Charles Marshall join Attorney Neil Garfield to discuss Loan Modification Fraud, and recent foreclosure trends.

Bill Paatalo, a dogged investigator of the WaMu transfer of “loans” to JPMC has discovered recently that WaMu loans claimed to be owned by JPMorgan Chase, through the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” with the FDIC, were in fact sold by WaMu to “Private Investor – AO1” prior to the FDIC’s Receivership.

JPMC claims to own these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans-even within their servicing platform.  It is likely that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008.

If no schedule or inventory of WaMu loans has ever been produced, and there are no servicing records in existence from WaMu showing whether or not the loan was ever sold or securitized, could it be possible the loan(s) were sold by WaMu prior to September 25, 2008?

Paatalo states that Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.”  Paatalo continues, “It is almost too much to believe that one of the largest banking institutions in the world, would not have tracked the loans it originated and sold into the secondary market within its servicing systems.”

Homeowners and Attorneys may want to ask Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”

If you have a WaMu/Chase loan or foreclosure issue, and need answers about your loan- we recommend that you contact Bill Paatalo and order a report so that you will have a better understanding of your situation.

To read the rest of Bill Paatalo’s article please go to: http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/who-is-private-investor-ao1-jpmorgan-chase-refuses-to-reveal-the-identity-of-this-investor/

 

Bill Paatalo- Oregon Private Investigator

Office: (406) 328-4075
www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Attorney Charles T. Marshall- Serving all of California

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

Fake Agreements Between Sham Conduits Try to Preempt Courts from Ruling on Evidence

the parties are creating the illusion that they are essentially entering into an agreement to purchase paper from the seller where there is no original paperwork and no indication that the purchase ever actually took place.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Bill Paatalo, a private investigator who has concentrated his efforts on the fraud committed by banks for the past 15 years, has alerted me to a factor that ties in closely with my article yesterday on evidence. He gives a link for an example of an agreement that is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of judges, lawyers and their clients.

Note that the agreement says it is a “Correspondent” Purchase and Sale Agreement. No such thing exists. Either the Seller is a Correspondent in which case the loan “Closing” they originated was for the benefit of the superior bank or the originator was the source of funds, in which case the paperwork is at a minimum defective because it names the wrong party as lender. He writes:

Along these lines, you might find this interesting. I found the following SEC filing by WaMu, FA and one of its correspondent lenders. I can only guess there are hundreds more of these types of agreements.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/883476/000119312503037807/dex105.htm

CORRESPONDENT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

This is a Correspondent Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of March 5, 2003 by, and between WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (“Purchaser”), and Crescent Mortgage Services, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (“Seller”).

Section 8.11 Reproduction of Documents. This Agreement and all documents relating thereto, including, without limitation, (a) consents, waivers and modifications which may hereafter be executed, (b) documents received by any party at the closing, and (c) financial statements, certificates and other information previously or hereafter furnished, may be reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic or other similar process. The parties agree that any such reproduction shall be admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether or not the original is in existence and whether or not such reproduction was made by a party in the regular course of business, and that any enlargement, facsimile or further reproduction of such reproduction shall likewise be admissible in evidence.

Apparently these parties don’t feel that a judge decides what is admissible evidence, they themselves do.

Bill Paatalo

This is indeed interesting. It is easy to over look as boilerplate language that nobody reads.

Might be good to discuss on the radio show. Like the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (see below) between the “originator” and the sham conduit for the Underwriter of bogus mortgage bonds, this is an agreement that anticipates violation of law. It might conceivably be binding on the parties to the agreement, but it essentially preempts the court from ruling on the admissibility of evidence.

The other interesting aspect is that it anticipates that the original will not be found anywhere. This also is like the P&A. Thus the parties are creating the illusion that they are essentially entering into an agreement to purchase paper from the seller where there is no original paperwork and no indication that the purchase ever actually took place.

In all probability the “seller” never had ownership of the DEBT. It only had “ownership” of the paper. The fact that the paperwork was at best worthless and most probably is some evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent, does not diminish the “ownership” interest claimed by the “purchaser.”

They skirt the law by saying that the paper is being sold even though the debt is obviously not being sold because the seller doesn’t own it. But ti creates the illusion and for many judges the presumption that this is facially valid paper even though it violates the best evidence rule. The entire document is thus designed to skirt the best evidence rule and substitute copies of documents that can be changed at any time, since they are copies. As copies, it would be impossible to tell from the face of the “document” how many times the parties or terms had been changed.

This is the sleight of hand pattern that runs through all the “loans” that are subject to false claims of securitization. The illegal and wrongful acts, starting with the “origination” and moving forward through void transfers, assignments and endorsements are buried under what appears to be valid documentation. But like every lawyer knows — if you want copies to be treated as originals, they must all be the same and executed at least by initials and distributed to all parties to the alleged agreement.


The Purchase and Assumption Agreement was first noticed back in 2006. It was the document that gave me the first notion of how the mortgage loan documents were not merely defective, but rather nonexistent in relation to the actual debt. This is an agreement dated before the first loan is originated by the “originator.” It spells out how the consumer should not and will not know the identity of their lender in direct contravention of the entire intent and provisions of the Federal Truth in lending Act. As outlined above, this too is an agreement between two sham conduits. It’s facially validity and the laziness of lawyers and judges who don’t read it leads to the false conclusion that the banks and servicers have dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. In truth it is just part of the mountain of false paperwork and false claims presented to courts, lawyers and their clients.

Self Serving Fabrications: Watch for “Attorney in Fact”

In short, the proffer of a document signed not by the grantor or assignor but by a person with limited authority and no knowledge, on behalf of a company claiming to be attorney in fact is an empty self-serving document that provides escape hatches in the event a court actually looks at the document. It is as empty as the Trusts themselves that never operated nor did they purchase any loans.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

If you had a promissory note that was payable to someone else, you would need to get it endorsed by the Payee to yourself in order to negotiate it. No bank, large or small, would accept the note as collateral for a loan without several conditions being satisfied:

  1. The maker of the note would be required to verify that the debt and the fact that it is not in dispute or default. This is standard practice in the banking industry.
  2. The Payee on the note would be required to endorse it without qualification to you. Like a check, in which you endorse it over to someone else, you would say “Pay to the order of John Smith.”
  3. The bank would need to see and probably keep the original promissory note in its vault.
  4. The credit-worthiness of the maker would be verified by the bank.
  5. Your credit worthiness would be verified by the bank.

Now imagine that instead of an endorsement from the payee on the note, you instead presented the bank with an endorsement signed by you as attorney in fact for the payee. So if the note was payable to John Jones, you are asking the bank to accept your own signature instead of John Jones because you are the authorized as an agent of John Jones.  No bank would accept such an endorsement without the above-stated requirements PLUS the following:

  1. An explanation  as to why John Jones didn’t execute the endorsement himself. So in plain language, why did John Jones need an agent to endorse the note or perform anything else in relation to the note? These are the rules of the road in the banking and lending industry. The transaction must be, beyond all reasonable doubt, completely credible. If the bank sniffs trouble, they will not lend you money using the note as collateral. Why should they?
  2. A properly executed Power of Attorney naming you as attorney in fact (i.e., agent for John Jones).
  3. If John Jones is actually a legal entity like a corporation or trust, then it would need a resolution from the Board of Directors or parties to the Trust appointing you as attorney in fact with specific powers to that completely cover the proposed authority to endorse the promissory note..
  4. Verification from the John Jones Corporation that the Power of Attorney is still in full force and effect.

My point is that we should apply the same rules to the banks as they apply to themselves. If they wouldn’t accept the power of attorney or they were not satisfied that the attorney in fact was really authorized and they were not convinced that the loan or note or mortgage was actually owned by any of the parties in the paper chain, why should they not be required to conform to the same rules of the road as standard industry practices which are in reality nothing more than commons sense?

What we are seeing in thousands of cases, is the use of so-called Powers of Attorney that in fact are self serving fabrications, in which Chase (for example) is endorsing the note to itself as assignee on behalf of WAMU (for example) as attorney in fact. A close examination shows that this is a “Chase endorses to Chase” situation without any actual transaction and nothing else. There is no Power of Attorney attached to the endorsement and the later fabrication of authority from the FDIC or WAMU serves no purpose on loans that had already been sold by WAMU and no effect on endorsements purportedly executed before the “Power of Attorney” was executed. There is no corporate resolution appointing Chase. The document is worthless. I recently had a case where Chase was not involved but US Bank as the supposed Plaintiff relied upon a Power of Attorney executed by Chase.

This is a game to the banks and real life to everyone else. My experience is that when such documents are challenged, the “bank” generally loses. In two cases involving US Bank and Chase, the “Plaintiff” produced at trial a Power of Attorney from Chase. And there were other documents where the party supposedly assigning, endorsing etc. were executed by a person who had no such authority, with no corporate resolution and no other evidence that would tend to show the document was trustworthy. We won both cases and the Judge in each case tore apart the case represented by the false Plaintiff, US Bank, “as trustee.”

The devil is in the details — but so is victory in the courtroom.

The Chase-WAMU Illusion

In the mortgage world “successor by merger” is simply a living lie that continues as you read this article. Like many other major illusions in our world economy, the Chase-WAMU merger was nothing more than illusion

The reason for the rebellion showing up as votes for Sanders and trump and the impending exit of the UK from the European Union is very simple — every few decades the populace gets a ahead of their elected leaders and yanks their leash so hard that some of them choke.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see FDIC_ Failed Bank Information – WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK – Receivership Balance Sheet Summary (Unaudited)

see wamu_amended_unsealed_opinion

When Bill Clinton was asked how he balanced the budget and came out with a $5 Trillion surplus when he left office his reply was unusually laconic — “Arithmetic.” And he was right, although it wasn’t just him who had put pencil to paper. Many Republican and Democrats had agreed that with the rising economy, the math looked good and that their job was not to screw it up. THAT was left to the next president.

I’m not endorsing Clinton or Trump nor saying that Democrats or Republicans are better that the other. Indeed BOTH major political parties seem to agree on one egregiously erroneous point — the working man doesn’t matter.

The people who matter are those with advanced degrees and who reach the pinnacle of the economic medal of honor when they are dubbed “innovators.”

The reason for the rebellion showing up as votes for Sanders and Trump and the impending exit of the UK from the European Union is very simple — every few decades the populace gets a ahead of their elected leaders and yanks their leash so hard that some of them choke. To say that the BREXIT vote was surprising is the height of arrogance and stupidity. People round the world are voicing their objection to an establishment that doesn’t give a damn about them and measures success by stock market indexes, money supply and GDP activity that is manipulated at this point that it bare little if any resemblance to the GDP index we had come to rely upon, albeit that index was also arbitrarily and erroneously based on the wrong facts.

The fact that large percentages of the populace of many countries around the world are challenged to put food on the table and a roof over their heads doesn’t matter as long as the economic indices are up. But truth be told even when those indices go down, the attitude is the same — working people don’t matter. They are merely resources like gold, coal and oil from which we draw ever widening gaps between the people who run the society and the economy and those who drive the economy and society with their purchases.

In the mortgage world “successor by merger” is simply a living lie that continues as you read this article. Like many other major illusions in our world economy, the Chase-WAMU merger was nothing more than illusion — just like BOA’s merger with BAC/Countrywide (see Red Oak Merger Corp); Wells Fargo’s merger with Wachovia who had acquired World Savings; OneWest’s acquisition of IndyMac;  CitiMortgage acquisition of ABN AMRO, CPCR-1 Trust;  BOA’s merger with LaSalle; Ditech’s acquisition by multiple entities GMAC, RESCAP, Ally,  Walter investment etc.) when DiTech was dead and the name was the only this being traded, and so much more. All these mergers bear one thing in common — they were cover screen for one simple fact: they had not in one instance acquired any loans but then relied on the illusion of the merger to call themselves “successors by mergers.”

Let’s take the example of WAMU. When they went broke they had less than $3 Billion in assets (see link above). This totally congruent with the $2 billion committed by Chase to acquire the WAMU estate form the FDIC receiver Richard Schoppe (located in Texas) and the US Trustee in bankruptcy — especially when you consider the little known fact that Chase received 1/3 of a tax refund due to WAMU.

That share of the Tax refund was, as you might already have guessed, MORE than the $2 billion committed by Chase. whether Chase ever actually paid the $2 billion is another question.But in any event, pure arithmetic shows that the consideration for the purchase of WAMU by Chase was LESS THAN ZERO, which means we paid Chase to acquire WAMU.

This in turn is completely corroborated by the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between WAMU, the FDIC Receiver, the US Trustee in Bankruptcy and of course Chase. On the first page of that agreement is a express recital that says the consideration for this merger is “-$0-.” But before you look up the “Reading Room on the FDIC FOIA cite, here is one caveat: some time after the original agreement was published on the site, a “different” agreement was posted long after WAMU was dead, the US Trustee had been discharged, and the FDCI receiver was discharged as a receiver. The “new” agreement implies that loans were or may have been acquired but does not state which loans or how much was paid for these loans. The problem with the new agreement of course is that Chase paid nothing and was not entitled to nothing, except the servicing rights on some fo those loans.

The so-called new agreement placed there by nobody knows, also stands in direct contrast of the interview and depositions of Richard Schoppe — that if there were loans to sell the principal amount would have been hundreds of billions of dollars for which Chase need pay nothing. I dare say there are millions of people and companies who would have taken that deal if it was real. But Schoppe states directly that the number of assignments was NONE, zero, zilch.

Schoppe also stated that the total amount of loan originations was just under $1 Trillion. And he said that the loan portfolio might have been, at some time, around 1/3 of the total loans originated. Putting pencil to paper that obviously means that 2/3 of all originated loans were either pre-funded in table funded “loans” or that they were immediately sold into the secondary market for securitization. All evidence points to the fact that WAMU never owned the loans at all — as they were table funded  through multiple layers of conduits none of whom were disclosed as required under the Truth in lending Act.  Because the big asset that WAMU retained were (a) the servicing rights and (b) the right to claim recovery for servicer advances. It could be said that the only way they could perfect their claim for “recovery” of “servicer” “Advances” was by acquiring WAMU since Chase was the Master servicer on nearly all WAMU originations.

The interesting point of legal significance is that Chase emerges as the real party in interest even though it it appeared only as the servicer in the background after subsequent servicers were given “powers” of attorney to prevent the new “servicer” (actually an enforcer) from claiming a recovery  for “servicer” “Advances.,” that are recoverable not from the borrower, not from the investor, and not from the trust but in a foggy chaos in which the property was liquidated.

So the assets of WAMU at the time it went belly up was under $3 Billion which means that after you deduct the brick and mortar locations and the servicing rights Chase still got the deal of a lifetime — but one thing doesn’t add up. If WAMU had less than $3 Billion in assets and 99% of that were conventional bank assets excluding loans, then the “value” of the loan portfolio, using FDIC Schoppe estimates was $3 Million. If the WAMU loan portfolio implied by the a,test antics of Chase was true — then Chase acquired $300 BILLION in loans for $3 MILLION. Even the toxic waste loans were worth more than one tenth of one percent.

Chase continues to assert ownership with impunity on an epic scale of fraud, theft and manipulation of the courts, investors and borrowers. The finding that Chase NOT assumed repurchase obligations in relation to the originated loans goes further to corroborate everything I had written here. There seems to be an oblique reference to attempted changes in the “P&A” Agreement, and the finding that the original deal cannot be changed, but the actual finding of two inconsistent agreements posted on the FDIC site is worth investigating. I can assure the reader that I have found and read both.

And lastly I have already published numerous articles on victories in court (one fo which was mine and Patrick Giunta) for the borrower based upon the exact principles and facts written in this article — where the judge concluded that US Bank had never acquired the loan, that the “servicer” in court testifying through a robo-signer had no power over the loan because their power was  derived from Chase who was named as servicer for a REMIC Trust that never acquired the loan nor any rights to the loan.

The use of powers of attorney were found to be inadequate simply because the party who executed the POA had no rights to the money, the enforcement of the loan nor any collection or foreclosure. If Chase had acquired the loan from WAMU they would have won. Their total reliance on deflective legal presumptions based upon presumed fact that were untrue completely failed.

BOTTOM LINE: CHASE ACQUIRED NO LOANS FROM WAMU. Hence subsequent documents of transfer or powers (Powers of attorney) are void.

Schedule A Consult Now!

4th DCA Florida: Exploding the Merger Myth

Achieving standing via merger also requires that the surviving entity prove that it “acquired all of [the absorbed entity’s] assets, including [the] note and mortgage, by virtue of the merger.”Fiorito v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 174 So. 3d 519, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

see http://4closurefraud.org/2016/06/07/fl-4th-dca-segall-v-wachovia-bank-na-reversed-wachovia-failed-to-prove-standing-to-foreclose/

Finally the courts are turning back to the simple rules of law that always applied until the era of false claims of securitization. Hopefully this decision will be persuasive authority in all jurisdictions. As stated in other cases, the banks can’t continue to operate using multiple choice assertions. Either their entity is real or it isn’t. Either they acquired the loan or they didn’t — and the fact that there was a merger does NOTHING for them in asserting transfer of the loan. They must show that the subject loan was in fact acquired by the surviving entity in the merger. This was always the law before and now we are simply turning back to it.

Red Oak Merger Corp. a/k/a Countrywide, a/k/a BAC a/k/a Bank of America

When BOA says it is a “Successor by merger” to Countrywide, it is no more true than Chase’s claims that it is the successor by merger to WAMU and no different than the false claims of OneWest as to IndyMac. In each instance there was a merger but in none of them were loans acquired because they had already been sold.
If you look at the actual merger disclosures, it is highly doubtful and even inconsistent with other disclosures that Bank of America Corp or Bank of America N.A. actually owns any loans originated by Countrywide. In fact, as you drill deeper you will be drawn to my conclusion —— that Countrywide was a conduit and not a lender, who operated through other thinly capitalized “originators” none of whom were actually making loans.
None of them were lenders. None were creditors. The money for the alleged loans came from a dynamic dark pool consisting solely of money from investors — by-passing the so called “REMIC” Trust that claims ownership even though it was never active as a business entity or as a pass-through entity. The Trust never received the proceeds of sale of securities the Trust issued.  Nobody complained because it was really not the Trust that was the active entity, it was the investment bank that had created the illusion of mortgage backed securities that were not backed by mortgages and not securities under deregulation back in 1998-1999. Investors who failed to peek under the hood jumped at high ratings and insured investments. But other fund managers who did peek under the hood, discovered at best a very high risk venture and at worst, a criminal conspiracy. These conduits were all getting signatures that were then parlayed into the illusion of assets that were sold into the secondary mortgage market and then subjected to false claims of securitization.
This situation is like Chase claims that WAMU originated mortgages. The only difference is that WAMU was actually capitalized to start off the origination of loans with its own funds and did not start acting as a mere conduit until around 2001, based upon all appearances. WAMU eventually originated almost $1 Trillion in loans despite the fact that it lacked the resources to make those loans. Likewise Countrywide, on a much larger scale was only a conduit rather than a lender for the many trillions of dollars that were originated using the Countrywide “platform.”
In both cases the loans, by all accounts, were presold or contemporaneously sold into the secondary market the moment the “borrower” signed papers that led to doom. In the case of Countrywide, MERS was used extensively, to hide the fact that there were no transactions in which anyone actually bought the loans because the loans were already paid for with investor funds. That’s why you get answers from the “corporate representative” in court saying “Fannie Mae [or Freddie Mac] was the investor “from the start.” That has been accepted in courts across the land despite the fact that the GSE’s were never direct lenders. Their only role at the origination was as guarantor, if that.
So the upshot of all this is that the mega banks are playing musical chairs as servicers and trustees, to be sure, but also playing games with corporate entities such that they shield themselves from violations of Federal and state lending laws. BOA did not merge with Countrywide or BAC (which is a mere name change of Countrywide). CW merged with Red Oak merger Corp. and BOA claims that Red Oak was a wholly owned subsidiary. There is nothing nefarious about forming a subsidiary to facilitate an acquisition. But what is wrong is that when BOA says it is a “Successor by merger” to Countrywide, it is no more true than Chase’s claims that it is the successor by merger to WAMU and no different than the false claims of OneWest as to IndyMac. In each instance there MAY have been a “merger” but in none of them were loans acquired because they had already been sold.
There were no assignments and there was no payment for the loans. The transaction that they have successfully argued in court should be legally presumed to exist, does not in fact exist. The presumption is in direct contradiction to the factual truth.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Chase Loses on Assignment and Assumption Argument with WAMU

A purchase and assumption agreement was not enough to prove JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s legal standing in a foreclosure case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
——————
For a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498
===========================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/law-news/id=1202753997800/JPMorgan-Chase-Loses-Foreclosure-Case-After-5-Debt-Sales?mcode=1202617860989&curindex=2&slreturn=20160315114531

Congrats to Attorney Ricardo Corona, Esq., the one who won this case.

On the road today.

I just wanted to point out that what I had testified 8 years ago in a class action is pretty much well-settled now, despite the nagging naysayers that always emerge when confronted with an observation that conflicts with their assumptions. WAMU originated around $1 trillion in loans. Any cursory overview of their financial statements would show that they could not possibly have loaned even a substantial fraction of that amount. It follows that all of them were pre-funded through conduits of conduits who were illegally using investor money obtained under false pretenses.

For most of the loans, therefore, WAMU never owned them because they were never the lender. The rest were “sold” (without ever receiving one cent of consideration) into the secondary market where they were subject to false claims of securitization. The financial equivalent of a house of mirrors.

Any three year old understands that if you give away that tasty apple you don’t have it anymore. So when the FDIC took over WAMU, who had virtually no assets, and then combined with the US Trustee in bankruptcy to sell the servicing rights and other services of WAMU, Chase was the buyer of everything EXCEPT the loans. No assignments exist because none were executed. I spoke to Richard Schoppe the FDIC Trustee who directly confirmed this to me years ago.

It therefore makes sense that the paperwork used in court is fabricated, forged or irrelevant to ownership, authority or even balances. In a case Patrick Giunta and I won about a year ago, a veteran Judge ruled that the Trust never owned the loan, that the transfer  documents were meaningless, that the “new servicer” had no right to service the loan, and that Chase probably owed our client money for fooling around with the escrow account. Lawyers for US Bank as trustee for the inactive REMIC Trust tried using all kinds of documents including brand new powers of attorney that said nothing of value.

The “WAMU” notes, by the way, were mostly destroyed. Almost all of the notes you see today and represented as originals would not survive a real forensic examination. Many of the loan documents were printed and mechanically signed within hours or days of being presented in court as the originals signed by the homeowner. That is why I always caution against admitting the signature — it usually isn’t the original signature but it sure looks like it. Now Chase is walking this practice back because the executives wish to avoid civil and maybe other prosecution. So they are using “substitutes” for the notes.

“Because they didn’t have possession of the note, they had to rely on the purchase and assumption agreement, which the Fourth DCA found insufficient,” said defense attorney Ricardo M. Corona Jr. of the Corona Law Firm in Miami.

About That Chase-WAMU Deal

Imagine my surprise when I recently went to the FDIC website, clicked on FOIA at the bottom of the page, then went to Reading Room and looked again at the Chase-WAMU-FDIC-US Trustee Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Having previously read and studied it I was attempting to direct someone to the language that showed that no loans were purchased from WAMU basically because there were no loans in WAMU’s inventory. Staring me in the face was an entirely different document bearing the same date as the one that I had previously seen. Anyone who has an explanation of this is invited to write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

In the interim between my first reading of the agreement and now, I had several conversations including the FDIC receiver who was appointed to “resolve” the WAMU bankruptcy. The receiver (Schoppe) told me that no loans had been purchased or listed as part of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. He also told me that an assignment did not exist and that no other document from the Trustee in the WAMU bankruptcy or the FDIC receiver existed showing the purchase of any loan. And he told me that the effective consideration paid by Chase was less than zero because Chase received around $2 billion in tax refunds due WAMU, which more than offset the purchase price. In fact, in the version I previously read, the consideration was stated as “Zero.”

With that in hand I disseminated information and used it in court to show that Chase had not in fact purchased loans but had instead purchased servicing rights. As the plot thickened, it turned out that those servicing rights were granted by Pooling and Servicing Agreements for REMIC Trusts that never acquired any loans. With no loans in the trust, the PSA grant of servicing rights was meaningless.

And if you look at the statements from Chase to their shareholders and press releases there is no evidence they acquired the loans. Nonetheless tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, lost their homes on the presumption that Chase was in fact the creditor. They were threading a nonexistent needle with nonexistent facts. And in litigation it became apparent that this was the case because they tried to introduce “Powers of Attorney” in lieu of the PSA to support their contention that SPS was now the servicer of most of those loans. But they didn’t quite make out their case when it came to determining whether the Plaintiff in the foreclosure action was ever a creditor. So they lost. But for every one they lost, less astute judges were granting them foreclosures by the thousands.

And if you look at articles like the one in the link below you will see that while it looks like they are talking about loans they are actually talking about securities from “securitizations” that do not exist — i.e., the loans were never acquired by the REMIC Trusts.

And THAT leaves us with the question of where did the alleged loans go? The trust doesn’t have it, the certificate holders in the empty trust don’t have it and neither does Chase. Judges have been inclined to simply say that all this complexity is irrelevant, in an attempt to clear their docket. But they have done both the borrowers and the investors a disservice. And they did the government a big disservice. My answer to the question I pose is that the loans didn’t go anywhere because, in the legal sense, they never got started in the first place. (No consummation). If the party who funded the “loan” was not present in the documents or by proxy, then the party who funded the loan is not “in privity” (i.e., part of the loan contract) with the borrower. And since the party whose name appears on the loan documents was neither a lender or a creditor of the borrower, they were merely the “holder” of the document subject to borrower’s defenses to the “transaction” — namely no consideration.

And THAT my friends is the reason for all the fabricated, forged, back-dated and “found” documents and notes. The banks had to invent what the courts wanted to see.

So the overall answer is that Chase is neither a creditor nor the authorized servicer of anyone because nobody actually “owns” the loan. Pension funds and other investors clearly have a right of action against the Investment banks that sold them bogus mortgage backed securities that were neither securities nor mortgage backed. And those investors might have some action in equity against borrowers, but not a right of enforcement of the mortgage which never should have been recorded in the first place. Of course that probably will never happen because the investment bank pocketed the money that was supposed to go into the REMIC Trusts. Huge groups of investors in multiple “REMIC Trusts” had their money commingled by the investment bank who now has no way of figuring out whose money is in what “loan.” Thus there is no loan contract, and there could never be standing by anyone other than either a true creditor, which does not appear to exist, or a holder in due course, which cannot exist.

The reason why the banks are doing everything to resist proof of payment is that there was no payment anywhere in their chain. In a word, there was nobody to pay because nobody in their chain had anything to sell. Hence there were no purchases and there were no sales, making the assignments and endorsements fraudulent documents. If they had evidence of a purchase they would claim to be holder in due course which enables the holder to enforce against the party who signed the note and mortgage regardless of any defenses the borrower might have had against the “lender” or the “successors.”

And THAT, my friends, is why nobody from Wall Street is filing a lawsuit to vacate rescissions that might be years past the three year limitations. They have no standing — i.e., they don’t have a credible party who can claim to be a creditor and they can’t use the note and mortgage because they are void by operation of law. It is the absence of such lawsuits that corroborates what I am saying. In a flash they could easily vacate the rescission if they could only show that they had any right to be in court by reference to real transactions instead of the fake ones they are using in foreclosures.

The correction for this is simple to say: create new servicers that have full authority to interact with the defrauded investors and the hapless borrowers who were pawns in the securitization scam that was eventually dubbed “Securitization Fail” by Adam Levitin.

Just look at the following article and see how Chase twisted itself and the government into a mental pretzel:

see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/jpm-wamu/

Chase: $33 Billion in Fines and Settlements and It’s Business As Usual.

4closurefraud.org has compiled an interesting list of the “Cost of doing business” in the fraudulent corrupt world of falsely securitized loans. To date, according to this list Chase has paid $33,318,000.50. And they are considered to be a strong bank because they have, so far, gotten away with financial murder. But as the new film, “The Big Short” will show, fraud “Always goes south.”

The big question is when people actually come to understand that there was no loan what will happen? It wasn’t a gift and it wasn’t loan, so what is it? The fact is that the banks stole investors money and then put some of it use for the benefit of the banks and not the investors. They trapped investors into deals they never wanted and did the same to borrowers. The rest of the money they kept as “trading profits.”

If the banks were to prevail the new law would be that you can steal money, make a deal, and enforce it against both the person from whom you stole the money and the person who thought they were getting a loan when in fact they were being used as a pawn in fraudulent scheme to steal the identity of the borrowers. What a ride!

And the next question is how much should be awarded as a punitive damage award? $33 Billion has not been enough to even make Chase blink.

Also see http://4closurefraud.org/2015/09/22/the-big-short-trailer-2015-thebigshort/

JPMorgan’s Fines To Date: The Cost of Doing Business
http://4closurefraud.org/2015/06/03/jp-morgans-fines-to-date-the-cost-of-doing-business/

%d bloggers like this: