Tuesday, May 29, 2012

JPMorgan Chase & the Senator Mike Lee's Short Sale: It's Hypocritical - But Is It Corrupt?

Associated Image
US Senator Mike Lee, Utah



U.S. SENATOR MIKE LEE, Republican, Utah

A Murder of Crows involving, Senator Mike Lee, J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA & Chase CEO Jamie Dimon

 Richard Esckow of The Huffington Post so eloquently explains yet another "Murder of Crows" reporting the Senator Mike Lee was granted a short sale on an upscale residence.  His hypocrisy knows no bounds.  Read more at:

Richard (RJ) Eskow: JPMorgan Chase & the Senator's Short Sale: It's Hypocritical - But Is It Corrupt?


Senator Mike LeeElected in 2010 as Utah's 16th Senator, Mike Lee has spent his career defending the basic liberties of Americans and Utahns as a tireless advocate for our founding constitutional principles.

Senator Lee acquired a deep respect for the Constitution early on. His father, Rex Lee, who served as the Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, would often discuss varied aspects of judicial and constitutional doctrine around the kitchen table, from Due Process to the uses of Executive Plenary Power. He attended most of his father's arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, giving him a unique, hands-on experience and understanding of government up close.

Lee graduated from Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science, and served as BYU's Student Body President in his senior year. He graduated from BYU's Law School in 1997 and went on to serve as law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, and then with future Supreme Court Justice Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court.

Lee spent several years as an attorney with the law firm Sidley & Austin specializing in appellate and Supreme Court litigation, and then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City arguing cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Lee served the state of Utah as Governor Jon Huntsman's General Counsel and was later honored to reunite with Justice Alito, now on the Supreme Court, for a one-year clerkship. He returned to private practice in 2007.

Throughout his career, Lee earned a reputation as an outstanding practitioner of the law based on his sound judgment, abilities in the courtroom, and thorough understanding of the Constitution.
Today, Lee fights to preserve America's proud founding document in the United States Senate. He advocates efforts to support constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and economic prosperity.

Lee is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and serves as ranking Member of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee protecting business competition and personal freedom.

He also oversees issues critical to Utah as the top Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Joint Economic Committee, as well.

Lee and his wife Sharon live in Alpine, Utah, with their three children. He is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and served a two-year mission for the Church in the Texas Rio Grande Valley.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon to face Senate grilling on company's $2bn loss | Business | guardian.co.uk

JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon to face Senate grilling on company's $2bn loss | Business | guardian.co.uk

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Vietnam Hero Honored 23 Years Late - New York Times

Vietnam Hero Honored 23 Years Late - New York Times

Friday, May 25, 2012

Truthiness is Next to Lawlessness: It’s Time to Enforce Sarbanes-Oxley in the JP Morgan CIO Scandal « naked capitalism

Truthiness is Next to Lawlessness: It’s Time to Enforce Sarbanes-Oxley in the JP Morgan CIO Scandal « naked capitalism

Washington Mutual, Inc. Completes Chapter 11 Restructuring Process -- SEATTLE, March 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

Washington Mutual, Inc. Completes Chapter 11 Restructuring Process -- SEATTLE, March 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --


WSR News of Interest

WaMu Shareholders Resources

WaMu Shareholders Resources (WSR) Home


Washington Mutual Inc. - Bankruptcy Examiner Report Part 1

brexaminersreportp1.pdf (application/pdf Object)



Richard (RJ) Eskow: How to Fix the Fed: Dismiss Dimon, Boot the Bankers, and Can the Corporations

Richard (RJ) Eskow: How to Fix the Fed: Dismiss Dimon, Boot the Bankers, and Can the Corporations


More and more people are calling for Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, to resign from the Board of the New York Federal Reserve.

His latest scandal, combined with Dimon's hypocrisy and relentless self-promotion, make him an obvious target. But Dimon isn't alone. Bankers dominate the Fed at the regional and national levels, and most of the other outside seats are held by executives from large corporations. (Remember Herman Cain?)
Should Dimon resign? They all should.

BAILOUT: Former Bailout Watchdog Neil Barofsky to Release Tell-All Account Of Bush/Obama Administration Banking Policies « naked capitalism

BAILOUT: Former Bailout Watchdog Neil Barofsky to Release Tell-All Account Of Bush/Obama Administration Banking Policies « naked capitalism

The Democrats Who Protect JP Morgan’s Incompetent Regulator « naked capitalism

The Democrats Who Protect JP Morgan’s Incompetent Regulator « naked capitalism


In other words, protecting the OCC and the big banks can be laid at the feet of both the Republicans on the committee AND the seven Democrats who voted with the GOP.  These members are Mel Watt, Gwen Moore, Ed Perlmutter, Joe Donnolly, Jim Himes, John Carney, and Gary Peters.  Four of those members are in the New Democrat Coalition (Himes, Peters, Carney, Perlmutter), two are Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus members (Watt, Moore), and one is a Blue Dog (Donnolly).  Jim Himes is particularly worth noting – he’s a smooth and handsome former Goldman Sachs employee from Connecticut who ran for Congress and won in 2008, and hired a former UBS lobbyist as his chief of staff.  Ed Perlmutter, another New Dem, literally owned part of a bank that had been sanctioned for unsafe and unsound practices.  Mel Watt, the Congressman from Bank of America, fought against a Fed audit until he was soundly thrashed by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson in committee.  Watt’s banking staffer, Sanders Adu, shortly departed to head Federal lobbying for Wells Fargo.  It’s a pretty business as usual lot.

But now they, as well as the Republicans, are on the record supporting the bank-friendly OCC.  And four of them, Donnolly, Himes, Peters, and Carney, as well as most Republicans on the committee, are on record supporting the Federal Reserve’s right to print money to fund itself.  The person they were protecting, in the vote for the OCC, was this woman, Julie Williams.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

FHFA & Banks Killed Homeowner Bill of Rights - Mandelman Matters

Thankfully, FHFA & Banks Killed Homeowner Bill of Rights - Mandelman Matters

JPMorgan Employees Sue Jamie Dimon, Ina Drew Over Losses - Forbes

JPMorgan Employees Sue Jamie Dimon, Ina Drew Over Losses - Forbes


Add it to the growing list of people going after JPMorgan Chase. Employees are suing the bank over the $2 billion trading loss that they say hurt their retirement plans.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012


A Gathering of Crows, California State Capital, Sacramento, CA May 15, 2012, Legislative Committee of Foreclosure Crises - Bankers and their Lobbyists Gathered to Murder the Homeowner
Bill of Rights


A "gathering of crows" -- a muster -- an eerie name for a gang -- a  gang of bankster thugs and their lobbyists. A gathering of crows means a murder is about to take place.  Crows usually are gathered by something that is dead.  Often crows gather to sit in judgment and sometimes kill one another.  In this instance they converged to murder the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.


Crows are social animals for whom safety is an issue. A member of the flock will sit aloft a high peak to watch for danger as other members of the flock feed.  If danger is spotted the "watchout crow" will sound a loud warning for the feeding crows.  When a good food supply is found by one, it verbally informs the others.

On May 15, 2012 during the afternoon session of the California Legislature Conference Committee on SB 900 and AB 278 addressing California's foreclosure crises crows from the signatory banks to the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement, bank and servicing lobbyists, and other related industries gathered outside Room 447 shortly before 1:30 p.m.  They were easily recognizable due to their expensive, well-tailored expensive suits and ties and Italian shoes -- but mostly for their smugness and arrogance as more and more of their numbers mustered in the hallway.  The crows laughed with one another and bragged that the hearing was going to be a mere formality. I was present in the throng and was mistaken by these banking crows as one of them though I was hardly so well dressed.  As I took my place in the line of laughing crows, I pinned my ACCE pin on my jacket.  Immediately the watchout crow -- a tall, well-heeled  pale skinned, balding white male banker in his early fifties -- spotted danger, paled, and immediately silenced the gathering of crows.  Once in the conference room the crows hustled to obtain the best seats in the room and to make certain the watchout crows would be ever vigilant.  I sat in row four on the end so I could reserve seats for other foreclosure victims and community leaders affiliated with ACCE, Occupy movements throughout California, PICO, CCISCO, the faith community, and labor organizations. Though surrounded by some of my allies, I felt that I was on the front lines deep within enemy territory.  I felt anxious. My heart raced.  I was afraid and concerned that a PTSD attack was imminent as this gathering of crows convened with the intent to murder the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.

Crows from the signatory banks spoke for 45 minutes followed by 45 minutes of Questions and Answers and are identified as:

  •  Mike Malloy, Mortgage Policy and Counterparty Relations Executive, Bank of America
  •  Stephanie Mudick, Executive Vice President, Head of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Mortgage Banking, JP Morgan Chase
  •  David Moskowitz, General Counsel, Wells Fargo Mortgage
  •  Bryan Bolton, Senior Vice President, Default Servicing, CitiMortgage
Stephanie Mudick, EVP, JPMorgan Chase

Particularly interesting is the testimony of Ms. Mudick of JP Morgan Chase.  She blames foreclosures on homeowners' failure to communicate with Chase -- always the blame game.

May 15, 2012; California Legislative  Conference Committee Hearing on Foreclosure Crises – SB 900 and AB 278; Afternoon Session 1:00 PM;  Room 447, California State Capital; Sacramento, CA

Testimony of Ms. Stephanie Mudick, Executive Vice President, Head ofConsumer and Regulatory Affairs,, Mortgage Banking J.P. Morgan Chase:  

[00:20:00]   "Thanks for inviting me to appear before you today.  My name is Stephanie Mudick and I'm executive vice president and head of consumer regulatory practices and mortgage banking business at JP Morgan Chase.  We greatly value our long standing partnership with California and we are delighted to be consistent growing a business in California over the last several years. During this period we've also been very focused on our mortgage customers growing our array of foreclosure prevention programs and increasing the number of borrowers who benefit from loan modifications and other forms of homeowner assistance to these challenging economic times.  I'd I like to review these efforts and  along with the recently announced National Mortgage Settlement and the proposed legislation related to it that you are  currently considering.

“Chase currently services about 1.2 million loans in California out of about 8 million nationwide.  About  7% of our loans are  60 plus days delinquent as of February 29th this year, a level lower than the national average of 8% and 55% lower than three years ago.

”We service loans on behalf of the owner of the loan which sometimes is Chase itself  but more often is someone else – a government sponsored enterprise such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac  or government agencies such as the FHA or VA, securitized trust or other private investor.

 “Chase realizes California homeowners continue to face tough challenges in these difficult economic times.  We are committed to working with borrowers to help keep families in their homes and we offer several foreclosure prevention programs designed to provide sustainable solutions to troubled borrowers.

“From January 2009 to February 2012 we prevented over 186,000 foreclosures in California or about 2.6 foreclosures prevented for each 1 completed ,  a success rate better than national average.  Our  performance over the last three years has resulted in more than 105 permanent modifications to California homeowners under various modification  programs including HAMP.  During this same period we completed over 58,000 short sales and refinanced over 186,000 mortgages in California.

“To help struggling borrowers we have added more than 10,000 employees to our borrower assistance and default operations which is nearly double the staff we had in 2008.  When a borrower fails to make a payment on his or her loan often within 15 days we start trying to contact them  and we make  repeated attempts to contact delinquent borrowers by letter and my phone to talk about foreclosure prevention options.  When a borrower responds to our outreach efforts, the borrower is assigned  to one of our 3,000 dedicated consumer assistance specialists who serves as the single point of contact for the borrower throughout the process.

“Recognizing that many borrowers were struggling with the overall process and were looking to talk face-to-face to us,  in early 2009 we began opening a nationwide network of Chase Homeownership Centers.  We now have 82 Homeownership Centers nationwide, 18 of which are in California.  At the centers we are able to meet with homeowners face to face and help them work through the modification process.  Since 2009 we have met with over 62,000 California borrowers at our Homeownership Centers.  We appreciate the partnerships we have created with your district offices and staff to help get out the word regarding these centers and we hope to do even more going forward to make more progress.

“We’ve also partnered with housing agencies, not-for-profits, and HUD certified housing counseling groups to host more than 680 local outreach events in California since January 2009 providing assistance to over 26,000 additional California customers.  By February 2012 the number of California customers 60 or more days delinquent had dropped by almost one-half to roughly 85,000 .

“Foreclosure is the last alternative.  You’ve  (laugh) just heard that from B of A.  And we strongly prefer an alternative to foreclosure for the borrower’s and our own financial perspective  Keeping borrowers in their homes is better for communities.  It’s better for home values and therefore it is better for all of us.  It’s also better for Chase because if we foreclose, we lose our servicing income from that loan whereas if we modify it, we have a performing loan and continue to receive both servicing fees and often an incentive payment for completing the modification . The decision to foreclose is always a difficult one but is sometimes unavoidable.  We would prefer to work with the delinquent  borrower and do a modification or another foreclosure alternative like a short sale.  We have substantial safeguards in place to make sure that foreclosures are a last resort  and instituted fairly in appropriate circumstances.  A loan gets referred to foreclosure  only after we have made substantial attempts to provide the borrower with foreclosure alternatives.  We conduct a special review of each case to insure the borrower is in fact in default and we’ve complied with our own pre-referral policies at least 3 times, once before the matter is referred to foreclosure and at least twice before any sale.  By the time a sale is made we have typically reached out to the borrower approximately 110 times.

“The landmark settlement signed with 49 states and the federal government contains national servicing standards, consumer relief obligations, and a strict reporting and enforcement mechanism via monitor  Joe Smith, the North Carolina banking commissioner  Chase’s share of the $25 billion total settlement is approximately $5.3 billion of which Chase paid about $1.1 billion in cash much of which will be distributed by the attorneys general for foreclosed customers.  We are well on track to fully implement the settlement.  In it we’ve agreed to provide $3.5 billion in relief to borrowers including first and second lien principal reduction modification for borrowers in default and over $500 million in refinancing to underwater borrowers.  We’ve committed to provide almost $2 billion of this consumer relief in the state of California.  Under the settlement Chase is offering refinancing to eligible borrowers who are underwater  but current on  their loans.  We have already offered a number of re-fis as well as modifications in California under this  settlement and expect to continue to offer additional mods and re-fis in the coming months.  We are pushing to accomplish as much of this consumer relief as possible in the first year following the signing and approval of the documents.

“The settlement has other notable components that will improve  the level of service received by borrowers.  Under the settlement the servicers have agreed to abide by detailed and uniform standards for mortgage servicing  insuring increased fairness, and transparency.  These include additional disclosures to borrowers in connection with servicing activities including foreclosure and loss mitigation, additional disclosure associated with a dual track of foreclosure and loss mitigation.  A pre-foreclosure notice to all borrowers which will include account information, holder status and all loss mitigation steps taken to date.  Standardizing the process for the review and appeal of loss mitigation denials.  Enhancements in document preparation to address so-called robosigning.  A single point of contact for the borrowers throughout the loss mitigation process.  Enhanced quality control procedures.  Commitments related to training and staffing.  Limits on the fees servicers can charge including the waiver of certain fees while borrower’s loss mitigation application is being evaluated and myriad others.

“We are well on our way toward full implementation and we’ve already implemented more than half of the servicing standard requirements.  We’re also prepared to implement any changes resulting from the CFPB;s new servicing standards which are expected to be finalized by year end.

Inline image 1
“We don’t believe the proposed California legislation is necessary given the National Mortgage Settlement and its enforcement regime .  We think it’s premature to enact state legislation on servicing standards particularly legislation that extends the requirements well beyond those negotiated in the National Settlement given that the federal monitor, Mr. Smith, is just beginning his enforcement and oversight and given that the CFPB standards are imminent.  We also think it’s critical that there be a consistent set of servicing standards for the industry and not different rules in one state versus  another.  If California or any other state creates a different set of servicing rules, additional risk is likely to be introduced into the system as a result of the complexity of  the implementation of different rules which will increase costs to both borrowers and servicers alike.  The California housing market is now beginning to recover albeit slowly.  We encourage you to let the new consumer relief programs under the settlement take effect as well as the implementation of the new servicing standards  and enforcement regime before potentially disrupting the fragile recovery with traditionally familiar and conflicting requirements.  We’re also concerned that the private right of action included in draft legislation will likely impair the housing recovery of California.  As we’ve seen in other states with long foreclosure timelines as borrower delinquencies persist, houses often sit neglected leading to community blight. The currently proposed right of action language is so broad that it will allow any homeowner who reasonably believes he or she may have been wronged to go to court creating significantly greater backlog of cases and extending indefinite the process for resolution.  Those servicers who signed the National Mortgage Settlement are already subject to strict monitoring and enforcement and are committed to mediating any borrower harm identified under the settlement making a private right of action unnecessary at best and counterproductive at most.  Finally we believe the proposed right of action has the potential to materially impact the housing related capital markets undermining the still fragile recovery of those markets and reduce the availability of much needed credit to new homeowners. Market investors seek consistence and predictability and the effects of the private right of action will inject uncertainty and delay into the already drawn out processes of foreclosure driving up the cost of credit.”  [00.30.10]

 [01:29:44]     “The other point that I would like to add is that the lion’s share  of customers whom we start talking to, that first conversation is always about a modification – is the lion’s share – the large lion’s share of homeowners will end up with an alternative to foreclosure.  The lion’s share of customers who end up getting foreclosed upon – and we recognize that the numbers seem to be very very large although they’re not that large in the context of the number of those that we actually service in the state of California – um, typically get foreclosed because  they will not engage in any conversation with us. “   [01:31:00]

[-1:22:10]  “I think that we’re all in agreement that the right model going forward  - frankly several of us started this model a couple of years ago and have been trying to improve it over time.  The settlement agreement totally enhances it  and it is to have that one on one relationship so that a customer doesn’t have to tell their story the 3rd time, the 4th time, the 5th time, doesn’t have to get different advice depending who at the company that they’re speaking with so it took us a while to get there but I think we would have complete consensus at the table that it is better for us and better for the customer.”    [01:32:41]

[01:39:08]    “There are significant consequences in the agreement for failure to satisfy all the elements of the credit menu.  For example we have close to a $2 billion obligation to California.  It is our intention and goal to get that done within the first year of the agreement because we are actually incented to do that but we’ve got a drop dead date and if we don’t satisfy those obligations by the drop dead date it’s gonna be, you know, expensive and much more painful than it’s been so …“  [01:38:39]

[02:06:14]  “So first I might mention to do a modification under the rules of HAMP and they’re very, very clear and specific rules about what you need  when you do a modification, we need to have documentation  from a borrower.  We need to have certain forms filled in.  We need to have income documentation so that we  can do a calculation as to what an affordable payment would be and so if we don’t have the ability to engage and have conversations with the borrower , we literally are not able to be in a position where we can do a mod.  So it’s kinda its basic and simple as that.  You know if we send 25 letters and nobody ever opens  up the envelopes and we make 50 calls and no one ever returns our messages then we  are precluded from doing anything about that loan  so and obligated frankly under the terms of our agreements with our investors and the GSTs to move forward with a foreclosure.”  [Q—they’re throwing away envelopes and not returning phone calls?]     “That happens more frequently – I know it sounds and I’m looking at your face, Madame Chair, and I’m thinking she doesn’t believe a word I’m saying but the fact of the matter is that it may be that people don’t want to open an envelope from the bank that they’re not paying.  It may be that people don’t want to answer a message from the bank who they’re not paying but we cannot fix the problem unless we’re able to have a conversation and so that is I think – each of the servicers who are testifying here today have made the comment that we’re trying to do a lot of outreach – you know we can’t even do a short sale or do the less worse alternative without being able to engage the borrower and so that is a very critical element of , I think, of, of, of  and frankly also what else happens is we will have conversations with a borrower about a modification  and we never get the documentation that’s required in order to do the HAMP loan so we  will actually engage but for one reason or another they have trouble producing the information that we need – that’s one of the reasons why having a single point of contact we hope is going to be very helpful because in our shop and I’m sure that my industry colleagues have something similar .  Our our customer assistance  specialists are calling everybody who’s on their docket every 3 days to say I still need your bank statement in order to put your modification through.  I still need the settlement agreement from your divorce in order to put your modification through.  And so the goal of having that relationship which we talked about a little bit earlier is that, that there is a little bit more trust and I understand we have some trust – and this is a trust industry – issues with the population of borrowers who, who believe they have been victims of, of the crises that they and we all have been living through but, but we’re hoping that is also going to make a significant difference in the pull-through rate and the ability to get someone over the finish line in terms of getting a, a foreclosure alternative – you know a foreclosure prevention .  [02:10:48]

View Rebuttal Testimony of California Homeowner & Vietnam War Widow

  Other Crows Who Gathered in Sacramento: 


    Kevin Gould, California Bankers Association
    Jon Ross, California Mortgage Bankers Association
    Scott Governar, California Financial Services, Assn.
    James Beckwith, President & CEO of Five Star Bank; California Independent Bankers

Other Related Industries:

    Ron McDaniel, California Credit Union, CCUL
    Bill Hultman, Mortgage  Electronic Registration System (MERS)
    Stan Wieg, California Association of Realtors
    Mike Arnold, California Mortgage Association

The testimony can be viewed in its entirety by going to the following site:

Mudick, Stephanie VP Chase Testimony 15may2012 PDF FILE

Mudick, Stephanie VP Chase Testimony 15may2012 PDF FILE

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Conference Committee on Foreclosure Crisis in California Part 2

Conference Committee on Foreclosure Crisis in California Part 2

California Homeowners and Advocates Ask California state legislators "Whose Side Are You On?"

California Legislative Conference Committee Hearing Homeowner Bill of Rights

Californians are asking legislators:  

"Whose side are you on? Banks or Californians?"

Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - Sacramento, California

A broad coalition of homeowners, faith leaders, community advocates and union members held a rally and press conference in support of the Homeowner Bill of Rights under consideration in Sacramento. AB 278 (Hill) and SB 900 (Leno) will extend the rights and protections negotiated in the $26 billion Attorneys General settlement with the five major banks announced earlier this year.  Among other reforms the bills will end the pernicious "dual track" process whereby homeowners lost their homes while negotiation a foreclosure alternative with their bank servicer.

For too long California state legislators have voted with the banks.  They have refused t support strong legislation that creates transparency and protections for California's homeowners.  This year Californians are standing up -- they are asking their legislators loud and clear:  "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?"

Since 2008 approximately 2 million Californians have lost their homes.  Another 2.3 million hold mortgages that are underwater. Responsible homeowners are being lost in banks' foreclosure mills and are wrongfully losing their homes.  Meanwhile banks have spent over $70 million lobbying against reforms in Sacramento while evading taxes and foreclosing on struggling homeowners.  By creating due process Californian homeowners can be assured that banks are providing accurate information about the status of their loans and that they will have due process recourse if not.

The National mortgage Settlement was a good first step to stopping wrongful and unfair bank practices.  However California legislators are already poaching the relief provided.  On this same date Governor Jerry Brown proposed to close holes in the California budge with the $292 million that Attorney General Kamala Harris' Office of the Attorney General had planned to distribute to housing
counseling agencies and legal service providers.

At Tuesday's hearing the Joint Legislative Conference Committee was presented with a clear choice to make --  homeowners or bankers.  They heard from everyday Californians about the need to simplify the foreclosure process and to create protections and guarantees for California's struggling homeowners.  During the afternoon the Committee heard from the banks and their lobbyists and concluded with the riveting rebuttal testimony of Brenda Reed, an Oakland homeowner fighting foreclosure by Chase Bank, and that of two community advocates helping.


Stand with California Homeowners - Pass the Homeowner Bill of Rights

As members of  ReFund California, a coalition of community, consumer, faith, and labor organizations across California are calling on California legislators to publicly support AB278 (Hill) and SB 900  (Leno) to end duals tracking and to enact due process legislation containing strong enforcement provisions currently being heard by the Joint Legislative Conference Committee on Foreclosure Issues.

Members of the Committee: 
Senator Ron Calderon, Democrat, SD 30
Senator Sam Blakeslee, Republican, SD 15
SD 2 Noreen Evans; AD 10 Alison Huber; SD 16 Michael Rubio; AD 17 Cathleen Galgiani; AD 26 Bill Berryhill; AD 31 Henry T. Perea; SD 15 Sam Blakeslee; SD 20 Alex Padilla; SD 24 Ed Hernandez; SD 25 Roderick Wright; SD 30 Ron Calderon; SD 32 Gloria Negrete McLeod' AD 39 Felipe Fuentes; AD 43 Mike Gatto; AD 50 Ricardo Lara; AD 56 Tony Mendoza; AD 57 Roger Hernandez; AD 61 Norma Torres; SD 34 Lou Correa; AD 67 Jim Silva; AD 70 Donald Wagner; AD 71 Jeff Miller; SD 40 Juan Vargas; AD 75 Nathan Fletcher.

These legislative proposals embody provision that were contained in AB 1602, SF 1470, AB 2425, and SB 1471 as part of AG Harris' Homeowner Bill of Rights legislative package.  These bills must provide meaningful protections to all California homeowners as well as a mechanism for consumers to enforce their rights.  Californians cannot afford to wait.  We call on each of our state legislators to stand with the 671,00 California families who are at risk of losing their homes -- give them a full and fair chance to renegotiate their loans.  Give homeowners an even playing field.

Specifically we are seeking

1.  Strong Substantive Protections to Provide Borrowers with Fair Consideration of Alternatives to Foreclosure. AB 278 and SB 900 will provide homeowners with a fair process to be considered for alternatives to foreclosure. Based largely on provisions of the National Mortgage Settlement and servicing procedures required at present by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the conference report must include:
  • Substantial restrictions on dual tracking to include requirements that 
    • Borrowers who apply for a loan modification during the first 120 days of delinquency get a "yes" or "no" determination before the foreclosure process commences;
    • Borrowers who apply for a loan modification after the foreclosure process begins must have banks consider their application before the foreclosure process can continue
  • Procedural reforms require servicers to provide borrowers with adequate evidence of the servicer's right to bring foreclosure actions, including the original Note and Deed of Trust, and evidence of chain of title;
  • Prohibition of robosigning with meaningful penalties per violation;
  • Requirement that servicers provide borrowers seeking alternatives to foreclosure with a single point of contact.
2.  Effective Enforcement:  a clear and meaningful "private right of action" that gives borrowers their day in court and must include the following provisions:
  • Targeted Coverage:  provide redress to borrowers when major provisions of the law are violated.
  • Accountability Under the Law:  Homeowners whose rights are violated should have the opportunity to remain in or get back their homes if:
    • The foreclosure sale has not yet occurred.
    • The foreclosure sale has occurred but the home has not yet been sold to a bona fide third party or
    • The home has been sold to a bona fide third party purchaser but the purchaser, servicer AND homeowner agree too put the homeowner back in the home.
  • Financial Relief for Harm:  When homeowners cannot get back their homes, they must be able to get financial relief to compensate for the harm done and to give them a decent chance of transitioning to a stable housing situation.
  • No Exceptions:  Maintaining provisions that provide for a private right of action is paramount without exception.  The largest banks who are party to the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement are responsible for the majority of the foreclosure process abuse documented by federal regulators and communities.  To grant these institutions an exception from a private right of action would enable the exception to swallow the rule thus creating a massive loophole that will leave most Californians with no way to ensure that their servicers follow the law.  All banks and servicers should be covered by the law and bound to give due process and fair treatment to all California Homeowners.
Californians deserve to be protected from unfair servicing practices that lead to unnecessary foreclosure and should be provided with a meaningful opportunity to keep their homes.

These legislative proposals will serve as a catalyst toward helping California overcome its ongoing fiscal challenges.



Big banks paid themselves $146 billion in bonuses & compensation in 2010. 

Banks received $17 trillion in taxpayer bailouts & benefits. 

Banks flooded Sacramento with $70 million in political cash to ensure that they can keep pushing costs onto California taxpayers.

The Big 4 -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America & Citi Group -- paid little or NO Taxes in California.

Banks foreclosed on 1.2 million Californians since 2008 with projections of 2 million by the end of 2012 making California the hardest hit state.

California Homeowners Underwater -- 2.3 million

671,000 or more California homeowners still facing foreclosure.

California is suffering over $21 billion in losses caused by Wall Street Banks for lost property tax revenue and local government costs for foreclosure.

California communities are facing billions of dollars to cuts to our public schools and vital services for the poor, elderly and disabled in 2012 due to loss in the tax base due to foreclosure and underwater borrowers.



Donald Wagner, Assembly, Republican AD 70

Senator Noreen Evans, Democrat, SD 2

Mike Eng, Assembly Member, Democrat, AD 49

Monday, May 14, 2012

Jamie Dimon Sends In JPMorgan's Golden Boy To Fix Trading Problems - Forbes

Jamie Dimon Sends In JPMorgan's Golden Boy To Fix Trading Problems - Forbes

JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon: 'I was dead wrong' - Business News - Business - The Independent

JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon: 'I was dead wrong' - Business News - Business - The Independent

Why J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon Should Resign - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

 Jamie Dimon should resign and be held criminally accountable.  Read more:

Why J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon Should Resign - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan Chase: Why It's the Scandal of Our Time

 I highly recommend this article from The Huffington Post.

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan Chase: Why It's the Scandal of Our Time

JP Morgan Chase Annual Report for 2011

 To view the 2011 Annual Report for JPMorgan Chase and Company, go to this site:


JPMorgan Chase Announces Management Changes; Ina Drew to Retire; Matt Zames Named New CIO

Chase issued this press release today.  Making haste so the public will quickly forget their bad acts.  This is more of the same.  The shareholders get screwed while the executives make out like bandits.  It's all garbage in and garbage out.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

News Release

JPMorgan Chase Announces Management Changes; Ina Drew to Retire; Matt Zames Named New CIO

New York, May 14, 2012 -- JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) announced today that Ina Drew, Chief Investment Officer, has made the decision to retire from the firm. Ina has served the firm for more than 30 years, most recently as head of our Chief Investment Office.

Matt Zames, currently co-head of Global Fixed Income in the Investment Bank and head of Capital Markets within the Mortgage Bank, will succeed Ina as the firm's Chief Investment Officer and continue in his mortgage-related responsibilities. Matt will also join the firm-wide Operating Committee. Daniel Pinto, currently co-head of Global Fixed Income with Matt, will become sole head of the group. Daniel will also remain CEO of our Europe, Middle East and Africa region, based in London.

Mike Cavanagh, CEO of our Treasury & Securities Services (TSS) group, will lead a dedicated team of senior executives from across our company to oversee and coordinate our firmwide response to the recent losses in the Chief Investment Office. As part of this effort, Mike will ensure that best practices and lessons learned are carried across the firm. Mike will continue to oversee TSS but will be largely dedicated to this project for the near future.

"Ina Drew has been a great partner over her many years with our firm. Despite our recent losses in the CIO, Ina's vast contributions to our company should not be overshadowed by these events," said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO.

Dimon added, "Matt Zames is a world-class risk manager and executive -- highly regarded for his judgment and integrity. And Daniel Pinto is an outstanding leader as well, who has managed markets businesses successfully around the world and is helping us drive our international growth agenda."
"I'm also pleased that Mike Cavanagh is leading our team focused on challenges related to our recent investment losses," Dimon added. "Mike was previously CFO of our firm, with great experience managing business and control functions around the company."

Dimon concluded, "It's important to remember that our company is very strong and well capitalized, with leading franchises across our businesses. We maintain our fortress balance sheet and capital strength to withstand setbacks like this, and we will learn from our mistakes and remain diligently focused on our clients, who count on us every day."

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $2.3 trillion and operations worldwide. The firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business and commercial banking, financial transaction processing, asset management and private equity. A component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, JPMorgan Chase & Co. serves millions of consumers in the United States and many of the world's most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients under its J.P. Morgan and Chase brands. Information about JPMorgan Chase & Co. is available at www.jpmorganchase.com.

PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda | Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda | Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)

Monday, May 7, 2012

The Violent, Scandalous Origins of JPMorgan Chase - Bloomberg

The Violent, Scandalous Origins of JPMorgan Chase - Bloomberg

Count Bankula, Jamie Dimon, Defends America's Least-Loved Minority: Bankers

Mark Gongloff: Jamie Dimon Defends America's Least-Loved Minority: Bankers

 Count Bankula Jamie Dimon says he's being discriminated against. By whom -- by people who are losing their homes, their communities, their sense of safety and well-being.

Count Bankula, kids are living in cars,living on fast food if they can afford it, while you sip champagne and eat caviar in your lofty NYC home. So where is the discrimination?

Count Bankula, you are kicking senior citizens out of their homes and to the curb, while you live a life of ease and luxury.  So tell me, where is the discrimination?