Fake Agreements Between Sham Conduits Try to Preempt Courts from Ruling on Evidence

me you scale

the parties are creating the illusion that they are essentially entering into an agreement to purchase paper from the seller where there is no original paperwork and no indication that the purchase ever actually took place.


Bill Paatalo, a private investigator who has concentrated his efforts on the fraud committed by banks for the past 15 years, has alerted me to a factor that ties in closely with my article yesterday on evidence. He gives a link for an example of an agreement that is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of judges, lawyers and their clients.

Note that the agreement says it is a “Correspondent” Purchase and Sale Agreement. No such thing exists. Either the Seller is a Correspondent in which case the loan “Closing” they originated was for the benefit of the superior bank or the originator was the source of funds, in which case the paperwork is at a minimum defective because it names the wrong party as lender. He writes:

Along these lines, you might find this interesting. I found the following SEC filing by WaMu, FA and one of its correspondent lenders. I can only guess there are hundreds more of these types of agreements.



This is a Correspondent Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of March 5, 2003 by, and between WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA(“Purchaser”), and Crescent Mortgage Services, Inc., a Georgia Corporation (“Seller”).

Section 8.11 Reproduction of Documents. This Agreement and all documents relating thereto, including, without limitation, (a) consents, waivers and modifications which may hereafter be executed, (b) documents received by any party at the closing, and (c) financial statements, certificates and other information previously or hereafter furnished, may be reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic or other similar process. The parties agree that any such reproduction shall be admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding, whether or not the original is in existence and whether or not such reproduction was made by a party in the regular course of business, and that any enlargement, facsimile or further reproduction of such reproduction shall likewise be admissible in evidence.

Apparently these parties don’t feel that a judge decides what is admissible evidence, they themselves do.

Bill Paatalo

This is indeed interesting. It is easy to over look as boilerplate language that nobody reads.

Might be good to discuss on the radio show. Like the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (see below) between the “originator” and the sham conduit for the Underwriter of bogus mortgage bonds, this is an agreement that anticipates violation of law. It might conceivably be binding on the parties to the agreement, but it essentially preempts the court from ruling on the admissibility of evidence.

The other interesting aspect is that it anticipates that the original will not be found anywhere. This also is like the P&A. Thus the parties are creating the illusion that they are essentially entering into an agreement to purchase paper from the seller where there is no original paperwork and no indication that the purchase ever actually took place.

In all probability the “seller” never had ownership of the DEBT. It only had “ownership” of the paper. The fact that the paperwork was at best worthless and most probably is some evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent, does not diminish the “ownership” interest claimed by the “purchaser.”

They skirt the law by saying that the paper is being sold even though the debt is obviously not being sold because the seller doesn’t own it. But ti creates the illusion and for many judges the presumption that this is facially valid paper even though it violates the best evidence rule. The entire document is thus designed to skirt the best evidence rule and substitute copies of documents that can be changed at any time, since they are copies. As copies, it would be impossible to tell from the face of the “document” how many times the parties or terms had been changed.

This is the sleight of hand pattern that runs through all the “loans” that are subject to false claims of securitization. The illegal and wrongful acts, starting with the “origination” and moving forward through void transfers, assignments and endorsements are buried under what appears to be valid documentation. But like every lawyer knows — if you want copies to be treated as originals, they must all be the same and executed at least by initials and distributed to all parties to the alleged agreement.

The Purchase and Assumption Agreement was first noticed back in 2006. It was the document that gave me the first notion of how the mortgage loan documents were not merely defective, but rather nonexistent in relation to the actual debt. This is an agreement dated before the first loan is originated by the “originator.” It spells out how the consumer should not and will not know the identity of their lender in direct contravention of the entire intent and provisions of the Federal Truth in lending Act. As outlined above, this too is an agreement between two sham conduits. It’s facially validity and the laziness of lawyers and judges who don’t read it leads to the false conclusion that the banks and servicers have dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. In truth it is just part of the mountain of false paperwork and false claims presented to courts, lawyers and their clients.