FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against Chase, WAMU, Citi and two law firms

For further information and assistance please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

=======================

See Eric Mains Federal Complaint

see Mains – Table of Contents.petition 2 transfer

On Monday Eric Mains resigned from his employment with the FDIC. He had just filed a lawsuit against Chase, Citi, WAMU-HE2 Trust, Cynthia Riley, LPS, WAMU, and two law firms. Since he felt he had a conflict of interest, he believed the best course of action was to resign effective immediately.

His lawsuit, told from the prospective of a true insider, reveals in astonishing detail the worst of the practices that have resulted in millions of illegal foreclosures. Some of his allegations cast a dark shadow over claims of Chase Bank on its balance sheet, as reported to the public and the SEC and the reporting of both Chase and Citi as to their potential liability for wrongful foreclosures. If he is right, and he proves these allegations, much of what Chase has reported as its financial condition will vanish from its financial statements and the liability side of the balance sheets of both Citi (as Trustee) and Chase (as servicer and “owner’) will increase exponentially. This may well have the effect of bringing both giants into the position of insufficient reserve capital and force the government to take action against both entities. Elizabeth Warren might have been right when she said that Citi should have been broken into pieces. And the same logic might apply to Chase.

He has also penned the phrase “wild goose Chase” referring to discovery of the true creditors and processing of applications for modification of loans. And he has opened the door for RICO actions against the banks and individuals who did the bidding of the banks as well as the individuals who directed those actions.

His Indiana lawsuit is filed in federal court. He alleges that

1. WAMU was not the actual lender in his own loan
2. That the loan was part of an illegal scheme from the start
3. That his loan was subject to claims of securitization but that those claims were false
4. That the REMIC Trust was never funded and therefore never had the capacity to originate or buy loans
5. That the intermediaries never followed the law or the documents for securitization of his loan
6. That the REMIC Trust never did purchase his loan
7. That Citi was therefore “trustee” for an unfunded trust
8. That Chase never purchased the loans from WAMU
9. That Chase could not have been the legal servicer over the loan because the loan was not in the trust
10. That Chase has filed conflicting claims as to ownership of the loans
11. That the affidavit of Robert Schoppe, whom Mains worked for, as to ownership of the loans was false when it states that Chase owned the loans
12. That the use of WAMU’s name on the loan documents was a false representation
13. That his loan may have been pledged several times by various parties
14. That multiple payments from multiple parties were likely received by Chase and others on account of the Mains “loan” but were never accounted for to the investors whose money was being used as though it was the Banks themselves who were funding originations and a acquisitions of loans
15. That the industry practice was to reap multiple payments on the same loan — and the foreclose as though there was balance due when in fact the balance claimed was entirely incorrect
16. That the investors were defrauded and that foreclosure was part of the fraudulent scheme
17. That Mains name and identity was used without his consent to justify numerous illegal transactions in which the banks repeated huge profits
18. That neither WAMU nor Chase had any rights to collect money from Mains
19. That Citi had no right to enforce a loan it did not own and had no authority to represent the owner(s) of the loan
20. That the modification procedures adopted by the Banks were used intentionally to force the borrower into the illusions a default
21. That Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, said that Chase and other banks used HAMP modifications as “a kind of predatory lending program.”
22. That Mains stopped making payments when he discovered that there was no known or identified creditor.
23. The despite stopping payments, his loan balance went down, according to statements sent to him.
24. That Chase has routinely violated the terms of consent judgments and settlements with respect to the processing of payments and the filing of foreclosures.
25. That the affidavits filed by persons purportedly representing Chase were neither true nor based upon personal knowledge
26. That the note and mortgage are void from the start.
27. That Mains has found “incontrovertible evidence of fraud, forgery and possibly backdating as well.” (referring to Chase)
28. That the law firms suborned perjury and intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court
29. That Cynthia Riley “is one overwhelmingly productive and multi-talented bank officer. Apparently she was even capable of endorsing hundreds of loan documents a day, and in Mains’ case, even after she was no longer employed by Washington Mutual Bank. [Mains cites to deposition of Riley in JPM Morgan Chase v Orazco Case no 29997 CA, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida.
30 That Cynthia Riley was laid off in November 2006 and never again employed as a note review examiner by WAMU nor at JP Morgan Chase.
30. That LPS (now Black Knight) owns and operates LPS Desktop Software, which was used to create false documents to be executed by LPS employees for recording in the Offices of the Indiana County recorder.
31. That the false documents in the mains case were created by LPS employee Jodi Sobotta and signed by her with no authority to do so.
32. Neither the notary nor the LPS employee had any real documents nor knowledge when they signed and notarized the documents used against Mains.
33. Chase and its lawyer pursued the foreclosure with full knowledge that the assignment was fraudulent and forged.
34. That LPS was established as an intermediary to provide “plausible deniability” to Chase and others who used LPS.
35. That the law firms also represented LPS in a blatant conflict of interest and with knowledge of LPS fraud and forgery.

Some Quotes form the Complaint:

“Mains perspective on this case is a rather unique one, as Main is an employee of the FDIC (hereinafter, FDIC) who worked in the Dallas field office of the FDIC in the Division of Resolutions and Receiverships (hereinafter DRR), said division which was the one responsible for closing WAMU and acting as its receiver. Mains worked with one Robert Schoppe in his division, whom the defendant Chase Bank often cites to when pulling out an affidavit Robert signed. This affidavit states that Chase Bank had purchased “certain assets and liabilities” of WAMU in the purchase transaction from the FDIC as receiver for WAMU in 2008. Chase Bank uses this affidavit ad museum to convince the court system in foreclosure cases that this affidavit somehow proves that Chase Bank purchased “every conceivable asset” of WAMU, so it must have standing in all cases involving homeowner loans originated through WAMU, or to put it simply that this proves Chase became a holder with rights to enforce or a holder in due course of the loan as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Antithetically, when it wants to sue the FDIC for a billion dollars… due to mounting expenses from the WAMU purchase transaction, it complains that the purchase agreement it signed didn’t really entail the purchase of “every asset and liability” of WAMU… Chase Bank claims this when it is to their advantage in a lawsuit to do so.

Mains worked as team leader in the DRR Dallas field office

[The] violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors money

Unfortunately for the investors, many of the banks involved in the securitization process (like Wahoo) failed to perform the securitizations properly, hence as mentioned above, the securitizations were botched and ineffective as to passing ownership of the notes or underlying collateral. The loans purchased were not purchased THROUGH the REMIC. … The REMIC trust entity must be the one actually purchasing the mortgages directly.

This violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors funds once received, held the investor funds in the “lender” banks owned subsidiary accounts, instead of funding the REMIC trusts with the money so that the trust could then purchase the loan from the “lender”, making it an actual buy and sell transaction.”

20 Responses

  1. […] FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With … – 25.03.2015  · The FDIC, however, said that JPMorgan’s deal with Fannie and Freddie is evidence that the bank knew it was assuming WaMu’s contract … […]

  2. I am now dealing with an assignment from Chase/FDIC – assigning my Wamu (security) to Wells Fargo in 2012 which is 7 years after the trust closed. Bloomberg report states that Chase had NO right to assign anything. Supposedly the trust had purchased the loan in 2005? What a wicked web they have weaved.

  3. […] FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against … – Mar 25, 2015  · The FDIC, however, said that JPMorgan’s deal with Fannie and Freddie is evidence that the bank knew it was assuming WaMu’s contract obligations to … […]

  4. The FDIC, however, said that JPMorgan’s deal with Fannie and Freddie is evidence that the bank knew it was assuming WaMu’s contract obligations to private-label MBS investors as well. Nothing in the WaMu acquisition agreement distinguishes between JPMorgan’s obligations to Fannie and Freddie and its liability to private MBS investors, according to the FDIC brief opposing JPMorgan’s summary judgment motion.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2014/10/06/aig-isnt-only-megabucks-case-uncovering-new-facts-about-2008-bailouts/

  5. I often think that were victims of predatory lending. We didn’t sell our current home, rented instead. (In Nor. Ca. was valued at $380, owed $290. 3 bed. 2.5), though it was a good idea to purchase a 5/3 for $620 doing an 80/10/10, interest only arm from Wamu. That was Dec. 2006, short sold in December 2011. Still stuck with the “10” that we pulled for our other home we could not sell , $69k.
    They did stated income, but I have no idea what they facted in the underwriting since we are self employed. To this day, still paying the interest only on that “heloc”. Do we have a standing case or something to work with on the $69k??

  6. R ICO REALTY say Its Not So Joe https://vimeo.com/131808746 ……… My Personal Experience with FDIC and the 334th State District Court HARRIS COUNTY Texas and many many others in Government has been FDIC is a HUGE CON, A HUGE LIAR and Engages in Covering Up for Criminals. See Witham VS Western Bank ( FDIC ) Case No. 198617930 Judge Grant Dorfman …… Houston Texas

  7. This HORSE SHIT goes way way way way back. FDIC is a CRIMINAL ENTERPRIZE …… Nuff Said …… FDIC is Dirty as Dirty can be ……. https://vimeo.com/125558822

  8. hey rock,
    you must be one smart person, so let’s see if you can , wait i have to make sure you will be able to comprehend this question,??
    ok. question ! and if anyone else would like to have a say, hum, like
    christine, as you have won so many cases.
    can any bank, or servicer acting for a bank, or trust, or trustee, foreclose on a non-existent ( ASSET ) OF THE BANK,TRUST,TRUSTEE, .??
    SIMPLE QUESTION.

  9. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    The pot gets thicker…

  10. Welcome To The ResCap RMBS Trustee Website

    This website (http://www.rescaprmbssettlement.com) has been established by:

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

    DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,

    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND

    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

    In their several capacities as trustees or indenture trustees (collectively, the “RMBS Trustees” and each, an “RMBS Trustee”), to the holders of Certificates, Notes or other securities (the “Certificateholders”) under certain residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (collectively, the “Settlement Trusts” and each a “Settlement Trust”), to provide public access to information of interest to Certificateholders under the Settlement Trusts, and to other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts.

    On May 14, 2012, Residential Capital, LLC, and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, “ResCap”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) (In re Residential Capital, LLC, Case No. 12-12020 (MG) and related cases) (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”).

    This website concerns, among other things, proposed settlements of claims of the Settlement Trusts against ResCap and others in the Chapter 11 Cases. These claims include, without limitation, certain claims relating to the origination and sale by ResCap of mortgage loans and to certain aspects of ResCap’s servicing of those mortgage loans. The current proposed settlements (which have superseded prior proposed settlements in the Chapter 11 Cases), would, if approved by the Court, bind that Settlement Trust and related Certificateholders. Accordingly, the proposed settlements and related Court approval procedures materially affect the interests of the Certificateholders, and the RMBS Trustees respectfully request that all Certificateholders and other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts read all notices and related information posted to this website from time to time carefully in consultation with their legal and financial advisors.

  11. ALINA,

    LISTEN AFTER SEARCHING THIS FOR 5YRS,NOW and no one
    has been at my door , even as i have not payed one penny in 5yrs, because of what i found out in all my researching , is that they cant prove a thing. nothing.

    this is why on 4 march after supreme court dis. i rescission the whole thing. let them file in court if they disagree. even if this is over 10 yrs ago, they still have to FILE IN COURT TO SAY THEY DISAGREE WITH RESCISSION. if not , the court will say , you have no defenses as you did not disagree , if you disagree with the rescission, then you should of file in court. so you bank lose. now pay up.

  12. “My loan is now “inactive” on the F$%ked-up MERS Registry website.” And…? The significance of that is… what? And the connection with FNMA is… what?

    Truly surreal. 7 years into this debacle and people still don’t know that loans become “inactive” in the MERS records when no payment has been made for so many months (years). Or when a loan has been refinanced. Or when it’s been paid off. Anytime no more money is expected under that specific loan number/servicer account.

    Very limited thought process, a complete inability to focus on the issues and those are the people who don’t understand why they lose in court! It has nothing to do with judges being corrupt and bought out or attorneys being incompetent or greedy. It has to do with people refusing to see that they cause their own demise by hubris, ignorance and a sucky attitude toward everything that moved.

  13. When I read the headline, I thought this would be a great article. However, I have to agree with Rock. I researched Eric P. Mains and learned that he lost a foreclosure case. He appealed and lost the appeal. I read his brief and reply brief. The complaint in this case weaves all of his prior allegations with some new allegations. Mains has a very high bar to jump as it appears he may barred by Rooker-Feldman. He is trying to sidestep the foreclosure by bringing a “whistleblower” lawsuit but it appears that his complaint is nothing more than a state court loser trying to get a federal court’s review. I would be very surprised if he survives a 12(b) motion to dismiss. The complaint, however, is a good read.

  14. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
    Case No. 12-12032 (MG)
    DECLARATION CONCERNING DEBTOR’S SCHEDULES
    Date ______________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________________
    James Whitlinger
    Chief Financial Officer
    7/3/2012 / s / James Whitlinger
    I, James Whitlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the corporation named as debtor in this case, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing summary
    and schedules, consisting of 622 sheets , and that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Penalty for making a false statement or concealing property: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both. 18 U.S.C.§§
    152 and 3571.
    12-12020-mg Doc 685 Filed 07/03/12 Entered 07/03/12 16:26:26 Main Document
    Pg 623 of 623
    THIS IS WERE YOU WILL FIND ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE.
    located at site of , kccllc.net case number 12-12020.
    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on March 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm said:
    as you know I have been researching my matter for now going on 5yrs, and I do allot on sec sites/ and edger sites, and the
    bk of res-cap.
    what I have found is amazing , and along with wells fargo site, ctslinks.com , found allot of info.
    but this is something that should tell all, that GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AS OF 25 OCT 2006, STOP EXSISTING, AND A NEW COMPANY
    CAME INTO PICTURE, THAT WOULD BE GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC.
    now as you know , ONLY SOMEONE THAT OWNS A ( ASSET ) CAN , TRANSFER, ASSIGN,SELL, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT COME UP
    WITH THAT ASSET. RIGHT.
    SO, 1/ as of the bankruptcy of res-cap and all affiliates, IN MAY 2012, they all had to give to court a complete accounting of assets that they own.
    I have gone through all 600 plus pages of gmac mortgage ,llc total assets . and found that they do not own any mortgages/note that we have.
    my mortgage and note. with that said,
    1/ first , mortgage and note, was sign and dated to some other party, without recourse, that borrower did not have any knowledge at time of
    origination and closing.
    had something to do with the funding of said mortgage /mortgage note! TILA/RESPA violations. did note find this out until last yr , 2014 after getting
    a full copy of closing doc’s from closing attorney. and that gmacm mortgage loan trust was part of the mortgage before signing the mortgage?
    2/ the first assignment on record at registry of deeds, is in august of 2012, from gmac mortgage corporation to mers, mers to fraudulent non-existent
    securitized mortgage trust, also affidavit’s were put on that are also part of the fraud, in that MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSYTEMS,INC,MERSCORP, HAD TO HAVE A LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO ASSIGN ANYTHING OUT OF MERS. AS OF OCT 25 2006, GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION WAS DESOLVED, NO LONGER EXSISTED.
    SO HOW COULD MERS,MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION,INC GET SUCH AUTHORITY??? FROM A NON-EXSITENT CORPORATION.
    3/ SO LET GO AHEAD, NOW EVEN IF GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC, SAY’S THERE WAS A MERGER, SO WHY DIDN’T GMAC MORTGAGE DO THE
    ASSIGNMENT???, AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS?? IN 2012. WELL I DO KNOW WHY, THEY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC
    DIDNT AND DOES NOT OWN THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THATS WHY. HOW, DO I KNOW THIS, YOU MAY ASK.
    BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH ALL ASSETS OF GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC. ALL 600 PLUS PAGES OF ASSET’S THAT THEY REPORTED TO BK COURT, AS OF JUNE/JULY 2012 THAT WENT BACK TO 2011. AND MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE IS NO WHERE IN THE ASSET OF GMAC MORTGAGE , LLC.
    4/ ITS FUNNY TO ME EVEN TODAY, AS TO HOW THEY THINK THEY CAN FORECLOSE ON SOMETHING THEY DONT OWN,.
    SO NOW COMES, TRUSTEE TO GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1, AND AS I HAVE SAID FROM BEGINNING , THAT EVEN GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST WAS AT CLOSING TABLE, WITHOUT THE KNOWELAGE OF THE BORROWERS. AGAIN TILA/RESPA VIOLATIONS.
    BUT LETS LOOK AT CHAIN OF TITLE, THAT MUST BE DONE TO PERFECT A INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE, TO HAVE OWNERSHIP, TO BE HOLDER IN DO COURSE,IN COURT OF LAW.,
    GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, TO DESUCH BANK AND TRUST, DESCH BANK AND TRUST BACK TO GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP TO RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS,INC, BECAUSE
    OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MORTGAGE AND NOTES, THAT WAS DONE 3 FEB 2006. SO AFTER THAT POINT.
    NO LONGER DOES GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/OR GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC. HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MORTGAGE AND NOTE. NOTHING. CANT. SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING. BY SECURITYS LAWS AND CONTRACT LAW.
    NOW RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS,INC, SELLS THE MORTGAGE AND NOTES TO FRAUD TRUST, GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. 27 FEB 2006. THEN FRAUD TRUST DESTROYS OUR MORTGAGE AND NOTES,TO SELL STOCK SECURITY CERTIFICATES USEING OUR MORTGAGES AND NOTES AS COLLATERAL FOR THE CERTIFICATES. BY THEM DESTROYING THE ONLY ORIGENIAL MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE,
    IT WOULD BE IMPOSSABLE TO HAVE THEM NOW APPEAR IN ANY COURT OF LAW, SAYING THEY ARE ORIGENIALS.. IS FRAUD APPONED THE COURT. AS A SECURITY NOW
    BY LAW , THERE ONLY CAN BE , ONE OR OTHER SO BY DESTROYING ORIGINALS , THERE ONLY CAN BE A SECURITY CERTIFICATE. BY LAW
    THEY CAN NOT BE BOTH AROUND AT SAME TIME. DOUBLE JEPPERTY LAW CLAUSE.
    5/ NOW MY MORTGAGE/ AND NOTE HAS BEEN SPLIT/ DIVIED INTO AT LEAST 26 DIFERENT TRAUNCHES. CAN ANYONE TELL US
    WHAT TRAUNCH IS MY FULL MORTGAGE AND NOTE IN????? NO WAY. IMPOSSABLE. BECAUSE ITS PART OF A SINGLE TRUST ASSET,
    SO SHOW ME THE TRUST ASSETS. THEY CANT. BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUST TO PUT THE ASSET IN…THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY TRUST DOES EXSIST. NONE. THIS IS WHY ALL INVESTORS AND THE GOVERMENTS HAVE SUID ALL THESE BANKS FOR FRAUD, AND THE BANKS SAID WE NEVER HAD TRUST OR EVEN PUT MORTGAGES INTO THE TRUSTS, AS REQUIRED BY PSA CONTRACT. AND NY YORK TRUST LAWS.
    6/ UNDER THE FREE WRITTING PROSPECTUS I HAVE A COPY OF. IT DOES SHOW MY MORTGAGE IN IT, BUT IT SHOWS THAT , AS OF
    THE ISSING DATE OF THE CERTIFICATES, THAT MY MORTGAGE WAS PAID IN FULL, AS OF 2/1/2006..THATS RIGHT PEOPLE
    THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS SHOWS, ISSUE DATE BALANCEPAID TO DATE, AS IN PAID IN FULL AS OF THAT DATE.
    IT SHOW MY MORTGAGE BALANCEPAID TO DATE AS 349,349.89. HUM.
    THEN ON SAME SECURITY AND EXCHANGE DOCUMENT IT GO ON TO SHOW THEM ( SELLING ) MY MORTGAGE FOR THE FRAUDUENT
    INFLATED APPRAISEL PRICE OF ( 500,000.00 ) DOLLARS. HUM???
    7/ SO AS FAR AS AM CONCERN THERE ISNT ANY MORTGAGE AND NOTE AFTER 2/1/2006. AS IT SHOWS AS BEING PAID OFF AS OF THAT DATE. LAW SAYS ONCE A DEBT IS PAYED ONCE , NO MATTER WHO PAID THE DEBT, A DEBT CAN ONLY BE PAID ONCE.
    8/ NOW THIS IS WHY I SENT OUT A TOTAL RESCISSION OF LOAN , MORTGAGE AND NOTE. ON 4 MARCH 2015. THERE WERE MANY
    PEOPLE/ENITTYS/AND ALSO REAL PARTY THAT FUNDED THE MORTGAGE THAT WE THE BORROWERS HAD NO KNOWLEGE WAS AT TABLE AND NEVER RECEIVE ANY TILA/RESPA DECLOSURES FROM. EVEN AS OF TODAY, 23 MARCH 2015, SO AS FAR AS AM CONCERN
    THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMSUMATED DEAL AS OF 23 MARCH 2015. FROM ALL PARTYS AT CLOSING TABLE.
    9/ THEY THE BANKS/OCWEN/TRUST/ATTORNEYS FOR THEM, ORLANS / HAVE TILL 1 APRIL 2015 TO FILE WITH THE COURTS, THAT THEY
    DO NOT EXCEPT THE RESCISSION, AND THIS IS WHY. 20 DAYS IS THE LAW. THE SUPREME COURT JUST SAID IT 3 WEEKS AGO. THAT THE BANKS HAVE TO FILE IF THEY BELEIVE THEY ARE RIGHT, IN THAT THE RESCISSION SHOULDNT NOT BE PERMITTED TO STAND. AND IF THEY DO NOT DO IT IN 20 DAYS. THEY LOSE ALL DEFENSE WHEN A BORROWER GO TO COURT TO HAVE THEM PAY ALL MONEYS THEY GOT FROM THE MORTGAGOR, ALL MONEY BANK MADE ON THEM , PLUS ALL PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. ALL MUST BE GIVEN BACK TO BORROWER, THATS THE LAW

  15. On my loan, the mortgage states that it is a Fannie Mae loan, but later AHMSI tried to say it was not a Fannie Mae loan. Of course, AHMSI, Homeward Residential and Ocwen are all liars anyhow. My loan is now “inactive” on the F$%ked-up MERS Registry website.

  16. Rock said that this stuff has already been tried, but what FDIC employee has address this issue? Now if JPMogan is suing the FDIC why should not the entire agreement be disputed? The employee is backing up the things we talked about on here but needed that insider to confirm part that others did not have the ability to access!

  17. Rock the FIDC is not shot down as JPMorgn is suing the FDIC for $1 billion for the WaMu issue. Here where you an employee for the banks and are sent here to stop those who actual have something to contribute but it not in your interest to have millions of families at least have full due process of the law.

    Wells Fargo was servicing 1.3 million WaMu loans and are still servicing what is left of them as in Holm & re:Franklin. FDIC allowed the fake story that JPMorgan purchase the WaMu loan and everybody knows this at this point as it all came out during the $13 billion settlement with the Fed Gov.

    Most of the whistle-blower had to actually go through a part of the crime to be able to understand what exactly was being done. You Rock are not going through it so you cannot understand that your grandfather is actual a crook in his suit and tie owning a bank.

    All of the large payout have come from insiders whether it was a Lynn Szymoniak who was in foreclosure herself but over $18 million payed to her (as you say loser) is more than the modification cases your worked out for people with lenders/servicer that cannot even prove they are the owners of the debt!

    You Rock are the biggest loser because you are without a soul!

  18. It’s not simply that the arguments were “already shot down by the courts”, it is more that courts could not do otherwise because they are frickin’ irrelevant to the relationship lender/borrower and/or creditor/debtor.

    People can claim it all day long, IT IS STILL IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. Another loser, making arguments already shot down by the courts.

  20. The bigger issue with WaMu is Wells Fargo Bank handling the 1.3 million loan from the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement that Wells has illegally foreclosed on all the Ginnie Mae pooled loan and as the Holm and re:Franklin have shown is that Freddie also has a problem of proving ownership of the WaMu loan that Freddie had serviced in that 1.3 million loans.

    The fact is that WaMu was on the Notes having signed blank endorsed Notes and relinquished then to Ginnie Mae, so they could never be enforced in a foreclosure or modified and at a minimum need to go in front of a State Court or Bankruptcy Court to prove ownership with a Note and receipt of purchase plus the title.

    Tried to inform the world for the last 4yrs as to what the deal was ans is has been difficult!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: