Proof That Fraud Is Required To Foreclose Non-Judicially On WaMu Securitized Loans

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Proof That Fraud Is Required To Foreclose Non-Judicially On WaMu Securitized Loans"

Gilbert Powell
5 years ago
Views:

1 Proof That Fraud Is Required To Foreclose Non-Judicially On WaMu Securitized Loans By William Paatalo Private Investigator February 16, 2016 See: I wrote the above article back in April of 2014 to which I will now answer this rhetorical question. They can t. But we already know that the courts care very little about defects in the chain of title. Where this information becomes very significant however, is in the substituting of trustees in non-judicial foreclosure states. Rather than focusing on these chain of title defects, let s focus on something even more important; the inescapable break in the chain of authority. This is where the so-called wrench meets the spokes. Every non-judicial foreclosure statutory scheme I m aware of requires that the authority to substitute trustees must come from the beneficiary. So if the named Lender / Beneficiary on the deed of trust (Washington Mutual Bank, or Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.) deliberately chose not to document the sales transactions to the trusts before it died, the remedy of conducting a non-judicial foreclosure on these WaMu trust loans vanishes; unless of course, the servicer is willing to fraudulently manufacture a chain of authority. Case in point my own.

2 The following assignment and substitution of trustee (SOT) documents were recorded in January of 2010 in an attempt to foreclose on my home non-judicially:

4 Per the documents, JPMorgan Chase assigns and transfers my note and deed to a WaMu trust AS BENEFICIARY. As a condition precedent, this assignment must be recorded in order to provide the trust with the requisite authority to substitute Charles J. Peterson Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm as the new trustee. This presumption of course is that the assignment is truthful and accurate. In October 2010 I filed a federal action against Chase and other parties captioned, Paatalo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al. United States District Court District of Montana, Case No. 1:10-cv CSO Over the course of the next 18-months of litigation, Chase and the foreclosure mill law firm took the position (under sworn testimony) that Chase acquired beneficial interest in my loan from the FDIC by virtue of a Purchase & Assumption Agreement, and thus had the authority as beneficiary to execute the assignment in They had to take this position because it was the only way to proceed with a substitution of the trustee. Here is Chase s sworn testimony in their March 2011 Request for Admission: And here is Mackoff Kellogg - Charles J. Peterson s sworn testimony on October 17, 2011:

6 Fast-forward to June of JPMorgan Chase submitted a motion for summary judgment with this sudden twist in their statement of facts: WHOA! Wait a minute. If WMBFA sold my loan to WMAAC in March 2007, and WMAAC concurrently sold it to the trust as Chase has just stated as fact, did Chase and Peterson just perjure themselves? Ultimately, this will be answered in court. However, I believe the following exchange is confirmation that Chase and the foreclosure mill attorneys not only perjured themselves, but were actively conspiring to conceal their fraudulent acts. This exchange occurred on October 18 &19, 2011 between

7 Chase s counsel and the foreclosure mill; just a day after Charles Peterson submitted his sworn testimony that he verified the authority of the beneficiary before he began the foreclosure process:

8 So here is proof that Chase and their foreclosure mill partner fraudulently manufactured their alleged authorities for purposes of conducting the non-judicial foreclosure, and were lying in their testimony to cover it up; sort of a fake it till you make it approach. Nearly 2 ½ years after executing the assignment as beneficiary and recording the Substitution of Trustee, and over a year into litigation, Chase and the mill attorney are admitting internally that they cannot locate any evidence to answer the question as to whether or not Chase acquired beneficial rights, or just servicing rights to the loan. THIS IS FRAUD! Chase s statement of fact that the loan was sold to WMAAC and the Trust in March of 2007 proves that the assignment by Chase as beneficiary was fraudulent. However, what stands out in the from Henderson is his correct assessment of the law. In order for Charles J. Peterson and the Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm to proceed with foreclosure in the name of the WaMu trust, the beneficiary would need to assign its interest to the trust. But this became an impossibility due to WaMu s failure to document the securitization sales transactions in the public record.

9 My case is no different from thousands of other non-judicial WaMu trust cases. There simply is no way that any of these REMIC trusts can substitute trustees and proceed with non-judicial foreclosures without the execution and recording of fraudulent assignments by JPMorgan Chase as beneficiary. This fraud scheme, which violates nearly all non-judicial foreclosure statutes, is so obvious and brazen that it begs for an explanation from federal regulators and law enforcement as to why they continue down the path of IGNORE-ance. Bill Paatalo Private Investigator OR PSID#49411 (

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF XXXXXXXXXX

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF XXXXXXXXXX 1 1 WILLIAM J. PAATALO, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK Defendant. CASE NO. PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COMES