THIRTY-TWO PLAINTIFFS FILE RICO ACTION AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE BANK AND CHASE HOME FINANCE

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

see 9.06.2011 RICO-Chase-Initial-Complaint

“CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC (hereafter “CHF”) is and was at all times material hereto a foreign (non-Florida incorporated) corporation which engaged in a regular and systematic course of conduct in Florida including Palm Beach County, Florida and the other jurisdictions identified herein, which conduct included but was and is not limited to 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.”

THIRTY-TWO PLAINTIFFS FILE RICO ACTION AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE BANK AND
CHASE HOME FINANCE
Yesterday, September 02, 2011, 11:10:03 AM | Jeff Barnes
September 2, 2011

(updated post from this morning, as we have literally
received a blizzard of telephone calls since this post was first put
up today)

Thirty-two Plaintiffs have filed a multi-count Complaint in the
Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida against JPMorgan Chase
Bank and Chase Home Finance, LLC. The Plaintiffs retained Jeff Barnes,
Esq., whose Firm, W. J. Barnes, P.A., filed the action last Friday.

The 29-page Complaint alleges several causes of action including
violations of the Florida RICO Act, and requests temporary and
permanent injunctive relief on a national level to halt all
Chase-related foreclosure activity in the eight (8) separate states in
which the Plaintiffs reside. The Complaint alleges a pattern of
criminal activity on the part of JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home
Finance in connection with the institution of both judicial and
non-judicial foreclosures, including but not limited to the filing and
recording, in the public records, of forged and fraudulent documents;
fraudulent collection activities; intentional misuse of the MERS
system; and the intentional misrepresentation, in foreclosures across
the United States, that Chase is the “successor in interest” to
Washington Mutual Bank when in fact Chase itself has affirmatively
represented, in multiple Federal court filings in different states,
that it is NOT the successor in interest to WaMu, and only purchased
certain defined assets and liabilities from the FDIC as Receiver for
WaMu.

Since this article was originally posted this morning, we have had
almost non-stop telephone calls from other victims of JPM and CHF who
have told us the same thing over and over: that in their foreclosure,
the same “Chase is the successor to WaMu” representation was made,
which was done in an apparent attempt to foist a cloak of legal
standing on the Chase entity which instituted the foreclosure. It thus
appears, even at this early juncture, that the scope of the illegal
and fraudulent conduct set forth in the Complaint is even more
widespread than we could have imagined.

The Asset Purchase Agreement between the FIDC and Chase is over 70
pages long, yet the purchase by Chase of the certain assets from the
FDIC as Recceiver for WaMu coincidentially took place on exactly the
same day that WaMu failed and was taken over by the FDIC.

The Complaint details the common wrongful actions of JPM and CHF
utilized in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures instituted
across the United States, characterizing the conduct as a
“nationalized fraud”.

The Plaintiffs have also filed a Request for Production of Documents
which is being served on JPM and CHF which requests the production of
fifty-four (54) separate categories of documents relating to the
Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans. This same discovery has previously been
compelled, by Court Order, to be produced by foreclosing parties in
numerous other cases throughout the United States where Mr. Barnes and
his local counsel have propounded this discovery in connection with
individual foreclosure challenges.

The Complaint is not a class action and is not a “mass joinder” case.
It is a multi-Plaintiff action, which is not subject to the rigors of
class actions such as certification of the class, and was never, at
any time, advertised or intended to be a “mass joinder” case such as
those the subject of the recent “K2″ debacle. The case is also not
related or affiliated, in any way, to any other litigation instituted
against the Chase entities by any other group or which may be posted
on any other websites, which other websites are apparently attempting
to link other Chase-related lawsuits with the Florida action the
subject of this article.

The action is the second RICO-based Complaint filed by Mr. Barnes’
Firm in recent weeks. The Firm previously filed an action in Arizona
against M&I Marshall & Isley Bank which is grounded in part on
violations of the Arizona RICO statute. That action is pending in
Tuscon.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |