WAMU “Merger”: Paper Chase Part 2

It all comes down to the final unavoidable conclusion: Chase has been lying about its ownership of WAMU originations of residential mortgage loans and the FDIC and other government institutions and agencies are either complicit or negligent.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

 

*

The issue is the Purchase and Assumption Agreement when Chase supposedly acquired assets from the FDIC receiver for Washington Mutual (WAMU) and from the US Trustee in bankruptcy for the WAMU estate.

*
It seems to be saying that a condition precedent to the actual ownership of loans is that the FDIC must execute a “Receiver’s Deed” or “Receiver’s Bill of Sale.” The problem is not being right — the problem is being able to simplify this for the judge to rule on it.
 *
From what I know and according to the FDIC receiver, no such document was ever executed. It would therefore logically follows that Chase neither purchased nor received any ownership of any debts/loans from the WAMU estate. Of course it has always been my position that at the time of the FDIC-US BKR Trustee-Chase-WAMU deal, WAMU did not own any residential mortgage loans — but that is a different story.
 *
But like rescission and other things that seem clear on their face and even have the force of both statutory and common law behind them, lawyers continue to fabricate arguments against the plain words of the instrument. In this case they say that what was said on that instrument is irrelevant. Chase assumed ownership and liability for the loans. But of course Chase disclaimed the liability in a fiery confrontation with the FDIC.
 *
Most of this is too abstract for the average trial judge to handle. So if they are presented with an option that removes the issue from the trier of fact, the judge makes that ruling. That way the Judge is not rocking the boat with a pronouncement that the subject loan was not backed by a receiver’s Deed or Bill of Sale. Either one could be construed as an assignment or allonge for endorsement. The lack thereof would be a judicial pronouncement that Chase has been lying about that deal starting before it was ever executed.
 *
The issue is further obscured by two facts: (1) the original Purchase and Assumption Agreement as posted on the FDIC site for years was taken down and a replacement was inserted and (2) the FDIC is tacitly supporting Chase giving rise to the issue of void vs voidable and whether the “transaction” was ratified by the FDIC and/or by Chase who received a Power of Attorney from the FDIC as receiver for the WAMU estate.
 *
BUT all that said, the argument is clearly present that the condition precedent with a US government agency was not met and Chase got nothing. ALSO it gives rise to the ability to ask questions in discovery that might lead to early settlements. The questions (not in proper discovery form) are:
 *
  1. Has Chase ever received a Receiver’s Deed or receiver’s Bill of Sale from the FDIC, as receiver for the estate of Washington Mutual
  2. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, who has it, where are they and give us a copy.
  3. If the answer to question #1 is no, then describe any document in which Chase received ownership of one or more loans from the Washington Mutual estate. For purposes of this question ownership means that (a) the estate of Washington Mutual contained a loan receivable account for the subject loan and then (b) Chase posted the transaction as a loan receivable on its financial statement. For purposes of this question, “Chase” includes all Chase entities, subsidiaries or affiliates.
  4. If the answer to question #1 is that the party answering that question lacks sufficient information to give an answer, then please describe and name the person who would have such knowledge, along with their contact information.
I would also include the quote from paragraph 3.3 (Manner of Conveyance; limited warranty; Nonrecourse; etc). as follows, since they signed the document in which this paragraph is included:

“THE CONVEYANCE OF ALL ASSETS, INCLUDING REAL AN PERSONAL PROPERTY INTERESTS, PURCHASED BY THE ASSUMING BANK UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE MADE, AS NECESSARY, BY RECEIVER’S DEED OR RECEIVER’S BILL OF SALE, “AS IS”, “WHERE IS”, WITHOUT RECOURSE AN, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO SUCH ASSETS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO TITLE, ENFORCEABILITY, COLLECTABILITY, DOCUMENTATION OR FREEDOM FROM LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES (IN WHOLE OR IN PART), OR AN OTHER MATTERS.”

——————————–
The next point is the sale back to the FDIC —
 *
The Purchase and Assumption Agreement (in its current form) basically says that any loans evidenced by forged or stolen instruments entitles Chase to sell the loans to the FDIC (presumably at par value, creating a windfall to Chase). Interesting. So there was an awareness that forged and stolen instruments were an issue when this deal was done back in 2008.
 *
So, assuming that loans=debts, which is debatable, that leads to the following questions that are again NOT in presentable form for discovery:
*
  1. Did anyone perform a review to determine whether any debts were in fact transferred to Chase?
  2. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, then identify the party who performed such review including his/her contact information.
  3. If the answer to question #1 is yes, please state (a) whether the subject debt was part of the review and (b) whether any determination was made as to the ownership of the subject debt.
  4. If the answer to question #1 is yes, then please answer this question: Did anyone perform a review of the debts deemed transferred to Chase for determining whether any of the debts were based upon forged or stolen documents?
  5. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, then identify the party who performed such review including his/her contact information.
  6. If the answer to question #3 is yes, please state whether the subject loan was part of such review.
  7. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, then identify the party who performed such review including his/her contact information.
  8. If the answer to question #6 is no, please state the person or persons who decided not to perform such a review.
  9. If the answer to question #6 is no, please state the reasons for why such a review was not executed.
  10. Please identify the name, position, and location of the person who is custodian or otherwise in possession of “put notices” (see below) under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement.
 
“Puts Prior to the Settlement Date. During the period from Bank Closing to and including the Business Day immediately preceding the Settlement Date, the Assuming Bank shall be entitled to require the Receiver to purchase any Asset which the Assuming Bank can establish is evidenced by forged or stolen instruments as of Bank Closing. The Assuming Bank shall transfer all such Assets to the Receiver without recourse, and shall indemnify the Receiver against any and all claims of any Person claiming by, through or under the Assuming Bank with respect to any such Asset, as provided in Section 12.4.

Notices to the Receiver. In the event that the Assuming Bank elects to require the Receiver to purchase one or more Assets, the Assuming Bank shall deliver to the Receiver a notice (a “Put Notice”) which shall include:(i) a list of all Assets that the Assuming Ban requires the Receiver to purchase;(ii) a list of all Related Liabilities with respect to the Assets identified pursuant to (i) above; and

(iii) a statement of the estimated Repurchase Price of each Asset identified pursuant to (i) above as of the applicable Put Date.

Such notice shall be in the form prescribed by the Receiver or such other form to which the Receiver shall consent.   As provided in Section 9.6, the Assuming Bank shall deliver to the Receiver such documents, Credit Files and such additional information relating to the subject the Put Notice as the Receiver may request and shall provide to the Receiver full access to all other relevant books and records.”
 
Purchase by Receiver. The Receiver shall purchase Loans that are specified in the Put Notice (discovery?) and shall assume Related Liabilities with respect to such Loans, and the transfer of such Loans and Related Liabilities shall be effective as of a date determined by the Receiver the Credit Files which date shall not be later than thirty (30) days after receipt by the Receiver of with respect to such Loans (the “Put Date”)

10 Responses

  1. But who really cares? Why should it even matter, right?

    Even if WMBfsb, WM and WMBFA pulling a fast one could be the very reason why the FDIC and Chase never had anything they claimed to have. Not like WMBFA still exits because of a game of 3 card Monty, right?

    Has no effect whatsoever! Completely unimportant. :/

  2. The information below coincides with the fact that Washington Mutual had certain information in several key filings hidden, under the “reduced disclosure format” pursuant to exemptive orders obtained from the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 1987 and January 12, 1989 (the “Orders”)

    Oct 1, 1997, American Savings Bank, FA (“ASB”), a federally chartered savings institution changes it’s name to Washington Mutual Bank, FA. (no periods) Federal Charter 68-0172274, principle office 1201 Third Ave Seattle, WA. 98101

    Dec 31, 1998, is now Washington Mutual Bank, FA Federal Savings Bank, principle office 400 E. Main St. Stockton, CA 95290. (Federal Charter 68-0172274 still the same)

    The game of “3 Bank Monty” already started.

    2001, WMBFA reverts back to a “Federally Chartered Savings Association” but using a reduced disclosure format.

    The filings that used reduced disclosure formats account for the confusion, which now relate to the Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (periods) in Maryland.

    There’s a reason for Maryland, which can be found buried in a earlier filing.

  3. I would also like to point out those spelling mistakes were not there until I hit post. For some reason I always have problems here. Maybe an add-on or a plug-in incompatibility? Anyone aware if one exists? Maybe ad blocker or no-script?

  4. I’d like to point out the absurdity of the fact that I have tried to tell others on this site and others like it that “YOUR NOT GETTING IT”. There are people here who allege to be professional researchers and yet when someone posts a piece of info their sites it seems to go ignored. Lets try this again. Like I kept saying a couple years ago.

    These Banks have all been playing name games. Everyone including professionals bought the WAMU merger hook line and sinker. What they have bothered to do was look deeper into WAMU history. Had they done it a few years ago, maybe everyone would know now that WAMU isn’t really DEAD. And once coming to grips with it, everything else about the supposed MERGERS would make sense. This should be embarrassing for auditors. WAMU IS NOT DEAD!

    Lets see if anyone really pays attention shall we!?!

    MARYLAND CORPORATE REGISTRATIONS as of 10/27/2016

    Name: WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK F.A.

    Department ID: F04974408

    Status: (“INCORPORATED”) <——

    Type: Savings Bank <——

    Business Code: Savings, Building & Loans <—– (born again?)

    Primary Office: 2 Civic Plaza, Ste 180
    Newport Beach, CA 92660

    Now lets look something that most people I see still haven't figured out.

    US BANK vs U.S. Bank <—- Do you think they are the same?

    JP Morgan vs J.P. Morgan vs JPMorgan <— How about them?

    Washington Mutual Bank FSB vs Washington Mutual Bank fsb <—??

    Now look at these…

    Washington Mutual Bank vs Washington Mutual Bank FA vs Washington Mutual Bank F.A. vs WMB vs WMBFA vs WAMU vs WaMu vs WM

    Anyone catch Maryland's?

    So the claim is that FA from Wa. merged with State Bank in Ca. and the State Bank ceased to exist, correct?

    That leaves only 2 Banks, right?

    "FA and FSB"

    or was it "FA and fsb"?

    or "F.A. and FSB"

    or maybe "F.A. and fsb"

    Confused yet? You should be, cause that was the point of it.

    What if this name game already happened in 94 & 97

    What if the State Bank – Ca. was actually FA doing business in the State's Bank's name? And the State Bank – Wa. was really doing business in FA's name? Would everything then start to make sense and fit together? NO? What if FSB got in on the fun?

    Do you know how much time it would take and how deep one would have to look just to find out? More time than I care to admit.

    Let's who can figure this out. I several audits on my loan done by people in around here and they all came up with the same info. Wamu 2005-AR14 Lucky for me I actually find it began in 2005-AR12 after paying thousands of dollars for info that was free. I found my original loan # started in AR12 with google. And not one professional had a clue. Bravo! I could have royally screwed. Thanx google. for helping me find twice the info for nothing.

  5. As always, great article and information on our WHOLE corrupt and broken system. Seems like a lot of this is true with nasty old Bank of America allegedly taking over Countrywide (supposedly buying them out back in 2008)?

    Unfortunately, ALL of your government agencies appear to be totally involved and protecting each other. Fannie Mae and Freddy were taken over by our very own government (now GES) and they should all be named in the 10th Circuit Court Ruling here in Colorado where the courts have approved, at least for now and don’t hold your breath. homeowners having standing to sue Bank of America and Urban Settlement Services for RACKETEERING CHARGES which we ALL know they are fully guilty of.

    Yet FNMA, Freddy, and all our government agencies and congress people look the other way and support each other. The lawfirm of Steve Hagen is not apparently allowing others to join the supposed “class action suit” involved with this 10th Circuit Court Ruling, so one has to wonder what they are up to as most people like me don’t trust MOST attorney Neil- you are one of the true exceptions and we need more like you, along with title companies and others across our nation to rise up to your government- good luck with that right?

    Little wonder our once wonderful country is in such deep “doggy doo”!! God help us all when you have to fight your very own government that was supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Looks like we are doomed, but hats off to all who have prevailed against these crooked who all need to be locked up in my humble opinion. Semper Fi

  6. On June 18, 2010, John Eveland from FDIC wrote requesting an extension of time to ‘finalize’ the purchase and assumption agreement with Chase over the purchase of WAMU. Chase presents the PAA in court, the one dated Sept. 25, 2008. That is a fraudulent document, as John Eveland’s letter proves. Two years later, FDIC proves that purchase had not yet been finalized. I have a copy of John Eveland’s letter.

  7. We are dealing with a fake assignment with robo signers for a supposed loan with Wamu that was supposedly already sold to a trust in 2005. Funny thing is Chase assigned something to a trust via the FDIC that had already been sold, 7 years previous. The assignment was done in 2012.. 7 years too late!! I have a securitization audit that proves it. How is something assigned if it is an actively trading stock?

  8. Something is up with FDIC as I requested information HUD of my Ginnie Mae file and the MERS Milestone report shows FDIC involved as received of the WaMu loan back in Sept 2003. However Ginnie Mae form GMM211B makes it appear as if Wells Fargo Bank was the original issuer of the Aug 1, 2003 WaMu Ginnie Mae create MBS. However as we know Wells did not come into the picture as was reported in the paper and the Milestone report until the loans scheduled servicing date after the end of the Jul 31, 2006 completion of the mortgage servicing deal.

    Ginnie Mae got a on file every Milestone MERS report, and this is our information as citizens.

    FDIC knew WaMu was going to fail and in fact I believe Sheila Bair did everything to sink the bank at the end so she could manage the default. What hid and Neil still does not have a clue is that Wells Fargo was and is mortgage servicing all 1.3 million of the $140 billion FHA, VA & USDA loan of WaMu. Yet at least 104,000 of these loans were illegally foreclosed by Wells in 2009-2010 were performed and Wells is currently still the mortgage servicer to a million or so of these loans.

    How after 8 years since WaMu being seized is it not know about the fact Wells not JPMorgan is handling a million WaMu loan today? As long as Neil keeps bring JPMorgan who just had the FDIC settle $645 million from the $1.9 billion sell that did not involve $140 billion Fed Gov insured loans, he cannot solve the crime!

  9. Really good point Neil. You always amaze me how you think up stuff, then I use it in court to beat up the bank. 🙂 George Gingo

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: