This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f V e t e r a n s A
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No.____13-11____________ ******************************** “VA Veteran” Plaintiff v. Complaint alleging Breach of Contract, Fraud, Filing a False Claim (18 U.S.C. Secs. 152 and 3571), Fraud on the Court, Title VI (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000 d et. seq.,), “RESPA” Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act Of 1974 Amendments, Dodd Frank Act Section 1463, Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), “RICO” The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 October 15, 1970), “Taking” or Eminent Domain (US Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments), Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), Federal Quiet Title Act,
United States of America (Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”), JP Morgan Chase (“Chase”), the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), the Office of Consumer Financial Protection (“OCFP”), and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection, Ombudsman’s Office.) Defendant. *******************************
28 U.S.C. 1346(f), 2409a
in connection with Department of Veterans Administration Home Loans (“VA-insured loans”), as part of the Veterans Loan Guaranty and Ginnie Mae MortgageBacked Security Trust Programs (“MBST”).
Complaint Seeking Preliminary Injunction, Equitable Relief and Monetary Damages Introduction This action seeks a preliminary injunction, equitable relief, a declaratory judgment and just compensation from the United States (“US”, “USA”, “Federal Government”) for certain actions of the Defendant's agents to include Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”), JP Morgan Chase (“Chase”), the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Government National Mortgage Association, the Office of Consumer Financial Protection (“OCFP”), and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection, Ombudsman’s Office. The actions of the Defendant's agents individually and in concert have sought to threaten and effect a "taking" of the Plaintiff's property which is disguised as a “foreclosure”, among other violations of law.
“defaulted” and then removed from Ginnie Mae securitized trusts. by claiming a Veteran-homeowner is in default.. In fact. Paramount among Chase's illegal servicing practices targeting Veterans is the act of claiming title to (“Holder” status) of Veterans' homes. There is also reason to believe that this scheme involves some bankruptcy courts such as the Eastern District of Virginia. although the Federal Government has approved a National Mortgage Settlement (“the Settlement”) with “the big five” banks (which includes JP Morgan Chase... when he is actually current on the mortgage) Chase can remove the loan from the MBST. the Settlement does nothing to help remedy Chase's victimization of Veteran-homeowners who obtained federally-insured loans from the United States government. investors in the program make a profit. The basic scheme is this: Chase uses its position as an Issuer. Chase uses this scheme to: • receive insurance proceeds on VA-insured mortgages that are erroneously listed as. That court may have erroneously filed information concerning the Plaintiff’s 2005 bankruptcy in a report to the Federal Government (e.g. Chase continues to engage in illegal servicing practices that uniquely target Veterans.g. e.The National Mortgage Settlement Is No Remedy for the “Big Banks” Illegal Servicing of Federally-Insured Loans Plaintiff seeks to inform the general public that currently. First. then sell the mortgage as a security and obtain a profit on it.. bogus home loan modifications and foreclosures). that culminate in the theft of Veterans' homes. a plan that seeks to compensate homeowners who the banks took advantage of using illegally servicing practices (e. A second aspect of this scheme enables Chase to: 2 . when Federal Government agents such as Chase. as named here). in connection with the “defaulted” VA-insured loan. attorneys and federal agency employees. Chase also receives an insurance payment from the Federal Government. About 98% of Veteran's home loans are placed in mortgage-backed securities as part of the Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securitized Trust Program (“MBST”. when the Veteran-homeowner pays the mortgage accordingly).g. to legitimize its removal from the MBST. However. Sub-servicer or Document Custodian in connection with the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) and its position as Servicer in the Veterans Loan Guaranty programs to engage in conflicts of interest. However. have gone ignored in the courts and the Federal Government. Servicer. remove a loan illegally (e. JP Morgan Chase is Racketeering in Federally-Insured Loans Chase's scheme is a far-reaching racketeering enterprise whose participants include agents of the Federal Government such as judges. This complaint highlights practices Chase has engaged in regarding VAinsured loans that until now.g. VA and Ginnie Mae) to report that her home loan was in default.
allow Chase as the claimed “successor” to WAMUs mortgage account to claim the status as. • Foreclose on Veterans' properties that Chase doesn't own. Also. Additionally. Evidence that many bankruptcy judges and trustees are part of Chase's scheme is that they will NEVER require Chase to file legitimate documents to prove its agency on behalf of a “Holder”. However. Chase is the “Servicer” of the loan. The Veteran's ignorance and the Federal Governments apathy. by asserting to be the “Holder” of the Veteran’s Note. of the non-existent Note. the Veteran-homeowner has no knowledge of this. Veteran-homeowners believe it when Chase claims it can. Many Veterans will accept the situation and believe what Chase's representatives and VA Loan Technicians say over the phone. with the VA's help. few if any judges will require Chase to produce documents to prove its “Holder” status. However. Chase is required to “sell back” the loan to the VA. any foreclosure of the Veteran's property that subsequently occurs is unlawful and Chase orchestrated it. or to prove its own claimed status as the Note holder. is that they will resist all attempts the Debtor makes. to obtain documents from Chase. that challenge its 3 . so that later a “Holder” of the Note can claim title to the Veteran's property (the thieves are persons affiliated with or working for Chase. if Chase doesn't have the Veteran's loan documents. through intent or mistake. or Chase doesn't possess it. this scheme allows Chase to: • File false claims in a Veteran’s bankruptcy. Many WAMU mortgage files “disappeared” or were destroyed during WAMU's default in 2008. Again.• Receive mortgage payments on VA-insured properties it does not own. However. that “there is no help available” for him (though he will never get official VA notifications by mail of this fact). “Servicer” of the loan with the Veterans Administration. Additional proof of the complicity of federal bankruptcy judges and trustees in this plan. the Veterans Administration serves as a conduit for this scheme which allows Chase to avoid detection and legitimize any subsequent actions it may take in the minds of Veterans—because after all. they can't assist him to successfully apply for these programs for which he might qualify. enables Chase to assert the “legal” authority to collect the Veteran's mortgage payments although the Veteran's Note and loan file. So now. who are privy to the scheme). particularly when Chase refuses to provide information to financiallychallenged Veterans on the VA-HAMP loan modification and the VA Refunding Program (where if the Veteran's financial situation warrants. who would then become the “Servicer” of the loan). Specific aspect of Chase's deception require complicity on the part of some VA Loan Technicians. Thirdly. some documents may have been stolen. Both Chase and the VA must inform a Veteran who has missed payments that he is “delinquent” on his loan. This seamless “transition” of VA-loan information from WAMU to Chase. may no longer exist.
who agree to one objective: • Ensure that Chase NEVER produces the PAPERWORK. She requested these government officials to help her obtain her Note and loan documents to prove her allegations. Finally. ongoing fraud. the Inspector General (“IG”) of the Veterans Administration. It remains the Defendant's responsibility to enforce the law and protect the millions of Veterans whose homes are invested in the VA loan program and continue to be harmed by Chase. 4 . and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection of this scheme. Chase will use the US mail to continue its fraud and to: • Obtain the right to Veterans' properties by sending them bogus “refund” checks. Finally. if the Veteran signs and cashes the check. he is unwittingly. when other tactics have failed. Based on evidence and the laws of the United States. to sign. no federal agency has required Chase to produce specific documents as per RESPA to simply prove it's claim: that it is the owner of the Plaintiff's Note. a crime which indicates that all who participate in it. A simple investigation into the facts will prove that Chase has duplicated these schemes across the country to the detriment of unsuspecting Veterans and their families. who faced financial hardships and whose only asset is a VA-insured home. are actually stealing from Veterans who have served the country — but. RESPA's unequivocal requirements dictate that Chase must provide the documents to the homeowner. These are just a few of the illegal activities that Chase has committed or attempted in the present case. When there is no Note for the property. In addition. attorneys and federal employees in positions of public trust. Chase can only accomplish this massive. rather than to turn a blind-eye to Chase’s illegal activity and by doing so. The Plaintiff has done all within her power to alert the Defendant of this massive crime. “selling” the property to Chase. when the method of execution is identical: Chase must employ a network of judges. The Plaintiff has attempted for the last two years to notify various federal agencies about this issue including the federal bankruptcy court. it appears that Federal Government agencies such as the Veterans Administration and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection are actively shielding Chase’s actions from detection and punishment by refusing to investigate the matter. via three separate Qualified Written Requests (“QWRs”) as per the Real Estate Procedures Act . the Plaintiff makes the following complaint. officially authorize it. for over 18-months. or to require Chase to produce the Plaintiff's mortgage loan files. Chase will often send a “refund” check to a Veteran.claim to the Note. This check is really a contract for the sale of the Veteran's property. to challenge its claim on Veterans' property. who have now become its victims. However Chase has refused to do so.
II. The Defendant is the United States of America (“US”. and 1717(a)(2)(A). b. Plaintiff sues in her own right and as a party to a contract with the United States of America. Likewise. the Constitution and all laws enacted must conform to its requirements. must conform their actions to these laws. 1716 et.S. all US government employees especially when acting in their official capacities. When federal government officials use their positions to act contrary to law.I. 1491. Jurisdiction 1. The officials who have done so are ones named in this complaint. The Government National Mortgage Association is a wholly-owned government corporation within HUD. Ombudsman’s Office. Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). The United States Government has as the law of the land. “USA” “United States” or “Federal Government”). specifically as the acts specified in the complaint were accomplished by way of its employees in federal agencies and its agents who are federal contractors. it is said that they have abused their positions and acted under.C sec. with an honorable discharge. specifically the state of Virginia. Parties 2. Upon knowledge and belief. 4. US Government Employees Acted Contrary to Law ("Color of Law") 6. As listed in this complaint. 3.C. those officials are ones employed in: the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). 12 U.S. IIII. and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection. Plaintiff represents that she is a freeborn sovereign living in the United States of America. The Court has jurisdiction because the United States is the Defendant. they refused to do so. US Government Employees are Agents of the US Government 5. The United States Government's Agency-Principal Relationships a. III. The United States Government maintains an agency-principal relationship with its employees such that when the employees act in their official capacity they are in effect. principally whether Chase had the actual authority to assert itself as the “Holder” of her Note and to commit other acts as specified in this complaint. 7. "color of law. acting on behalf of the US Government. seq. the Office of Consumer Financial Protection (“OCFP”). Ginnie Mae 5 . The US Government Granted Its Contractor Power under the Ginnie Mae and VA Loan Guaranty Programs 8. 28 U. regarding a Veterans Administration-insured (“VA-insured") loan which she obtained as a result of serving in the United States Army. when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant's agents to investigate issues concerning her VA-insured loan.
They also acted as multifamily mortgage lenders who entered into contracts with the Veteran’s Administration.” 11. to provide favorable home loan terms to then. WAMU and Chase also entered into contracts with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 10. When WAMU and Chase perform work in compliance with their contract.)--they are acting with "apparent authority". when they do not hold the Note. Guaranty of Insurance of Loans to Veterans. via its program. The United States Government maintains an agency-principal relationship with some its contractors such that those contractors who act in their official capacity are in effect. These contracts enabled WAMU and Chase to perform a number of services with respect to federally-insured loans.administers the mortgage-backed securities program. 9. These home loans are typically referred to as “federally—insured loans.. When they do so. the Government National Mortgage Association. refusing to abide by RESPA and produce documentation concerning the Veteran's property. 1721(g). US Government Contractors are Agents of the US Government 12. Servicer.S. ii) WAMU and Chase Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government 15. that they have the power to engage in activities that were in fact illegal (e. it is said they have the "actual authority". acting on behalf of the US Government. those contractors are: a) Washington Mutual Bank and b) JP Morgan Chase Bank who at all times mentioned in this complaint acted as agents of the Federal Government. i) WAMU and Chase Acted with "Apparent Authority" 13. WAMU and CHASE were at all relevant times either an approved Issuer. other laws of the United States and the 6 . principal among these being to place the loans into Ginnie Mae Trusts (MBSTs). In addition. Veterans are unaware that Chase's actions are illegal. However. Sub-servicer or Document Custodian of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by GNMA ("GNMA securities"). When the Defendant's agents used the power granted to them by the Defendant to engage in acts for a purpose contrary to their contractual requirements concerning the federal programs mentioned in this complaint. etc.C.g. making claims in court that they are the "owner" of a debtor's property in a bankruptcy proceeding. when government contractors like WAMU and Chase act contrary to the requirements of federal law and their contracts--yet represent to affected persons such as Veterans with VA-insured loans. For purposes of this complaint. 14. b. The Veterans Administration Loan Guaranty Program is established and govrned by Title 38 CFR 4300. or foreclosing on a Veteran's property. with respect to the Federal programs mentioned in this complaint. at which time the loans became “securitized” for the sake of investors. 12 U. which is authorized under section 306(g) of the National Housing Act. given them by the Federal Government (their “principal”) to do so. WAMU and Chase at all times mentioned were and are federally-chartered banks.
Finally. The United States Government has consented to the suit in this matter because it has instituted the Federal Government programs described in this complaint. Further.” by the Department of Veterans Affairs.2d 607. United States v. When the United States of America allowed or failed to prevent its agents from obtaining and using the Veteran's loan documents for its own use and benefit. The Defendants established the federally-insured loans (“VA-loans”) mentioned in this complaint as part of the VA Guaranty Loan Program.. It Operates a “Shadow 7 . Also the VA-loans form the “corpus” of trusts established by the Defendant and by establishing them the Defendants created a fiduciary duty of the US to Veterans. York Associates. These sources of substantive law can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for damages sustained as a result of a breach of the contractual and fiduciary duties they impose. United States Government's Consent to Suit 17. As a result of the acts of its agents whether through color of law violations or the breach of fiduciary duty. or it failed to maintain the US Government's fiduciary duty of care to protect the Veteran's VAinsured loan documents. “. 08/23/2006). 1349. 21. iii)The United States is Responsible for the Acts of Its Agents 16.to benefit men and women for their service to the country and they are not designed to obtain any economic or social objectives. because the home loans or “mortgages” that are the subject of this complaint were “federally-insured” or.3d 1218 (1995). 535. US v. then they have breached their fiduciary duty to the United States. • When the United States Ignores Its Own Laws. that became part of the MBSTs. III. “Program History” stating that the program was enacted. it seeks to protect the rights of those affected by these programs. especially where its agents breached their fiduciary duty to gain access to and information on federally-insured loans via the VA Loan Guaranty Program and the Ginne Mae MBST Program to cause harm financial and otherwise. the US Government committed a fundamental breach of its contract with the Plaintiff. backed by the “full faith and credit” of the US government. 63 L. Defendant has seen fit to offer protections to Veterans and investors in this matter. Ed. Updated. Ct. public policy dictates that the US government must adhere to its own laws and hold itself accountable for its agents' actions.S. 445 U. 112 F. whose federally-insured loans form the contents of the trusts. by statute. In addition. Mitchell. 22. 100 S. to benefit Veterans (See Legislative History of the VA Loan Guaranty Program.Constitution. the Defendant as the “principal” is responsible for those acts. 19. page 2. • The United States of America Breached its Duty to Veterans 20. 18.. or to fail to prevent harm to parties who received federally-insured loans.
Facts of the Case • Plaintiff Received a VA-insured Loan 25. the Issuer would instead have to pay to investors the periodic payments the investors normally received from the homeowners mortgage payments. However. See Exhibit #1. 27. Plaintiff. Also. a black female Veteran obtained a VA-insured home loan from Washington Mutual Bank. The Plaintiff filed a five-year Chapter 13 bankruptcy (the "Plan") in 2005.ginniemae. If the US government refuses to adhere to its own laws and hold itself accountable for the actions of its agents.asp • Defendant's Agents Illegally Removed the Plaintiff's VA-insured Loan from the Ginnie Mae MBST 28. 8 . attachments) • Ginnie Mae Securitized the Plaintiff's VA-insured Loan 26. the bank or mortgage company that provided the loan (“Issuer”) could remove the it from the trust . In short. in 2001 and re-financed the loan in 2003. or others with access to information on and access to the VA-loans contained in Ginnie Mae MBS Trusts — removed.Government” 23. Upon knowledge and belief. (See Exhibit 6.gov/about/about. on the loan. the workings of this Shadow Government are such that: select government agents use their positions of trust to interfere with the just administration of the law—whether through the courts or federal government agencies. IIII. Upon knowledge and belief in May 2005. Ginnie Mae Web Info at http://www. particularly with respect to its establishment and maintenance of the VA Loan Guaranty Program and Ginnie Mae MBSTs. 24. it legitimizes the appearance of a “Shadow government” or. the Plaintiff's loan became part of an asset or “trust” for which investors received periodic payments when the Plaintiff paid her mortgage. if the Plaintiff were to default on the mortgage. When removed for default. The Plaintiff did not include her mortgage payments as part of the Plan and remained current on the loan. or facilitated the removal of the Plaintiff's home loan file and Note from the trust. JP Morgan Chase and its employees. it would reimburse the Issuer with an insurance payment. a government that exists separate and apart from the government as established by law. These agents have worked to shield criminal acts from detection and punishment and target innocent Veterans for financial ruin. the Plaintiff's VA-insured loan was securitized in a Ginnie Mae MBST. in total disregard of the written rule of law and its procedures as has occurred to the Plaintiff and is detailed in this complaint. She successfully completed the bankruptcy in 2010. As shown by numerous facts in this complaint. because the loan was insured by the VA and “backed by the full faith and credit” of the Federal Government. the Defendant's agents in positions of trust whether WAMU.
• Defendant's Agents Profited with the Illegal Removal of Plaintiff's VAinsured Loan from the MBST 33. when in fact the loan was current. • Defendant's Agents Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government 32. When JP Morgan Chase obtained or claimed to have obtained the Plaintiff’s loan from WAMU. In addition. 36. guarantee of payment. 38 U. which it denied without explanation.4600 (16) (d) (1). and their claim that they have ownership and possession of the Note without providing proof of such assertions. 2012 29. nor was she delinquent on the loan.Sale of loans. They declined to provide her any information. 112 F. 31. puts the Plaintiff's rights and interest in the property in question and jeopardy. the Plaintiff contacted several VA loan representatives for information on loss mitigation alternatives.S. the Defendant's agents had to list the loan as being in “default”. 35. In particular. or told her that because of her bankruptcy she was unable to get any assistance from the VA. those agents received a profit. when the loan was illegally removed from the MBST it was a breach of their fiduciary duty under the terms of its sub-servicing contract as part of the Ginnie Mae MBST and Veterans Loan Guaranty programs. among other unaccounted for profits. or over 90 days delinquent. As a result of the Defendant's agents listing Plaintiff's loan being in a “default” status and removing it from the MBST. she requested a home loan modification from Chase. US v. Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations 36. or allowed the removal of the Plaintiff's home loan from the MBS Trust. 30. In addition. the Defendant's agents do not have ownership or possession of the Plaintiff's VA loan documents or her Note.C. § 3733 : US Code Section 3733: Property management. the Plaintiff filed a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy. or “insurance payments” on the loan from the Federal Government. In order to remove the Plaintiff's loan file from the MBS Trust. at no time during the Plaintiff’s initial bankruptcy in 2005 to 2010.See Exhibit #2. Dated December 1. At that time due to adverse financial circumstances. In 2010. they failed to provide her information on the VA HAMP or VA Refunding 9 . York Associates. it was a violation of Ginnie Mae's policy which ONLY allows removal of a loan from the trust after the homeowner is 90 days delinquent on the loan payments and of VA policy which only allows removal and repurchase of the loan upon these conditions and with approval of the Secretary. HUD Appeal Decision. did the VA inform the Plaintiff that she was 90 days delinquent on her home loan. Upon knowledge and belief. When the Defendant's agents removed.3d 1218 (1995) • Defendant's Agents at the Veterans Administration Ignored their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government and Veterans 34.
her DD2-14 verifying her military service) to enable it to act as the Servicer of her loan.000—an amount the Plaintiff disputed because Chase had failed to refund her at least $4. ”pay to the Order of Washington Mutual. Next. 38. See Exhibit #4. Eastern District of Virginia 37. When Chase represented that it was the Servicer of her loan although upon knowledge and belief. Chase submitted in an Objection to the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Chase represented to her that it could modify her home loan. 2011 42. • Defendant's Agents Committed Fraud on the Court (Bankruptcy Court. nor refer the Plaintiff's home loan for VA-Refunding. Sandbridge and Rice to VA VET to Request her DD-214. from 2008 to 2010.g. Eastern District of Virginia) 43. The information on the allonge reads. Attorney for Womble Carlyle. a one-page allonge attached to the Note which it had never before presented to the court.. The Plaintiff became suspicious because if Chase succeeded WAMU in servicing her home loan. it should be in possession of the document. #WITHHELD) Chase's attorneys contacted the Plaintiff under the pretense of settlement and to make a home loan modification.. Chase could not modify the Plaintiff's home loan for either a conventional or a VA-HAMP modification. 2011 (Chase reports to have merged with Chase Home Finance. almost a year after Chase had submitted it's claim to the bankruptcy Court in the Plaintiff's first adversary proceeding. it was not in possession of her Note or loan documents. a document to verify that she had served in the US military. Subsequently. Chase Home Finance. See Exhibit #3. LLC May 1. Dated February 18. No. • Defendant's Agents Committed Fraud in its Representations to Her 39. (Adv. • Defendant's Agents Filed a False Claim in the US Bankruptcy Court.000 in escrow payments. The Plaintiff paid home loan payments to Chase believing that it was the Servicer of her home loan. if they could obtain her DD-214. 2011). 40.programs. to allow it to do so. In addition. In the first adversary proceeding. Chase filed a claim in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy for around $8. the Plaintiff filed two successive Adversary Proceedings against Chase in the bankruptcy court. though upon knowledge and belief. LLC Bankruptcy Claim in Case #10-20094. with a signature that was illegible. because it did not have the proper home loan documentation. it did not have her Note nor the required documents in her home loan file (e. 41. Letter from Todd Ross. Pro. dated November 2. Upon knowledge and belief. FA __________ Without Recourse”. 10 .
8. • Defendant's Agents violated “RESPA” Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act Of 1974 Amendments. an instrument has a blank endorsement. 47. to validate its original claim or its subsequent claim that it was the “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note.. dated August 10. 48. In fact. it did so in violation of Ginnie Mae and VA regulations. Code Secs. a. if it obtained the allonge from WAMU during a time when the Plaintiff's loan should have been in the Ginnie Mae MBST and without providing value for the loan. Upon knowledge and belief Chase produced the allonge or blank endorsement more than a year after it filed its bankruptcy claim. See Exhibit #7.g. to provide the court a reason to validate it's claim in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy. dated June 24. Va. 2012 (excerpt. Pro. Plaintiff’s Second QWR to Chase. 2012 (page 10) 45. Plaintiff then filed a second adversary proceeding (Adv.3A-205(b). #12-01062) involving JP Morgan Chase and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bankruptcy court dismissed the first Adversary Proceeding. did not own the Plaintiff's loan. upon discovering that Chase as Servicer.3A-201(b). the Plaintiff asserted that Chase did not have standing to file a claim. JP Morgan Chase's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. dated November 19. The Plaintiff has filed a total of three Qualified Written Requests. JP Morgan Chase's Objection to Motion for Reconsideration. one page allonge) 44. Plaintiff’s Third QWR to Chase. 2011 See Exhibit #8. 50. Dodd Frank Act Section 1463 51.. 2012 See Exhibit #9. dated April 24.See Exhibit #5. however. as per RESPA. 2012 11 . The Plaintiff requested via two motions. Chase had not included any documentation as required by the bankruptcy code. Chase did not explain how it obtained the allonge except to state that “If. No. The court refused to notice the motions or to allow the Plaintiff to engage in discovery and dismissed the second adversary proceeding. In the second Adversary proceeding. as in the present case. then it is considered to be “payable to bearer” and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone. from July 2011 through to November 19. 2012. 49. Plaintiff’s First QWR to Chase. See Exhibit #6. that the court allow her to add Indispensable parties (e. dated April 20. 46. Ginnie Mae) and to take Judicial Notice of evidence that her note had been securitized by Ginnie Mae.
See Exhibit #10. 57. 2012 54. and confidential resource to help you resolve process issues arising from CFPB activities. Chase refused to answer a series of Plaintiff's Qualified Written Requests for over 18-months. • Defendant’s Agent Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government (The Office of Consumer Financial Protection and the Veterans Administration. To date Chase refuses to provide the Plaintiff with the documents she requested in her QWR. “. It also allows us to act as an early warning system and serve as a catalyst for change. it has the responsibility to provide the documents to Plaintiff to prove it. Chase’s First Response to Plaintiff’s QWR. This reporting line ensures the Ombudsman’s independence within the CFPB. Upon knowledge and belief. to explain the reasons for its failure to provide the documents requested. Upon knowledge and belief. of some VA-insured home loan documents.800.9380. 55. RESPA requires Chase to respond in 30 days to a homeowners QWR. 53. preferring to claim it was being “investigated”. Upon knowledge and belief. if Chase is the Servicer of the Plaintiff's mortgage or the Owner of the Note. The Plaintiff contacted the Department of Housing and Urban Development to file a RESPA complaint against Chase. 848. upon Plaintiff's written request to do so—which it has failed to do. Eastern District of Virginia.” 59. The Plaintiff later contacted the CFPB’s “Ombudsman’s Office”. Chase's Second Response to Plaintiff’s QWR. dated September 19. which advertises that is it a “independent. NOT DATED but referencing the complaint regarding Chase on 09/07/12 (Complaint #120907-000705) 58. (Plaintiff 12 . such as the documents it used in its admissions in the United States Bankruptcy Court.” It also advertises that the office. the CFPB Ombudsman’s office is affiliated with JP Morgan Chase and acts as an “early warning system” on behalf of JP Morgan Chase to avoid punishment for RESPA violations and to avoid the revelation that it does not have access to or possession. Inspector General “IG”)) 56. 2011 See Exhibit #11. Letter from the CFPB to Plaintiff..reports to the CFPB’s Deputy Director with access to the Director. and if the documents requested are not responsive to the homeowners QWR. a representative (“Heather”) from the CFPB Ombudsman’s office called the Plaintiff’s home from 1. See Exhibit #12. specifically documents to prove that it is the owner of her mortgage Note. HUD referred the complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). 60.52. impartial. THE CFPB did nothing about the matter. dated July 7.
or the VA-insured homeowners loan files perform acts to induce the Veteran’s belief that Chase does indeed own the homeowner’s Note. These entities working in tandem delivered or had delivered to the Plaintiff's home a document entitled. Call us at 800. and that the homeowner must obtain a home loan modification or sign other documents from Chase. the IGs duty is to investigate complaints concerning fraud. that neither Chase nor the Dept. See Exhibit #14. a fact that neither entity makes known to the members of the public who seek assistance from the CFPB Ombudsman’s office. the Plaintiff alerted the Dept. who but-for theses agents illegal acts and representations. but received on or about November 28. 2012 (included here without attachments. The number belongs to Chase Home Finance. Call us at 800. See Exhibit #13.848. to the detriment of VA-insured homeowners.”. would know that Chase does not have ownership of the Note or possession of the homeowner’s loan files and does not have the right or actual authority to offer home loan modifications on or to foreclose on the Veteran’s property. Upon knowledge and belief. 2012 (“Mortgage Options are Just a Call Away.848. waste and abuse regarding programs within or concerning the Veterans Administration. In addition. 13 . Plaintiff's Letter to the Inspector General of the Veteran's Administration. 63. dated November 28 . 61.9380—today. perform other acts to conceal the fact that Chase does not have ownership. “Mortgage Options are Just a Call Away. of Veterans Affairs retains an interest in the Plaintiff's VA-insured home loan. to induce them to enter into home loan modifications rather than “face foreclosure”. The CFPB and the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office are knowingly engaging in conflicts-ofinterest and breaching their fiduciary duty to Veteran homeowners when they • • • delay resolution of a homeowners concerns regarding Chase’s violation of RESPA refuse to require Chase to abide by RESPA. to induce the Plaintiff into a bogus. Chase’s Notice to Plaintiff for Home Loan Modification (undated). LLC who is working with the CFPB Ombudsman's Office.”) 62.learned this by using star-69 to identify the caller's number) a number Chase uses to represent in correspondence to “delinquent” Veteran homeowners. for relevant attachments see complaint) 64. or possession of the Note. “home loan modification” or other financial arrangement to benefit Chase or its affiliates and to conceal the fact.9380—today. of Veterans Affairs about the situation via an adversary complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia and via a letter to the Inspector General requesting an investigation of her situation and asking for answers to questions regarding the issue. that will avert foreclosure of the Veteran’s home. of which the VA loan guaranty program is a component.
as a breach of its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. you may access the VA web site at www. See Exhibit #16. VA has guaranteed a portion of your loan and wants to ensure that you receive every reasonable opportunity to bring your loan current and retain your home. an honorable discharged US Veteran.presented no evidence of any criminal activity. if it indeed is the servicer or owner of the Plaintiff's VA-loan. it failed to include all its correspondence to her information to direct her to contact the VA concerning her home loan. nor can it refer the Plaintiff's loan for VA HAMP or VA Refunding for the VA to intercede or assist with servicing the loan for VA loss mitigation programs. In addition. waste. Nor has the IG required Chase to comply with RESPA. As such. Veterans Administration Response to Plaintiff’s Questions and Request for an Investigation re: JP Morgan Chase. to be): The delinquency of your mortgage loan is a serious matter that could result in the loss of your home. please call us to discuss your workout options.. VA can also answer any questions you have regarding your entitlement. You may be able to make special payment arrangements that will reinstate your loan. The IG utterly failed to investigate Chase's actions claiming that Plaintiff. subject it to sanction. it cannot make a traditional home loan modification for the Plaintiff (which it has already denied). Upon knowledge and belief. has reason to know. or suspect that Chase's actions are fraudulent. Instead. 2012 • The Defendant’s Agents Continue to Violate Title VI 66. particularly those in suspect classes such as the Plaintiff (black. if Chase does not have the Plaintiff's loan files or Note. US Department of Veteran Affairs information sheet. the IG's which actions are imputed to the US Government. “.Servicing procedures for holders (iv)(A) (4) (as Chase has represented itself to her. female).4350 .gov.” Although. You may also learn where to speak to a VA Loan Administration representative by calling 1-800-827-1000. If you have access to the Internet and would like to obtain more information. it was to provide information and financial assistance to the Plaintiff. Chase is a non-government entity that receives federal funds on behalf of a number of government programs to include the VA Loan Guaranty Program and the Ginnie Mae MBST program among others. the IG directed the Plaintiff to the VA to discuss her “delinquency” with VA Loan Technicians – although upon knowledge and belief. disbarment or are otherwise illegal. Such assistance could be in the form of home loan modifications and information about those programs for which she was eligible to participate considering her financial hardships. regarding the Plaintiff's concerns. dated December 12 . See Exhibit #15. If you are not already working with us to resolve the delinquency.va. if she so decided. In this case. to provide financial and other assistance to citizens.65. the IG knows. If you are the veteran whose entitlement was used to obtain this loan. abuse or gross mismanagement that involves the Department of Veterans Affairs. Home 14 . as required by 38 CFR 36. to include the VA HAMP and VA Refund programs.. you can also lose your entitlement to a future VA home loan guaranty. You may also qualify for a repayment plan or loan modification.
Letter from Chase to Plaintiff Requesting her signature on a blank sheet of paper Re: Refund. iii) issue a check in the amount of $565. 2012 • Defendant’s Agents are Participating in RICO with Respect to the Plaintiff’s VA-insured Home Loan 71. via the US mail to the Plaintiff that it had the authority to and would: i) foreclose on the Plaintiff’s property ii) provide “loss mitigation” to Plaintiff. or mortgage loan file. 2012 (Amount for $26. Upon knowledge and belief one of the reasons the Defendants agents failed to perform their duties with respect to the Plaintiff's VA home loan. Acceleration Warning) See Exhibit #17. 2011 (Amount for $9. JP Morgan Chase communicated to Plaintiff. dated November 30.48) See Exhibit #18. 68.00.983.38) See Exhibit #19. In addition. • The Defendant’s Agents Committed Mail Fraud regarding the Plaintiff 70. and iv) require her signature on blank sheet of paper.Loan Guaranty Assistance with Delinquent Home Loans . with regard to the previous uncashed check it mailed to the Plaintiff v) charge her over $16. or the identity of the entity that claims to own her Note. dated August 7. Acceleration Letter to Foreclose from Chase to Plaintiff. Acceleration Letter to Foreclose from Chase to Plaintiff. The Defendant's agents acts resulted in the commission of financial transactions which generated an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act or acts. specifically the identity of the owner of her mortgage Note. although it did not have possession of the Plaintiff's Note. dated January 31. 15 . is because of her race and sex.00 . Chase's Letter and Check to Plaintiff Re: Refund for $565. dated February 10. 69.000 in additional fees in its 2012 foreclosure proceedings (the difference in fees charged in the February 10. to Plaintiff as a claimed "refund". Chase also failed and continues to withhold from the Plaintiff all the information she requested or that is required by RESPA concerning the Plaintiff's VA-insured home loan. dated September 2012 67. 2011.676. 2012 See Exhibit #20. the VA failed to require or to monitor Chase to ensure that it provide the Plaintiff with the information she needed to learn the status of her VA home loan.
COUNT 1 – Breach of Contract (“Duty of Care”) 75. which acts are imputed to the United States Government as the agents' principal. transfer or prevent the illegal removal of the Plaintiff’s VAinsured loan from the Ginnie Mae MBST. and to Affect a “taking” of the Plaintiff’s property on behalf of the Defendant. Plaintiff also asserts that her interest in the property remains in jeopardy. When Chase used its fiduciary relationship and its apparent authority as an agent for the Defendant to represent that it could rightfully: a) collect mortgage payments for three years from the Plaintiff. because she cannot ascertain whether Chase or the Defendant have a legitimate claim to it due to the combined actions of the Defendant's agents. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1. Chase. Upon knowledge and belief. 78. such as by refusing to ensure it to comply with RESPA the Defendant’s agents breached their fiduciary duty to the US Government.72. and collect proceeds on the loan. the Defendant knows or has reason to know that Chase had committed the acts that the Plaintiff had detailed in this complaint. etc. COUNT 2 . Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1. under the VA loan Guaranty Program 16 .76.). 74. Upon knowledge and belief. b) claim status as the “Servicer” of the Plaintiff’s VA-insured loan. b) refuse to investigate. described in this complaint.74. • Defendants Sought to Effect a Non-Regulatory Taking of the Plaintiff’s Property 73. When Defendant’s agents (WAMU. 76. and otherwise committed acts to d) conceal the fact that Chase did not have possession of the Plaintiff’s Note or VAinsured loan files. used their fiduciary relationship and apparent authority to: a) illegally remove.Fraud 77. the Defendant's acts are considered by law to be money laundering and encompass a number of the activities. c) refused to provide Plaintiff with VA loss mitigation help and information. it order to • • Claim that Chase has ownership of the Plaintiff’s property.
it presented a fraudulent claim to the court. Eastern District of Virginia. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. Zajic. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . 88 Ill.Filing a False Claim (18 U. A judge is not the court. 17 . d) assert that it had the ability to offer the Plaintiff a home loan modification. 410 N.84. when it did not.S. 763 F. 82. Eastern District of Virginia. 80. or any documents to prove its authority to file the claim. COUNT 3 .2d 1115. 152 and 3571) 79. A judge is an officer of the court. paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. A state judge is a state judicial officer. those agents committed fraud on the court.3d 477. as well as are all attorneys. In Bulloch v. and Plaintiff believed and relied on these representations to her detriment.c) claim status as the “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note. When any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court. or to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to examine or refute the Chase's alleged “proof”.C. Eastern District of Virginia that Chase could rightfully: a) file a claim as the “Holder” of the Plaintiff’s Note and owner of her mortgage debt. When Defendant's agents filed a claim in the Bankruptcy Court. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . so that Plaintiff must rely on Chase's representations then. 84. People v. Many of the Defendant's agents are officers of the court. COUNT 5 – Real Estate Settlement Procedures Procedure Act (RESPA--Dodd Frank Act Section 1463. United States. in the Bankruptcy Court. 1985). c) assert that it had possession of the Plaintiff’s Note and home loan files. the Defendant’s agents committed fraud. their fiduciary relationship and apparent authority to represent to and in the Bankruptcy Court. when it did not. COUNT 4 – Fraud on the Court 81. When the Defendant's attorneys used their positions in the court. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 .App. Secs. 1121 (10th Cir.E.78.80.2d 626 (1980) 83. without presenting actual proof of its claim in the form of an actual Note. paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Procedure Act Of 1974 Amendments) 85. he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".
via the US mail representations to the Plaintiff that it had the authority to foreclose on her property. or the omission or concealment of material facts. was reasonably calculated to deceive the Plaintiff. provide loss mitigation via home loan modifications. � 1341) 89. an ordinary person who would rely on the Defendant's representations. and to c) induce her to believe in specific financial distress options that were inapplicable to her and which would incumber or jeopardize her ownership of the property and enable Chase or affiliated entities to gain an ownership interest in the property it violated the Plaintiff's rights under Title VI. 922 October 15. S.C. COUNT 7 .86.Title VI (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 91-452. (1) intentionally participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud and (2) used the United States mails to carry out that scheme or artifice. COUNT 8 – RICO (The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . 1970) 18 . female) and failed to abide by its responsibility to provide the Plaintiff with information to know and understand: a) the true status of her VA home loan and b) to provide her information regarding financial distress options related to her any home loan modifications available to her as a Veteran. particularly those of a suspect class (black. Defendant's scheme or artifice was that its material misrepresentations.. When JP Morgan Chase communicated to Plaintiff.Mail Fraud (18 U. particularly when the Plaintiff’s loan was illegally removed and transferred from the Ginnie Mae MBST. So. 42 U. COUNT 6 . When Chase. a non-government entity who receives money from the federal government to provide assistance to Veteran-homeowners. When Chase refused for over 18 months to date to provide the Plaintiff with her mortgage loan file documents in response to three Qualified Written Requests. 84 Stat. and if the Chase obtained it did so in violation of Ginnie Mae regulations it.88. 88. the Defendants committed mail fraud with respect to the Plaintiff.86. C.) 87. §2000 d et. 90.S. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . issue checks for refunds of money in connection with her VA-insured loan. if they were in possession of the documents. seq. or take other actions regarding her property as the Note holder. they violated RESPA.L.
All acts described here in committed by JP Morgan Chase in furtherance of its illegal acts.S. 94.S. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . 100. or because of Plaintiff's having so exercised the same. on behalf of the United States government.91.94. the 19 . § 241) 95. or intimidate the Plaintiff in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to Plaintiff by the Constitution or laws of the United States. since the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Federal government regarding her Veteran Administration home loan. 92. that it had the ability and would foreclose on the Plaintiff’s property. they engaged in a conspiracy against the Plaintiff’s rights. 99. threaten. When JP Morgan Chase used its apparent authority as an agent for the Defendant and represented to the Plaintiff personally. 98. When the Defendant's agents mentioned in Counts 2 through 10 committed the acts in Counts 2 – 10 they acted individually and in concert. COUNT 11– Federal Quiet Title Act ( 28 U. the Defendant threatened to commit a “taking" of the Plaintiff’s property for public benefit. COUNT 10 .90. 1346(f). designed to culminate in the “taking” of the Plaintiff’s property in connection with its contracts with the US government. COUNT 9 . 96. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 .C. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . to injure.Non-Regulatory Taking (Fifth Amendment) 93.92. to “money launder” or to commit a financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act which includes all the acts described in this complaint. oppress. 2409a) 97. Upon knowledge and belief.96. the title to the real property at issue is in dispute and since the US government is a defendant this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. without just compensation. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . Plaintiff asserts that based on the facts of the case. the Federal government has or may have some interest in the real property at issue. Upon knowledge and belief. JP Morgan Chase is not the owner of the property and may be asserting the right to foreclose on the Plaintiff's property.C. in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Chase's actions to obtain and assert its status as “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note.Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.
the Plaintiff's agents (Veterans Administration. to include the production of the documents and Note pertaining to the Plaintiff’s VA-insured loan as well as a iii) Declaratory Judgment to Quiet Title to the ownership of the Plaintiff’s property. ignored Chase's violation of the law. and Damages for the acts of the Defendants agents to harass the Plaintiff and to effect a continued denial of her rights under law. In addition. ii) Equitable relief. Pro Se ______________________ --Address Withheld-Alexandria. in Plaintiff's interest. c) loss of income due to Chase's receipt of 2 years of mortgage payments. specifically the bankruptcy court of the Eastern District of Virginia.Plaintiff has suffered injury including but not limited to: a) denial of confirmation of her chapter 13 bankruptcy Plan. the d) threat of a taking of her property by the Federal Government (foreclosure). Therefore. b) denial of the right to avail herself of the access to and use of the courts of the United States. in the amount of four hundred thosand dollars ($400. as detailed in this complaint. in the event that neither the Defendant nor its agents can produce the Note or other documents vesting the ownership in the Defendanr. VA 22302 To be posted on the Internet 20 . the Plaintiff requests the following from the Court: i) A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant’s agent JP Morgan Chase. among other injuries.000) and Any other relief the Court deems proper Dated: ____________________ VA Veteran.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?