Information, Resources and Help with Your Mortgage Loans – Over 11,500,000 Visitors

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

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

Our Services:  https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Have a Foreclosure Question? Get an answer NOW with the Foreclosure Information Service $49: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

Fill out our FREE registration form at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583

MISSION STATEMENT: I believe that the mortgage crisis has produced manifest evil and injustice in our society. I believe our recovery will never reach the majority of struggling Americans until we restore equal protection for all citizens and especially borrowers in our debt-ridden society. LivingLies is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with sufficient resources to combat bloated banks who are flooding the political market with money. We provide thousands of pages of free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site. And we provide paid services, books and products that enable us to maintain an infrastructure to provide a voice to the victims of Wall Street corruption.

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Ask about our CONSULTATION SERVICES and LITIGATION SUPPORT.

Case reviews by Neil Garfield available. Litigation and Expert Consulting in all fifty states.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from our Online Store

  • GET A CONSULT WITH NEIL GARFIELD
  • GET A REVIEW AND REPORT ON STATUS AND STRATEGIES
  • GET our Rescission Package
  • GET Litigation support
  • Get our COMBO Title and Securitization Report
  • FREE! Select recent articles from the right side of this page!

RECOMMENDED READING:

WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY? by Neil F Garfield. E-Book available on our online store.

CHAIN OF TITLE by David Dayen. Available on Amazon

LISTEN LIBERALS! by Thomas Frank. Available on Amazon and Kindle.

Pretender Lenders: How Tablefunding and Securitization Go Hand in Hand” By William Paatalo and Kimberly Cromwell. CLICK: http://infotofightforeclosure.com/tools-store/ebooks-and-services/?ap_id_102

The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Nardilillo v. JPMorgan Chase synopsis

The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall Synopsis

Broadcast date: September 21, 2017

Guests:    Investigator Bill Paatalo of the BP Investigative Agency

Eric Mains, former FDIC Team-member

Topics:     Nardilillo v. JPMorgan Chase

LPS/Black Knight Consent Judgment and FOIA Strategy

________________________________________________________________________

Send Targeted FOIA Requests to unravel the LPS/Black Knight Consent Judgment

Eric Mains, a former FDIC team-member, who personally observed securitization irregularities while at the FDIC, discussed his FOIA strategy targeting state Attorney Generals who have failed to enforce the LPS/Black Knight 2008 consent judgment.

LPS/Black Knight provided ‘Desktop software’ to foreclosure mill attorneys.  LPS provided “solutions” to “support” every part of the mortgage fraud continuum from table-funded originations, servicing, loss mitigation and asset disposition- but did so by manufacturing fraudulent documents to create the appearance of a legitimate chain of title in order to foreclose.  LPS counterfeited notes, assignments and endorsements.

The government estimated that 80% of all foreclosures processed by LPS between 2008 and 2010 had defects.   The LPS Consent Judgement stated that LPS interfered with the attorney-client (servicer) relationship in order to foreclose quickly and illegally.  The servicers and their attorneys are aware of the judgment and cannot claim that they didn’t know that robosigning was occurring- because it is spelled out in the consent judgment.

The state Attorney Generals offices obtained millions of dollars in the settlement but did little for the homeowners harmed by LPS/Black Knight.  Most recently, the Attorney Generals have failed to ensure that LPS complies with the consent judgment by remediating the fraudulent and forged documents they introduced by the millions into state county recorder’s offices, as agreed. The AGs got the money and did little else to correct the massive fraud perpetuated by LPS/Black Knight.  Mains asserts that the fraud continues to this day and that LPS, now called Black Knight, continues to manufacture documents or instructs others to do so.

LPS/Black Knight FOIA Strategy

Mains believes his FOIA strategy that demands answers from the state Attorney Generals is relevant because homeowners can obtain information that would help homeowners to:

  1. Overcome prejudicial Legal Presumptions that the chain of assignment and foreclosure documents were or are legitimate if handled by LPS/Black Knight.
  2. Determine if documents in the county records, documents used for foreclosure, and documents used to answer Qualified Written Requests are valid or forgeries/fabrications.
  3. Determine if documents are hearsay, robosigned or contain factual data.
  4. Invalidate claims of firsthand knowledge, when attorney/employee has knowledge that LPS/Black Knight admitted to document fabrication and forgery.

Eric Mains encourages homeowners to write to their AG and demand to know:

  • How many falsified notes, endorsements or assignments have been corrected in the state county records?
  • What information have do you have?
  • What did the AG do to ensure that robosigning was stopped?
  • How do you know LPS/Black Knight is in compliance?
  • What parameters were implemented to insure compliance?
  • A copy of Eric’s letter to the Indiana AG can be accessed here.

The Attorney Generals will typically respond with a long letter that provides no useful information.  Investigator Bill Paatalo obtained a FOIA letter from a homeowner who wrote the California Attorney General about the LPS consent judgment and received this pathetic reply.  Basically, the AGs lie and say they can’t comment or discuss the consent judgment. There is no client-attorney privilege between the Attorney Generals and LPS/Black Knight- the AG wants you to give up and go away.

The Foreclosure Mills in your state that utilized LPS/Black Knight’s services are liable, just like the  Stern Law firm in Florida, that was shut down by the Florida Attorney General in 2014.  The Stern Law Firm used the services of Black Knight to robosign, falsify and fabricate mortgage and foreclosure documents.  David Stern was disbarred for his practices.  Mains says the courts may protect the big banks but that foreclosure mills and servicers who perpetuated the fraud are fair game and are more likely to take the fall.

Banks have created an intricate web of plausible deniability- but the foreclosure firm attorneys are low-hanging fruit, ripe for picking, because homeowners can PROVE that LPS/Black Knight issued NO corrective assignments in the county records, LPS failed to comply with the consent judgment, and the AGs did nothing but cash the check.

Eric Mains suggest that homeowners unite!  By creating small homeowner networks in each state (and especially in epicenters California, Florida and New York), homeowners can begin compiling records demonstrating that LPS did not correct assignments, failed to correct pervasive robosigning, and state AGs have allowed LPS/Black Knight to continue its crime spree unabated.

State AGs can be cornered by irate and vocal homeowners who demand answers- and when armed with incontrovertible evidence of LPS/Black Knight wrongdoing- this is an area where homeowners can gain traction.

CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA HOMEOWNERS- IT IS TIME TO ORGANIZE, OBTAIN EVIDENCE, AND DEMAND YOUR STATE AG TAKE ACTION.   If you succeed in designating a team committee, please provide your information to: amgar@lendinglies.com and LendingLies will assist in your efforts to recruit damaged homeowners.

Eric Mains says it is easy and inexpensive to obtain the evidence necessary to force your state AG to act on behalf of the millions of homeowners damaged by LPS/Black Knight and the foreclosure mills that used its “services”.

Steps to obtain Evidence:

  1. Look up the foreclosure attorney’s unique ID number. For example, the Middle District of Florida has an attorney roll where you can obtain the attorney’s ID number and then reference cases filed and outcome.  You can also contact the local BAR.
  2. There are databases that allow you to search by ID number to see the cases the attorney has handled.
  3. Go to a Title Search Engine and pull assignments and compile data on each case.
  4. Look for evidence of robosigning by comparing signatures. Examine chain of title and parties listed.
  5. Check to see if any of the assignments or documents were remediated. The remediation will indicate a corrective assignment and should have a new time stamp regarding when it was filed.
  6. Research assignments that were done post consent-judgment or cases where a foreclosure occurred using fabricated or robosigned assignments.
  7. Create spreadsheets including case number, attorney, address, suspect documents and date.
  8. Print or save a copy of the questionable document and assign it an exhibit number.
  9. Organize your information, draft a report, and schedule a group of homeowners to meet with the state Attorney General’s office to discuss your findings.
  10. Copy your state representatives, special interest groups and the media on your findings.

Once you have substantiated your findings, consider filing a class-action on behalf of harmed homeowners in your state.  By providing incontrovertible evidence you can destroy legal presumptions.

In litigation, Foreclosure Mills should be asked:  Did you use LPS?  Were you aware LPS admitted to forging documents and were required to remediate them?  The Attorney General in YOUR state will have difficulty turning a blind eye if you and a group of similarly situated homeowners: provide evidence, partner with special interest groups, involve community and governmental leaders, utilize local media and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Investigator Bill Paatalo stated that the robosigning behavior has NOT stopped and may be worse, while California attorney Charles Marshall impresses that there has been absolutely no enforcement of the consent judgment.

Marshall recommends that homeowners send a pro-forma pushback letter to their state AGs stating there is public interest in enforcing the consent judgment and that failure to provide this information is unfair to those victimized by the practices of LPS.  The documents manufactured by LPS/Black Knight to foreclose were void- not voidable and a crime was committed.

Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase

See: Nardolillo v. Chase

Investigator Bill Paatalo has made the Washington Mutual-FDIC-JPMorgan Chase illusory transfer of assets his life’s mission, discussed Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase.  California’s Northern District denied Chase’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling that a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) was insufficient to prove ownership.

Nardolillo claims that WaMu securitized his note and Deed of Trust prior to JPMorgan Chase becoming the beneficiary.  JPMorgan Chase, via a slick substitution of Trustee maneuver, created a self-serving document assigning the loan to itself before transferring the loan to a trust.

Paatalo claims that because there are extreme disconnects in the WaMu-FDIC-JPMorgan Chase documents, especially in non-judicial foreclosures, Chase must come up with an assignment to foreclose.  Therefore, they resort to trustee substitutions.  “If the loan was securitized, or sold prior to (FDIC) receivership, JPMorgan Chase can’t execute a substitute trustee, foreclose, or issue assignments to itself,” Paatalo points out.

JPMorgan Chase has issued thousands of self-serving assignments as beneficiary when it was never empowered as beneficiary to do so, according to Paatalo.  Thousands of loans also failed to go through the FDIC during receivership as claimed, and JPMorgan Chase cannot produce any record of authority.

Paatalo discovered that $615 billion of loans securitized in the A01 Asset Acceptance Trust were never purchased from the FDIC (these loan transactions show investor code “AOI” or “369”).    Chase has maintained that: (1) it acquired the loans through the PAA, and (2) the assignments of beneficial-ownership interests to the loans unto itself are valid.

If Nardilillo is successful, it would eradicate Chase’s reliance on PAA acquisition claims and the ability to self-assign beneficial interest to itself.

Paatalo and Marshall confer that Chase’s cover has been blown and they can no longer claim to have acquired loans through the FDIC that were previously securitized.  Only by trumping up the paperwork can they foreclose.  The fact pattern is simple in non-judicial foreclosures: JPMorgan Chase executes a Substitute of Trustee to get to foreclosure via summary judgement.  Homeowners must challenge the Substitute of Trustee when JPMorgan Chase is involved.

CPA involvement critical to Litigation Success

Lastly, Marshall and Paatalo discussed the importance of using a CPA to audit and analyze servicer’s general ledgers in foreclosure litigation cases.  They point out that judges have difficulty understanding the deliberately complex securitization scheme, but judges understand and are receptive to hard data.

Homeowners should consult with a forensic CPA to analyze their statements prior to filing litigation if possible.  Servicers who acquired servicing rights years after loan origination often did not board information from the prior servicer (who also may not have had a full loan history).  This information void can be used to compel the servicer to produce the general ledger information in a lawsuit.  Typically, once the loan goes into default, a plethora of late charges, fees, and escrow charges are applied- and it takes a sophisticated forensic accountant to unravel the charges to determine if the balance due is correct.  The general ledger is a more complex document that reflects subsidiary ledgers and third parties that may have credited or debited the account.

A forensic CPA can simplify the discrepancies,  highlight the abuses, and identify credits and debits in the general ledger so the judge can understand the loan complexity.  The numbers don’t lie- and if private mortgage insurance has paid a loan in full- the CPA can demonstrate that homeowner is not in default.

The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall is broadcast the first and third Thursday of each month. The  Neil Garfield Show is broadcasted live on the second and last Thursday of each month.

Contact Information:

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency can be contacted at:

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838, Absarokee, MT 59001

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Office: (406) 328-4075

info.bpia@gmail.com

“Harmless” Motion to Return Original Documents in Court File might Yield Explosive Effects

The bottom line is that lawyers for the banks and servicers are using a device that looks harmless but creates a strong presumption that the original note exists, that the clerk of the court received it, and that it was apparently sent to the offices of the attorneys that represent the banks or servicers in foreclosure litigation. All this despite the fact that no original note was ever produced, shown, filed or admittted into evidence.
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-
What I have found is that some clerks of the court have realized that they are being used by the banks and servicers to create a presumption of a nonexistent fact.
It usually starts sometime after a foreclosure lawsuit has begun. The law firm for the named plaintiff files a notice along with a copy of the original note, but the notice says that it is the original note that is attached.
*
At trial, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the foreclosure action make “reference” to the notice of filing and then get the court’s permission, usually without objection from the homeowners attorney, to use a copy for purposes of the foundation testimony of the Robo witness. Nobody looks at the court file to view the original.
*
The attorney for the homeowner has made the same mistake that everybody else has made, to wit: he or she assumed that the lawyers representing the named plaintiff would not file a notice of filing of the original note without having done so. The colalteral assumption is that the Plaintiff’s counsel would not make reference to it unless he knew for a fact that it was in the Court file ebcause he had checked. But there is no need to check if you already know the original know is not there despite what it says on the Notice of Filing. The “error” sometimes is revealed when a forensic expert is called in to examine the note for authenticity.
*
In the end, one side or the other wins and the other side loses.
*
After judgment has been entered, the attorneys for the named plaintiff filed a motion requesting return of the original documentation in the court file. Generally this is done without opposition from the attorney for the homeowner, but that might change as attorneys become aware of the fact that the motion to return documents is part of a scheme.
*
There are several possibilities.
  • One is that the original note was in fact filed. This is highly doubtful since most of the notes were intentionally destroyed shortly after execution.
  • Second, an “original” note has been fabricated and filed with their notice of filing.
  • Third, a copy of the original note was filed with the notice of filing.
  • Fourth, a copy of the original note containing some “certification” that it is a true and correct copy of the original note was filed with the notice of filing.
  • Fifth, nothing was filed with the notice of filing.
Such motions are usually granted as a matter of course by most judges in most courts. The “fun” happens when the clerk looks into the court file to find the original so that the clerk can return the original note to the plaintiff in the foreclosure lawsuit. Up until recently the clerk simply sent whatever was attached to the notice of filing and nobody knew that it was not the original.
*
Now some clerks are sending a letter out saying that they have looked in the court file and no original note was attached to the notice of filing.
*
So in this apparently harmless motion, the result can be an inescapable conclusion, to wit: that the plaintiff in the foreclosure suit failed to file the original note with the court or even produce it. At the very least this would require dismissal of the foreclosure action, usually without prejudice.
*
But it could also include sanctions if there was a pattern of behavior of obfuscation by the attorneys for the named plaintiff, who probably does not exist and should most certainly does not know of the existence of the action.
*
In the past some judges were granting orders permitting the “late filing” of the original note, letting the judgment against the homeowner standing. But judges and clerks are getting increasingly angry and worried about many of the practices of the banks and servicers and their presumptive attorneys. There should be no late filing because the evidence is closed, and the homeowner, counsel and forensic experts were never given an opportunity to test the authenticity of the document. There are probably other reasons.
*
In cases where the Plaintiff wins, this could be extremely meaningful and important to the result. In cases where the homeowner wins the trial, nobody takes notice of the request to “return” “original documents.
*
But after the case was dismissed without prejudice, the allegation can now be made in the next suit by whoever as Plaintiff against the homeowner that “they” lost the note or that the clerk lost the note — only this time they have a specific point in time that they can “prove” by fact and presumptions that the original note existed — i.e., the time when they asked for it to be “returned” and all indications were that it was returned or that the clerk lost the original note.
*
Whatever the story they no longer neeed to go back before the motion requesting the return of the note — which is a free lunch for the named Plaintiff in foreclosure. Not be required to tell a credible story for a lost note for the entire time that the note was destroyed or “lost” starting with the origination of the note through various transfers either with or without sales of the note makes things a lot easier to foreclose.
*****************
Note on the Nonjudicial States: The giant hole in due process in nonjudicial states is that nobody needs to actually have the original note. Nobody needs to see it. Anyone can simply assert that they are the successor beneficiary under the deed of trust, file a notice of substitution of trustee, instruct the new trustee to file a notice of default and notice of sale, and presto, they own the property through a false credit bid.
*
The substitution of trustee is for one purpose only. The new trustee is protected by hold harmless and indemnification agreements with the fake successor beneficiary under the deed of trust. Usually the new trustee under the deed of trust is actually a controlled entity of the fake new beneficiary. While the original trustee would most likely have demanded the paperwork showing that the original note had been lawfully transferred to a successor “beneficiary”, as defined by the statutes, the new trustee does nothing except follow the
*
While the original trustee would most likely have demanded the paperwork showing that the original note had been lawfully transferred to a successor “beneficiary”, as defined by the statutes, the new trustee does nothing except follow the instructions to file a notice of default and notice of sale. Since 96% of such “foreclosures” are not contested, that is the end of the story in most cases.

LIVE NOW! 3pm Pacific/ 6pm Eastern: The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Attorney Charles Marshall, Investigator Bill Paatalo and former FDIC team-member Eric Mains

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

MAIN NUMBER: 202-838-NEIL (6345).

Get a Consult!

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

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase: Nardolillo v. Chase

This session of the Charles Marshall’s West Coast Foreclosure Show features former FDIC team leader Eric Mains who will discuss FOIA strategies in regards to the LPS/BlackKnight consent judgment.  Eric Mains originally introduced the FOIA BlackKnight LPS concept during the August 3, 2017 broadcast here.

Mains urges listeners to immediately contact their state AG offices to obtain information about the LPS/Black Knight consent judgment in your state, and to demand answers why LPS is not in compliance with the judgement.  The information you discover may allow you to file suit on a prior foreclosure, or provide an opportunity to obtain information that will help you in current litigation.  See articles here and here.

Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase, a northern California case scheduled for trial in April 2018.  JPMorgan Chase’s Motion to Dismiss was recently denied based on its failure to demonstrate ownership of the note and Deed of Trust.  Chase relies exclusively on a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) as proof of ownership, but the court has stated that the PAA does not by itself, “establish as an incontrovertible fact that Chase is entitled to enforce the note.”  Nardolillo alleges that the Note and DOT were already securitized prior to the FDIC receivership of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), and therefore WaMu could not convey what it did not own.

Attorney Charles Marshall serves the state of California.  Please contact him to discuss your foreclosure issue:

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency can be contacted at:

BP Investigative Agency, LLC
P.O. Box 838, Absarokee, MT 59001

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Office: (406) 328-4075

info.bpia@gmail.com

 

 

Now It’s Fabricated or Unenforceable Student Loans

The CFPB laid down some serious fines on National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts and its debt collector, Transworld Systems, Inc. The firms were collectively ordered to pay $26.1 million for attempting to collect on loans that were at best out of date and at worst nonexistent.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) specifically alleges that the firms would drag “borrowers” into court or pursue aggressive collection actions on consumers whose debts had already expired — or on debts that they could not actually prove were owed. The action against the entities further alleges that they relied on false and misleading legal documents to compel funds out of consumers illegally.

{Editor’s Note: Same dog, different house. When will the CFPB start prosecuting the same crimes and other illegal acts that lie at the heart of nearly all foreclosures?}

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see https://www.pymnts.com/news/cfpb/2017/student-loan-collection-draws-cfpb-attention-and-ire/

It is not merely a technicality that banks and servicers are pursuing and compelling the forced sale of homes based upon fabricated and forged documents. It’s a fact that in nearly all cases the foreclosing party has no financial interest in the debt. The unthinkable has happened, to wit: the banks figured out to create a void between investors and borrowers where neither one knows of the existence of the other. The banks stepped into that void to steal the money and the loans to the detriment of both investors and borrowers/consumers.

The risk of loss on a bank business plan should not fall onto its victims. We didn’t let Bernie Madoff keep the money or “enforce” nonexistent trades. Why are we letting banks and servicers enforce nonexistent contracts?  Why are we allowing the perpetrators of the gigantic fraud to continue trading derivative instruments that are based upon nonexistent contracts?

We are allowing this to happen — all of us. By not speaking truth to power we are not only condoning past blatant fraaudulent actions, we are encouraging new rounds. The current issues with student loans are only the tip of the iceberg.

Nardolillo V. Chase – Northern District of California: Motion to Dismiss Denied

By J. Guggenheim/www.lendinglies.com

Note: Our ongoing gratitude to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for keeping us updated with significant developments in nationwide foreclosure defense cases.  Paatalo is the preeminent investigator regarding WaMu/JPMorgan Chase “merger” issues.

See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase Nardolillo v. Chase

Analysis by Neil Garfield:  Although Nardolillo’s case has merit, unfortunately he may lose because he already alleged that the loan was sold to a specific securitized trust.  We already know the loans weren’t transferred to the trusts, so Nardolillo has already compromised his own case by making erroneous presumptions.

Without an amendment to his pleadings, he will be forced to prove the trust bought the loan which is impossible because the trust didn’t buy the loan and therefore there is no evidence to support the allegation.

The flip-side is that if Nordolillo had not identified who the loan was sold to, the court would have likely gone the other way on the motion to dismiss.

If he amends to not be specific on the “sale” of the loan, there is a risk that the court will dismiss the action.  The real problem really is that not only did the trust NOT buy the loan, but NOBODY did.

That is because the only movement of money that actually occurred in the real world was to fund loans originated by WAMU. Thus he is right that WAMU didn’t own it but he is citing the wrong reason. WAMU never owned the loan in the first place. Thus there could be no sale.

Chase relies on the complexity of its scheme to confuse and overwhelm the bench. This is the principal reason that I have been hammering at the idea of using a CPA as an expert witness because the numbers don’t lie. Banks lie, servicers lie, and lawyers lie; but in the end, the numbers on the general ledger as audited by one of the big auditing firms tell the real story. You will likely never find a single one of these loans on the balance sheet of any of the players pretending to foreclose.

___________________________________________________________

Nardolillo v. JPMorgan Chase is scheduled for trial in April in California’s liberal North District Court.  This case includes illegal substitutions of trustees by Chase, if they were not the beneficiary per the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA).  Nardolillo alleges wrongful foreclosure, violations of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and dual-tracking violations in regards to a pending loan modification.  Nardolillo is not the first to allege that JPMorgan Chase is playing an ownership shell-game (see Fox).

WaMu was taken under receivership by the FDIC in 2008 when it became insolvent.  JPMorgan Chase then entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) with the FDIC to acquire “certain” WaMu assets.  Plaintiff Gary Nardolillo alleges his Note and Deed of Trust were not among the assets Chase acquired through the PAA and that they were “possibly” sold or securitized years earlier.

This is business as usual for JPMorgan Chase who typically has no note or assignment demonstrating ownership in regards to the WaMu loans it claimed to have acquired.  Therefore, without resorting to manufacturing the documents or having a ‘bank representative’ file a sworn affidavit they have personal knowledge of the loan (when they don’t), JPMorgan Chase simply relies on a substitute trustee to compensate for Chain of Assignment deficiencies.

On March 14, 2011, Chase claimed to be the beneficiary of the DOT and directed the California Reconveyance Corporation (CRC), as trustee, to record a Notice of Default against the subject property.  CRC recorded a Notice of Default, stating the amount due as of March 11, 2011, was $36,304.16.

On October 20, 2014, in a recorded “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust,” Chase purported to act as “attorney in fact” for the FDIC and transferred all beneficial interest in Nardolillo’s DOT to itself.   Nardolillo alleges this was a void assignment because: (1) Nardolillo’s DOT was never among the assets received by the FDIC from WaMu and transferred to Chase; and (2) Chase was not authorized to serve as the attorney in fact for the FDIC at the time it executed and recorded the Corporate Assignment.

Chase then began its usual game of what Investigator Paatalo refers to “whack-a-mole” and on April 17, 2015, it recorded a Substitution of Trustee, substituting former-defendant Trustee Corps in place of CRC as trustee under the DOT. Nardolillo alleges that this substitution is also void.

Chase directed Trustee Corps to record a Notice of Trustee’s Sale against the Subject Property on July 7, 2016. Around July 22, 2016, Nardolillo submitted his first loan modification application to Chase, but the defendants have continued to notice trustee’s sale dates on the Property.  He claims that chase violated California Civil Code when it conducted the July 2016 Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded, as Chase had no right to foreclose because Chase never acquired rights to the DOT and Note from WaMu.

Assuming these allegations are true, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale would not be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” Cal. City Code§ 2924.17/a).   Chase argues Nardolillo’s argument isn’t sufficiently supported by facts, but only by insufficient bare conclusions.  Nardolillo is at the mercy of Chase who likely doesn’t have the necessary proof but relies on the complicity of the bank to get away with fraud.  The relevant allegations in the Complaint are:

—Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that WaMu sold Plaintiff’s DOT and Note to a mortgage – backed securitized trust.
—Plaintiff’s securitization audit indicated Plaintiff ‘ s loan was possibly sold to the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-AR12 trust – a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
—Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that his Note and DOT were not among the assets acquired by Chase through the PAA, having been sold and securitized to a trust pool a few years prior.

Chase relies on the PAA, that claims Chase acquired WaMu’s “assets” from the FDIC in 2008, as well as the recorded “Corporate Assignment,” showing that plaintiff’s DOT and Note were transferred to Chase by Chase (as the attorney in fact for the FDIC as receiver for WaMu).  Relying on JPMorgan Chase’s word is like believing Kevin Hart is a committed family man- despite the Vegas photos.

Chase claims these judicially noticeable documents and the absence of notices recorded by any other entity with respect to the Property establish that Chase “is of record with respect to the Property.”  Plaintiff has correctly objected to any attempt to take judicial notice of the facts contained in these public records as true. He argues that the “truth” of whether Chase was entitled to sign the Corporate Assignment and whether plaintiff’s Note and DOT were included with the scope of the PAA are contested and cannot be established through a request f0r judicial notice.  Neil Garfield writes about the perils of not objecting to judicial notice here.

Chase’s arguments are not well-taken on a motion to dismiss.  The PAA does not expressly cover plaintiff’s Note and DOT.  Chase fails to point to any portion of the PAA that demonstrates that WaMu-funded REMICs (like the one Nardolillo contends owns his Note and DOT) were “WaMu assets” transferred to Chase for servicing or for any other purpose.  The court noted that although Chase has been an entity causing notices to be recorded with respect to the Property, is significant, it does not by itself establish as an incontrovertible fact that Chase is “of interest” or otherwise entitled to enforce rights to the Note and DOT.

Investigator Bill Paatalo has proof that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase $615 billion in WaMu loans.  See article here:

http://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-jpmorgan-chase-did-not-purchase-ownership-of-615b-worth-of-wamu-loans-in-three-simple-steps/

Paatalo has long discussed the questionable use of using “Substitution of Trustees” in order to create the illusion of ownership and to further complicate the ownership issue in a court of law.  Paatalo discovered that WaMu entities have never been dissolved and still exist.  The loans did not go through the FDIC, therefore Chase executes assignments from the FDIC in order to substitute trustees.  Paatalo demonstrates that JPMorgan Chase did not purchase ownership of $615 billion in Washington Mutal loans in three simple steps.

Paatalo presents a “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.

See:

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.

To date, Chase has relied upon presumptions 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 is valid.

Please visit Bill Paatalos’s informative blog at http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com.  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.

 

 

 

 

Back them into a corner — Request for Admissions

As part of my consultation on a case involving PennyMac and Citi, I suggested a strategy (see below) using the procedural route of a Request for Admissions. If not answered, the requests are deemed admitted — which in most cases will completely undermine the foundation for any of the evidence proffered by the foreclosing party. If admitted, the same result applies. If denied, you have something to ask for in further discovery. If objections are filed then the lawyer must be prepared with cases, statutes and treatise authority to back up his claim that he/she is entitled to the information and that without it the trial will be a sham.

The usual response to a request for production is that they already gave you the paperwork — when you know and they know that isn’t what you were asking for. You hopefully asked for all documents in which there was an exchange of money for the subject debt, note and mortgage. Experience shows me that people who win on this point in court usually start getting good settlement offers — or the bank simply backs away and won’t return phone calls.

The foreclosing party will most likely claim privilege or otherwise try to obscure the issues with legal presumptions that since they have possession of the note, they are presumed to own the note or presumed to own the right to enforce. This flies in the face of the knowledge that the creditor is unknown to the foreclosing party and therefore the foreclosing party could have no contract or communication with the investors who own the debt.

Need help drafting documents in litigation? We do that.
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

They are avoiding any hint that they have or that you are entitled to see any documents that actually show that a transaction occurred. A Motion to Compel and perhaps Request for Admissions could push them to the wall. In case you need to amend the request for production or send out another set, you might use the following as a potential guide. The Request for Admissions might include something like this:

1. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject debt.

2. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject debt.
3. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject note.
4. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject note.
5. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject mortgage.
6. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject mortgage.

7. Please admit that the documentation previously produced as stated in Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Request for Production do not contain any reference to a transaction in which the subject debt, note and/or mortgage was purchased by payment of money or property for the subject debt, note and/or mortgage.

8. Please admit that one or more Citigroup entities claim an interest in the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject debt, note or mortgage.

9. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a party that has or will suffer economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of the debt.
10. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a party that has or will suffer economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of instruments deriving their value from the subject debt.

11. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no risk of economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.
12. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no current economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.
13. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no expectation of economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.

14. Please admit that Plaintiff claims servicing rights over the subject loan as a result of a written agreement between a CitiGroup entity and Plaintiff.

15. Please admit the existence of an investor who claims rights to monetary proceeds arising out of the subject debt, note or mortgage.
16. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a creditor that has or will suffer economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of instruments deriving their value from the subject debt.

17. Please admit that instruments whose value is derived from the proceeds of the subject debt, note or mortgage have been issued and sold.

18. Please admit that the Plaintiff has made no entry or posting on its general ledger or otherwise in its financial records that identifies the subject debt, note or mortgage as an asset of the Plaintiff.

19. Please admit that the Plaintiff has made no entry or posting on its general ledger or otherwise in its financial records posting liability for a reserve for default (or any reserve for economic loss) arising out of Plaintiff’s ownership of the subject debt, note or mortgage.

20. Please admit that Plaintiff’s claims for foreclosure are derived from its claims of ownership of the note and mortgage.

21. Please admit that Plaintiff does not own the subject debt.

If they deny, then you have something to ask for — in interrogatories or further requests to produce.

Jurisdiction and REMIC Trusts

The upshot is that REMIC Trusts are fictitious names for the underwriters of bogus mortgage bonds issued in the name of a nonexistent REMIC Trust. It is the product of a disguised boiler room operation. Neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction can possible apply. Thus claims brought in the name of a putative REMIC Trust are void, ab initio.
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

This is dense in its complexity. Jurisdiction consists of (1) personal jurisdiction (2) subject matter jurisdiction and (3) both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Confusion first arises by use of the word “jurisdiction” without specifying what they are talking about.

Personal jurisdiction can be and usually is waived — as long as the party involved actually exists (see below). You can’t waive personal jurisdiction if you don’t legally exist — and a court can’t waive or ignore it because that would be re-writing the statute on jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction exists only by statute. each court is given a scope of jurisdiction (like small claims, general civil litigation, complex civil litigation, etc).

If a foreign entity seeks judicial remedy in the state of Minnesota it must therefore exist, and the Defendant must be either a citizen of that state or have substantial contacts for the long-arm statute to apply. The subject matter would be a contract that took place within the state of Minnesota or which holds that the laws of the state of Minnesota apply.

The locus of trust assets are irrelevant UNLESS the assets are the subject matter of litigation. The Trust does not contain real estate. It contains (taking their assertions as true for the moment) paper or written instruments — and by extension the trust is presumed to own the debts, which it doesn’t and never did.

If the foreign entity does not exist then it can bring no action in any court. Being non-existent does not necessarily mean that it was a made-up name of a fictitious entity (frequently the case where REMIC Trusts are invented and named under New York common law). It could be the name of an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. But in Minnesota the entity is stripped of its right to claim existence unless (1) it is enforcing a loan or (2) it is an unregistered and not permitted to do business, to make or defend any claim.

In the case of the trusts, this becomes more convoluted. A Trust exists ONLY if it has ALL the elements of a Trust. Trustor, Trust instrument, Beneficiaries and the res or property (or money) entrusted to a named Trustee in the Trust instrument. If such assets have been entrusted (by the Trustor) to the named Trustee to be administered in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument, for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, then the Trust legally exists.

But when it goes to Minnesota and seeks foreclosure remedies it is a foreign entity, generally unregistered to do business in MN. While there are exceptions in every state for lenders, the statute of MN would need to be scrutinized to see if the REMIC Trust, which had no business performed by the Trust in MN, can still bring a claim for relief (foreclosure sale and/or judgment) under MN law.

And if the Trust does not have all the elements it simply does not exist in law or in fact. Thus no action should be brought in the name of a fictitiously named nonexistent entity. Work on the principal using the fictitious name, which is also unregistered anywhere, would reveal that the named “Trust” is merely a fictitious name employed by the underwriter of bogus mortgage bonds to investors.

%d bloggers like this: