Large Green Sunday, 12/08/19 06:42:00 AM Re: None Post # of 613000 PART ONE of TWO Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why JPMorgan Chase did not purchase $615 Billion of WaMu Loans https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/ Investigator Bill Paatalo questions the practice of using “Substitution of Trustees”. Paatalo points out that WMAAC and WMMSC have never been dissolved and still exist. Although the loans did not go through the FDIC, Chase executes assignments from the FDIC in order to substitute trustees. In this article Paatalo demonstrates that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase ownership of $615 billion in Washington Mutal loans in three simple steps. Please visit Bill Paatalos’s informative blog at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com Bill Paatalo has investigated and exposed the fraudulent WaMu/FDIC/JPMorgan Chase fraud and is one of the most talented foreclosure fraud investigators in the country. Posted by Bill Paatalo on Jul 24, 2017 Here is a simple “3-step Analysis” to show that “ownership” of at least $615,000,000,000.00 (over half a TRILLION Dollars!) of WaMu loans were not purchased by JPMorgan Chase from the FDIC. STEP 1: The U.S. Senate Sub-Committee (Levin – Coburn Report) reveals in its findings of fact that WaMu sold and securitized at least $615B of residential mortgage loans through its subsidiaries “WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation” and “Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation” who acted as “Depositors” in the securitization transactions. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-investigations-subcommittee-releases-levin-coburn-report-on-the-financial-crisis Pg. 116 – From 2000 to 2007, Washington Mutual and Long Beach securitized at least $77 billion in subprime and home equity loans. WaMu also sold or securitized at least $115 billion in Option ARM loans. Between 2000 and 2008, Washington Mutual sold over $500 billion in loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, accounting for more than a quarter of every dollar in loans WaMu originated. Pg. 119 – “WaMu Capital Corp. acted as an underwriter of securitization transactions generally involving Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. Generally, one of the two entities would sell loans into a securitization trust in exchange for securities backed by the loans in question, and WaMu Capital Corp. would then underwrite the securities consistent with industry standards. STEP 2: See: Page 2. – PAA – (click here: FDIC-Chase – PAA) “Assets” means all assets of the Failed Bank purchased pursuant to Section 3.1. Assets owned by Subsidiaries of the Failed Bank are not “Assets” within the meaning of this definition.” STEP 3: In the case of Fox v. JPMorgan Chase, a specific REMIC Trust is named in the action. To prevail on its argument that the loan was sold and transferred to the Trust, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee, both admitted / “stipulated” that the loan contained both investor codes “AO1? and “369” in the loan transfer history, which means the loan was sold by Washington Mutual Bank to the subsidiaries prior to those subsidiaries transferring the loan into the Trust. AND, it was stipulated that the loan was NOT PURCHASED FROM THE FDIC. (Click here: Chase Stipulated Fact – AO1 – WMAAC) Stipulated Facts: “8. Investor Code AO1 in the Loan Transfer History File represents WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.” “9. Investor Code 369 in the Loan Transfer History File represents Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation.” “10. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not purchase the loan from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.” In the Fox case, “JPMorgan Chase” and “U.S. Bank as Trustee,” have taken a position that universally applies to all $615B of these securitized loans. Each one of these loan transactions will show either the investor code “AO1,” “369,” or both somewhere in the “Loan Transfer History” screenshots within the servicing system, and as such, the loans were not purchased from the FDIC. The presumptions that Chase has relied upon in order to maintain its position in thousands of foreclosure proceedings that (1) it acquired the loans through the PAA, and (2) the assignments of beneficial-ownership interests to the loans unto itself as “attorney-in-fact” for the FDIC have now been debunked by its own admissions! Unless of course, you were to believe in the [1/1,000,000] proposition that the Fox loan was the only loan not included in the receivership.