top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud

    Tuesday, January 17, 2012

    LOS ANGELES (CN) - JPMorgan Chase routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges, going so far as to Photoshop documents to "create the illusion" of standing "in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases," according to a federal class action.

    Lead plaintiff Ernest Michael Bakenie claims that Chase's "pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players" bore rich fruit: that Chase secured motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases.

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

    "Chase intentionally conceals the identity of the true parties in interest entitled to enforce the tens of tens of thousands of residential non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs') for its own financial benefit, at the expense of the class and to the detriment of the integrity of the bankruptcy system."

    Bakenie says Chase used a network of attorneys to file more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs."

    Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans, according to the complaint.

    "Rather than incur the cost of 'proving up' its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents," the complaint states.

    Bakenie claims: "That said practice is utilized for all mortgage loans originated by Chase, and other loan originators, including insolvent Washington Mutual Bank, whose assets were purchased by Chase.

    "That said manufactured documents are fabrications intended to create the illusion of a valid transfers MLNs and support the assertion of standing in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases. ...

    "That the aforementioned fabricated evidence is 'photo-shopped' and is highly persuasive and authentic in appearance so as to ensure legal victory in the bankruptcy courts.

    "That said manufactured evidence is systemically utilized to deceive bankruptcy players and increase the profits of Chase, its agents and its principals through massive cost savings and the imposition of attorney fees upon class borrowers.

    "As a direct result of this practice, over 95 percent of Chase's motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim are granted without objection.
    "That the use of the fabricated evidence has a chilling effect on class debtors and their attorneys. Said business practices discourages bankruptcy players from offering objections or from questioning the validity of Chase's false claims based on standing."

    Bakenie adds: "That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by WAMU and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer.

    "Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU to MBST bond investors.

    "That after a non-judicial foreclosure sale, class members remain indebted to the true beneficiary for the unsecured note but without credit for the loss of the collateral to Chase's designated assignee.

    "Most egregiously, the network attorneys utilize the inducing documents to obtain attorney fees awards from by the bankruptcy judges ranging from $600-$1,000 for each successful motion for relief of stay."

    Bakenie concludes that "degradation of the integrity of our bankruptcy court system cannot be justified in the name of Chase's cost savings and unjust enrichment."

    Bakenie seeks class certification, disgorgement, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, and "an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase's misrepresentation and deceptive business practices".

    He is represented by Joseph Arthur Roberts of Newport Beach.


    Last edited by AngelinaCat; 08-08-2012, 07:38 PM. Reason: To conform to forum posting rules[Flamingo] For me, it is spacing between paragraphs to make it easier to read. Thank you.
    The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of Government

    #2
    Don't be too thrilled about this. It IS NOT a class action, nor is it likely to be certified as a Class Action based upon this debtor's ( and his attny’s) history:

    Debtor/“Plaintiff” filed Chapter 7 on 8/13/09 and received a discharge on 4/8/10. Attny who was representing this debtor filed an AP, get this, as the attny for the Trustee, alleging that Chase had to release its lien due to violations of TILA. The Court, which apparently had already lifted the stay, refused to issue a preliminary injunction. While I have not read the entire Order denying the PI I can tell you that one thing popped out. The debtor’s, oh, excuse me, I meant the Trustee’s attny, apparently plead a violation of a California statute that had been repealed, of all things, in 1983. Now that’s lawyering skills! Anyway, the Trustee and Chase eventually stipulated to dismiss the AP.

    Before the entry of the discharge in the Chapter 7, debtor filed a Chapter 13 on 4/1/10, pro se. No doubt to try to stay in the million dollar plus home as long as possible - for free - cased dismissed on 4/21/10.

    Debtor filed a District Court suit v. Chase on 6/7/10. He used the same attny as he (and the Trustee) had for the 7. Chase sought dismissal. Stip to dismiss entered and case dismissed on 7/13/11.

    Has now filed current suit "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated" v. Chase. Filed 1/13/12. Same attny.

    Edt and add: 1/13/12 - wasn't that "friday the 13th". There has to be a message in that somewhere. Ok, I will get off my "high horse" now.

    My guess is that within 30 days Chase will file an MTD and it will eventually be granted.

    Edt again - bet this guy is still in that million dollar plus property - and still has not made any payments to anyone - must be nice.

    I am so tired of the stupid “reporters”. Clearly Matt Reynolds did not investigate the veracity of anything. Shame on him. Maybe someone should forward this post to him.


    Des.
    Last edited by despritfreya; 01-19-2012, 06:40 PM. Reason: Add comment about Friday the 13th

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
      Don't be too thrilled about this.



      I don't have any illusions that justice will be done with JP Morgue Chase. I post news like this in hopes that more people with Chase accounts close their accounts.

      Since Chase owns the Fed and the Fed owns the US Government nothing will come of this.
      The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of Government

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by banca rotta View Post
        I don't have any illusions that justice will be done with JP Morgue Chase. I post news like this in hopes that more people with Chase accounts close their accounts.

        Since Chase owns the Fed and the Fed owns the US Government nothing will come of this.

        I cannot resist the ability to agree with you. 'Hub
        If I knew it all, would I be here?? Hang in there = Retained attorney 8-06, Filed 12-28-07, Discharge 8-13-08, Finally CLOSED 11-3-09, 3-31-10 AP Dismissed, Informed by incompetent lawyer of CLOSED status, October 14, 2010.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
          My guess is that within 30 days Chase will file an MTD and it will eventually be granted. I am so tired of the stupid “reporters”. Clearly Matt Reynolds did not investigate the veracity of anything. Shame on him. Maybe someone should forward this post to him. Des.
          Bumping just to say "told ya so, told ya so" - case DISMISSED as of 8/6/12. . .

          Here, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs’ claim seeks to “affect . . . enforcement of [the Consent Order].” The Court finds that it does. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ claim is based on Defendants’ improper notarial practices, their soliciting, coercing and influencing of such practices, and their improper endorsement and assignment of foreclosure documents. The OCC addressed all of these improper practices in the Consent Order. Furthermore, the OCC, along with Chase Bank, established a detailed plan for correcting the improper practices. In fact, Chase Bank has implemented the plan and established a single, integrated claims process for borrowers who believe they have “suffered financial injury as a result of servicer errors, misrepresentations, or deficiencies in the foreclosure processes.” Only the OCC has the authority to enforce the Consent Order. For the foregoing reasons, the motion (to dismiss) is GRANTED.
          Love it when I'm right.

          Des.

          Comment

          bottom Ad Widget

          Collapse
          Working...
          X