Saturday, April 9, 2011


By Certified US Mail

April 8, 2011

Sheila C. Bair, Chairman
550 – 17th Street NW
Room MB-6028
Washington, DC 20429

Dear Ms. Bair:

On April 3rd, 2011 I watched with great interest your interview with Scott Pelley on Sixty Minutes as I have issues with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, and Washington Mutual Bank FA as described in a complaint I recently filed with the FDIC.:  In your interview you were meticulously careful to never admit that the banks had committed any criminal wrongdoing nor that the perpetrators of these criminal acts against homeowners/borrowers across America should be criminally prosecuted.  I find this absolutely reprehensible and unacceptable.  No bank should be allowed to defraud or file false documents or do anything illegal in order to steal someone’s home.

Once more you and the FDIC threw struggling homeowners under the bus.  You are not doing enough --  if anything – to curtail the criminal behavior of the banks.  You say the banks have to get ahead of the problem but do nothing to reprimand their evil behavior.

My  complaint is specific to Washington Mutual Bank FA (a bank that ceased to exist on April 4, 2005).  The published online FDIC  History of Washington Mutual Bank FA  and the published10K filed on December 31, 2005 by Washington Mutual Inc. with the SEC and as distributed to stockholders both state that  the entity known as Washington Mutual Bank, FA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank; and that consequently Washington Mutual Bank FA ceased to exist on April 4, 2005 (a period of almost three and one-half (3 ½) years before the FDIC seized the failed bank known as Washington Mutual Bank. 

Today I received a response to my FDIC Customer Complaint  – a telephone call from Gary Uchino at 949-208-6331, identifying himself as the Manager of Customer Service for the FDIC in Irvine, California.  Mr. Uchino acknowledged that the FDIC had received my complaint regarding JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and Washington Mutual Bank, FA.  One of his first questions had to do with whether or not I had received a loan and whether or not I was paying my loan.  He never addressed the heart of my complaint.  He kept coming back to me and my payment history.  I acknowledged that I am dealing with these issues and tried to discuss my concerns as to the legality of Washington Mutual Bank FA’s continuing to make loans as such after 4/4/2005 and now foreclosing in that name as beneficiary.  Instead of trying to help me understand,  Mr. Uchino did what the FDIC and the federal government has done – blame the homeowner – throw the homeowner under the bus.  After all I should have just paid – no matter who the pretender lender may have been. 

This is contemptible.  The banks have committed countless high crimes and misdemeanors and not one bankster has gone to jail and not one bank has been punished.

Let me educate you as to my complaint:  According to the FDIC's History of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., the entity using that name legally changed its name to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK on April 4, 2005 and ceased to exist as Washington Mutual Bank FA, becoming a "dead bank."  Washington Mutual, Inc. published this information on December 31, 2005 in the 10K filed with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).  As of April 4, 2005 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. ceased to exist as such and legally could no longer contract in that name.
However, the dead-bank WASHIINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. continued to make loans in that name after April 4, 2005, and is in fact listed itself as Lender/Beneficiary in a Deed of Trust in my alleged loan (officially in dispute) recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's Office in Oakland, CA on October 30, 2007, some two and one half (2 ½) years after WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. ceased to exist.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (the alleged successor bank to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK) is now foreclosing on me and tens of thousands of homeowners across America citing the beneficiary as the dead bank WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, predominantly in California and Florida through fraud and deception by using the name WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA as the lender/beneficiary when the bank was dead.

California Civil Code Section 1558 states
:  It is essential to the validity of a contract, not only that the parties should exist, but that it should be possible to identify them.  In other words an entity MUST EXIST (be alive) in order to enter into a contract.  I wanted to know what position the FDIC had on this issue so I filed the complaint to find out.
I want to know how any loans made in the name of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA after April 4, 2005 can have any validity whatsoever?  How can JPMC foreclose at all on a borrower who entered into a mortgage transaction with a dead entity? And why would Washington Mutual made loans in the name of a dead bank unless, of course, it was for personal enrichment and to deny borrowers due process by obfuscating the true name of the actual lender.  What role has and does the FDIC play in this deception?

In summation the FDIC’s Mr. Uchino provided me with NO INFORMATION. The result of my complaint is this:
  1. Mr. Uchino logged into the file that I filed a complaint.
  2. Mr. Uchino answered none of my questions or concerns.
  3. The FDIC will take no further action.
  4. The Customer Service Log will show a record of the call.
  5. The log will be available to those with access to FDIC records.
  6. In order words -- my complaint is just so much garbage to the FDIC  -- never mind that I am a taxpayer.  It is truly all about the banks and their greed!
So, Ms. Bair, now you know about the fraud perpetrated on borrowers by Washington Mutual Bank,FA and Washington Mutual Bank and JPMorgan Chase Bank.. 

Now you know that the employees of the FDIC are throwing homeowners under the bus. 

What are you going to do about this?  When?  How?  Where?


Brenda Reed
Member, The National WAMU Homeowners Support Group
California Chapter

1 comment:

  1. I to had a telephone conversation with Uchino. It was in 2011 right after the Nevada Federal District Court dismissed by Complaint, on a dismissal motion made by the bank, on the ground that Chase was my Note's servicer. If you know anything about 12 U.S.C. 1821 (d) (6) and 12 U.S.C. 1821 (d) (13) (D), then you know the Court in my case was without subject matter jurisdiction to adopt Chase' servicer claim. Uchino was told of my law suit and the result. Yet, he made no effort to intervene the FDIC in the law suit to dismiss the suit on the authority of the above cited statute. Freeman v F.D.I.C., 56 F. 3d 1394, 1399, best explains the reason no court has jurisdiction regarding FDIC receivership assets. We tried a tact different than most. After exhausting our FDIC administrative remedies, and after being providing permission to sue the United States of America, we did so under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act, sections 556 and 557: by subjecting us only to a notification of FDIC final denial, instead of a final denial preceded by an adjudicatory hearing under APA 556 and 557. Judge Boasberg with the United States District Court, DC, violated our civil rights by dismissing our complaint. His order proves to be a fraudulent instrument that covered up the evidence of our having exhausted our FDIC remedies, by lying on the order that we had only engaged in a telephone conversation with Mr. Uchino. He then dismissed our complaint as a trial judge, when applicable law limited him to a judicial review of the FDIC's final denial of our claims. Read it, our case is cited as Williams, et al. v. United States of America, No. 1:17-cv-00783. The only reason, given the conspicuous nature of the foreclosure documents, Chase wins anyway, is that Judges all over the Nation, including our Judge Boasberg, are rendering fraudulent judgments based on evidence actually conjured by the Judges themselves. Most cases end up being prosecuted in pro per. Because plaintiffs simply do not have pockets as deep as Chase Bank. The fraudulent foreclosures including ours, number in the millions. No-one has swayed Federal investigative authorities to get involved. We have former and current complaints with the US Department of Justice about all of this. We are at