Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Large Green]

PART 1 of 2-Very Long Post from Dmdmd1-Ties all of what we have been looking for together-Thank you very much Dmdmd1-Enjoy if signed timely releases by 3/2012

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 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.

*******************PART TWO OF TWO*************************

PART TWO of TWO by Dmdmd1 & Bill Paatalo: Smoking Gun” Proof That JPMorgan Chase Never Acquired Beneficial Interest In My WaMu Loan Through The FDIC

Posted by Bill Paatalo on Dec 5, 2019 in Uncategorized

****Thank you Dmdmd for sharing your Due Diligence***

This little piece of production in my Oregon Ejectment Action just confirmed what I have been testifying to since day-one: Chase acquired no ownership of loans that WaMu sold and securitized prior to the September 25, 2008 takeover by the FDIC.

The story by the Defendants in my case is that Chase acquired beneficial rights to my deed of trust through the FDIC and the Purchase & Assumption Agreement, and proceeded to foreclose non-judicially as the “successor in interest” to WaMu. However, in newly produced documents, I’ve learned that my loan was assigned the investor code “AO1” which I have written about here:

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

This code belonged to “Washington Mutual Asset Acceptance Corp” to which Chase stipulated. Chase also stipulated that the loan with the designated code “AO1” did not pass through the FDIC. My position, based on years of investigations and accumulated evidence, is that Chase has been hiding and concealing the identities of the actual investors in many WaMu loans that were sold into private trusts, and have proceeded to foreclose on thousands of homes claiming to be the owner/beneficiary/mortgagee which is flat out false. Well here is some hard evidence that my position is in fact true.

Attached is the escrow wiring instructions for the REO sale transaction of my property to the current occupants who purchased back in 2011. Proceeds from the cash sale were to be wired to account titled “Washington Mutual Bank in Trust for the REO proceeds in Trust for various Investors and Mortgagors.”

It should also be noted, that the real estate sales agreement named the “Seller” as “NRT REOExperts, LLC as agent for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Servicing Agent for Owner of Record.”

_____________________

IMO...my conclusions as of December 07, 2019 @ 2049 CST:

1) JPMC did not buy (from the FDIC) or own the securitized loans that WMI subsidiaries created from 2000-2008 ($692 billion). JPMC only owned the servicing rights.

A) WMI owns the retained interests in the securitized loans from 2000-2008 of at least $101.9 billion (per the quarterly and annual reports of WMI from 2000-June 2008).

2) JPMC did not buy (from the FDIC) or own the portfolio loans from WMB & WMB, FSB ($231 billion). JPMC only owned the servicing rights.

3) Per my post on October 24, 2019

https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=14369.msg260410#msg260410

“ Timeline for Exigent Circumstances in November and December 2009:

November 06, 2009: President Obama signed the "Worker. Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009", which allowed businesses to recoup up to five years of taxes paid instead of two years stated in the previous law.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/fact-sheet-worker-homeownership-and-business-assistance-act-2009

"Creates Jobs by Cutting Taxes for Struggling Businesses. The bill provides an expanded tax cut to tens of thousands of struggling businesses, providing them with the immediate cash they need to pursue expansion or avoid contracting or furloughing their workers. The Economic Recovery Act included a provision that allowed small businesses to count their losses this year against the taxes they paid in previous years. Today, the President extended that benefit for an additional year and expanded it to medium and large businesses as well. Business losses incurred in 2008 or 2009 can now be used to recoup taxes paid in the prior five years. This provision is a fiscally responsible economic kick-start, putting $33 billion of tax cuts in the hands of businesses this year when they need it most while enabling Treasury to recoup the majority of that funding in the coming years as these businesses regain their strength and resume paying taxes."

____________________

November 12, 2009: "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) on Thursday approved an interim rule providing a "safe harbor" for the transfer of assets related to certain types of asset-backed securities (ABS) from insured depository institutions. The transitional safe harbor applies to all securitizations issued before March 31, 2010, shielding the assets from seizure by the FDIC in instances where the insured depository institutions fail. "

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/fdic-extends-safe-harbor-transfer-new-existing-abs-assets/

[[color=red]i]“FDIC Extends 'Safe Harbor' for Transfer of New, Existing ABS Assets

November 12, 2009 Diana Golobay[/color]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) on Thursday approved an interim rule providing a "safe harbor" for the transfer of assets related to certain types of asset-backed securities (ABS) from insured depository institutions. The transitional safe harbor applies to all securitizations issued before March 31, 2010, shielding the assets from seizure by the FDIC in instances where the insured depository institutions fail. The resolution clears some uncertainty regarding the treatment of transferred assets under pending accountancy rule changes for off-balance-sheet securitizations, according to Fitch Ratings. Fitch indicated it can now assign ratings to these assets higher than those placed on the originating entity, thanks to the interim rule. The rule grandfathers existing transactions and those issued before March 31, 2010, if the transactions would be compliant with the existing securitization rule and would qualify as a Generally Acceptable Accounting Principals (GAAP) sale for reporting periods before Nov. 15, 2009, Fitch said. "Fitch believes the Interim Rule effectively addresses a key concern that results from existing transactions losing GAAP sale status following the implementation of the new accounting rules," Fitch said in a statement Thursday. "Prior to today's clarification, the comfort previously provided by the FDIC -- that it would not seek to recover financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation -- had been jeopardized by SFAS 166 as one of the preconditions of the Securitization Rule was that the transfer qualifies as a sale under GAAP provisions." The American Securitization Forum (ASF) also issued a statement supporting the securitization rule extension. “ASF welcomes the FDIC Board’s unanimous action this morning to extend the application of the FDIC’s securitization rule to provide needed certainty to existing securitizations as well as those issued over the next few months," ASF said Thursday. "The application of this rule had been cast in doubt by accounting standards changes that will take effect for reporting periods after November 15th, 2009." ASF adds: "Today's action by the FDIC Board will resolve this uncertainty and will allow bank securitizations of credit card and auto loans to resume, which in turn will make additional credit available to consumers at a critical time for the American economy.”

December 18, 2009: US Trustee establishes Equity Committee

IMO...Conclusions as of October 24, 2019 @ 1728 CST:

1) The Debtors (WMI and WMIIC) were in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. OTS/FDIC not only seized the assets of WMB but it also seized the assets of WMI (parent company).

2) Per the FDIC's approval of the transitional safe harbor rule as of November 12, 2009, it explicitly states that the FDIC cannot seize any securitizations that were created prior to March 31, 2010.

3) On the surface, the Debtors (WMI and WMIIC) were essentially saved in the Chapter 11 cases due to the November 06, 2009 signing of the "Worker, Homeowner, and Business Assistance Act of 2009" which allowed the Debtors to get a bigger refund from NOLs because businesses were allowed to recoup 5 years instead of 2 years.

4) But what was very important to WMI was the FDIC's approval of the transitional safe harbor rule on November 12, 2009.

IMO...WMIIC was used as a conduit SPE/SPV to transfer all assets from WMI to DSTs such as Thackeray III Bridge, LLC. The most valuable asset that was transferred was the retained interests (in certificate participation in MBS Trusts created by WMI subsidiaries).

Thus, the retained interests in MBS Trusts were illegally seized on September 25, 2008. The FDIC receivership does not have legal rights to seize WMI assets such as securitizations/retained interests in MBS Trusts.

IMO...WMI Escrow Marker Holders are the rightful owners to WMI assets such as retained interests in MBS Trusts.

IMO...once the Chapter 11 cases and the FDIC Receivership is closed, WMI assets such as the retained interests in MBS Trusts will be returned to WMI/WMI Escrow Marker Holders. ”