Class Action — Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

“Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the ‘MLNs’); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players,” the complaint states.

Class Action Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud

Read the Complaint at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78562631/JPMorgan-Class-Action
By MATT REYNOLDS

LOS ANGELES (CN) – JPMorgan Chase routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges, going so far as to Photoshop documents to “create the illusion” of standing “in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases,” according to a federal class action.
Lead plaintiff Ernest Michael Bakenie claims that Chase’s “pattern and practice of playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players” bore rich fruit: that Chase secured motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases.
“Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the ‘MLNs’); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players,” the complaint states.
“Chase intentionally conceals the identity of the true parties in interest entitled to enforce the tens of tens of thousands of residential non-negotiable promissory notes (the ‘MLNs’) for its own financial benefit, at the expense of the class and to the detriment of the integrity of the bankruptcy system.”
Bakenie says Chase used a network of attorneys to file more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, “wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs.”
Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans, according to the complaint.
“Rather than incur the cost of ‘proving up’ its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents,” the complaint states.
“As a direct result of this practice, over 95 percent of Chase’s motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim are granted without objection

Read more at http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/17/43098.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78562631/JPMorgan-Class-Action

 

21 Responses

  1. @bobm – thank you so much for that link. I wanted to weep and shout hallelujah at the fact that someone actually gets this. I get a little confused, tho, when I see robo-signors signatures cited as
    forgeries. It’s only forgery if robo-signor sign someone else’s name. If a robo-signor signed his own name, it’s not a forgery per se imo. It is, tho, a false document when someone with no real authority
    pens a document like an assignment or a substitution of trustee. The theft of the home, all the acts, started by false documents goes to the robo-signor and everyone involved. Mr. Obrien seems to get this and wants heads. Be still our hearts! I hope and pray that he has some really good talent by his side.

  2. O’Brien

  3. The signatures are forgeries. He has stipulated that they are rubber stamped, same thing. Broken chain of title. No valid, legal enforceable right in the Note, therefore Naked Mortgage and a Naked Mortgage is unenforceable in the hands of the one who holds it. Plus, they filed as an exhibit a fraudulent document they knew was fraudulent in the United States District Court and I am going to bring them to task for that crime.
    Check out this Link to John O’Brian Press Release on the 18th . There is trouble brewing.

    http://www.salemdeeds.com/pdf/PressRelease1-18-12.pdf

  4. Another area of attack is the language in the Section 362 Information Sheet filed with a Mtn for Stay Relief. This req is found in most bk court Local Rules, available at the courts’ websites. It’s in the Local Rules where requirements for attorneys to disclose interested parties and corporate ownership disclosures (like that they (law firm or claimant) own or have a financial stake in the sub’d trustee company or that the claimant is owned by so and so, the parent company).
    The attorney signing the document (362) is swearing – “Moving counsel hereby certifies” -that resolution was sought without court action. Well, that’s nonsense. I give, what resolution was sought? Call you up and say let’s talk about this? Send you a letter saying let’s talk about this? Not. Are they relying on the NOD which is often legally and fatally deficient in the first place? Is the NOD supposed to stand as an attempt at resolution? I wouldn’t say so. A NOD is a required doc to apprise one of certain “facts” and right to cure by a time certain. It’s not an attempt at resolution at all , in which case, all the lawyers signing those forms are lying to the court just on that score.

  5. @Ian,

    You’re right: attorneys always had to swear to the accuracy “to the best of their knowledge and belief”. It was a rule they trampled on with the fraudulent foreclosures. I know of a few states which, in order to eliminate or reduce the horrendous case backlog, have made it a requirement for foreclosures attorneys to swear to the authenticity of the specific allonges, transfer notes, etc.

    It’s a pretty sad commentary about how low we have fallen when something that is part of a professional oath has to be spelled out over and over.

    I predict that many foreclosure mills are seeing the last of their heydays. When heads start falling, our prisons will be full in no time. And once gain, we will be financiqally supporting their lifestyle. We might start considering forcing inmates to work for their upkeep. it is “offered” in certain states. Inmates are working to pay for their cigarettes, shampoo and tooth brushes. A choice they have. When it becomes compulsory and prison time becomes very, very painful, then and only then, will morals in our sociaty improve.

    Since we don’t have any money, it is coming…

  6. California Class Action Complaint – Huezo v US Bank -TILA etc.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78761719/CALIFORNIA-HUEZO-V-US-BANK-Class-Action-Complaint-TILA-US-BANK-as-Trustee-SASCO-MBST

  7. Enraged- the attorneys have always had the standard boilerplate ” I hereby attest to the accuracy of the documents to the best of my knowledge blah blah blah”. Now certain states, Arizona coming to mind, require that the attorneys swear, under penalty of $10,000 fine for each offense, plus probably disbarment, that is a different thing altogether which all states should adopt yesterday. As a result of Arizona’s tough new law, f/c filings have slowed to almost zero from 1800/ month. They all know the documents are bogus. The allonges aren’t attached. The amounts due and owing aren’t correct. The plaintiff has no standing. The chain of title is corrupted. The trustee has no idea that they are in court. The atty for plaintiff isn’t representing the plaintiff. They know all this. Now, lets see someone get slammed.

  8. @Ian,

    In certain states, attorneys have an obligation to personally certify the authenticity of the documents they produce and on the basis of which they try to foreclose on behalf of their client.

    I would suspect that attorneys are not going to sign affidavits on documents they know to be forgeries, if their entire career is on the line.

    That’s called “the right incentive”… Whaddya think?

  9. Wells Fargo and HSBC are doing the same frickin’ thing!

  10. Bob M- good for you. Just curious, why on earth would the banks’ atty tell you that the allonge is a forgery? Was the allonge dated? Was there a loan number on it? Were the transferor and the transferee both still in business? Tell us what you can, please. Thanks.

  11. Hate to misquote anyone, esp P Henry. Here’s what the esteemed
    American patriot actually said:

    “Why sit thee here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. ”

    I’m not suggesting anyone take up arms, rather the might of the pen.

  12. A MERS officer ( a real one) claimed in some proceeding that the notes are still negotiated, and I forget his words exactly, but basically “the way they should be”, while MERS remained the beneficiary on the dot for its members. If we thought of all the cases we have seen where there is only one blank endorsement or the endorsements turn up 1) after initial submission of the note, or 2) endorsed by someone alleging to have the authority to endorse the note one or more times (same note), we would see a pattern, would we not? We all rant that the notes weren’t endorsed and didn’t make it into the trusts – because by and large they didn’t, I’d say.
    What if there were never any intent to endorse and deliver those notes in the first place? MERS (read members) always say MERS (read database) keeps track of the sales or transfers (forget word they use) of notes. What if they only intended to “track” these notes in MERS’ database and never intended to actually transfer them?
    (And then of course, were the notes destroyed or imaged into some system?) Having a right to possession of a note along the way to securitization is NOT the same thing as having possession, which is necessary for transfer. If someone didn’t get it, there was no transfer. I wonder what it would take to not only show the notes by and large were not endorsed other than the initial blank endorsement by the originator, but that there was never any intent to do so or to transfer possession because of reliance on alleged sales / transfers “notations” in MERS’ database? For years, foreclosures were simply done by MERS’ members in MERS’ name and everyone, well bad guys and the judiciary, presumed this was legitimate. Only now are we making any in-roads with such presumptions.

    It stands to reason, to me anyway, that this would explain why those guys have to bogus-up everything: not only did they not do what must be done, they NEVER INTENDED to actually transfer the notes pursuant to the UCC and relied on their entries in MERS’ database. And for years, they got away with it, did they not?

    If we could show this intent, we would shift the struggle with the judiciary. Judges by and large probably start at “of course this was done appropriately”, with the presumption being in favor of banksters having done things right. We need to have them start with the (warranted) presumption things weren’t done right. There must be a way to do this. My suggestion has been to “send things”, info, cases, our own takes on this, etc. to the judiciary. Who will join what I see as a call?
    A lot of great info comes out of this site, and it’s made a big difference to me for a lot of reasons, and a big one is no longer feeling isolated for which I am very thankful, but a lot of it stays here. We need to support a contention to the judiciary that the banksters’ never intended to do what should have been done. Don’t their actions, as cited in the suit which is the post today demonstrate this, as do a gazillion other actions – or inactions- demonstrated in other cases? What else could we do? Imo, it would change the entire playing field, or at least a lot, if the presumption the judiciary starts with is the TRUTH. Most of our elected officials will do and are doing nothing substantive. Our last hope is the hallowed halls of justice, and I for one still believe they’re hallowed. Most judges, imo, take pride in proper interpretation and application of the law and making sound decisions. Yeah, some are ignorant and even biased. But they can be influenced by US if only we try. The biased ones will be outed and overruled.
    These are bad times. Our values and laws are being trampled on, and to me, it’s no less threatening to us than when we sought our independence from England. FNMA’s intention to sell blocks of homes at probably great discounts to “investors” is the last straw for this kid.
    I can’t remember how I know this, but in 2008, I learned that a part of what ails us was caused by a particular FNMA officer’s desire to get a very large production-related bonus, so he did and allowed some pretty awful things to transpire which have had dire consequences to all of us. No kidding, it happened. Patrick Henry, during the revolution, said; “Why sit thee here idle? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Believe each of us can make a difference: do something.

  13. Lawyer for the bank stipulated yesterday that the Allonge to my Note is a forgery and invalid; Game, Set, Match.

  14. @Barbara,

    Yep. And if you look underneath the Summons on that site you posted, you’ll see that 5 more have been given class action certification, in UT, IL, and other states.

    Hurray!!! Things are moving…….

  15. I wish I had been there to see Baum “sweat”. Those are the little things that make that fight really worthwhile: slowly but surely, the wheels turn…

    Who’s next?

  16. Why no such cases against Wells? I could surely be lead plaintiff.
    Counselors?

  17. What about a bunch of smaller class actions or joinders or whatever…..specifics….for instance would love to connect with people with the same originator – trustee making the same bogus NOD – same servicer making the same bogus ADOT to the same trustee bank for the same group of trusts if not specific trust. Attorney group think for the same airtight claims for all in the group – can’t be ignored. The most powerful claimsi are not even in the specific cases and specific predatory history, it’s in what they have in common. Time has come – these claims have merit and can’t be ignored but are ignored if pro se and ignored even if a brave attorney tries to “educate” the judge. Who’s the beneficiary? False recordings for false claims of ownership by those who know exactly what they are doing. Willful intent to defraud. Go for the statutory penalties and attorney fees for fraud – big-time in some states and further damages and harm doesn’t even have to be proven to go forward with the statatory penalties. (I am ignorant here just throwing it out there). Let the broke and clueless climb aboard.

  18. He’s losing his appeal
    Judge gives foreclosure king the Baum’s rush
    By KAJA WHITEHOUSE
    Last Updated: 12:59 AM, January 18, 2012
    Posted: 11:20 PM, January 17, 2012

    Take that, Steven Baum!
    The 50-year-old lawyer, who owns New York’s largest home-foreclosure mill, made a rare appearance in a courtroom yesterday — and was promptly ripped by a Bankruptcy Court judge frustrated by his firm’s sloppy work.
    Baum, whose eponymous firm has filed more than 25,000 foreclosure actions across the state over the past three years — many of which have been attacked for containing bogus documents — was lectured by Judge Cecilia Morris to correct his way of practicing law.
    “How many times do I have to tell you, you didn’t do it right,” Morris said during the afternoon hearing. “Do you not understand ‘do it right’?” she asked Baum.
    Morris had ordered Baum to appear in her courtroom personally after a steady stream of his firm’s lawyers mucked up several of the 180 foreclosure cases he has before the New York federal courts.
    The judge accused Baum of “slowing down the court” by failing to properly transfer his cases to other lawyers as he prepared to shutter his Buffalo-area firm.
    Baum settled a probe by the Manhattan US Attorney last year and then was forced to close down his 90-lawyer practice when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to have anything to do with the firm.
    The New York attorney general is said to be probing Baum as well.
    “Please don’t make me angry,” Morris warned.
    The hearing in the Poughkeepsie courtroom was attended by several bankruptcy lawyers who have sparred with Baum in the past, who said afterwards that they were there just to see Baum sweat.
    The millionaire legal eagle usually directs his statewide operation from the comfort of his Amherst, NY, offices.
    Apparently not happy with his responses to questions, Morris ordered Baum to make repeat appearances in her courtroom until “each file” is corrected.
    “I’m telling you, you are walking on bad faith,” Morris said.
    “I thought it was very clever of the judge,” said Linda Tirelli, a lawyer who has had to deal with Baum’s sloppy foreclosure work as opposing counsel and who attended yesterday’s hearing. “She basically sanctioned him to go and sit in that court and force him to deal with what she has had to deal with every single week.”
    kwhitehouse@nypost.com

  19. Filing such an action if always good but it doesn’t mean it will be confirmed as a “class action”. Many have been filed and been denied “class action” status by the court.

    So, let’s wait and see.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: