foreclosure response to jp morgan chase foreclosure

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COUNTY, ILLINOIS

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL )ASSOCIATION ) Plaintiffs, )

)v. )

) Case No. )

Pro-Se Defendants ))

COUNTERCLAIM ))))

v. ))

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA )CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALWASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NA )Counter-Defendants )

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM

COMES NOW Defendants and Counterclaimants __________________________, (collectively

“Owners”), proceeding pro se hereby answer the Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage brought by

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA (hereinafter “Chase”) as partial successor in interest to

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (hereinafter “WAMU”) and

set forth their affirmative defenses and counterclaim as follows:

In regards to a Owners acting as in the capacity of a Pro Se Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff, the

Supreme Court ruled that substance governs over form or technicality. See Platsky v. CIA;

Haines v. Kerner; Louisville, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); N.R. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (1900).

With regard to the standard held for Pro Se litigants it is maintained that in Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal heightened pleading standards only apply to learned counsel.

Defendants Answer and Amended Counterclaim – page 1 of 104

Moreover, Ashcroft & Twombly overruled Conley v. Gibson. The issues within Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal address the heightened pleading standards of learned

counsel. In Kerns v. United States, the case addresses pro se litigants specifically. Kerns also

addresses Conley v Gibson, and Kerns v. United States has not been overturned.

AMENDED ANSWER

1. Plaintiff files this complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15/-1101 et. seq., to foreclose

the mortgage, trust deed or other conveyance in the nature of a mortgage (hereinafter called

“Mortgage”) hereinafter described and joins the following persons as defendants:

______________________________________Unknown Owners And Non-Record Claimants

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase brings this action to foreclose on a Mortgage, but denies

that Chase has the right to bring an action under the Mortgage. Owners are without sufficient

information to admit or deny as to the remaining information in Paragraph 1.

2. Plaintiff has heretofore elected to declare the whole of the principal sum remaining

unpaid together with interest thereon to become immediately due and payable and by the filing

of this complaint Plaintiff has confirmed said election.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase claims that it has made an election with regard

to the Mortgage signed by Owners, but denies that Chase has the right to bring an

action under the Mortgage.

3. Attached as “EXHIBIT A” is a true copy of the Mortgage. Attached as ”EXHIBIT B” is

a true copy of the Note secured thereby.

ANSWER: Owners lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint especially as the Mortgage is

labeled unofficial copy and therefore, Owners deny the allegations. Owners admit that

the documents attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Complaint purport to be the


Mortgage and the Note and demand that originals of the Mortgage and Note be

produced.

4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Information concerning said mortgage: OWNERS answer as follows:

a) Nature of the Instrument: Mortgage

ANSWER: Owners admit.

b) Date of the Mortgage: __________________

ANSWER: Owners admit.

c) Name or Names of the Mortgagors: __________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit, but affirmatively state that ownership by Owners in

the Mortgage is not stated as stated on record title for the Mortgaged Premises.

d) Names of the mortgagee, trustee or grantee in the Mortgage: Washington Mutual

Bank, FA

ANSWER: Owners deny.

e) Date and place of recording: Mortgage Date and Place of recording:

__________________________ County Recorder’s Office.

ANSWER: Owners admit, and affirmatively state that there were subsequent

recordings which sold the Mortgage so that Chase does not have the right to proceed

against Owners.

f) Identification of recording: Mortgage: __________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit that the document identified in Section 4e) was

recorded as dated.

g) Interest subject to the mortgage: Fee simple


ANSWER: Owners admit that they are fee simple owners of the mortgaged

premises and deny that CHASE has the right to proceed against them.

h) Amount of original Indebtedness, including subsequent advances made under the

mortgage: __________________________

ANSWER: Owners deny.

i) Legal description of Mortgaged premises and common address (hereinafter

“Mortgaged Premises”):

__________________________Permanent Index No__________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit. Mortgaged Premises shall also be referred to herein

as “Property”.

j) Statement as to defaults: The Mortgage is in default due to the failure of the

mortgagor to pay the monthly installments of principal, interest, taxes and insurance, and any

other escrow items that may apply, for the period __________________________through the

present. There remains an outstanding principal balance of __________________________with

interest accruing at __________________________per diem plus attorney’s fees, foreclosure

costs, late charges, advances and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the default.

ANSWER: Owners deny that they owe Chase under the Mortgage.

k) NA

l) NA

m) Name of defendants claimed to be personally liable for deficiency, if any:

__________________________,

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase is claiming that __________________________are

personally liable for deficiency, but deny that __________________________is liable to Chase.


n) Capacity in which Plaintiff brings this foreclosure: Plaintiff is the legal holder of

the indebtedness and owner of the mortgage given as security therefore.

ANSWER: Owners deny the allegations of Section 4n).

o) Facts in support of redemption period, shorter than the longer of: i) 7 months

from the date the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the mortgagors (I) have been served with

summons or by publication or (II) have otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, if

residential real estate; (ii) 6 months from the date the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the

mortgagors (I) have been served with summons or by publication or (II) have otherwise

submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, if commercial real estate; or (iii) 3 months from the

entry of the judgment of foreclosure, whichever is later. That pursuant to the terms of the 735

ILCS 5/15-1603, the Court determine the length of the redemption period upon making a finding

based on the facts and circumstances available to the Court at the time of judgment that the

property is either residential, non-residential or abandoned.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Section 4o) attempts to state the

provisions of Illinois law and states that the Illinois statute speaks for itself.

p) Facts in support of request for attorney's fees and of costs and expenses: That

pursuant to the terms of the Note and Mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to recover attorney's

fees, court costs, title costs, and other expenses which plaintiff has been and will be required to

expend in the prosecution of this foreclosure.

ANSWER: Owners deny the allegations of Section 4p) and affirmatively states

that Chase is not entitled to relief in this action.

q) Determination as to residential real estate:

(1) That pursuant to the terms of 735 ILCS 5/15-1219, Plaintiff requests that the court

make a finding based upon facts and circumstances available to the court at the time of Judgment

that the subject real estate is either “residential real estate” occupied as a principal residence

either (i) if a mortgagor is an individual, by that mortgagor, that mortgagor’s descendants, or (ii)

if a mortgagor is a trustee of a trust or an executor or administrator of an estate, by a beneficiary


of that trust or estate or by such beneficiary's spouse or descendants or (iii) if a mortgagor is a

corporation, by persons owning collectively at least 50 percent of the shares of voting stock of

such corporation or by a spouse or descendants of such persons and subject to a 7 month

redemption period.

(2) In the event that the court finds that either: (1) the real estate is residential, then

the real estate shall be subject to a seven month redemption period, or (2) The real estate is non-

residential, then the real estate is subject to a six (6) month redemption period.

ANSWER: Owners deny the allegations of Section 4q) and affirmatively state that Chase

is not entitled to relief in this action.

r) Facts in support of a requested for appointment of mortgagee in possession or for

appointment of a receiver, and identity of such receiver, if sought: None at this time; Plaintiff

reserves the right to file a separate Petition for Appointment of Mortgagee in Possession or

Receiver if applicable.

ANSWER: No answer is required to the provisions of Section 4r).

s) Name or names of defendants whose right to possess the mortgaged real estate,

after the confirmation of the foreclosure sale, is sought to be terminated and, if not elsewhere

stated, the facts in support thereof: __________________________ and Unknown Owners and

Non-Record Claimants.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase is seeking to take away their rights to possess the

Mortgaged Premises. Owners admit that there are other persons with recorded interests with

recordings with regard to the Mortgaged Property.

AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Further answering the Complaint, and for their affirmative defenses, Owners state as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES


LACK OF LEGAL STANDING TO SUPPORT A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 17(A)(1) AND 19 (A)AND

UCC 810 § ILCS - 5

1. On __________________________Owners engaged WAMU to refinance their

property and entered into a loan agreement. The terms of the loan were memorialized in a

promissory note ("the Note") which was secured by a Mortgage “lien” on the Property. Said

Mortgage was recorded on __________________________in __________________________

County, Illinois as Document # __________________________.

2. Owners executed the Note naming WAMU as “lender” and then separately

executed the Mortgage naming WAMU as “lender” and “Mortgagee.”

3. On __________________________Chase commenced foreclosure proceedings

against the Owners, recording with the DuPage County Recorder, a “Notice of Lis Pendens” as

document #__________________________announcing to the world that Chase intended to seize

Owners Property.

4. In its complaint to foreclose Owners property, Chase claims that “Plaintiff is the

legal holder of the indebtedness and owner of the mortgage given as security therefore.”

5. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase’s claim is untrue.

OWNERS LEARN OF FLAGRANT BANK FRAUD

6. Upon learning that most mortgages in the past 10 years were sold to investors as

Mortgage Bank Securities (“MBS”), Owners sent a Qualified Written Request (QWR) as that

term is defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(I)(B) to Chase to learn the identity of potential

MBS Investors who might own their Note. Said QWR was sent via registered mail #

__________________________on __________________________which Chase received on

__________________________. Exhibit 1

7. Chase claimed that it received QWR on __________________________-24-2010

in violation of RESPA.


8. Chase responded insufficiently to the questions posed in the QWR refusing to

disclose information which would authenticate the identity of the owner of the Note and provide

an accounting which would show all money paid or received in connection with the subject

obligation.

9. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase is seeking to conceal the

true creditor and separate the borrowers from the investors by making it appear that someone

other than the true creditor had a beneficial interest.

OWNERS LOAN HAS BEEN SECURITIZED

10. On _________________, Owners contracted with __________________ to

perform a securitization examination of the Loan on the Property (“Securitzation Examination”).

The following fields were used to locate the specific MBS Trust Owners note was sold to: Loan

Id Number, Origination Date, Maturity Date, First Payment Date, Principal And Securitized

Amount Of Loan, Term Of The Loan / Interest Rate / Type Of The Loan, Geo Location / County

/ Zip Code, Servicer / Trustee Name / Trust Name, Status Of The Loan: Foreclosure,

Bankruptcy, Reo, Date Of Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Reo.

11. Said Securitization examination revealed that Owners Loan was sold to Investors

of MBS Securities as __________________Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

_______________ (the “Trust”) which was registered with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC”.) Exhibit 2

12. At some point after WAMU recorded Owners Mortgage on

__________________ at the __________________ County Recorder’s Office, and before the

MBS Trust cut-off date of __________________, WAMU sold and assigned, without recourse,

their entire interest in the Mortgage Loan Contracts (“Receivables”) as the Debt/Obligations,

under a Transfer and Servicing Agreement, to MBS Investors, Certificate/Bondholders. These

Receivables were then securitized as part of a large pool of Receivables. Certificates were then

registered and issued to investors.


13. From that time on, the Trust was the only mortgagee, the only owner of the Note

and Mortgage. This Trust must abide by a set of governing documents called the Pooling and

Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) according to New York law.

PSA INTENTIONALLY IGNORED

14. The PSA requires that the Notes be delivered and recorded.

ASSIGNMENT OF LOANS: Pg 144: At the time of issuance of a series of securities, the depositor will cause the loans and any other assets included in the related trust to be assigned without recourse to the trustee or owner trustee or its nominee, which may be the custodian, together with, unless specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, all principal and interest received on the trust assets after the cut-off date, but not including principal and interest due on or before the cut-off date or any Excluded Spread.

15. According to the deposition of Angela Melissa Nolan VP of JP Morgan Chase in

the case styled: Deutsche Bank National Trust As Trustee For JPMAC 2007-CH5-JP Morgan

Chase Bank NA Case# 50-2008-, Chase, in direct violation of the prospectus and PSA, kept the

Notes its own vault under the pretense that it was “safer” in that location.

PG 19 A : Typically, we do allonges. That is ninety-nine percent of what we do because the vault--the note is in our vault. Q Okay. Do you take any steps to verify that the note, when it is extracted from the vault, is actually the original?A Extracted for what purposes?Q Well, for a foreclosure lawsuit.A Yes. I do not, but there is a team within the custodial shop that verifies the authentic- --or originality of those documents prior to releasing it to the attorneys.PG 39: A: I mean, the note's going to be in our vault, so that wouldn't be a possibility that anybody could go out and sell it, endorse it.

16. The practice of not following the PSA governing agreement appears to be routine

with the largest banks thus subjecting the Servicers or Originating banks to securities fraud by

the SEC. In riveting sworn testimony in Kemp V Countrywide, Linda De Martini, supervisor and

operational team leader for the Litigation Management Department for BAC Home Loans

Servicing L.P., testified that Countrywide NEVER delivered the notes to the trusts.


Ms. DeMartini testified that, in her extensive career in the mortgage loan servicing business of Countrywide, “I had to know about everything . . . .” She testified that Countrywide Home originated Kemp’s loan in 2006 and transferred it to the Bank of New York as trustee for the issuing trust, but that Countrywide Servicing retained the original note in its own possession and never delivered it to the Bank of New York because Countrywide Servicing was the servicer for the loan.

17. The January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) Report also

referred to Kemp V. Countrywide with circumstances similar to that of Owners loan in the instant

case, stated that the borrowers home could not be foreclosed because it had failed to both

indorse and deliver the note to the MBS Trust.

“On November 16, 2010, a bankruptcy court ruled that the Bank of New York could not foreclose on a loan it had purchased from Countrywide, because MERS had failed to endorse or deliver the note to the Bank of New York as required by the pooling and servicing agreement. This ruling could have further implications, because it was customary for Countrywide to maintain possession of the note and related loan documents when loans were securitized.” 18. On November 15, 2010 an article by NAKED CAPITALISM entitled “More

Evidence That Mortgage Loans Were Not Properly Conveyed to Securitization Trusts” also

validated that large banks routinely failed to deliver borrowers notes which had been sold to

MBS Trusts:

“We’ve described in various articles how evidence is growing that the participants in mortgage securitizations sometime early in this century appear to have ignored the requirements of a variety of laws and their own contracts. We believe the most serious and difficult to remedy problem results when the parties involved in the creation of a mortgage securitization failed to take the steps necessary to convey the loans to the legal entity, a trust, which was set up to hold them. As we wrote: …. there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B (sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust). The proper conveyance of the note is crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is “real party of interest”). .. It isn’t simply that the notes had to go through a particular chain of parties to get to the trust. All these steps had to be accomplished by a particular date, which was generally no later than ninety days after the trust closed. And all the assets conveyed to the trust had to be


“performing”, meaning the borrower was current on his payments. The evidence that the deal creators violated these stipulation is widespread... Another proof of the failure to adhere to these requirements is that the note are often conveyed to the trust right before the foreclosure. This fix is impermissible for three reasons: it is far too late (years after the cutoff), it is typically directly from the originator to the trust (in violation of the requirement that it go through all the intermediary parties) and it occurs after they have defaulted (contrary to the stipulation that the loan be performing).Some investigators have been trying to provide more convincing proof of their belief that these abuses were not merely widespread but pervasive...This practice is more than a little problematic. Transferring non-performing loans into a trust or making an out-of-time assignment is a void act under New York trust law (and mortgage securitization trusts are organized as New York trusts)..

19. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase, in concert with the largest

banks recklessly and intentionally violated both the law and their own PSA governing

agreements in order to sell borrowers Notes multiple times as bearer paper to multiple MBS

Trusts as suggested by Forensic auditor Charles J. Horner, of Charles J. Horner & Associates

Forensic Document Examiners, Bonita, CA., in a Foreclosure Investigation Report he conducted

for a client:

Conspiracy, Deceitful Acts, Failure To Comply With 424B5 [424B5 is "A form of prospectus that discloses information, facts or events covered in both paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) shall be filed with the Commission [SEC] no later than the second business day following the earlier of the date of the determination of the offering price or the date it is first used after effectiveness in connection with a public offering or sales, or transmitted by a means reasonably calculated to result in filing with the Commission by that date."] – Pursuant to the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) as quoted above, the conduit entities must assign all mortgages at the time of the issuance of the certificates to the Trustee. I have noted that no Assignment of Deed of Trust assigning the security instruments to LaSalle Bank has ever been recorded in Nevada County where the subject property is situated. It would be safe to assume that all certificates would have been issued as of the date of this report.. Since no assignment to date has been recorded, now exists a case whereby both Washington Mutual a/k/a JP Morgan Chase and LaSalle Bank as Trustee conspired to deceive the certificate holders into thinking that all mortgages have been securitized and the security instruments have been assigned to the Trustee at the time the certificates were issued when in fact they have not. This is a deceitful and fraudulent act whereby the certificates holders are unsecured on the outset and leaves open the possibility of double selling the certificates abroad. Furthermore, this act represents a violation of the PSA and prospectus as registered with the Security Exchange Commission and IRS REMIC code possibly making any future assignments to the Trust voidable.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_424B5

20. There is no evidence that the Owners Mortgage Note was ever officially

transferred to the Trust to the now purported holder-in-due-course __________________pass

through certificates. As a result, the note was put out of eligibility under New York law.

21. According to Horace v. LaSalle Bank, Re: Alabama No. 3:08cv1019-MHT

(WO), US District Court, M.D., Eastern Division, February 17, 2009, it was ruled: “the trust

failed to follow its own pooling and servicing agreement, and did not follow applicable New

York law when trying to obtain assignment of Horace's note and mortgage." Without proof the

mortgage had been assigned to the trust, the trustee lacked standing to foreclose. Furthermore:

"Accordingly, the endorsement chain … does not comply with that required by the PSA," Judge Albert Johnson wrote:"The court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the trust did not comply with the terms of its own pooling and servicing agreement and further did not comply with New York law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horace's note and mortgage."

WAMU NOT TRUE LENDER

22. Upon information and belief, WAMU did not advance funds to Owners loan with

any of its own assets on __________________, the closing date of the loan, and thus WAMU

was not the true creditor. Owners loan, as well as Millions of other loans across America, were

pre-funded by pre-sold securities by investors of MBS. It was common practice on Wall Street

to “forward sell”: Investment banks on Wall Street sold Investors Mortgage-Backed Securities in

advance of the procurement of the mortgage loans thus pre-funding said loans by way of a

Prospectus. Each MBS prospectus defines the criteria for the types of mortgages represented in

an MBS Trust. According to allegations in a Kentucky RICO Class Action suit filed against the

largest banks:

“The prospectus was created, the MBS rated and the investors money was pledged and collected before the homeowner ever even applied for a loan.” “MBS investors advanced funds in a pre-funding agreement. Funds for mortgage loans remained in a Trust awaiting a loan application which spelled out the borrower and property's data. This criteria was composed of credit scores, loan-to-value ratio [which determined how much equity/risk a borrower had], area of the country the property was located in, etc., was then matched with the underlying criteria outlined in a MBS Prospectus. When a match occurred, funds controlled by the so-called “lender,” but not produced by the lender, were then directed to purchase that loan.”


In sworn testimony by Expert Securitization Witness Neil Garfield in a bankruptcy case: Tarantola # 4:09-bk-09703-EWH in Tuscon, Arizona: “The investor advanced the actual funds from which the financial product loan was funded, assuming these investors that purchased asset backed securities were those in which ownership of the loans were described with sufficient specificity as to at least express the intent to convey ownership of the obligation as evidenced by the promissory note and an interest in real property consisting of a security interest held by an entity that was described as the beneficiary of a trust created by an instrument entitled “mortgage.” “Investment bank underwriters created prospectus’, went to investors and pre-sold bonds before the loans were originated.”

23. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports -TBA Trading

and Liquidity in the Agency MBS Market by James Vickery Joshua Wright Staff Report No.

468-August 2010:

“A less widely recognized feature is the existence of a liquid forward market for trading agency MBS, out to a horizon of several months.3 The liquidity of this market raises MBS prices and improves market functioning. It also helps mortgage lenders manage risk, since it allows them to “lock in” sale prices for new loans as or even before those mortgages are originated. The vast majority of agency MBS trading occurs in this forward market, which is known as the TBA market (TBA stands for “to be announced”). In a TBA trade, the seller of MBS agrees on a sale price, but does not specify which particular securities will be delivered to the buyer on settlement day. Instead, only a few basic characteristics of the securities are agreed upon, such as the coupon rate and the face value of the bonds to be delivered. *3 In a forward contract, the security and cash payment for that security are not exchanged until after the date on which the terms of the trade are contractually agreed upon. The date the trade is agreed upon is called the “trade” date. The date the cash and securities change hands is called the “settlement” date.”

24. When Owners submitted their loan application to Chase, the criteria on said

application was extrapolated and then matched with corresponding criteria from an MBS Trust

as defined in its Prospectus. Once a match was made, funds provided by the Investors were then

forwarded to the so-called “Lender” to create the illusion that the so-called Lender was funding

the loan. Thus the true creditor was the Investors of the MBS Securities.

25. WAMU was never the lender of Owners Mortgage loan. Hence, Chase, in its

capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, has no standing to make its Complaint as only the

true “creditor” has standing to foreclose a mortgage.


WAMU SOLD OWNERS A PREDATORY LOAN PRODUCT

26. WAMU sold Owners a known predatory Option Arm loan product with a

negative amortization which according to sworn testimony by confidential witnesses in the

Federal Home Finance Authority V. JP Morgan Chase lawsuit filed on September 2, 2011,

earned WAMU and its employees vast sums of money at the expense of borrowers:

§239. WaMu Bank pushed its Option ARM loans on borrowers regardless of their sophistication, income level, or financial stability. An Option ARM loan is typically a 30-year Adjustable Rate Mortgage (“ARM”) that initially offers the borrower four monthly payment options: (i) a specified minimum payment (which was typically lower than the interest payment and therefore caused the loan to grow, referred to as negative amortization), (ii) an interest-only payment, (iii) a 15-year fully amortizing payment, and (iv) a 30-year fully amortizing payment. The rate of an ARM loan also adjusts monthly and if the loan rate was higher than the required interest in the payment, the balance of the loan would increase (called negative amortization). Fay Chapman, WaMu Bank’s former Chief Legal Officer, candidly admitted to the Seattle Times in an article published on October 26, 2009, that “[m]ortgage brokers put people into the product who shouldn’t have been.” In 2003, WaMu originated $32.3 billion of Option ARM loans. By 2005, that number almost had doubled to $64.1 billion.

26. WAMU’s predatory loan product had another consequence as Owners “Option

Arm” loan product had a negative amortization which pursuant to under UCC sec 3-104 renders

said Note as non-negotiable.

(a) § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order.

27. A negative amortization fails this test. Since these types of notes are not

negotiable instruments, the transfer and sale of said notes are subject to the provisions of UCC

Article 9, not Article 3. Article 9 states:

“if a note is not negotiable and the originator sells the note, then Article 9 applies as it applies to both the sale of secured instruments and secured transactions. In such a case the note must be assigned by the originator/assignor to the assignee and the assignee must pay good and valuable consideration to the assignor in exchange for the assignment.” (Owners emphasis)


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103.html#Order_3-103

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103.html#Promise_3-103

28. Owners Note principal balance was recorded as $ ____________ on

____________. By ____________, said balance had increased to $ ____________ thus

rendering said note as non-negotiable.

29. No assignment was recorded at the ____________ County Recorder’s Office

which means that Chase could not have legally acquired Owners Note as a negotiable instrument

as Owners Note was non-negotiable.

REMICS

30. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (hereinafter “REMICS”) were created

in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. The REMIC is referred to in the world

of finance as an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle), or SPE (Special Purpose Entity.).

31. REMICs are investment vehicles that hold commercial and residential mortgages

in trust and issues securities, in the instant case, a Mortgage-backed security, representing an

undivided interest in these mortgages.

32. The trustee for the Trust has sworn under oath with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (“SEC,”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS,”) that as a mortgage asset “pass

through” entity, it cannot own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS as it would then be taxed on

the interest earned from the Note.

33. This allows the Trust to qualify as a REMIC rather than an ordinary Real Estate

Investment Trust (“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax will be

charged to the trust.

34. To avoid double taxation, under Internal Revenue Code 860, Owners loan was

placed in a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPV”) Trust so that only the shareholders would be taxed

and therefore, the shareholders are the real parties in interest.

35. Moreover, because of IRS code 860, the Trust is not the real and beneficial party

in interest because the REMIC does not own the Note, the shareholders do.


36. By distributing the tax liabilities to the shareholders, the REMIC has also

distributed the parties in interest.

OWNERS LOAN IS NO LONGER A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT

37. Once the REMIC containing Owners loan was formed, Owners loan was

converted into a security owned by thousands of shareholders throughout the world and was

traded on Wall Street.

38. When Owners note became a securitized instrument, it forever lost its identity as a

Negotiable Instrument and was no longer enforceable as a Mortgage Note. A negotiable

instrument can only be in one of two states after undergoing securitization, not both at the same

time. It can either be a loan or a stock.

39. Once the instrument is traded as a stock, it is forever a stock and therefore

regulated, as this loan was, by the SEC as a stock.

40. Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU can no longer claim that

it is a real party in interest, or even that the loan stills exists as a loan, since double dipping is a

form of securities fraud.

41. Since WAMU sold Owners loan to a REMIC and Owners loan was securitized

into stock, WAMU forever lost the ability to enforce, control or otherwise foreclose on Owners

property, including the right to assign the Mortgage or endorse the Note. It was no longer the real

party of interest.

42. By way of a prospectus, the MBS investors agreed to an operating plan that

defined the functions of the SPV conduit which was used to funnel funds to the investor from the

pool. Since the words “conduit” and “vehicle” convey the fact that no actual business events of

taxable or monetary significance takes place in the REMIC, the investors are the creditors,

having been the only parties to advance funds from which the Owners loan was funded.

43. The Servicer, first WAMU and then Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest

to WAMU, were merely administrative entities which collected the mortgage payments and

escrow funds.


44. Moreover, if Chase were to have a financial stake in the mortgage loan, the MBS

Trust would lose its REMIC pass-through tax status.

THE BANKS GAME THE SYSTEM THEY CREATED

45. Banks do not use their own funds to make loans. Banks issue money obtained

from the Federal Reserve (“Fed”) through signatures on promissory notes. The bank converts

these signatures into money and registers the value of the mortgage loan in its ledger as an Asset

of the Federal Reserve. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code 1-201(24) and 3-104: it is the

signature on the promissory note which creates the “money.” The bank then establishes an

account containing the “money” the loan just created and thereby becomes the source of funds

that a borrower receives as a ‘loan’.

“Credit or promissory notes become money when banks deposit promissory notes with the intent of treating them like deposits of cash.” See, 12 U.S.C. Section 1813 (l)(1) (definition of “deposit” under Federal Deposit Insurance Act).

“A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or currency in the bank. Of course they [the banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.” — Federal Reserve Bank

Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics, p. 6

46. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that the Insiders on Wall Street, the

largest banks and the privately-owned Federal Reserve, (the “Conspirators”), gamed their own

system. The so-called Lenders established funding warehouses which were nothing more than

“money-laundering” facilities. Once the Note was signed by the Owners in the instant case, and

millions of others similarly situated across America, Borrowers Promissory Notes became

negotiable instruments or cash.

47. The so–called Lender then went to the Federal Reserve and was “credited” 10

times the amount of the Note. Under normal mortgage loan circumstances, the Lender would

credit the borrower 10% of the money it received to fund the borrowers loan, retain 10% as


reserves and then use 80% to fund loans to others as demonstrated in the Federal Reserve

Publication “Modern Money Mechanics” on page 8:

“Carried through to theoretical limits, the initial $10,000 of reserves distributed within the banking system gives rise to an expansion of $90,000 in bank credit (loans and investments) and supports a total of $100,000 in new deposits under a 10 percent reserve requirement.”

48. However, because the mortgage loans had been pre-funded by Investors of the

MBS’s, Chase, in concert with other large banks, committed fraud as they used the Owners Note

in the instant case, and the notes of millions of others borrowers similarly situated across

America, to obtain funds from the Fed, while simultaneously being paid for said Note by the

MBS Trust thereby collecting more than ten times the amount of each mortgage loan.

49. According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) rules, the

borrowing bank must post collateral to the Fed in return for the loan. Such collateral includes:

mortgages, consumer loans, and commercial loans. But because the Conspirators own and

control the system, they could manipulate it with devastating consequences.

50. The money drawn from the Fed is a liability to the Bank and is registered on the

public side of the Bank’s books. According to the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices

(GAAP) which every bank must abide by, this liability must then be offset by registering the

Note as collateral, or an asset held by the Fed. To game the system, the Conspirator banks used

Public Funds obtained through the Fed, but registered the asset/collateral on the private side of

their books in direct violation of the GAAP. In other words, the banks ledgered the asset to the

Private side of their ledgers and the liability to the Public side, thus increasing the National Debt,

money owed to the Fed, by Billions.

51. Furthermore, borrowers mortgage payments were also supposed to be paid to the

Fed in order to properly discharge the liabilities created by the mortgage loans, but instead these

payments were funneled to the MBS Trusts.

52. Upon information and belief, Chase, and other large banks, used the Fed to

convert the mortgage notes into money, took the money and converted it into profits.


SERVICER IS DEBT COLLECTOR

53. Since Owners loan went into default, it was written off by the REMIC

subsequently, the Trust received tax credits from the IRS. Therefore, the debt was discharged

and settled.

54. After securitization, the Note cannot be re-attached to the Mortgage through

adhesion.

55. Under the UCC, the Promissory Note is a one-of-a-kind instrument and any

assignment must be as a permanent fixture onto the original Note, much like a check.

56. The original Promissory Note has the only legally binding chain of title, otherwise

the instrument is faulty.

57. The original Note had to be either destroyed, or in the case of Chase, fraudulently

retained in its own vault, upon securitization because the Note and the stock cannot exist at the

same time.

58. Under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Servicer can buy

back the Note as a non-performing non-secured debt like collection agencies that buy non-

performing credit card debts.

59. This purchase is of a discharged asset and cannot be re-adhered to the original

Mortgage, since the original Note was a one-of-a-kind instrument, not part of the discharged

asset.

60. Therefore the purchaser of the discharged asset can never be the holder-in-due-

course of the original Note and the debt is, at best, un-secured.

61. The attempt by CHASE to claim ownership of the original Note by the purchaser

of the discharged asset is fraudulent and characterized as “reverse engineering.”

62. There is no perfection of title.

TRUSTEE MUST HAVE POSSESSION OF ORIGINAL BLUE INK NOTES


63. In order to retain its tax status, fund the Trust and legally collect money from

investors who bought into the REMIC, the Trustee of the REMIC must have possession of all the

original blue ink Promissory Notes, original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a

complete paper chain of title. As demonstrated in the earlier deposition of a VP of Chase at

paragraph 15, Chase kept the notes in their own vault for a variety of reasons, all designed to

defraud the American public in accordance with their Conspiracy.

BANKS SOLD THE SAME NOTES MULTIPLE TIMES

64. The January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report stated that

the investment banks sold the notes as securities multiple times to multiple trusts simultaneously,

notes the Conspirators kept in their vaults and under their control. On pages 24 and 25 of the

FCIC Report’s preface, the following statement corroborates that fact:

“Synthetic CDO’s [collateralized debt obligations] created by Goldman [Sachs] referenced more than 3,400 mortgage securities, and 610 of them were referenced at least twice. This is apart from how many times these securities may have been referenced in synthetic CDOs created by other firms.” (Owners emphasis)

TRANSFER INTO MBS TRUST REQUIRES AN ASSIGNMENT

65. At the moment of the Note’s transfer to investors, WAMU was paid in full

without recourse for Owners note and as such, had no further authority as “Lender.” Thus

WAMU could not legally transfer any interest in the Owners Note or Mortgage to any party

according to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) of the MBS Trust:

POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT PG 115 OF 271: The depositor will cause the trust assets constituting each pool to be assigned without recourse to the trustee named in the accompanying prospectus supplement, for the benefit of the holders of all of the securities of a series. The master servicer or servicer, which may be an affiliate of the depositor, named in the accompanying prospectus supplement will service the loans, either directly or through subservicers or a Special Servicer, under a servicing agreement and will receive a fee for its services.

CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS – LAS-VEGAS STYLED “INSURANCE”


Upon information and belief, Owners allege that in another facet of the Conspirators scheme, the best, brightest, and most sinister on Wall Street, together with the largest banks, robbed untold Trillions from the American public by their use of unregulated “insurance” policies taken out on MBS bonds called Credit Default Swap’s, which were and still are, as Author Charles Davi stated: “the destroyer of economies”*. Credit default swaps are “Casino-styled “bets,” and the Insiders who took out these bets, wagered that the mortgages they themselves originated, mortgages which the Owners allege were “designed to fail,” would do just that thus allowing the banks to collect on the bets they placed. It appears that the bets placed by the largest banks, most notably Goldman Sachs, were paid off at 100 cents on the dollar in the wake of the economic crisis by Insurance giant AIG with American taxpayer TARP funds. *How to Understand The Derivatives Market By Charles Davi The Atlantic Jul 16 2009,

66. In a February 7, 20110 New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson and

Louse Story entitled “Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Edge,” the

following corroborates that allegation:

“Some financial analysts have argued that in calculating Goldman Sachs’ government bailout, the total should include the $12.9 billion in government funds that flowed from the New York Federal Reserve through AIG to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was paid full-value for collateral calls on debt swaps it had made with AIG, and received more of AIG’s bailout money than any other firm. It also received AIG bailout money through deals it had with Societe Generale, a French bank that received $11 billion of the AIG bailout. According to a New York Times analysis, before the government was forced to bail out AIG “Goldman’s demands for billions of dollars from the insurer helped put it in a precarious financial position by bleeding much-needed cash.” AIG analysts believed that Goldman Sachs had pushed other banks, including Societe Generale, to demand collateral payments, an accusation Goldman Sachs denies. AIG disagreed that the securities in dispute had fallen as much as Goldman Sachs claimed, but Goldman Sachs refused to allow third parties to set a value on these securities. The Times reported that “The federal bailout locked in the paper losses of those deals for A.I.G. The prices on many of those securities have since rebounded.”

67. In a Kentucky RICO class action suit against the largest banks, Attorney

McKeever alleges that the largest banks also collected Trillions on derivative Contracts.

The Double and Triple Dip and Derivative Contracts: Most MBS/Trusts were covered by an insurance policy, commonly referred to as a Derivative or Collateral Contract. These Derivative Contracts are not recorded or regulated by the SEC. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have attempted to receive distribution, fees or proceeds or have received distributions from the liquidation of the borrower’s homes, when the actual beneficiaries under the homeowners’ loans, the shareholder/investors have been made whole by a Derivative Contract. In other


http://www.theatlantic.com/

instances, the MBS has been “closed” months or years prior. Funds collected from the loans allegedly within the MBS, are no longer being paid to the investors, but are an unearned windfall to the servicer. Additionally, there is no contract between the investors and the foreclosing entity which would allow them so act as a Plaintiff in a Foreclosure even when the MBS is not shut down.

Likewise, the MBS/Trusts themselves became parties to Derivative Contracts. Most times, the actual Derivative contract is for more, up to ten times (10x), the face value of the MBS. More often than not, multiple insurance policies were taken and traded on the MBS. The “double dip” or double compensation of the MBS/Trustee, or Servicer is improper in its own right. The offense is patently egregious when it is viewed in light of the fact that the Servicer has no standing to foreclose, yet they came and continue to come to the Courts with the fabricated and forged documents.

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

68. Chase’s lack of ownership of the mortgage and promissory note in the instant case

goes to the very heart of any claim of standing, permeates the entire proceeding and subverts the

integrity of the instant case.

Beyond the Article 3 requirements of injury in fact, causation and redressability, the creditor must have prudential standing, which is a judicially-created set of principles that places limits on the class of persons who may invoke the court’s powers. Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490, 499, 95 S.Ct 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343(1975)) as a prudential matter, a plaintiff must assert “his own legal interests as the real party in interest.” (Dunmore v. United States, 358 F 3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir 2004), as found in Fed. R. Civil P. 17, which provides “(a)n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”)

69. Chase is not a ‘party in interest’. The real parties in interest of Owners note are

the investors for the GMACM-2003J MBS Trust. Chase which is proceeding here as the alleged

mortgagee, which has no standing to so proceed.

70. Chase does not have the authority to make presentments without dishonor on

behalf of the Real Parties in Interest under F.R.C.P. 17 (a) Real Party in Interest. and 19 (a) for

lack of joinder. In re Gavin, 319 B.R. 27, 31 (1st. BAP 2004). The court ruled that Indy Mac

Federal was not the real party in interest pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the joinder of the owner of the note is required by Rule 19. “[A]n action must be


prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-

66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).

“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action.” Lebanon Correctional Institution v. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio St.2d 176 (1973).

“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold, “If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

71. Based on the Securitization of the Mortgage, Promissory Note as Receivable and

the Mortgage Loan Installment Contract, Chase has no enforceability rights as owner, holder or

holder in due course (“HDC”) under §17(A)(1) AND §19 (A) and UCC 810 ILCS 5.

72. According to UCC (810 ILCS 5/): The holder of a note must be a Holder In Due

Course: A party who acquires possession of an instrument (usually a check, promissory note, or

installment sale contract) after giving value for it, in good faith, and without notice that there are

any defenses; the holder in due course takes free of any claims.

FORECLOSING PARTY MUST SUFFER LOSS

73. Standing requires that a party will suffer financial loss derived from non-

performance (i.e., nonpayment) of the subject contract. Since the MBS Investors purchased

Owners note, the investors are the creditors.

74. Because WAMU sold Owners note and was thus paid in full for subject Loan

transaction, Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, does not stand to suffer any

loss or harm should they be enjoined from foreclosing on Owners Property.

Constitutional standing under Article 3 requires, at a minimum, that a party must have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct, that the injury be traced to challenged action, and that it is likely to be


redressed by a favorable decision. (Valley Forge Christian Coll. V.Am. United for Separation of church and State, 454 US 464, 472, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed. 2d 700 (1982) (citations and internal quotations omitted)).

NOTE MUST BE INDORSED FOR CHASE TO MAKE CLAIM

75. Under Illinois law, only the entity entitled to enforce the note may bring a

complaint to foreclose the mortgage against the mortgagor. See Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v.

Nelson, 890 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).

76. In order for Chase to be entitled to enforce Owners note, Chase must demonstrate

that it is a “party in interest” by showing that it is a creditor with a security interest in the subject

real property. See Mims, 438 B.R. at 57 (finding that as movant “failed to prove it owns the Note,

it has failed to establish that it has standing to pursue its state law remedies with regard to the

Mortgage and Property”). Cf. Brown Bark I L.P. v. Ebersole (In re Ebersole), 440 B.R. 690, 694

(Bankr. W.D. Va. 2010) (finding that movant seeking relief from stay must prove that it is the

holder of the subject note in order to establish a ‘colorable claim’ which would establish standing

to seek relief from stay).

77. For Chase to “prove” that it has the right to enforce Owners note, said note must

be indorsed either to Chase directly, or in blank.

78. Illinois Attorney and author, Kevin Hudspeth, stated in a legal article entitled

“Murky MERS”: “If the plaintiff claims to be the holder of the note, it must demonstrate that the

note is indorsed—either specifically to the plaintiff or in blank— and that the plaintiff is in

possession of the note.” He cites the following law to corroborate that statement:

(810 ILCS 5/3-201) (from Ch. 26, par. 3-201) Sec. 3-201. Negotiation. (a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder. (b) Except for negotiation by a remitter, if an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the holder. If an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone. (Source: P.A. 87-582; 87-1135.)

Sec. 3-205. Special indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement. (b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special


indorsement, it is a "blank indorsement". When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.

Compare 810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-301 (2010) (naming a holder as a party entitled to enforce) with 810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-201(b)(21)(A) (2010) (defining holder, in part, as a person in possession). See also In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392, 401 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009).

810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-205(b) (2010).See Joslyn v. Joslyn, 54 N.E.2d 475, 478 (Ill. 1944) (“[P]ossession of bearer paper is prima facie evidence of title thereto, and sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a decree of foreclosure.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Foreman Trust and Sav. Bank v. Cohn, 174 N.E. 419, 421-22 (Ill. 1930); Rago v. Cosmopolitan Nat’l Bank, 232 N.E.2d 88, 92 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967); First Secs. Co. of Chi. v. Schroeder, 114 N.E.2d 426, 427 (Ill. App. Ct. 1953). Though these cases officially deal with enforcing bearer paper, 97.

79. Mr. Hudspeth continues: “the note’s indorsement will presumably be clear from

the copy attached to the plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, assuming the plaintiff establishes that it is in

possession of the note in some way, the indorsement alone should suffice to demonstrate the

plaintiff’s right to enforce. (Owners emphasis)

THE ALLEGED INDORSEMENT

80. Chase attached to its complaint to foreclose Owners property, a copy of Owners

note as its Exhibit B. On page 6 of Owners Note, there appears an undated indorsement which

reads: “Pay to the Order of ______(blank) WITHOUT RECOURSE, Washington Mutual Bank,

FA. Said indorsement was allegedly signed by Jess Almanza, as Vice President for WAMU. Said

unauthenticated indorsement in blank serves to memorialize the sale/transfer of Owners loan

which had previously taken place. As such, if WAMU had recorded the required assignment on

their non-negotiable negative amortized loan, said blank indorsement would constitute “bearer

paper” thus providing Chase the requisite evidence it required to claim that it was the holder of

Owners note.

81. Owners allege that Chase does not have the requisite evidence needed to claim it

is the holder of Owners Note as Chase falsely created the indorsement needed to “prove” it had

the ability to enforce Owners note.


82. An ever-increasing quantity of lawsuits filed on behalf of homeowners,

governmental agencies and MBS investors have accused Chase of fraudulently creating

documents in order to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings. As such,

Owners conducted an Internet search on the so-called “indorser” of Owners note and discovered

that other documents allegedly indorsed by Jess Almanza as VP of WAMU (and Long Beach

Mortgage Company) bore an exact replica of the so-called indorsement which appears on page 6

of Owners promissory note. When said indorsement on Owners note is transposed directly over

other alleged indorsed documents by Jess Almanza found on the Internet, the signature and

stamp are precisely and absolutely identical. EXHIBIT 3

83. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase intentionally falsified

Owners Note by utilizing a computerized “photo-shopped” stamp, or some other device to create

said blank indorsement allegedly signed by WAMU VP Jess Almanza.

84. For Owners note to be considered “bearer paper”, Ms. Almanza must have

personally indorsed Owners note and her signature must have been authenticated by a notary.

85. Owners allege that Ms. Almanza did not personally indorse Owners Note, nor was

her signature authenticated by a legal notary, thus rendering said document as fraudulent.

86. Chase’s pattern of deceit has become blindingly conspicuous when one simply

conducts an Internet query on “Chase, fraud,” for 1,540,000 hits appear instantaneously. The

practice of Chase fraudulently preparing the necessary foreclosure documents needed to prove

standing appears to be widespread:

9-2010 NY TIMES - JPMorgan Suspending Foreclosures: “In a sign that the entire foreclosure process is coming under pressure, a second major mortgage lender said that it was suspending court cases against defaulting homeowners so it could review its legal procedures. The lender, JPMorgan Chase, said on Wednesday that it was halting 56,000 foreclosures because some of its employees might have improperly prepared the necessary documents. All of the suspensions are in the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by a court, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida and Illinois. ...GMAC and Chase say that their lapses were technical and will soon be remedied with new filings. But defense lawyers are seizing on these revelations and say they will now work to have their cases thrown out... Potentially, hundreds of thousands of cases could be in doubt....“I don’t want to say that every one of these cases is wrong and a


fraud on the court, but it is a big concern for us,” J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Florida, said in an interview last week after GMAC’s announcement. “Everyone is going to have to look at these cases more closely,” whose circuit includes St. Petersburg...”

A Pew Mortgage Investigations Report On the Predatory Servicing Practice of False & Forged Signatures Employed by Ocwen & Others -2008 - by Nye Lavalle: “Another common trade practice is to create pre-dated, backdated, and fraudulent assignments of mortgages and endorsements before or after the fact to support the allegations being made by the foreclosing party. Foreclosing parties are most often the servicer or MERS acting on the servicer’s behalf, not the owners of the actual promissory note. Often, they assist in concealing known frauds and abuses by originators, prior servicers, and mortgage brokers from both the borrowers and investors by the utilization of concealing the true chain of ownership of a borrower’s loan.”

87. In an article entitled “Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud” written by

Matt Reynolds of Courthouse News Service on January 17, 2012, the author reports that

although previously warned, Chase has not abandoned its practice of creating fraudulent

documents:

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."

88. An article written on February 28th, 2012 entitled “Banks Steal Homes, And I

Have Proof”, Foreclosure Defense Attorney Mark Stopa offers more validation of widespread

fraudulent indorsements:


“...I defend foreclosure cases. In that role, I look closely at every promissory note and every indorsement on those notes that come across my desk. I’ve encountered the name “Danielle Sterling” a fair number of times as an indorser on Notes... it made me wonder … “why is Danielle Sterling signing so many indorsements on promissory notes, transferring millions of dollars?” According to this Affidavit, Danielle Sterling did not endorse a promissory note entered by Daniel and Christine Hunk. Ms. Sterling is very unequivocal about this – she never endorsed the Note. Yet the Note has an endorsement bearing her signature. ...It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out what happened here. A bank wanted to foreclose on the Note and Mortgage entered by Daniel and Christine Hunk, but needed an endorsement from American Home Mortgage. But American Home Mortgage was out of business. So Citimortgage took the endorsement stamp that had been used by Danielle Sterling (from when she worked at American Home Mortgage), stamped it on the Note, and forged her signature.... Foreclosure cases turn on endorsements like this. Having a Note, endorsed in blank (or specially indorsed to the plaintiff) is almost always what a foreclosure plaintiff asserts as its standing to foreclose. In other words, endorsements like this are what gives the bank the right to foreclose on a homeowner. With an endorsement, the bank is probably going to win (and foreclose). Without it, they’re probably going to lose. Hence, if these endorsements are forged, as this one clearly seems to be, then banks are, quite literally, stealing homes that don’t belong to them. In my view, courts cannot take an endorsement at face value... There’s a legitimate reason to question the veracity of every endorsement, not just by Danielle Sterling, but every endorsement.... we’re experiencing the biggest fraud in the history of mankind, [but being told that] we all need to sweep it under the rug to improve the economy. Because throwing homeowners on the streets for the benefit of banks that committed widespread fraud will help.... Foreclosures are littered with fraud … billions of dollars in wealth are changing hands in fraudulent ways … The issue here is that it’s time for everyone to stop treating an original note with an endorsement as gospel. Clearly, endorsement fraud is pervasive in the foreclosure industry, and it’s about time we all put a stop to it.”

89. Fischer and Shapiro, the law firm prosecuting the instant lawsuit on Chase’s

behalf, have openly admitted to altering foreclosure documents in a manner similar to what was

necessary to falsify the Indorsement on Owners Note in the instant case. On a front page

Chicago Tribune article dated Saturday March 26, 2011 entitled “Altered Documents Stay

1,700 Foreclosures” it was stated:

“Fisher and Shapiro LLC, one of the top three law firms used by mortgage servicers to handle their local foreclosure actions, reported to the court that, in a breach of protocol, affidavits in the cases were changed...the admission to the court by Fisher and Shapiro does not involve rubber-stamping of documents but


rather removing the signature page, altering the affidavits content and reattaching the content page, the (Cook County Circuit Court) said.

90. For Chase, or their attorneys, Fischer and Shapiro, to falsify the indorsement on

Owners Note, the signature page had to be removed, the indorsement printed or affixed, and the

content page reattached, in the exact same process Fischer and Shapiro admitted to.

91. According to the deposition of Angela Melissa Nolan VP of JP Morgan Chase in

the case styled: Deutsche Bank National Trust As Trustee For JPMAC 2007- CH5-JP Morgan

Chase Bank NA Case# 50-2008, Chase, in direct violation of the law, routinely produced the

allonges, assignments and indorsements needed to create the illusion of a legal foreclosure:

pg 22: Q Okay. First, who determines when you need to file an allonge? Is that the custodial shop or is that someone else?A The custodial shop is notified by private investors groups or a loan delivery group of pending sales, and at that point the custodial shop determines--would--if an allonge or an endorsement is not currently there, they would create the allonge at that point.A Correct. And then the authenticity of the signature, I believe, is on the other document. You looked at that earlier, where the image--signatures were actually scanned in.Pg 99 Q Okay. When you send it to the Law firm, would that include the assignments?A It would include anything that was in the file at the time it was released.Q If an assignment was later created, would it first get sent to you and then--A And it would go in the holding area. It would get sent to the imaging process and it would get sent to the sort team and eventually research, and they would determine the file was released and it would go to the holding area that we had discussed earlier until we received the file back or foreclosure is actually initiated and completed.Q Do you usually prepare-- And by "you," I mean, your company. Do you usually prepare the assignments of mortgages?A It really depends on deals. It just depends. Sometimes they do, sometimes they--it's a--an outsourced vendor prepares them.

92. Chase is attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings

by fraudulently falsifying Owners Note in order to claim ownership of the Owners indebtedness

and literally steal the Owners home.

93. By falsifying the Indorsement on Owners Note, Chase has committed criminal

fraud thus voiding Owners note ab initio.


Criminal fraud voids a contract, ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the object be to deceive the public, third persons or one party endeavor thereby to cheat the other. Antle v. Sexton, 137 III. 410, 27. N. E. 691 [affirming 32 III. App. 437]; Crocker v. Manley, 164 III. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577; Prentice v. Crane, 234 111. 302, 84 N. E. 916; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co., 236 III. 188. 86 N. E. 210; Prout v. Hoy Oil Co., 263 111. 54, 105 N. E. 26; Wachsmuth v. Martini, 45 111. App. 244.

“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550, 279 NW 79 (1938).

94. Moreover, Chase’s falsification of Owners documents is subject to fine and

imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341:

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

In US v. Robinson 03-4136 March 2004 App sc--2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3910,*;88 Fed. Appx. 660--United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Ryan Robinson, Defendant-Appellant.--o. 03-4136 --United States Court of Appeals for The Fourth Circuit --88 fed. Appx. 660; 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3910 –Def Robinson was an employee of CSRA INC. which sold manufactured housing. To sell more homes, Robinson participated in a fraudulent scheme where he provided falsified financial information such as inflating both income and down payment. This information was sent via facsimile to out of state lenders who relied upon this information when considering a loan application. Fifty fraudulent transactions


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1341.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code

resulted in buyers defaulting on the loan and the home being repossessed and sold at a loss of $993,792.16. Robinson was sentenced to 57 months in prison for participating in this fraud.

95. If Chase argues that its crimes and violations of the law have exceeded the

Statute of Limitations, according to the Doctrine Of Fraudulent Concealment, said Statute

is subject to being tolled:

“If a lender conceals wrongdoing, thereby preventing a borrower from discovering a cause of action, the statute of limitation will be tolled until the date the plaintiff, through due diligence, would have learned of the existence of a claim. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment operates to toll the statute of limitations, when a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in ignorance of it, without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part. Holmberg v. Arnlbrecht , 327 U.S. 392, 397 (1946) (quoting Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 342, 348 (1874); see Maggio v. Gerard Freezer & Ice Co. , 824 F.2d 123, 127 (1 st Cir. 1987).”

96. Owners allege that said Indorsement is defective and was meant to facilitate a

fraudulent foreclosure; a practice routinely not caught by defense attorneys nor the courts.

“Computer-generated bank records or testimony based thereon are often offered without proper foundation, or are summarized without being introduced.” Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Medina, supra, 01 C 768, 2001 WL 1558278 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 5, 2001); FDIC v. Carabetta, 55 Conn. App. 369, 739 A.2d 301 (1999).

CHASE MISREPRESENTS ITS CAPACITY AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO

WAMU

97. In its complaint to foreclose Owners property, Chase claims that it is the holder of

the beneficial interest under Owners Mortgage in the capacity of successor in interest to the

assets of WAMU.

98. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase’s claim is false.

99. On September 25, 2008, the Director of the OTS, by Order Number 2008-36,

closed WAMU and subjected it to Receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC).


100. On September 25, 2008, a proposed Purchase and Assumption Agreement

(“PAA”) was entered into by and among: the FDIC as receiver of WAMU; the FDIC in its

corporate capacity; and JP Morgan Chase bank, NA upon which final settlement and amended

PAA took place on September 30, 2010. (the proposed PAA is published at

http://www.fedic.gov/about/freedom/washington _Mutual_P and _A.pdf;

101. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that their specific loan which Chase

is seeking to foreclose, was in fact, never sold by the FDIC to Chase or otherwise legally

acquired.

102. Chase has admitted, in filings by its counsel in the Federal matter of Deutsche

Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and JPMorgan

Chase Bank National Association et al, Case No. 1:09-CV-1656 (RMC) that:

“Under the plain terms of that agreement [the PAA], Chase did not become WAMU’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WAMU.” [emphasis in original]

103. Despite this record admission which is binding upon Chase, Chase, both directly

and indirectly through its Servicer Chase Home Finance LLC, has instituted a foreclosure

proceeding where it claims, in official court filings and documents filed in the public record and

sent to the Owners herein through the mails, to be the “successor in interest to Washington

Mutual Bank” for purposes of attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure

proceedings, doing so based upon nothing more than an unsworn allegation supported by

fraudulent documents.

CHASE’s ROLE IS THAT OF SERVICER

104. The Owners loan was sold to MBS Investors without recourse sometime between

its recording date of ______________ and the ______________ Trust cut-off date of

______________. Therefore, at the time of WAMU’s acquisition by the FDIC in September

2008, WAMU would have been the Servicer of Owners loan, not the Lender. Hence, Chase

could have only acquired the servicing rights on Owners loan as the governing PAA states:


http://www.fedic.gov/about/freedom/washington%20_Mutual_P%20and%20_A.pdf

“Schedule 3.2 of the P&A Agreement specifically identified the ‘rights of [WAMU] to provide mortgage servicing for others...and related contracts’ as assets purchased by Chase. (P&A at 36). The P&A Agreement also provided that ‘notwithstanding section 4.8,’ Chase specifically ‘assumes’ (under 2.1) and purchases (under 3.1) “all mortgage servicing rights and obligations of the failed bank [WAMU]. Id §§ 2.1, 3.1.”

105. Chase, as the Servicer of Owners loan, does not have standing to foreclose

Owners property. “The servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the

holder of the note has standing to enforce the note.” See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at

8.

106. In Bayview Loan Servicing, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 1188., the record reflected that the

plaintiff at most, serviced the mortgage payments.

Mar 12, 2009 Bankruptcy, Idaho, Sheridan Case#08-20381-TLM“Jacobson notes that its moving party, who claimed to be a servicer for the holder of the note, “neither asserts beneficial interest in the note, nor that it could enforce the note in its own right.” 2009 WL 567188 at *4. It concluded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 applied, requiring the stay relief motion to be brought in the name of the real party in interest. Id. (citing In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 767 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)); see also In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 521 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). As Jacobson summarized: “Even if a servicer or agent has authority to bring the motion on behalf of the holder, it is the holder, rather than the servicer, which must be the moving party, and so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the moving party’s counsel.”

CHASE PURCHASES PARTIAL ASSETS FROM FDIC

107. The FDIC sold defined assets of WAMU to Chase as set forth within the PAA,

hence, Chase did not acquire the firm “in toto” but instead acquired specifically defined assets

and liabilities on a strict and written schedule from the FDIC. (page 10 PAA)

3.5 Assets Not Purchased by Assuming Bank. The Assuming Bank does not purchase, acquire or assume, or (except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement) obtain an option to purchase, acquire or assume under this Agreement the assets or Assets listed on the attached Schedule 3.5.

108. In order to determine if Owners Note was included in said assets, Chase must

produce the written schedule from the FDIC.


CONCLUSION

109. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that by the securitization and

sale of this Receivable, the enforceability of the original Receivable, or Note, was lost and Chase

is not the holder of the Note. Chase cannot hold the note which was sold to another party

without recourse.

110. As Chase is not the holder of the Note, it has no standing to proceed on the

Mortgage which secures the Note.

111. Therefore, when Chase commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Owners

to seize their property on ______________, it did so wholly without color of authority and was

committing slander of title. When Chase recorded its Lis Pendens notice with the

______________County Recorder’s Office, it intentionally recorded a false document.

112. Chase has not nor cannot now claim to be the “real party in interest.”

113. The doctrine of standing is designed to ensure that only those parties with a real

interest in the outcome of the controversy bring suit. Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211,

221 (1999). Accordingly, a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action must have a beneficial

interest in the mortgage. Winkelman v. Kiser, 27 Ill. 20, 21 (1861).

114. Chase has no right to foreclose on behalf of unknown investors because of a lack

of agency, lack of authority and lack of knowledge of whether the note has been discharged.

Thus, Chase does not have the right to request possession of the property claimed.

115. There is no chain of title to prove that Chase holds the note.

116. Chase falsified an unauthenticated indorsement on Owners note to make it appear

that Chase had a claim to Owners indebtedness. Chase filed and pursued a foreclosure suit

against Owners using a fraudulent Mortgage Indorsement.

117. The actions taken by Chase constitutes false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent,

criminal or otherwise illegal conduct under the law.

118. In re Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New


York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko" decision from Ohio Federal Court). The

court concluded: “Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the

promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this

case.”

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.”

119. Standing is founded "in concern about the proper-and properly limited-role of the

courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail

himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that

he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634

(1937).

120. Owners allege that Chase cannot hide behind the simplistic notion that “It just

didn’t have its paperwork in order” as suggested by those who have not taken the time to

research what is really going on in our country, for the evidence is both overwhelming and

indisputable: Chase, and other banks have no rights to the mortgages they are foreclosing on, nor

are they holders in due course. This is a sham being perpetrated under our very noses and the

tragedy is that few are doing anything about it.

121. Therefore, this Court is urged in the strongest possible way to apply a

presumption of falsity when reviewing any documentary evidence filed by Chase. Such a

presumption is not just warranted, it is compelled by the extent to which Chase has acted in a

malicious and wanton manner evincing complete contempt for the judicial process and the rights

of persons having interests contrary to their own. This is particularly true because Chase’s

contempt for due process is compounded by their specific intention to obviate the requirement

that documents prepared for legal use be truthful, authentic, and legitimate.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FRAUD)

122. Chase by its predecessor, WAMU, committed fraud with regard to the Loan to

Owners related to the Property as set forth in the Counterclaim.


THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (UNCLEAN HANDS)

123. In light of Chase’s fraud and lack of standing, Chase is proceeding with unclean

hands and should be barred from seeking relief from Owners.

“In determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary factor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party, not whether that party relied upon plaintiffs' misrepresentations.” Stachnik v. Winkel, 394 Mich. 375, 387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).

WHEREFORE, Owners, ______________, respectfully request that this Court grant judgment in

their favor and against Chase and for such other and further relief that this Court deems

necessary and proper.&

COUNTER-CLAIM FOR:

COUNT I: COMMON LAW FRAUD, FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

COUNT II: SLANDER OF TITLE,

COUNT III: CIVIL CONSPIRACY

COUNT IV: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

COUNT V: VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT

("FDCPA") 15 USC § 1692

COUNT VI: UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES - VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT 815 ILCS 505/1

TO 515

COUNT VII: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

COUNT VIII : BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT IX : RICO-18 U.S.C.§§1961 et seq

___________ ___as Owners, counterclaim against JP MORGAN CHASE, NA (“CHASE”) as follows:

THE PARTIES


1. Counter-plaintiff Owners, ______________ (collectively “Owners”) are, and at

all times mentioned herein are the title holders to the property that is the subject of this

Counterclaim, the location of which is commonly known as 6581 ______________ (“the

Property”) which they custom built and purchased in ______________.

2. Owners request that this court take judicial notice of the Secretary of State’s

official records wherein many of these parties are not registered to engage in any business in the

State of Illinois and there is no evidence of their legal standing capacity to maintain any lawsuits

in this state.

3. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in

this Complaint, JP Morgan Chase NA (hereinafter “Chase”), is a New York corporation not

licensed to do business in the state of Illinois. Chase was, and is, in the business of being a

"servicer" of "federally related mortgage loans" as those terms are defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C.

§§ 2602(1) and 2605(i) (2). Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase was

and is in the business of the collection of consumer debts, either on behalf of itself or others and

it is therefore subject to the Illinois Consumer and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505.

4. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in

this Complaint, Chase was and is in the business of purchasing and otherwise taking assignment

of consumer credit transactions described in the Federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15

U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., originated by others.

OTHER PARTIES

5. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase Home Finance

LLC (Hereinafter CHF) is a wholly owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase which acquired

WAMU Home Loans Servicing, LP (“WAMU”) an Ohio corporation not licensed to do business

in the state of Illinois. CHF was, and is, in the business of being a "servicer" of "federally related

mortgage loans" as those terms are defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2602(1) and 2605(i) (2).

Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that CHF was and is in the business of the

collection of consumer debts, either on behalf of itself or others and it is therefore subject to the

Illinois Consumer and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505.


6. Chase is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase which purchased

specific assets of WAMU which, upon information and belief, is a partial successor in interest to

WAMU. In the event that Chase responds to the counterclaim that it is not responsible for the

actions of WAMU or the other related and affiliated entities to WAMU, Owners reserve the right

to add additional parties to this counterclaim. Chase has brought its Complaint against Owners

and it specifically alleges that it was a “Successor In Interest” to WAMU and thus Chase is

referenced herein with regard to the actions of WAMU Servicing, and the actions of its affiliates,

CHF.

7. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned

herein, WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, NA (“WAMU”), is a California corporation not

licensed to do business in the state of Illinois; and was and is an entity in the business of

originating, purchasing and otherwise taking assignment of consumer credit transactions.

Owners entered into a loan with WAMU (“Loan” and in reference to all of the Loan Documents

“Loan Documents”) pursuant to a promissory note (“Note”) and secured by a mortgage

(“Mortgage”) on the Property.

8. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned

herein ______________TRUST (hereinafter “______________”); is a _____________

corporation not licensed to do business in the state of Illinois and was the “depositor” for loans

originated by WAMU into Mortgage backed Securities Collateralized Debt Obligations

(“CDO’s”) In Trust For Registered Holders Of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series

______________ of which Owners Loan is a part of Securitized Asset Backed Receivables for

______________.

9. Owners reserve the right to add additional parties to this counterclaim. Chase has

brought its Complaint against Owners and it specifically alleges that it is the successor in interest

to WAMU Servicing”) and thus Chase is referenced herein with regard to the actions of WAMU

Servicing, and the actions of its affiliates, WAMU.

10. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that the actions of WAMU and its

affiliates are the actions of Chase and that Chase is liable to Owners for their actions.


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Counterclaim arises out of a foreclosure proceeding replete with fraud by

Chase related to the Property of Owners. It is brought by Owners who are being sued for

foreclosure by Chase which lacks standing as a real party in interest to the underlying Note.

12. The Property which is the subject of this complaint is located within

______________ County.

13. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court of the ______________ Judicial Circuit of

the State of Illinois.

OVERVIEW

14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through ___ of the first Affirmative

Defenses are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

15. Owner ______________ has conducted extensive research on the topic of

foreclosure as it relates to the anomalous events now unfolding in our country in ___ quest to

discover what is really happening “beneath the covers.” _____ extensive research revealed that

the so-called Economic Crisis was intentionally engineered by Insiders on Wall Street, the

largest Banks and the Federal Reserve (“the Conspirators”).

16. The matters raised by Owners in their affirmative defenses and counterclaims

cannot be viewed in a vacuum and need to be viewed in the larger context of what the

“Conspirators” were doing. Thus, Counter-Plaintiff Owners are also submitting “Supplemental

Evidence”, a chronological synopsis of the events which comprise this Conspiracy.

17. Upon information and belief, Chase is attempting to foreclose on Owners’

Property without standing to do so and has taken the following improper actionable wrongs

against Owners.

a.) WAMU sold Owners a known predatory Option Arm loan product with a

negative amortization promising that if rates increased Owners could

refinance;


b.) Said negative amortization loan lacks a “fixed balance” thereby rendering

Owners note as non-negotiable, therefore any sale transfer or assignment of

Owners note requires a recorded assignment which was not done.

c.) WAMU converted said Loan into a security and sold it as a Mortgage-backed

Security to the ______________Trust sometime after ______________and

before ______________, the closing date of the Trust.

d.) WAMU did not comply with the PSA governing document, nor with Illinois

law and record this sale at the ______________ County Recorder’s Office;

e.) WAMU and Chase failed to disclose underlying market conditions which

were and still are being intentionally manipulated by Chase, and other banks

which is resulting in the foreclosure of homes across America including the

Owners;

f.) Chase offered Owners a trial modification on their loan stating they could

write-down the principal, so Owners paid $ _________ for said trial, only to

be denied;

g.) Chase falsified Owners note using what Owners believe to be “a computerized

stamp” as an alleged indorsement to execute legal documents thereby

initiating a complaint to foreclose without standing.

18. Chase is attempting to wrongfully foreclose and sell Property for the reasons

outlined herein including, but not limited to, the following:

Chase is not the mortgagee. There is no valid perfected lien in Chase’s name against the Property. Under the Note, borrower is indebted to Note Holder and Chase does not legally

own the Note. The true Lender were the Investors of the Mortgage-Backed Securities which

Owners loan became a part of. The alleged Lender WAMU, was paid when it sold the Note to MBS Investors. The debt to WAMU under the Note was extinguished. Since WAMU sold the Note, Chase could not have acquired any interest in a Note

which WAMU no longer had.


Chase is a servicer, not a mortgagee.

19. The actions of Non-party WAMU and Chase, in the capacity of successor to

WAMU, constitute false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise illegal conduct under

the law which seeks to strip Owners of the home they have owned and paid for over ___ years.

STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING OWNERS AND OWNERS’ LOAN

20. Owners are the true and rightful owners of the subject property. Owners are the

true title holders to subject property.

21. In ______________, a WAMU mortgage broker told the Owners about an

“option arm loan” which included a negative amortization. When Owners expressed their

concern about the negative amortization aspect of the loan, the WAMU Broker explained that if

interest rates rose, they could simply refinance. With those assurances, Owners refinanced their

property on ______________with Washington Mutual Bank, NA for $______________.

22. In ______________, Owners realized that the balance on their WAMU option-

arm note had increased almost $___________ and became alarmed.

23. In ______________owners received a notice from WAMU stating that they could

renegotiate the terms of their note from a negative amortized note to a 5/1 ARM, meaning that

the interest rate would not increase for 5 years and then reset annually. Although their principal

and interest would increase $ ______a month from $ _______to $______, they would not add to

their mortgage balance.

24. In 2007, a prospective Buyer wanted to buy the $3 Million spec property Tratar

built and wanted her to fully furnish the home, but the funding for the sale of his company was

continually delayed as a result of the economic crisis.

25. ______________(date): Owners were contacted by Chase and told they could

save their home by entering into a trial modification. Owners scraped together $ __________ but

were then denied said modification. *See Count 1- Fraud for details


26. ________-Plaintiffs were served with a “Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage”

lawsuit from Chase attorneys ______________, in ______________County foreclosure as case

#______________.

27. Living under this shadow of uncertainty has been agonizing and devastating

____________________________

28. The Owners in this instant case are among the hardest hit by this Crisis for they

have been stripped of hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity they had in their properties,

endured a loss of reputation, shame, humiliation which shattered Owner’s family’s well-being,

derailed _________career, crushed their family’s hopes, and terrified their child who didn't know

if he would be able to continue his college education. Moreover, as a result of the Insiders

Conspiracy ____________ has been denied employment.

29. ______________: According to the online Chase Home Value Estimator, Owners

property is now valued at = $ _____. but is in dire need of ______________Owners estimate at

$______________.

COUNT I COMMON LAW FRAUD, FRAUD PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 9(B), FRAUD BY

OMISSION AND MISREPRESENTATION

45. Owners re-allege and affirm each preceding paragraph of this Counter-Complaint

and Affirmative Defenses and incorporate such as if alleged anew.

46. This is a claim for Common Law Fraud, Fraud Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(B),

Fraud by Omission and Misrepresentation against Chase in its capacity as successor to WAMU.

47. Chase’s fraudulent conduct included, but was and is not limited to, false claims of

the acquisition of Owners mortgage loan relating to their real property; fraudulent threats of

foreclosure, and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings based on false and fraudulent

misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection through one or more agents including, but not

limited to, Chase Home Finance LLC, (hereinafter CHF) of monies allegedly owed on Owners

promissory note as to Owners mortgage loan through false and fraudulent misrepresentations;


and the perpetration of frauds upon this Court as well as the Courts of the United States, through

false and fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and

the prosecution of foreclosure actions which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner

executed, constituted a pattern of criminal activity.

48. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase, in its capacity as

successor to WAMU, facilitated fraudulent misrepresentations and concealed material facts

including, but not limited to the following:

a) Misrepresenting that Chase in its capacity as successor to WAMU is the owner

and holder of the Owners indebtedness and mortgage;

b) Bringing a false foreclosure complaint on behalf of an entity which is not the real

party in interest and therefore lacks the standing to prosecute the instant

foreclosure litigation;

c) Failing to disclose that the Option Arm loan product with negative amortization

sold to the Owners to refinance their mortgage was in fact a known predatory

product with potentially devastating consequences;

d) Concealing the sale of Owners note to a mortgage-backed securities trust;

e) Concealing the creation of a fabricated unnotarized indorsement on Owners note

by way of a possible computerized stamp in order to execute a legal document to

justify foreclosure actions against Owners;

g) Failing to record the sale or multiple sales of Owners note to a third party thereby

slandering Owners title;

j) Failing to legally assign and record Owners Note as a non-negotiable instrument

to a third-party purchaser pursuant to negative amortization rendering Owners

note as non-negotiable;

k) Misrepresenting that Owners could modify their loan and reduce the principal,

and after Owners paid $ __________, denied said modification;


l) Misrepresenting that Chase is the Owner of Owners loan, when it is the Servicer

of Owner’s loan.

WAMU FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE OPTION ARM WITH NEGATIVE

AMORTIZATION LOAN PRODUCT SOLD TO THE OWNERS TO REFINANCE

THEIR MORTGAGE WAS A KNOWN PREDATORY PRODUCT

49. On information and belief Owners allege that WAMU mortgage brokers steered

and encouraged Owners into a known predatory Option Arm loan product which contained a

provision whereby if interest rates rose, the payment would not rise, but the mortgage balance

would increase.

50. When Owners expressed concern about this loan product, WAMU broker assured

Owners that if interest rates rose after the “teaser rate” period, they could simply refinance again.

51. WAMU purposefully concealed information to the Owners that this negative

amortization loan would be increasingly more difficult to pay as time went on, especially if the

market were to turn downward.

52. WAMU purposefully concealed information and did not advise Owners of the

substantial risk they were taking for if they were unable to refinance, as they are today under the

present circumstances, the negative amortization payments would be so onerous that Owners

would not be capable of affording said payments.

53. WAMU failed to fully explain the pros and cons of this specific loan product to

Owners because WAMU salespeople and mortgage brokers were incentivized through greater

commissions and bonuses to place borrowers in loans with terms less favorable than other loans

for which the borrowers could actually qualify.

54. Furthermore, WAMU salespeople and mortgage brokers received a greater

commission, or bonus, for placing borrowers in loans with relatively higher yield spread

premiums, a pattern and practice WAMU routinely engaged in without regard to the consumers'

repayment ability according to investigations conducted by numerous governmental agencies.


55. To corroborate the aforementioned allegations, the following is sworn testimony

by WAMU confidential witnesses taken from the Federal Home Finance Authority V. JP

Morgan Chase – filed on September 2, 2011 - a 271 page lawsuit which supports the specific

allegations made herein by Owners:

§239. WaMu Bank pushed its Option ARM loans on borrowers regardless of their sophistication, income level, or financial stability. An Option ARM loan is typically a 30-year Adjustable Rate Mortgage (“ARM”) that initially offers the borrower four monthly payment options: (i) a specified minimum payment (which was typically lower than the interest payment and therefore caused the loan to grow, referred to as negative amortization), (ii) an interest-only payment, (iii) a 15-year fully amortizing payment, and (iv) a 30-year fully amortizing payment. The rate of an ARM loan also adjusts monthly and if the loan rate was higher than the required interest in the payment, the balance of the loan would increase (called negative amortization). Fay Chapman, WaMu Bank’s former Chief Legal Officer, candidly admitted to the Seattle Times in an article published on October 26, 2009, that “[m]ortgage brokers put people into the product who shouldn’t have been.” In 2003, WaMu originated $32.3 billion of Option ARM loans. By 2005, that number almost had doubled to $64.1 billion.

Pg 82. § 238. In its push to generate more risky loan products, WaMu Bank pressed its sales agents to pump out a greater volume of loans with loose adherence to its own underwriting guidelines. WaMu Bank gave mortgage brokers handsome commissions for selling the riskiest loans, which carried higher fees, bolstering profits and, ultimately, the compensation of the bank’s executives. In a New York Times article published December 27, 2008, Steven M. Knobel, the founder of an appraisal company, Mitchell, Maxwell & Jackson, that did business with WaMu Bank until 2007, stated that “[i]t was the Wild West . . . If you were alive, they would give you a loan. Actually, I think if you were dead, they would still give you a loan.”

pg 83 - §240. “A compensation grid from 2007 shows the company paid the highest commissions on Option ARMs, subprime loans and home-equity loans: A $300,000 Option ARM, for example, would earn a $1,200 commission, versus $960 for a fixed-rate loan of the same amount. The rates increased as a consultant made more loans; some regularly pulled down six-figure incomes.

FAILING TO RECORD THE SALE OF OWNERS NOTE TO A THIRD PARTY

THEREBY SLANDERING OWNERS TITLE

56. Upon learning that Owners Loan had been sold to an MBS Trust, Owners checked

with the ______________ County Recorder’s Office and found no evidence of the sale and


transfer of Owners note to a third party, thus violating the law pursuant to 765 ILCS 5/30. Ch.

30, par. 29- Sec. 30.

“All deeds, mortgages and other instruments of writing which are authorized to be recorded, shall take effect and be in force from and after the time of filing the same for record, and not before, as to all creditors and subsequent purchasers, without notice; and all such deeds and title papers shall be adjudged void as to all such creditors and subsequent purchasers, without notice, until the same shall be filed for record.” (Source: Laws 1871-2, p. 282.)

MISREPRESENTING THAT OWNERS COULD MODIFY THEIR LOAN BUT AFTER

OWNERS PAID $_________, CHASE DENIED MODIFICATION

57. Owners were contacted by Chase in its capacity as successor to WAMU and told

they could save their home by entering into a trial modification. Owners scraped together $

______________ and paid Chase this money.

58. ______________date: Chase in its capacity as successor to WAMU asked

Owners to fax a letter of hardship explaining their dire financial circumstances in the wake of the

economic crash, along with income tax returns from ______________, and 2011.

59. Owners performed as requested and faxed _____ pages of required

documentation.

60. ______________date - Owners called Chase regarding their trial modification but

Chase claimed they “lost” the paperwork and asked Owners to refax it again which Owners did –

2 more times.

61. On ______________date, Chase sent a letter to Owners denying their request for

modification saying that Owners had not sent in necessary paperwork....

62. Instead of trying to work with Owners after learning how they were among the

hardest hit by the Economic Crisis, Chase raised Owners payment from $________per month to

$________which Owners could not afford.

63. There is now much evidence which supports the fact that Chase had no intention

of modifying Owners loan which they did not own. Pretending as though they were going to


offer borrowers a modification was simply another ruse perpetrated by Chase and other large

banks which provided them plausible deniability. In reality, most loans were government insured

by Fannie and Freddie and thus, when a mortgage went into default, the banks were able to

collect 100% of the mortgage through government insurance guarantees.

64. As revealed in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing on

December 21, 2010, (transcript at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-

158_62935.PDF) Detroit attorney Vanessa Fluker, also found a high rate of modification

paperwork being “misplaced” - up to 10 times in some cases - for clients she was trying to help

modify their loans. She discovered that any loan insured by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac paid the

bank the entire mortgaged amount whereas a loan modification resulted in a loss. Thus, the

mega-banks “pretended” as though they were trying to help homeowners when, in reality, it was

not profitable for them to do so.

ELEMENTS OF A FRAUDULENT OMISSIONS CLAIM

(1) concealment or nondisclosure of a material fact,

(2) knowledge of falsity,

(3) intent to defraud,

(4) justifiable reliance, and

(5) resulting damages. Charnay v. Cobert , 145 Cal. App. 4th 170, 184 (2006). See also

Lazar v. Super. Ct. , 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996). [*48]

CHASE CONCEALS MATERIAL FACTS

65. At all times material hereto, Chase in its capacity as successor in interest to

WAMU, had actual knowledge that their written statements claiming Ownership of the Owners

mortgage loan and the legal entitlement to demand monies from Owners and institute foreclosure

proceedings, were false statements of material fact, which were false when made and known by

Chase to be false when made. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase

concealed material facts from the Owners including, but not limited to, the following:


http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-158_62935.PDF

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-158_62935.PDF

a. ________date–Owners sent a Qualified Written Request (QWR) as that term is defined

in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(I)(B). QWR was sent via registered mail

#_________________ which CHASE received on ________date; *see Exhibit 1 -QWR

b. ________date - Chase responded insufficiently and claimed that it received QWR on

________date when certified receipt indicates ________date. Rather than answering the

questions posed in the QWR regarding the securitization of their loan and its real Owner,

Chase instead sent a list of payments made and copies of the old incorrect note/mortgage;

c. Chase intentionally concealed the name of the real party in interest, when directed to

do so through the QWR Owners sent;

d. Chase intentionally concealed the sale of Owners note to a third party;

e. Chase intentionally failed to record at the ________ County Recorder’s Office the sale

of Owners note to another party in direct violation of Illinois law and the governing PSA

of the MBS Trust;

f. Chase intentionally filed false foreclosure documents on Owners property when Chase

had full knowledge that it was not the owner of the Owners indebtedness;

g. Chase created a fraudulent indorsement on Owners note by way of an unnotarized

computerized stamp to execute a legal document with the intent of Owners and the court

to rely upon said indorsement to inaccurately represent themselves as the true holder of

the loan documents.

CHASE CONCEALS MATERIAL FACTS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR

FALSITY AND INTENT TO DEFRAUD

66. The facts that WAMU and Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to

WAMU, concealed, and the misrepresentations that were made, are material to the transactions

at hand.

67. Said proactive statements were intended as partial disclosure but Chase invoked a

duty to full disclosure. Chase failed to give full disclosure to Owners knowing said proactive


partial statements, omissions and misrepresentations were false thereby misleading Owners into

relying upon them.

68. Chase is governed by consumer protection laws, thus Owners had cause to expect

good faith and fair dealings from said licensed professionals. Owners had a reasonable right to

rely on the facts and disclosures of Chase as being true and in compliance with all laws.

69. Owners did not have equal access to, or equal opportunity to discover information

upon which Chase gave partial disclosure.

70. Owners relied on the disclosure given by Chase as being complete.

71. Owners did reasonably rely upon the written statements of Chase and its Servicer

CHF and acted thereon, including but not limited to paying monies to Chase when demanded

thereby. The representations to the Owners were made to create the illusion that Chase had a

legitimate claim in Owners property so that the Court and the Owners would rely upon said

claims.

72. The aforementioned facts meet the requisite level of specificity pursuant to Rule 9(b):

only requires identification of circumstances constituting fraud, including the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraudulent activities, such that a defendant can prepare adequate answer to allegations. (Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602, 611 (9th Cir. 1977).) A pleading is sufficient under Rule 9(b) if it identifies circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations. (Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671-672 (9th Cir. 1993), quoting Gottreich v. SF Inv. Corp., 552 F.2nd 866 (9th Cir. 1977).)

CONCLUSION

73. Chase and non-party WAMU, made the aforementioned false statements,

omissions and misrepresentations with the specific intent that Owners rely upon said statements,

unknown to the Owners at the time, in order to defraud the Owners and create the illusion that

Chase had the legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings against Owners property.

Chase had full knowledge that its actions would cause harm to the Owners but even with that

knowledge, acted with a conscious, willful intent to defraud Owners.


74. These lies, omissions and misrepresentations are echoed in every court in this

nation in order to fraudulently collect on the mortgage loans and divest Americans of their

homes. The Servicers and Trustees have had to mislead the Courts as to their standing in

foreclosure, and, as alleged in the instant case, the Servicer had to create, forge and fabricate

phony documents in order to initiate Foreclosure proceedings.

75. Chase and non-party WAMU are guilty of malice, fraud or oppression, and its'

actions were malicious and done willfully, in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of

Owners, in that the actions were calculated to injure Owners. The victims of Chase’s fraud are

the Owners in the instant case, as well as millions of other similarly situated Americans. The

public nature of the harm caused by Chase fraud is apparent and demonstrated in the

Congressional hearings and federal enforcement actions that have been pursued against Chase as

a direct result of their fraudulent conduct at issue in this counter-claim. See, e.g., the Senate PSI

Report, passim; the FCIC Report, passim; “Criminal Probe Targets 6 Wall Street Firms: Source,”

Reuters (May 13, 2010); “JPMorgan Said to Face SEC Subpoena Along With Credit Suisse,”

Bloomberg (May 6, 2011); “Feds Investigate Washington Mutual Failure,” Associated Press

(Oct. 16, 2008); “Washington Mutual Created ‘Mortgage Time Bomb,’ Senate Panel Says,” Los

Angeles Times (Apr. 13, 2010).

OWNERS DAMAGED

76. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent actions and course of conduct of

Chase and its predecessor, WAMU, Owners and their family have suffered damages including,

but not limited to the following:

a. severe and irreparable damage to the Owners credit scores,

b. the facing of this foreclosure litigation

c. the loss of reputation and work because of the stigma of foreclosure,

d. mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation and emotional harm,

e. other general and special actual damages.

f. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial.


77. But for the fraudulent concealed actions of Chase and its predecessor WAMU,

Owners would not have invested an additional $________in 2007-2008 to remodel the subject

property as previously detailed, all of which work resulted in additional actual damages.

a. "Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." (The seller or lender) “He is liable, not upon any idea of benefit to himself, but because of his wrongful act and the consequent injury to the other party.” Leonard v. Springer, 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 299 (1902).

b. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977). In determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary factor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party, not whether that party relied upon plaintiffs' misrepresentations. Stachnik v. Winkel, 394 Mich. 375, 387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).

c. (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008). EquiFirst, when making the loan, violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC §1601 and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC §1692; "intentionally created fraud in the factum" and withheld from plaintiff… "vital information concerning said debt and all of the matrix involved in making the loan."

"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co..92 F 26 817.

“A practice is fraudulent if the members of the public are likely to be deceived by the practice. (Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1167 (2000).

“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.


"A Plaintiff is entitled to damages from those Lenders who concur in the tortious scheme with knowledge of its unlawful purpose." Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co., 24 Cal. 3d 773, 157 Cal. Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45 (1979); Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 143 Cal. App. 4th 1284, 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 27 (1st Dist. 2006); Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp., 40 Cal. App. 4th 1571, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 752 (2d Dist. 1995.)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Because of the aforementioned actions, misrepresentations and

omissions, Chase has committed Common Law Fraud, Fraud pursuant to Federal Civil Code of

Procedures 9B, Fraud by Omission, and Misrepresentation thereby voiding any agreement

between the Owners and Chase. As such, Owners respectfully request the following relief:

I. Award Owners a Declaratory Judgment against Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU which voids/extinguishes any claims/security interest that Chase purports to hold, real or implied.

II. Bar Chase and any and all persons claiming or having any interest in the Property through it from asserting or claiming any interest, right or title in or to the Property, or any part thereof, adverse to the title of Owner; and

III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase in the amount of $________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $________. as of ________, and

IV. Award Owners such other and further relief as equity may require, including, but not limited to, further declaratory and injunctive relief against CHASE.

vi. Award Owners, in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Chase and to deter future misconduct and to protect the public.

COUNT IISLANDER OF TITLE



Nov 24, 2010 Congressional Oversight Panel: “Clear and uncontested property rights are the foundation of the housing market. If these rights fall into question, that foundation could collapse... If such problems were to arise on a large scale,


the housing market could experience even greater disruptions that have already occurred, resulting in significant harm to major financial institutions.”

79. On ________Owners signed a promissory note and mortgage on behalf of

WAMU, as originator of the loan which named WAMU AS the “lender.” On the mortgage,

WAMU was named as “lender” and mortgagee. Said mortgage document was recorded in

________ County as #________.

80. On ________Owners were served a Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage. A Notice

of “Lis Pendens” was recorded in ________ County Ill on ________as document #________.

81. Owners own the Property in fee simple as acknowledged by Chase in its mortgage

foreclosure complaint against Owners and others.

82. WAMU was fully aware that Owners Loan was sold to the ________Trust at

some point after WAMU recorded Owners Mortgage on ________at the ________ County

Recorder’s Office, and before the MBS Trust cut-off date of ________. At the time of the sale,

WAMU sold and assigned, without recourse, their entire interest in the Mortgage Loan Contracts

(“Receivables”) as the Debt/Obligations, under a Transfer and Servicing Agreement, to MBS

Investors, Certificate/Bondholders.

BROKEN CHAIN OF TITLE

83. When Owners learned that their loan had been sold and securitized, Owners went

to the ________County Recorder’s Office and found that no document had been legally recorded

which conveyed or assigned their property to a third-party. Pursuant to (765 ILCS 5/28) (from

Ch. 30, par. 27) WAMU’s failure to record said conveyance broke the chain of title on Owners

property thereby slandering Owners Title:

Sec. 28. Deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney, and other instruments relating to or affecting the title to real estate in this state, shall be recorded in the county in which such real estate is situated; but if such county is not organized, then in the county to which such unorganized county is attached for judicial purposes. No deed, mortgage, assignment of mortgage, or other instrument relating to or affecting the title to real estate in this State may include a provision prohibiting the recording of that instrument, and any such provision in an instrument signed


after the effective date of this amendatory Act shall be void and of no force and effect. (Source: P.A. 89-160, eff. 7-19-95.)

(765 ILCS 5/30) (from Ch. 30, par. 29) Sec. 30. All deeds, mortgages and other instruments of writing which are authorized to be recorded, shall take effect and be in force from and after the time of filing the same for record, and not before, as to all creditors and subsequent purchasers, without notice; and all such deeds and title papers shall be adjudged void as to all such creditors and subsequent purchasers, without notice, until the same shall be filed for record. (Source: Laws 1871-2, p. 282.)

84. Moreover, the PSA which governs the MBS Trust requires that the mortgage

notes, as assets of the Trust, be indorsed and recorded:

Pg 145: In addition, except as provided below for some series of securities backed by Trust Balances of revolving credit loans or as described in the accompanying prospectus supplement, the depositor will, as to each loan that is a trust asset, deliver to an entity specified in the accompanying prospectus supplement, which may be the trustee, a custodian or another entity appointed by the trustee, the legal documents relating to each loan that are in possession of the depositor. Depending on the type of trust asset, the legal documents may include the following, as applicable:

the mortgage note and any modification or amendment thereto endorsed without recourse either in blank or to the order of the trustee or owner trustee or a nominee or a lost note affidavit together with a copy of the related mortgage note;

the mortgage, except for any mortgage not returned from the public recording office, with evidence of recording indicated thereon or a copy of the mortgage with evidence of recording indicated thereon.

85. Said conveyance of the beneficial interest in the mortgage loans in the pool to the

Trust required that said conveyance be recorded at the county level, however that recording was

not done.

86. Most Illinois courts require a chain of title. See LaSalle Bank v. Diaz, No. 08 CH

21809, 2 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. June 1, 2009) (“The judges of this Mortgage Foreclosure

section consistently require plaintiffs to show a proper chain of assignments from the original

mortgagee to themselves.”); see also Mortgage Foreclosure Courtroom Procedures, Mortgage

Foreclosure Section, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, 2 (rev. Nov. 10, 2009)

[hereinafter Courtroom Procedures] (requiring plaintiffs seeking entry of a judgment of


foreclosure to provide courtesy copies of, “[w]here applicable, assignments.”) (available in

Chambers of the Supervising Judge of the Mortgage Foreclosure Section, 2802 Richard J. Daley

Center, 55 W. Washington St., Chicago, IL 60602)

87. Furthermore, Owners are informed and believe that Owners Promissory Note was

sold multiple times to other parties who failed to properly register said conveyances with the

DuPage County Recorder’s Office, thereby obscuring the true holder of the Promissory Note,

breaking the chain of title and creating a cloud on said title.

88. Unknown other Owners may potentially be a party to Owners loan who have

purchased an interest in Owners loan in the form of a MBS. According to Illinois law, unknown

parties have a potential claim to Owners property which is not disclosed of record by recorded

notice or proceeding which would give constructive notice and who are more fully defined in

735 ILCS 5/15-1210 (735 ILCS 5/15-1210) (from Ch. 110, par. 15-1210)

Sec. 15-1210. Nonrecord Claimant. "Nonrecord claimant" means any person (i) who has or claims to have an interest in mortgaged real estate, (ii) whose name or interest, at the time a notice of foreclosure is recorded in accordance with Section 15-1503, is not disclosed of record either (1) by means of a recorded notice or (2) by means of a proceeding which under the law as in effect at the time the foreclosure is commenced would afford constructive notice of the existence of such interest and (iii) whose interest falls in any of the following categories: (1) right of homestead, (2) judgment creditor, (3) beneficial interest under any trust other than the beneficial interest of a beneficiary of a trust in actual possession of all or part of the real estate or (4) mechanics' lien claim. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the purpose of this Article no proceeding shall be deemed to constitute constructive notice of the interest of any nonrecord claimant in the mortgaged real estate unless in the proceeding there is a legal description of the real estate sufficient to identify it with reasonable certainty. The classification of any person as a nonrecord claimant under the foregoing definition shall not be affected by any actual notice or knowledge of or attributable to the mortgagee.

And whose interest falls in any of the following categories: (1) right of homestead, (2) judgment creditor, (3) beneficial interest under any trust other than the beneficial interest of a beneficiary of a trust in actual possession of all or part of the real estate or (4) mechanics' lien claim. Or (5) any other entity or person who claims an interest in the mortgaged premises. That the name or names of these claimants and all such other persons are made party defendants to this action by the name and description of ‘unknown owners and or non-record claimants.”


89. Sworn testimony by Securitization Expert Witness, Neil Garfield, in the

bankruptcy case of Anthony Tarantola (Arizona Case # 4:09-bk-09703-EWH) addresses the

consequences of failing to record conveyances of real property:

“With a break in the chain of title, multiple parties could potentially make claims on the same property from the same borrower, claiming the same Note and mortgage as the basis.”

90. Mr. Garfield’s concerns were prophetic as title companies all over America are

now refusing to insure over securitized loans without an exception. Title companies are well

aware of the problem of clouded titles and multiple “owners” staking claim to borrower’s

property as evidenced in Mr. Garfield’s blog post in October, 2010 where he spoke of the

following announcement by Republic Title:

REPUBLIC TITLE ANNOUNCEMENT: “The Company will not insure title to any property which has been foreclosed by Ally Financial, Ally Bank or GMAC until further notice. This follows a series of similar announcements over the past year from smaller title companies who, recognizing the enormous liability that the banks were attempting to shift to them, simply refused to issue the policies either issuing a “letter of declination” or issuing a policy that includes EXCEPTIONS for any claim arising out of the mortgage, the securitization of the mortgage, or the perfection of the lien. We have reports now from people who have gone to the trouble of going to title companies and asking for a title commitment so that they would know whether they could sell or refinance their home. The title agents are flatly refusing (letter of declination) or issuing a commitment to get the fee from the homeowner with exceptions for the securitized mortgages. “

91. In a September 18, 2010 article by NAKED CAPITALISM entitled “Latest Real

Estate Time Bomb: Title of Foreclosed Properties Clouded; Wells Fargo Dumping Risk on

Hapless Buyers” the issue of clouded titles across America was highlighted:

“Another ticking time bomb in the realm of real estate bad behavior is bound to go off sooner rather than later, and it is likely to impede normalization of values of residential property... An article discusses an analysis by AFX Title, a title search company that shows problems with title on foreclosed properties to be widespread: As the number of real estate foreclosures skyrockets, the odds are higher that a home you live in today, or at some point in the future may have had a foreclosure in its history. Even if the foreclosure has long since passed, a loophole in the way mortgages are recorded can create a serious title defect for future owners. Title analysis performed this month by AFX Title has


http://4closurefraud.org/2010/02/10/recently-discovered-flaw-in-recording-system-clouds-titles-on-previously-foreclosed-properties/

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/09/latest-real-estate-time-bomb-title-of-foreclosed-properties-clouded-wells-fargo-dumping-risk-on-hapless-buyers.html



detected this error to be common in random samples of properties it reviewed. David Pelligrinelli, of AFX Title: “The mortgage recording method which created this title flaw did not exist until recently... A wave of title claims is coming over the next year or so.”…. The problem is created through a break in the chain of mortgage ownership. Until the 1980’s, most mortgages were loans between the homeowner and a bank, who lent the money directly. More recently, the mortgage financing system transformed into an international system of securitization, with mortgage lenders packaging their loans into securities, bought and sold by investors like stocks. These transactions even split individual mortgages into sections, where each loan could have parts owned by different investment banks. The transfer of ownership in these mortgage backed securities (MBS) was done with contracts on the balance sheets of Wall Street investment banks, such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The company who originally appeared to make the loan was normally a retail lending company such as Countrywide or Lending Tree, who typically acted as a sales company, and sometimes remained contracted to service the loan. In the event that the loan goes into foreclosure at a later date, the then-current owner of the loan files the foreclosure and sells the property to a new owner, often at auction. The land records would show a deed of transfer from the investment bank to the new owner. This creates a break in the chain of ownership of the mortgage rights. In many cases, the transfer of ownership of the mortgage loan has gone from the original lender, through several owners, and then to the foreclosing bank, none of which is recorded on the property title history. Technically, the foreclosing bank has no recorded title rights to foreclose in the first place…There are reports that some title insurers are indicating that they will not insure for this title defect. Wells Fargo is sufficiently concerned about the risks of selling properties out of foreclosure that it is springing an addendum on buyers, shortly before closing, which effectively shifts all risk for any title deficiency on to the buyer. If a bank like Wells does not have the right to foreclose, it cannot have clean title to the property. So the bank could conceivably be selling something it does not own. Wells Fargo is encouraging buyers in foreclosures to use its attorney and title insurers and reportedly offers to split fees. So the bank is taking steps to steer buyers not to get legal advice. But what this document does, in effect, is say “Warning: you are buying a property out of foreclosure, there is risk here, and you can’t hold us responsible for anything we told you in the sale process.” ... This vitiates a principle that is well embodied in most areas of consumer and business law: that a seller is liable for the representations he makes about his wares. Now specifically, the potential problem with the deal is the bank in many states will at best be giving the buyer a “quitclaim” deed (the addendum finesses this in paragraph 18, that the buyer only gets a “special/limited warranty deed. That means the bank is merely transferring whatever it interest it has. But the bank may own nothing. It may have foreclosed without having a clear enforceable right to the property (this is the basis of the burgeoning number of cases where borrowers are successfully challenging the bank/servicer’s right to foreclose, because it cannot prove it actually owns the note; if you don’t own the note, in 45 states, you have no right to enforce the lien on the property). And this little problem cannot be


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quitclaim_deed

solved with title insurance. Some title insurers are starting to write policies with exceptions when they can’t find a clear chain of title. The risk? The lawyer explains: “The typical (unsophisticated) buyer thinks that because they have a lawyer at closing (no matter whose lawyer it is), a title policy, etc…….that they are safe. They struggle through one of these REO transactions for a month or two, finally get in the house, something goes wrong, and they find out that 1) the title policy won’t cover them and 2) the land isn’t unique (see the nasty provision in paragraph 27 on “specific performance”), so hopefully you receive a refund but you are out on your ear. But if somebody comes in and voids a foreclosure, your title policy doesn’t pay SO you only got what the BANK had (nothing), and you have no recourse, no insurance, and an unsecured loan, a promissory note with no house for half a million bucks. Given how many sales will be done out of REO, and the rising number of problems surfacing with making sure that mortgage securitizations took all the steps to become the real party of interest in a particular property, it is only a matter of time before we see some blowups, a buyer shelling out hard dollars for a house, or taking a big mortgage, and winding up with nothing. Think the risk isn’t real? Then why has Wells bothered to insist that REO buyers sign a new type of addendum, when it has been selling REO for decades? This effort to shift all title risks on to the buyer is a tacit admission of problems.”

CONCLUSION

92. As Chase has no standing, as it is not the holder of the Note and is not the

Mortgagee, did not properly record conveyances of Owners loan to third parties at the county

level, Chase’s claim against the Owners in the complaint to foreclose against the Property

constitutes slander on Owners’ title.

93. Non-party WAMU has disparaged Owners title by selling Owners Note to an

MBS Trust and failing to properly record the sale(s) of Owners loan at the ___________ County

Recorder’s Office.

94. Non-party WAMU has disparaged Owners title by failing to assign Owners non-

negotiable note and properly recording said assignment at the ___________ County Recorder’s

Office.

95. Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, has disparaged Owners

valid title, by and through the preparing, posting, publishing and recording the foreclosure

documents previously described herein, including, but not limited to, the Lis Pendens, and

Foreclosure complaint at the ___________ County Recorder’s Office.


96. Non-party WAMU and Chase in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU,

knew, or should have known, that such documents were improper in that at the time of the

execution and delivery of said documents, WAMU nor Chase had no right, title, or interest in the

Property.

97. As a direct and proximate result of Chase’s conduct in its capacity as successor in

interest to WAMU, in publishing these documents, Owners title to the subject Property has been

slandered and there is a cloud on Owners title. The chain of title has been broken on Owners title

rendering said title as defective, clouded and unmarketable in that there are breaks created by the

complexity of said securitized transaction.

98. As a further proximate result of WAMU and Chases' conduct, Owners have

suffered a loss of minimally $___________. in property value. On the Internet site “Chases

Home Value Estimator, Owners property is valued as of ___________at $___________. Owners

home was valued at minimally $___________. even before the contrived real estate bubble was

inflated. EXHIBIT 3.

99. In order to clear title to the subject Property, Owners will incur expenses,

including consulting fees. Moreover, these expenses are continuing, and Owners will incur

additional charges for such purpose until the cloud on Owners title to the Property has been

removed. The amounts of future expenses and damages are not ascertainable at this time.

100. Neither WAMU nor Chase in its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU, had

the ability or the right to assign, sell or otherwise transfer ownership. Thus, the alleged

acquisition of Owners loan by Chase has no legal effect.

101. Chase is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression, and its' actions were wanton,

malicious and done willfully, in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Owners, in that

the actions were calculated to injure Owners.

102. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and course of conduct of Chase and

its predecessor, WAMU, Owners and their family have suffered damages including but not

limited to the following:

a. reduction in property value


b. loss of life insurance,c. severe and irreparable damage to the Owners credit scores, d. the facing of this foreclosure litigatione. the loss of reputation and work because of the stigma of foreclosure,f. mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation and emotional harm,g. other general and special actual damages

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count II for Slander

of Title, Counterclaimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase, including, but not limited to the amount of $___________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $___________. as of ___________, and

IV. Award Owners monetary damages to reverse the effects of Defendants slander, and the amount of damages are to be determined at trial due to Slander of Title, and

V. Award Owners such other and further relief as equity may require, including, but not limited to, further declaratory and injunctive relief against Chase.

VI. Award Owners, in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Chase and to deter future misconduct and to protect the public.

COUNT IIICIVIL CONSPIRACY

''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.'' 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In such an action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of


his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 44, citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)' (Id. at 511.) (Allied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at 510-11.)



104. Upon information and belief, owners allege that Non-party WAMU and Chase, in

its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU and in concert with Insiders at the largest banks,

Wall Street and the Federal Reserve (the “Co-Conspirators”) participated in a conspiracy where

the Conspirators intentionally manipulated people, a series of events and circumstances,

including, but not limited to, the manipulation of interest rates in order to create a real estate

bubble and then bursting that bubble by raising interest rates thereby causing an economic crisis

whereby the Conspirators illegally acquired Billions of dollars through MBS’s, Borrowers

Promissory Notes, Credit Default Swaps, and taxpayer TARP funds, while divesting Americans

of their pension funds, foreclosing on Millions of Americans through fraud, moved

manufacturing companies out of America, all in an effort to control the inevitable collapse of the

fiat-based monetary system employed by the U.S. through the privately-held Federal Reserve.

*See Supplemental Evidence

105. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that said Conspiracy is multi-

pronged, but Owners will focus on the foreclosure crisis as it relates to the instant case and

millions of others homeowners similarly situated who are undergoing foreclosure today under

the absurd premise that “borrowers used their homes as ATM machines.” The Conspirators

concocted such a naive statement, while partially true, to both shame and humiliate homeowners

into submission, but more important, to provide plausible deniability for the Conspirators scheme

thus diverting the attention of the American people, the judges and the attorneys who are

unknowingly, aiding and abetting the Conspiracy as pawns of the Conspirators in a much larger

game.

106. Every economic boom cycle creates a downside which follows a basic tenet in

Physics: “To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The consequence of a boom

cycle is inflation or the devaluation of the dollar as the more money in circulation decreases the


value of the existing money then in circulation. Inflation creates the need for common citizens to

protect themselves from the ravages of inflation for if they were to simply save their money at

today’s monetary value, if they need that money on a proverbial ‘rainy day,’ the money they

labored to acquire, is now worth less. According to the inflation calculator at CoinNews.net,

validated by numerous sources, an item purchased in 1913 for $20.00, the year the Fed was

established, would cost $454.42 in 2012.

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens....while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” — John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)

British Economist 1919-Economic Consequences of Peace

107. Inflation produces a powerful incentive, in fact, compels an ordinary

citizen not to save, but to instead invest. And the only place to invest is controlled by the

Conspirators who have the ability to manipulate said investments as detailed in the

following article By Economist Jeff Nielsen entitled “THE GAMBLER ECONOMY -

Rigging The System To Ensnare We, The People into Webs of Deceit” :

“A century ago, people were paid fair wages. Today, with the real rate of unemployment being above 15% in every Western economy, and with real wages (i.e. accounting for inflation) having fallen steadily for the last forty years; the modern worker is little more than an economic slave - indentured with debts. And (according to the bankers and their advertising) the only hope these 21st century serfs have to purchase their freedom is through "investing" - i.e. entering the rigged casinos of the banksters and entrusting our wealth in their hands. Thus the crimes of the pseudo-regulators who condone this market-rigging (via automated trading algorithms, naked shorting, and a near endless list of other tolerated crime) are doubly heinous. Indeed, the attitude of many toward any "rigged casino" is that those who venture inside deserve their fate. However, when ordinary people are being forced to gamble their tiny nest eggs due to the relentless economic oppression of debts + interest + inflation then the corruption of these regulators is absolutely intolerable. We now see the Cycle of Theft take shape. Bury ordinary people in debt (nothing like a good "housing bubble" to do that!). Squeeze them further by relentlessly shrinking their meager paycheques. Herd them into the banksters' casinos via the illusion of "investing" their money and climbing out of economic slavery. Fleece the sheep. Rinse and repeat. The more indebted we become, the more our paycheques shrink, the bigger the risks we must take to offer ourselves any realistic chance of escaping the bankers' debt-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

slavery…unless we refuse to play this game of enslavement and then robbery - by escaping the bankers' world of paper and taking refuge in the sanctuary of precious metals. There is yet one more reason why the ordinary person of a century ago saw no need to be an "investor" (i.e. a gambler). In the days of a genuine gold standard, our paycheques were not permanently shrinking, since a bona fide gold standard prevents almost all of the bankers' game of printing excessive quantities of their paper currencies and then stealing from us via currency dilution. With the fruits of our labours preserved via the integrity of a gold standard, and with ordinary people not being brainwashed into incurring vast amounts of debt, the average citizen of a century ago was largely immune to the scams of the bankers. Not so today. Today, with our paper currencies (and thus our wages) being slaughtered at the altar of Competitive Devaluation, we can only insulate ourselves from the crime of theft-by-currency-dilution through choosing to regularly and rapidly convert this debauched paper to the pristine financial integrity of gold and/or silver. Our governments serve the BANKING CRIME SYNDICATE, as do our regulators. Most so-called "financial advisors" are little better than pimps: urging ordinary people to entrust their money to them while concealing the saturation level of corruption which now desecrates our once free-and-open markets. "Buy and hold is dead" they proclaim, a despicable euphemism to mask the truth: that our corrupt markets are now marched up and down at the whims of the banker-predators. We don't have to choose to participate in (and be destroyed by) the Gambler Economy. We can shun the bankers' fiat-paper (and seek the sanctuary of precious metals). We can flee the bankers' crooked markets (and the legions of 'pimps' and other accomplices who assist them in their crimes). We can become more sophisticated in our financial management (ironically) by emulating our ancestors. We must entrust the fruits of our labours to the multi-thousand year security of gold and silver - not some thief in a fancy suit.

108. Hence, people who do nothing to speculate during a boom cycle are invariably

left with dollars worth far less than they were before the cycle began. So while the Conspirators

try to shift blame to the “irresponsible borrowers”, their statements are nothing more than

propaganda meant to divert the attention of those who would follow the simple axiom and

“Follow the Money” and ask “Who benefited” from the so-called Crisis, for the “trail of crumbs”

left by the Conspirators will lead right to their front door.

109. Chase’s conduct, in concert with the Co-Conspirators, included, but was, and is

not limited to, the false claims of the acquisition of mortgage loans relating to real property; the

institution of fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent foreclosure proceedings based on

false and fraudulent misrepresentations; the fraudulent collection of monies allegedly owed on

secured promissory notes as to mortgage loans through false and fraudulent misrepresentations;

and the perpetration of frauds upon the Courts of the United States through false and fraudulent


misrepresentations in connection with the filing of foreclosure actions and the prosecution of

non-judicial foreclosure actions, which conduct, in the aggregate and in the manner executed,

constituted a pattern of criminal activity.

110. The course of conduct and actions of Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators,

was executed, as to Owners and those similarly situated across America, in the same manner and

means (fraudulent misrepresentations in documents filed in courts, public records, and through

the mails); with the same motive (to institute fraudulent foreclosure proceedings) and the same

intended class of victims (owners of real property) and the same intended consequences

(wrongfully foreclosing on real property), pursuant to a meticulously orchestrated scheme to

defraud which was executed on a national scale throughout the United States through the

institution of fraudulent foreclosure actions and regular and systematic violations of foreclosure

laws resulting in a nationalized fraud which has resulted in damages to the Owners.

111. Upon information and belief, Owners allege in all of the wrongful acts alleged

herein, that Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators, has utilized the United States mail,

telephones and Internet in furtherance of their pattern of conduct to unlawfully collect lion

negotiable instruments when they were not entitled under the law to do so or, assuming arguendo

that they were so entitled, to profit from these actions in amounts exceeding their rights under the

Note.

112. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase, in concert with

the Co-Conspirators, conspired to implement a scheme to defraud and victimize Owners through

predatory lending practices and other unlawful acts alleged herein.

113. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase, in concert with

the Co-Conspirators, committed the acts alleged herein pursuant to and in furtherance of their

conspiracy to defraud and victimize Owners.

114. In conspiring to defraud and victimize Owners, and in committing the wrongful

acts alleged herein, Chase acted with malice, oppression, and fraud.

115. Chase, in its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU and in concert with Co-

Conspirators are guilty of malice, fraud or oppression, and their actions were malicious and done


willfully, in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Owners, in that the actions were

calculated to injure Owners as well as those similarly situated across America.

116. As the direct and proximate result of Chase's conspiracy, in concert with the Co-

Conspirators, to defraud and victimize Owners, Owners and their family have suffered damages

including but not limited to the following:

a. reduction in property value;

b. severe and irreparable damage to the Owners credit scores,

c. the facing of this foreclosure litigation

d. the loss of reputation and work because of the stigma of foreclosure,

e. mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation and emotional harm,

f. significantly affected the health of Owner, Mr. ___________

g. other general and special actual damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count III for Civil

Conspiracy, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase in the amount of $___________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $___________. as of ___________, and

IV. Award Owners such other and further relief as equity may require, including, but not limited to, further declaratory and injunctive relief against Chase.

V. Award Owners exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Chase’s wrongful conduct and to deter such misconduct in the future.

VI. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial.


COUNT IVCONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD



118. At all times material hereto, Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators, agreed,

between and among themselves and in combination with each other and various agents, as to

each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and scheme, to engage in unlawful actions for a

common purpose, to wit: to perpetrate a fraud upon Owners in the instant case, as well as others

similarly situated across America, through fraudulent threats of foreclosure and fraudulent

foreclosure filings whereby Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators, would obtain the use

and benefit, under fraudulent pretenses, of the Owners, and others similarly situated across

America’s, real property at the expense of the Owners, and others similarly situated across

America and without compensating the Owners, and others similarly situated across America

therefore; to unlawfully convert the Owners, and others similarly situated across America’ real

property and permanently deprive the Owners, and others similarly situated across America

thereof; and to cause all deleterious consequences of Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators’

actions to be saddled upon the Owners, and others similarly situated across America, which

consequences include but are not limited to, the loss of real property; the incurring of expenses;

and the adverse effects of claimed defaults and foreclosures placed on the Owners, and others

similarly situated across America’ credit reports by Chase in concert with the Co-Conspirators.

119. Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators agreed to engage in these unlawful

actions with various Co-Conspirators for purposes of instituting and furthering fraudulent

foreclosures in judicial jurisdictions, which Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators being

involved in the various transactions and with Chase, in concert with the Co-Conspirators

participating in each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud and convert, and did so

in order to accomplish the objective of defrauding Owners and misappropriating monies and real

property from the Owners.


120. The conspiracy to defraud and convert engaged in by Chase, in concert with the

Co-Conspirators constitutes a separate and distinct independent tort which is separate and apart

from any breach of any contract.

121. Any allegations about acts of any corporate or other business Chase, in concert

with the Co-Conspirators means that the corporation or other business did the alleged acts

through its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting

within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.

122. At all relevant times, each Co-Conspirator committed acts, caused or directed

others to commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint;

additionally, some of the Co-Conspirators acted as the agent for other Co-Conspirators, and all of

the Co-Conspirators acted within the scope of their agency as if acting as the agent of another.

123. Knowing or realizing that other Co-Conspirators were engaging in or planning to

engage in unlawful conduct, each Co-Conspirator nevertheless facilitated the commission of

those unlawful acts.

124. Each Co-Conspirator intended to and did encourage, facilitate or assist in the

commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided and abetted Chase, in concert with other Co-

Conspirators in the unlawful conduct.

125. Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators engaged in continuous and multiple

unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud and misrepresentations that affected interstate

commerce and proximately caused the herein injuries to the Owners and others similarly situated

across America.


its predecessor, WAMU, Owners and their family have suffered damages including but not

limited to the following:







f. significantly affected the health of Owner ___________,


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count IV,

Conspiracy To Defraud, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase in the amount of $___________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $___________. as of ___________, and

IV. Award Owners such other and further relief as equity may require, including, but not limited to, further declaratory and injunctive relief against Chase.

V. Award Owners exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Chase’s wrongful conduct and to deter such misconduct in the future.


COUNT VVIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT

("FDCPA") 15 USC § 1692



128. Owners bring this action to secure redress for unlawful credit and collection

practices engaged in by Chase.


129. Chase’s actions violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et

seq. (“FDCPA”), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2.

130. Chase acted as a debt collector, not as a creditor, under the FDCPA because it

never provided credit to the Owners, and the Owners owe Chase no debt.

131. Chase is acting in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by

seeking to collect on an alleged debt which Chase did not verify or validate in its own pleadings.

132. Owners sent a Qualified Written Request (QWR) as that term is defined in

RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(I)(B); Demand For Validation of the Alleged Debt (Per FDCPA)

and demand for audits of the entire account to Chase seeking to learn the identity of potential

MBS Investors who might own their Note. Said QWR was sent via registered mail

#___________ on ___________which Chase received on ___________. *See Exhibit 1 - QWR

133. Chase claimed that it received QWR on ___________but certified receipt

indicates that Chase received QWR on ___________10 thus failing to acknowledge receipt of

the Qualified Written Request within 20 days in violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e).

134. Chase responded deficiently, refusing to address most of the concerns and

explanations requested by Owners and to disclose information which would authenticate the

identity of the owner of the Note and provide an accounting which would show all money paid

or received in connection with the subject obligation.

135. Beginning on or before October 2008, in their communications with the Owners,

Chase falsely represented that the mortgage debt payments were owed to Chase as successor in

interest to WAMU.

136. Chase’s communications to the Owners falsely represented that Chase had

standing and authority to foreclose the Mortgage.

137. Chase has used false, deceptive, and misleading representations to the Owners in

connection with the collection of an alleged debt.


138. Chase falsely represented to the Owners the character, amount, and legal status of

the alleged debt.

139. Chase has falsely represented to the Owners that nonpayment of the alleged debt

will result in a sale of their property.

140. Chase has threatened to take action against the Owners that cannot legally be

taken.

141. Chase has communicated with third parties information about the Owners’ credit,

which information is known, or which should be known by Chase to be false.

142. Chase has used false representation and deceptive means to collect or attempt to

collect the allege debt from the Owners.

143. Chase has used unfair and unconscionable means to attempt to collect the alleged

debt from the Owners.

144. Chase has failed to validate the Owners’ alleged debt as required by 15 U.S.C. §

1692g.

145. Chase has stated that it is the lawful owner in interest of the debt or empowered to

speak on behalf of the owner in interest, yet knew or should have known that they were not, and

as such violated 15 USC 1692(e)(5).

146. Chase engaged in unfair and deceptive means and attempts to collect the alleged

debt in violation of 15 USC 1692 (f).

147. Chase attempted to collect the alleged debt in a manner and amount not

authorized by the original Mortgage and Note in violation of 15 USC 1692(f)(1).

148. Chase threatened to unlawfully repossess the property in violation of 15 USC

1692(f)(8).

149. Chase obtained $___________under the false pretense that Owners would be

evaluated for a loan modification and then reneged on the agreement.



its predecessor, WAMU, Owners and their family have suffered both general and special actual

damages including, but not limited to the following:








PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count V, Violations

of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request that

this Court enter an order:

a. Awarding Owners statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 plus general and special actual damages in the amount of $100,000, plus punitive damages;

b. Awarding Owners reasonable attorney consulting fees; and

c. Granting any such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

COUNT VIUNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES - VIOLATION OF

ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT 815 IL CS 505/1 TO 515/12




152. Owners are involved in foreclosure proceedings initiated by Chase, in its capacity

as successor in interest to WAMU, which engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in

violation of 815 ILCS 505/2 including, but not limited to:

a) Selling and securitizing Owners loan and then refusing to disclose the true

identity of the lender when Owners requested said identity through a QWR;

b) Instituting a false foreclosure complaint on behalf of an entity which is not the

real party in interest and therefore lacks the standing to prosecute the instant

foreclosure litigation.

c) Falsely claiming that Owners note was indorsed when it had been fraudulently

indorsed by way of a possible computerized stamp, or other means, in order to

execute a legal document to justify foreclosure actions against Owners;

d) Engaging in unfair and deceptive marketing to lure Owner into a risky loan;

e) Incentivizing employee and broker misconduct through bonuses and higher

commissions to sell unnecessarily costly and risky loan products; and

f) Failing to disclose that the Option Arm loan product with negative amortization

WAMU sold to the Owners to refinance their mortgage, was in fact a known

predatory loan product that exposed Owners to an unnecessarily high risk of

foreclosure or loss of equity, particularly because said loan product had a

Negative Amortization;

g) Failing to properly record the sale of Owners note, or multiple sales of Owners

note at the DuPage County Recorder’s Office thereby slandering Owners title;

h) Failing to legally assign the sale of Owners non-negotiable note to a third-party

which was rendered as non-negotiable as a result of its negative amortization;

i) Misrepresenting that Owners could modify their loan and reduce their principal

after Owners paid $___________, and then denying said modification;


j) Misrepresenting that Chase is the Owner of Owners loan, when it is the Servicer

of Owner’s loan.

153. Chase, and its predecessor WAMU, committed the aforementioned acts which

constituted material representations that were false or were made recklessly.

154. Chase intended that Owners rely on its deceptive acts.

155. Owners did not have equal access to, or equal opportunity to discover information

upon which Chase gave partial disclosure.

156. Chase engaged in such conduct for the purpose of obtaining money from Owners

and depriving them of their real property.

157. Chase’s deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce.

158. Chase’s acts violated standards of fair trade practices and affected commerce.

159. Chase intended that Owners rely on its deceptive acts.

160. Chases’ deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce.

161. Chase has failed to comply with the Illinois laws and statutes by failing to

properly execute foreclosure documents required to foreclose.

162. The conduct of Chase, as set forth herein, constitutes unfair, fraudulent and

deceptive trade practices prohibited under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 TO 515/12.

A practice is unfair if the court determines that the impact of the practice or act on its alleged victim outweighs the reasons, justifications, and motives of the alleged wrongdoer. (Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp.., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 647 (1996).)

(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008). EquiFirst, when making the loan, violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC §1601 and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC §1692; "intentionally created fraud in the factum" and withheld from plaintiff… "vital information concerning said debt and all of the matrix involved in making the loan".


https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=65802406885a4be41412236952b844e7&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2009%20U.S.%20Dist.%20Ct.%20Motions%2091325%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=35&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B50%20Cal.%20App.%204th%20632%2Cat%20647%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=3&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAz&_md5=cf92c15217e28ed8d8ffe1cdc626c941

https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=65802406885a4be41412236952b844e7&_xfercite=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B2009%20U.S.%20Dist.%20Ct.%20Motions%2091325%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=35&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3Ccite%20cc%3D%22USA%22%3E%3C!%5BCDATA%5B50%20Cal.%20App.%204th%20632%2Cat%20647%5D%5D%3E%3C%2Fcite%3E&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=3&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkAz&_md5=cf92c15217e28ed8d8ffe1cdc626c941

163. As a direct and proximate result of Chase’s unfair, fraudulent and deceptive

practices, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, Owners and their family have

suffered an ascertainable loss of monies and/or property and/or value including, but not limited

to the following:







g. other general and special actual damage

164. Pursuant to 15 USC 1692(k), Owners are entitled to actual damages, statutory

damages as set forth herein, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

165. Because the conduct of Chase was frequent and persistent and because the nature

of the violations of the FDCPA were so egregious and because the FDCPA violations were a part

of a deliberate scheme, Owners are entitled to the maximum possible relief permitted under 15

USC 1692k(a).

“A plaintiff may recover both compensatory and punitive damages.” Black v. Lovino, 219 Ill. App. 3d 378 (1991); Check v .Clifford Chrysler Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 342 Ill. App. 3d 150 (1st Dist. 2003). A violation and actual damage allow a court, in its discretion, to award actual economic damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and "any other relief which it deems proper." Steinberg v. System Software Associates, Inc. Plaintiff must allege and prove that Defendant's "misconduct was performed with a reckless indifference toward the rights of others."

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count VI

for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices, Counter-

claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:


I. Find that Chase has engaged in and is engaging in trade or commerce within the meaning of section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2.

II. Impose a civil penalty against Countrywide found by the court to have engaged in any method or practice declared unlawful under this Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

III. Require Chase to pay the costs of this action.

IV. Grant any such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

COUNT VIIWRONGFUL FORECLOSURE



167. Owners are the true and rightful title holders of the subject property located at

___________ they purchased and custom built in ___________.

168. Owners entered into an agreement to refinance their property and closed on said

refinance on ___________.

169. Owners stopped making payments on subject loan in ___________because of

___________unemployment.

170. On ___________a Notice of “Lis Pendens” was recorded in ___________ County

Ill as document #___________declaring to the world that Owners property is in foreclosure.

171. On ___________Chase filed foreclosure complaint #___________ and recorded

said document in ___________County Illinois at the recorder’s office. Attached to said

complaint was Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, an alleged copy of the note and Exhibit B, an alleged copy

of the mortgage.

172. Chase, in its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU, claimed that it was the

holder of the beneficial interest under the Mortgage signed on ___________.

173. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that such claim was false as

Owners securitization examination performed in ___________revealed that WAMU had sold


Owners loan to investors of The ___________ Trust ___________and as a result, the investors

are the true and rightful holders of said note and Chase had reason to know that their claim was

false.

174. After Owners loan was sold to investors as a “mortgage backed security”,

WAMU, nor Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, no longer owned this loan

or the corresponding note. Accordingly, Chase never had the right to declare default, cause

notice of default to be issued or recorded, or to foreclose on Owners’ Property. Chase is not the

note holder nor has it ever been a beneficiary at any time with regard to Owner’ loan.

In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 762. Although the payee of an instrument may negotiate it, the payee must endorse it as well as deliver it to another person, who then can become its holder.

CComC § 3201, 1201 (21) (A). Article Three (3) of the Uniform Commercial Code. To enforce a negotiable instrument, a person must be a holder of the note. To meet the definition of a "holder," the person must possess the note, and the note must be issued or endorsed to him or to his order or to bearer or in blank.

Holder in due course status is governed by § 3-302. A transferee obtains that status only if the promissory note a) is negotiated to a person who b) takes for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of the defenses of a party.

In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Harris, the Trustee is not a holder in due course, because the note has not been negotiated, merely transferred. § 3-302 says that a person can only be a holder in due course if at the time the note is negotiated, the transferee has no notice of defenses of any party to the note.

175. As alleged throughout this counter-claim, with Owners allegations supported by

law, Chase was not in possession of Owners Note, was not a holder of Owners Note, nor a non-

holder of Owners Note entitled to payment. Therefore Chase was proceeding to foreclose

without right under the law.

176. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase has intentionally

misrepresented the facts intending to force Owners to either pay large sums of money to Chase to

which they were not entitled, or to abandon Owners Property to foreclosure sale, to Chases’

profit.


177. As a result of Chases' misconduct, Owners note is void and unenforceable.


178. As a direct and proximate result of Chases’ wrongful foreclosure actions and

course of conduct, Owners and their family have suffered damages including but not limited to

the following:

a. reduction in property valueb. severe and irreparable damage to the Owners credit scores, c. the facing of this foreclosure litigationd. the loss of reputation and work because of the stigma of foreclosure,e. mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation and emotional harm,f. significantly affected the health of Owner ___________,g. other general and special actual damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of the aforementioned reasons set forth above in Count VII

for Wrongful Foreclosure, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase including, but not limited to, the amount of $___________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $___________. as of ___________, and

IV. Award Owners, in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Chase and to deter future misconduct and to protect the public.

V. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial.

COUNT VIIIBREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER U.C.C. §12.24 S-301


BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER ILLINOIS COMMON LAW I. [12.1]



180. When Owners refer to WAMU in the following allegations which comprise a

Breach of Contract cause of action, Owners are referring to non-party WAMU as predecessor to

Chase in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU.

ARTICLE 2 of the Universal Commercial Code governs the relationship between contracting parties. Section 2-301 is the global net of Article 2 that requires all parties to comply in accordance with the contract. 810 ILCS 5/2-301. Unless there is a permissible excuse under UCC §§2-601 through 2-616, failure to comply with terms of contract is a breach under the UCC. A breach of contract is an action at law. Eyman V. McDonough District Hospital, 245.App.3d 394, 613 N.E.2d 819, 821,184 Ill. Dec. 502 (3d Dist. 1993) to state a cause of action for breach under Illinois common law, a party must demonstrate:

a. Existence of a valid contract;

b. Performance of all obligations of the contract by the plaintiff;

c. Breach of contract; and

d. Resulting injury to the plaintiff.

Hickox v. Bell, 195. Ill.App.3d 976, 522 N.E.2d 1133, 1143, 142 Ill. Dec. 392 (5th Dist.

1990); Klem v. Mann, 279. Ill.App.3d 735, 665 N.E.2d 514, 518, 216 Ill. Dec. 454 (1st Dist.

1996). Liability for breach of contract is strict, and plaintiff is not required to show neglect or

deliberate conduct.

181. In Illinois, the elements of a Common Law cause of action for a breach of

contract are:

(1) a valid contract exists supported by (a) an offer and an acceptance; and (b)

consideration;

(2) definite and certain terms;

(3) performance by the parties of all required conditions;

(4) breach by one of the parties; and

(5) damages.


Village of South Elgin v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. 348 Ill.App. 3d 929, 940 (2nd Dist. 2004), Brown and Kerr v. American Stores Properties, Inc. 306 Ill.App. 3d 1023, 715 N.E. 2d.804, 810 (1st Dist. 1999); Wilder v. Butler Mfg., 1788 Ill.App.3d 819, 533 N.E.2d 1129 (3rd Dist. 1989).

Creek Ranch, Inc. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 75 N.J. 421, 430 (1978). A contract ―must be sufficiently definite ‗that the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty,‘‖ and the parties must ―agree on essential terms and manifest an intention to be bound by those terms.‖ Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435 (1992) (quoting Borough of W. Caldwell v. Borough of Caldwell, 26 N.J. 9, 24–25 (1958)).

OWNERS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT A VALID CONTRACT EXISTED

182. By way of the Note and Mortgage signed by Owners on ___________at the

closing of the refinance of Owners property, Owners were led to believe they were entering into

a contract with WAMU as spelled out on said loan documents.

183. Owners signed all documents necessary to initiate an alleged “loan” thereby

agreeing to terms and conditions of said loan.

DEFINITE AND CERTAIN TERMS

184. The terms and obligations were set forth in the Note and Mortgage.

PERFORMANCE BY THE PARTIES OF ALL REQUIRED CONDITIONS

185. Owners made timely payments on subject mortgage in the instant case from

___________until ___________thereby performing under the contract for more than ________

years. Prior to that, Owners paid on a mortgage on the subject property since ___________, the

year they custom built subject property for $___________. Hence, Owners have paid more than

$___________. to banks for interest payments on subject property for __ years. Furthermore,

Owners have timely paid real estate taxes of approximately $___________and made

improvements to the subject property in excess of $___________over the ___ years they have

owned the subject property.


BREACH BY ONE OF THE PARTIES

186. Non-party WAMU as predecessor to Chase in its capacity as successor in interest

to WAMU, purported to act in the capacity of “Lender” stating in Owners Mortgage document

documents that it loaned its own funds to Owners.

On an alleged note dated ___________regarding loan ___________ under No. 1. “BORROWER’S PROMISE TO PAY” the promise to pay is stated in these words . . . “In return for a LOAN that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $___________., I promise to pay . . . to the order of the LENDER . . .”

187. According to freedictionary.com:

a. The definition of “loan” is: vb. to lend some thing, esp. money.

b. the definition of “borrow” is: vb. 1. to take some thing for temporary use. 2. to receive money with the understanding or agreement that the money is to be repaid, usu. with interest.

c. Black’s legal dictionary Definition of LENDER: He from whom a thing is borrowed.

d. Black's Law Dictionary 1031, 1034 (8th ed. 2004) definition of "mortgagee" : the lender who gives the loan secured by the mortgage.

188. The five essential elements of a lawful Contract require the following:

a. the signature of the maker, meaning the alleged lender;

b. the signature of the receiver, meaning the alleged borrower;

c. the due date, or dates;

d. the specified amount;

e. a clear sentence of intent.

189. WAMU was never the “lender”, nor the creditor of Owners loan but instead an

intermediary middleman/broker which loaned none of its own funds. Investors of the

___________Trust were the true and rightful Lender of funds of Owners loan which were pre-

funded by way of an MBS prospectus.


190. A contract requires two parties, an “offeror” and an “offeree” (an acceptor) who

at the time of the contract’s acceptance (its creation) agrees to be bound by the offeror’s terms, as

evidenced by the signatures of both parties to the contract.

191. Owners Note and Mortgage documents bear no signature of the maker — the

alleged “Lender “— therefore the note is not valid under Contract Law.

192. WAMU is not a party to the mortgage according to contract law.

193. No agent or principal of WAMU signed the “alleged” mortgage contract because

WAMU did not tender any consideration to bind the loan transaction.

194. Having provided no consideration and having shown no intention to be a party to

the contract by signing it, neither WAMU nor any third party who may purchase the mortgage at

a later date has any “standing” to enforce the terms of the mortgage. Hence, the so-called

mortgage contract fails “for lack of consideration” and is void.

195. When the WAMU obtained the Owner’s Promissory Note without consideration,

it committed constructive fraud by acts of concealment of the material facts.

196. The acts of concealment of the material facts establish a “breach of contract”

since WAMU has the legal duty to act in good faith and disclose the material facts relative to the

transaction.

197. Having obtained the Owner’s Promissory Note “by constructive fraud,” WAMU

is not justified to enforce the contract by any “implied consent” because true consent, expressed

or implied, cannot be given under a cloud of non-disclosure, concealment, and suppression of the

material facts, or a state of duress.

198. A contract is a living body of law; an agreement made between living people with

their full knowledge and consent.

199. Chase, in concert with its Co-Conspirators, have engaged in the banking

industry’s long time practice of “constructive fraud” by breach of contract, nondisclosure of the

material facts, and larceny.


200. If non-party WAMU, as predecessor to Chase, were truly a Lender as defined by

law, it must be a party to the mortgage according to the laws of contract in order for the contract

to be enforced.

201. According to the UCC 3-104 “credit money”, the borrower is always the original

source of the principle amount of any alleged loan by virtue of his “promise to pay” (his

signature on his credit application and Promissory Note) from which a negotiable instrument is

generated which the alleged lender converts into another form (a cashier’s check, bank draft, or

account deposit) in accordance with the lending policies of the Federal Reserve, which other

form is then issued to the borrower as the so-called “loan”.

202. Alleged loans that are non-performing are simply charged off, i.e. discharged by a

bookkeeping entry with no loss of money incurred by the bank or to its depositors. The alleged

“loss” incurred by a bank upon a loan default is a decline in its reserves as the fractional Reserve

Banking system generates 9x the amount of a Promissory note, it also works in reverse. When a

loan becomes non-performing, the bank must reduce its debt by 9 times the amount of the loan or

it will be in violation of federal banking law. The following excerpts from Modern Money

Mechanics, a booklet produced and distributed free by the Public Information Center of the

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explain how a “loss” incurred by a default impacts the alleged

“Lender.”. http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf)

[Using an example of $1,000]The deposit [a promissory note is considered a deposit] expansion factor for a given amount of new reserves is thus the reciprocal of the required reserve percentage (1/.10 = 10). Loan expansion will be less by the amount of the initial injection. PG 8

The amount of reserves freed by the decline in deposits, however, is only $1,000 (10 percent of $10,000). Unless the banks that lose the reserves and deposits had excess reserves, they are left with a reserve deficiency of $9,000. Although they may borrow from the Federal Reserve Banks to cover this deficiency temporarily, sooner or later the banks will have to obtain the necessary reserves in some other way or reduce their needs for reserves. PG 12

The loss of reserves means that all banks taken together now have a reserve deficiency. Total reserves lost from deposit withdrawal. .. . . 10,000 less: Reserves freed by deposit decline(10%). . . . 1,000 equals: Deficiency in reserves against remaining deposits . . 9,000. PG 14


203. Although a bank experiences a decline in their reserves, a bank “loses” nothing of

substance when a loan defaults and therefore no valid claim because the bank only loans the

customer’s own credit back to him.

204. WAMU, acting in violation of their fiduciary duty to Owners, failed to disclose

to Owners that they were not the lender but instead the originator of the loan funds which were

funded by certificate holders/investors of ___________TRUST pool. This omission of facts

gave only partial disclosure to Owners. To recover for breach of contract, the Owners must

demonstrate that the breach was “material.”

205. Chase, in its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU, made material breaches

to the contract which included, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Selling and securitizing Owners loan and then refusing to disclose the true

identity of the lender when Owners requested said identity through a QWR;

b) Instituting a false foreclosure complaint on behalf of an entity which is not the

real party in interest and therefore lacks the standing to prosecute the instant

foreclosure litigation.

c) Falsely claiming that Owners note was indorsed when it had been fraudulently

“indorsed” by way of a possible computerized stamp, or other means, in order

to execute a legal document to justify foreclosure actions against Owners;

d) Engaging in unfair and deceptive marketing to lure Owner into a risky loan;

e) Incentivizing employee and broker misconduct through bonuses and higher

commissions to sell unnecessarily costly and risky loan products; and

f) Failing to disclose that the Option Arm loan product with negative

amortization the WAMU broker sold to the Owners to refinance their

mortgage, was in fact a known predatory loan product that exposed Owners to

an unnecessarily high risk of foreclosure or loss of equity, particularly because

said loan product had a Negative Amortization;


g) Failing to properly record the sale of Owners note, or multiple sales of

Owners note at the DuPage County Recorder’s Office thereby slandering

Owners title;

h) Failing to legally assign the sale of Owners non-negotiable note to a third-

party which was rendered as non-negotiable as a result of its negative

amortization.

i) Misrepresenting that Owners could modify their loan and reduce their

principal after Owners paid $____.00 for a trial modification, and then

denying said modification;

j) Misrepresenting that Chase is the Owner of Owners loan, when it is the

Servicer of Owner’s loan.

206. Said misrepresentations were made with the knowledge of their falsity with the

intent of misleading Owners into relying upon them.

207. Said misrepresentations have directly and proximately caused severe and

irreparable damage to the Owners.

208. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that said mortgage was void

upon execution because the statements contained therein were untrue, and the failure to disclose

these facts to the Owners acted to the Owner’s detriment and therefore was no meeting of the

minds, no consideration, and an utter failure to create a security instrument.

DAMAGES

209. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of contract by non-party WAMU,

and Chase, as successor in interest to WAMU, Owners and their family have suffered damages

including but not limited to the following:









"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." “He is liable, not upon any idea of benefit to himself, but because of his wrongful act and the consequent injury to the other party.” Leonard v. Springer, 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 299 (1902).


“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, as a result of due to Chases breach of contract as set forth above in

Count VIII, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase including, but not limited to, the amount of $___________.00 which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $___________. as of ___________, and


V. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial.


COUNT IX

RICO-I8 U.S.C. §§1961 ET SEQ.



18 USC 1962 (a): “It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”

211. Non-party WAMU, and Chase, as successor in interest to WAMU, as well as the

Co-Conspirators, are Persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).

212. Chase, in concert with other Insiders on Wall Street, the largest banks and the

Federal Reserve (“Co-Conspirators”) have established an enterprise of which the activities affect

interstate commerce pursuant to 18 USC § 1961 section 1958.

213. This Action concerns violations of law pertaining to the improper and illegal

drafting, execution and public recording of foreclosure documents used to illegally divest

Owners, and millions of others similarly situated across this great nation, of title to their

property.

214. Upon information and belief, the Owners allege that the Conspirators

meticulously crafted a scheme to illegally foreclose on Owners property, as well as Millions of

other similarly situated homeowners across America, under conditions the Conspirators

intentionally engineered in order to bring about the collapse of the world’s economic system

which the Conspirators have covertly controlled for decades. Upon the collapse of this system,

Owners speculate that the Conspirators will then offer another fiat monetary system, thus

allowing the Conspirators to continue raping the people of the world through the manipulation of

interest rates which allow the Conspirators to manipulate boom and bust cycles in order to divest


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/usc_sec_18_00001958----000-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000002----000-.html

the people of the fruits of their labors thus keeping the masses under their perpetual control

through continual debt.

215. One element of the multi-pronged Conspiracy schemed to lure the Owners in the

instant case, as well as Millions of other similarly situated Homeowners across this Nation, into

predatory mortgage loan instruments that would result in the foreclosure of their property, thus

allowing the Conspirators to literally steal the investments of the Owners while reaping massive

profits for themselves.

216. WAMU, as predecessor to Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators, schemed

to originate Owners alleged loan without its own funds, presented Owners Note to the Fed and

collected 9X its amount, simultaneously sold said loan to a Mortgage-backed Security Trust

where it received an undisclosed commission; paid the mortgage broker an undisclosed fee;

bifurcated the note from the mortgage; falsely claimed to be the “lender” of funds for Owners

loan; failed to record all legal documents regarding transfer of ownership of Owners

note/mortgage which caused a break in the chain of title thus slandering Owners title; failed to

disclose underlying market conditions which had been intentionally manipulated with the

intention of foreclosing on of tens of millions of homes across America including Owners;

employed the use of a fraudulent means of creating the documents necessary to foreclose where,

in the instant case, Chase, in its capacity of successor in interest to WAMU employed a

computerized indorsement stamp to execute a false legal document; and initiated a false

complaint in foreclosure without legal standing.

217. The actions of Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators constitute false,

misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal conduct under the law. As a

proximate and direct result, the Conspirators have been unjustly enriched in multiple ways

including, but not limited to: being paid 9X the amount of Owners Note by fraudulently

presenting Owners note to the Fed; selling Owners note to multiple Trusts, collecting on credit

default swap payoffs which paid up to 30 times the principal sum of Owners loan; collecting

Trillions on TARP fund payments by the American taxpayer to “rescue” Conspirator-owned

lending institutions deemed “too big to fail” which were supposed to pay off “toxic”

nonperforming loans such as Owners, but instead paid off the credit default swap bets placed by


the Conspirators. If this court allows Chase to seize the property of the Owners, it will be further

unjustly enriched.

218. The Conspirators devised and are now carrying out a Ponzi Scheme of enormous

magnitude which has now been exposed by numerous investigations of governmental bodies

which reveal the depth of the crime these once highly respected institutions committed. As courts

across America learn the truth of this Conspiracy and massive fraud, judges are finally realizing

that they too have been deceived. The Conspirators devised propaganda designed to divert

attention from themselves and their heinous scheme and instead fabricated a fairy tale of

enormous proportion which spoke of “so-called “dead-beat” borrowers who were the real wrong-

doers as they used their homes as ATM machines and then tried to “get their homes for free” if

they dared to contest the foreclosure actions against them.

219. The judiciary has been led to believe that “as soon as the foreclosures are

eradicated, the economy will then stabilize,” which is a complete and utter lie, created for the

purpose of allowing the Conspirators continue to exploit Americans as pawns in their much

larger scheme. One need only look at the statistics for they don’t deceive. Foreclosure BREEDS

foreclosure, and with it, a domino-effect of pain, anguish and suffering. In February of 2012,

according to Debbie Olson, head of the DuPage Housing Authority, a HUD based agency which

helps secure modifications for borrowers, DuPage County now has 6,700 homes in foreclosure

out of 175,321 mortgages and that number is rising by 100 per month with the leading cause

being unemployment. Cook County is worse. As of 7-29-2011 the number of outstanding

foreclosure cases stood at 70,000 out of 573,465 mortgages; more than 12%. Although the Office

of the Clerk of the Circuit Court anticipated between 48,000 and 52,000 foreclosure filings in

2010, by March 31, 2010, there were 60,766 foreclosure cases, as compared to 16,494 in 2005.

No matter how fast foreclosures are prosecuted, no matter how fast homeowners are kicked out

of their homes, foreclosures are rising. Furthermore, as foreclosures increase, property values

decrease, further eroding the assets of Americans which then create the circumstances for

strategic default where the Owners just walk away from their underwater mortgages.

220. Rather than borrowers “trying to get their homes for free,” the truth is that the

Conspirators are stealing homes right under our noses. Citizens are being thrown out on the street


like garbage while more than 20 Million housing units sit vacant and rotting with banks so

burdened and deluged with REO properties, they simply cannot manage them. Tragically, the

Conspirators scheme has illegally seized millions of homes from the vast majority of American

citizens in foreclosure who felt such shame and humiliation that they were too intimidated to

contest these actions and have thus been victimized by the Conspirators. Moreover, in numerous

cases, the MBS “Trust” no longer exists or has been paid off, but the Servicer, having paid no

consideration, fraudulently keeps the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. The Court and the

property owner are never aware that the property was literally stolen.

221. Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators, have engaged, and are still

engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically “mail and wire fraud,” pursuant to 18

USC § 1961 sections 1342 and 1343 and participated, and are still participating, in a criminal

enterprise affecting interstate commerce.

222. In the execution of said Conspiracy, Chase, in concert with other Co-

Conspirators’ schemed to defraud the Owners in the instant case, as well as millions of other

similarly situated American citizens, and obtain money by means of false pretenses, Chase, in

concert with other Co-Conspirators, transmitted and received messages by wire, including but

not limited to telephone and internet communications. In such communications, Chase, in

concert with other Co-Conspirators, sought to convince Owners either to part with large sums of

money or to abandon the Property, for the profit of the enterprise, falsely asserting that they had

the right to foreclose upon the security interest in subject Property.

223. A separate count of Mail Fraud took place each and every time a fraudulent

pleading, Affidavit, Fraudulent Indorsement, Promissory Note Assignment, mortgage or

mortgage assignment was sent by Chase or its Co-Conspirators through the use of the US mail.

Likewise, any documents sent via electronic mail, as would be the case as part of a Federal

action electronically filed with the Court, would constitute a separate act of wire fraud.

224. By sending fraudulent pleadings to the clerks of court, judges, attorneys, and

defendants in foreclosure cases, Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators, intentionally

participated in a scheme to defraud others, including the Owners and others similarly situated


across America. Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators utilized the U.S. Mail and the

Internet to do so.

225. The criminal enterprise affects interstate commerce in numerous ways. It is used

to conceal the true ownership of mortgage loans from the general public, including investors,

borrowers, the SEC, the IRS and the Courts.

226. In the execution of this scheme, Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators,

placed in post offices and/or in authorized repositories matter and things to be sent or delivered

by the Postal Service, caused said matter and things to be delivered by commercial interstate

carrier, and received matter and things from the Postal service or commercial interstate carriers,

including, but not limited to, default and foreclosure related notices.

227. Said notices were false, misleading, and contrary to law, as described herein; and

were deliberately designed to compel Owners to either part with large sums of money or to

abandon the Property, for the profit of the enterprise.

228. WAMU intentionally obtained Owner’s Promissory Note by non-disclosure,

concealment, and suppression of the material fact. WAMU, as the alleged lender did not risk any

of its own assets in the loan transaction, and WAMU intentionally obtained Owner’s Promissory

Note (his credit exchange) by concerted action with full knowledge of the end results of its

participation in fraud, larceny, and conspiracy to defraud, in contempt of the RICO Act.

229. The pattern and practice of the Conspirators agents: Servicers, MBS Trusts, the

document processing companies and law firms, was to procure fraudulent and forged documents

for the sole purpose of creating a fraud in the public record in order to illegally take property in

foreclosure.

230. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that this conspiracy is responsible for

the fraud involved with the securitization of mortgage loans and the issuance of unregulated

derivative contracts.


231. The “predicate acts” of fraud were accomplished through the U.S. Mail, the

Internet, and are specifically attributable to Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators, to this

Cause of action, and include, but are not limited to, the following:

a.) Intentionally selling known predatory loan products to Borrowers which trusted the

Conspirators Lending institutions, only to be ensnared in a trap whereby Conspirators

intentionally raised interest rates to such an extent that Borrower’s were unable to

refinance nor pay the sometimes quadrupled mortgage payments, which resulted in mass

defaults.

b.) Triggering the payment of credit default insurance through mass defaults to reap

Trillions of dollars and thereby cause the insolvency of the American economy, now

being held up by nothing more than counterfeit money printed by the Fed in its attempt to

dilute American dollars. This collapse extends to numerous European countries, all of

which trusted Wall Street Investment Banks and purchased MBS Bonds with phantom

mortgage-backed certificates, backed by loans which were “designed to default.”

c.) Deliberately inducing Borrowers across the nation and the Owners in the instant case

into signing Negotiable Instruments which were intended as #1) collateral for a MBS;

and #2) bearer paper presented to the Fed in order to monetize 9X the amount of the loan.

d.) Knowingly converting Owners promissory Note into an asset of a MBS and never

informing Owners of said conversion.

e.) Falsely alleging that the “lender” on the original Promissory Note was WAMU in the

instant case. Upon Owners signing of the Promissory note, WAMU, as well as other

originators of mortgage loans, immediately and simultaneously sold the Note without

recourse to an MBS Trust where it was securitized, therefore the beneficial interest in the

note was never in the originating alleged “lender”.

f.) Bringing suit on behalf of false entities, as in the instant case with Chase, in its

capacity as successor to WAMU, which are not the real parties in interest, and which

have no standing to sue.


g.) Deliberately and intentionally concealing the identity of the true lender at closing

which is a “material disclosure” which under Illinois contract law thus rendering said

contract void.

h.) Retaining Borrowers’ Notes in the Servicers vault with access only to key agents of

the Conspirators and keeping scanned copies of the Promissory Notes on special

computer programs with access only to key agents of the Conspirators, in a direct and

emboldened violation of the governing documents of the MBS PSA’s, per sworn

testimony by bank employees.

i.) Falsely alleging, and attaching to the fraudulent complaints, mortgage loan documents

in which Chase, and its’ Co-Conspirators’ Law Firms, claim that the Plaintiff, Chase in

the instant case, is the “owner and holder of the note and mortgage.”

j.) Swearing under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,”) and the

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS,”), that Chase, as well as its Co-Conspirators, along with

other sellers of MBS Securities as mortgage asset “pass through” entities, wherein they

can never own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS. This allows them to qualify as a

Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) rather than an ordinary Real Estate

Investment Trust (“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax

will be charged to the MBS.

k.) Perpetrating said conspiracy to sell MBS certificates to unsuspecting investors around

the world with phantom mortgage-backed assets as evidenced by the direct violations of

the Trusts PSA’s. There are now numerous nationwide and worldwide Class actions filed

by the beneficiaries (the owners/investors) of the “Trusts” against the entities who sold

the investments as REMIC’S based on a bogus prospectus.

l.) Drafting fraudulent documents, in the instant case, the fraudulent fabrication of an

indorsement, and the subsequent execution of the documents by robo-signers and

Conspirators agents: employees of the document company, Servicer, or alleged Lender,

which is Chase in the instant case, together Conspirators Law Firms, and the filing of

fraudulent and forged documents as to the ownership of the loan by robo-signers and


employees of the Chase, and its Co-Conspirators’ Law Firms, and Servicers. These

affiants, instructed by the Conspirators, have committed widespread counts of fraud,

perjury and forgery in the tens of thousands. These forgers have been referred in the press

with the vernacular term “robo-signers.”

m.) Representing to Borrowers across the nation and including the Owners in the instant

case, that they could modify their loan and then intentionally alleging to “lose” borrowers

paperwork and denying said modification thus raping Borrowers further.

n.) Failing to record the sale or multiple sales of Borrowers Notes as required by both the

law and the PSA, including the Owners note in the instant case, at the county level to

insure that the titles to American properties are clear and uncontested, thereby breaking

the chain of title and slandering Owners title, as well as millions of other similarly

situated borrowers across America whose titles have been intentionally clouded by the

Conspirators.

o.) Upon disposing of Owners’ properties across the Nation, the real owners of the

mortgage are still free to claim to the mortgage loan they hold thus creating a permanent

cloud on Owners title and land records. This cloud affects all who have the potential to be

the title holders of the clouded property.

p.) Misrepresenting that Chase, or other alleged “lenders” are the Owners of the mortgage

loans, when these alleged Lenders are simply the Servicers of Owner’s loan.

q.) Chase, as the Servicer in the instant case, has declared the default, but is not in privity

with the lender. The true owner or beneficiary of the mortgage loan has not declared a

default and usually no longer have an interest in the note. The Servicer is not in privity

nor does it have the permission of the beneficial owners of the Note to file suit on their

behalf.

r.) WAMU was not a lender to the subject loan. Nor are they a beneficiary under the loan.

They do not possess a Mortgage in the property. They will never have a right to possess a

mortgage in the property. Chase is simply a debt-collector.


A "debt collector" under the statute is "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

s.) Utilizing the Mortgage Electronic Registration Syytem (“MERS”), although not in the

instant case, as a secretive veil from which to conceal the Conspirators crimes. This lack

of transparency was crucial for the Conspirators to engage in the fraud they perpetrated.

232. These predicate acts are related. Their common purpose is to defraud the Owners

and those similarly situated across America of their money and property. They share the

common themes of “non-documentation” and concealment of the real parties in interest.

233. A plaintiff in a RICO action must allege either an “’open-ended’ pattern of

racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct coupled with a threat of future criminal conduct)

or a ‘closed-ended’ pattern of racketeering activity (i.e., past criminal conduct ‘extending over a

substantial period of time’).” Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op. Corp. v. Prime One

Capital Co., L.L.C. 202 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D.Fla.,2002), citing H.J. Inc., supra, 492 U.S. at 241.

234. The aforementioned predicate acts satisfy the RICO continuity requirement: they

extend from in or beginning in 1998 and continue unabated, hence, the scheme meets the

definition of “open-ended” continuity. The threat of continued criminal activity as part of this

enterprise is being carried out today, without question, over the American economy.

235. Alternatively, closed-ended continuity is present because the scheme occurred

over a period in excess of ten years. Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op. Corp. v. Prime

One Capital Co., L.L.C. 202 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D.Fla.,2002), citing H.J. Inc., supra, 492 U.S. at

241.

CONCLUSION

236. As a result of the predicate actions of Chase, in concert with its Co-Conspirators,

there exists no obligation on which to base any foreclosure on the property owned by the

Owners. Chase, in concert with other Co-Conspirators, has clouded Owners title, illegally

collected payments, illegally collected money under a trial modification and attempted to


foreclose upon Owners property when they do not have lawful rights to foreclose and are not

holders in due course of the notes.

237. The predicate acts which constitute this pattern of racketeering activity were part

of scheme to wrongfully foreclose upon Owners Property and those similarly situated across

America without legal right, and therefore acquire title to Subject Property through deception

and fraud for the profit of the enterprise, as described herein.

238. Actors in this Conspiracy have revealed their undeniable lack of morality, social

conscience and spiritual consciousness as to the repercussions of their thus far uncontested

Conspiracy which is unfolding every day in courtrooms across America. One of the Conspirators

agents is David Stern, the alleged master-mind of a Florida foreclosure mill and one of the

attorneys under criminal investigation in the state of Florida who revealed the degree of his

primitive consciousness in the following statement: “One of my favorite questions from one of

my believers, one of my investors on the first call-in, was ‘What inning are we in? If this was a

baseball game, what inning are we in?’ And my response is, we’re only in the 2nd inning. We

still have 3 innings of foreclosures left, and after the foreclosures, we have 3 innings of REO

liquidation and as the REO liquidations pan out, we get into the re-fi and we get into the

origination. [ . . . ] So yeah, we’re in the 2nd inning, but guess what - when we get to the 9th

inning, it’s going to be a doubleheader and we got a second game coming. So when people say,

“Oh my God, the economy is bad!” I’m like, “Oh my God, it’s great.”

See.Www.americansunitedforjustice.org/stern.html.

239. These acts of racketeering, occurring within ten years of one another, constitute a

pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5).

240. In the instant case, Owners property could have been foreclosed by default, sold

and transferred without any real party in interest having ever come to Court as such actions have

been allowed to transpire in countless courtrooms across America without the name of the

“Trust,” the real owners of the mortgage loan, ever having been revealed.


241. The entire American economy has been affected by the conspiracy engaged in by

Chase, in concert with its Co-Conspirators. The foreclosure crisis and larger economic downturn

were and still are, a direct result of this multi-pronged conspiracy.

OWNERS DAMAGED

242. As a direct and proximate result of the complained of acts in the RICO enterprise

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, of which these actions were part of executed by Chase, as

successor in interest to WAMU, in concert with its Co-Conspirators, Owners and their family in

the instant case, as well as Millions of others similarly situated homeowners across this great

nation, have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages including but not limited to the following:

A. reduction in property value;

B. severe and irreparable damage to the Owners credit scores,

C. the facing of this foreclosure litigation;

D. the loss of reputation and work because of the stigma of foreclosure;

E. mental anguish, anxiety, humiliation and emotional harm;

F. significantly affected the health of Owner __________,

G. other general and special actual damages

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, By reasons set forth above in Chase's violation of RICO pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 1962 in Count IX, Counter-claimant Owners respectfully request the following relief:



III. Award Owners monetary damages from Chase including, but not limited to, the amount of $__________which represents the decrease in the value of Owners property as calculated by the “Chase home estimator” which valued subject property for $__________. as of __________, and



V. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964(c), Owners are entitled to threefold the damages sustained, costs of suit, and reasonable consulting fees.


SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING

243. Owners have sufficiently pled that relief can be granted on each and every

one of the complaint's causes of action.

“All allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.” (Argabright v.United States, 35 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996).

244. The Complaint contains cognizable legal theories, sufficient facts to support

cognizable legal theories, and seeks remedies to which Plaintiff s are entitled. (Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 913

(9th Cir. 1986)).

“The legal conclusions in the complaint can and should be drawn from the facts alleged, and, in turn, the court should accept them as such.” (Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir, 1994)).

245. Owners counter-claim has a probable validity of proving a "set of facts" in

support of their claim entitling them to relief. (Housley v. U.S. (9th Cir. Nev. 1994) 35 F.3d 400,

401). Therefore, relief as requested herein should be granted.

CONCLUSION

“When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.” — Pastor Martin Niemoller

Congressional Record, October 14, 1968, vol. 114, p. 31636

246. The laws and judiciary of our Great Nation were established to provide effective

deterrents for all; to ensure that the whole of society operated from a foundation of values, trust,


honesty, morals, ethics, compassion, social conscience and integrity. Those were the values that

Americans took for granted when they took out mortgages from what they thought were highly

respected lending institutions.

247. The Conspiracy being perpetrated upon We the People, constitutes an attack on

American core values and beliefs. The Conspirators have exploited that foundation to in order to

deceive Americans in their quest to perpetuate their absolute control and power over America.

248. The crimes and violations of the law by the Conspirators enumerated by the

Owners may appear to be so incredulous that some will reject these allegations. This response is

referred to by psychologists as ‘normalcy bias,’ the same paralyzing condition which led the

Jews in WWII to willingly board the trains which took them to their deaths, for they had been

told that they were going to camps for their own protection. They simply could not fathom that

the fate they were about to experience was even possible.

249. The Courts and prosecuting counsel have historically litigated foreclosure cases

presuming that highly respected banks were beyond reproach and simply exercising their right to

collect on a debt which borrowers could no longer pay. Hence, the courts have prosecuted

foreclosure cases on the basis of a surface examination of “facts.” But the Conspirators changed

the rules and rigged the game, thus changing the very foundation of life in America. Hence it is

incumbent upon the judges to peel back the layers and look deeper.

250. Every judge has taken an oath to “administer justice without respect to persons.

To administer equal rights to the poor and to the rich, and to faithfully and impartially discharge

and perform all the duties incumbent upon them under the Constitution and laws of the United

States, so help them God.”

251. Every lawyer has taken an oath “...not to maintain any suit or proceeding which

shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable

under the law of the land; ....employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me

such means only as are consistent with truth and honor.”


252. The acknowledgement of the Conspiracy presents both opportunity and burden to

those with eyes to see for they are forced to make a decision to either do nothing, or sit idly by

while America and our world is high-jacked by a few at the top.

253. As an American citizen who is proud and grateful for her Country, I have drawn a

line in the sand and cannot sit idly by. My intention is to do whatever I can to illuminate the truth

so that judges and attorneys, now unknowingly working on behalf of the Conspirators, are

presented the knowledge they need to make further decisions. For if not me, then who?

254. The Conspirators will undoubtedly attempt to instill the fear of God into the

courts and the government stating that their economic tentacles so deeply penetrate every aspect

of society that if they are prosecuted, if the foreclosures stop, our economy will indeed collapse.

But the truth is: our economy has collapsed. It is now being falsely propped up by nothing more

than smoke and mirrors while the Fed continues to further erode the dollar through “quantitative

easing” – a fancy term they use to obscure their debasing of our currency.

255. America is irreparably insolvent and incapable of ever paying back the alleged

National Debt created by the Conspirators to control We, the People. If one simply uses logic,

one would ask why a government would print its own money and then charge itself interest on

that money? According to attorney and author Ellen Brown, China does not do that:

"In its banking system, China has a government-issued currency and a system of national banks that are actually owned by the nation. According to Wikipedia, the Peoples Bank of China is "unusual in acting as a national bank, focusing on the country and not the currency." The notion of "national banking" as opposed to private "central banking" goes back to Lincoln, Carey, and the American nationalists. Henry K. Liu distinguishes the two systems like this: a national bank serves the interests of the nation and its people. A CENTRAL bank (federal reserve) serves the interests of private international finance." - Ellen Brown

Web of Debt, the Shocking Truth about our Money System and How We Can Break Free pp. 254-255

256. Our founding fathers experienced a similar type of brutality and unfairness where

the rich and powerful at the top preyed upon ordinary citizens at the bottom. They fled Europe

intending to establish a government which would serve the highest good.

257. The courts are the only entity Americans can count on to mete justice to those

who violate the laws and statutes of the United States. If the courts allow the Conspirators to


commit fraud, falsify loan documents and violate innumerable laws without consequence; if the

Conspirators are allowed to walk away from their morally reprehensible crimes; not only will

they be emboldened to commit further atrocities to the detriment of Humankind, but every

American who has shed blood to protect our freedom and values will have indeed died in vain.

Furthermore, if the courts fail We, the People, they will have placed the final nail in the coffin

formerly known as the democracy of the United States of America.

258. The irrefutable bottom line is that America is being dismantled piece by piece.

The question is: What are WE going to do about it?

“Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, and the choice goes by

forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.’” — James Russell Lowell 1819-1891

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Counter-Plaintiff Owners pray that this Honorable court will enter a

Declaratory Judgment that voids/extinguishes any claims/security interest/that Chase purports to

hold, real or implied as a result of numerous violations of the law as alleged in preceding causes

of action. Additionally, the Owners seek damages for the wrongful conduct of Chase as set forth

below:

1) That Chase herein be declared to have no estate, right, title or interest in the subject property;

2) For Chase to be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property adverse to Owners herein; plus any other relief this Court deems fair and equitable.

3) For an order requiring Chase to take all actions necessary to terminate any security interest in the Property created under the transaction and a declaration by the Court that the security interest is void;

4) For an expungement of any foreclosure instruments, including but not limited to any Notice of Default relating to the transaction from any public record;

5) For removal of any derogatory information reported to any credit reporting agency or credit reporting bureau relating to the transaction;

6) For the return to Owners of any money given by Chase to anyone, including Owners, in connection with the loan transaction;


7) A Judgment for Owners legal consulting fees and costs;

8) For disgorgement of all amounts Chase profited from through Unjust Enrichment according to proof at trial;

9) For actual monetary damages in the amount of $274,000. to compensate Owners for the decrease in value of subject property as a result of violations of Slander of Tile;

10) For pain and suffering due to extreme mental anguish in an amount to be determined at trial;

11) For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction directing the DuPage County Sheriff s Department to refrain from conducting a sale with respect to the Property;

12) For an order stating that the, Notice of Default, Lis Pendens and Foreclosure Complaint constitute slander of title to Owners and the Property;

13) For damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief under the Illinois law of unfair business practices;

14) For compensatory and statutory damages, consulting fees and costs according to proof at trial;

15) For exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Chases' wrongful conduct and deter future misconduct;

16) For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

17) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL pursuant to rule 38(a) of the F.R.C.P.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated this __________th day of __________

______________________________________ ______________________________

VERIFICATION

We, __________, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.


_________________________________ _________________________________ __________

The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his authorized capacity and that by his signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

_____________________________________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR Notary SealTHE STATE OF ILLINOIS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, __________, Pro-Se, certify that I mailed the foregoing document to the Clerk’s office of the U.S. District Court and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals below on this the ___ day of __________, 2012:

To:

Respectfully Submitted:

______________________________________________


foreclosure response to jp morgan chase foreclosure

Real Estate

mortgage answer

simple owners

mortgage date

unknown owners

foreclosethe mortgage

fa answer

fee simple answer

se defendants