The Senate Subcommittee Investigation and Findings Washington Mutual Bank was the largest bank failure in history. AC ¶ 10. In April, 2010, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Investigations initiated an investigation into “some of the causes and consequences of the financial crisis,” focusing squarely on WaMu’s origination and securitization of mortgage loans “as a case study in the role of high risk loans in the U.S. financial crisis.” Shulman Dec. Ex. A (Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Hearing before the Permanent Subcomm. On Investigations, April 13, 2010, Hearing Ex. 1a); AC ¶ 65. The Senate Subcommittee found that “WaMu selected and securitized loans that it had identified as likely to go delinquent, without disclosing its analysis to investors who bought the securities,” and that WaMu “securitized loans tainted by fraudulent information, without notifying purchasers of the fraud that was discovered.”

IN RE: RAMOS | U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT IN NEW YORK – BANK OF AMERICA SANCTIONED $10000.00 A MONTH UNTIL IT CORRECTS THIS MATTER PAYABLE TO THE DEBTORS THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY + ATTORNEY FEES

In addition, particularly given that Bank of America knows how to do this properly, as evidenced by the two Western District of Virginia cases that I’ve cited, coercive sanctions are warranted, and they’re especially warranted given the fact that Bank of America apparently has ignored this matter notwithstanding being served twice and having been given an opportunity to correct the problem, which it has not done. Instead, it has continued to send the bills. So it will be sanctioned $10,000.00 a month until it corrects this matter payable to the debtors through their attorney. My reasoning behind that sanction is that this is not just a stupid mistake. This is a policy. And frankly, $10,000.00 a month…

see Max Gardner EXPLAINS _ Who-Owns-the-Note

Just received this by email. Easily the best mapping and explanation of the written documentation that I have ever seen. The issue is whether any of this makes any difference. Max may be right in following the paper trail. But my bet is on the actual money and then comparing it to the paper trail to see where it matches up and where it does not. Those are the points of conflict that need to be resolved in litigation. Max writes

“I created charts and graphs for the transfer of a negotiable note and for the sale of a non-negotiable note. Also, I decided to actually track a Wells Fargo RMBS deal in order to attempt to explain how both relate to the securitization process. The attached is the only real “charting” I have ever seen that seeks to explain the differences between…

Forbes has taken notice. There is a shift toward borrowers in mortgage litigation. The decision points back to the origination of the loan. This decision follows a similar decision in the 4th circuit. It all comes down to what actually happened at closing? And we don’t actually know if the decision to allow rescission indefinitely on second mortgages will extend to the first mortgage if it is all part of the same transaction. The result of rescission is that all payments of every kind must be returned to the borrower plus interest and attorney fees and potentially treble damages. All payments mean closing costs, fees, costs, expenses, principal interest, escrow and anything else. If the “lender” doesn’t do that the mortgage lien is expressly invalidated by operation of law, which is the same as being subject to a recorded satisfaction of mortgage. TILA is back!! — at least until the…