Investigator Bill Paatalo: FOIA Request Reveals Servicer’s “Justification” For Fraud In Obtaining Limited Power Of Attorney From FDIC

This FOIA response from the FDIC dated June 29, 2017 contains a request to renew CIT Bank, N.A.’s “Limited Power of Attorney” from the FDIC regarding the failed IndyMac Bank, fsb and IndyMac Federal Bank, fsb. The “Justification” for CIT Bank’s request states as follows:

                                                                                  Justification

We have undertaken a thorough review of our books, records, and existing loan files for all Group 2 loans and believe we have completed assignments into the appropriate entity for both portfolios where appropriate, available, and where such a need for an assignment is known. However, in our mortgage servicing activities, we continue to be faced with legal and technical challenges, such as borrower bankruptcies and enjoined proceedings, requiring we recreate a chain of title based on factors that cannot be identified in advance without obtaining an updated title report on every loan serviced. It is cost prohibitive to obtain an updated loan level title report for each loan we are servicing, which, again, would be the only way to ensure a clean chain of title through all prior transfers.

Absent a renewed power of attorney, to avoid the risk of jeopardizing our lien position and to enable the bank to transfer title when regularly permissible we would be obliged to approach the FDIC for each instance requiring a signature on an assignment or other instrument of transfer or conveyance where, despite having exercised considerable efforts, we find at the commencement of collection or bankruptcy activities that we do not have a recorded assignment into the appropriate entity.”

(See: FDIC FOIA Response – IndyMac LPOA Servicer Request 2017  )

The document then states,

FOIA Snip - fdic

Though this document needs no further explanation, I’ll take the liberty to simplify: The only way this servicer believes it can ensure a “clean chain of title” is to obtain an updated title report for each loan it services. However, that costs too much money. CIT Bank is basically saying, “So with your permission FDIC, and knowing as much as we do, we’re going to recreate the chains of title by executing assignments and endorsing notes for all these loans to which we have no ‘clean’ chain of title as your attorney-in-fact.”

This also begs the question. If you don’t have a clean chain of title in your servicing records, and won’t invest in a title report to determine who owns the loans you service, who are you sending the money to?

From Investigator Bill Paatalo’s blog on http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

Bill.bpia@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

CHASE BOMBSHELL! Investigator Bill Paatalo Follow-Up: JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust

Follow-Up: JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/jpmorgan-chase-ordered-to-produce-wire-transfers-of-borrowers-payments-to-trust/

On February 23, 2018 JPMorgan Chase filed an emergency motion seeking clarification and an in camera review. (See: Chase Emergency Motion – Proodian (1)  ) Here are some excerpts from the motion with my comments in CAPS:

II. ARGUMENT

A. Motion For Clarification And Request For In Camera

13. The Order specifically orders Chase to produce “(1) wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo, or any other entity, via wire transfer.

14. After a diligent search, Chase is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to the Order as phrased.

15. Specifically, Chase does not maintain loan level information regarding its payments to the investor, Wells Fargo. In other words, Chase does not have a wire transfer history to Wells Fargo (or any other entity) for Plaintiff’s account alone. [“DOES NOT MAINTAIN LOAN LEVEL INFORMATION TO THE INVESTOR?” THIS STATEMENT SHOWS A COMPLETE DISCONNECT WITH THE CASH-FLOW BETWEEN A BORROWER AND THE ALLEGED INVESTOR(S), AND CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE, THROUGH VERIFIABLE ACCOUNTING, THAT THE ALLEGED INVESTOR(S) RECEIVE THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS “FROM THE BORROWER.” WHEN IT COMES TO ACCOUNTING, PLAYING “HORSESHOES & HAND GRENADES” WHERE CLOSE ENOUGH IS ALL THAT MATTERS ISN’T GOING TO CUT IT, NOR SHOULD “TRUST US YOUR HONOR.”]

16. The records that Chase maintains, therefore, show the total monthly payment (in millions of dollars) made to Wells Fargo, regardless of whether any individual borrower in the pool made their payment to Chase. [WELLS FARGO GETS PAID “REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY INDIVIDUAL BORROWER IN THE POOL MADE PAYMENT TO CHASE.” FIRST OF ALL, WELLS FARGO IN THIS INSTANCE IS THE TRUSTEE, AND NOT THE “INVESTOR” AS THEY WANT THE COURT TO BELIEVE. WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO FROM WELLS FARGO? AGAIN, HERE IS AN ADMITTED DISCONNECT IN THE MONEY TRAIL THAT CHASE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARALY SITUATED, DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO SEE. IN FACT, CHASE ARGUES IN THIS CASE THAT BORROWER’S AREN’T ENTITLED TO, AND DON’T HAVE STANDING TO DEMAND ALL THE ACCOUNTING INFORMATION BETWEEN THE SECURITIZATION PARTICIPANTS. REALLY? THIS IS NOTHING BUT DIVERSION FROM THE FACT THAT CHASE CANNOT PRODUCE THE MONEY TRAIL ON THIS BORROWER’S LOAN, OR ANY SECURITIZED LOAN.]

17. Chase’s records will show (i) Plaintiff’s loan is part of the pool of loans; and (ii) that Chase makes one large lump sum payment to Wells Fargo each month for that pool, regardless of whether it receives a payment from Plaintiff’s.

18. In short, the documents that Plaintiffs seek and were the subject of the Court’s recent discovery Order – i.e. wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account alone – do not exis[t.] [THERE WE HAVE IT, FOLKS. THERE IS NO WIRE TRANSFER HISTORY FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT SHOWING PAYMENTS TO ANY INVESTOR(S). THEY “DO NOT EXIST.” I STILL FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE. CHASE IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IT SENDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH MONTH TO WELLS FARGO ON BEHALF OF A POOL OF LOANS, BUT CANNOT BREAK DOWN THAT LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO SHOW THE ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF THESE PAYMENTS? AND, WELLS FARGO ISN’T SEEKING TO KNOW THE ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF THESE ENORMOUS SUMS OF MONEY? WITHOUT ANY FORMAL ACCOUNTING, “RED FLAGS” OF PONZI SCHEMES AND MONEY LAUNDERING ARE FLYING HIGH.]

Bill Paatalo

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC

bill.bpia@gmail.com

 

Investigator Bill Paatalo: JPMorgan Chase Ordered To Produce Wire Transfers Of Borrower’s Payments To Trust

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com/jpmorgan-chase-ordered-to-produce-wire-transfers-of-borrowers-payments-to-trust/

Things are going to get real interesting now! On February 15th, 2018, the following Order was handed down in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida. Here is a little background on this case.

The Plaintiff is current on his loan that was originated in 2005 by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., and has never been declared in “default.” However, having become aware that serious defects may exist over the title to his property, Plaintiff sought answers to the most basic questions. Who owns my loan? And, who is receiving my payments?

As most readers can guess, the answers to these questions have been met with great resistance and animosity by Chase’s counsel. This begs the question, why would JPMorgan Chase, as the alleged servicer for the Plaintiff’s loan that is not delinquent, fight tooth and nail over having to disclose this information? I believe we may have the answer to this question within the next 9-days. This is because the Court, upon a Motion to Compel evidence, has just Ordered JPMorgan Chase to produce to Plaintiff, “(1) wire transfer history for Plaintiff’s account reflecting payments made to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and forwarded to Wells Fargo or any other entity via wire transfer; and (2) servicing agreements between Chase and Wells Fargo authorizing Chase to service the loan and enforce the note and mortgage.” 

Here’s the testimony of two Chase witnesses who were deposed prior to this Order. First, we have Chase in-house counsel Matthew Dudas:

Dudas depo snip 1

Dudas depo snip 2Dudas snip 3

 

Then there’s the testimony of Peter Katsikas:

Katsikas depo snip - Proodian

 

I believe the rationale behind this Order stems from the fact this is a non-default situation. Chase’s attorneys are struggling to defend this action because they cannot rely upon the worn-out “deadbeat trying to score a free house” argument. I’ve been saying for years now that the banks may have dominated the narrative in the foreclosure realm thus far, but they are going to be in big trouble if/when the masses of borrowers, who are “current” on their mortgages, begin their own crusade for answers as to who owns their loan, AND WHERE ARE THEIR PAYMENTS GOING? Until these questions are properly answered through verified evidence, no one’s title and money is safe.

Things are going to get very interesting now!

Bill Paatalo

Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency, LLC

bill.bpia@gmail.com

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/jpmorgan-chase-ordered-to-produce-wire-transfers-of-borrowers-payments-to-trust/

Investigator Bill Paatalo: Why Are The Oregon Courts Ignoring Its Own Rules Regarding The “Surrender And ‘Tender’ Of ‘Original’ Negotiable Instruments?”

 https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/why-are-the-oregon-courts-ignoring-its-own-rules-regarding-the-surrender-and-tender-of-original-negotiable-instruments/
This is the Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rule regarding the surrender of negotiable instruments before the entry of a judgment. Oregon is typically a non-judicial foreclosure state. However, the bank servicers have been increasingly choosing to go the judicial route. My sources are telling me that the clerks in the Oregon courts who have been asked about this rule have either said, “we aren’t doing that,” or they provide an expression like that of a “deer in the headlights.” Apparently, the Oregon Court Rules don’t apply to the banks if deemed inconvenient.
2.060 ENTERING JUDGMENT ON FACE OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
(1) In all cases when a judgment is to be based on a negotiable instrument, as defined in ORS 73.0104, the party obtaining judgment must tender the original instrument to the court before the entry of judgment, unless the court has found that such party is entitled to enforce the instrument under ORS 73.0309, and the court must enter a notation of the judgment on the face of the instrument.
(2) The trial court administrator shall return the original instrument only after filing a certified copy of the instrument.
Bill Paatalo
Private Investigator – OR PSID 49411
bill.bpia@gmail.com

Investigator Bill Paatalo: Wells Fargo Admits To Executing WaMu Note Endorsement in 2013, And the Arkansas Bankruptcy Court Allows WaMu to Get Away With It!

Editor’s note: Great analysis by investigator Bill Paatalo at BPinvestigativeagency.com.
Arkansas courts are known to be some of the most corrupt bankruptcy and foreclosure courts in the country and the Arkansas Judiciary refuses to follow its own laws while catering to the interests of Foreclosure Mill Wilson and Associates.  US bankruptcy trustee Joyce Babin is known for her bank-friendly decisions and has now legitimized fraud-on-the-court as an acceptable practice.
images

Arkansas Law permits Fraud on the Court

This decision out of an Arkansas Bankruptcy Court has to be one of the most bizarre rulings I have ever read to-date. (SeeSchiefer v Wells Fargo – Arkansas). Though the Court appears to get the facts utterly wrong in this case, there is one valuable nugget (FACT) that now exists – Wells Fargo admits to executing an endorsement upon a note by a WaMu Officer in 2013! The endorsements of WaMu officers appearing on notes long after the FDIC Receivership is what I have been attesting to for years now based upon a conglomeration of evidence. But now, we have an actual admission!

(Excerpts from this ruling with my comments in BOLD CAPS)

“Considering all of the evidence and the contradictory testimony by Wells Fargo, the Court can establish the following time line:

3. In 2007, Washington Mutual assigned the mortgage and note to Wells Fargo.  (Wells Fargo Ex. D.) [COMMENT: THE EVIDENCE SHOWED NO ASSIGNMENT UPON THE NOTE PRIOR TO THE FDIC RECEIVERSHIP.]  In addition, according to Bateman, Wells Fargo obtained physical possession of the note and mortgage at that time.  With the assignment, Wells Fargo became either the owner of the note and mortgage or, if Fannie Mae was the owner, then Wells Fargo became the servicer of the note. Regardless, at the time of the assignment, the note was not indorsed either in blank or to Wells Fargo.  Under Arkansas law, the assignment would not have been concluded (or negotiated) until the note was indorsed.  Ark. Code Ann. § 43-203(c) (“if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor . . . negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made.”).

———————————————————————–

FN:

2  Wells Fargo introduced an assignment of mortgage from First Western to Washington Mutual that was filed in December 2004 and Bateman testified that Fannie Mae became the owner of the note in January 2005.  However, neither party introduced any document that evidenced transfer of ownership of the note to Fannie Mae. [COMMENT: WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF THE NOTE TO ANYONE AT THIS POINT?]

————————————————————————

5. According to Wells Fargo’s response to the debtors’ requests for admissions, in February 2013 Wells Fargo added the second indorsement (the indorsement in blank) pursuant to a limited power of attorney from JP Morgan. [COMMENT: SECOND ENDORSEMENT? WHERE IS THE FIRST ENDORSEMENT?] The indorsement in blank was signed by Leta Hutchinson as Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual Bank, FA.  According to Hutchinson’s deposition (Dbs.’ Ex. G), Hutchinson was employed by Washington Mutual in February 2013. [COMMENT: EMPLOYED BY WASHINGTON MUTUAL IN 2013?!] Hutchinson also stated that she previously was an Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual but ceased that position in May 2006.  [COMMENT: EVEN WHEN HER ENDORSEMENT WAS PLACED UPON THE NOTE IN 2013, AND EVEN IF SHE WORKED FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL LONG AFTER IT DIED, SHE WASN’T AN OFFICER!]When asked in the deposition what her job responsibilities were at Washington Mutual, she stated that she was the department manager for the documentation department but did not state when she held that position or what her job title was in February 2013.

Based on the above time line and the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact that are relevant to the Court’s decision.

First, at the time the debtors filed their bankruptcy petition, Wells Fargo was either the owner of the note and mortgage (based solely on recorded state court documents) or was the servicer of the note (based on testimony and interrogatories that identify Fannie Mae as the owner).

………

Third, the indorsement in blank was signed by Leta Hutchinson pursuant to a power of attorney between JP Morgan Chase Bank, successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank and Wells Fargo.5  And fourth, at the time the indorsement in blank was added–in February 2013–Hutchinson was not an Assistant Vice President of Washington Mutual but was an employee of Washington Mutual. [COMMENT: IF HUTCHINSON DIDN’T WORK FOR EITHER WELLS FARGO OR JPMORGAN CHASE, AND THE COURT BELIEVES HER ENDORSEMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE POA BETWEEN THESE TWO ENTITIES, HOW DOES THIS ENDORSEMENT SURVIVE?]

———————————————————

FN:

4  The only evidence before the Court of the receivership is a limited power of attorney dated July 8, 2011, that is attached to the Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  (Dbs.’ Ex. D.)  The power of attorney appoints Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as “Servicer” for JP Morgan Chase Bank as “Investor” and “the successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank.” [COMMENT: THE LIMITED POWER IS GRANTED BY JPMORGAN CHASE AS “INVESTOR” TO WELLS FARGO? THE TESTIMONY IS THAT FANNIE MAE OWNED THE LOAN SINCE 2005! HOW IN THE WORLD DOES CHASE GRANT ANY AUTHORITY AS THE INVESTOR?]

5  The Court finds as a matter of law that the debtors failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Wells Fargo did not have the authority to indorse the note in blank on behalf of Washington Mutual. [COMMENT: SERIOUSLY?] First Western assigned the note to Washington Mutual [COMMENT: NO THEY DID NOT!] and JP Morgan was the apparent successor in interest from the FDIC as receiver of Washington Mutual.  As successor in interest, JP Morgan authorized Wells Fargo under a power of attorney to effectuate “[t]he assignment of any Mortgage or Deed of Trust and the related Mortgage Note, in connection with the repurchase of the mortgage loan secured and evidenced thereby.” [COMMENT: “REPURCHASE?”] The indorsement in blank completed the transfer that began in 2007 when Washington Mutual initially assigned the mortgage and note to Wells Fargo. [COMMENT: I DIDN’T REALIZE THAT DECEASED PARTIES COULD COMPLETE NEGOTIATED TRANSACTIONS AFTER THEIR DEATH. HMM..I’M STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD ON THIS COURT CONDONED “FIX” OF A FATALLY DEFECTIVE CHAIN OF TITLE.]

——————————————————————-

Troubling for the debtors is the validity of Hutchinson’s indorsement in blank.  Because Hutchinson never worked for JP Morgan, the debtors argue that JP Morgan would not have had the authority to authorize Wells Fargo to sign Hutchinson’s name to a financial instrument.  And, again, without a valid signature, the indorsement would be a nullity. However, two facts work against the debtors’ argument.  First, at the time the indorsement in blank was added to the note in February 2013, Hutchinson was an employee of Washington Mutual.  Second, at the time the indorsement was added, JP Morgan was acting as successor in interest from the FDIC as Receiver of Washington Mutual.  Under the power of attorney given by JP Morgan to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo was empowered to negotiate the assignment of a note and mortgage.  In this case, the indorsement in blank was the final step required to complete the transfer that was begun in 2007.  Although Hutchinson was not Assistant Vice President at the time the indorsement was added, she was employed by Washington Mutual and could have been acting in an agency capacity.”

[COMMENT: SO, WELLS FARGO VIA A “POWER OF ATTORNEY,” EXECUTES AN ENDORSEMENT BY A WAMU OFFICER WHEN THAT PARTY NO LONGER WAS AN OFFICER, AND THE ENTITY HAD DIED FIVE-YEARS PRIOR. PLUS, THERE IS NO “ATTORNEY-IN-FACT” SPELLED OUT WITH THE ENDORSEMENT SHOWING JUST HOW IT CAME TO BE ON THE NOTE. ABSURD! I’LL LET THE LEGAL MINDS NOW CHIME IN ON THIS ONE.]

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency

bill.bpia@gmail.com

[COMMENT: ABSURD!]

Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411

BP Investigative Agency

bill.bpia@gmail.com

Investigator Bill Paatalo: Nationstar Conducts “Bulk Note Sales” Without The “Notes?”

In 2013, investors in six “RALI Series” Trusts filed a complaint in New York against their Master Servicer (Nationstar Mortgage, LLC) for conducting “Bulk Note Sales” of non-performing loans owned by the trusts for its own benefit; specifically to recoup upwards of a billion-dollars worth of servicing advance receivables. The Plaintiff / Investors accused Nationstar of conducting these “Bulk Note Sales” without having any ownership or requisite authority to do so. (See: KIRP LLC V Nationstar Mortgage LLC).

Per the complaint:

“INTRODUCTION
1. KIRP is a significant investor in certificates issued by six residential mortgage backed security trusts sponsored by Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (the “RALI Trusts”).  KIRP brings this action against Nationstar, the Master Servicer for the RALI Trusts, for its liquidating loans owned by the trusts through on-line auctions at fire sale prices without authorization and in  blatant abdication of its servicing duties under the governing contracts.
2. As the Master Servicer, the RALI Trusts pay Nationstar to “service” the mortgage loans owned by the trusts in the best interests of the trusts and their certificateholders.  This includes working to maximize the recoveries on each of the mortgage loans through enumerated actions detailed in Pooling and Servicing Agreements (the “Servicing Agreements”), which set forth the Master Servicer’s duties.  However, rather than fulfilling its responsibilities to maximize recoveries, Nationstar has recently embarked on a campaign to benefit its own interests at the expense of the RALI Trusts and their certificateholders, through auctioning off the trusts’ mortgage loans in bulk (“Bulk Note Sales”) for amounts that are a fraction of the loans’ unpaid balances or the value of the properties securing the loans.  While these Bulk Note Sales injure KIRP and the RALI Trusts’ other certificateholders by dissipating the assets of the RALI Trusts, they provide multiple benefits to Nationstar, including through allowing them to more quickly recoup certain advances they made on the mortgage loans as part of their servicing duties.  KIRP seeks to enjoin Nationstar from engaging in any further Bulk Note Sales in breach of its duties and to recover damages for the Bulk Note Sales that have already occurred.”
      When I read this complaint, a couple questions immediately jumped out at me regarding the so-called “notes” being auctioned off by a party that doesn’t own said notes. What did Nationstar disclose to the “purchasers” at auction as to their rights to sell the notes? And, were the “original notes” actually delivered to the bulk-sale purchasers by Nationstar as a non-owner of the notes?
 I went to the SEC and located the 424(B)(5) Prospectus filing for one of the named trusts in the lawsuit (RALI 2006-QO1). (See: http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.vC1.htm#7fll).
Here’s what the Trust disclosed as to the custody of the loan files on P.S-108:

Custodial Arrangements                                                          

      The trustee will appoint Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A., to 
serve as custodian of the mortgage  loans.  The  custodian is 
not an affiliate of the  depositor,  the master servicer or the 
sponsor. No servicer will have custodial  responsibility for 
the mortgage loans.  The custodian  will maintain mortgage 
loan files that contain  originals of the notes,  mortgages,  
assignments and allonges in vaults located at the sponsor's 
premises in Minnesota. Only the custodian has access to these 
vaults. A shelving and filing system segregates the files 
relating to the mortgage loans from other assets serviced 
by the master servicer.

 

 

      If Nationstar had no authority per the trust instruments to sell, liquidate, and convert the notes for its own personal gain, it’s hard to believe that Wells Fargo would release the “original” notes in bulk to Nationstar for these purposes. The likely scenario is that the bulk purchasers were delivered copies of the notes from Nationstar’s servicing system that were pawned off as “originals.”
     This goes to the heart of what I have suspected for years now in regards to these “bulk non-performing loan purchases” by debt buyers. The “Sellers” often have no rights to sell these loans, and the “Buyers” are purchasing bogus collateral files with no “original notes” and no verifiable chains of title.
 Judge Mosman Quote - Re-Default and Authentic Note
Contact Investigator Bill Paatalo at www.bpinvestigationagency.com
Private Investigator
BP Investigative Agency, LLC
bill.bpia@gmail.com

The West Coast Radio Show with Attorney Charles Marshall: JPMorgan Chase & its Witnesses who know Nothing

To listen to archived show

Charles Marshall Logo_001

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall.

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.

A Witness to What?  Fake documents, affidavits and depositions rule at JPMorgan Chase.

See: McCormick Deposition

See: Objection_to_Notice_of_Errata_Martin Deposition JPMC

Investigator Bill Paatalo joins California attorney Charles Marshall on the West Coast Foreclosure Show, and continues his ongoing analysis of the Washington Mutual/Chase ‘merger’ that appears to be little more than an elaborate ruse to keep homeowners and the courts from recognizing that the emperor has no clothes.

In April 2017, California Attorney Ronald Freshman of Newport Beach, California deposed Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Ms. Martin inundated the court with a ream of mortgage documents and statements that had the appearance of validity, but when placed under oath had no information relevant to the Plaintiff’s loan.  Martin had been coached poorly and the plaintiff’s attorney, Ronald Freshman, annihilated her testimony.

Chase witnesses, or ‘persons most knowledgeable’ universally testify that they don’t know when the endorsements were/are placed on the notes, or by who, and that they are unaware of anyone up the corporate chain of command who could answer questions regarding the notes, assignments and investors.  Yet, this information is in the “DOCLINE” database and reports, as testified by Chase witness Rosemary Martin.  Martin said, “”AO1,” this was in 1-24 of ’07. That’s when Washington Mutual still had the file. So I don’t know what their codings are.”

Martin’s typical and pathetic responses included:

“I think I’ve done possibly one or two (referring to an affidavit).”

“I’m able to understand different screens and different documents that we use in regards to normal bank practices with loans.”

“When this specific document was entered into

our system, I do not.  I do know that I did see it in

our system.”

Eventually the witness surrendered that they had no knowledge of anything of importance.  The Chase litigation strategy is to play coy and hope the judge won’t catch on.  The Martin deposition reveals that the codes and names of the ‘investors’ do exist in Chase’s ‘LISA system’ database, despite JPMorgan Chase’s attempts to claim ignorance.

And that folks, that is how a poorly coached bank ‘witness’ is permitted to steal your home. The Martin deposition is 200 pages documenting a witness’s attempts to come off credible while failing spectacularly.  Meanwhile, the bank’s attorney objects constantly to prevent the admission that the witness can read a computer screen, but knows nothing of value regarding the loan.

Livinglies recently received a copy of an Errata motion filed by JPMorgan Chase.  The motion was a request to remove sections of former JPMorgan Chase in-house attorney, Michael McCormick’s deposition. Not because there was en error or ‘Scribner’s error, but because Chase attempted to use an Errata motion to censor information that was potentially harmful to them- not because it contained an error.

An Errata (“error”) motion is typically used to correct minor errors or omissions in a pleading such as the late submission of a missing exhibit or page from a declaration or motion, or a replacement page that is necessary by a glitch in photocopying.  By filing a Errata motion, Chase attempted to ‘get around’ opposing counsel’s ability to challenge the motion.  Fortunately the judge refused to grant the motion.   Chase use of an Errata motion was an underhanded strategy to remove potentially harmful information contained in its former attorney’s deposition.

It isn’t just low-level employees that are coached-up by Chase prior to a deposition, but also prior in-house attorneys too.

Former JPMorgan Chase in-house counsel Michael McCormick provided a deposition that confirmed that the “AO1” investor-designation refers only to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) ‘loans’, and yet, JPMorgan Chase has adamantly denied that this code refers exclusively to WaMu loans.

Despite working for JPMorgan Chase for five years (2011-2016), McCormick stated he knew nothing about the systems he was supposed to be trained to operate.  Despite this lack of knowledge, McCormick was the attorney submitting and approving affidavits and loan verifications, but knew nothing beyond what he read on a computer screen or was coached by Chase attorneys to parrot, “Chase is the investor, Chase is the investor…..awk…Bank owned. Bank owned.  Polly wants a real backer.”

Furthermore, JPMorgan Chase is in violation of the National Mortgage Settlement consent judgment that required Chase to stop it’s illegal practices including forging endorsements, manufacturing documents, filing fabricated documents in county recorders offices and providing false testimony.  Former FDIC team-member Eric Mains has encouraged homeowner who have been harmed by an unscrupulous loan servicer to file FOIAs with their state Attorney Generals offices in order to determine compliance with the consent judgments, and if that fails, to contact the ACLU.

McCormick’s deposition has been used in other cases investigator Bill Paatalo has been involved in, to document that ‘AO1’ is an investor code designating WaMu loans, and that Chase relies on speculation and imagination instead of facts, real documentation and hard evidence to convince the court they are valid creditors:

  1. As an example, attached as Exhibit 6 is a transcript of JPMorgan Chase’s witness taken from a deposition in “comparable case #2.” (Note: Per Bill Paatalo, this case involves two WMB loans with “Investor Codes ‘AO1’” that JPMC denied belonged to WMAAC.) The witness, Michael McCormick, a former in-house attorney for JPMC, testified that he had never seen the “original” note (P.114, L.13-16), that he had seen different images of the same note (P.115, L.20-24), that he had seen a copy of the 2005 WMB note without the endorsement in 2011 (P.117, L. 13-25 & P.118, L. 2-5), and that he had no knowledge of who placed the endorsement upon the note and when (P.119, L. 17-19, P.121, L. 8-12, & P.123, L. 18-24). However, when asked if there was a way to find out when the notes were endorsed within the servicing system(s), McCormick responded, “perhaps.” And when asked if he knew where to look to find that information, McCormick responded, “sure.” (P.123, L. 18-25 & P.124, L. 2-6).

-and-

  1. In hundreds of cases I have investigated involving WMB (WaMu) endorsed notes proffered by JPMC, or an assignee from JPMC, no witness has attested to, or has been willing to attest to anything specific regarding the endorsements and/or allonges; who endorsed the notes and when? Answers are much like that of McCormick; evasive, with no knowledge or recollection. With McCormick, he testified that he knew of no one at JPMC who could answer the questions as to the endorsements. Yet, he personally knew where to find these answers but deliberately chose to play coy.

JPMorgan Chase’s strategy is a plausible-deniability defense where there is no one (not even counsel) that can confirm nor deny the securitization process, the purchases, sales, transfers, assumptions- or anything else.  Therefore, Chase’s use of compartmentalization keeps everyone ignorant of the real truth.  In fact, by now, the only ‘evidence’ of ownership Chase can provide on acquisition of WaMu loans is the account number listed on a computer screen.

Attorney Stephen Wright in Connecticut did an exemplary job of digging deep and providing a plethora of evidence damning to Chase.

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall
Fax 866.575.7413

Bill Paatalo
Oregon Private Investigator –
BP Investigative Agency, LLC
%d bloggers like this: