Moller Expert Report 28ss 29 28mtm 29 2c 1 6 2014

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics
Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller
2014 McDonnell Property Analytics, All Rights Reserved
Securitization Analysis & Foreclosure Forensics

Documenting the Chain of Title in Securitized Mortgage Transactions
Borrower
Lorraine Mary Moller

716 Spruce Street, Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado 80302
_________________________________________
Lender / Nominee
Washington Mutual Bank, FA

_________________________________________
Assignee
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust
January 6, 2014
Prepared By
MCDONNELL PROPERTY ANALYTICS

15 Cape Lane | Brewster, Massachusetts 02631
Tel: 774-323-0892 | Fax: 774-323-0894
Marie@mcdonnellanalytics.com

Preface
This report has been organized into well-defined sections so that the reader can efficiently access
specific information as follows:
Table of Contents: The Table of Contents provides an overview of the reports

organization and gives page numbers for each section or sub-section for the readers
convenience.
Executive Summary: This one-page Executive Summary provides the Examiners

essential facts and findings.
Abstract: The Abstract describes the key documents that I researched and examined as
the basis for forming my opinions.
Research: The Research section is an invaluable source of information that provides

hyperlinks to the SECs public access website as well as a rundown of the parties to the
securitization of the subject Mortgage Loan describing their respective roles therein.
Analysis: The Analysis section steps the reader through the securitization process;
describes any defects in the documentation that may undermine the securitization and
foreclosure processes; and describes the evidence that would be necessary to prove
ownership of the subject Mortgage Loan.
Conclusions: The conclusion section recaps the Examiners critical findings and draws
logical inferences from the facts as they became known through her research and
analysis.
Table of Exhibits: The Table of Exhibits lists the documents referenced throughout the
report.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................6
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................7
SUBJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................................................11
TRANSACTION DETAILS................................................................................................................................ 11
LOAN LEVEL DETAILS ................................................................................................................................... 11
SECURITIZATION DETAILS ........................................................................................................................... 12
LOOKUP REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 12
MERS RESEARCH............................................................................................................................................. 13
TITLE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ................................................................................................................... 14
ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................15
I.
SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 15

Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Research .............................................................................................. 15
The Securitization Paradigm ................................................................................................................................ 17
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust.................................................................. 19
Washington Mutuals Collapse ............................................................................................................................ 22
II.
MOLLERS DISPUTE...................................................................................................... 25
Mollers Stop Payment Imperative ...................................................................................................................... 25
Moller is Not in Default ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Identifying the Note Holder ................................................................................................................................. 28
III.
FORECLOSURE FORENSICS............................................................................................ 29
The Breeder Document .................................................................................................................................... 29
The Assignment Evidences A Truth In Lending Violation ................................................................................. 30
Separating Fact From Fiction .............................................................................................................................. 30
By Definition the Assignment of Mortgage is Invalid ......................................................................................... 32
By Definition the Assignment of Mortgage is Void Ab Initio ............................................................................. 34
Liability for Recording Fraudulent Documents ................................................................................................... 35
IV.
ROBO-SIGNER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 36
V.
REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ....................................................................... 36

Joint Federal Regulators Cease and Desist & Consent Orders ........................................................................... 36
National Mortgage Settlement ............................................................................................................................. 38
CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................39

TABLE OF EXHIBITS .....................................................................................................................................43

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
Deed of Trust, 01/17/2003 ............................................................................................................ 43

Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note, 01/17/2003 ..................................................................................... 43
Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note, 01/17/2003 ............................................................... 43
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider, 01/17/2003 .................................................................................... 43
Notice and Demand to Validate Claim, 11/22/2012 ..................................................................... 43
Quitclaim Deed, 12/19/2012......................................................................................................... 43
Notice of Default, 01/08/2013 ...................................................................................................... 43
Chase Response, 01/22/2013 ........................................................................................................ 43
Notice of Protest, 02/01/2013 ....................................................................................................... 43
Chase Response, 02/20/2013 ........................................................................................................ 43
Notice of Dishonour, 02/28/2013 ................................................................................................. 43
Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, 04/10/2013................................................................... 43
Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by Public Trustee, 06/17/2013 ..................................... 43
Plaintiffs Response to Court Order, 09/26/2013 ......................................................................... 43
Bloomberg Research Results ........................................................................................................ 43
Prospectus Supplement Excerpt ................................................................................................... 43
Securitization Flow Chart ............................................................................................................. 43
Bloomberg History of Mollers Mortgage Loan, 12/29/2013 ...................................................... 43

Executive Summary
On January 17, 2003, Lorraine Mary Moller (Moller) entered into a consumer mortgage
transaction with Washington Mutual Bank, FA (Washington Mutual) in which she borrowed
$500,000.00 in order to refinance her home located at 716 Spruce Street, Boulder, Boulder County,
Colorado 80302 (Property). Moller has owned and occupied the Property as her primary residence
since June 30, 1994 (twenty years).
Unbeknownst to Moller, on February 25, 2003, Washington Mutual Bank, FA and its
affiliate, Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., securitized Mollers Mortgage Loan into
the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust over which Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company serves as Trustee.
On September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision seized Washington
Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed it into the receivership of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries, certain assets,
and all mortgage servicing rights to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) on September 25, 2008.
On November 22, 2012, Moller became aware of reports that certain portfolio loans
allegedly acquired by the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual had not been transferred to
JPMC. Concerned that her payments were not being made to the proper party, Moller sent JPMC a
demand for full disclosure of the name, address, and phone number of the bank or investor that
owns this account. JPMCs response was, essentially, to brush off Mollers demands and institute
non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
After conducting a full forensic review of the documents and records described herein, I
concluded that the attempted foreclosure of the Property is wrongful for the following reasons:
1. From March 1, 2003 (the first payment due date) to November 1, 2012, Moller maintained
her mortgage obligation in good standing.
2. After sending notice to JPMC on November 22, 2012, Moller ceased making payments in
order to mitigate the risk of further loss to herself, and to the real party in interest, while she
attempts to ascertain the identity of the current Note Holder.
3. Notwithstanding Moller has withheld her payments pending the resolution of her dispute,
payments have been advanced on her behalf and her loan is current.
4. The copy of the Note that Deutsche Bank attached to its Rule 120 Motion is suspicious. It
appears to have been altered on page 6 of 6 by whiting out a scribble mark, and imposing an
indorsement in blank from Washington Mutual Bank, FA to give the appearance it is a
negotiable instrument governed under U.C.C. Article 3, which it is not.
5. The Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust prepared by JPMC as Attorney-in-Fact for the
FDIC is unauthorized, fictitious, and ten (10) years too late.
Abstract
SUBJECT
The subject of this analysis is a consumer mortgage transaction that took place on January 17,
2003 (Consummation Date), by and between Lorraine Mary Moller (Borrower or Moller)
and Washington Mutual Bank, FA (Washington Mutual or Lender).
On the Consummation Date, Moller executed a Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note in favor of WaMu
(Note) and granted a Deed of Trust (Deed of Trust) in order to obtain funds in the amount of
$500,000.00 secured by residential property located at 716 Spruce Street, Boulder, Boulder
County, Colorado 80302 (Property). The Deed of Trust was recorded with the Boulder County
Clerk & Recorders Office (Recorders Office) on January 22, 2003, as Document # 2386532.
(See Exhibit A. Deed of Trust, 01/17/2003)
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Note describe the terms of a hybrid alternative mortgage transaction
that calls for the principal amount of $500,000.00 to be financed at a yearly interest rate of
5.250% for the first five (5) years. Paragraph 3(B) of the Note states that the initial monthly
payments for principal and interest will be in the amount of $2,996.24.1
On February 1, 2008 and on that date every 12th month thereafter, the interest rate was scheduled
to adjust according to an Index and Margin formula described in Paragraph 4 of the Note. The
Index is the weekly average yield on United States Treasury securities adjusted to a constant
maturity of 1 year, as made available by the Federal Reserve Board. The most recent Index
figure available as of the date 45 days before each Change Date is called the Current Index.
Paragraph 4(C), Calculation of Changes, states that Two & Seventy-Five-Hundredths percentage
points (2.750%), commonly referred to as the Margin, will be added to the Current Index
before each change date, the sum of which will then be rounded to the nearest one-eighth of one
percentage point (0.125%). In the month following each interest rate change date, monthly
payments were to reset in an amount sufficient to fully amortize the loan to a zero balance by the
maturity date of February 1, 2033. The distinguishing Loan Level Details are described in the
Research section of this report. (See Exhibit B. Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note, 01/17/2003)
Washington Mutual also required Moller to execute an Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate
Note which calls for interest only payments for the first five years of the loan. Paragraph 3(B) of
the Addendum modified the initial monthly payment to $2,187.50 so that it was sufficient to
cover only the interest accruing each month. (See Exhibit C. Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable
Rate Note, 01/17/2003)
1
The initial monthly payment amount of $2,996.24 is excessive. To fully amortize a loan of $500,000.00 at an
interest rate of 5.250% over a 30 term would require monthly payments in the amount of $2,761.02. The overcharge of
$235.22 had it been collected would vitiate the contract because of the intrinsic conflict in terms, and the resulting
ambiguity.

The Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider reiterates the terms of paragraph 4 of the Note and is
incorporated into and deemed to amend and supplement the Deed of Trust. It also amends
paragraph 11(B) of the Note with respect to Uniform Covenant 18 of the Deed of Trust. (See
Exhibit D. Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider, 01/17/2003)
Within a month and a half of the Consummation Date, and unbeknownst to Moller at the time,
Washington Mutual sold Mollers Mortgage Loan to an affiliate, Washington Mutual Mortgage
Securities Corp., who packaged it for securitization purposes and transferred it to WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust on or about February 25, 2003.
On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) seized Washington Mutual
Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed the Failed Bank into the receivership of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). On that same day, the FDIC sold the
banking subsidiaries (including Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.), certain
portfolio loans, and mortgage servicing rights to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
(JPMC) pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement.
From March 1, 2003 (the first payment due date) to November 1, 2012, Moller maintained her
mortgage obligation in good standing.
On November 22, 2012, Moller became aware of reports that certain portfolio loans allegedly
acquired by the FDIC from Washington Mutual had not been transferred to JPMC. Concerned
that her payments were not being made to the proper party, Moller sent JPMC a demand for full
disclosure of the name, address, and phone number of the bank or investor that owns this
account. Moller made her request pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which proscribe the
timeframe within which a response must be provided. Moller tendered her correspondence to a
Colorado Notary Public who placed the letter in an envelope, sealed it, and then sent it via
Certified Mail with return receipt requested to JPMC. (See Exhibit E. Notice and Demand to
Validate Debt Claim, 11/22/2012)
On December 19, 2012, Moller conveyed her property to the LORRAINE MARY MOLLER
ORGANIZATION TRUST, c/o Moller, P.O. Box 4042, Shellharbour, New South Wales, 2529,
Australia. (See Exhibit F. Quitclaim Deed, 12/19/2012)
JPMC did not respond to Mollers demand, and on January 8, 2013 Moller, acting in her
capacity as Occupant of the Office of General Executor of the LORRAINE MARY MOLLER
Estate (also referred to herein as Moller), prepared a Notice of Default, and as before, had the
Notary send the Notice via Certified Mail with return receipt requested to JPMC. (See Exhibit G.
Notice of Default, 01/08/2013)
On January 22, 2013, Chase responded to a letter from Moller which they claimed to have
received on January 16, 2013. In its cover letter, Chase stated that: The investor for this loan is
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2003-AR3. (See Exhibit H.
Chase Response, 01/22/2013)
Having not yet received a response from JPMC, Moller prepared a Notice of Protest on February
1, 2013 which she tendered to the Notary who sent the Notice via Certified Mail with return
receipt requested to JPMC. (See Exhibit I. Notice of Protest, 02/01/2013)
On February 20, 2013, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) responded to a letter from Moller
they claimed to have received on February 11, 2013. Attached to this letter was a copy of the
Loan Transaction History; Note; and Security Instrument. (See Exhibit J. Chase Response,
02/20/2013)
In its cover letter, Chase stated that:
Chase is the servicer of this mortgage loan.
Any assignment of the Security Instrument, previous sellers, purchasers, assignors, and
assignees would be a matter of public record. Please review public record for this
information.
The investor for this loan is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, 3415 vision
Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43219, (800) 848-9136.
Some of the information requested under this section is either confidential or

unavailable, and cannot be provided.
On February 28, 2013, Moller caused a Notice of Dishonour to be sent to Chase claiming that
Chase had failed to respond to her Notice and Demand to Validate Debt Claim, Notice of
Default, and Notice of Protest. (See Exhibit K. Notice of Dishonour, 02/28/2013)
On April 10, 2013, LeShonda Anderson, acting in her alleged capacity as Vice President of JP
Morgan Chase Bank, National Association as Attorney-in-Fact for Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A Washington Mutual Bank, FA
(Assignor) executed a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust (Assignment) which was
recorded with the Recorders Office on April 16, 2013, as Document # 03304836.
This Assignment purports to transfer the Moller Deed of Trust (but not the Note) from the
Assignor to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass
Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 (Assignee). After recording the Assignment, the
Recorder was instructed to return the original to JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, C/O NTC 2100
Alt. 19 North, Palm Harbor, FL 34683.2 (See Exhibit L. Corporate Assignment of Deed of
Trust, 04/10/2013)
On June 17, 2013, Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, LLP claiming to be Attorneys for Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2003AR3, the Holder of the Evidence of Debt, filed a Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by
2
Nationwide Title Clearing (NTC) is a third-party business processing outsourcer specializing in loan
transfer and assignment services to the mortgage industry. (See
http://www.nwtc.com/services/Loan_Transfer_Assignment.html?SI=1_16)

Public Trustee (Notice) demanding that the Public Trustee sell the property. The Notice was
recorded with the Recorders Office on June 24, 2013, as Document # 03322022. (See Exhibit
M. Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by Public Trustee, 06/17/2013)
On September 26, 2013, Aronowitz & Mecklenburg, LLP filed a Response to the Courts Order
of September 16, 2013 in Support of its Verified Rule 120 Motion for Order Authorizing Sale to
which it appended Exhibits A through D consisting of: (See Exhibit N. Plaintiffs Response to
Court Oder, 09/26/2013) [sans exhibits]
A. -
a copy of the Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note indorsed in blank by Washington Mutual

Bank, FA and the Addendum to Fixed Adjustable Rate Note that was not indorsed;
B. -
a copy of the Deed of Trust and Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider;
C. -
a copy of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust; and
D. -
a partial Transaction History that omits the first 5 years of the accounting.
At this writing, a hearing on the Rule 120 Motion is scheduled to take place on January 15th,
2014.
~ Continued Below ~

10
Research
TRANSACTION DETAILS
Source Documents:
Settlement Date:
Borrower:
Lender:
Trustee:
Nominee:
Zip Code
Principal Amount:
First Payment Date:
Maturity Date:
Riders:
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note; Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate

Note; Deed of Trust; Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider
January 17, 2003
Lorraine Mary Moller
Public Trustee of Boulder County, Colorado
Not Applicable
80302
$500,000.00
March 1, 2003
February 1, 2033
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider
LOAN LEVEL DETAILS

Source Documents:
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note; Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate

Note; Deed of Trust; Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider
Loan Number:
03-2176-060199349-6
Initial Interest Rate: 5.250%
Initial Monthly Pmt: $2,187.50 (Interest-Only as Modified by Addendum to Note)
Type of Loan:
5/25 Fixed/Adjustable Rate Mortgage; Interest-Only for 5 Years
Index:
The Index is the weekly average yield on United States Treasury
securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 1 year, as made
available by the Federal Reserve Board. The most recent Index
figure available as of the date 45 days before each Change Date is
called the Current Index.
1st Rate Change:
February 1, 2008
Reset Intervals:
and on that day every 12th month thereafter.
Life Rate Cap:
10.250%
Life Rate Floor:
2.750%
Adjustable Cap:
2.0%
Adjustable Floor:
2.0%
Margin:
2.750%
Neg. Am. Limit:
N/A
11
SECURITIZATION DETAILS
Source Documents:
Lender:
Originator:
Sponsor:
Depositor:
Issuing Entity:
Trustee:
Delaware Trustee:
Master Servicer:
Custodian:
Underwriters:
Cut-Off Date:
Closing Date:
LOOKUP REFERENCES
Source Documents:
Trust I.D.:
Registrant:
Series:
EDGAR Website:3
SEC Info Website:4

Trust Agreement:
Rule 424(b)(5) Prospectus & Prospectus Supplement

Washington Mutual Bank, FA [FDIC #32633 Henderson, Nevada]
Washington Mutual Bank, FA [FDIC #32633 Henderson, Nevada]
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware
Washington Mutual Bank, fsb [FDIC #33891 Park City, Utah]
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., RBS Greenwich Capital, Lehman Brothers
February 1, 2003
February 25, 2003
Bloomberg RMBS Database; EDGAR Website; SEC Info Website

SEC File 333-77026 (Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities
Corp.); 02/24/2003
SEC File 333-77026-45
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browseedgar?CIK=1220366&Find=Search&owner=exclude&action=getco
mpany
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1220366
Original Trust Agreement: The Trust Agreement, dated as of
EDGAR, the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, performs automated collection,
validation, indexing, acceptance, and forwarding of submissions by companies and others who are required by law to
file forms with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The database is freely available to the public
via the Internet at: http://www.sec.gov/.
4
SEC InfoSM is a service of Fran Finnegan & Company that provides real-time access to documents that were
first filed at and disclosed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Federal law or the
Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) pursuant to Canadian law by a Filer or Filing Agent who is an SEC/CSA
Registrant.
The benefit of using SEC InfoSM rather than EDGAR to search the official filings is the enhancements such as
hyperlinks between Table of Contents and Sections that allow the user to quickly and efficiently search, view and print
relevant information contained within documents that often consist of hundreds of pages of complex contract and
disclosure language. To learn more about SEC InfoSM visit: http://www.secinfo.com/$/About.asp

12
Prospectus: 424B5
PSA:
Form 8-K:
MLPA:
Loan Schedule:
Governing Law:
ABS-15G
Asset-Backed
Securities Report
MERS RESEARCH
Source Documents:
MOM:5
MIN Number:6
Lender I.D.:
Servicer I.D.:
Investor I.D.:
Status:
February 1, 2003, between the Company and the Delaware Trustee,

providing for the creation of the Trust. This document was not
available for viewing. (See PSA)
http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.2Ny.htm
http://www.secinfo.com/d157X1.2d.d.htm (Amends and restates the
Original Trust Agreement dated February 1, 2003 and constitutes
the governing document of the Trust.)
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Documents.asp?CIK=1220366&Part
y=BFO&Type=8-K&Label=Current+Reports+--+Form+8-K
Not available on the SEC website.
Exhibit D to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Copies of the
Mortgage Loan Schedule (which has been intentionally omitted
from this filing) may be obtained from Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp. or Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company.
The State of Delaware: Statutory Trust Statute: Chapter 38 of Title
12 of the Delaware Code, 12 Del.C.ss.3801 et seq. (See Section
10.05 of PSA)
http://www.secinfo.com/dsbR9.xkt.d.htm (EXHIBIT 99.1
Disclosures Required By Rule 15Ga-1)
Mortgage; MERS Website at: https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

No
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
MOM is an acronym MERS uses to denote that the Security Instrument appointed MERS as Original
Mortgagee as a nominee or beneficiary for the Lender and Lenders successors and assigns.
6
In the MERS lexicon, MIN stands for Mortgage Identification Number which is a unique 18-digit number
assigned to each mortgage registered into the MERS System.

13
TITLE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

CLERK & RECORDERS OFFICE, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
EXECUTION
DATE
RECORDING
DATE
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
01/17/2003
12/19/2012
04/10/2013
06/17/2013
01/22/2003
12/19/2012
04/16/2013
06/24/2013
2386532
3276426
03304836
03322022
INSTRUMENT
Mortgage (with Rider)
Quitclaim Deed
Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust
Notice of Election and Demand For Sale
By Public Trustee
~ Continued Below ~

14
Analysis
My examination of the evidence available as of this writing revealed the following facts:
I. Securitization Analysis
Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Research
(1)
Using my access to Bloomberg Professionals database of Residential Mortgage Backed

Securities (Bloomberg), I found that Mollers Mortgage Loan7 is presently being tracked
as an asset of the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust
(Issuing Entity or REMIC or Trust or Trust Fund or Deal).8
(2)
I was able to verify this finding by examining the collateral loan performance tape provided
by the Servicer to Bloomberg each month and comparing that information to the loan level
details contained in the subject Note, Addendum, Deed of Trust and Adjustable Rate Rider.
A side-by-side comparison revealed that twenty-four (24) out of twenty-nine (29) data points
were a perfect match. (See Exhibit O. Bloomberg Research Results, 12/29/2013)
(3)
The only significant data-point that did not correspond was the Loan Number. This fact
does not negatively impact my findings, however, because loan numbers are often reserialized for securitization purposes, especially when the loans were originated by different
lenders. The four other non-matching data points represent idiosyncrasies in how the
Servicer reported the interest rate caps.
(4)
Accordingly, I found that the unique characteristics described in Mollers Mortgage Loan
documents were also present in the Bloomberg data, which enabled me to conclude that the
Mortgage Loan is a defined term in Section 1.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that refers to the
transaction between the Borrower and Lender. The definition of Mortgage File describes the documents maintained by
the Document Custodian that memorialize the transaction.
8
CAVEAT: The phrase I found that the Borrowers Mortgage Loan is presently being tracked as an asset
is a term of art that I purposely use to describe what we are seeing when viewing the information available through
Bloomberg. Essentially, Bloomberg provides current and historical data to investors regarding the collateral loan
performance, delinquency rates, trigger events, etc. that enable investors to monitor their holdings. This data derives
from the accounting supplied by the Servicer, Master Servicer, and Securities Administrator each month as required by
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that governs the Trust. Whether or not a particular Note and Mortgage were
legally conveyed into a securitized Trust in accordance with Applicable Laws is a separate and distinct factual
analysis which ultimately requires a legal opinion I do not, and cannot render here.

15
Mortgage Loan in question or an economic interest therein was allegedly securitized9

into the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust.
(5)
Once I had established through my Bloomberg research that the subject Mortgage Loan is
being tracked as an asset of the Trust, I investigated whether it was also included in the
original Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS)10 that identified the mortgage loans slated for
inclusion in this Deal.
(6)
I found that the Mortgage Loan Schedule was supposed to have been attached to the PSA as
Exhibit D; however, Exhibit D contains this message: Copies of the Mortgage Loan
Schedule (which has been intentionally omitted from this filing) may be obtained from
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. or Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.
Addresses are provided.
(7)
The WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust is a public offering,
and the Prospectus, Prospectus Supplement and Pooling and Servicing Agreement (referred
to in the industry as the Deal Documents) are available on the Securities and Exchange
Commissions public access website. To perform a search, simply go to EDGARs Company
Search page and type in the Central Index Key (CIK) 1220366, which you can do here at:
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html. I also included a direct link to
the EDGAR website in the Research section of this report.
(8)
My preferred method of researching these same filings is to use SEC InfoSM which provides
hyperlinks and enhanced viewing options. This particular Deal is found on the SEC InfoSM
website at: http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Registrant.asp?CIK=1220366.
(9)
The Prospectus Supplement (ProSupp) is the securities offering circular and it contains a
helpful summary that lists the entities involved in the securitization. The ProSupp may be
viewed in its entirety at: http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.2Ny.htm. For the readers
convenience, I also provide an excerpt of the most relevant information and attach that as an
exhibit hereto. (See Exhibit P. Prospectus Supplement Excerpt)
Securitization is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential
mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations and selling said consolidated debt as bonds,
pass-through securities, or collateralized mortgage obligation(CMOs), to various investors. The principal and interest on
the debt, underlying the security, is paid back to the various investors regularly. Securities backed by mortgage
receivables are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), while those backed by other types of receivables are assetbacked securities (ABS).
Critics have suggested that the complexity inherent in securitization can limit investors' ability to monitor risk,
and that competitive securitization markets with multiple securitizers may be particularly prone to sharp declines in
underwriting standards. Private, competitive mortgage securitization is believed to have played an important role in
the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.[1] (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization)
10
MORTGAGE LOAN SCHEDULE: The MLS contains the names and addresses of borrowers; property
addresses securing the loans; and loan level details regarding the terms of the loans being transferred. In most cases the
MLS will be attached to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement or the Free Writing Prospectus.

16
(10) The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) dated February 1, 2003 governs the Trust
according to its own terms pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware.11 The PSA
describes how the Mortgage Pool Assets are to be conveyed to the Trust in Section 2.04 and
Section 2.05. The PSA may also be viewed in its entirety at:
http://www.secinfo.com/d157X1.2d.d.htm.
The Securitization Paradigm

(11) The securitization paradigm involves one or more true sales that are designed to move
individual mortgage loans slated for securitization away from the originating Lender to a
Seller/Sponsor who aggregates them into a pool. The Seller/Sponsor then transfers the pool
of mortgage loans to a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) that has no other assets or liabilities
designated as the Depositor. The purpose of this second transfer is to segregate the mortgage
loans from the Seller/Sponsors assets and liabilities thus creating a bankruptcy remote
structure.12
(12) The Depositor in turn conveys the pooled mortgage loans, cash flows and other credit
enhancements to a Qualified Special Purpose Entity (QSPE) commonly referred to as the
Issuing Entity. The purpose of the Issuing Entity is to hold the assets in trust for the benefit
of investors (Certificateholders) who purchase securities backed by the mortgage loans,
i.e., Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS).13
(13) The Issuing Entity may sell the securities directly to investors or, as is more common, they
are issued to the Depositor as payment for the mortgage loans. The Depositor then resells the
securities, usually through an underwriting affiliate that then places them on the open market.
The Depositor uses the net proceeds of the securities sale to pay the Seller/Sponsor for the
loans. Because funding for these consecutive true sales comes from the Certificateholders,
all transactions between the participants occur simultaneously on a prearranged Closing Date.
(14) The Issuing Entity of choice utilized by the banking industry is a common law trust
organized under the laws of the State of New York or, alternatively, under the laws of the
State of Delaware. To avoid double-taxation, Congress introduced the real estate mortgage
investment conduit (REMIC) to the market as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. By
approving this pass-through tax policy, Congress intended the REMIC regime to be the
11
Statutory Trust Statute: Chapter 38 of Title 12 of the Delaware Code, 12 Del.C.ss.3801 et seq.
12
This intermediate entity is not essential to securitization, but since 2002, Statement of Financial Accountings
Standards 140 has required this additional step for off-balance-sheet treatment because of the remote possibility that if
the originator went bankrupt or into receivership, the securitization would be treated as a secured loan, rather than a sale,
and the originator would exercise its equitable right of redemption and reclaim the securitized assets. Deloitte & Touche,
Learning the Norwalk Two-Step, HEADS UP, Apr. 25, 2001, at 1. (http://www.securitization.net/pdf/dt_headsup.pdf)
13
Most of the securities are issued as debt securities bonds but there will also be a security representing the
rights to the residual value of the trust or the equity which may be retained by the Depositor.

17
exclusive vehicle for securitizations issuing multiple-maturity mortgage-backed debt

securities, with a tiered bond class structure that allowed for varying degrees of risk.
(15) To qualify for REMIC tax status, the Issuing Entity must remain a passive investment
vehicle; in other words, once the bundled mortgage loans are transferred to the Issuing Entity,
the trust agreement that governs the trust (PSA) and the tax code provisions governing the
REMIC (I.R.C. 860A-860G) require that the mortgage loans be transferred to the trust
within a certain time frame, usually within 90 days from the Closing Date (I.R.C.
860D(a)(4)).14 After the trust closes, any subsequent transfers are invalid.
(16) The reason for this is purely economic for the trust. If the mortgages are properly transferred
within the 90 day open period and the trust properly closes, the trust is allowed to maintain
its REMIC tax status. REMIC tax status is essential for trusts because it provides for an
entity-level tax exemption, allowing the income derived from the payment of mortgage
interest to be taxed only at the investor level, whereas most corporations are taxed at both the
corporate level and again when income is passed to shareholders. To obtain this favored tax
status, REMICS must be passive in nature, meaning that mortgages cannot be transferred
into and out of the trust once the Closing Date has passed, unless the trust can meet very
limited exceptions under the Internal Revenue Code.
(17) Because the trust that holds the mortgage loans is a mere shell, the PSA provides for a
trustee to manage the trust, and a servicer to manage individual mortgage loans.
(18) The adaptation and proliferation of securitization as a means by which Wall Street
investment banks funded residential mortgage loans at the dawn of the millennium created a
paradigm shift that went largely unnoticed until the mortgage meltdown of 2007; the
bailout of our nations largest banking institutions in 2008; and the ensuing foreclosure crisis.
(19) As a practical matter, the securitization structure separates borrowers from their lenders
making it virtually impossible for consumers to resolve problems with third-party mortgage
servicing companies who stand to profit more from handling loans in default than if they
were current and in good standing. Borrowers no longer know who owns their mortgage, and
when faced with foreclosure, often learn for the first time that their mortgage loan has been
securitizedan arcane financial term that is difficult for the lay person to grasp.
(20) The world of structured finance, securitization, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations,
covered bonds, credit default swaps, monoline insurance, and the innovative financial
instruments that are tethered to real property boggles the mind of all but the elite banking
community who engineered this complex scheme.
14
Internal Revenue Code 860G. The 90 day requirement is imposed by the I.R.C. to ensure that the trust
remains a static entity. However, since the trust agreement requires that the trustee and servicer not do anything to
jeopardize the tax-exempt status, trust agreements generally state that any transfer after the closing date of the trust is
invalid.

18
(21) In the end, the challenge of unraveling securitizations Gordian Knot has fallen upon local,
state and federal judges who are also struggling to get through the learning curve in order to
parse out who if anyone has the legal right to enforce the note and foreclose the mortgage.

(22) To assist the reader in visualizing the transaction structure for this particular Deal, I prepared
a diagram based on information derived from Mollers loan documents and the 424B5
Prospectus filed with the SEC. This illustration maps out the deal flow and identifies the
participants who were involved as well as the roles they played. (See Exhibit Q.
Securitization Flow Chart)
(23) In the instant case, Washington Mutual Bank, FA15 was both the Lender and the Originator
in the securitization chain of title.
(24) As the Securitization Flow Chart illustrates, in order for Mollers Mortgage Loan to be
securitized, the Lender/Originator, Washington Mutual Bank, FA, had to sell the Mortgage
Loan to a subsidiary, Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., who served as the
Depositor.
(25) The second step in the securitization process involved the sale, transfer and assignment of
the Mortgage Pool Assets from the Depositor (Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities
Corp.) to the Issuing Entity (WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3
Trust) which allegedly took place on February 25, 2003, the Closing Date for this Deal.
(26) Section 2.04 of the PSA contains active granting language by which the Depositor purports
to sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey, without recourse, all its respective
right, title and interest in and to the related Mortgage Pool Assets to the Issuing Entity.
15
The FDIC lists three distinct institutions by the name of Washington Mutual Bank:
Cert.
Institution Name
City
State
Class
Inactive
Date
9576
Washington Mutual Bank
Seattle
WA
Savings Association
01/01/2005
32633
Washington Mutual Bank
Henderson
NV
Savings Association
09/25/2008
33891
Washington Mutual Bank FSB
Park City
UT
Savings Association
09/25/2008
According to the FDIC, Washington Mutual Bank of Seattle, WA (FDIC #9576) was merged without assistance
into Washington Mutual Bank of Henderson, NV (FDIC #32633) on January 1, 2005.
On September 25, 2008, the banking operations of Washington Mutual, Inc. Washington Mutual Bank,
Henderson, NV and Washington Mutual Bank, FSB, Park City, UT (Washington Mutual Bank) were sold in a
transaction facilitated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC). (See http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html)

19
(27) Section 2.05 of the PSA requires the Depositor to deliver the Mortgage Files to the Trustee
or Custodian on the Closing Date of February 25, 2003. The Prospectus Supplement explains
succinctly: (See Exhibit P. Prospectus Supplement Excerpt, P. S-19)
The mortgage notes will not be endorsed, and the mortgages will not
be assigned, to the Trust. Washington Mutual Bank, fsb, an affiliate
of Washington Mutual Bank, FA, the servicer of the mortgage loans,
will retain possession of and will review the mortgage notes and
mortgages as custodian for the Trust and financing statements will be
filed evidencing the Trust's interest in the mortgage loans. (emphasis
supplied)
(28) Accordingly, Washington Mutual Bank, FSB, of Park City, Utah (FDIC #33891), and not the
Lender Washington Mutual Bank, FA of Henderson, Nevada (FDIC #32633), is the
Custodian for the Trust estate. This fact is important to know when considering who had
custody and control of the Mortgage Note and Deed of Trust at all relevant times in question.
(29) With respect to the original Mortgage Note, the PSA required the Depositor to transfer:
PSA Section 1.01 Definitions: Mortgage File
(i) The original Mortgage Note endorsed (A) in blank, without
recourse, or (B) to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee, without recourse or to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust, without recourse and all
intervening endorsements evidencing a complete chain of
endorsements from the originator to the Trustee or the Trust, as
applicable provided, however, that in the event the
Company [Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.] acquired
the Mortgage Loan from an affiliate of the Company [e.g.
Washington Mutual Bank, FA], then the Mortgage Note need not be
endorsed in blank or to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or
the Trust as provided above (but, if not so endorsed, shall be made
payable to, or endorsed by the mortgagee named therein to, such
affiliate of the Company); (emphasis supplied)
(30) With respect to the Mortgage, the Depositor was required to deliver:
PSA Section 1.01 Definitions: Mortgage File
(iii)(1)(x) the original recorded Mortgage with evidence of recording
thereon for the jurisdiction in which the Mortgaged Property is located
an original Mortgage assignment thereof duly executed and
acknowledged in recordable form (A) in blank or (B) to Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, or to WaMu Mortgage
20
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust, and (z) unless the

Mortgage Loan is a MOM Loan, recorded originals of all intervening
assignments evidencing a complete chain of assignment, from the
originator to the name holder or the payee endorsing the related
Mortgage Note ; or
iii(2)(x)provided, however, that in the event the
Company [Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.] acquired
the Mortgage Loan from an affiliate of the Company [e.g. Washington
Mutual Bank, FA], then the Mortgage File need not include a
Mortgage assignment executed in blank or to Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company or the Trust as provided in clause
(X)(iii)(1)(y) or (X)(iii)(2)(y) above, as applicable (but the Mortgage
File shall, unless the Mortgage Loan was originated by such affiliate
of the Company, include an intervening Mortgage assignment to such
affiliate as provided in clause (X)(iii)(1)(z) or (X)(iii)(2)(z) above, as
applicable);
(31) Thus, to securitize Mollers Mortgage Loan, two true sales were to occur as follows:
1. from the Lender/Originator (Washington Mutual Bank, FA) to the Depositor
(Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.); and
2. from the Depositor (Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.) to the Trustee
(Deutsche Bank National Trust Company) for the Issuing Entity (WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust).
(32) The question of whether Washington Mutuals securitization practices i.e., the failure to
endorse the Mortgage Note and record an Assignment of Deed of Trust comply with the
State of Colorados Uniform Commercial Code and real estate conveyancing laws requires a
legal opinion that is beyond the scope of this examination.
(33) Washington Mutual foresaw that a court (or the Internal Revenue Service) might ultimately
conclude that its securitization model failed to qualify as a true sale whereupon the
transaction might be viewed as a debt financing arrangement. Section 2.04 of the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement provides that in such case, the Mortgage Pool Assets would remain
property of the Depositor, Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., and that the Trust
would have a security interest in those assets.16
16
With respect to the nature of the transaction, i.e., true sale vs. debt financing arrangement, the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated February 1, 2003, which governs the Trust, states as follows:
Section 2.04.
//////////
Conveyance of Mortgage Pool Assets; Security Interest.

21
Washington Mutuals Collapse

(34) On Thursday, September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
seized Washington Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed it into
the receivership of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC sold the
banking subsidiaries (including Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.) to JPMorgan
Chase Bank, National Association (JPMC) for $1.9 billion pursuant to a Purchase and
Assumption Agreement dated September 25, 2008.17 The next day, September 26,
Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 voluntary bankruptcy in Delaware, where it
was incorporated.
(35) On Monday, March 19, 2012, Washington Mutual emerged from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy
ending nearly 3-1/2 years of court battles that saw the company propose seven (7)
reorganization plans. (The case is In re: Washington Mutual Inc., U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
District of Delaware, No. 08-12229.)
It is the express intent of the parties hereto that the Conveyance of the Conveyed Assets to the Trust by the
Company [Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.] as provided in this Section 2.04 be, and be construed as, an
absolute sale of the Conveyed Assets. It is, further, not the intention of the parties that such Conveyance be deemed the
grant of a security interest in the Conveyed Assets by the Company to the Trust to secure a debt or other obligation of
the Company. However, in the event that, notwithstanding the intent of the parties, the Conveyed Assets are held to be
the property of the Company, or if for any other reason this Agreement is held or deemed to create a security interest
in the Conveyed Assets, then (emphasis supplied)
(a)
this Agreement shall constitute a security agreement;
(b)
the conveyance provided for in this Section 2.04 shall be deemed to be a grant by the Company to the Trust
of, and the Company hereby grants to the Trust, to secure all of the Company's obligations hereunder, a
security interest in all of the Company's right, title, and interest, whether now owned or hereafter acquired,
in and to:
(I)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
(i) the Mortgage Loans identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule

All rights arising from or by virtue of the disposition of, or collections with respect to, or insurance
proceeds payable with respect to, or claims against other persons with respect to, all or any part of
the collateral described in (I) above
All accounts, chattel paper, deposit accounts, documents, general intangibles, goods, instruments,
investment property, letter-of-credit rights, letters of credit, money, and oil, gas, and other minerals,
consisting of, arising from, or relating to, any of the foregoing; and
All proceeds of the foregoing...
The Company shall file such financing statements, and the Company and the Trustee acting on behalf of the
Trust at the direction of the Company shall, to the extent consistent with this Agreement, take such other actions as may
be necessary to ensure that, if this Agreement were deemed to create a security interest in the Conveyed Assets, such
security interest would be deemed to be a perfected security interest of first priority under applicable law and will be
maintained as such throughout the term of the Agreement. In connection herewith, the Trust shall have all of the rights
and remedies of a secured party and creditor under the Uniform Commercial Code as in force in the relevant jurisdiction.
17
See: Purchase and Assumption Agreement, Whole Bank, among: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, Nevada; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, National Association dated as of September 25, 2008.
http://www.fdic.gov/about/freedom/Washington_Mutual_P_and_A.pdf

22
(36) According to Reuters: The Seattle-based company, the largest U.S. bank or thrift to fail,
said it plans to begin repaying about $7 billion to creditors. Many of these are hedge fund
investors specializing in buying securities of bankrupt companiesThe reorganized
company is known as WMI Holdings Corp.18
(37) Washington Mutuals collapse, and the sale of Washington Mutual Bank to JPMorgan Chase
Bank by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the Transaction), raise several
important issues that directly impact Mollers Mortgage Loan:
A.
The evidence herein presented indicates that the Mortgage Note and Deed of Trust
(Mortgage Loan) or an economic interest therein were allegedly securitized
into the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust on
February 25, 2003, more than five and a half (5 ) years prior to the OTS seizure
of Washington Mutual Bank on September 25, 2008.
B.
Accordingly, Mollers Mortgage Loan would not have been among the assets placed
into receivership by the FDIC and, therefore, it was not sold to JPMC pursuant to the
Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) between the parties dated September
25, 2008.
C.
Only the right to service the Mortgage Loan would have been acquired by JPMC
incident to the Transaction. The PAA, Section 3.1: Assets Purchased by Assuming
Bank states: the Assuming Bank specifically purchases all mortgage servicing rights
and obligations of the Failed Bank.
D.
Further, if Washington Mutuals securitization model is found to constitute a debt

financing arrangement rather than a true sale, then the ownership of the Mortgage
Note and Deed of Trust may revert to the Depositor, Washington Mutual Mortgage
Securities Corp. [assuming, of course, that WMMSC can prove that it acquired the
Mortgage Loan from Washington Mutual Bank, FA in the first place.]
E.
On August 26, 2009, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee (Deutsche
Bank) for over 159 securitization trusts created, sponsored, and/or serviced by
Washington Mutual Bank sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in its
capacity as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank seeking to enforce its rights under
the Governing Documents to require the FDIC to repurchase the underlying mortgage
loans for breaches of the representations and warranties made to investors.19
18
Reuters, Monday, March 19, 2012: WaMu exits bankruptcy, on heels of Lehman;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/us-washingtonmutual-idUSBRE82I15S20120319
19
See Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as
Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action N0. 1:09-cv01656-RMC, 08/26/2009.

23
F.
Attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1 is a Proof of Claim Deutsche Bank had

submitted to the FDIC which includes the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust allegedly containing Mollers Mortgage Loan.
G.
On September 8, 2010, Deutsche Bank amended its complaint to include JPMorgan

Chase Bank, National Association and Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities
Corporation 20 (collectively, with its affiliates, including but not limited to
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation, JPMC) due to the FDICs
assertion that JPMC acquired both the assets and the liabilities of Washington Mutual
Bank with respect to Deutsche Banks claims.
H.
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (WMMSC) disclosed in recent

filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 15G of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act),21 that it
is subject to numerous repurchase requests incident to its interests in pools of
residential mortgage loans for which it acted as Depositor and which are outstanding
during the reporting period.
I.
On May 15, 2012, WMMSC filed Form ABS-15G/A with the SEC and reported that
of the 2406 loans totaling $1,478,868,257 originated by Washington Mutual Bank
that were securitized into the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2003-AR3 Trust, all 2406 of them were subject to repurchase requests which,
allegedly, includes Mollers Mortgage Loan. (See Exhibit 99.1 - Disclosures
Required By Rule 15Ga-1 at: http://www.secinfo.com/dsbR9.pKq.d.htm) 22
J.
As of WMMSCs latest ABS-15G Filing submitted to the SEC on November 13,

2013, the repurchase demand remains in effect and implicates $1,426,448,545 of the
original issuance, purportedly including Mollers Mortgage Loan. (See Exhibit 99.1 Disclosures Required By Rule 15Ga-1 at: http://www.secinfo.com/dsbR9.xkt.d.htm)
K.
On December 17, 2013, JPMorgan Chase & Co. sued the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation claiming the agency owes it more than $1 billion in compensation for
20
21
Id., Document #32.

Rule 15Ga-1(c)(2)(i) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.15Ga-1(c)(2)(i)).
22
Form ABS-15G/A, Exhibit 99.1 filed by Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. on May 15, 2012
provides the following caveat in Footnote (2):
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., as Securitizer, is filing this Form ABS-15G/A 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 JPMCBs 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.

24
not assuming legal claims arising from its acquisition of Washington Mutuals assets
after its 2008 implosion.23
(38) The competing interests among Deutsche Bank as Trustee for the Trust, Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation combined with the questionable securitization model employed by Washington
Mutual Bank, FA, call into question:
(i) who owns Mollers Mortgage Loan;
(ii) who is the person entitled to enforce the instruments; and
(iii) who will be liable for Mollers cross-claims, counter claims, and
affirmative defenses.
(39) In summation, the facts in this case are so compelling and legally complex that it is
inconceivable any foreclosure of Mollers Property could be conducted through the nonjudicial exercise of the Statutory Power of Sale contained in the Deed of Trust.
II. Mollers Dispute

Mollers Stop Payment Imperative
(40) As recounted in the Abstract section of this report, from March 1, 2003 (the first payment
due date) to November 1, 2012, Moller maintained her mortgage obligation in good standing.
(41) On November 22, 2012, Moller became aware of reports that certain portfolio loans
allegedly acquired by the FDIC from Washington Mutual had not been transferred to JPMC.
Concerned that her payments were not being made to the proper party, Moller sent JPMC a
demand for full disclosure of the name, address, and phone number of the bank or investor
that owns this account.
(42) Moller made her request pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which proscribe the timeframe
within which a response must be provided. Moller initiated the administrative process by
tendering her correspondence to a Colorado Notary Public who placed the letter in an
envelope, sealed it, and then sent it via Certified Mail with return receipt requested to JPMC.
(See Exhibit M. Notice and Demand to Validate Debt Claim, 11/22/2012)
(43) JPMC eventually responded to Mollers dispute letters by supplying certain scanned copies
of the alleged evidence of the debt electronically archived in the loan servicing platform
JPMC inherited from Washington Mutual. The fact that JPMC had access only to the
servicing file indicates that JPMC was not in possession of the original Mortgage File.
23
See JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, No. 13-cv-01997, 12/17/2013.

25
(44) I reviewed JPMCs correspondence and exhibits and observed a number of irregularities that
call into question whether JPMC can prove the terms of the instrument and its right to
enforce the instrument pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. 4-3-309 which addresses the
enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. For example:
Attached to its correspondence of January 22, 2013, Chase supplied a copy of the
Note that contained a scribble mark on page 6 of 6 below Mollers signature. There
was no indorsement, and no allonge was permanently affixed to the Note. (See
Exhibit R. - Fixed Adjustable Rate Note, 01/22/2013)
On February 20, 2013, Chase provided an identical copy of the Note that bore no
indorsement. (See Exhibit S. - Fixed Adjustable Rate Note, 02/20/2013)
However, the version of the Note attached to Aronowitz & Meckelenburgs Rule 120
Motion is distinctly different in that the bar code and Loan Number on page 1 have
been redacted; the scribble mark on page 6 has been whited out; and an indorsement
in blank from Washington Mutual Bank, FA now appears beneath Mollers
signature.24 (See Exhibit T. - Fixed Adjustable Rate Note, 09/26/2013)
(45) As stated in Paragraph 27 above, Section 2.05 of the PSA discloses: The mortgage notes will
not be endorsed, and the mortgages will not be assigned, to the Trust. Thus, the
indorsement found on the Rule 120 Note is suspicious, and it is reasonable to infer that the
Note (or a copy of it) was altered after the fact with an endorsement in blank in order to
facilitate the foreclosure of Mollers Property.
(46) Colo. Rev. Stat. 4-3-407 defines Alteration as follows:
(a)
"Alteration" means (i) an unauthorized change in an instrument

that purports to modify in any respect the obligation of a party, or
(ii) an unauthorized addition of words or numbers or other change
to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligation of a party.
(b)
Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, an alteration

fraudulently made discharges a party whose obligation is
affected by the alteration unless that party assents or is
precluded from asserting the alteration. No other alteration
discharges a party, and the instrument may be enforced according
to its original terms.
24
This version of the Note bears an indorsement in blank executed by Jess Almanza, AVP of Washington
Mutual Bank, FA. According to his Linked-In Profile, Jess Almanza was employed by Washington Mutual from August
1999 through July 2006. (See http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jess-almanza/6/545/664).

26
(c)
A payor bank or drawee paying a fraudulently altered instrument

or a person taking it for value, in good faith and without notice
of the alteration, may enforce rights with respect to the instrument
(i) according to its original terms, or (ii) in the case of an
incomplete instrument altered by unauthorized completion,
according to its terms as completed.
(47) Moller challenged the indorsement on the Note and the standing of Deutsche Bank, who
appears to have acquired the Mortgage Loan by way of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of
Trust dated April 10, 2013, five (5) months after Moller had provided notice to JPMC.
Moller captioned her correspondence of November 22, 2012 with the following header:
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO VALIDATE DEBT CLAIM
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
(48) By sending this demand, Moller put JPMC and Deutsche Bank on notice of her claim and
shifted the burden of proof to them.25
(49) As she would do with a personal check made out to a specific payee that had been lost or
stolen, Moller knew it was imperative that she take affirmative action to stop payment on
the Note in order to mitigate the risk of further loss to herself, and to the real party in
interest, while she attempted to ascertain the identity of the counter party to her mortgage
contract.
(50) JPMCs response was, essentially, to brush off Mollers demands and institute non-judicial
foreclosure proceedings.26
25
Goodwin v. Dist. Court In & For the Sixteenth Judicial Dist., 779 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1989). In Goodwin, the
Colorado Supreme Court noted that, once a debtor raises the real party in interest defense in a Rule 120 proceeding, "the
burden should devolve upon the party seeking the order of sale to show that he or she is indeed the real party in
interest." 779 P.2d at 843. Although Goodwin describes the relative burdens of proof in a Rule 120 hearing, the burden
of proof may possibly be reversed in a collateral attack since the person seeking relief from the Rule 120 order bears the
burden of showing entitlement to such relief. See Colo. R. Civ. P. 120 (noting that an aggrieved person may seek
injunctive relief); Plymouth Capital Co., Inc. v. Dist. Court of Elbert Cnty., 955 P.2d 1014, 1017 (Colo. 1998) (noting
that the aggrieved parties "may then present evidence showing a likelihood of success on the merits of their defenses in
support of injunctive relief" from the order authorizing the sale) (emphasis added).
26
Id., 779 P.2d 837, 842 (Colo. 1989); see Premier Farm Credit, PCA v. W-Cattle, LLC, 155 P.3d 504, 512
(Colo. App. 2006) (noting that a district court must consider "all relevant evidence" in a Rule 120 hearing). For a
moving party to show that it is entitled to initiate a public trustee foreclosure sale, it must provide evidence of default
and establish that it is the real party that is entitled to enforce the power of sale contained in the deed of trust.
Goodwin, 779 P.2d at 843. By contrast, a debtor objecting to the issuance of an order authorizing sale may present
relevant evidence challenging whether the "moving parties are the real parties in interest and also [whether] the asserted
defenses of waiver and estoppel" are applicable. Goodwin, 779 P.2d at 844. (emphasis supplied)

27
Moller is Not in Default

(51) Colo. Rev. Stat. 4-3-306 provides that:
(a)
Subject to subsection (b) of this section, an instrument is paid to

the extent payment is made (i) by or on behalf of a party obliged
to pay the instrument, and (ii) to a person entitled to enforce the
instrument. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of the
party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though
payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument
under section 4-3-306 by another person.
(52) Through my access to Bloomberg I was able to download the payment history associated
with Mollers Mortgage Loan as that is being reported to investors. I found that
notwithstanding Moller has withheld her payments pending the resolution of her dispute,
payments have been advanced on her behalf and her loan is current. (See Exhibit U. Bloomberg History of Mollers Mortgage Loan, 12/29/2013)
(53) It appears that Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., the Master Servicer, is
advancing these payments from the credit support available through the excess spread27
derived from the cash flow generated by the Mortgage Pool Assets. This waterfall structure
is delineated in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and will continue until the credit
enhancements have been exhausted.
(54) As it now stands, the credit support has risen from 2.80% of the principal balance at
origination, to 9.33% of the outstanding balance of the remaining 84 loans. Hence, I would
expect to find that Mollers Mortgage Loan will remain current for some time. (See Exhibit
O. - Bloomberg Research Results)
Identifying the Note Holder

(55) In Paragraph 1 of her Note, Moller promised to pay the Lender (Washington Mutual Bank,
FA) or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments
under this Note i.e., the Note Holder.
(56) Uncertain of the identity of the Note Holder as that term is defined in her Note, Moller
elected to withhold her December 1, 2012 installment until she could ascertain proof of who
acquired all right, title and interest in and to her mortgage obligation.
27
The excess spread is the difference between the interest rate received on the underlying collateral and the
coupon on the issued security. It is typically one of the first defenses against loss. Even if some of the underlying loan
payments are late or default, the coupon payment can still be made. In the process of "turboing", excess spread is applied
to outstanding classes as principal. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_enhancement#cite_note-Dwight-1)

28
(57) Bloomberg reports that as of December 29, 2013, there were only 84 out of 2448 loans
remaining in the WAMU 2003-AR3 Trust. (See Exhibit O. Bloomberg Research Results,
page 3, Collateral Loan Performance)
(58) It seems logical that the number of investors in the Trust has also dwindled to the point
where it should not be difficult or burdensome for JPMC and/or Deutsche Bank to identify
the entities who claim to own the remnant consisting of these 84 loans.
(59) In addition, this Deal has been subject to a 5% clean up call for some time now and it is
entirely possible that all Certificateholders who actually funded the acquisition of the
Mortgage Pool Assets have been paid off. Bloomberg also reports that the Residual Class has
been paid off for some time, further calling into question who owns what at this stage of
the game.
(60) For these reasons, it is critical that Deutsche Bank disclose the identity of the real party in
interest so that Mollers dispute may be resolved fair-mindedly and with certainty.
III. Foreclosure Forensics

The Breeder Document
(61) As a Certified Fraud Examiner with specialized training in the detection of fraud, I
understand that a breeder document28 is the source of origin, genuine or fraudulent, that
can serve as a basis to obtain other identification documents or benefits fraudulently.
(62) For example, in identity theft cases the birth certificate is often referred to as the breeder
document because once fabricated, an imposter can use it to acquire a drivers license, Social
Security Number, bank account, passport, etc. and obtain rights and privileges of citizenship
to which s/he is not legally entitled.
(63) Translating this concept over to the realm of foreclosure fraud, the most common breeder
document is the fraudulent assignment of mortgage which purports to grant a title interest in
the underlying real property to the fraudster, and serves as the basis for obtaining other
documents necessary to extinguish the property owners rights and transfer full legal and
equitable title as well as possession to the fraudster.
(64) In the instant case, the April 10, 2013, Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust executed by
LeShonda Anderson is the breeder document from which emanate all other documents
necessary to complete the foreclosure, sale, and transfer of Mollers Property to Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates
Series 2003-AR3. (See Exhibit L. Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, 04/10/2013)
28
The Oxford Dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/breeder+document?region=us.

29
The Assignment Evidences A Truth In Lending Violation

(65) On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed into law The Helping Families Save Their Homes
Act of 2009.29 Section 404 of the Act amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to require
that a new notice be given to consumers within 30 days after the sale, transfer or assignment
of the consumers mortgage loan.30 The new notice requirement became effective on May
20, 2009 and applies to any sale, assignment or transfer of a mortgage loan occurring on or
after May 20, 2009.
(66) The new requirement has real teeth because Section 404 also amends Section 130(a) of
TILA to provide that the failure to give the notice can result in liability for actual and up to
$2,000 in statutory damages per violation, plus plaintiff's reasonable attorneys fees. Class
action lawsuits can also be brought for systematic violations, subject to a $500,000 cap.
(67) Thus, the instant Assignment executed by LeShonda Anderson on April 10, 2013, is subject
to the notice requirements mandated by Section 131(g) of Truth In Lending Act as amended
by Section 404 of The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 effective May 20,
2009.
(68) Lorraine Mary Moller maintains that she was never notified in writing by the Assignee or the
Assignees Servicer (JPMC) that her Note and Deed of Trust had been sold on or about April
10, 2013. It was only upon her own initiative on November 22, 2012 that Moller discovered
her Mortgage Loan had been sold and securitized.
Separating Fact From Fiction

(69) LeShonda Anderson (Anderson) is an employee of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. at its
facility in Monroe, Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana.31
(70) On April 10, 2013, Anderson executed the above referenced Corporate Assignment of Deed
of Trust (but not the Note) in her alleged capacity as Vice President of JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (JPMC) as Attorney-in-Fact for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as
29
Section 404 of The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 became effective May 20, 2009. For
further information: See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/09/24/2010-20664/regulation-z-truth-in-lending.
30
Section 404 of the Act amends Section 131 of TILA to add a new subsection (g) which provides that, in
addition to other disclosures required by the TILA, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold
or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify
the borrower in writing of the transfer. The notice must include the identity, address and telephone number of the new
creditor; the date of the transfer; how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; the
location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and any other relevant information regarding
the new creditor. (See also http://www.troutmansanders.com/the-helping-families-save-their-homes-act-06-04-2009/)
31
See Ames et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Civil
Case No. 8:13-cv-00806.

30
Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank, FA (FDIC). (See
Exhibit L. Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, 04/10/2013)
(71) No Corporate Resolution authorizing Anderson was attached; nor was the Power of Attorney
referenced therein. I performed an online search of the Boulder County Recorders Office
but could not locate a Power of Attorney authorizing JPMC to execute documents on behalf
of the FDIC.
(72) I am aware of a certain Limited Power of Attorney effective September 25, 2008 in which
the FDIC authorized JPMC to execute certain documents in connection with Washington
Mutual loans as its Attorney-in-Fact. However, that authority terminated on September 25,
2010. Thus, JPMC must prove its authority in order to establish the validity of the
Assignment.
(73) The more serious problem with this Assignment is that it is a fiction; i.e., it represents a
transaction that did not take place in reality.
(74) As explained above, Mollers Mortgage Loan was allegedly securitized on February 25,
2003 according to a precise set of conveyances mandated by the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement. The only way that Mollers Mortgage Loan could be conveyed to Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2003-AR3 Trust is by following the true sale conveyances outlined in the PSA which
had to be completed by February 25, 2003, or within 90 days thereof.
(75) Table 2 below compares and contrasts the transfers dictated by the PSA with the documents
recorded in the Boulder County Recorders Office.
Table 2 Chain of Title
FACT
Source: Bloomberg & SEC Research
FICTION
Source: Recorders Office

(01/17/2003)


Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2003-AR3 Trust
(02/25/2003)

(01/17/2003)

FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank
(09/25/2008)

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2003-AR3 Trust
(04/10/2013)

Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by Public
Trustee
(06/17/2013)

31
In order to convey Mollers Mortgage Loan to Deutsche

Bank, the two true sale transfers shown above had to
be completed by February 25, 2003, or within 90 days
thereof.
On September 25, 2008, when the FDIC was appointed

Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, all that should
have remained on the books and records of Washington
Mutual Bank, FA was the right to service Mollers
Mortgage Loan.
The conveyance suggested by the April 10, 2013
Assignment is a fiction; it is also more than ten (10)
years too late.
(76) By comparing these two scenarios, we can see how one breeder document (the Assignment)
which is automatically accorded validity simply because it has been recorded sets up a
chain reaction and creates an overwhelming record which, though fraudulent, is difficult for
the homeowner to refute without the assistance of an expert.
(77) Table 2 also reveals how a fraudulent assignment is used to conceal unrecorded transfers,
e.g., the sale of Mollers Mortgage Loan from Washington Mutual Bank, FA to Washington
Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., and from Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.
to the Trust. As a result, the chain of title to Mollers Property has been corrupted and the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorders Office has been deprived of revenue.
(78) When this process is repeated systematically over time, the accuracy, transparency and
reliability of the public land records diminishes to such an extent that the underlying real
property loses its marketability, and therefore, its value.
(79) Accordingly, it is in the public interest to enact and enforce laws that will ensure the integrity
of our land evidence recording systems.
By Definition the Assignment of Mortgage is Invalid

(80) Blacks Law Dictionary defines the term valid as:
having legal strength or force, executed with proper formalities,
incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set asideFounded on
truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not
weak or defectiveOf binding force; legally sufficient or efficacious;
authorized by lawas distinguished from that which exists or took
place in fact or appearance, but has not the requisites to enable it to be
recognized and enforced by law. (See Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, 1990, page 1550)
(81) An invalid assignment of mortgage is one that purports to connect or attempts to complete a
chain of title through false statement(s), misrepresentation(s) or omission(s) of material
fact(s) in order to deceive or defraud.

32
(82) Invalid assignments are typically created and executed without lawful authority or right, bear
indicia of fraud (i.e. robo-signing; improper notarization and/or acknowledgments) and are
sometimes created and executed without the knowledge of the legal owner and holder of the
mortgage obligation. Often, invalid assignments contain fatal defects therein that invalidate
the purported transfer, or cause the document to be un-recordable.
(83) On the basis of the facts set forth herein, and in my capacity as a Certified Fraud Examiner, I
find that the above referenced Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust contains false
statements, misrepresentations, and omissions of material fact as follows:
i.
It is a false statement for LeShonda Anderson to swear that on April 10, 2013, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank
F/K/A Washington Mutual Bank, FA assigned the Moller Deed of Trust to Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass Through
Certificates Series 2003-AR3 (Assignee or Deutsche Bank) for the following
reasons:
My research using the Bloomberg Professional data service provides historic
and current evidence that Mollers Mortgage Loan is, and has since its
inception, been tracked as an asset of the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust. [Refer to Section I, Paragraphs 1-11 of
this Report.] (See Exhibit O. Bloomberg Research Results, 03/23/2013)
The Deal Documents, filed with the SEC, provide credible evidence that
Washington Mutual Bank, FA divested all right, title and interest in and to
Mollers Mortgage Loan when it sold the subject Note and Mortgage to
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. on or before February 25,
2003. [Refer to Section I, Paragraphs 22-24 of this Report.]
The PSA also stipulates that Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.,
the Depositor, transferred and assigned the Mortgage Pool Assets
(presumably including the Moller Note and Mortgage) to Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company as Trustee on February 25, 2003 when the
securitization closed. [Refer to Section I, Paragraphs 25-26 of this Report.]
ii.
The Assignment is misleading because, in truth of fact, the FDIC as Receiver of

Washington Mutual Bank was restricted to selling only those assets Washington
Mutual Bank held on September 25, 2008, which amounted only to the right to
service Mollers Mortgage Loan. [See Footnote 17]; [Refer to Section I, Paragraphs
37 (A to C) of this Report.]
iii.
The Anderson Assignment omits a material fact by failing to disclose that

Washington Mutual Bank allegedly sold Mollers Mortgage Loan to Washington
Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., the Depositor, on some date between January 17,
2003 (the Consummation Date) and February 25, 2003 (the Closing Date for the
Deal). This true sale was necessary to achieve the privileges of bankruptcy
33
remoteness and favored tax status as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit
(REMIC) pursuant to Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 860G.
(84) LeShonda Anderson executed the Assignment in her alleged capacity as Vice President of JP
Morgan Chase Bank, National Association as Attorney-in-Fact for Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A Washington Mutual Bank, FA.
No Corporate Resolution was attached; nor was the Power of Attorney referenced therein
that would demonstrate Anderson had the authority to act on behalf of the FDIC in this
matter. [Refer to Section III, Paragraphs 69-72 of this Report.]
(85) With this background in mind, it becomes evident that the Anderson Assignment is a selfdealing breeder document prepared, executed and recorded by and at the direction of
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. the Servicer of Mollers Mortgage Loan in order to institute
foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the Trust.
(86) In summation, the purported conveyance described in the April 10, 2013, Assignment is a
deception and, by definition, it is without legal force and effect.
By Definition the Assignment of Mortgage is Void Ab Initio

(87) Blacks Law Dictionary defines the term void as:
Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect;
unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intendedAn
instrument or transaction which is wholly ineffective, inoperative, and
incapable of ratification and which thus has no force or effect so that
nothing can cure it
There is this difference between the two words "void" and
"voidable:" void in the strict sense, means that an instrument or
transaction is nugatory and ineffectual so that nothing can cure it;
voidable exists when an imperfection or defect can be cured by the act
or confirmation of him who could take advantage of it. (See
Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, page 1573)
(88) Blacks Law Dictionary defines the term void ab initio as:
A contract is null from the beginning if it seriously offends law or
public policy in contrast to a contract which is merely voidable at the
election of one of the parties to the contract. (See Blacks Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, page 1574)
(89) The issue of whether the Assignment is void or voidable is a mixed question of fact and law
that will ultimately be determined by the Court. However, based on the foregoing facts, it is
logical to conclude that the Assignment is void ab initio for the following reasons:
34
Washington Mutual Bank had divested all right, title and interest in and to Mollers Note
and Deed of Trust on or before February 25, 2003, when it sold the Mortgage Loan to
Consequently, the FDIC could not sell for a second time that which Washington
Mutual had relinquished more than 10 years earlier. (Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet )32
The books and records maintained by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Andersons
employer, contain detailed information regarding the history of Mollers Mortgage Loan;
the identification of the current owner; and the vesting of servicing rights only in JPMC.
(90) Thus, the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust is a nullity; the transaction it purports to
represent did not and could not take place in reality. This Assignment is fictitious; it is a selfdealing breeder document prepared, executed and recorded by and at the direction of
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. under false pretenses so that it could institute a non-judicial
foreclosure action and seize Mollers Property on behalf of the Trust without having to prove
its standing.
Liability for Recording Fraudulent Documents

(91) Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-35-109 Instrument may be recorded - validity of unrecorded
instruments - liability for fraudulent documents, states as follows in section 3:
(3)
Any person who offers to have recorded or filed in the office of

the county clerk and recorder any document purporting to convey,
encumber, create a lien against, or otherwise affect the title to real
property, knowing or having a reason to know that such
document is forged or groundless, contains a material
misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise invalid, shall be
liable to the owner of such real property for the sum of not less
than one thousand dollars or for actual damages caused thereby,
whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees. Any
grantee or other person purportedly benefited by a recorded
document that purports to convey, encumber, create a lien against,
or otherwise affect the title to real property and is forged or
groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is
otherwise invalid who willfully refuses to release such document
of record upon request of the owner of the real property affected
32
Nemo dat quod non habet literally meaning "no one [can] give what they don't have" is a legal rule,
sometimes called the nemo dat rule that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership
right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. This rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know
that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (bona fide). (From:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet)

35
shall be liable to such owner for the damages and attorney fees
provided for in this subsection (3). (emphasis supplied)
IV. Robo-Signer Analysis

(92) In a series of reports released on March 12, 2012 by the Office of the Inspector General for
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD-OIG),33 the term
robosigning was branded as:
We have defined the term robosigning as the practice of an employee or agent
of the servicer signing documents automatically without a due diligence review or
verification of the facts.
(93) Notwithstanding Anderson is employed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., she fits HUDOIGs definition to a tee because she either did not perform a due diligence review; or she
remained willfully blind to the truth of the matter. Either way, her actions constitute robosigning.
(94) If Anderson had performed a due diligence review prior to executing the Assignment, she
would have discovered that Washington Mutual Bank, FA had sold Mollers Note and Deed
of Trust to Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. who allegedly securitized the
Mortgage Loan on February 25, 2003, approximately five (5) years prior to Washington
Mutuals failure.
(95) The impact of robo-signing in the instant case cannot be ignored or marginalized because
this pivotal Assignment serves as the basis for Deutsche Banks wrongful foreclosure action.
V. Regulatory Enforcement Actions

Joint Federal Regulators Cease and Desist & Consent Orders
(96) On April 13, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) announced formal enforcement
actions requiring 10 banking organizations including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to
address a pattern of misconduct and negligence related to deficient practices in residential
33
Summary: As part of the Office of Inspector Generals (OIG) nationwide effort to review the foreclosure
practices of the five largest Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage servicers (Bank of America, Wells Fargo
Bank, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, and Ally Financial, Incorporated) we reviewed JPMorgan Chases foreclosure
and claims processes. In addition to this memorandum, OIG issued separate memorandums for each of the other four
reviews. OIG performed these reviews due to reported allegations made in the fall of 2010 that national mortgage
servicers were engaged in widespread questionable foreclosure practices involving the use of foreclosure mills and a
practice known as robosigning of sworn documents in thousands of foreclosures throughout the United States. (See:
http://www.hudoig.gov/reports/featured_reports.php)

36
mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. The FRB found that these deficiencies
represent significant and pervasive compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at
these institutions. The FRBs Consent Order stated that JPMC:
(a) Filed or caused to be filed in state courts and in connection with
bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts numerous affidavits executed by
employees of the Mortgage Servicing Companies or employees of thirdparty providers making various assertions, such as the ownership of the
mortgage note and mortgage, the amount of principal and interest due, and
the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant
represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on
personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant
books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such
knowledge or review;
(b) Filed or caused to be filed in state courts and in connection with
bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts or in the local land record offices,
numerous affidavits and other mortgage-related documents that were not
properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence
of a notary;
(c) Litigated foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings and initiated nonjudicial foreclosures without always confirming that documentation of
ownership was in order at the appropriate time, including confirming
that the promissory note and mortgage document were properly
endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the
appropriate party;
(d) Failed to respond in a sufficient and timely manner to the increased level
of foreclosures by increasing financial, staffing, and managerial resources
to ensure that the Mortgage Servicing Companies adequately handled the
foreclosure process; failed to respond in a sufficient and timely manner to
the increased level of Loss Mitigation Activities to ensure timely,
effective and efficient communication with borrowers with respect to Loss
Mitigation Activities and foreclosure activities; and full exploration of
Loss Mitigation options or programs prior to completion of foreclosure
activities34
(97) Subsequent to the issuance of the Cease and Desist and Consent Orders on April 13, 2011,
the joint federal regulators ordered an Independent Foreclosure Review. After one year and
$1.5 billion paid to outside consultants in a failed attempt to audit the banks foreclosure
files, the controversial audit was scrapped in favor of a global settlement.
34
See http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/enf20110413a5.pdf

37
(98) On February 28, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal
Reserve Board released amendments35 to their enforcement actions against 13 mortgage
servicers including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for deficient practices in mortgage
loan servicing and foreclosure processing. The amendments require the servicers to provide
$9.3 billion in payments and other assistance to borrowers.
National Mortgage Settlement36

(99) On February 9, 2012, the attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia (every
state but Oklahoma), the federal government, and five banks and mortgage servicers
(Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) reached
agreement on a mortgage settlement (the Agreement) that created new servicing standards,
provided loan modification relief to distressed homeowners and provided funding for state
and federal governments including the State of Colorado. (Colorado received $204.6 million)
(100) The settlement was made formal and binding on April 5, 2012, when the U.S. District Court
in Washington, D.C. entered the consent judgments containing the settlement terms. (See
http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/)
(101) JPMC is required to abide by heightened servicing standards established under the National
Mortgage Settlement which are designed to return integrity and accuracy to foreclosure and
bankruptcy proceedings; and among other things, put an end to robo-signing.
(102) The new servicing standards also require JPMC to properly document their authority to file a
foreclosure action. For example:

35
The bank/servicer must document its right to foreclose on a borrower.

The bank/servicer must plead the basis for its authority to foreclose.
The bank/servicer shall summarize this authority to foreclose in the 14 day preforeclosure notice to the borrower.
See Press Release, 2/28/2013: http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-ia-2013-35.html
36
The National Settlement Agreement and related documents can be further researched at:
https://d9klfgibkcquc.cloudfront.net/Servicing%20Standards%20Highlights.pdf.

38
Conclusions
In conclusion, based on (1) my having confirmed that the loan in question is being tracked as an
asset of the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust; (2) an
examination of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded on April 16, 2013, with the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorders Office; and (3) my experience and specialized knowledge
with respect to the securitization process, it is my opinion, subject to further discovery and a
complete forensic examination of this transaction, that:
As recounted in the Abstract section of this report, from March 1, 2003 (the first payment
due date) to November 1, 2012, Moller maintained her mortgage obligation in good
standing. [See Abstract: p. 8,]
On November 22, 2012, Moller became aware of reports that certain portfolio loans
allegedly acquired by the FDIC from Washington Mutual had not been transferred to
JPMC. Concerned that her payments were not being made to the proper party, Moller
sent JPMC a demand for full disclosure of the name, address, and phone number of the
bank or investor that owns this account. [See Analysis: p. 25, 41]
As a precaution, and in order to mitigate the risk of further loss to herself and to the real
party in interest while she attempted to ascertain the identity of the counter party to her
mortgage contract, Moller ceased making payments to JPMC as of December 1, 2012.
Through my access to Bloomberg I was able to download the payment history associated
with Mollers Mortgage Loan as that is being reported to the Trust investors. I found that
notwithstanding Moller has withheld her payments pending the resolution of her dispute,
payments have been advanced on her behalf and her loan is current. [See Analysis: p.
28, 51-54 & Exhibit U]
JPMCs response to Mollers demands was, essentially, to brush them off and institute
non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against her on behalf of Deutsche Bank. [See
Abstract: pp. 9-10 & Exhibits M and N]
I reviewed the alleged evidence of debt Deutsche Bank appended to its Rule 120 Motion
and became concerned that the Note (or a copy of it) had been altered after the fact with
an endorsement in blank in order to facilitate the foreclosure of Mollers Property. [See
Analysis: pp. 26-27, 44-46 & Exhibit T]
I also analyzed the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust prepared by JPMC on behalf
of the FDIC and found it to be unauthorized, fictitious, and ten (10) years too late. [See
Analysis: pp. 28-36, 55-91]
Thus, I conclude that the instruments presented to the Court in support of Deutsche
Banks Rule 120 Motion are suspicious at best, and raise a genuine issue of material fact
with respect to Deutsche Banks standing to bring the action.
39
I found that the Mortgage Loan in question or an economic interest therein was
allegedly securitized into the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003AR3 Trust on February 25, 2003. Therefore, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
February 1, 2003 (PSA) governs the conveyance of the Mortgage Loan in strict
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware. [See Analysis: pp. 15-17, 1-10]
Before the subject Mortgage Loan could be securitized the Lender/Originator,
Washington Mutual Bank, FA, had to transfer and assign the Note and Deed of Trust to
Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., the Depositor, as required by a Mortgage
Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) which was unavailable for my review.
In a simultaneous transaction set forth in Section 2.04 of the PSA, the Depositor
(Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.), was to transfer and assign the
Mortgage Pool Assets to the Issuing Entity (WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2003-AR3 Trust) on February 25, 2003, the Closing Date for this Deal. [See
Analysis: p. 19, 22-26]
Other than the PSA filed with the SEC, there is no available evidence that these transfers
ever took place; nor are there books and records available that would prove consideration
was paid incident to these alleged true sales.
Section 2.05 of the PSA provides that when the Depositor acquires the Mortgage Loans
from an affiliate, the mortgage notes will not be endorsed, and the mortgages will not
be assigned, to the Trust. [See Analysis: pp. 20-21, 27-30]
The conundrum in this case requires the Court to determine who has the right to enforce
the Note and foreclose the Deed of Trust in light of the fact that the PSA appears to
contract around the conveyance of the Mortgage Loans under Article 3 of the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), and suggests that the transfer and assignment is made
pursuant to Article 9.
The drafters of Washington Mutuals securitization documents foresaw that a court (or
the Internal Revenue Service) might ultimately conclude that its securitization model
failed to qualify as a true sale whereupon the transaction might be viewed as a debt
financing arrangement or a hypothecation. Section 2.04 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement provides that in such case, the Mortgage Pool Assets would remain property
of the Depositor, Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (WMMSC), and that
the Trust would have a security interest in those assets. [See Analysis: p. 21, 33, and
footnote #16]
It is my opinion, based on these facts, that the Trust acquired only the rights to the
payment intangibles, i.e., the cash flow generated by the underlying mortgage loans.
If the Court concurs and finds that the Trust has only a security interest in the Mortgage
Pool Assets, then the Depositor, Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.
(WMMSC), may be the rightful owner of Mollers Mortgage Loan providing, of
course, that WMMSC can demonstrate it acquired the Mortgage Loan from Washington
40
Mutual Bank, FA in the first place; and that it paid consideration for it as required by
Article 9 of the UCC.
Since the Trust paid WMMSC by issuing securities which, on a pro-rata basis, exceeded
the principal amount of Mollers Mortgage Loan, WMMSC would be required to
repurchase it as provided for in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement before it can
acquire status as the Note Holder.
My research revealed that Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. is currently
subject to repurchase demands from Deutsche Bank for all 2406 of the mortgage loans
originated by Washington Mutual Bank that were securitized into the WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust. [See Analysis: pp. 23-25, 37-39]
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC), the Servicer for the Trust, realized that proving
these transfers actually took place would be extremely difficult if not impossible and so,
it took a shortcut.
On April 10, 2013, in an attempt to mask the securitization fail described above, JPMC
prepared, executed, and subsequently recorded a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust
(Assignment) which purports to transfer Mollers Mortgage Loan from the FDIC as
Receiver for Washington Mutual to Deutsche Bank as Trustee for the Trust. [See
Abstract: p. 9 & Exhibit L]
For all of the reasons explained in painstaking detail above, I concluded that the
Assignment is a nullity; the transaction it purports to represent did not and could not take
place in reality. This Assignment is fictitious; it is a self-dealing breeder document
prepared, executed and recorded by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. under false pretenses
so that it could institute a non-judicial foreclosure action and seize Mollers Property on
behalf of the Trust. By definition, this Assignment is void ab initio. [See Analysis: pp.
28-36, 55-91]
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s practice of manufacturing false and fraudulent foreclosure
documents and enlisting robo-signers to execute them is against public policy and is
prohibited by the Joint Federal Regulators Cease and Desist and Consent Order of April
13, 2011; the National Mortgage Settlement of April 5, 2012; and the Independent
Foreclosure Review Settlement announced on February 28, 2013. [See Analysis: pp. 3638, 92-102]
Due to the complexities of this matter and the competing interests among Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the subject Mortgage Loan cannot be foreclosed non-judicially as
it is unclear who, if any of these entities, has the right to enforce the instruments. [See
Analysis: pp. 22-25, 34-39]
The factual and expert opinions stated above are based on my research, review of and reliance
upon the documents and information supplied to date. I reserve the right to amend and
41
supplement my opinion based on documents and data gathered through the discovery process
and supplied to me in the future.
Therefore, based on my education, specialized knowledge and professional expertise as a
Mortgage Fraud and Forensic Analyst and a Certified Fraud Examiner, I find, with a reasonable
degree of certainty, that the opinions expressed herein are true and accurate.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Marie McDonnell, President & CEO

McDonnell Property Analytics
Mortgage Fraud and Forensic Analyst
Certified Fraud Examiner, ACFE

42
Table of Exhibits
A.
Deed of Trust, 01/17/2003
B.
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note, 01/17/2003
C.
Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note, 01/17/2003
D.
Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider, 01/17/2003
E.
Notice and Demand to Validate Claim, 11/22/2012
F.
Quitclaim Deed, 12/19/2012
G.
Notice of Default, 01/08/2013
H.
Chase Response, 01/22/2013
I.
Notice of Protest, 02/01/2013
J.
Chase Response, 02/20/2013
K.
Notice of Dishonour, 02/28/2013
L.
Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust, 04/10/2013
M.
Notice of Election and Demand for Sale by Public Trustee, 06/17/2013
N.
Plaintiffs Response to Court Order, 09/26/2013
O.
Bloomberg Research Results
P.
Prospectus Supplement Excerpt
Q.
Securitization Flow Chart
R.
S.
T.
U.
Bloomberg History of Mollers Mortgage Loan, 12/29/2013

43

Moller Expert Report 28ss 29 28mtm 29 2c 1 6 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moller Expert Report 28ss 29 28mtm 29 2c 1 6 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics

Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Securitization Analysis & Foreclosure Forensics

Lorraine Mary Moller

Washington Mutual Bank, FA

WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust

MCDONNELL PROPERTY ANALYTICS

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Table of Contents: The Table of Contents provides an overview of the reports

Executive Summary: This one-page Executive Summary provides the Examiners

Research: The Research section is an invaluable source of information that provides

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 15

ROBO-SIGNER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 36

REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ....................................................................... 36

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

TABLE OF EXHIBITS .....................................................................................................................................43

Deed of Trust, 01/17/2003 ............................................................................................................ 43

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Chase is the servicer of this mortgage loan.

Some of the information requested under this section is either confidential or

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

a copy of the Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note indorsed in blank by Washington Mutual

a copy of the Deed of Trust and Fixed/Adjustable Rate Rider;

a copy of the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust; and

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note; Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate

LOAN LEVEL DETAILS

Fixed/Adjustable Rate Note; Addendum to Fixed/Adjustable Rate

SEC Info Website:4

Rule 424(b)(5) Prospectus & Prospectus Supplement

Bloomberg RMBS Database; EDGAR Website; SEC Info Website

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

February 1, 2003, between the Company and the Delaware Trustee,

Mortgage; MERS Website at: https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

TITLE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Using my access to Bloomberg Professionals database of Residential Mortgage Backed

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Mortgage Loan in question or an economic interest therein was allegedly securitized9

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

The Securitization Paradigm

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

exclusive vehicle for securitizations issuing multiple-maturity mortgage-backed debt

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust

Washington Mutual Bank

Washington Mutual Bank

Washington Mutual Bank FSB

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-AR3 Trust, and (z) unless the

Conveyance of Mortgage Pool Assets; Security Interest.

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Washington Mutuals Collapse

this Agreement shall constitute a security agreement;

(i) the Mortgage Loans identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedule

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Further, if Washington Mutuals securitization model is found to constitute a debt

Securitization Analysis and Foreclosure Forensics Property of Lorraine Mary Moller

Attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1 is a Proof of Claim Deutsche Bank had