BP Investigative Agency Forensic "Securitization" Auditing, Chain of Title Analysis, Legal Support Services, Bonded & Insured 1-888-582-0961
Home About Us Products & Services FAQs Testimonials Contact Us
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Why JPMorgan Chase Did Not Purchase Ownership Of $615B Worth Of WaMu Loans In Three Simple Steps Posted by Bill Paatalo on Jul 24, 2017 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
Here is a simple “3-step Analysis” to show that “ownership” of at least $615,000,000,000.00 ( just about the same number the SEN SUB comm on banking came up with as well)(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.
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.
“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.
Bill Paatalo Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411
BP Investigative Agency, LLC P.O. Box 838
Absarokee, MT 59001 Office: (406) 328-4075
bill.bpia@gmail.com
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Recent Posts
“MERSCORP cannot hold liens owned or serviced by terminated members.” DreamBuilder Invs. v. Merscorp Holdings, Inc. Attacking The Powerless And Deceptive “Limited Power Of Attorney” Documents In Foreclosure Litigation. Chase Discovery Demand #1: Produce The WaMu “Servicing Agreement(s)” With All “Approvals & Consents” New Residential Investment Corp Explains Why Trusts Are Utilized; To Evade State Laws Attention All Oregonians Whose WaMu Deeds Were Foreclosed By JPMorgan Chase
Comments
Fred R Schneider on Chase Discovery Demand #1: Produce The WaMu “Servicing Agreement(s)” With All “Approvals & Consents” izraul on FDIC Exposed In Its On-Going “Cover-Up” Of Washington Mutual Bank Loans Izraul on WaMu’s securitized mortgages were “legally isolated” and out of the reach of the FDIC’s Receivership. Hence, “Nemo dat quod non habet” (One cannot give what one does not have). Leah Dean on FOIA Request Reveals Servicer’s “Justification” For Fraud In Obtaining Limited Power Of Attorney From FDIC Bill Freeman on JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust
Archives
June 2022 May 2022 September 2021 July 2021 February 2021 January 2021 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 July 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 December 2016 November 2016 August 2016 July 2016 February 2016 December 2015 October 2015 September 2015 June 2015 April 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 April 2014 March 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 June 2013 May 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2010
Home About Us Products & Services FAQs Testimonials Contact Us