I am in receipt of your letter dated _______. In that letter you purport to represent JP Morgan Chase. According to representatives of JP Morgan Chase, they never heard of you or your law firm. Please provide proof of your authority to represent them in regard to my loan. In addition, please provide me with the source of your information regarding the status of my loan, including the name and address of the person with whom you spoke or corresponded. Further I have checked and JP Morgan Chase is not the Lender of record in the County records and it is neither the authorized servicer nor the creditor on my loan.

Therefore I refuse to deal with you unless and until you provide me with adequate assurance that I am not disclosing private information to a disinterested party. I dispute the claim of default, I dispute the claim in its entirety and I have afirmative defenses and counterclaims for appraisal fraud, predatory lending, violations of Truth in Lending, consumer fraud, securities fraud and deceptive lending.

Nonetheless I am quite willing to negotiate a settlement of this claim if you can provide me with the name and contact information of the creditor. Specifically I am asking whether you can identify a person or company that can execute a satisfaction of mortgage which upon recording will clear the encumbrance from my property? I presume this party or company would be the party or company to whom I owe the money, although the title record and the securitization of my loan indicates that the holder of the mortgage, the holder of the note and the holder of the obligation are all three different entities and might be obscured by conduct of the securitization participants.

If you can clear up these issues with actual people who would be competent witnesses in court or actual original documentation that can be authenticated and verified as to form and content, then I think we can proceed. If you cannot and you are unable to provide proof of authority to represent and/or unable to establish JP Morgan Chase as a creditor, then I presume we have nothing further to discuss.

Very Truly Yours

Bach Athugh

18 Responses

  1. You will be going on with the full litigation no matter what. It is a good letter.

  2. But does not the letter require the foreclosing party to respond to it within 30 days?

    If they don’t, can’t that become an achilles heel when the case goes to trial?

  3. Gregory Bryl, Esq., on December 8, 2010 at 9:08 am said: In most cases, the foreclosing party will likely consider this a refusal to engage in any loss mitigation or cure of default.

    Very knowledgable attorney. A great choice in his state.


  4. M.Soliman, on December 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm said:
    THE FDIC to act as a conservator

    Released / 12/08/2010; Los Angeles CA — this is exactly the result you can expect when you allow “THE FDIC” to act as a conservator.

    The sale is part of a receivership for assets of the old lender resurrected as Hold Co. It’s for purposes of receivership that the best served “creditor” for their effort is actually the true beneficiary ….MERS.
    The problem herein is that MERS has no standing as the “Cyber lender”(c) .

    The “credit bid” submitted by the Cyber Lender (c) is for purposes of re-establishing basis in assets. A cyber loan has no value attached to it…only a right of the beneficial interest.

    Therefore the sale is conducted for a valueless asset that is restored to the loan amount outstanding offset by the formula provided by the FDIC for its risk “Loss Share ” valuation which is typically 80% of the value set by the “debit collector”.

    No error in spelling. I said the “Debit Collector”(c) .
    At the center of the controversy are the three critical elements of the law we can show in testimony that exist which are the following:

    1.Rights of the holder of “fee title” held absolute over all other claims to ownership.
    2. Capacity to resurrect a lenders lien
    3. The right to recover title upon a “cyber ” claimant clearly evidencing a break in that interest in title (“the lender holds to the fee title holder’s estate”).

    No court cannot overlook the isolated acts of forgery, in simple foreclosures.

    Jurisdicition is the sole biggest problem. Included here is lack of authority in the execution of recorded instruments, wrongful recording of notices, and falsified data recorded in counties, material mis-representations of recorded muniment, falsified notary jurrat, and convenient endorsements by quasi government agencies.

    Fannie Mae and FHLMC are still under the same dilemma and cannot soften the blow of a lenders total lack of standing.

    Allowing legal practitioners to construct fraud in a foreclosure . . . that is the cause for the volume of civil complaints burdening the American courtrooms.

    This subject matter is unprecedented – never in history has foreclosure controversy been isolated for allegations of fraud. The mess has not dissipated but grows stronger and more embarrassing to lawmakers every month.

    Foreclosure in the United States strikes the consciousness of the U.S. tax payer and U.S. homeowner uniting all Americans to question of civil injustice affecting the rights of a title holder and claims to just tax revenue by government.


  5. just remember you are dealing with lawyers. Lawyers who believe they are above the law, lawyers who for years have been in frong of the same judges, doing the same thing, who play golf with the judge or his/her staff.

    loom at Mr Stern and Samuel White and others, for them pushing all these fraudulent foreclosures is just dandy.

    this year over 3,000,000 families have lost their homes and they all were victims if fraud regardless of their individual circumnstances.

    Our country at this point is no better than, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti or Venezuela where the law is worth nothing and those who control the political and financial power rule.

    this is so sad, and we the people do nothing.

    Thomas Jefferson mist be rolling in his grave

  6. Just a reminder to pro se’s….after speaking and dealing on the phone, fellow up with email or letter detailing what was said and agreed to

  7. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by USA Advocate, Eva Miranda. Eva Miranda said: BACK AT YOU « Livinglies's Weblog: I dispute the claim of default, I dispute the claim in its entirety and I hav… […]

  8. In most cases, the foreclosing party will likely consider this a refusal to engage in any loss mitigation or cure of default. They will therefore likely proceed to foreclose. But this letter does create an excellent record that one may be able to use later in litigation. Also, it definitely pinpoints the issues very well and can even be used as a rough guide of what to ask for in discovery.

  9. Great letter.

  10. Letters like that have worked for me for years, they work

  11. xcellent letter there, I love that LOL

  12. Writing a letter like this will inexorably lead the “trustee” or “servicer” to respond with a foreclosure suit. You are not going to dissuade them. So if you go this route, might I suggest you send it certified mail and then at least you have some evidence that you tried to establish their credentials. Simultaneously start preparing your defenses.

  13. I have two large law frims coming at me, pro se. One in Orlando and the other in the Miami area. Tag teaming.

    If a loan wasn’t transferred into the trust through strict compliance, or transferred/sold properly before New Century demise, how could the servicer have the right to collect payments, conduct modification, etc., if it did not have authority?

    If none of that took place wouldn’t the trustee be in control and have to authorize anything regarding the loan, (say if it was a re-purchase demand from the seller, NC)?

    And is Mers nominee status, dissolved once NC ordered cease and desist and/or filed bankruptcy?

    If mers/servicer assigns a mortgage for a bankrupt entity, isn’t that a violation of the bankruptcy?

  14. Get ideas from this
    also for interogeries

  15. Thank you Neil,

    I’ll continue in pro-per. Email will be sent soon.

    Also thanks Anonymous and Roger, very much appreciated!


  16. Excellent letter …

    Alessandro ,, you are 100% correct ,, never deal with people that have no authority .. I just spent 90 minutes with my cell provider AFTER getting the right person.. it paid off.

  17. Beautiful. I love it.

  18. Excellent letter! I learned a long time ago when dealing with customer service people to ask one simple question.

    “If I make sense, and you agree with my position, do you have the authority to make a correction to my account”?

    If the answer was no, then I asked to speak to someone who could make the change if my information warranted a change.

    I think it saved me from a few long discussions that would have been fruitless no matter what I had said.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: