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.
That court may have erroneously filed information concerning the Plaintiff’s 2005 bankruptcy in a report to the Federal Government (e. 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. investors in the program make a profit. to legitimize its removal from the MBST. when the Veteran-homeowner pays the mortgage accordingly). Paramount among Chase's illegal servicing practices targeting Veterans is the act of claiming title to (“Holder” status) of Veterans' homes.. Chase continues to engage in illegal servicing practices that uniquely target Veterans. However. A second aspect of this scheme enables Chase to: 2 . Chase uses this scheme to: • receive insurance proceeds on VA-insured mortgages that are erroneously listed as. However. This complaint highlights practices Chase has engaged in regarding VAinsured loans that until now. by claiming a Veteran-homeowner is in default. as named here). Chase also receives an insurance payment from the Federal Government. in connection with the “defaulted” VA-insured loan.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. VA and Ginnie Mae) to report that her home loan was in default. the Settlement does nothing to help remedy Chase's victimization of Veteran-homeowners who obtained federally-insured loans from the United States government. have gone ignored in the courts and the Federal Government. The basic scheme is this: Chase uses its position as an Issuer. remove a loan illegally (e. e. 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”. “defaulted” and then removed from Ginnie Mae securitized trusts...g. although the Federal Government has approved a National Mortgage Settlement (“the Settlement”) with “the big five” banks (which includes JP Morgan Chase. 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.g. In fact. then sell the mortgage as a security and obtain a profit on it. when he is actually current on the mortgage) Chase can remove the loan from the MBST. bogus home loan modifications and foreclosures).g. First.g. a plan that seeks to compensate homeowners who the banks took advantage of using illegally servicing practices (e. attorneys and federal agency employees. when Federal Government agents such as Chase.. There is also reason to believe that this scheme involves some bankruptcy courts such as the Eastern District of Virginia. that culminate in the theft of Veterans' homes. Servicer.
Chase is the “Servicer” of the loan. Again. Additionally. this scheme allows Chase to: • File false claims in a Veteran’s bankruptcy. few if any judges will require Chase to produce documents to prove its “Holder” status. is that they will resist all attempts the Debtor makes. who would then become the “Servicer” of the loan). or to prove its own claimed status as the Note holder. So now. any foreclosure of the Veteran's property that subsequently occurs is unlawful and Chase orchestrated it. 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. may no longer exist. However. with the VA's help. Specific aspect of Chase's deception require complicity on the part of some VA Loan Technicians. enables Chase to assert the “legal” authority to collect the Veteran's mortgage payments although the Veteran's Note and loan file. the Veteran-homeowner has no knowledge of this. they can't assist him to successfully apply for these programs for which he might qualify. This seamless “transition” of VA-loan information from WAMU to Chase. Many WAMU mortgage files “disappeared” or were destroyed during WAMU's default in 2008. if Chase doesn't have the Veteran's loan documents. allow Chase as the claimed “successor” to WAMUs mortgage account to claim the status as. or Chase doesn't possess it. of the non-existent Note. that “there is no help available” for him (though he will never get official VA notifications by mail of this fact). Chase is required to “sell back” the loan to the VA. Many Veterans will accept the situation and believe what Chase's representatives and VA Loan Technicians say over the phone. 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. Thirdly. some documents may have been stolen. Veteran-homeowners believe it when Chase claims it can. Both Chase and the VA must inform a Veteran who has missed payments that he is “delinquent” on his loan. that challenge its 3 . to obtain documents from Chase. Additional proof of the complicity of federal bankruptcy judges and trustees in this plan. 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”. The Veteran's ignorance and the Federal Governments apathy. 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. Also. • Foreclose on Veterans' properties that Chase doesn't own. However. through intent or mistake. who are privy to the scheme). “Servicer” of the loan with the Veterans Administration.• Receive mortgage payments on VA-insured properties it does not own. by asserting to be the “Holder” of the Veteran’s Note. However.
claim to the Note. to challenge its claim on Veterans' property. attorneys and federal employees in positions of public trust. when other tactics have failed. “selling” the property to Chase. The Plaintiff has attempted for the last two years to notify various federal agencies about this issue including the federal bankruptcy court. Chase can only accomplish this massive. RESPA's unequivocal requirements dictate that Chase must provide the documents to the homeowner. are actually stealing from Veterans who have served the country — but. or to require Chase to produce the Plaintiff's mortgage loan files. ongoing fraud. rather than to turn a blind-eye to Chase’s illegal activity and by doing so. However Chase has refused to do so. These are just a few of the illegal activities that Chase has committed or attempted in the present case. Chase will often send a “refund” check to a Veteran. She requested these government officials to help her obtain her Note and loan documents to prove her allegations. Based on evidence and the laws of the United States. who faced financial hardships and whose only asset is a VA-insured home. When there is no Note for the property. officially authorize it. Chase will use the US mail to continue its fraud and to: • Obtain the right to Veterans' properties by sending them bogus “refund” checks. who have now become its victims. Finally. 4 . a crime which indicates that all who participate in it. The Plaintiff has done all within her power to alert the Defendant of this massive crime. the Inspector General (“IG”) of the Veterans Administration. he is unwittingly. to sign. if the Veteran signs and cashes the check. via three separate Qualified Written Requests (“QWRs”) as per the Real Estate Procedures Act . who agree to one objective: • Ensure that Chase NEVER produces the PAPERWORK. 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. and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection of this scheme. 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. In addition. the Plaintiff makes the following complaint. Finally. 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. 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. when the method of execution is identical: Chase must employ a network of judges. This check is really a contract for the sale of the Veteran's property. for over 18-months.
Ombudsman’s Office. 1716 et. As listed in this complaint. IIII. acting on behalf of the US Government. Likewise. Parties 2. Plaintiff represents that she is a freeborn sovereign living in the United States of America.C sec. II. 4. 7. seq. 3. When federal government officials use their positions to act contrary to law. Upon knowledge and belief. "color of law.S. when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant's agents to investigate issues concerning her VA-insured loan. it is said that they have abused their positions and acted under. The Defendant is the United States of America (“US”. 12 U. 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. The officials who have done so are ones named in this complaint. 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. The United States Government has as the law of the land. 28 U. specifically the state of Virginia. with an honorable discharge. the Constitution and all laws enacted must conform to its requirements. and 1717(a)(2)(A). regarding a Veterans Administration-insured (“VA-insured") loan which she obtained as a result of serving in the United States Army.I. “USA” “United States” or “Federal Government”). all US government employees especially when acting in their official capacities. US Government Employees are Agents of the US Government 5. Ginnie Mae 5 . The Government National Mortgage Association is a wholly-owned government corporation within HUD.C. b. the Office of Consumer Financial Protection (“OCFP”). Jurisdiction 1. III. must conform their actions to these laws. those officials are ones employed in: the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). The US Government Granted Its Contractor Power under the Ginnie Mae and VA Loan Guaranty Programs 8. they refused to do so. 1491. US Government Employees Acted Contrary to Law ("Color of Law") 6.S. The Court has jurisdiction because the United States is the Defendant. Plaintiff sues in her own right and as a party to a contract with the United States of America. and the Office of Consumer Financial Protection. 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. The United States Government's Agency-Principal Relationships a. Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”).
When WAMU and Chase perform work in compliance with their contract. acting on behalf of the US Government. principal among these being to place the loans into Ginnie Mae Trusts (MBSTs). 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. They also acted as multifamily mortgage lenders who entered into contracts with the Veteran’s Administration. with respect to the Federal programs mentioned in this complaint. In addition. it is said they have the "actual authority". Veterans are unaware that Chase's actions are illegal. b. 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.S. making claims in court that they are the "owner" of a debtor's property in a bankruptcy proceeding.g. US Government Contractors are Agents of the US Government 12. other laws of the United States and the 6 . that they have the power to engage in activities that were in fact illegal (e. ii) WAMU and Chase Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government 15. 10. at which time the loans became “securitized” for the sake of investors. 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. i) WAMU and Chase Acted with "Apparent Authority" 13. via its program. refusing to abide by RESPA and produce documentation concerning the Veteran's property. WAMU and Chase at all times mentioned were and are federally-chartered banks. to provide favorable home loan terms to then. Guaranty of Insurance of Loans to Veterans..C. 9. When they do so. The Veterans Administration Loan Guaranty Program is established and govrned by Title 38 CFR 4300. 14. etc. These contracts enabled WAMU and Chase to perform a number of services with respect to federally-insured loans. Servicer. WAMU and CHASE were at all relevant times either an approved Issuer. which is authorized under section 306(g) of the National Housing Act. 12 U. or foreclosing on a Veteran's property. 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. the Government National Mortgage Association. given them by the Federal Government (their “principal”) to do so.)--they are acting with "apparent authority". when they do not hold the Note.” 11. WAMU and Chase also entered into contracts with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sub-servicer or Document Custodian of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by GNMA ("GNMA securities"). 1721(g). For purposes of this complaint.administers the mortgage-backed securities program. However. These home loans are typically referred to as “federally—insured loans.
The United States Government has consented to the suit in this matter because it has instituted the Federal Government programs described in this complaint. 18.” by the Department of Veterans Affairs. United States v. 21. 22. 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. 08/23/2006). 1349. the US Government committed a fundamental breach of its contract with the Plaintiff. 19. It Operates a “Shadow 7 . The Defendants established the federally-insured loans (“VA-loans”) mentioned in this complaint as part of the VA Guaranty Loan Program. US v. “Program History” stating that the program was enacted. backed by the “full faith and credit” of the US government. 535.S. Further. 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.. Ed.3d 1218 (1995). whose federally-insured loans form the contents of the trusts. that became part of the MBSTs. Ct. • When the United States Ignores Its Own Laws. 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. III. 63 L. 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. because the home loans or “mortgages” that are the subject of this complaint were “federally-insured” or.to benefit men and women for their service to the country and they are not designed to obtain any economic or social objectives. “. York Associates. public policy dictates that the US government must adhere to its own laws and hold itself accountable for its agents' actions. it seeks to protect the rights of those affected by these programs. to benefit Veterans (See Legislative History of the VA Loan Guaranty Program.Constitution. page 2. by statute. or to fail to prevent harm to parties who received federally-insured loans. Finally.. or it failed to maintain the US Government's fiduciary duty of care to protect the Veteran's VAinsured loan documents. 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. the Defendant as the “principal” is responsible for those acts. 100 S. In addition. iii)The United States is Responsible for the Acts of Its Agents 16. Mitchell. • The United States of America Breached its Duty to Veterans 20. then they have breached their fiduciary duty to the United States. Updated. Defendant has seen fit to offer protections to Veterans and investors in this matter.2d 607. 112 F. 445 U.
See Exhibit #1. it would reimburse the Issuer with an insurance payment. When removed for default. Facts of the Case • Plaintiff Received a VA-insured Loan 25. 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. In short. If the US government refuses to adhere to its own laws and hold itself accountable for the actions of its agents. the Plaintiff's loan became part of an asset or “trust” for which investors received periodic payments when the Plaintiff paid her mortgage. particularly with respect to its establishment and maintenance of the VA Loan Guaranty Program and Ginnie Mae MBSTs. or others with access to information on and access to the VA-loans contained in Ginnie Mae MBS Trusts — removed. 24. the Issuer would instead have to pay to investors the periodic payments the investors normally received from the homeowners mortgage payments. Upon knowledge and belief in May 2005.gov/about/about. the Defendant's agents in positions of trust whether WAMU.Government” 23. 8 . (See Exhibit 6. or facilitated the removal of the Plaintiff's home loan file and Note from the trust. Upon knowledge and belief. because the loan was insured by the VA and “backed by the full faith and credit” of the Federal Government. However. the Plaintiff's VA-insured loan was securitized in a Ginnie Mae MBST. The Plaintiff filed a five-year Chapter 13 bankruptcy (the "Plan") in 2005. a black female Veteran obtained a VA-insured home loan from Washington Mutual Bank. Plaintiff. the bank or mortgage company that provided the loan (“Issuer”) could remove the it from the trust . a government that exists separate and apart from the government as established by law. attachments) • Ginnie Mae Securitized the Plaintiff's VA-insured Loan 26. IIII.ginniemae. in 2001 and re-financed the loan in 2003. She successfully completed the bankruptcy in 2010. As shown by numerous facts in this complaint.asp • Defendant's Agents Illegally Removed the Plaintiff's VA-insured Loan from the Ginnie Mae MBST 28. if the Plaintiff were to default on the mortgage. JP Morgan Chase and its employees. These agents have worked to shield criminal acts from detection and punishment and target innocent Veterans for financial ruin. The Plaintiff did not include her mortgage payments as part of the Plan and remained current on the loan. in total disregard of the written rule of law and its procedures as has occurred to the Plaintiff and is detailed in this complaint. on the loan. it legitimizes the appearance of a “Shadow government” or. Also. 27. Ginnie Mae Web Info at http://www.
nor was she delinquent on the loan. Upon knowledge and belief. those agents received a profit. 30. § 3733 : US Code Section 3733: Property management.See Exhibit #2. puts the Plaintiff's rights and interest in the property in question and jeopardy.C. 38 U. 31. In addition. the Plaintiff contacted several VA loan representatives for information on loss mitigation alternatives. among other unaccounted for profits. or allowed the removal of the Plaintiff's home loan from the MBS Trust. When the Defendant's agents removed. In order to remove the Plaintiff's loan file from the MBS Trust. the Plaintiff filed a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy. They declined to provide her any information. In addition. York Associates. did the VA inform the Plaintiff that she was 90 days delinquent on her home loan. When JP Morgan Chase obtained or claimed to have obtained the Plaintiff’s loan from WAMU.S. or “insurance payments” on the loan from the Federal Government. 112 F. the Defendant's agents do not have ownership or possession of the Plaintiff's VA loan documents or her Note. 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. 2012 29. In particular. they failed to provide her information on the VA HAMP or VA Refunding 9 . which it denied without explanation. • Defendant's Agents Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government 32. the Defendant's agents had to list the loan as being in “default”. 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. At that time due to adverse financial circumstances. 36. at no time during the Plaintiff’s initial bankruptcy in 2005 to 2010. Dated December 1.Sale of loans. As a result of the Defendant's agents listing Plaintiff's loan being in a “default” status and removing it from the MBST. 35. guarantee of payment. or over 90 days delinquent. Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations 36. • Defendant's Agents Profited with the Illegal Removal of Plaintiff's VAinsured Loan from the MBST 33. In 2010.3d 1218 (1995) • Defendant's Agents at the Veterans Administration Ignored their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government and Veterans 34.4600 (16) (d) (1). or told her that because of her bankruptcy she was unable to get any assistance from the VA. HUD Appeal Decision. she requested a home loan modification from Chase. when in fact the loan was current. US v. and their claim that they have ownership and possession of the Note without providing proof of such assertions.
(Adv. the Plaintiff filed two successive Adversary Proceedings against Chase in the bankruptcy court. a one-page allonge attached to the Note which it had never before presented to the court. Chase filed a claim in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy for around $8. In the first adversary proceeding. Sandbridge and Rice to VA VET to Request her DD-214. Chase submitted in an Objection to the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiff became suspicious because if Chase succeeded WAMU in servicing her home loan. See Exhibit #3. 38. it should be in possession of the document. a document to verify that she had served in the US military. No..000 in escrow payments. ”pay to the Order of Washington Mutual. Attorney for Womble Carlyle. it was not in possession of her Note or loan documents. to allow it to do so. Dated February 18. 2011). #WITHHELD) Chase's attorneys contacted the Plaintiff under the pretense of settlement and to make a home loan modification. The information on the allonge reads. though upon knowledge and belief. Pro. Chase represented to her that it could modify her home loan.programs. LLC May 1. Chase Home Finance. Eastern District of Virginia 37. LLC Bankruptcy Claim in Case #10-20094. When Chase represented that it was the Servicer of her loan although upon knowledge and belief. almost a year after Chase had submitted it's claim to the bankruptcy Court in the Plaintiff's first adversary proceeding. The Plaintiff paid home loan payments to Chase believing that it was the Servicer of her home loan. 2011 42. 2011 (Chase reports to have merged with Chase Home Finance. it did not have her Note nor the required documents in her home loan file (e. dated November 2.. Upon knowledge and belief. her DD2-14 verifying her military service) to enable it to act as the Servicer of her loan. Next. because it did not have the proper home loan documentation. Eastern District of Virginia) 43. FA __________ Without Recourse”. 41.g. from 2008 to 2010.000—an amount the Plaintiff disputed because Chase had failed to refund her at least $4. Subsequently. Chase could not modify the Plaintiff's home loan for either a conventional or a VA-HAMP modification. 10 . • Defendant's Agents Committed Fraud on the Court (Bankruptcy Court. if they could obtain her DD-214. See Exhibit #4. with a signature that was illegible. • Defendant's Agents Committed Fraud in its Representations to Her 39. • Defendant's Agents Filed a False Claim in the US Bankruptcy Court. 40. nor refer the Plaintiff's home loan for VA-Refunding. Letter from Todd Ross. In addition.
upon discovering that Chase as Servicer.. Plaintiff’s Second QWR to Chase..3A-205(b). The bankruptcy court dismissed the first Adversary Proceeding. Plaintiff’s Third QWR to Chase. then it is considered to be “payable to bearer” and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone. 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. No. Dodd Frank Act Section 1463 51. See Exhibit #7. it did so in violation of Ginnie Mae and VA regulations. as per RESPA. as in the present case.3A-201(b). from July 2011 through to November 19. Chase did not explain how it obtained the allonge except to state that “If. JP Morgan Chase's Objection to Motion for Reconsideration. Chase had not included any documentation as required by the bankruptcy code. the Plaintiff asserted that Chase did not have standing to file a claim. Ginnie Mae) and to take Judicial Notice of evidence that her note had been securitized by Ginnie Mae. Plaintiff’s First QWR to Chase. Plaintiff then filed a second adversary proceeding (Adv. dated June 24. did not own the Plaintiff's loan. 2012. to provide the court a reason to validate it's claim in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy. • Defendant's Agents violated “RESPA” Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act Of 1974 Amendments. dated April 20. 46. that the court allow her to add Indispensable parties (e. 49. In the second Adversary proceeding. a. 47. In fact. 2012 (excerpt. 2012 11 . however. The Plaintiff has filed a total of three Qualified Written Requests. an instrument has a blank endorsement. See Exhibit #6. 50. The court refused to notice the motions or to allow the Plaintiff to engage in discovery and dismissed the second adversary proceeding. 48. The Plaintiff requested via two motions. 2011 See Exhibit #8.See Exhibit #5. Code Secs. to validate its original claim or its subsequent claim that it was the “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note.g. 2012 See Exhibit #9. dated August 10. dated November 19. 2012 (page 10) 45. dated April 24. Pro. Upon knowledge and belief Chase produced the allonge or blank endorsement more than a year after it filed its bankruptcy claim. #12-01062) involving JP Morgan Chase and the Department of Veterans Affairs. one page allonge) 44. 8. Va. JP Morgan Chase's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
if Chase is the Servicer of the Plaintiff's mortgage or the Owner of the Note. such as the documents it used in its admissions in the United States Bankruptcy Court. impartial. and if the documents requested are not responsive to the homeowners QWR. To date Chase refuses to provide the Plaintiff with the documents she requested in her QWR. (Plaintiff 12 . “.800. Chase's Second Response to Plaintiff’s QWR. a representative (“Heather”) from the CFPB Ombudsman’s office called the Plaintiff’s home from 1. upon Plaintiff's written request to do so—which it has failed to do. and confidential resource to help you resolve process issues arising from CFPB activities.52. NOT DATED but referencing the complaint regarding Chase on 09/07/12 (Complaint #120907-000705) 58. which advertises that is it a “independent. it has the responsibility to provide the documents to Plaintiff to prove it. 55.. preferring to claim it was being “investigated”. Upon knowledge and belief. HUD referred the complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). It also allows us to act as an early warning system and serve as a catalyst for change. Chase’s First Response to Plaintiff’s QWR.9380. THE CFPB did nothing about the matter. See Exhibit #10. RESPA requires Chase to respond in 30 days to a homeowners QWR. Letter from the CFPB to Plaintiff. Upon knowledge and belief. This reporting line ensures the Ombudsman’s independence within the CFPB. dated July 7. 60. 2012 54. Chase refused to answer a series of Plaintiff's Qualified Written Requests for over 18-months. The Plaintiff contacted the Department of Housing and Urban Development to file a RESPA complaint against Chase.” It also advertises that the office. Inspector General “IG”)) 56. 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. Upon knowledge and belief. See Exhibit #12. 53. 848. of some VA-insured home loan documents. to explain the reasons for its failure to provide the documents requested. • Defendant’s Agent Breached their Fiduciary Duty to the US Government (The Office of Consumer Financial Protection and the Veterans Administration. 2011 See Exhibit #11.reports to the CFPB’s Deputy Director with access to the Director. The Plaintiff later contacted the CFPB’s “Ombudsman’s Office”. dated September 19. specifically documents to prove that it is the owner of her mortgage Note. Eastern District of Virginia. 57.” 59.
the IGs duty is to investigate complaints concerning fraud. that neither Chase nor the Dept. 2012 (“Mortgage Options are Just a Call Away. “Mortgage Options are Just a Call Away.9380—today. perform other acts to conceal the fact that Chase does not have ownership.848. waste and abuse regarding programs within or concerning the Veterans Administration. dated November 28 . Call us at 800. the Plaintiff alerted the Dept. but received on or about November 28.9380—today.”. Upon knowledge and belief. 13 . or possession of the Note. and that the homeowner must obtain a home loan modification or sign other documents from Chase. a fact that neither entity makes known to the members of the public who seek assistance from the CFPB Ombudsman’s office. 61. LLC who is working with the CFPB Ombudsman's Office. that will avert foreclosure of the Veteran’s home. These entities working in tandem delivered or had delivered to the Plaintiff's home a document entitled. “home loan modification” or other financial arrangement to benefit Chase or its affiliates and to conceal the fact. who but-for theses agents illegal acts and representations. 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. of Veterans Affairs retains an interest in the Plaintiff's VA-insured home loan. 2012 (included here without attachments. of which the VA loan guaranty program is a component.”) 62. 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. for relevant attachments see complaint) 64. to induce them to enter into home loan modifications rather than “face foreclosure”. In addition. 63. Chase’s Notice to Plaintiff for Home Loan Modification (undated). Plaintiff's Letter to the Inspector General of the Veteran's Administration. See Exhibit #13. See Exhibit #14. 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. or the VA-insured homeowners loan files perform acts to induce the Veteran’s belief that Chase does indeed own the homeowner’s Note. to induce the Plaintiff into a bogus. to the detriment of VA-insured homeowners.learned this by using star-69 to identify the caller's number) a number Chase uses to represent in correspondence to “delinquent” Veteran homeowners. Call us at 800. The number belongs to Chase Home Finance.848.
has reason to know.presented no evidence of any criminal activity. you can also lose your entitlement to a future VA home loan guaranty. You may also learn where to speak to a VA Loan Administration representative by calling 1-800-827-1000. US Department of Veteran Affairs information sheet.. You may also qualify for a repayment plan or loan modification.va. Upon knowledge and belief.” Although. 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. In addition.4350 .65. it failed to include all its correspondence to her information to direct her to contact the VA concerning her home loan.Servicing procedures for holders (iv)(A) (4) (as Chase has represented itself to her. In this case. dated December 12 . If you are the veteran whose entitlement was used to obtain this loan. particularly those in suspect classes such as the Plaintiff (black. an honorable discharged US Veteran.gov. if Chase does not have the Plaintiff's loan files or Note. abuse or gross mismanagement that involves the Department of Veterans Affairs. The IG utterly failed to investigate Chase's actions claiming that Plaintiff. See Exhibit #16. waste. 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. Nor has the IG required Chase to comply with RESPA. please call us to discuss your workout options. 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. it was to provide information and financial assistance to the Plaintiff. as a breach of its fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff. to be): The delinquency of your mortgage loan is a serious matter that could result in the loss of your home. if she so decided. disbarment or are otherwise illegal. you may access the VA web site at www.. to include the VA HAMP and VA Refund programs. 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. 2012 • The Defendant’s Agents Continue to Violate Title VI 66. If you are not already working with us to resolve the delinquency. Home 14 . “. the IG directed the Plaintiff to the VA to discuss her “delinquency” with VA Loan Technicians – although upon knowledge and belief. female). to provide financial and other assistance to citizens. subject it to sanction. the IG's which actions are imputed to the US Government. if it indeed is the servicer or owner of the Plaintiff's VA-loan. Instead. See Exhibit #15. 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. the IG knows. or suspect that Chase's actions are fraudulent. it cannot make a traditional home loan modification for the Plaintiff (which it has already denied). As such. regarding the Plaintiff's concerns. If you have access to the Internet and would like to obtain more information. as required by 38 CFR 36. Veterans Administration Response to Plaintiff’s Questions and Request for an Investigation re: JP Morgan Chase.
68. In addition. 69. 2011 (Amount for $9. to Plaintiff as a claimed "refund". and iv) require her signature on blank sheet of paper. 2012 (Amount for $26. specifically the identity of the owner of her mortgage Note. although it did not have possession of the Plaintiff's Note. dated January 31. Chase's Letter and Check to Plaintiff Re: Refund for $565. 15 . 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. or mortgage loan file. iii) issue a check in the amount of $565. dated August 7.38) See Exhibit #19.983. dated February 10. or the identity of the entity that claims to own her Note. Acceleration Letter to Foreclose from Chase to Plaintiff. 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. JP Morgan Chase communicated to Plaintiff. dated September 2012 67. is because of her race and sex.00 . Letter from Chase to Plaintiff Requesting her signature on a blank sheet of paper Re: Refund. 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.00. with regard to the previous uncashed check it mailed to the Plaintiff v) charge her over $16. Acceleration Warning) See Exhibit #17.48) See Exhibit #18. 2012 See Exhibit #20. 2011. dated November 30. 2012 • Defendant’s Agents are Participating in RICO with Respect to the Plaintiff’s VA-insured Home Loan 71.000 in additional fees in its 2012 foreclosure proceedings (the difference in fees charged in the February 10.676. Acceleration Letter to Foreclose from Chase to Plaintiff.Loan Guaranty Assistance with Delinquent Home Loans . • The Defendant’s Agents Committed Mail Fraud regarding the Plaintiff 70. 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. 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.
the Defendant knows or has reason to know that Chase had committed the acts that the Plaintiff had detailed in this complaint. 76. such as by refusing to ensure it to comply with RESPA the Defendant’s agents breached their fiduciary duty to the US Government. Upon knowledge and belief. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1. c) refused to provide Plaintiff with VA loss mitigation help and information. COUNT 2 .76.74. 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. Upon knowledge and belief. under the VA loan Guaranty Program 16 . the Defendant's acts are considered by law to be money laundering and encompass a number of the activities. described in this complaint. When Defendant’s agents (WAMU. 74. and otherwise committed acts to d) conceal the fact that Chase did not have possession of the Plaintiff’s Note or VAinsured loan files. Chase. used their fiduciary relationship and apparent authority to: a) illegally remove. transfer or prevent the illegal removal of the Plaintiff’s VAinsured loan from the Ginnie Mae MBST. Plaintiff also asserts that her interest in the property remains in jeopardy. b) refuse to investigate. 78. COUNT 1 – Breach of Contract (“Duty of Care”) 75.72. and collect proceeds on the loan. • Defendants Sought to Effect a Non-Regulatory Taking of the Plaintiff’s Property 73. b) claim status as the “Servicer” of the Plaintiff’s VA-insured loan.Fraud 77. which acts are imputed to the United States Government as the agents' principal.). etc. it order to • • Claim that Chase has ownership of the Plaintiff’s property. 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. and to Affect a “taking” of the Plaintiff’s property on behalf of the Defendant.
17 . or any documents to prove its authority to file the claim. when it did not. COUNT 5 – Real Estate Settlement Procedures Procedure Act (RESPA--Dodd Frank Act Section 1463. 410 N. paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. Eastern District of Virginia.E. without presenting actual proof of its claim in the form of an actual Note.2d 1115. 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. 1121 (10th Cir. he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A judge is not the court. Eastern District of Virginia. When any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court. in the Bankruptcy Court. 80.App. 1985). People v. their fiduciary relationship and apparent authority to represent to and in the Bankruptcy Court. those agents committed fraud on the court.C. d) assert that it had the ability to offer the Plaintiff a home loan modification.78. Many of the Defendant's agents are officers of the court. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . when it did not. 88 Ill. 763 F.Filing a False Claim (18 U. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A state judge is a state judicial officer. A judge is an officer of the court. 84.2d 626 (1980) 83.S.84. When Defendant's agents filed a claim in the Bankruptcy Court. COUNT 3 . Real Estate Settlement Procedures Procedure Act Of 1974 Amendments) 85. it presented a fraudulent claim to the court. the Defendant’s agents committed fraud. Secs. 152 and 3571) 79.3d 477. United States. and Plaintiff believed and relied on these representations to her detriment.c) claim status as the “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note. or to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to examine or refute the Chase's alleged “proof”. 82. so that Plaintiff must rely on Chase's representations then. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer.80. as well as are all attorneys. When the Defendant's attorneys used their positions in the court. COUNT 4 – Fraud on the Court 81. c) assert that it had possession of the Plaintiff’s Note and home loan files. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . In Bulloch v. Zajic.
90. 1970) 18 . or take other actions regarding her property as the Note holder.86. if they were in possession of the documents.) 87. 42 U. COUNT 8 – RICO (The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub. 91-452. particularly when the Plaintiff’s loan was illegally removed and transferred from the Ginnie Mae MBST. 922 October 15. 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.. When JP Morgan Chase communicated to Plaintiff. the Defendants committed mail fraud with respect to the Plaintiff. When Chase. was reasonably calculated to deceive the Plaintiff. or the omission or concealment of material facts. 84 Stat. � 1341) 89. 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. they violated RESPA. an ordinary person who would rely on the Defendant's representations. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 .S. §2000 d et.C. S. a non-government entity who receives money from the federal government to provide assistance to Veteran-homeowners. Defendant's scheme or artifice was that its material misrepresentations. particularly those of a suspect class (black. issue checks for refunds of money in connection with her VA-insured loan. So.Title VI (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.86. via the US mail representations to the Plaintiff that it had the authority to foreclose on her property. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . C.Mail Fraud (18 U. 88.88. 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. (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 6 . COUNT 7 . provide loss mitigation via home loan modifications. and if the Chase obtained it did so in violation of Ginnie Mae regulations it.L. seq.
92.91. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . designed to culminate in the “taking” of the Plaintiff’s property in connection with its contracts with the US government. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Chase's actions to obtain and assert its status as “Holder” of the Plaintiff's Note. JP Morgan Chase is not the owner of the property and may be asserting the right to foreclose on the Plaintiff's property.Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U. in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. the Federal government has or may have some interest in the real property at issue. COUNT 11– Federal Quiet Title Act ( 28 U. Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 . Upon knowledge and belief. § 241) 95. COUNT 10 . All acts described here in committed by JP Morgan Chase in furtherance of its illegal acts. When the Defendant's agents mentioned in Counts 2 through 10 committed the acts in Counts 2 – 10 they acted individually and in concert. 1346(f). Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 .94. threaten.C. or because of Plaintiff's having so exercised the same.S.C. that it had the ability and would foreclose on the Plaintiff’s property.Non-Regulatory Taking (Fifth Amendment) 93. they engaged in a conspiracy against the Plaintiff’s rights. 94. 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.90. the 19 . Plaintiff reiterates paragraphs 1 .S. to injure. 99. 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. since the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Federal government regarding her Veteran Administration home loan. Plaintiff asserts that based on the facts of the case. 2409a) 97.96. Upon knowledge and belief. 100. without just compensation. 96. oppress. on behalf of the United States government. the Defendant threatened to commit a “taking" of the Plaintiff’s property for public benefit. 98. 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.92. When JP Morgan Chase used its apparent authority as an agent for the Defendant and represented to the Plaintiff personally. COUNT 9 .
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. in the amount of four hundred thosand dollars ($400. ignored Chase's violation of the law. ii) Equitable relief. the d) threat of a taking of her property by the Federal Government (foreclosure). as detailed in this complaint. c) loss of income due to Chase's receipt of 2 years of mortgage payments. in Plaintiff's interest. In addition.000) and Any other relief the Court deems proper Dated: ____________________ VA Veteran. Pro Se ______________________ --Address Withheld-Alexandria. Therefore. VA 22302 To be posted on the Internet 20 . the Plaintiff's agents (Veterans Administration. the Plaintiff requests the following from the Court: i) A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant’s agent JP Morgan Chase. in the event that neither the Defendant nor its agents can produce the Note or other documents vesting the ownership in the Defendanr. specifically the bankruptcy court of the Eastern District of Virginia. and Damages for the acts of the Defendants agents to harass the Plaintiff and to effect a continued denial of her rights under law. among other injuries. b) denial of the right to avail herself of the access to and use of the courts of the United States.Plaintiff has suffered injury including but not limited to: a) denial of confirmation of her chapter 13 bankruptcy Plan.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?