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.

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.

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.

Investigator Bill Paatalo: Wells Fargo Admits To Executing WaMu Note Endorsement in 2013, And the Arkansas Bankruptcy Court Allows WaMu to Get Away With It!

Editor’s note: Great analysis by investigator Bill Paatalo at BPinvestigativeagency.com.
Arkansas courts are known to be some of the most corrupt bankruptcy and foreclosure courts in the country and the Arkansas Judiciary refuses to follow its own laws while catering to the interests of Foreclosure Mill Wilson and Associates.  US bankruptcy trustee Joyce Babin is known for her bank-friendly decisions and has now legitimized fraud-on-the-court as an acceptable practice.
images

Arkansas Law permits Fraud on the Court

This decision out of an Arkansas Bankruptcy Court has to be one of the most bizarre rulings I have ever read to-date. (SeeSchiefer v Wells Fargo – Arkansas). Though the Court appears to get the facts utterly wrong in this case, there is one valuable nugget (FACT) that now exists – Wells Fargo admits to executing an endorsement upon a note by a WaMu Officer in 2013! The endorsements of WaMu officers appearing on notes long after the FDIC Receivership is what I have been attesting to for years now based upon a conglomeration of evidence. But now, we have an actual admission!

(Excerpts from this ruling with my comments in BOLD CAPS)

“Considering all of the evidence and the contradictory testimony by Wells Fargo, the Court can establish the following time line:

3. In 2007, Washington Mutual assigned the mortgage and note to Wells Fargo.  (Wells Fargo Ex. D.) [COMMENT: THE EVIDENCE SHOWED NO ASSIGNMENT UPON THE NOTE PRIOR TO THE FDIC RECEIVERSHIP.]  In addition, according to Bateman, Wells Fargo obtained physical possession of the note and mortgage at that time.  With the assignment, Wells Fargo became either the owner of the note and mortgage or, if Fannie Mae was the owner, then Wells Fargo became the servicer of the note. Regardless, at the time of the assignment, the note was not indorsed either in blank or to Wells Fargo.  Under Arkansas law, the assignment would not have been concluded (or negotiated) until the note was indorsed.  Ark. Code Ann. § 43-203(c) (“if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor . . . negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made.”).

———————————————————————–

FN:

2  Wells Fargo introduced an assignment of mortgage from First Western to Washington Mutual that was filed in December 2004 and Bateman testified that Fannie Mae became the owner of the note in January 2005.  However, neither party introduced any document that evidenced transfer of ownership of the note to Fannie Mae. [COMMENT: WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF THE NOTE TO ANYONE AT THIS POINT?]

————————————————————————

5. According to Wells Fargo’s response to the debtors’ requests for admissions, in February 2013 Wells Fargo added the second indorsement (the indorsement in blank) pursuant to a limited power of attorney from JP Morgan. [COMMENT: SECOND ENDORSEMENT? WHERE IS THE FIRST ENDORSEMENT?] The indorsement in blank was signed by Leta Hutchinson as Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank, FA.  According to Hutchinson’s deposition (Dbs.’ Ex. G), Hutchinson was employed by Washington Mutual in February 2013. [COMMENT: EMPLOYED BY WASHINGTON MUTUAL IN 2013?!] Hutchinson also stated that she previously was an Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual but ceased that position in May 2006.  [COMMENT: EVEN WHEN HER ENDORSEMENT WAS PLACED UPON THE NOTE IN 2013, AND EVEN IF SHE WORKED FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL LONG AFTER IT DIED, SHE WASN’T AN OFFICER!]When asked in the deposition what her job responsibilities were at Washington Mutual, she stated that she was the department manager for the documentation department but did not state when she held that position or what her job title was in February 2013.

Based on the above time line and the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact that are relevant to the Court’s decision.

First, at the time the debtors filed their bankruptcy petition, Wells Fargo was either the owner of the note and mortgage (based solely on recorded state court documents) or was the servicer of the note (based on testimony and interrogatories that identify Fannie Mae as the owner).

………

Third, the indorsement in blank was signed by Leta Hutchinson pursuant to a power of attorney between JP Morgan Chase Bank, successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank and Wells Fargo.5  And fourth, at the time the indorsement in blank was added–in February 2013–Hutchinson was not an Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual but was an employee of Washington Mutual. [COMMENT: IF HUTCHINSON DIDN’T WORK FOR EITHER WELLS FARGO OR JPMORGAN CHASE, AND THE COURT BELIEVES HER ENDORSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE POA BETWEEN THESE TWO ENTITIES, HOW DOES THIS ENDORSEMENT SURVIVE?]

———————————————————

FN:

4  The only evidence before the Court of the receivership is a limited power of attorney dated July 8, 2011, that is attached to the Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  (Dbs.’ Ex. D.)  The power of attorney appoints Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as “Servicer” for JP Morgan Chase Bank as “Investor” and “the successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank.” [COMMENT: THE LIMITED POWER IS GRANTED BY JPMORGAN CHASE AS “INVESTOR” TO WELLS FARGO? THE TESTIMONY IS THAT FANNIE MAE OWNED THE LOAN SINCE 2005! HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CHASE GRANT ANY AUTHORITY AS THE INVESTOR?]

5  The Court finds as a matter of law that the debtors failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Wells Fargo did not have the authority to indorse the note in blank on behalf of Washington Mutual. [COMMENT: SERIOUSLY?] First Western assigned the note to Washington Mutual [COMMENT: NO THEY DID NOT!] and JP Morgan was the apparent successor in interest from the FDIC as receiver of Washington Mutual.  As successor in interest, JP Morgan authorized Wells Fargo under a power of attorney to effectuate “[t]he assignment of any Mortgage or Deed of Trust and the related Mortgage Note, in connection with the repurchase of the mortgage loan secured and evidenced thereby.” [COMMENT: “REPURCHASE?”] The indorsement in blank completed the transfer that began in 2007 when Washington Mutual initially assigned the mortgage and note to Wells Fargo. [COMMENT: I DIDN’T REALIZE THAT DECEASED PARTIES COULD COMPLETE NEGOTIATED TRANSACTIONS AFTER THEIR DEATH. HMM..I’M STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD ON THIS COURT CONDONED “FIX” OF A FATALLY DEFECTIVE CHAIN OF TITLE.]

——————————————————————-

Troubling for the debtors is the validity of Hutchinson’s indorsement in blank.  Because Hutchinson never worked for JP Morgan, the debtors argue that JP Morgan would not have had the authority to authorize Wells Fargo to sign Hutchinson’s name to a financial instrument.  And, again, without a valid signature, the indorsement would be a nullity. However, two facts work against the debtors’ argument.  First, at the time the indorsement in blank was added to the note in February 2013, Hutchinson was an employee of Washington Mutual.  Second, at the time the indorsement was added, JP Morgan was acting as successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual.  Under the power of attorney given by JP Morgan to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo was empowered to negotiate the assignment of a note and mortgage.  In this case, the indorsement in blank was the final step required to complete the transfer that was begun in 2007.  Although Hutchinson was not Assistant Vice President at the time the indorsement was added, she was employed by Washington Mutual and could have been acting in an agency capacity.”

[COMMENT: SO, WELLS FARGO VIA A “POWER OF ATTORNEY,” EXECUTES AN ENDORSEMENT BY A WAMU OFFICER WHEN THAT PARTY NO LONGER WAS AN OFFICER, AND THE ENTITY HAD DIED FIVE-YEARS PRIOR. PLUS, THERE IS NO “ATTORNEY-IN-FACT” SPELLED OUT WITH THE ENDORSEMENT SHOWING JUST HOW IT CAME TO BE ON THE NOTE. ABSURD! I’LL LET THE LEGAL MINDS NOW CHIME IN ON THIS ONE.]

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency

bill.bpia@gmail.com

[COMMENT: ABSURD!]

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency

bill.bpia@gmail.com

Investigator Bill Paatalo BlockBuster Finding: WaMu Investor Code “AO1″ Revealed – Chase Stipulates It Represents “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp.”

 http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/wamu-investor-code-ao1-revealed-chase-stipulates-it-represents-wamu-asset-acceptance-corp/

(DISCLOSURE: This article is not intended to be construed as legal advice. Seek advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction regarding any of the information provided below.)

High praise to Attorney Ron Freshman in San Diego, CA and his paralegal Kimberly Cromwell who recently obtained this remarkable “Stipulation of Fact” from JPMorgan Chase Bank’s counsel. (See #8 – Chase Stipulated Fact – AO1 – WMAAC).  Last November, I wrote the following article seeking the identity of private investor “AO1.” (See: http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/who-is-private-investor-ao1-jpmorgan-chase-refuses-to-reveal-the-identity-of-this-investor/).

Thanks to the aggressive prosecution and discovery efforts put forth by Attorney Freshman and his team, the answer has now been revealed. JPMorgan Chase’s counsel has stipulated in paragraph #8, “Investor code AO1 in the Loan Transfer History File represents WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.

Folks, I have opined against Chase for years now that this investor code does not signify “banked owned” loans on the “books of Washington Mutual Bank,” but rather a securitization subsidiary of Washington Mutual, Inc. I’ve been attacked by Chase who has argued vehemently that my opinion is simply dead wrong, and has sought to have my testimony stricken. Well it appears as though I’ve now  been vindicated! This stipulated fact runs contrary to Chase’s long standing position, in thousands of foreclosures across the United States, that it acquired “AO1″ loans because they were “on the books” of  “Washington Mutual Bank” per the Purchase & Assumption Agreement (PAA) with the FDIC. This has been a lie, as these “AO1″ loans could not have been a part of the PAA due to the sale and securitization of said loans by WMB through its “off-balance sheet activities.” More so, Chase’s use of the FIRREA argument against homeowners for loans not on WMB’s books may have suffered a tremendous blow here.

It has long been my opinion that testimony put forth by Chase witnesses, like the following by Peter Katsikas, have been downright false. Again, more vindication. Here’s what Katsikas had to say under oath regarding investor code “AO1″:

PETER KATSIKAS,

called as a witness, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

(Beginning – P. 43):

Q. And do you know whether or not at the time of the acquisition of the assets that are identified in the purchase and assumption agreement with the FDIC to Chase dated September 2008, did it include a list of the loans that Chase was acquiring?

A. I mean, I didn’t see an actual list, but there’s — it’s in the system. It’s in the MSP servicing — that’s a system the bank uses to service the accounts.

Q. Is it your testimony that the Freeman loans were owned by Washington Mutual F.A. at the time the bank failed?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it your testimony that Washington Mutual Bank or some subsidiary of the bank was not servicing those loan at the time?

MR. HERMAN: Can you read that back, please.

(Question read)

MR. HERMAN: At what time?

MR. WRIGHT: Prior to September 25, 2008, between the time they were made and September 25, 2008.

A. The servicer was Washington Mutual F.A.

Q. Okay. Was there an investor?

A. It was bank-owned. It’s always been bank-owned.

Q. It’s always been bank-owned?

A. Correct.

Q. And you know that because?

A. I reviewed Chase’s books and records.

Q. What in the books and records would indicate to you that it was

bank-owned versus not bank-owned?

A. Well, they’re through the investor screens and also the ID codes,investor ID codes.

Q. Okay. And the ID codes are letters, aren’t they?

MR. HERMAN: Objection.

A. They consist of letters and numerals.

Q. Okay. And what letters would indicate an investor?

A. There’s three digits or three characters.

Q. Two letters and a number?

A. No, it could be a mixture of.

Q. So what three characters — well, let’s put it another way. What characters would indicate a Chase-owned asset — a WaMu-owned asset?

Excuse me.

A. For these two loans?

Q. Yes.

A. AO1.

Q. AO1?

A. Yeah.

Q. And that AO1 stands for what?

A. That’s just the three digit code, which is bank-owned.

Q. AO1?

A. Uh-huh.

(Recess)

Katsikas Depo Transcript

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411
BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001
Office: (406) 328-4075

Investigator Bill Paatalo: A Plea To These Conspirators – You Have The Power To End This Nightmare.

 http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/a-plea-to-these-conspirators-you-have-the-power-to-end-this-nightmare/

I received an email yesterday morning that starts out with this:

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:18 AM, the author wrote:

Please help save longtime Sandy Oregon resident Robynne Fauley’s life. She had major cancer surgery less than two weeks ago is getting chemo and is VERY ill. She will be evicted from her home on May 1st if we don’t help.  She has nowhere to go. The ordeal is very likely to kill he[r;].
I happen to have some knowledge about this case, as I was called in as an expert last year to assist an ABC News investigative journalist in Dallas, TX. Unfortunately, after all the time spent conducting interviews and laying out the evidence of fraud on a platter, corporate counsel for ABC News quashed the story. I’m sure this surprises no one. The reality is that the media will continue to plug its ears, while law enforcement will continue to view and categorize crimes of counterfeiting, forgery, tax evasion, and mail/wire fraud as “civil matters” in the context of foreclosures.
So with the clock ticking, I thought I’d throw up a “Hail Mary” plea in the direction of “Diane Meistad” and the rest of these conspirators. Diane, Michael, and the rest of you –  if you’re out there and see this, fix it!
The following email strand (2008 Internal Emails – MGC – RFC – Quality Loan Servicing – Fauley Case) is a rare glimpse of bank employees conspiring to forge, back-date, and fraudulently produce a chain of title.
July 11, 2008
From: Monica Hadley – MGC Mortgage
To: Chris Malapit – (Trustee) Quality Loan Service of Washington
Hadley: Chris, Does this loan have title issues? I was going through the original documents and the chain of title seems to be missing some assignments. It could have been that this was missed in the file and all is well. I want to make sure.
July 11. 2008
From: Chris Malapit
To: Monica Hadley
Subject: *12125 Se Laughing Water, Sandy, OR 97055* Robynne Fauley
The DOT was assigned to WAMU,FA as of 5/3/2007 by instrument#2007-038181. Once we are able to proceed we will then need an assignment from WAMU, FA in LNV Corporation.
July 14, 2008
From: Monica Hadley
To: Chris Malapit
Chris, That is what I see too. We received the loan from Residential Funding Company, LLC and have an AOM from RFC to LNV Corporation. Why did RFC assign the loan to WAMU? Do you have a contact at WAMU who will assign the file to LNV Corporation?
July 14, 2008
From: Chris Malapit
To: Monica Hadley
Doing more research I don’t think Residential Funding Co, LLC had the authority to transfer the interest as the last bene of record per our title report was Deutsche Bank Trust not Residential Funding Co.
July 16, 2008
From: Monica Hadley – MGC Mortgage
To: Chris Malapit – (Trustee) Quality Loan Service of Washington
Subject: Subject: *12125 Se Laughing Water, Sandy, OR 97055* Robynne Fauley
Here is a copy of the most recent title update from the attorney office and the email chain from our attorney.
[FAST FORWARD]
October 17, 2008
From: Michael Barnett (MGC Mortgage, Inc.)
To: Shanda Foreman (entity unknown)
Cc: Carissa Golden (entity unknown)
Subject: Intervening Assignments to Deutsche Bank
 
Shanda, I have 2 RFC loans that are needing assignments from Deutsche Bank to RFC. Please check to see if they are on the list you sent to RFC. See the loan numbers below.
 
17103058/Robynne Fauley, Oregon
17102692/Stuart Berg, New Jersey
 
 
October 24, 2008
From: Michael Barnett
To: ‘Meistad, Diane’ (entity unknown)
 
Diane, this loan was last assigned to Washington Mutual from RFC but, prior to this assignment was assigned from Washington Mutual to Deutsche Bank and recorded in Clackamas County, Oregon. We need an assignment from Deutsche Bank to RFC and from Washington Mutual to LNV Corp. I have templates for both assignments. We will be re-recording the assignment from RFC to Washington Mutual to correct the chain of title with both of these assignments. Also, please find Note Allonge from Deutsche Bank to RFC as well. Please forward these signed assignments back to me via our federal express account #252870180. Thanks Michael.
 
(Assignments & Allonge attached)
[Note: WAMU no longer existed on October 24, 2008. This is a huge problem! But this doesn’t stop MGC from creating the necessary “templates” to solve this problem. Furthermore, Diane Meistad is believed to have been employed by RFC. Yet, MGC creates an “Alonge” from Deutsche Bank to RFC seeking RFC’s execution, not Deutsche Bank.]
October 27, 2008
From: Diane Meistad
To: Michael Barnett
Subject: RE: Default Assignment Request loan #7889719/17103058 (Fauley, Robynne)
 
Michael, If the assignment was recorded from WAMU to DB and another assignment f/RFC to WAMU – technically the second assignment is ‘invalid’ because RFC was not in title to record the second assignment and it should not effect title.
 
Because of the assignment was invalid technically it didn’t transfer ownership.
 
October 27, 2008
From: Michael Barnett
To: Diane Meistad
 
Diane, since the assignment from RFC to WAMU is of record we have to correct the chain of title. At this point the county recorder’s office shows that WAMU is the assignee of record for this loan (which is wrong), right? RFC did assign this loan and shouldn’t have but, in order to fix this one the correct chain should be from Deutsche to RFC, then from RFC to WAMU, then WAMU to LNV Corp, which will correct the chain of title. Litton Loan Servicing LP prepared and recorded the assignment from RFC to WAMU, which should not have been recorded. We still need to get this loan from RFC to LNV to properly convey this property, since we purchased it from RFC. Please call me if you still concerns about the chain of assignments. Borrower loan #7889719/17103058 – Robynne Fauley. Thanks Michael.
 
[NOTE: This was a WAMU originated loan. WAMU sold this loan in a number of undocumented transactions that wound up in the hands of “Deutsche Bank as Trustee.” This means that the Fauley loan was securitized into some trust years prior, to which Deutsche Bank was acting as Trustee. MGC is claiming they purchased this loan when they clearly do not have clear title. They admit in this email that in order to correct the chain of title, they need the final transfer from WAMU to LNV Corp, which at this point in time is an impossibility. The next responsive email shows that Diane Meistad disagrees with MGC’s position / request.]
October 27, 2008
From: Diane Meistad
To: Michael Barnett
Subject: RE: Default Assignment Request loan (Fauley, Robynne)
 
I disagree since RFC was not in position (title position) to transfer the asset.
 
I will need to refer your request for this assignment to our Records Services team in Iowa to begin the process. Diane
[NOTE: Meistad, who is believed to work for RFC, does not believe RFC was in title position to transfer the Deed of Trust. The reference to the “Records Services team in Iowa” means it is likely that Wells Fargo was involved as a master servicer / custodian for the unidentified trust for which Deutsche Bank was Trustee.]
October 27, 2008
From: Michael Barnett
To: Diane Meistad
Subject: RE: Default Assignment Request loan (Fauley, Robynne)
 
Okay Diane, I had my manager look at this file with me and we have determined that we need the following assignments to correct the chain of assignments:
 
1) Corrective Assignment from WAMU TO Deutsche Bank (to correct the assignment from RFC to WAMU, which was recorded in error) & Note Allonge
2) Assignment from Deutsche Bank to RFC & Note Allonge
3) Assignment from RFC to LNV Corp (Note allonge in file already)
 
The assignment from RFC to WAMU was recorded in error so it is not needed. We also have 2 endorsements on the original Note WAMU to RFC to Deutsche Bank which should be cancelled, to correct the Endorsement chain on the Note. We will just need the okay from you via email to cancel these endorsements. Will this work for you? Thanks Michael.
[NOTE: MGC has decided what was done right and wrong in prior transactions for which it has no knowledge, and what now needs to be done in its own best interest to steal and harvest the home. The transfers to and from WAMU as described above would be fraud due to WAMU being defunct. Then there is the request to have RFC cancel out the endorsements and replace with allonges. The third request in the sequence states that an allonge is already in the file from RFC to LNV Corp even though there are no assignments, yet, to support that allonge. That allonge created by MGC is fraudulent, and represents yet another broken sequence in the chain of title.]
Four days after this last email on October 27, 2008, the following two attached assignments are recorded simultaneously in Clackamas County, Oregon (Recorded Assignments – October 31 2008 – Fauley). The first assignment (and I call it the “first” because of its fraudulently back-dated) is executed on “March 10, 2008″ and notarized as such by “Diane Meistad” – Notary Public – State of Minnesota.” The assignor is “Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation” with no Assignee named. NO ASSIGNEE! However, the second assignment is executed on October 27, 2008 with the Assignor named as “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company) and the Assignee – “Residential Funding Company, LLC.” This assignment is also notarized by “Diane Meistad.” As admitted by Meistad above, RFC was not in title position to transfer the asset as of October 27, 2008. Yet, she acquiesced to MGC’s fraudulent conspiracy to forge, fabricate, and alter documents.
So, Diane Meistad, Michael Barnett, and all the rest of you who where involved in this deceit, this one’s on you. You are the only ones who can put a stop to this injustice. Robynne Fauley, who is elderly and very sick, has suffered immensely from your actions. In six-days she is scheduled to be evicted from her home. Fix this!
Bill Paatalo
Private Investigator – OR PSID$ 49411
BP Investigative Agency, LLC
(406) 328-4075
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

MERS/GMAC Note and Mortgage Discharged

If only all courts would entertain the possibility that everything presented to them should be the subject of intense scrutiny, 90%+ of all foreclosures would have been eliminated. Imagine what the country would look like today if the mortgages and fraudulent foreclosures failed.

The Banks say that if the mortgages failed they all would go bust and that there is nothing to backstop the financial system. The rest of us say that illegal mortgage lending and foreclosures was too high a price to pay for a dubious theory of national security.

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.
—————-

I received the email quoted below from David Belanger who, like many others has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that persistence pays off. (BOLD IS EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY EDITOR)

Besides the obvious the big takeaway for me was what I have been advocating since 2007 — if any company in in the alleged chain of “creditors” has gone out of business, there probably is a bankruptcy involved or an FDIC receivership. Those records are available for inspection. And what those records will show is that the the bankrupt or insolvent entity did not own the debt that arose when you signed documents for the benefit of parties other than the source of funding. It will also show that the bankrupt or insolvent entity did not own the note or mortgage either.

This is instructional for virtually all parties “involved” in a foreclosure but particularly clear in the cases of OneWest, whose entire business plan depended upon fraudulent foreclosures, and Chase Bank who bet heavily on getting away with it and they have, so far. BUT looking at the bankruptcy and receivership filings of IndyMac and WAMU respectively the nature of the fraud was obvious and born out of pure arrogance and apparently a correct perception of invincibility.

All such bankruptcy proceedings and receivership require schedules of assets right down to the last nickle in bankruptcy. Belanger simply looked at the schedule, knowing he never took the loan, and found without surprise that the bankrupt entity never claimed ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

The big message here though is not just for those who are being pursued in collection for loans they never asked for nor received. The message here is to look at those schedules to see if your debt, note or mortgage is listed. Lying on those forms is a federal felony punishable by jail. Those forms are the closest you are ever going to get to the truth. Odds are your loan is nowhere to be found — even if you did get a loan.

And the second takeaway is the nonexistence of the “trust.” In most cases it never existed. Your “REMIC Trust” was almost certainly formed under the laws of the State of New York or Delaware that permit common law trusts (i.e., trusts that don’t need to be registered with the state in order to exist). BUT uniform trust laws adopted in virtually all states require for the trust to be considered a “person” it needs to have these elements — (1) trustor (2) trustee (3) trust instrument (PSA) and (4) a “thing” (res in Latin) that is committed to the trust by someone who owns the thing. It is the last element that is wholly absent from nearly all REMIC “Trusts.”

And now, David Belanger’s email:

JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU ALL SOMETHING,  THAT I JUST GOT DONE , FROM MERSCORP!  ON OUR PROPERTY THERE WAS A 2d MORTGAGE ON IT, IT WAS A LINE OF CREDIT THAT WE DID NOT DO, AND WE DID REPORT IT TO THE RIGHT AUTHORITY’S, BACK IN 2006/2007. NOW THE COMPANY WAS GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.

OVER THE YRS, FROM 2006 TILL NOW, IT REMAINED ON PROPERTY, UNTIL JUST LAST WEEK, WHEN I DEMANDED THAT MERS DISCHARGE IT.  AND AFTER THEY FOUND OUT IT WAS NEVER ASSIGNED OUT OF MERS, THEY HAD TO DISCHARGE IT. BECAUSE GMAC MORTGAGE IS DEAD.  NOW THIS GO TO WHAT WE ALL HAVE SAID HERE.

ANY ASSIGNMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, OR RECORDED AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS, OUT OF MERS, AND THE MORTGAGE COMPANY IS A DEAD MORTGAGE COMPANY. THEN MERS WILL DISCHARGE IT . I HAVE A COPY OF THE DISCHARGE IN HAND.

AM STILL FIGHTING, BECAUSE OF THIS NEWS,  I HAVE ASK MY ATTORNEY TO NO AVAIL TO DO A QWR ON THE COMPANY THAT RECORDED AN ASSIGNMENT IN 2012, EVEN THOUGH GMAC MORTGAGE CORP WAS IN BK AND AFTER GOING THROUGH ALL BK RECORDS OF EACH ENTITY, THAT HAD TO FILE ALL ASSET OF THERE COMPANY, AND FOUND THAT NO ONE IN GMAC HAD THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE, 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT BEING PUT ON MY RECORD.
https://www.kccllc.net/rescap/document/1212020120703000000000033

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW …
www.kccllc.net
Southern District of New York, New York In re: GMAC Mortgage, LLC UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Case No. 12-12032 (MG) B6 Summary (Official Form 6 – Summary) (12/07)

THIS IS AGAIN THE REASON, THIS FRAUD TRUST  DOES NOT EXIST, AND I DO HAVE ALL SECRETARY OF STATES, INCLUDING ALL STATING THAT  THIS FRAUD TRUST IN FACT HAS NEVER
BEEN REGISTERED IN ANY STATE. LET ALONG THE STATE OF DELAWARE, THE STATE THEY SAY IT IS REGISTERED IN.  THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID NO. AND HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL OPERATING TRUST, EVER. SIGNED AND NOTARIZED BY THE SECRETARY. THE FRAUD TRUST NAME IS AS FOLLOWS.
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1,

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

Banks Changing the Laws of Evidence

The arrogance of the banks is subsumed in the decisions of courts. That the writer of an instrument would attempt to literally write language into an instrument that contradicts the laws of evidence is arrogant; but the fact that judges are accepting it because it appears in black and white, is abdication of the judicial function.

“That is exactly what has been happening, and it is getting even worse. The servicer lawyers are not submitting any evidence at all or responding to homeowner objections and the court is taking statements of counsel as presumptively conclusive.” — Dan Edstrom, Senior Forensic Analyst

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.
—————-
From Bill Paatalo, who continues his unending analysis to corroborate the narrative that the banks and servicers are defrauding investors, homeowners and the courts.
 *
The offending language directly contradicts the hearsay and best evidence rule when applied to homeowners who are not party to the instrument and are even barred from introducing elements of the trust instrument (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) to support their trial objections and cross examination of robo-witnesses. Provisions like the one quoted below are used extensively to allow complete strangers to intervene while brandishing only a photocopy of unknown origin and authenticity.
 *
Note that this Agreement merely specifies that the parties intend to do something — not that the loans are hereby conveyed, transferred, assigned or endorsed. This is because the loans do not yet exist.
 *
Note also that the the first signature page of the document is signed by someone purporting to be from WAMU but no signature is shown for Countrywide. This is corroboration that incomplete and partial documents are field regularly with the SEC without review. The second signature page, which could have been attached at any time, is the reverse.
 *
Note also the reference to the MLS (Mortgage Loan Schedule). I have seen no MLS that conforms to this language even though the documents usually specify all the elements contained in these definitions. On Exhibit 12, entitled Mortgage Loan Schedule, there is nothing listed. Sometimes we see a reference to a third party who keeps a “binder” containing the MLS. IN no case that I have seen, has an original filing with the SEC ever contained a Mortgage Loan Schedule — except where the prospectus contains an acknowledgement that the MLS is false and is shown only by way of example what the MLS should look like.
 *
Here is what Bill Paatalo wrote:
Here’s that lovely language again. What is also interesting is Section 6.04 states that the MERS ID must be changed to investor “1003646” and this belongs to BofA as Trustee/Custodian for WaMu/WMMSC (attached.) I’ve never seen this ID, nor have I ever seen assignments to WMMSC as contemplated in this agreement.
SECTION 28. 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.

— Bill Paatalo

Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411

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

Investigator Bill Paatalo: “Who Is Private Investor ‘AO1?” JPMorgan Chase Refuses To Reveal The Identity Of This Investor.”

Evidence-Puzzle-via-TouroLawReview

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/

In relation to my previous article, let me continue a bit further. More and more cases continue to come across my desk showing 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. Here is an excerpt from a recent affidavit I produced:

———————————————————————

“Private investors own the subject loans, and their identity is being concealed.

Attached as Exhibit 5, p.1 is a servicing system screenshot titled, “3270 Explorer” which was provided to me by Plaintiff through discovery efforts. This screenshot is dated 03/02/2009 and refers to “Loan Number [“REDACTED”] which is associated with the [“REDACTED”] mortgage. This document shows an investor code “AO1” directly beneath the top line. The same investor code “AO1” is shown on the servicing screenshot for this loan on 12/31/2005 (Exhibit 5, p. 2). Exhibit 5. P.3 is the servicer screenshot for the [“REDACTED” mortgage (“Loan Number [REDACTED]”) dated 12/31/2005 which also shows the same investor code “AO1.”

From experience, I have seen and reviewed JPMC’s servicing records for WMB originated loans within JPMC’s “3270 Explorer” servicing platform. This system / platform contains a specific screenshot which shows the “loan transfer history” (Screen: “Explorer 3270 – LNTH”) for these loans.

From experience, I have seen complete LNTH screenshots for these WaMu loans provided by JPMC, but usually they are produced with great reluctance and through motions to compel. When produced, these LNTH screens tell an entirely different story about the loans; specifically, all the sales and transfers conducted prior to the FDIC’s receivership.

Attached as Exhibit 6 is a “3270 Explorer: Loan Loan Transfer History (LNTH)” screenshot provided by JPMC in a very similar case which I have been involved captioned Kelley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. BK CT, ND CA, Adv. Case No. 10-05245. Like the [REDACTED]loans, the Kelley loan was also originated by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Exhibit 6 shows the entire LNTH from origination through the FDIC receivership. The beginning “Investor Code” at the inception of the loan is “030” on 08/07/07. The loan is then sold and transferred to a “New/Inv” (new investor) on 09/01/07 with the “Investor Code – AO1”: the same code for both [REDACTED] loans on 12/31/2005. It can be logically deduced from this evidence that the same originator code of “030” should also exist on the [REDACTED] loans if WMBFA was the originator.

A deposition of JPMC employee “Crystal Davis” occurred in the Kelley case on August 13, 2014. A copy of the Davis Deposition Transcript was filed in the PACER System and a copy is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is a glossary of codes exhibit provided by JPMC in that deposition. Crystal Davis explains the investor codes on p.42 as follows:

(In reference to Exhibit 4).

Q. Now if you look to the right of that, it states that the claim – the investor IDs begin with an A through V; is that correct?

A. In the current MSP platform, yes, indicates private investor loans.

Q. And what would X,Y,Z indicate?

A. Those would indicate bank-owned assets.

It is very likely that the complete LNTH screenshots for both subject loans, if ever produced, will show similar sales transactions from WMB to “New/Inv – AO1.” The identity of investor “AO1” has not been disclosed and is being concealed from the Court and the Plaintiff. I believe this is intentional.”

————————————————–

What also appears to be intentional is the fact that when JPMC is now pressured to produce these “LNTH” screenshots per my findings and recommendations to counsel, JPMC or the servicer comes back with incomplete LNTH histories for the loans; the LNTH screens begin AFTER September 25, 2008. What this means is, not only was no schedule of assets ever produced in association with “Schedule 3.1” of the PAA, but now in some of my current cases, JPMC takes the added position that it owns these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans within their servicing platform.  So, my opinion that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008 becomes a bit more difficult to rebut.  The question to ask any Chase representative in a deposition is this, “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?” (As a reminder, few if any Chase witnesses have any personal knowledge of WaMu’s business practices.)

Bottom line – Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.” With the LNTH screenshots now appearing with no pre-receivership sales and transfer activities entered by WaMu, 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.

C’mon Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”

 

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID#49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

(406) 328-4075

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/who-is-private-investor-ao1-jpmorgan-chase-refuses-to-reveal-the-identity-of-this-investor/

 

 

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.

Bill Paatalo Investigations: Washington Mutual Bank Sold These 67,529 Toxic Loans, And Not One Single Foreclosure By The Investors?

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/washington-mutual-bank-sold-these-67529-toxic-loans-and-not-one-single-foreclosure-by-the-investors/

 Having investigated the WaMu/FDIC/Chase fact pattern for nearly seven-years now, and having investigated hundreds of foreclosure cases where JPMorgan Chase claims sole ownership of specific Washington Mutual Bank loans by virtue of the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” (PAA) with the FDIC, one fact is now well established – no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists, or has ever been produced or disclosed. The reason for this fact is that the vast majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through WaMu’s “Off-Balance Sheet Activities,” meaning WMB sold their loans prior to the FDIC Receivership. Many of these prior sales transactions by WMB to private investors went undocumented, and were kept outside the prevue of regulators, the borrowers, and the general public. For roughly the past 8-years, Chase has been foreclosing on thousands of these previously sold WMB loans in its own name as mortgagee and beneficiary of the security instruments, when by Chase’s own admissions to numerous borrowers, the loans were sold to private investors.

Chase Admits, Then Denies

In cases I have reviewed all across the country, borrowers have made and continue to make, inquiries to their servicer “Chase” for the identity of the beneficial owners / investor(s) of their WaMu loan(s) only to be told,

“Your loan was sold into a public security managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized by the security to handle any related concerns on their behalf” (See:   Chase Private Investor Letters ).

In both cases involving these two disclosure letters, after having made these admissions to the borrowers, JPMorgan Chase reversed itself in court by taking the position that it was the sole owner of the loans by virtue of the PAA, and there were no investors associated with these loans because “WaMu never sold or securitized the loans.”

But now Chase has tripped itself by disclosing an actual investor in complete contradiction of its publicly recorded assignment. (See:   Chase Discloses Investor WaMu 2007-FLX1 but assigns deed to itself in 2012.)

Here, Chase executes this self-serving assignment to itself from the FDIC declaring beneficial rights to the deed of trust even though they disclosed to the borrower that the owner of the loan is “Deutsche Bank Nat Trust Co as Trustee for WAMU 2007-FLEX1.” This particular investor trust was the subject of litigation within the Washington Mutual, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding (See:  WaMu Inc Investor Complaint 2010.)

According to the complaint, the WAMU 2007-FLEX1 was a part of three asset trusts set up by Washington Mutual Preferred Funding, LLC (WMPF), who purchased the assets from WMB in 2006 and 2007. The following asset trusts were labeled “Preferred Trust Securities”:

ASSET TRUST I, ASSET TRUST II, & ASSET TRUST III

(Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I)

(WaMu 2006-OA1)

(WaMu 2007-FLEX1)

 

Per the Complaint:

16. On September 26, 2008, as a result of the FDIC’s takeover of Washington Mutual Bank and the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, Inc., Plaintiffs’ investments in the Preferred Trust Securities automatically converted into preferred stock of Washington Mutual, Inc., and thereby rendered worthless.  

260. Upon seizing WaMu, the FDIC immediately sold off WaMu’s assets and bank deposits to the highest bidder. (WaMu’s debt and preferred equity securities obligations, such as those owned by Plaintiff, were not part of the transaction.)

Very little information is available regarding these “Preferred Trust Securities” outside of this “Confidential Offering Circular.” (See:  Asset Trusts Offering Circular.)

However, one thing is crystal clear. WMB sold “67,529” of these toxic loans totaling “$10,947,602,313.00” to WMPF, and was reimbursed for the sale of these assets. WMPF then sold all assets backing these “67,529” loans to investors in these securities. (See: “Appendix E” of Offering Circular.)

Combined Asset Trust Data 67529 loans

These loans were some of the worst, fraud-laced loans originated by WMB, yet my initial investigation has yet to find a single foreclosure action (judicially or non-judicially) in the name of any of these investor trusts. How can this be, you ask? Simple, because JPMorgan Chase has decided to claim ownership of these loans, and continues to foreclose and harvest these assets in its own name by concealing these facts, and denying in Courtrooms that WMB ever sold or securitized these loans. This fraud story, which Chase and its attorneys continue to stick to, is no longer believable or sustainable based on the cumulative evidence compiled in the public domain. I can pretty much assure that all 67,529 of these loans have a non-existent and fatally defective chains of title.

But here’s something even more dubious and suspicious. In “JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s” 10-K filings with the SEC for fiscal years 2009-2013, “Washington Mutual Home Equity Trust I,” “WaMu 2006-OA1,” and “WaMu 2007-FLEX1” are all listed as subsidiaries of the company, but vanished as subsidiaries beginning in 2014. What I suspect is that these 67,529 loans, or whatever is left of them, were sold by Chase in hedge fund debt purchases in 2014, along with the non-existent chains of title. I’ll save that for another article.

These trusts were set-up as Delaware Statutory Trusts with REMIC status. In virtually all PSA agreements for DST’s that are visible, to which the DST’s are irrevocable and elect REMIC status, they are required to maintain complete separateness from any other person or entity. Chase’s naming of these trusts as subsidiaries certainly smells “fishy.” At best, Chase acquired servicing rights to these loans, but even this should not be assumed. How a servicer can take control of a REMIC Trust and claim it as a subsidiary on its 10-K is beyond me, but I’d sure like to see the documentation granting this authority.

In the meantime, someone explain to me how tens of thousands of foreclosures have been conducted in the names of private MBS REMIC trusts since the crash in 2008, and not one foreclosure appears to have occurred within this toxic group of 67,529 loans in the name of Deutsche Bank as Trustee for these trusts. The odds are virtually impossible.

 

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

 

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!

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.

%d bloggers like this: