Will we ever know the truth?

FIRST RULE: DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT

SECOND RULE: DO NOT TRUST THE BANKS THAT OWN THE GOVERNMENT

THIRD RULE: THE BANKS KICK DOWN ANY DOORS THEY CARE TO

FOURTH RULE: REMEMBER THE FIRST AND SECOND AND THIRD RULES

It’s long past time that Americans wake up and start paying very close attention to what has happened, and what continues to happen every single day in this country.
“Our” government has become totally, completely and entirely captive of the banks and institutions that have gutted this country and which have sucked the life’s earnings and life blood out of every single man, woman, child and unborn child of this formerly free nation called the United States of Amerika.
Don’t buy into the bullshit anymore that the two co-conspirators were working together for the good of the American people, they have all been conspiring to make insanely rich all those at the very top of the pyramid–by gutting the wealth and stealing blind from every Amerikan.
And if you dare to challenge them. If you dare to speak out, they do come back swinging….they come at you with the low and pathetic punches of cowards and bullies.
Because I dare to stand up and say the banks should not kick down the doors of my neighbors, that makes me a very real target.
And to all of you, you formerly free Amerikans who are now brothers and sisters in arms, living in a most dangerous nation, you must wake up and see what is happening all around you.
It’s not nearly enough that they gutted this nation and robbed us blind and sent the world heading straight into the abyss in 2008….that was just the start.   They continued to lie, cheat and steal from all Amerikans, and now take full reign to batter down the doors of any Amerikan they choose here in 2012.
What do you think?   Will they just back off…become civilized…respectful of our rights as Amerikans?   Will they just stop kicking down doors, drilling out locks, inspecting or winterizing property? Or will they simply become even more emboldened, more militant, more out of control?
But enough about that because, after all, no one at all cares about how the Amerikan on the street suffers.   Your story is not told in the millions of court cases pending all across this nation.   For the story, the real story, to be told, that story must be represented by entire rosters of the highest priced attorneys in the world.   Not just a squad of them, not just a gang of them, but an entire team.   Just look at all their names on all the pleadings that are attached here….the Masters of The Legal Universe…Gangs of Lawyers, Squads of Lawyers, Teams of Lawyers.
I know the whole WAMU/FDIC/JPMorgan deal is a dirty mess filled with nothing but garbage and more pain for all Amerikans.   I know, when I keep digging deeper and deeper into this evil mess, it will eventually be revealed that American taxpayers are on the hook for all of this…for amounts far greater than what has been previously disclosed.   Somewhere, buried in places they don’t want people like me talking about, they’ve cut additional Sweetheart Deals that serve their interests….at least in the short run.
Kick me. Bully me. Slap me around.   Thank you sir, may I please, please, please have another….it only strengthens my resolve.
But enough about all that….read through some of the details that have got me all fired up here tonight:
Let’s start first with an internal email:

Let’s say there is a contract between the thrift and the Parent and that is included
in the Books and Records (not something like ” accrued for on the books of the
Failed Bank,” which probably would fix the problem) of the thrift at the time of
closing. Any liability under that contract is then arguably a liability reflected in
the Books and Records. Therefore one would most likely conclude that liabilities
under that contract are assumed under 2.1. . . . In a normal P&A between
commercial parties this is not something a buyer would ever assume and it really
doesn’t make sense (nor frankly is it fair) here.

Then let’s get more into a massive lawsuit that pits Deutsche Bank against WAMU, the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase.   In the lawsuit, teams of lawyers, gangs of lawyers, platoons of lawyers are all arguing over one thing….allegations of widespread fraud and misrepresentation…and exactly who should pay for all the wrongdoing……
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.” AC ¶ 69. The Senate Subcommittee
report, associated hearings and related documents (collectively, the ” Senate Record”) reflect a
pattern of non-compliance by WaMu with the Representations and Warranties.
On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Washington Mutual
Bank and named the FDIC as Receiver. Shortly thereafter, the FDIC, in its corporate and
receivership capacities, and JPMC entered into a PAA to transfer substantially all of the assets
and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC to JPMC.
The PAA described the assets purchased by JPMC as:
3.1 Assets Purchased by Assuming Bank. Subject to Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 4.8,
the Assuming Bank hereby purchases from the Receiver, and the Receiver hereby
sells, assigns, transfers, conveys, and delivers to the Assuming Bank, all right,
title, and interest of the Receiver in and to all of the assets (real, personal and
mixed, wherever located and however acquired) including all subsidiaries, joint
ventures, partnerships, and any and all other business combinations or
arrangements, whether active, inactive, dissolved or terminated, of the Failed
Bank whether or not reflected on the books of the Failed Bank as of Bank
Closing. Assets are purchased hereunder by the Assuming Bank subject to all
liabilities for indebtedness collateralized by Liens affecting such Assets to the
extent provided in Section 2.1. The subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships, and
any and all other business combinations or arrangements, whether active, inactive,
dissolved or terminated being purchased by the Assuming Bank includes, but is
not limited to, the entities listed on Schedule 3.1a. Notwithstanding Section 4.8,
the Assuming Bank specifically purchases all mortgage servicing rights and
obligations of the Failed Bank.
Under this transaction, the Purchase and Assumption (Whole Bank), the Potential
Acquirer whose Bid is accepted by the Corporation assumes the Assumed
Deposits of the Bank and all other liabilities but specifically excluding the
preferred stock, non-asset related defensive litigation, subordinated debt and
senior debt, and purchases all of the assets of the Bank, excluding those assets
identified as excluded assets in the Legal Documents and subject to the provisions
thereof.

The FDIC complains that the Trustee indiscriminately uses the term ” WaMu” to refer to
the FDIC and JPMC. However, when the FDIC is appointed receiver it ” steps into the shoes” of
the failed institution, which means that it assumes all of the rights and obligations of the defunct
bank. See O’Melveny & Meyers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 86-87 (1994). The FDIC succeeds to
only the same interests held by the failed institution, nothing more or less. See, e.g., Waterview
Mgmt., 105 F.3d at 701. WaMu had ongoing obligations and liabilities under the Governing
Documents, and ” by operation of law” the FDIC assumed all of those obligations and liabilities.
See 1821(d)(2)(A); see also AC ¶ 93. The FDIC had the option, within a reasonable time, to
repudiate the Governing Documents and pay damages. See 12 U.S.C. § § 1821(e)(1)-(3).34
In this case, however, it is indisputable that the FDIC chose not to repudiate the Governing
Documents. See, e.g., AC ¶ ¶ 14-17, 96. If the FDIC had repudiated the Governing Documents,
it could not have sold the related assets to JPMC as it now claims. If and to the extent that the
Court determines that the PAA did not transfer all of the obligations and liabilities under the  Governing Documents to JPMC without limitation, then the FDIC remains liable for those
breaches.

If the FDIC did not repudiate and retained WaMu’s obligations and liabilities under the
Governing Documents, it is not only liable for WaMu’s breaches, but it is also responsible for
any breaches of the Governing Documents that arose after it became receiver. FIRREA does not
authorize the FDIC to breach contracts. See, e.g., Waterview Mgmt., 105 F.3d at 701; Sharpe,
126 F.3d at 1155. The FDIC discovered and/or had notice of WaMu’s breaches and, during its
brief capacity as WaMu’s successor-in-interest, owed Notice Obligations to the Trustee for those
breaches. See AC ¶ ¶ ¶ 49, 75, 95. Further, even if JPMC now possesses the records, the FDIC
is still liable, as successor to WaMu, for failing to perform the Notice Obligations or honor the
Trustee’s Access Rights or to require and cause JPMC, as the FDIC’s successor, to do so. See
AC ¶ 98. Finally, the FDIC must fulfill WaMu’s Repurchase Obligations under the Governing
Documents, including any such obligations that arose on its watch.

wamuadhoc

DEUTSCHE BANK V. JPMORGAN CHASE, WAMU, FDIC
DEUTSCHE BANK V. JPMORGAN CHASE, WAMU, FDIC
And especially here….
KIM V JPMC-1