Thursday, May 30, 2013

Update: Scott Jolley v Chase Home Finance


**UPDATE**  Complete Docket below.

04/15/2013Received copy of:    ltr. from Kahn A. Scolnick, Gibson Dunn, counsel for JP Morgan Chase, to Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court, dated 4-12-13, re: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. requests depublication of the Court of Appeal's opinion in Jolley v. Chase Home Finance LLC
04/15/2013Received copy of:    ltr. from James Martin, Reed Smith, to Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court, dated 4-12-13, re: The California Bankers Association and the Mortgage Bankers Association requests that the Court granted the petition for review in Jolley v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. S209554, and clarify the law of the lender duty of case issues that Jolley addresses.
04/16/2013Answer to petition for review received.    
04/18/2013Received copy of:    Letter of Vernon Bradley, counsel for respondent, to California Supreme Court, dated 4/16/13, re: respondent Scott C. Jolley's Response to Request for Depublication
04/22/2013Received copy of:    Letter from Robert Little with Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP, dated 4/21/13 to California Supreme Court, re: Wells Fargo's Response Supporting Chase's Request for Depublication
04/29/2013Received copy of:    Defendant-Petitioner JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Reply in Support of Petition for Review
05/22/2013Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.    (Per Supreme Court's website - Petition for Review and Depublication Request(s) Denied; Kennard, J. was recused and did not participate)
05/29/2013Remittitur issued.    
05/29/2013Case complete.   

Fox Was in the Henhouse: Senior Treasury Official Darius Kingsley to Join Chase

 

This story illustrates why the country is a mess and why homeowners never get cut a break.  There ought to be a law to stop this shameful behavior. The fox has been residing in the hen house and the now crows are gathering.    Hapless homeowners have been duped by yet another Treasury official

Let's be clear:  JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, aka Chase, has destroyed homes, families and communities.  They have destroyed te health, well-being and peace of mind of countless Americans.  Shame on Chase!  Shame on Darius Kingsley.

 
NEW YORK, May 28, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Chase today announced that U.S. Treasury Official Darius Kingsley will join the bank as co-General Counsel of Mortgage Banking. He will share duties with Denise DesRosiers, who has been with the bank's mortgage business for 21 years and most recently served as Deputy General Counsel of Mortgage Banking. 

Kingsley has been the Chief of the Homeownership Preservation Office at Treasury since 2011, after serving as Deputy Chief. Before that, he was Senior Counsel for the Office of Financial Stability for two years. The Homeownership Preservation Office oversees the federal government's Making Home Affordable Program, including HAMP and HARP. 

"Darius' experience will be invaluable as we continue to invest in the mortgage business and focus on strengthening our regulatory and compliance framework," said Matthew Biben, General Counsel of Chase Community and Consumer Banking, "Darius and Denise will both play valuable roles in providing strategic and transactional legal support for the Mortgage Banking business." 

"I have watched and respected Chase's leadership in helping Americans through these difficult years," said Kingsley, who has worked in private practice and government service for 17 years. "As the housing market recovers, I'm excited to be at Chase as we help Americans achieve and sustain homeownership."

 READ MORE:
Senior Treasury Official Darius Kingsley to Join Chase As co-General Counsel of Mortgage - MarketWatch

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Military Family Home Protection Act (H.R. 1842)

May 7, 2013
Contacts
Jennifer Hoffman (Cummings): 202-226-5181
Ed Gilman (Michaud): 202-225-6306
Benjamin Halle (Smith): 202-570-2771
Marc Berkman (Davis): 202-225-2040
Brett Morrow (Takano): 202-225-2305
Kathryn Prael (Tierney): 202-225-8020

Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to
Protect Military Families from Foreclosure

Washington, D.C. (May 7, 2013)—Today, Reps. Elijah E Cummings, Mike Michaud, Adam Smith, Susan Davis, Mark Takano, and John Tierney, the Ranking Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, and the Subcommittee on National Security, introduced H.R. 1842, the Military Family Home Protection Act, to strengthen foreclosure protections for U.S. military servicemembers and their families. 
 
Similar legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representative during the last Congress by a vote of 394 to 27.  Similar legislation was passed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, but was never considered on the Senate floor.
 
The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Military Officers Association of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives of America, and Disabled American Veterans. 

“This legislation extends critical protections to our nation’s servicemembers, veterans with disabilities, and the surviving spouses of fallen heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation,” said Rep. Cummings.  “The bill ensures that the homes of servicemembers are protected when they are most vulnerable—when they are placing their lives at risk overseas or recovering from service-related injuries here at home.”
 
“This bill holds banks accountable and provides much-needed protections to those who’ve served our country,” said Rep. Michaud.  “This is a win-win for all members of our military and so many veterans, surviving spouses and their families. It should receive strong bipartisan support because it’s good policy and because it’s the right thing to do.”
 
“The men and women of our Armed Services and their families make a tremendous sacrifice to keep our country safe, and we must ensure that their financial security is protected here at home,” said Rep. Smith.  “Our servicemembers are often asked to move or be deployed on very short notice, which can present unpredictable financial difficulties. This bill takes critical steps toward protecting deployed servicemembers and their families from those potential financial challenges.”
 
“One can only imagine what it must be like to learn that you are about to lose your home while you are deployed to protect America and our freedoms,” said Rep. Davis.  “Our servicemembers face unique challenges that warrant flexibility in issues of foreclosure that this legislation provides.  They should be honored for the sacrifices they make, not penalized.  I commend Congressman Cummings for his efforts to protect our military families.”
 
“As the Ranking Member of the Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, I’m proud to support the Military Family Home Protection Act,” said Rep. Takano. “This much needed legislation provides essential foreclosure protections for our heroes, who should not have to worry about losing their home while deployed overseas. Providing the flexibility laid out in this legislation is the least we can do for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line day in and day out.”
 
“It is unacceptable for our service members to be subjected to abusive penalties and practices when they are deployed. That is why I am pleased to join Congressman Cummings and my other colleagues today in introducing this bill today that will strengthen service members’ legal rights and protect them against unfair foreclosures,”  said Rep. Tierney.
 
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which was originally passed in 1940, does not currently protect all servicemembers and their families from foreclosure because its protections apply only to those who purchased homes prior to activation.  The Military Family Home Protection Act expands foreclosure protection to all servicemembers regardless of when they purchased their home.  Specifically, the bill would:
 
·       Stay a home foreclosure action when servicemembers are receiving hostile fire or imminent danger pay;
·       Stay a home foreclosure action for a 12-month period for servicemembers placed on convalescent status, for veterans who are medically discharged, and for surviving spouses of servicemembers whose deaths are service-connected;
·       Double civil penalties for mortgage-related violations;
·       Prohibit banks from discriminating against servicemembers, veterans, and surviving spouses who are eligible for these protections; and
·       Eliminate the primary residence requirement for servicemembers that receive a military order to relocate to another duty station in order to qualify for mortgage refinancing.

For the last two years, Cummings has aggressively investigated illegal foreclosures, inflated fees, and other abuses by banks against servicemembers, veterans, and their families.  Although federal banking regulators have refused to provide Congress with detailed information on such cases, more than 1,600 individuals are receiving compensation for violations of SCRA under amended consent orders announced in February between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 13 of our largest banks.  Since SCRA protections are limited to homes purchased before an individual enters active duty service, these violations likely represent only a subset of the number of military families subjected to abusive foreclosure and servicing practices. 

This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on May 7, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

IntroducedMay 07, 2013
Referred to Committee
May 07, 2013
Military Family Home Protection Act (H.R. 1842) - GovTrack.us


Monday, May 27, 2013

#Justice2Justice - HuffPost Live

#Justice2Justice - HuffPost Live


JAMIE DIMON: Impersonator Arrested By Homeland
 
After being arrested by Federal Protective Service yesterday, they were asked for their names. Among the names that the arrested gave were Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, Brian Moynihan of BOA, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Richard Davis of U.S. Bancorp and Lloyd B. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. Many of those arrested were not veteran activists but ordinary people who feel they have been crushed by the foreclosure crisis. According to Amy Schur of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, there are grandmothers among those arrested and at least four of them are over seventy.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Obama, DOJ For Prosecuting Whistleblowers And Potheads But Not Bankers

Jon Stewart Tears Apart Obama, DOJ For Prosecuting Whistleblowers And Potheads But Not Bankers

Carmen Pittman Recounts Tasing Ordeal At Department of Justice Entrance

American citizens protesting foreclosures were tased by Homeland Security officers.  Citizens tased! Citizens jailed!  Banksters go scott free!  Where is the justice?  Where is equal protection?


WASHINGTON -- Carmen Pittman is 23 years old and weighs 100 pounds. She was the smallest of the activists linking arm-in-arm in front of the Department of Justice entrance on Tuesday morning. As she held on tight, she says she thought of her grandmother, who died in 2011 during foreclosure proceedings on her house. At the protest, she looked up and she whispered something that had become like a mantra to her -- "Grandma watch over me."

Department of Homeland Security officers had lined up behind the protesters for 15 minutes, giving warnings every five minutes that they would be arrested if they did not clear out. Activists like Pittman had enough time to remove their valuables and hand them to friends and say their goodbyes. They had come to protest the Justice Department's failure to prosecute the big banks for the foreclosure mess. The arrests were planned.

Pittman said everyone was calm when police finally moved in with zip cuffs. But one officer stepped forward, she said, and fired his taser, striking her.

SEE ARTICLE IN ITS ENTIRETY AT:
Carmen Pittman Recounts Tasing Ordeal At Department of Justice Entrance

Protesters arrested after attempt to storm Justice Department - Washington Post

Protesters arrested after attempt to storm Justice Department - Washington Post


Protesters arrested after attempt to storm Justice Department

By Tim Craig,May 20, 2013
  • Protesters sit in front of a police barricade in front of the U.S. Department of Justice during a rally against big banks and home foreclosures in Washington, D.C., onMonday.
Protesters sit in front of a police barricade in front of the U.S. Department… (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images )
District and federal law enforcement officials arrested 17 people Monday after protesters opposing foreclosures attempted to storm the entrances of the Justice Department.

About 100 protesters with groups called the Home Defenders League and Occupy Our Homes marched on the building about 2 p.m. Some set up tents on the lawn and sidewalk while others ran up to the building’s Constitution Avenue entrance.





According to D.C. police, 17 people were arrested. Ann C. Wilcox, an attorney who represents protesters, said several were tased during the scuffle. A D.C. police spokeswoman said D.C. police were not involved in the tasing. Federal law enforcement officials on the scene declined comment.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

California Homeowner Bill of Rights Levels the Playing Field between Homeowners & Banks

Inline image 1


West Sacramento homeowner uses new state law to stop foreclosure

 
Published: Thursday, May. 23, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
 
A West Sacramento man is among the first in the state to use California's new Homeowner Bill of Rights to stop a bank from foreclosing on his home, and experts say the case marks a shift in a legal system that has traditionally favored lenders.
Kevin Singh, a house painter, secured a federal court order earlier this month after Bank of America allegedly engaged in a now-forbidden practice called dual tracking. The behavior, in which a bank proceeds with foreclosure while negotiating with a borrower for a loan modification, has been widely criticized as deceptive.
Experts said Singh's case was the first instance in which a judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt a foreclosure auction under the Homeowner Bill of Rights.
This week, North Carolina-based Bank of America was negotiating to resolve the case, said Singh's lawyer, Sacramento attorney Aldon Bolanos. Any settlement would have to include rescinding the foreclosure, he said. The Homeowner Bill of Rights also provides for attorneys fees for winning an injunction.
In an email, Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwen wrote that "Bank of America has resolved this issue with the borrower ... and is continuing to work with the borrower consistent with the bank's commitment to help customers experiencing payment difficulties with their mortgages."
Consumer advocates said cases such as Singh's signal a changing power balance between banks and borrowers in California. The landmark Homeowner Bill of Rights, which took effect Jan. 1, has given homeowners real legal leverage in fighting foreclosures, they said. A number of similar Homeowner Bill of Rights cases are moving through the courts in Northern and Southern California. Some, like Singh's, have resulted in judges issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that put a stop to foreclosures.
"Before, it was really in a bank's discretion to stop a foreclosure sale or not, but now you can get the courts to force them to stop," said Kent Qian, an attorney with the National Housing Law Project in San Francisco.
California is a nonjudicial foreclosure state, where foreclosures typically do not go before a judge. In other states, such as Florida, courts routinely review foreclosures. The new law provides California homeowners more opportunities to mount legal challenges.
In West Sacramento, Singh shares his neat suburban tract house in the city's Southport area with his wife, three children and aging parents. Singh said his painting business dried up during the recession and he stopped making mortgage payments.
Recently, Singh thought he was working out a loan modification with Bank of America and was stunned to receive a notice that his home would be auctioned on April 22.
"I didn't want to lose my house," Singh said. "We would have nowhere to go."
Singh brought his plight to the attention of one of his painting clients, Bolanos, a Sacramento civil rights attorney who also handles real estate matters.
"We were just talking and he said, 'Man, I'm going to lose my house," Bolanos recalled.
The lawyer offered to help and had to race to stop Singh's house from being auctioned in less than two weeks.
Bolanos' first step was to seek a temporary restraining order. The Homeowner Bill of Rights is a state law, but Bolanos filed his case in federal court in Sacramento, where he thought it would get heard faster than in the backlogged state courts. The court could take the case because Singh was challenging an entity from another state.
Bolanos said he also thought the federal courts "were in a better position to police the banks" because of last year's $25 billion national mortgage settlement between five major lenders, the federal government and 49 state attorneys general.
The settlement included terms similar to some provisions of the Homeowner Bill of Rights, including curbs on dual tracking.
The Singh case was a blatant example of dual tracking, Bolanos said. Singh had submitted an application for a loan modification but never got an answer before he was notified his house would be auctioned.
"There was no letter saying, 'Sorry, you've been denied a loan modification,' " the lawyer said. "This is a red-handed case. There couldn't be a simpler violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights."
U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. granted the temporary restraining order on April 17, and Bolanos asked a colleague to go to the auction at a hotel in West Sacramento to "wave the TRO at the auctioneer."
The sale was stopped, and on May 1 England issued a preliminary injunction halting the foreclosure indefinitely. England noted in his order that Bank of America had not disputed Singh's claim that he never received a decision on his loan modification before the bank moved to foreclose.
"An injunction is in the public's interest as it enforces a recently enacted law designed to protect the public," the judge wrote.
That point was significant because it shows the courts, which "have not been a very hospitable venue for homeowners who took matters into their own hands," have changed since the foreclosure crisis, said Michael Troncoso, chief counsel to state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who championed the Homeowner Bill of Rights.
"There's recognition in the courts and recognition in the bar that we're actually going to enforce and uphold (laws to protect homeowners)," Troncoso said.
Bolanos agreed. "Since the Homeowner Bill of Rights it's a completely new game," he said. "We're winning now."
Call The Bee's Hudson Sangree, (916) 321-1191. Bee researcher Pete Basofin contributed to this report.

Monday, May 20, 2013

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS IS HITTING ITS MARK | Information to Fight Foreclosures

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS IS HITTING ITS MARK | Information to Fight Foreclosures

The People Are Too BIG To Fail -- Jail the Bankers

Homeowners to Risk Arrest at Justice Department to Demand Wall Street Accountability | Home Defenders League

Homeowners to Risk Arrest at Justice Department to Demand Wall Street Accountability | Home Defenders League

Oakland California Home Defender Tanya Dennis Arrested at Too Big to Jail Protest in Washington, DC

Twenty-two Arrests Today at The Department of Justice -- End Too Big To Fail

Demand President Obama End Too Big To Fail

On Monday May 20th Home Defenders began a week of action by risking arrest - and refusing to leave if jailed - at the Dept. of Justice to bring and end to "Too Big to Jail". At least 17 have been arrested while 500 rallied in support. It's clear that the DOJ would rather jail homeowners than arrest the Wall Street criminals who caused the Great Recession. Add your voice in support of the Home Defenders who are taking dramatic action throughout the week in an effort to bri

Home Defender Tanya Dennis in red.



Saturday, May 18, 2013

Bring Justice to Justice Week of Action

Washington, DC




Share this Cartoon to Support the Week of Action!
CFS Logo
Connect with the Campaign for a Fair Settlement
twitter  facebook 

Dear Friends of Tanya Dennis,

Today the first home defenders and foreclosure fighters start arriving Washington DC to kick off the Bring Justice to Justice Week of Action. I’m proud to stand with the dozens who will be risking arrest on Monday at the Department of Justice and the hundreds who will be on hand to support them.

I wanted to take a minute to thank you for all your work and support to get the Week of Action to this point. Without your support and the support of hundreds of thousands of people like you who signed petitions, sent emails, made phone calls, and contributed money, there’s no way that the hundreds of people showing up would have felt inspired enough to take this dramatic step. There’s power in numbers and you make us more powerful.

In honor of the start of the Week of Action, we have one request. Please share this image with your friends, family, and others who you think would appreciate it.   You can do it on Facebook here, on Twitter here, or you can just send this email to your favorite people because the picture speaks for itself.

Jailed_protesters_vs_jailed_bankers_editorial_cartoon.jpg

To follow everything that’s happening as we demand the Obama Administration end Too Big to Jail, you can like the Home Defenders League Facebook page here and follow them on Twitter here, or check the Week of Action Center on the HDL website here.

And to get you and your friends into the mood for the Week of Action you can share this image on Facebook here, Twitter here, or send this email around to your friends.

In solidarity,

Brian, Campaign for a Fair Settlement
http://www.campaignforfairsettlement.org/

-=-=-

Campaign for a Fair Settlement · 11 Dupont Cir, Suite 240, Washington, DC 20036, United States

CFS is a multi-sectoral coalition. Common Good and Action for the Common Good staff provide strategic and logistical support to the effort.


You can also keep up with Brian, Campaign for a Fair Settlement on Twitter or Facebook.
-=-=-

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Dimon May Leave JPMorgan Chase If Dual Role Is Split: Report

 Dimon Leave Jpmorgan

 JAMIE DIMON SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF HIS CRIMES & INCARCERATED FOR LIFE FOR THE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE TO THE "REAL PEOPLE" OF AMERICA.

 May 11 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon said he may consider leaving the bank where he has held the top post since 2005, if shareholders vote to split his duties, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Shareholders will vote later this month at an annual meeting in Tampa, Florida, on a non-binding proposal to separate the chairman and chief executive roles after a more than $6 billion trading loss last year raised questions about risk oversight.

At first, Dimon said he would not comment publicly on what he would do if the vote went against him, but when pressed he added that the worst-case scenario would be to leave the bank, the newspaper said, citing sources that attended a private meeting at the company's New York headquarters.

Results of the vote will be announced on May 21, but it remains unclear what the board will do if the proposal passes.

Dimon May Leave JPMorgan Chase If Dual Role Is Split: Report

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Jon Stewart Disses OCC and Independent Foreclosure Review « naked capitalism

Jon Stewart Disses OCC and Independent Foreclosure Review « naked capitalism

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Will Bankers at JPMorgan Chase Finally Pay for Their Misdeeds?


Excerpt:

 "Will California Attorney General Kamala Harris hang tough in her new lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, the first to target individual bankers accused of defrauding the public? If so, it would be the first time in five years that executives at a major bank have personally paid a price for their misdeeds.

Weekend at Jamie's

Recent revelations have shown the world that JPMorgan Chase comes as close as any institution in America to embodying all this is corrupt, contemptible, and criminal about today's megabanks.  This is gratifying, at least on a personal level, since that was not a popular position when we first started writing about JPM and CEO Jamie Dimon a few years back. In those days Dimon was help up as the "good banker" by the president and the press. His institution was considered well-managed and ethical by some of the more shallow members of the popular press, despite the plethora of scandals and crimes like the Alabama bribery case.

Since then we've had a variety of Chase revelations: the "Burger King kids" details behind its massive foreclosure fraud; its confessed criminal mistreatment of active duty military personnel; its deeds in fraudulently propping up a failed mortgage lender (it was like a financial Weekend at Bernie's); and (speaking of "Bernies") its negligence (at best) in the handling of the fraudulent Madoff accounts, which should have triggered all sorts of red-flag warnings.

Now there's the London Whale scandal and what appears to be a subsequent case of investor deception.

The bank wound up paying a staggering $16 billion in fines and settlements over a four-year period, more than 12 percent of its net income during that time.

The Scandal of Our Time

An ethically healthy society would never have lionized a CEO like Jamie Dimon or an institution like JPMorgan Chase. That's why we've called it "the scandal of our time." What explains Dimon's inability to stem the lawbreaking and correct his organization's broken ethical system? The most generous interpretation is that he's an incompetent manager -- so incompetent that, even after numerous suits, revelations, and settlements, "Jamie didn't know" about all the illegal and unethical behavior that continued unabated in his institution.

Needless to say, there are more plausible explanations.

And yet, in those cases where the bank has been called to account with fines and settlements, it has been shareholders and not the wrongdoing bankers themselves,who have paid cost. Ironically, that even happens when the shareholders themselves are the ones who were defrauded. That's why we say that bank fraud is the only crime on Earth in which the victims make restitution on behalf of the wrongdoers.

Is this ugly pattern finally changing?

Meet the Does

Blogger and finance expert Yves Smith thinks so. California Attorney General Kamala Harris is suing JPMorgan Chase and individual bankers (named as "Does 1 through 100") for "commit(ting) debt collection abuses" against Chase credit card holders, "flooding California's courts with... collection lawsuits based on patently insufficient evidence."

The Harris suit calls on the Court to assess $2,500 against each defendant for each violation of "Business and Professions Code section 17200," and an additional $2,500 penalty for each violation perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person.

That may not sound like a lot of money for a banker but, as Smith points out, there are more than 100,000 potential violations. Smith writes: "If (Harris) can get the individuals who were supervising the robosigning operations (better yet, the C level execs ultimately responsible) and the complicit law firms, she might bankrupt some well-placed people. This could be extremely entertaining."

Indeed. In fact, I'll buy the popcorn.

VIEW FULL ARTICLE AT:    Richard (RJ) Eskow: Will Bankers at JPMorgan Chase Finally Pay for Their Misdeeds?

Jamie Dimon Love Festival Starring Maria Bartiromo - Home - The Daily Bail

Jamie Dimon Love Festival Starring Maria Bartiromo - Home - The Daily Bail

Friday, May 10, 2013

Stop Chase's Profiteering with Taxpayer Money








The LA City Council is preparing to make a threshold decision on the future development of West LA. They must make a choice: either the same old poorly planned sprawl,or jobs that are accessible to reliable mass transit; either the same old energy wasting buildings, or new well-designed low-emissions structures; either projects that provide low-wage dead-end jobs, or developments that prioritize good living-wage employment opportunities. JP Morgan Chase wants the Council to choose the first option and stop LA from progressing to a more well-planned future and an economy that works for all - and you have a chance to weigh in right now.

Sign the petition to the LA City Council: Investigate JP Morgan Chase’s profiteering with taxpayer money and anti-competitive behavior.

You might have seen the recent negative publicity surrounding JP Morgan Chase – America’s largest bank by total assets. The news has long reported about the bank’s role in bringing about the foreclosure crisis and its more recent huge investment losses, but an increasing amount of attention has focused on this banking behemoth’s brazen gaming of the system to make its top executives even more wealthy – often at the expense of taxpayers and its own customers:
  • Manipulations and investigations of utility rate settings
  • Profiteering off of our public schools with predatory financing
  • Mortgage malfeasance 
and now:
  • Anti-competitive actions in LA – JP Morgan Chase’s anti-competitive streak proves its own self-interest over the good of our community. A scandal has recently broken about JP Morgan’s anti-competitive behavior, as reported in LA Curbed, about JP Morgan's anti-competitive behavior in attempting to prevent a new transit-oriented development – a project that would create thousands of good union jobs, as well being LA’s first ever LEED Platinum certified newly constructed office high-rise – from being built across the street from the bank’s Southern California headquarters
Sign our petition.  As the LA City Council decides how our city will look in the future, Council members need to consider whether it's appropriate for out of town mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase to lead the charge against environmentally friendly economic development and good living-wage jobs - and whether the city should be doing business with JP Morgan Chase at all.

In the spirit of LA’s Responsible Banking Ordinance unanimously passed last year, designed to ensure that banks doing business with the city of LA were actually good for the people, petitioning the City to examine JP Morgan’s actions is more important than ever.

Join me and other LA residents in telling the City Council that enough is enough. Let’s not give one more penny of our city’s money to these unscrupulous fatcats whose schemes to enrich themselves with our dollars never seem to end!
In Solidarity,
Beverly Roberts
ACCE Los Angeles Exec. Board Member

California Sues JPMorgan Chase Over Credit Card Cases - NYTimes.com

Inline image 1   Inline image 2   Inline image 3 

JPMorgan is already navigating a thicket of regulatory woes. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the bank’s chief regulators, is preparing an enforcement action against the bank over the way it collects its credit card debt, according to several people close to the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly.

 Read Article at:    California Sues JPMorgan Chase Over Credit Card Cases - NYTimes.com

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Suit Against JPMorgan Chase for Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices


LOS ANGELES --

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed an enforcement action against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Chase) alleging that the bank engaged in fraudulent and unlawful debt-collection practices against tens of thousands of Californians.

The suit alleges that Chase engaged in widespread, illegal robo-signing, among other unlawful practices, to commit debt-collection abuses against approximately 100,000 California credit card borrowers over at least a three-year period.

“Chase abused the judicial process and engaged in serious misconduct against California credit card borrowers,” Attorney General Harris said. “This enforcement action seeks to hold Chase accountable for systematically using illegal tactics to flood California’s courts with specious lawsuits against consumers. My office will demand a permanent halt to these practices and redress for borrowers who have been harmed.”

From January 2008 through April 2011, Chase filed thousands of debt collection lawsuits every month in the State of California. On one day alone, Chase filed 469 such lawsuits in California. The Attorney General’s complaint against Chase alleges that, to maintain this pace, Chase employed unlawful practices as shortcuts to obtain judgments against California consumers with speed and ease that could not have been possible if Chase had adhered to the minimum substantive and procedural protections required by law.
“At nearly every stage of the collection process, Defendants cut corners in the name of speed, cost savings, and their own convenience, providing only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to their lawsuits,” the complaint states.

Chase used California’s judicial system as a mill to obtain default judgments, the suit alleges, using illegal tactics to flood the state’s court system in order to secure default judgments and garnish wages from Californians.

The alleged misconduct includes:
  • Robo-signing: Chase illegally robo-signed various litigation filings, including sworn documents, declarations, and verified complaints, without reviewing the relevant files or bank records or even reading the documents before signing.
  • “Sewer Service”: Chase failed to properly serve notice of debt collection lawsuits against consumers while claiming they had been served as required by law. This practice, known as “sewer service,” deprives the consumer of any notice of the lawsuit.
  • Filing Irregularities: Chase haphazardly assembled its official legal filings. For example, Chase failed to redact consumers’ personal information in attachments to filings, potentially exposing them to identity theft and in violation of California law. In addition, when asking courts to enter default judgments against consumers, Chase consistently swore under penalty of perjury that the consumers were not on active military duty. In fact, Chase never checked.  This deprived servicemembers of important legal protections to which they are entitled while on active duty.
The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and a copy of the complaint is attached to the online version of this release at http://oag.ca.gov.

Consumers who believe they have been victims of this misconduct may submit a complaint online at http://oag.ca.gov/consumers.
# # #

You may view the full account of this posting, including possible attachments, in the News & Alerts section of our website at: http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-suit-against-jpmorgan-chase

Federal judge questions constitutionality of Colorado foreclosure law - The Denver Post

Federal judge questions constitutionality of Colorado foreclosure law - The Denver Post

Banks Whining About Cost of Breaking New California Homeowner Bill of Rights « naked capitalism

 Posted by Naked Capitalism:


Read Entire Article at:
Quelle Surprise! Banks Whining About Cost of Breaking New California Homeowner Bill of Rights « naked capitalism'

Excerpts:

  • One amusing contrast between the State/Federal settlement and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights: both called for an end to dual tracking, the process by which banks move forward with the foreclosure process even if the borrower has asked for a mod and the application/evaluation/approval process is underway. Porter found in late 2012 that servicers were still dual tracking; we also had a whistleblower report in 2013 that the practice was alive and well at Bank of America. Even the national settlement monitor Joseph Smith ‘fessed up that gambling in Casablanca dual tracking continues:
  •  The California bill, however, gives homeowners a potent weapon: if the bank loses on an injunction, he pays the borrower’s legal fees. And banks (well, in this case, a bank-friendly attorney) are howling like stuck pigs that they might have to pay when homeowners catch them breaking the law. From Housing Wire (hat tip Deontos):
    A California man successfully halted a foreclosure sale on his property using the newly minted California Homeowner Bill of Rights to obtain a court injunction against two foreclosing parties: Bank of America and its ReconTrust Co. subsidiary.
    For simply obtaining the HBOR injunction, the homeowner’s attorney is requesting $20,255 in legal fees and costs – a compensation request that is permissible under HBOR since the legislation allots borrowers reasonable attorneys fees and expenses for successfully obtaining an injunction….

    This is one of the first legal disputes to show the real strength of HBOR and it’s effectiveness in stalling proceedings and increasing expenses for servicers that are accused of violating one of the provisions of HBOR
    •  Note that the award of fees is based on a preliminary assessment of the merits of the case:
    The new case in question – Singh v. Bank of America (Recontrust Co.) – was filed by a borrower who accused BofA and Recontrust of violating HBOR’s ban on dual-tracking.
    Singh claimed the bank failed to respond to his request for a loan mod before filing for a foreclosure sale….
    In evaluating HBOR and the plaintiff’s allegations, the court said the homeowner “has adequately shown he is likely to succeed on the merits in light of California’s new Homeowner Bill of Rights.”
    So the judge’s view is the borrower is likely to win. Ahem, so that means it is probable that BofA did indeed dual track, which is hardly surprising given the independent reports of continuing abuses. Yet the amusing part of this article is the misplaced righteous indignation of the only commentator this case, attorney Robert Jackson of Jackson and Associates. The nerve of borrowers using their rights under the law!
    If you add in the bank’s own attorney fees, the injunction alone could carry a $60,000 price tag, Jackson estimates.

    “They now have to file an answer to this thing, and they have to produce evidence showing they are in compliance before this case can go on,” he added.
    Not to mention, the bank is now subject to discovery – with those costs possibly running the financial firm another $50,000 at least, Jackson said.
    The servicer also will have to pay legal fees and expenses to make a factual showing to set aside the injunction, which could be another $50,000 to $60,000 in legal expenses, Jackson suggested.
    Meanwhile, the property in question has an online estimate of around $273,000, the veteran real estate attorney pointed out. So when you assess legal fees long-term, servicers could face $100,000 or more in legal expenses on a property not worth much more.

Read Entire Article at:
Quelle Surprise! Banks Whining About Cost of Breaking New California Homeowner Bill of Rights « naked capitalism'

More Foreclosure Settlement Fiascoes: Rust Consulting Underpays Some Harmed Borrowers « naked capitalism

Rust Consulting, which handled the borrower mailings during the Independent Foreclosure Review and is now acting as paying agent, continues to screw up in every way imaginable.
Recall that Rust and the servicers were criticized by the GAO for producing borrowers outreach letters that were written well over the head of the average American and were deemed by the GAO to have made inadequate efforts to reach borrowers eligible for a review. After the settlement was reached in embarrassing haste and payments were determined in an arbitrary manner, Rust sent out checks that in many instances bounced. Rust also has made it cumbersome for recipients to provide current addresses (readers have reported receiving changing instructions, and apparently taking their lead from servicers, not processing completed forms). And we’ve wondered whether this incompetence is by design, since Rust’s current owner, private equity powerhouse Apollo, has deep ties to the residential real estate industry, and the firm is being sold to the venture capital arm of Citigroup.

The latest blunder: Rust sent out checks that were too small to some eligible borrowers. The Fed put out a press release with the not-exactly-forthcoming headline “Federal Reserve provides additional information on borrowers whose mortgages were serviced by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley” (Deontos):
Some borrowers whose mortgages were serviced by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and who were already sent a check as part of the Independent Foreclosure Review payment agreement will be sent an additional payment around May 17, Rust Consulting announced Wednesday . The payments are being made to correct an error by Rust Consulting, the paying agent, when the original payments were sent last week.
As Rust Consulting has announced, approximately 96,000 borrowers whose loans were serviced by the former subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs (Litton Loan Servicing LP) and Morgan Stanley (Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.) were sent checks for less than the payment amount that the Federal Reserve directed Rust to pay. The new checks will make up the difference between what was in the original check sent by Rust and what should have been paid. Borrowers should cash both the original checks and the supplemental checks.

 Read the Entire Blog at:
More Foreclosure Settlement Fiascoes: Rust Consulting Underpays Some Harmed Borrowers « naked capitalism

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

JPMorgan Should Replace Most of Board, Glass Lewis Says - Bloomberg

JPMorgan Should Replace Most of Board, Glass Lewis Says - Bloomberg

Nardi Deposition Reveals All about JPM-WAMU Slick Transactions | Livinglies's Weblog

Nardi Deposition Reveals All about JPM-WAMU Slick Transactions | Livinglies's Weblog



Garfield Notes on Nardi deposition JP Morgan Chase, as successor to Washington Mutual v. Waisome, 5th Judicial Circuit, Florida Case NUmber 2009-CA-005717, May 9 2012
1.  No prior banking experience. No education in banking or finance. No academic degree. No direct knowledge as to any of the events, documents, or transactions relating to the subject loan because her scope of employment was to assist in litigation or settlement of contested cases. Worked at Citibank dealing with credit cards and assisted in programming.

2. Worked with PHH on loan originations. Line 21, Page 9, I was the originations or preserve rare. I worked with the borrowers on collecting documents, getting them prepared for eventual closing of their loan, working with underwriting and making sure that the documents they needed to push the loan package forward were provided. Basically kind of the air traffic controller of the loan origination’s part of the business.

3. Line 12 page 10 I was not a supervisor. I had a support staff but they were pooled into groups that basically support in five or 10 other loan officers. So I was supervised. We were in a pool.

4. Worked with Merrill Lynch as a series 7 and series 66 broker.

5. Worked at Washington Mutual starting in September 2007.

6. My duties were to work with deceased borrowers estates at Washington Mutual

7.   line11 page 16 I didn’t have anything to do with loss mitigation. I was focusing on establishing that line of communication verifying that these people have the authority to act on behalf of of the deceased.

8. RECORDS SYSTEMS CHANGE:  line 18  page 16 I was actually going back and kind of redoing some of the filing systems that they had an kind of getting that more modernized. And that probably took me through the first 1 1/2 years or thereabouts.

9. SHELLY TREVIN BECAME MY SUPERVISOR

10. Worked with a guy named Vinnie and a lady named Laura.

11. Assigned different states. i was assigned Florida and some smaller states (line 20 page 24)

12. Line 5 page MSP: mortgage servicing platform. It’s a widely used system. In fact all of the major services I have ever worked for have used it. So Washington Mutual was using it. Chase was also using it so I had the benefit of that. So the training for that for me was kind of redundant.

13. LIne 6 page 27 (question was whether Fidelity LPS developed the software).  I am not an expert on everything at Fidelity. My understanding is that fidelity developed this software and licensed it to individual servicers. So that’s my understanding is that actually they own it. It’s their property. Where releasing it as a servicer.

14 line 3 page 28. IMAGE WEB: I believe it was called image web. Image web Wesley default software for any time you need to look up image documents, whether it be notes, mortgages, origination packages, applications. You know, whatever was deemed worthy of saving where necessary to save for servicing purposes.

15. line 13 page 28  a separate servicing system for the home-equity loans.  I think it was called ACLS.  And they had a customer service collection system called CACS  that was used for home equity collections.  those are example of systems they had that we would have used at Washington Mutual that weren’t used at the majors. The major system used being MSP.
16. LIne 21 Page 28 Outlook email was major server for communication within Chase.
17. Line 23, Page 28, MSP is really the central repository for all information related to a loan so most people work out of that anytime they’re coming in contact with, you know, servicing.

18. everyone has a unique identifying usually three digit code assigned to them and they have to set their own password.

19. I have the ability you know part of my duties were to document the things that I was doing. So yes I have the ability to enter data into certain areas. Not all areas can be manipulated. I could enter notes into the system. I could change stop code so that if I was dealing with alone that was in litigation and it needed to stop certain things like collection activities or foreclosure processing, I could put stops on the system. (line 13 Page 29)
20. Lin  se 9 page 31.   We had different client numbers that were assigned to different sets of loans. The Washington Mutual client was 156. The Chase client was like 465.
21. MAJOR PROJECT INTEGRATING CHASE AND WAMU LOANO PACKAGES: LINE 2 PAGE 33:  my understanding is that they drew resources from all areas of the business. I don’t think there was any one department that was involved in handling that transaction or that project.

22. Line 8 page 33: I don’t know if there was a specific person in charge of it. I can imagine based on my experience in some of the projects that I’ve seen in other places that there is probably a project manager and several business heads of business people that were running it but I wasn’t in charge I wasn’t part of the project specifically so I don’t really know.
23. LIne 6 page 39: CHASE LOANS VERSUS INVESTOR LOANS:    if you are looking for specific investor or owner information you would go into a screen called MAS1. And then there is a sub screen within that called INV1 which would tell you, if there is an investor, who it is. And if it’s Chase owned, it would say Chase owned.

24. line 17 page 40:  I believe that we keep records of these investor codes potentially outside the system. I’ve never accessed an investor list with an MSP, so it’s possible it’s there. I just don’t know.

25: NO NEED TO MEMORIZE THE USER ID: LINE 6 PAGE 41:  it’s not something you necessarily have to memorize because when you login using your password is going to tell you it’s going to memorialize everything. You don’t have to memorize it. I think mine was OY$.

26. IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTOR: line 17  page 41:   I believe there are also three digits for the investor codes. But when you go into MAS1 and INV1 it actually spells out the name of the investor,.    so if it’, for instance, a chase loan, it will say J.P. Morgan Chase. If it’s Bank of America, it will say Bank of America. It will spell out the name and the address of the investor or owner for you right there on the screen. So you don’t have to interpret a code it’s right there.

27. EXISTENCE OF PRIVATE INVESTOR KEPT HIDDEN FROM EMPLOYEES GIVEN THAT 96% OF ALL LOANS WERE SUBJECT TO CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION. THIS SHOWS HOW THE BANKS TEMPORARILY CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE LOANS FOR PURPOSES OF TRADING, HEDGING AND COLLECTING INSURANCE, FEDERAL BAILOUTS AND PROCEEDS OF CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS LEAVING THE PRIVATE INVESTORS OUT IN THE COLD AND THEREFORE PREVENTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS OF ALLOCATING SUCH PAYMENTS TO THE ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE FO THE INVESTOR AND DECREASING THE ACCOUNT PAYABLE OF THE BORROWER. LINE 11 PAGE 42:  I don’t remember a specific instance where I was dealing with a private investor loan.

28. COLLATERAL FILE SHIPPED OUT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF SERVICER — BUT HOW DOES SHE KNOW THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? AND WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE COLLATERAL FILE? LINE 2 PAGE 45
29. HANDLING OF FILES AND SHIPPING OF FILES. WHO IS AUTHORIZED. collateral file and credit file: line 8. page 47:  you referenced a collateral file. There is also a credit file. Sometimes you need stuff from the credit file and sometimes you don’t. The collateral file you know sometimes you need it sometimes you don’t. So depending on what you need, there is an electronic request for each one. You send it to the customer service folks. The credit file and there is certain restrictions as to who can actually order it. You have to have certain authorization. You can only send it certain places. You have to either send it to someone if you are sending it to someone within the company they have to have it’s a very short list within the company who can get it. Generally we ship it only to counsel when it needs to go out of custody and services. So you would include your identifier to show you have the authority to order it. You need to identify where it’s going so the firm it’s being shipped to, custody services, will accept that. Basically it’s an email transmission, and that works constantly. So they will go in, pull up the work order, have a person that’s designated to be able to enter the file room, go in and pull the file, and then ship it off to the firm was requesting it. I’m almost 100% certain that they use FedEx almost exclusively for the shipping.
30.  Inside counsel is ANITA Smith or Kendall Forster LINE 3 PAGE 50.
31. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTENCE OF THE PHYSICAL FILES. HEARSAY ON HEARSAY. LINE 10 PG 50. This would seem to indicate that all her testimony about the movement of the physical files is hearsay based upon computer entries by people she doesn’t know, or things she was told by counsel or someone else working for other departments, indicating multiple records custodians.

Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to Protect Military Families from Foreclosure




Editor's Note:  This is a subject near and dear to my heart as I am the widow of a Servicemember who was killed in Vietnam in 1968 and as I have been fighting Chase Bank's efforts to foreclose on my home for some time.  Please show your support for this important piece of legislation by contacting your Congressional Representative.  Thank you. 

Washington, D.C. (May 7, 2013)—

Today, Reps. Elijah E Cummings, Mike Michaud, Adam Smith, Susan Davis, Mark Takano, and John Tierney, the Ranking Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, and the Subcommittee on National Security, introduced H.R. 1842, the Military Family Home Protection Act, to strengthen foreclosure protections for U.S. military servicemembers and their families. 
 
Similar legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representative during the last Congress by a vote of 394 to 27.  Similar legislation was passed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, but was never considered on the Senate floor.
 
The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Military Officers Association of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives of America, and Disabled American Veterans. 

“This legislation extends critical protections to our nation’s servicemembers, veterans with disabilities, and the surviving spouses of fallen heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation,” said Rep. Cummings.  “The bill ensures that the homes of servicemembers are protected when they are most vulnerable—when they are placing their lives at risk overseas or recovering from service-related injuries here at home.”
 
“This bill holds banks accountable and provides much-needed protections to those who’ve served our country,” said Rep. Michaud.  “This is a win-win for all members of our military and so many veterans, surviving spouses and their families. It should receive strong bipartisan support because it’s good policy and because it’s the right thing to do.”

“The men and women of our Armed Services and their families make a tremendous sacrifice to keep our country safe, and we must ensure that their financial security is protected here at home,” said Rep. Smith.  “Our servicemembers are often asked to move or be deployed on very short notice, which can present unpredictable financial difficulties. This bill takes critical steps toward protecting deployed servicemembers and their families from those potential financial challenges.”
 
“One can only imagine what it must be like to learn that you are about to lose your home while you are deployed to protect America and our freedoms,” said Rep. Davis.  “Our servicemembers face unique challenges that warrant flexibility in issues of foreclosure that this legislation provides.  They should be honored for the sacrifices they make, not penalized.  I commend Congressman Cummings for his efforts to protect our military families.”
 
“As the Ranking Member of the Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, I’m proud to support the Military Family Home Protection Act,” said Rep. Takano. “This much needed legislation provides essential foreclosure protections for our heroes, who should not have to worry about losing their home while deployed overseas. Providing the flexibility laid out in this legislation is the least we can do for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line day in and day out.”  

“It is unacceptable for our service members to be subjected to abusive penalties and practices when they are deployed. That is why I am pleased to join Congressman Cummings and my other colleagues today in introducing this bill today that will strengthen service members’ legal rights and protect them against unfair foreclosures,”  said Rep. Tierney.  The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which was originally passed in 1940, does not currently protect all servicemembers and their families from foreclosure because its protections apply only to those who purchased homes prior to activation.  The Military Family Home Protection Act expands foreclosure protection to all servicemembers regardless of when they purchased their home.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Stay a home foreclosure action when servicemembers are receiving hostile fire or imminent danger pay; 
  •  Stay a home foreclosure action for a 12-month period for servicemembers placed on convalescent status, for veterans who are medically discharged, and for surviving spouses of servicemembers whose deaths are service-connected;
  • Double civil penalties for mortgage-related violations; 
  • Prohibit banks from discriminating against servicemembers, veterans, and surviving spouses who are eligible for these protections; and 
  •  Eliminate the primary residence requirement for servicemembers that receive a military order to relocate to another duty station in order to qualify for mortgage refinancing.

For the last two years, Cummings has aggressively investigated illegal foreclosures, inflated fees, and other abuses by banks against servicemembers, veterans, and their families.  Although federal banking regulators have refused to provide Congress with detailed information on such cases, more than 1,600 individuals are receiving compensation for violations of SCRA under amended consent orders announced in February between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 13 of our largest banks.  Since SCRA protections are limited to homes purchased before an individual enters active duty service, these violations likely represent only a subset of the number of military families subjected to abusive foreclosure and servicing practices.