Tuesday, June 26, 2012

WALLACE v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; WELLS FARGO BANK NA


The single issue before us is whether the filing of foreclosure action by 
the law firm claiming ownership of the mortgage by
its client Washington Mutual constitutes a “false, deceptive or misleading 
representation” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the 
bank has not received a transfer of the ownership documents. We hold 
that the complaint states a valid claim and reverse the dismissal of the 
case.
-----------------------------------

Inline image 1



<excerpt>
No. 10-3694                Wallace v. Washington Mutual, et al.                       Page 5

Mutual. The district court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act because the failure to record an Assignment of Mortgage before filing
a foreclosure action is not a deceptive practice under the Act. The single issue before us is
whether the filing of foreclosure action by the law firm claiming ownership of the mortgage 
by its client Washington Mutual constitutes a “false, deceptive or misleading 
representation” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the bank has not 
received a transfer of the ownership documents. We hold that the complaint states a valid 
claim and reverse the dismissal of the case.

----------------------------------------------

No. 10-3694              Wallace v. Washington Mutual, et al.                            Page 7
Given these allegations, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a
material misrepresentation that would confuse or mislead an unsophisticated consumer. By
reversing the district court on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we, of course, do not make any
findings about the merits of plaintiff’s claim under the Act or any defenses that may be raised
by Lerner, Sampson. We hold only that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to survive a 
motion for dismissal on the pleadings.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Chase Files Notice of Motion & Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Javaheri v. Chase


On June 21, 2012 AlbaradoSmith, attorneys for JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and California Reconveyance Company, filed a Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in CV-10 8185 ODW (FFMx) in Daryoush Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, California Reconveyance Company and Does 1-50 in the United States District Court, Central District of California.  This motion is available on PACER.

The motion is scheduled to be heard by the Hon. Otis D. Wright II on July 30, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 11.  The case has a Trial Date of September 18, 2012.

Motion can be viewed at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98055614/Javaheri-Chase-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-21june2012

Chase argues that the remaining five causes of action are for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, quasi-contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief and that "none of these claims have merit." Chase contends that there is no cause of action for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5 has been stated because it is preempted by the Home Owner's Loan Act and because the subject loan is a construction loan.  The other claims are based on the erroneous allegation that the Note for the Subject Loan was sold to a securitized trust.  However this claim is a fabrication as the Note was never sold to a securitized trust. " JPMorgan is the beneficiary. Plaintiff has no evidence to the contrary."  [Note that they did not state that JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA is the beneficiary and that JPMorgan and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA are distinct entities.]


Deborah Brignac signed a Declaration filed as Document 62 on June 21, 2012.  For anyone interested in samples of Brignac's signature, the one on this document is presumably hers and differs from her signature on countless other documents. Her declaration can be viewed at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98055899/Robosigner-Deborah-Brignac-s-Signature-on-Declaration-filed-in-Javaheri-v-JPMorgan-Chase-Bank-NA

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Secret FDIC & JPMorgan Chase Bank 118 Page Purchase and Assumption Agreement for Washington Mutual Bank Uncovered

 

Smoking Gun or Another Murder of Crows?  You be the judge.


QUESTION -- Are the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank and their attorneys keeping secrets and playing destructive games with the lives of good decent Americans across the land that results in their stealing homes and damaging forever lives and communities?  Are they in fact hiding the true agreement (PAA) for the assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank, the failed bank seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and placed in Receivership with the FDIC who sold WAMU to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on the very same day in September 2008?


Repeatedly homeowners in foreclosure and their attorneys have questioned the veracity of the 39 page Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA for Washington Mutual Bank that Chase, the FDIC, and their attorneys represent to be the real PAA.  They have used this 39 page public document in courts of law to reap all of WAMU's benefits without bearing any of its burdens in courtrooms, federal and state, throughout the United States.
 
Attorney Vernon Bradley of Sausalito, California, recently filed a lawsuit to stop a foreclosure action on behalf of  the Plaintiff, Scott Call Jolley, against Chase et al in California Superior Court in Marin County, California and it is under appeal.  This case and the revelations that have come to light through  Appellant's Opening Brief filed with the California Appellate Court points to the existence of a different "full copy" PAA (the full and complete copy of the PAA) that consists of 118 or so pages as revealed in the deposition and declaration of Jeffrey A. Thorpe, whose credentials make him a reliable witness. (see below excerpts from Appellant Brief.)

Jeffrey Thorpe was employed October 21, 2011, the date of his declaration, as an asset manager for the FDIC through a contractor for the FDIC, RSM McGladrey Inc.  He stated that he was intimately familiar with the procedures for taking over a failed bank and the required notices that must be given to insulate the buying bank from liability for the original loans of the failed banks.  Thorpe stated that he was familiar with a 118 page PAA that has not been made public.  "Chase took liability for the ongoing contracts in return for getting an 80% discount on the loan's principal owed.  Essentially, Chase Bank traded their right to cut off all liability on WAMU's end for money and a good deal."

Appellant's Opening Brief presents a strong argument that the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA entered into an approximated 118 page "full " Purchase and Assumption Agreement, rather than the "public" PAA being circulated through internet and the courts in foreclosure cases throughout the United States federal and state courts.


If in fact this 118 page PAA exists, can one conclude that the Respondents and their attorneys have perpetrated a possible fraud on the court and that this possible fraud extends to foreclosure lawsuits (past, present, and future) throughout the United States?  And if so, what can be done to help these homeowners who were possibly victimized by judges who unwittingly relied on the purported 39 page PAA to seize and sell their homes?  What will these judges have to say about this serious misrepresentation of the PAA if found to be true?  Will these victimized homeowners be recompensed for the damage caused to them financially and personally?  Will the courts take another look?

Below is information obtained through court proceedings.  Please read this post in its entirety.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

SCOTT CALL JOLLEY,  Plaintiff and Petitioner/Appellant,

vs.


CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability  Corporation and successor in interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., a Washington Corporation; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants and Respondents.
Appellate Docket No. A134019
Marin County Superior Court
Case No. CIV1002039

APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MARIN
Hon. Lynn Duryee, Judge
Phone: (415) 444-7221

Appellant's Opening Brief in Jolley vs. Chase Home Finance LLC et al filed by the Law Offices of Vernon Bradley in Marin County, California presents a strong argument that the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA entered into an 118 page Purchase and Assumption Agreement, rather than the PAA being circulated through the courts in foreclosure cases throughout the United States federal and state courts. 

The brief states:

"On April 19, 2010, Petitioner Scott Jolley‘s Complaint  Case No. CIV1002039 was filed in the California Superior Court in Marin County, California. On April 20, 2010, Petitioner obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the scheduled trustee‘s sale and thereafter obtained a Preliminary Injunction continuing that relief upon posting a $50,000 bond with the Marin County
Superior Court. Petitioner opposed a summary judgment motion brought by Chase and California Reconveyance. The Honorable Judge Duryee took the matter under submission after the hearing, on November 15, 2011, and grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants/Respondents on December
1, 2011.  Judgment was entered the same day thereby immediately dissolving the preliminary injunction of August 20, 2011. On January 25, 2012, Petitioner filed this appeal along with a writ of supersedeas requesting an immediate stay to protect his real property against an impending foreclosure and trustee sale. Since the trial court seemed unreceptive to Petitioner's need for a continued stay during the summary judgment hearing, Petitioner did not formally seek a stay from the trial court because such efforts were clearly futile and the law does not require a litigant to engage in such useless endeavors (please see the accompanying writ reply). Petitioner now files this opening brief along with a reply in support of the writ of supersedeas and stay.


"Petitioner Jolley and Washington Mutual Bank (.WaMu.) entered into a construction loan agreement  which expressly provided that the covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument shall bind the successors and assigns of Lender [WaMu].


"Surprisingly, Respondents now erroneously claim that Chase bears no successor liability for WaMu's torts and contractual breaches arising from that agreement even though Chase continues to enjoy all of the associated benefits. Respondents mistakenly believe Chase is insulated from successor
liability because WaMu subsequently went into FDIC receivership and Chase allegedly took all of WaMu's assets from the FDIC under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (PAA) that supposedly allowed Chase to reap all of WaMu's benefits without bearing any of its burdens.

"However, under California and federal authority Chase is legally required to step directly into the .shoes. of WaMu, to take the place of WaMu, and to remain fully liable for all torts, breaches of
contract and other .sins. committed by WaMu for several reasons.

"First, because the parties' contract expressly provided that the covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument shall bind . . . the successors and assigns of Lender [WaMu]. and the FDIC was statutorily required to step directly into WaMu's shoes, all of the FDIC's .successors and assigns. were also obligated to take WaMu's assets subject to its burdens since the FDIC failed to exercise its special rescission powers and never issued any rescission notice to Petitioner as required by law (see
below). As explained in the declaration of Petitioner's expert, Jeffrey Thorne, the FDIC had opened an escrow and were supposed to send out notices of repudiation/rescission to Petitioner and other borrowers within 90 days or another reasonable time, but the escrow closed so quickly that
the notices were never sent by the FDIC. Therefore, as discussed below, the FDIC always remained subject to the terms and conditions of Petitioner's loan contract, including the requirement that Chase, as the .successor and  assign. of the FDIC/WaMu must be bound by the contract and .take the
place of. the FDIC/WaMu to bear all associated burdens."

Appellant's brief further asserts the following:

"Second, according the compelling deposition testimony and declaration of Mr. Thorne, the actual, full and complete PAA (118 pages) makes Chase liable for all torts and contractual breaches by WaMu in stark contrast to the identically named public document (34 pages) posted on the internet."

"The record is full of competent and convincing evidence to support this fact, including, without limitation, the deposition testimony of Mr. Thorne (Thorne Depo,. CT 69-88, Pgs. 37, 70-73 ) as well as his sworn declaration (Thorne Dec,. CT 53-59). This evidence cannot be lightly dismissed since Jeffrey Thorne is a highly credible expert witness who swears under penalty of perjury that he actually read the real PAA and it does not absolve Chase of liability for WaMu. More specifically, Mr. Thorne's declaration reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"1. Currently I am employed as an asset manager for the FDIC through a contractor for the FDIC, RSM McGladrey Inc. I am intimately familiar with the procedures for taking over a failed bank
and the required notices that must be given to insulate the buying bank from liability for the original loans of the failed banks.

 "2. When Washington Mutual failed, I was involved in the takeover of Washington Mutual by FDIC and the escrow that was opened to sell Washington Mutual to Chase Bank. I was uniquely
positioned to be involved in what was known as .Bank No. 26 takeover. as I had previously worked for Washington Mutual, heading their Construction Lending Department for 38 states."

"4. Within the takeover procedures by the FDIC, the FDIC will enter into an agreement with the succeeding bank. In this instance the FDIC entered into an agreement with Chase Bank. But because of the nature of the transaction, the FDIC guaranteed 80% of the loans, while Chase only assumed 20% of the potential losses on the loans. Pursuant to the public part of the agreement with the FDIC, of which were approximately 39 pages, the balance of the contract and the complete agreement with the FDIC and Chase bank is 118 pages long which has not been made public. I am familiar with this agreement, I have read it, I was involved in the takeover of WAMU with the FDIC, and the balance of the agreement imposes liability on Chase for ongoing contracts with WAMU. Chase took liability for the ongoing contracts in return for getting an 80% discount on the loan‘s principal owed. Essentially, Chase Bank traded their right to cut off all liability on WAMU‘s end for money and a good deal.

"5. Chase assumed the rights and benefits owing to WAMU under its outstanding contracts with its customers. Because of the favorable guarantee from the FDIC, they also agreed to assume the
liabilities flowing from the WAMU contracts.


"6. From 2002 to 2006, I was senior loan consultant for WAMU."

Furthermore Appellant's Brief states the following:

"Mr. Thorne's testimony is further bolstered by the FDIC's tacit admission that the document exists, i.e., when Petitioner's counsel sought the smoking gun document by subpoena, the FDIC's agent told Petitioner's counsel that the document could only be obtained after all parties and the trial judge executed a comprehensive stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order barring dissemination  outside of this case. That response indicates something is being hidden.

"More specifically, on or about November 7, 2011, a request of the full and complete PAA from responding party was made orally, responding party denied the existence of such document. On November 8, 2011, a request for the same document was requested from the FDIC. The FDIC
refused to provide the document but alluded to its existence by requesting Petitioner provide for the specific portions in which he was seeking, and further advising that the FDIC would redact portions of this agreement.
On or about November 8, 2011, a request by subpoena was made to the FDIC, and again the FDIC refused the request and asked Petitioner‘s Attorney to submit to a protective order with a stipulation from all parties. See emails C.T. 142 – 143. On November 9, 2011, Petitioner requested, in writing, the full 118 page contract from Responding party and asked Respondent's counsel to sign the FDIC's stipulation. These requests were immediately denied. Petitioner‘s Attorney was then forced to seek ex parte relief from Judge Duryee of the Marin County Superior Court to have all parties execute the stipulated protective order so that the true PAA could be obtained and to continue the jury trial until Petitioner had a fair chance to seek that dispositive evidence. Judge Duryee ignored these requests.

"Perhaps because of Mr. Thorne's unique qualifications and personal knowledge of the crucial facts, this is the very first case to bring this evidence to light. Previously, Chase mislead courts across the country with the abridged version of the PAA, so case law developed in reliance thereon cannot be deemed valid. It was also reversible error for Judge Duryee to accept the truth of matters asserted in the contested document, i.e., that Chase was absolved of liability. At the very least, Petitioner should be allowed a fair opportunity to finally overcome discovery stonewalling and obtain a copy of the document pursuant to CCP §437c(h), which reads: .If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication or both that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented, the court shall deny the motion, or order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had or may make any other order as may be just. (emphasis added). Accordingly, it was reversible error to simply ignore Petitioner‘s request. Alternatively, Petitioner should have
been allowed to have a jury of his peers evaluate the credibility of Mr. Thorne and Chase's experts on this crucial factual issue."

Apppellant's Brief argues the following:

"Alternatively, Chase's successor tort liability also exists under the general rule that a purchaser assumes a seller's liabilities when (1) there is an express or implied agreement of assumption, (2) the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, (3) the purchasing
corporation is a mere continuation of the seller, or (4) the transfer of assets to the purchaser is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller's debts. Id. At 28. The .mere continuation. ground for liability exists due to Chase's acquisition of all WaMu's operating assets, its use of those
assets and of WaMu's former employees to maintain the same line of .financial products,. its holding itself out to customers and the public as a continuation of the same enterprise under a new name, its failure to provide

"WaMu/FDIC with adequate consideration to meet claims of unsecured creditors (a factual determination subject to disputed material facts); the fact that one or more persons were officers, directors, or stockholders of both WaMu and Chase (a factual determination subject to disputed material facts).2 Id.

"2 The last two facts are based on Appellant's information and belief. Further expert analysis of the
underlying transactions will be required to verify these allegations. However, since expert
discovery had not closed before summary judgment, the disputed nature of these facts should
have been ground for denial of summary judgment.

 "Moreover, the powerful deposition testimony and declaration of Jeffrey Thorne created triable issues of material fact as to whether Chase defrauded and deceived Appellant and the general public by concealing the true purchase and assumption agreement wherein Chase retained full liability for WaMu's torts and contractual breaches in exchange for other favorable terms. Mr. Thorne is uniquely qualified to present evidence on this issue and he had personally read the .smoking gun. document so Appellant was entitled to have a jury evaluate credibility regarding this crucial fact, which would clearly preserve Chase's liability for WaMu's misconduct. 

Link to related documents:

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3675055/Secret-FDIC-and-JPMorgan-Chase-Bank-118-Page-Purchase-and-Assumption-Agreement-for-Washington-Mutual-Bank

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97851793/6-Case-File-Montana-Paatalo-v-J-P-Morgan-Chase-Motion-to-Re-open-Discovery-Re-Inspection-of-118-Page-Wamu-PAA 

This is compelling information.  Anyone have further information about these assertions should contact Vernon Bradley, Esq. in Sausalito, California or email this author.

Excerpt from the Deposition of Jeffrey A. Thorne:



13  Q.   BY MR. BRADLEY:  Okay.  Now, this 118-page
14  document, can you again describe to me what its contents
15  was?
16  A.  There's two documents. They're the same
17  document.  And it is the right to purchase a financial
18  institution.   That's the purchase agreement.  One of 
19  them is 35 pages long that is recorded and made public
20  by the FDIC, and the other is a continuation of the 35
21  pages up to the 118 pages that spells out an agreement
22  between the purchasing institution and the FDIC as to
23  how they are to handle the customers upon the purchase
24  of the bank; i.e., how the foreclosures are to be
25    handled, work out agreements that they're supposed to
 [Page 71]
 1  make.  Are they supposed to make an offer?  They have to
2  make certain offers in writing.  They have to present
3 them to the FDIC to Show that they're working with them
4 In good faith.  They just can't go in and just start
5 foreclosing on everybody that's not paying.
6 Q.   And it's your testimony that there was such an
7 agreement that Chase Signed with the FDIC when it took
8  over WaMu, this document?
9  A.  Yeah, at the facility that I was at, that was
10 one of the documents I had access to through my system,
11 and I saw that document.
12  Q.   Okay.  And then where would a copy of that
13  document be?  The first 32 pages, I think you said, were
14  made public, but the balance of them were withheld from
15  the public.
16  A.  Right.  It would be at FDIC.
17  Q.   Okay.  And could those be subpoenaed?
18  A.  I'm sure they could.
19  Q.   And you would refer to it as the right to
20  purchase document?
21  A.  Right.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````











Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Who on the US Senate Banking Committee Got Money from JPMorgan Chase?

ANOTHER MURDER OF CROWS


And the winner is Senator Mark Warner of Virginia   $108,000


The runner up is Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama  $72,950


So much for fairness in government.

Jamie Dimon: Regulation Best Done Behind Closed Doors

Jamie Dimon: Regulation Best Done Behind Closed Doors

JPMorgan Chase Gets $14 Billion Per Year In Government Subsidy: Study

JPMorgan Chase Gets $14 Billion Per Year In Government Subsidy: Study

Another Murder of Crows: JPMorgan Chase & House Finance Committee


 A Murder of Crows



JPMorgan’s Connections to the House Finance Committee - ProPublica

 



According to ProPublica 
 
JPMorgan has two in-house lobbyists with connections to the House Financial Services Committee.
There are also three former congressional staffers with committee ties at firms currently lobbying for JPMorgan:
  • Collins Lionel is a lobbyist at Jones, Walker et al., and a former staff member on the committee. JPMorgan hired the firm this year.
  • Nicholas Leibham, who works JPMorgan lobbying firm K&L Gates, was formerly an aide to Gary L. Ackerman, D-N.Y., another committee member.
  • Bart Gordon also works at K&L Gates. He's a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee who, back in the 1980s, sat on the committee.
Data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics also shows how representatives on the committee have benefited from the generosity of JPMorgan's employees and PACs.
In the 2012 election cycle, JPMorgan's PACs and employees have so far given $168,000 to members of the committee. About 80 percent of that came from one of the bank's PACs.
  • JPMorgan's PAC and employees have been the second-largest contributors to committee chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., since 1993, donating a total of $119,000 to the congressman's campaigns — $11,000 so far this election cycle. (These numbers don't include contributions to Super PACs or other outside groups.)
  • The committee's vice-chair,  Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, has received a relatively modest $50,000 from JPMorgan since 2003. Overall, commercial banks have been his largest campaign contributor.
  • Other big Republican career recipients include Steve Stivers of Ohio, who has only served since 2010 but has already received more than $70,000.
  • On the Democratic side, JPMorgan's PAC and employees have given ranking member Barney Frank, D-Mass., $84,500 since 1989, making them his 4th biggest donor overall.
  • JPMorgan is number one for Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., with more than $100,000 since 1993.

Bachus: Capital Protects Taxpayers Against Too Big to Fail Banks





Washington, Jun 19 - Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus today delivered the following statement at the committee's hearing on bank supervision and risk management in relation to the recent JPMorgan Chase trading loss:

"Today the Committee meets to examine bank supervision and risk management in light of the recent trading loss at JP Morgan Chase.

"When America’s largest bank reveals it has suffered an unexpected loss of more than $2 billion, it understandably generates concern and raises questions not only about the bank’s risk management controls and corporate governance but also the action – or inaction as the case may be – of the regulators.

"While the size of the reported loss is a small fraction – just 1/1000th of JP Morgan’s total assets – this episode serves as a reminder that no institution – no matter how well managed – is immune from mistakes that are, to use Mr. Dimon’s words, 'stupid,' 'sloppy' and the result of 'bad judgment.'

"But even more importantly, this should remind all of us about the importance of making sure it is the bank and its shareholders -- not the taxpayers -- who pay for such mistakes.

"Fortunately, these losses are not being borne by the taxpayers, but by JP Morgan.  Since the losses were disclosed, the company has lost $23 billion in market capitalization and suffered reputational harm in the marketplace, and employees involved in the problematic trades have lost their jobs.

"This is how the system is supposed to work:  those who take the risk are the ones who suffer the loss or realize the gain.  It stands in stark contrast to the regime of taxpayer-funded bailouts with privatized profits and socialized losses we’ve experienced in the cases of AIG, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Solyndra.

"Because the bank has more than sufficient capital, taxpayers are protected from a bailout and the overall financial system is protected from being brought down by the mistakes of an institution that is deemed Too Big to Fail.

"That is why the most important lesson to be learned from this incident has nothing to do with any of the 400-plus rules found in the 2,300-page Dodd-Frank Act.  The most important lesson is how central capital is to the safety and soundness of individual banks and our overall financial system.

"A bank with sufficient capital is able to absorb losses, whether those losses are caused by external factors beyond the institution’s control or internal problems caused by poor risk management.  A bank with sufficient capital is not a threat to the financial system even if regulators fail to do their jobs.  And a bank with sufficient capital can take risks without putting taxpayers in jeopardy.

"Just as JP Morgan should be (and is being) held accountable for its risk management failures, accountability must also be demanded of the Federal regulators who oversee the bank’s activities.  Unfortunately, because the Dodd-Frank Act failed to consolidate and streamline the current convoluted and chaotic regulatory structure, as House Republicans proposed, achieving regulatory accountability is every bit as difficult now as it was during the height of the financial crisis. 

"How inefficient and fragmented is the current regulatory framework? Well, sitting before us today are five different regulators, all of whom have some supervisory responsibility over these trades and several of whom have examiners embedded at JP Morgan – but none of whom, apparently, was either aware of the bank’s hedging strategy or raised concerns about it.   

"Perhaps the complexity – of the trades, of the regulatory structure, of the rules themselves – makes it impossible for the regulators to adequately do their jobs.  After all, the Volcker Rule proposal is, by itself, staggering in its length and complexity.  And, more than a month after this loss was disclosed, the regulators still cannot say whether the Volcker Rule would have prevented JP Morgan from making these trades.

"Contrast this complexity with the simplicity of capital.  Capital is our greatest protection against the systemic risk posed by institutions that are Too Big to Fail.  I am pleased we will have the opportunity to discuss this issue today with our witnesses, and I thank them for being here. 

"Before closing, once again I want to re-emphasize the point that JPMorgan and its shareholders – not the bank’s clients, and more importantly, not the taxpayers – are the ones paying for the bank’s mistakes.  This is how the system is supposed to work."

House Financial Services Committee Members

44
Spencer Bachus, AL, Chairman
Jeb Hensarling, TX, Vice Chairman
Peter T. King, NY
Edward R. Royce, CA
Frank D. Lucas, OK
Ron Paul, TX
Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Walter B. Jones, NC
Judy Biggert, IL
Gary G. Miller, CA
Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Scott Garrett, NJ
Randy Neugebauer, TX
Patrick T. McHenry, NC
John Campbell, CA
Michele Bachmann, MN
Thaddeus G. McCotter, MI
Kevin McCarthy,CA
Stevan Pearce, NM
Bill Posey, FL
Michael G. Fitzpatrick, PA
Lynn A. Westmoreland, GA
Blaine Luetkemeyer, MO
Bill Huizenga, MI
Sean P. Duffy, WI
Nan A. S. Hayworth, NY
James B. Renacci, OH
Robert Hurt, VA
Robert J. Dold, IL
David Schweikert, AZ
Michael G. Grimm, NY
Francisco "Quico" Canseco, TX
Steve Stivers, OH
Stephen Lee Fincher, TN
Barney Frank, MA, Ranking Member
Maxine Waters, CA
Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Melvin L. Watt, NC
Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Brad Sherman, CA
Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Joe Baca, CA
Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Brad Miller, NC
David Scott, GA
Al Green, TX
Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Gwen Moore, WI
Keith Ellison, MN
Ed Perlmutter, CO
Joe Donnelly, IN
André Carson, IN
James A. Himes, CT
Gary C. Peters, MI
John C. Carney, Jr., DE

Testimony of Jamie Dimon Chairman & CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Before the House Financial Services Committee

Testimony of Jamie Dimon Chairman & CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Before the House Financial Services Committee

JPMorgan’s Connections to the House Finance Committee | Foreclosure Fraud - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

JPMorgan’s Connections to the House Finance Committee | Foreclosure Fraud - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s testimony met with protests - The Washington Post

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s testimony met with protests - The Washington Post

Parsing Jamie Dimon's Testimony - NYTimes.com

Parsing Jamie Dimon's Testimony - NYTimes.com

Jamie Dimon's Testimony: Volcker Rule May Have Prevented Loss - Forbes

Jamie Dimon's Testimony: Volcker Rule May Have Prevented Loss - Forbes

Krugman: Jamie Dimon Must Resign Over JPMorgan's $3B Lost & Campaign Against Financial Regs - YouTube

Krugman: Jamie Dimon Must Resign Over JPMorgan's $3B Lost & Campaign Against Financial Regs - YouTube

Sanders Releases Explosive Bailout List -- JPMorgan Chase Got Bailed out while Homeowners Got Sold out

Sanders Releases Explosive Bailout List

"In Dimon's case, JPMorgan received some $391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank."

 Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, has served on the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since 2007. During the financial crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $391 billion in total financial assistance. JP Morgan Chase was also used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In March of 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. During the financial crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. The Fed also agreed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.

Homeowners ask : "Where is our bailout?"

Jamie Dimon's Testimony Before The Oversight Hearing on JPMorgan Chase - C-SPAN Video Library

Oversight Hearing on JPMorgan Chase - C-SPAN Video Library

Monday, June 11, 2012

USDOJ: Two Northern California Real Estate Investors Agree to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging at Public Foreclosure Auctions

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 7, 2012
 

Two Northern California Real Estate Investors Agree to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging at Public Foreclosure Auctions

Investigation Has Yielded 24 Plea Agreements to Date

WASHINGTON – Two Northern California real estate investors have agreed to plead guilty for their roles in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, the Department of Justice announced.

Felony charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, Calif., against Douglas Ditmer of San Ramon, Calif. and Keith Slipper of Oakland. 

To date, as a result of the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, 24 individuals, including Ditmer and Slipper, have agreed to plead or have pleaded guilty.

“By agreeing not to compete with one another in the bidding process, these investors illegally profited and undermined the integrity of the real estate market,” said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program.  “The conspiracy eliminated competition and prevented lenders and distressed homeowners from getting fair market prices for their property.”

According to court documents, Ditmer and Slipper participated in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud by agreeing to stop bidding or to refrain from bidding for properties at public foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, Calif., negotiating payoffs with other conspirators not to compete, purchasing selected properties at public auctions at suppressed prices, and participating in second, private auctions open only to members of the conspiracy, where the property was awarded to the conspirator who submitted the highest bid.

The department said Ditmer conspired with others to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa County beginning as early as July 2008 and continuing until about January 2011, and in Alameda County beginning as early as June 2007 and continuing until about January 2011.  Slipper conspired with others to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa County beginning as early as June 2008 and continuing until about December 2010, and in Alameda County beginning as early as March 2009 and continuing until about May 2009

“The FBI continues to work closely with the Antitrust Division to target those individuals who engage in fraudulent bid rigging and other anticompetitive activities at foreclosure auctions,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephanie Douglas of the San Francisco Field Office.  “We are committed to bringing to justice those who engage in illegal and unfair practices that adversely impact legitimate home buyers and sellers.” 
The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracies was to suppress and restrain competition in order to obtain selected real estate offered at Contra Costa and Alameda county public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices.  When real estate properties are sold at these auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with remaining proceeds, if any, paid to the homeowner.  According to court documents, these conspirators paid and received money that otherwise would have gone to pay off the mortgage and other holders of debt secured by the properties, and, in some cases, the defaulting homeowner.

Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for the Sherman Act charges may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than $1 million.  Each count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.  The government can also seek to forfeit the proceeds earned from participating in the conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

The charges today are the latest cases filed by the department in its ongoing investigation into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa and Alameda counties, Calif.

The ongoing investigation into fraud and bid rigging at certain real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI’s San Francisco office.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660, visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm or call the FBI tip line at 415-553-7400.
Today’s charges are part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.  The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Where Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State? - ProPublica

Where Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State? - ProPublica

 California homeowners in the foreclosure crises are getting screwed -- zero $$$ going to help homeowners from the Mortgage Bank Settlement.  Shames on Governor Jerry Brown -- shame, shame, shame!!!!

Friday, June 1, 2012

Where Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State? - ProPublica

Where Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State? - ProPublica

ARE THE BIG BANKS PLAYING "HIDE THE DEFAULT" FROM INVESTORS?

It's a secret -- hide the money - hide the default -- don't tell!

Are the big banks playing "Hide the Default" game with their investors on faulty mortgages and why?


On May 15, 2012 at a hearing before the California Legislative Committee on the Foreclosure Crises that took place in the afternoon session in Sacramento, bankers when queried about their expenses from defaulted mortgages gave testimony that indicates the banks are keeping these mortgages current with the so-called "investors" who actually own the notes/loans.

 

Is a loan really in default if the big bank servicing the loan continues to make payments to the "investor"? 


Black's Law Dictionary defines "Default" as a failure.  Under the UCC "default is left undefined though it is precisely what the parties agree it is.

Borrowers with access to a Bloomberg terminal and a CUSIP number for their home loans are discovering that the balance on their mortgages are inexplicably reduced by thousands of dollars  than the loan balance shown when the borrower was discontinued making regular monthly mortgage payments. How can this be?  Who is paying down the principal balance?  Not the borrower for he has lost his livelihood or fallen ill or fell prey to a predatory lender.  So who can it be making payments on the mortgage and why?

One west coast homeowner  (litigant in federal court) recently through a Bloomberg terminal in fact determined that his loan balance is thousands of dollars less than than the principal balance stated by the servicer.  As he himself has not been paying down the principal or interest for that matter, someone is making payments on the "Investor's" investment. Is his "Servicer" continuing to make payments to the investor or is it some phantom member of the 1% being Mr. Benevolent?  Or is it simply that his "servicer" is playing "hide the default" from the investor so the investor is misled into believing the homeowner/borrower is current on the mortgage?   Thus, the loan as far as the investor is concerned is not in "default" yet the Trustee is attempting to foreclose on the property -- and is demanding "tender" if the case is in a court of law.

This opens up another can or worms?   

Question:  What becomes of the income derived by the servicer from a foreclosure sale on a loan that is technically current with the investor?  Does the servicer continue the game and pocket the cash derived from the foreclosure sale?  Does the servicer actually pay the funds to the investor?  Or does the servicer continue to make payments on the foreclosed loan to the investor and use the proceeds of the foreclosure sale for their own enrichment?  Is it deemed by definition to be "unjust enrichment"?

In courts of law across America borrowers who are fighting foreclosures and seeking justice find themselves being required to make "tender."  All to often homeowners have no ways or means to tender and are thus denied justice -- especially troubling if there is technically no default, no harm, no foul to the investgor.

Tender is an offer of money, the act by which one produces and offers to an entity/legal person holding a claim or demand against him the amount of money which he considers and admits to be due, in satisfaction of such claim or demand, without any stipulation or condition. A mere written proposal to pay money without offer of cash is not "tender." Tender, in common law pleading, is a plea that the plaintiff has always been ready to pay the debt demanded and before commencement of the action tenders it to the debt holder and brings it into court ready to be paid. The two essential characteristics of tender are an unconditional offer to perform, together with the manifested ability to do so, and the production of the subject matter of tender.
"In the current flood of mortgage litigation, the so-called "tender rule"  —   that a borrower generally cannot set aside a foreclosure unless he or she tenders the full amount owed on the loan  — poses a significant obstacle for many plaintiffs. The rationale behind this rule is that a borrower should not be able to avoid foreclosure when the borrower cannot pay his or her debt and any procedural errors could be cured. In Ferguson v. Avelo Mortgage, LLC (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Jun. 1, 2011) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, 2011 WL 2139143, the Court of Appeal again affirmed the tender rule and, by doing so, took an additional step favorable to lenders."  
                 Source:   http://www.natlawreview.com/article/more-teeth-tender-rule

ARE  BIG BANKERS  PLAYING  "HIDE THE DEFAULT?
Seeking more information on this most unusual business practice.