Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. Accounting Fraud This report was generated for Bill Freeman with accounting analysis by Paul Rodriguez, on the nature of his payment history. and associated mortgage loan documents Context: Mr Freeman has been sent transaction histories he requested since origination in 2005, when the accounting contained was not clear or understandable, contained mistakes, and accounting codes were undecipherable. Mr Freeman was sold a predatory, negative amortization, pick a payment loan that did not suit his needs, especially since he qualified for more conventional financing, but brokers were making huge $ commissions selling them. The accounting since 2005 has become less and less understandable and cannot be reconciled. Observations: Accounting Anomalies, Continued Please note the following transaction taken from the transactions histories sent by Morgan Lewis Bockius. Jan 19, 2012 - $7510.80 Payment ---This payments was not made by Mr. Freeman Jan 19,2012 - $2384.55 Payment applied and retracted Jan 19, 2012 - $ 22,638.56 Added to Freeman balance Jan 19, 2012 - $ 20,830.08 added as principal adjustment Jan 18, $ 121,500.00 added as adjustment Jan 17,2012 - $ 3598.85 reversed from Freeman account Feb 2012 - $ 2032.00 Payment credited, never made March 2012 - $ 2032.00 payment credited, never made ********** Dec 2011 - $13,749.32 added to balance Total = $$ 186 , 327.82 Added to Freeman balance * As you will read below, some of these numbers may have been offset, but it is impossible to tell . Specifically, the loan is nearly impossible to follow in its current form. The transaction history is not complete but is broken across multiple systems ranging from those used by WAMU and Chase. This fact makes one question the validity of the servicing of the loan in totality and what type of mistakes could have existed during that period. Throughout the life of the loan, large amounts were held in suspense without any itemization of the types of transactions or continuous history to verify that the bank is not making a mistake.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. The 2007 1098 highlights a precise amount of late fees paid, which was inaccurate according to the payment history. The account history is comprised mostly of unknown codes without a clear way of describing the entries for the perceived consumer of this information, Mr. Freeman. In the Chase letter 2/13/12 - Chase admits to miscalculating the interest due during a potential Loan modification, which should have taken place in September of 2011. It took five months to correct this error, which is approximately $18,120.18. In January of 2012, large Principal and Interest adjustments ($121,500 and $20,830.08) were added and subtracted from the principal loan balance with no explanation or justification. In January 2012 $3,598.85 was subtracted across Escrow, Interest Paid, and Principal line items with a description of Misapplication Reversal. No explanation was provided to why this occurred. In February 2012 $1,969.49 was subtracted across Escrow, Interest Paid, and Principal line items with the description of Misapplication Reversal. No explanation was provided to why this occurred. This misapplication reversal was later reversed with an adjustment to off book suspense account. In November 2011 there are 18 examples of Misapplication Reversals whose values range from $833.33 to $3,598.85. There are no explanations to any of these entries and no reconciliation against the potential phantom suspense account. In November 2011 there are two entries that have a description of Principal and Interest Adjustment. The items range between $0 and $14,704.36. This item is in addition to the numerous Misapplication Reversal entries made during the same time frame and lacked any type of explanation. In July 2011 there are two Misapplication Reversal entries without any explanation. These items range between $0 to $2,974.04. In May 2011 there is a Misapplication Reversal without any explanation with a value of $2,974.06. In August 2010 Two Principal and Interest Adjustments were made without explanation. These items ranged between $0 to $14,704.36. M. Fees were added to the suspense account without a reasonable explanation of their purpose or their magnitude. a. Late fees began with a magnitude of $99.14 in 2005. By 2008 this fee was priced at $123.16 or a 24.22% increase. These fees continued to increase and were set at $157.15 by 2010 or a 58.51% increase since the origination date. Unknown fees were assessed and added to the suspense account. The first example of this practice was a $50 fee added on 4/23/07.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. Page 4 of 17 of the mortgage states that late payments will be taken out on the next payment. This does not always occur. As per Page 4 of 17 in the original Mortgage Loan Documentation, the application of payments shall be applied in the following order: Interest Due under the Note Principal Due under the Note Amounts Due under [Escrow Items] The actual application of the payments did not follow this methodology. The amount received from a payment is split into two portions despite the fact that it was received on the same day. The first allocation was insufficient to cover the interest and escrow due, forcing a draw from the principal balance. In essence a random amount of negative amortization was taken when additional principal payment was available. The remaining of the amount received is then allocated to the principal balance but associated with the next month’s payment. Unpaid interest is immediately treated as capitalized interest but called deferred interest The original mortgage note has a 125% limitation on the unpaid principal. With the original note of $595,000 - This limit is $743,750. Despite tens of thousands of dollars in payments every year since 2005, the total amount due is $738,597.91 The minimum payment only accelerated the negative amortization and the deceptive banking practices. It is unreasonable for the average consumer to understand the debt incurred by paying the amount the bank told them to pay. At no time do the statements explain how negative amortization works or how it will make servicing the existing loan impossible. At no time does the statements show how the payment structure will affect the payment period or required payment amounts over time. Numerous payments were processed days after the billing date, generating a suspect late fee. The limits to the required payments make paying off the loan unobtainable. As the APR increases and the payment stays constant, the amount negatively amortized grows and grows. The overall nature of the transaction histories examined, is difficult to follow and full of inconsistencies a. The Escrow payments are arranged sequentially by processed date but are listed as occurring during the previous month activity
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. As per Page 4 of 17 in the original Mortgage Loan Documentation, the application of payments shall be applied in the following order: Interest Due under the Note Principal Due under the Note Amounts Due under [Escrow Items] The actual application of the payments did not follow this methodology. As evident in the figure below the amount received from a payment is split into two portions despite the fact that it was received on the same day. The first allocation was insufficient to cover the interest and escrow due, forcing a draw from the principal balance. In essence a random amount of negative amortization was taken when additional principal payment was available The remaining of the amount received is then allocated to the principal balance but associated with the next month’s payment. As per the Adjustable Rate Rider to the original Mortgage Note, the adjustable rate is based on an index linked to a specific US Treasury Security. The index uses a rolling 12-month average of these published rates to identify the new effective rate. The changing rate is identified in the loan history with each adjustment.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. The principal balance is listed with each adjustment, which provides a reference point. As discussed in item 2. In this report, the balance does not reflect the full principal payment made by the Payee. This additional payment is not reflected until the next billing cycle. GAAP- General Inconsistencies - Throughout this history certain fees were not applied consistently from month to month. A suspense account was maintained for all additional requirements for the loan. Within this account are numerous unnecessary fees that were then reversed during the next period. These mistakes bring the accuracy of the entire history into question. Page 4 of 17 of the mortgage states that late payments will be taken out on the next payment. This does not always occur. Late Fees are not consistent from year to year. At times they shift during the year. When the loan originated the fee began at 99.14. By 2010 those fees grew $15715 a 58.5% increase. Multiple Late Fees are assessed on the same day Unknown or explained fees occur throughout the life of the loan. These occurred on the billing statement without explanation and not referenced on the billing history. They also occurred in the billing history without explanation and added to off ledger suspense account (see below). Suspense account (labeled won billing history) used to hold and allocate numerous types of transactions without any itemization on the ledger or any sort of rolling history or balance information in the billing history. In 2007 the monthly mortgage statements describe the amount of interest paid, but the information filed on the 1098R does not match those documents. The approach is very deceptive. The terminology is shifted to Deferred Interest or Interest Received.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. Late fees do not add up to the total on the 1098 which highlights the potential for other errors in the loan history ledgers (i.e. W suspense account.) Unpaid interest is immediately treated as capitalized interest but called deferred interest The original mortgage note has a 125% limitation on the unpaid principal. With the original note of $595,000 - This limit is $743,750. Despite tens of thousands of dollars in payments every year since 2005, the total amount due is $738,597.91 The minimum payment only accelerated the negative amortization and the deceptive banking practices. It is unreasonable for the average consumer to understand the debt incurred by paying the amount the bank told them to pay. At no time do the statements explain how negative amortization works or how it will make servicing the existing loan impossible. At no time does the statements show how the payment structure will affect the payment period or required payment amounts over time. Numerous payments were processed days after the billing date, generating a suspect late fee. The limits to the required payments: • Make paying off the loan unobtainable as the APR increases and the payment stays constant, the amount negatively amortized grows and grows. WAMU sold this owner a known predatory, subprime, Option Arm loan product with negative amortization. The minimum payment (which was lower than the interest payment and therefore caused the loan to grow without stop. The minimum payment is determined in a non-GAAP standards manner, using projected balances and interest rate to determine the minimum, which was intentionally kept low, it appears. UCC 3- This is a Non -Negotiable Instrument
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. The rate of an ARM loan also adjusts monthly and if the loan rate was higher than the required interest in the payment, the balance of the loan would increase (negative amortization). WAMU‘s predatory loan product had another consequence ― The Option Arm loan product had a negative amortization which pursuant to under UCC sec 3-104 renders the Note as nonnegotiable. (a)UCC § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT: Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), \"negotiable instrument\" means an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order.. The variable, unexplained changing principal balances in the transaction histories and statements fails this test. Thus, rendering the note as non-negotiable, also subject to UCC 9. Paul Rodriguez: The owner of a small consulting company (averyharpersolutions.com) that specializes in providing tailored financial services to our customers. They range from the straightforward transaction-based bookkeeping, accounts receivable, and accounts payable management to more complicated financial analysis, budgeting, process improvement, and strategy development. Education University of Maryland College Park Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) 2009 MBA Association class representative - student government US Coast Guard Academy Bachelor of Science (B.S.)
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. WILLIAM FREEMAN AFFIDAVIT OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR WILLIAM J. PAATALO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Defendant. I, William J. Paatalo, being first duly sworn, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an Oregon licensed private investigator under ORS 703.430, and have met the necessary requirements under ORS 703.415. My Oregon PSID number is 49411. I am over the age of eighteen years, am of sound mind, having never been convicted of a felony or a crime or moral turpitude. I am competent in all respects to make this declaration, and if called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. I have 17 years combined experience in law enforcement and the mortgage industry. My Resume (\"CV\") is attached as \"Exhibit 1.\" I have worked exclusively over the last 6 - years investigating foreclosure fraud, chain of title, and issues related to the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage loans and have spent nearly 10,000 hours conducting investigatory research specifically related to mortgage securitization and chain of title analysis. I have performed such analyses for residential real estate located in many states, including but not limited to, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Montana, New Jersey, and several other states. As of this date, I have conducted close to 900 investigations in this area. Because of my education and experience I am familiar with and have sufficient training and expertise to qualify as an expert, and I have testified as an expert in state and federal judicial proceedings in various jurisdictions throughout the United States. BILL FREEMAN Most recently, I was admitted testifying at trial as an expert witness on February 25, 2015 in the following California Federal Bankruptcy case: Rivera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company: U.S. BK Court, Northern CA — Oakland- Case No. 14- 54193-MEH-13. Some specific areas of my expertise that have been deemed qualified by the courts are as follows: Knowledge of the \"Pooling & Servicing Agreements\" and various Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) filings associated with mortgage-backed securitized trusts.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. Specific language in the PSA's and Prospectus / Prospectus Supplements involving securitization participants, key dates, \"Servicer Advances,\" sources of third-party payments, and transfer and conveyancing requirements to name a few. Knowledge and use, as well as the interpretation forms Data\" showing \"advance payments\" made to the certificate holders / investors, as well as other information specific to accounting, chain of title, and other aspects of securitization. Chain of Title analyses based upon publicly recorded documents, documents produced in discovery, and documents attached as exhibits to foreclosure complaints. Documents typically include mortgages, deeds of trust, assignments, notes, and allonges; in addition to documents filed under penalty of perjury with the SEC. In developing the opinions in this affidavit, I relied upon documents filed under penalty of perjury with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), publicly recorded documents in the Federal Court's PACER System, documents submitted by the parties in this action, documents from current and past investigations, and documents provided by Plaintiff. I was retained by the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’ counsel to review the chain of title and securitization of two Mortgages and Notes which are the subject of this action. I was asked to point out any discrepancies or issues of fact regarding the chain of title and to render an opinion as to whether the subject loans were securitized and sold by the originating entity \"Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.\" 12. The following documents were inspected and/ or marked as exhibits: • Defendant's Affidavit of Michael P. McCormick in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment & Exhibits executed March 2, 2016. Exhibit 2— JPMorgan Chase \"Press Release\" September 25, 2008. Exhibit 3— Deposition Transcript — Crystal Davis Exhibit 4— Crystal Davis Deposition Exhibit — Private Investor Codes BILL FREEMAN Exhibit 5— Servicer Screenshots for subject loans with investor code \"AOI Exhibit 6 —\"3270 Explorer: Loan Transfer History\" screenshot — Kelley Case Exhibit 7 —Deposition Transcript — Cynthia Riley — Orozco Case Exhibit 8 — Freeman Mortgages Exhibit 9 — Freeman Notes w/Endorsements Exhibit 10 — Email from Richard C. Naylor — JPMorgan Chase Exhibit 11 — Chase \"Investor\" disclosure letters
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. 13. Having reviewed the above documents, my professional opinions are as follows: Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (WMBFA) securitized the Freeman Mortgages and Notes through one of its non-bank subsidiaries who then sold the securities to private investors. These sales transactions prior to the FDIC's takeover of Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) are being concealed from the Court, along with the identity of the current private investor(s) for the subject loans. And, As such, the Defendant (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) (hereinafter \"JPMC\") acquired no more than the servicing rights to the Freeman loans from the FDIC and does not have an undivided ownership interest in either of the subject loans. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPINIONS WaMu's \"Off-Balance Sheet Activities\" On April 13, 2011, the U.S. Senate's \"Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations\" published an investigative report that includes a detailed analysis of WaMu's securitization activities leading up to the financial collapse in 2008. The report can found be found at the following government website address: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/medialsenat einvestigations- subcommittee-releases-levin-coburn-report-on-thefinancial-crisis The findings of fact in this report, combined with evidence in this case and affidavit, lead me to the opinions I've outlined above. Key excerpts from the report are as follows: Pg.116- E. Polluting the Financial System Washington Mutual, as the nation's largest thrift, was a leading issuer of home loans. When many of those loans began to go bad, they caused significant damage to the financial system. BILL FREEMAN According to a 2007 WaMu presentation, by 2006. Washington Mutual was the second largest non- agency issuer of mortgage backed securities in the United States: behind Countrywide. By securitizing billions of dollars in poor quality loans, WaMu and Long Beach could decrease their risk exposure while passing along risk to others in the financial system. They polluted the financial system with mortgage backed securities which later incurred high rates of delinquency and loss. At times, WaMu securitized loans that it had identified as likely to go delinquent, without disclosing its analysis to investors to whom it sold the securities, and securitized loans tainted by fraudulent information, without notifying purchasers of the fraud that was discovered and known to the bank. Pg. 1 17 - According to a 2007 WaMu presentation at a securities investor meeting in New York, in 2004, WaMu issued $37.2 billion in RMBS securitizations and was the sixth largest RMBS issuer in the United States. In 2005, it doubled its production, issuing $73.8 billion in securitizations, and became the third largest issuer. 2006, it issued $72.8 billion and was the second largest issuer, behind Countrywide. Pg. 1 19 -
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. \"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. As an underwriter, WaMu Capital Corp. sold mortgage-backed securities to a wide variety of institutional investors. WCC sold WaMu and Long Beach loans and RMBS securities to insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds, other banks, and investment banks. It also sold WaMu loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. WCC personnel marketed WaMu and Long Beach loans both in the United States and abroad. Before WCC could act as a sole underwriter, WaMu and Long Beach worked with a variety of investment banks to arrange, underwrite, and sell its RMBS securitizations, including Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS. To securitize its loans, WaMu typically assembled and sold a pool of loans to a qualifying special-purpose entity (QSPE) that it established for that purpose, typically a trust. The QSPE then issued RMBS securities secured by future cash flows from the loan pool. Next, the QSPE — working with WCC and usually an investment bank — sold the RMBS securities to investors and used the sale proceeds to repay WaMu for the cost of the loan pool. Washington Mutual Inc. generally retained the right to service the loans. 17. This analysis is also supported by Washington Mutual, Inc.'s 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 30, 2008 which states on (p.60), Off-Balance Sheet Activities BILL FREEMAN The Company transforms loans into securities through a process known as securitization. When the Company securitizes loans, the loans are usually sold to a qualifying special-purpose entity (\"QSPE\"), typically a trust. The QSPE, in turn, issues securities, commonly referred to as asset-backed securities, which are secured by future cash flows on the sold loans. The QSPE sells the securities to investors, which entitle the investors to receive specified cash flows during the term of the security. The QSPE uses the proceeds from the sale of these securities to pay the Company for the loans sold to the QSPE. These QSPEs are not consolidated within the financial statements since they satisfy the criteria established by Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities. In general, these criteria require the QSPE to be legally isolated from the transferor (the Company), be limited to permitted activities, and have defined limits on the types of assets it can hold and the permitted sales, exchanges or distributions of its assets. Having investigated the WaMu/FDIC/Chase fact pattern for more than six-years and having investigated hundreds of foreclosure cases where JPMC claims sole ownership of specific WMB loans by a \"Purchase & Assumption Agreement\" (PAA) with the FDIC, one fact is now well established — no schedule or inventory of assets listing any specific WMB mortgage loan acquired by JPMC exists or has ever been produced or disclosed. The reason for this fact is the clear majority of residential mortgage loans were securitized through
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. WaMu's \"Off-Balance Sheet Activities.\" JPMC did not acquire the Assets of WaMu's Non-Bank subsidiaries. The McCormick Affidavit states that JPMC is the owner of both loans by the PAA. (McCormick Off. I's 1 1, 13, 31, 32). For years now, JPMC has been getting away with a massive presumption that it acquired everything Washington Mutual by the PAA, yet the mortgage loans they claim to have acquired were not \"on the books\" of \"Washington Mutual Bank\" at the time the \"Office of Thrift Supervision\" (OTS) took control of WMB. Attached as Exhibit 2 is JPMorgan Chase's own press release from September 25, 2008 which states the following on p.l, 115, \"JPMorgan Chase will not be acquiring any assets or liabilities of the bank 's parent holding company (WM) or the holding company’s non-bank subsidiaries. \" 21. As outlined above, the two non-bank subsidiaries of Washington Mutual responsible for the securitization of mortgage-backed securities were \"Washington Mutual Asset Acceptance Corporation\" (WMAAC) and \"Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation\" (WMMSC). 22. Both WMAAC and WMMSC are still active and continue to file regular \"ABS 15G — Asset Backed Security Reports\" with the \"Securities & Exchange Commission\" (SEC.) Here are the SEC links to both entities most recent filings: WMAAC \"ABS 15G\" filed May 12, 2016: http://www.secinfo.com/dsbR9.wlDu.htm BILL FREEMAN WMMSC \"ABS 15G\" filed May 12, 2016: http://www.secinfo.com/dsbR9.w I dt.htm 23. Both WMMSC and WMAAC have regularly disclosed the following in these SEC filings: \"WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., as Securitize, is filing this Form ABS-15G in respect of all mortgage backed securities representing interests in pools of residential mortgage loans for which it acted as depositor and which are outstanding during the reporting period. On September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMCB \") acquired the banking operations of Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC, it is JPMCB's position that certain of the repurchase obligations of Washington Mutual Bank remain with the FDIC receivership. Assets are reported herein in accordance with Rule 15Ga-1 regardless of the validity of the demand or defenses thereto, and nothing in this report shall constitute, or be deemed, a waiver of any rights, defenses, powers or privileges of any party relating to these assets.\" There have been voluminous \"ABS 15G\" reports filed by these entities post receivership, and each one contains an attached \"Exhibit 99. I \" listing \"Demand in Dispute\" assets, or what is commonly referred to as \"put-back demands\" against these entities by investors. The disputed amounts are enormous and appear to total somewhere in the proximity of $145,000,000,000.00 ($ 145B).
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. I searched JPMorgan Chase's 10-K filings with the SEC to find out if there was any mention of these potential liabilities to its investors. I could not find any disclosures of these potential \"repurchase\" liabilities. Thus, it appears that the investors who own these loans want their money back but are being ignored or placed in an indefinite holding pattern. JPMC, as servicer for these investors, is continuing its quest to harvest these assets belonging to these undisclosed investors through foreclosures when by its own admission, JPMC did not acquire these nonbank subsidiaries' assets. Private investors own the subject loans, and their identity is being concealed. Attached as Exhibit 5, p.l is a servicing system screenshot titled, \"3270 Explorer\" which was provided to me by Plaintiff through discovery efforts. This screenshot is dated 03/02/2009 and refers to \"Loan Number 0694342957\" which is associated with the \"135 Randolph Ave\" mortgage. This document shows an investor code \"AOI \" directly beneath the top line. The same investor codes \"AOI \" is shown on the servicing screenshot for this loan on 12/31/2005 (Exhibit 27. Exhibit 5. P.3 is the servicer screenshot for the \"39 Side Rd\" mortgage (\"Loan Number 0690183454\") dated 12/31/2005 which also shows the same investor code \"AOI.\" From experience, I have seen and reviewed JPMC's servicing records for WMB originated loans within JPMC's \"3270 Explorer\" servicing platform. This system / platform contains a specific screenshot which shows the \"loan transfer history\" (Screen: \"Explorer 3270 — LNTH\") for these loans. From experience, I have seen complete LNTH screenshots for these WaMu loans provided by JPMC, but usually they are produced with great reluctance and through motions to compel. When produced, these LNTH screens tell an entirely different story about the loans; specifically, all the sales and transfers conducted prior to the FDIC's receivership. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a \"3270 Explorer: Loan Transfer History (LNTH)\" screenshot provided by JPMC in a very similar case which I have been involved captioned Kelley_ v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.: U.S. BK CT. ND CA, Adv. Case No. 10-05245. Like the Freeman loans, the Kelley loan was also originated by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Exhibit 6 shows the entire LNTH from origination through the FDIC receivership. The beginning \"Investor Code\" at the inception of the loan is \"030\" on 08/07/07. The loan is then sold and transferred to a \"New/love\" (new investor) on 09/01/07 with the \"Investor Code — AOI;\" The same code for both Freeman loans on 12/31/2005. It can be logically deduced from this evidence that the same originator code of \"030\" should also exist on the Freeman loans if WMBFA was the originator. 32. A deposition of JPMC employee \"Crystal Davis\" occurred in the Kelley case on August 13, 2014. A copy of the Davis Deposition Transcript was filed in the PACER System and a copy is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is a glossary of codes exhibit provided by JPMC in that deposition. 33. Crystal Davis explains the investor codes on p.42 as follows: (About Exhibit 4) Q. Now if you look to the right of that, it states that the claim — the investor IDs begin with an A through V; is that correct?
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. A. In the current MSP platform, yes, indicates private investor loans. Q. And what would X, Y,Z indicate? A. Those would indicate bank-owned assets. It is very likely that the complete LNTH screenshots for both subject loans, if ever produced, will show similar sales transactions from WMB to \"New/lnv — AOI.\" The identity of investor \"AOI \" has not been disclosed and is being concealed from the Court and the Plaintiff. I believe this is intentional. Chase Admits Then Denies BILL FREEMAN
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. In cases I have reviewed across the country, borrowers have made and continue to make, inquiries to their servicer \"Chase\" for the identity of the investor(s) of their WaMu loan(s) only to be told, \"Your loan was sold into a public security managed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized by the security to handle any related concerns on their behalf\" (Exhibit 11). Exhibit 11 is two letters provided by Chase to borrower clients of mine with this language. In both cases, after having made these admissions to the borrowers, JPMorgan Chase took the position in court that it was the sole owner of the loans by the PAA, and there were no investors associated with these loans because WaMu never sold or securitized the loans. Such is the case here. Attached as Exhibit 10 is an email to the Plaintiff dated 12/22/2011 from \"Richard C. Naylor — Operations Manager I — AVP — JPMorgan Chase.\" Mr. Naylor was responding to Mr. Freeman's inquiries regarding a HAMP modification. The email states, \"The lowest possible rate for the HAMP program is 2%, the longest possible term with this investor is 480 months.\" (Exhibit 10, 115). This evidence shows that JPMorgan Chase is either lying to the borrowers or the Courts. The Cynthia A. Riley Endorsements \"In-Blank.\" As further proof that WaMu sold and securitized the loans to a private investor(s), both Freeman Notes contain endorsements \"in blank\" by \"Cynthia A. Riley — Vice President — Washington Mutual Bank, N.A.\" (Exhibit 9.)39. The following is taken from the sworn deposition testimony of Cynthia Riley taken on 01/15/2013 in the matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Eduardo Orozco etal. Florida, I It Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-29997. (Exhibit 7.) I retrieved this deposition transcript from the government's PACER System from the Kelley case - James Madison Kelley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. N.A. U.S. B/C Ct. Northern District of CA -Div.5. Adv. Case No. 10-05245. 40. According to Riley's deposition testimony, she worked in Washington Mutual's \"Secondary Delivery Operations\" from 2004 — 2006. This unit was responsible for handling, inspecting, and endorsing notes immediately after origination for purposes of selling into the secondary market. The \"bulk\" of the loans endorsed with Riley's stamp were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the remainder being sold to private investors. From the deposition: Q. Yes. I'll rephrase the question. You were passing loans to the secondary market, and you've indicated that Freddie and Fannie included some of the — (Object Omitted)
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. A., We sold loans for Freddie and Fannie. The actual percentage I have -- I do not know. The bulk of our work was sold to Freddie and Fannie. Q. Okay. And that's where my question goes. As far as the bulk of your work going to Freddie and Fannie, were there also private investors besides Freddie and Fannie that were buying loans in the secondary market? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And those entities would be entities such as? A. Lehman comes to mind, Ocwen comes to mind, Bayview. (See Exhibit 7 — Cynthia Riley Deposition p. 41 line 12-25, p.42, line 1-5). Q. All right. With regards to your work here in Jacksonville between June of2004 and November of2006, what types of things would you supervise being done for loans to be sold to the secondary market? (Object Omitted) A. The unit -- I managed one of the units related to the notes that -- the notes comes in the door. It's reviewed for accuracy and moved to the custodian. It's endorsed and moved to the custodian. That was one of the units in secondary delivery operations. (See Exhibit 7 — Cynthia Riley Deposition p. 46, line 9-18). 41. Of note, Cynthia Riley testified that she has never personally put an endorsement stamp on a note. (See Exhibit 7 — Cynthia Riley Deposition p. 58 line 19-22). 42. For the reasons outlined above, I reaffirm my opinions as set forth in 114(a-b) above. I declare that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge, information and belief. Executed at , Montana this 13th day of July 2016. STATE OF MONTANA)) SS. July 13, 2016 COUNTY OF STILLWATER) On this 13th day of July 2016, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared William Paatalo, whose identity was satisfactorily proved to me, and who executed the foregoing instrument as his free act and deed and for the purposes therein contained and acknowledged that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand. FAYE A WROLSON NOTARY PUBLIC for State of Montana Residing at Nye. Montana Commission Expires Juty 14, 2016
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M.
Case Number: NC-2017-0371 Filed in Newport County Superior Court Submitted: 5/21/2018 2:32:48 AM Envelope: 1548331 Reviewer: Elizabeth M. SEEKING JUSTICE Contact William Freeman [email protected] 1-774-301-1301 BILL FREEMAN
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1 - 23
Pages:
