FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure

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

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL )
ASSOCIATION )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) Case No.
)
Pro-Se Defendants )
)
COUNTERCLAIM )
)
)
)
v. )
)
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA )
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NA )
Counter-Defendants )

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF
MORTGAGE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW Defendants and Counterclaimants __________________________, (collectively
―Owners‖), proceeding pro se hereby answer the Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage brought by
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA (hereinafter ―Chase‖) as partial successor in interest to
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (hereinafter ―WAMU‖) and
set forth their affirmative defenses and counterclaim as follows:

In regards to a Owners acting as in the capacity of a Pro Se Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff, the
Supreme Court ruled that substance governs over form or technicality. See Platsky v. CIA;
Haines v. Kerner; Louisville, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); N.R. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (1900).

With regard to the standard held for Pro Se litigants it is maintained that in Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal heightened pleading standards only apply to learned counsel.

Defendants Answer and Amended Counterclaim – page 1 of 104

Moreover, Ashcroft & Twombly overruled Conley v. Gibson. The issues within Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal address the heightened pleading standards of learned
counsel. In Kerns v. United States, the case addresses pro se litigants specifically. Kerns also
addresses Conley v Gibson, and Kerns v. United States has not been overturned.

AMENDED ANSWER

1. Plaintiff files this complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15/-1101 et. seq., to foreclose
the mortgage, trust deed or other conveyance in the nature of a mortgage (hereinafter called
―Mortgage‖) hereinafter described and joins the following persons as defendants:

______________________________________
Unknown Owners And Non-Record Claimants

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase brings this action to foreclose on a Mortgage, but denies
that Chase has the right to bring an action under the Mortgage. Owners are without sufficient
information to admit or deny as to the remaining information in Paragraph 1.

2. Plaintiff has heretofore elected to declare the whole of the principal sum remaining
unpaid together with interest thereon to become immediately due and payable and by the filing
of this complaint Plaintiff has confirmed said election.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase claims that it has made an election with regard
to the Mortgage signed by Owners, but denies that Chase has the right to bring an
action under the Mortgage.

3. Attached as ―EXHIBIT A‖ is a true copy of the Mortgage. Attached as ‖EXHIBIT B‖ is
a true copy of the Note secured thereby.

ANSWER: Owners lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint especially as the Mortgage is
labeled unofficial copy and therefore, Owners deny the allegations. Owners admit that
the documents attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Complaint purport to be the
Mortgage and the Note and demand that originals of the Mortgage and Note be produced.


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

a) Nature of the Instrument: Mortgage

ANSWER: Owners admit.

b) Date of the Mortgage: __________________

ANSWER: Owners admit.

c) Name or Names of the Mortgagors: __________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit, but affirmatively state that ownership by Owners in
the Mortgage is not stated as stated on record title for the Mortgaged Premises.

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

ANSWER: Owners deny.

e) Date and place of recording: Mortgage Date and Place of recording:
__________________________ County Recorder‘s Office.

ANSWER: Owners admit, and affirmatively state that there were subsequent
recordings which sold the Mortgage so that Chase does not have the right to proceed
against Owners.

f) Identification of recording: Mortgage: __________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit that the document identified in Section 4e) was
recorded as dated.

g) Interest subject to the mortgage: Fee simple

ANSWER: Owners admit that they are fee simple owners of the mortgaged
premises and deny that CHASE has the right to proceed against them.


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

ANSWER: Owners deny.

i) Legal description of Mortgaged premises and common address (hereinafter
―Mortgaged Premises‖):

__________________________
Permanent Index No__________________________

ANSWER: Owners admit. Mortgaged Premises shall also be referred to herein
as ―Property‖.

j) Statement as to defaults: The Mortgage is in default due to the failure of the
mortgagor to pay the monthly installments of principal, interest, taxes and insurance, and any
other escrow items that may apply, for the period __________________________through the
present. There remains an outstanding principal balance of __________________________with
interest accruing at __________________________per diem plus attorney‘s fees, foreclosure
costs, late charges, advances and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff as a result of the default.

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

k) NA

l) NA

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

__________________________,

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase is claiming that __________________________are
personally liable for deficiency, but deny that __________________________is liable to Chase.

n) Capacity in which Plaintiff brings this foreclosure: Plaintiff is the legal holder of
the indebtedness and owner of the mortgage given as security therefore.


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

o) Facts in support of redemption period, shorter than the longer of: i) 7 months
from the date the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the mortgagors (I) have been served with
summons or by publication or (II) have otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, if
residential real estate; (ii) 6 months from the date the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the
mortgagors (I) have been served with summons or by publication or (II) have otherwise
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, if commercial real estate; or (iii) 3 months from the
entry of the judgment of foreclosure, whichever is later. That pursuant to the terms of the 735
ILCS 5/15-1603, the Court determine the length of the redemption period upon making a finding
based on the facts and circumstances available to the Court at the time of judgment that the
property is either residential, non-residential or abandoned.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Section 4o) attempts to state the
provisions of Illinois law and states that the Illinois statute speaks for itself.

p) Facts in support of request for attorney's fees and of costs and expenses: That
pursuant to the terms of the Note and Mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to recover attorney's
fees, court costs, title costs, and other expenses which plaintiff has been and will be required to
expend in the prosecution of this foreclosure.

ANSWER: Owners deny the allegations of Section 4p) and affirmatively states
that Chase is not entitled to relief in this action.

q) Determination as to residential real estate:

(1) That pursuant to the terms of 735 ILCS 5/15-1219, Plaintiff requests that the court
make a finding based upon facts and circumstances available to the court at the time of Judgment
that the subject real estate is either ―residential real estate‖ occupied as a principal residence
either (i) if a mortgagor is an individual, by that mortgagor, that mortgagor‘s descendants, or (ii)
if a mortgagor is a trustee of a trust or an executor or administrator of an estate, by a beneficiary
of that trust or estate or by such beneficiary's spouse or descendants or (iii) if a mortgagor is a
corporation, by persons owning collectively at least 50 percent of the shares of voting stock of


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

(2) In the event that the court finds that either: (1) the real estate is residential, then
the real estate shall be subject to a seven month redemption period, or (2) The real estate is non-
residential, then the real estate is subject to a six (6) month redemption period.

ANSWER: Owners deny the allegations of Section 4q) and affirmatively state that Chase
is not entitled to relief in this action.

r) Facts in support of a requested for appointment of mortgagee in possession or for
appointment of a receiver, and identity of such receiver, if sought: None at this time; Plaintiff
reserves the right to file a separate Petition for Appointment of Mortgagee in Possession or
Receiver if applicable.

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

s) Name or names of defendants whose right to possess the mortgaged real estate,
after the confirmation of the foreclosure sale, is sought to be terminated and, if not elsewhere
stated, the facts in support thereof: __________________________ and Unknown Owners and
Non-Record Claimants.

ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase is seeking to take away their rights to possess the
Mortgaged Premises. Owners admit that there are other persons with recorded interests with
recordings with regard to the Mortgaged Property.

AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
LACK OF LEGAL STANDING TO SUPPORT A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 17(A)(1) AND 19 (A)AND
UCC 810 § ILCS - 5


1. On __________________________Owners engaged WAMU to refinance their
property and entered into a loan agreement. The terms of the loan were memorialized in a
promissory note ("the Note") which was secured by a Mortgage ―lien‖ on the Property. Said
Mortgage was recorded on __________________________in __________________________
County, Illinois as Document # __________________________.

2. Owners executed the Note naming WAMU as ―lender‖ and then separately
executed the Mortgage naming WAMU as ―lender‖ and ―Mortgagee.‖

3. On __________________________Chase commenced foreclosure proceedings
against the Owners, recording with the DuPage County Recorder, a ―Notice of Lis Pendens‖ as
document #__________________________announcing to the world that Chase intended to seize
Owners Property.

4. In its complaint to foreclose Owners property, Chase claims that ―Plaintiff is the
legal holder of the indebtedness and owner of the mortgage given as security therefore.‖

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

OWNERS LEARN OF FLAGRANT BANK FRAUD

6. Upon learning that most mortgages in the past 10 years were sold to investors as
Mortgage Bank Securities (―MBS‖), Owners sent a Qualified Written Request (QWR) as that
term is defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(I)(B) to Chase to learn the identity of potential
MBS Investors who might own their Note. Said QWR was sent via registered mail #
__________________________on __________________________which Chase received on
__________________________. Exhibit 1

7. Chase claimed that it received QWR on __________________________-24-2010
in violation of RESPA.

8. Chase responded insufficiently to the questions posed in the QWR refusing to
disclose information which would authenticate the identity of the owner of the Note and provide
an accounting which would show all money paid or received in connection with the subject
obligation.

9. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase is seeking to conceal the
true creditor and separate the borrowers from the investors by making it appear that someone
other than the true creditor had a beneficial interest.

OWNERS LOAN HAS BEEN SECURITIZED

10. On _________________, Owners contracted with __________________ to
perform a securitization examination of the Loan on the Property (―Securitzation Examination‖).
The following fields were used to locate the specific MBS Trust Owners note was sold to: Loan
Id Number, Origination Date, Maturity Date, First Payment Date, Principal And Securitized
Amount Of Loan, Term Of The Loan / Interest Rate / Type Of The Loan, Geo Location / County
/ Zip Code, Servicer / Trustee Name / Trust Name, Status Of The Loan: Foreclosure, Bankruptcy,
Reo, Date Of Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, Reo.

11. Said Securitization examination revealed that Owners Loan was sold to Investors
of MBS Securities as __________________Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
_______________ (the ―Trust‖) which was registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (―SEC‖.) Exhibit 2

12. At some point after WAMU recorded Owners Mortgage on
__________________ at the __________________ County Recorder‘s Office, and before the
MBS Trust cut-off date of __________________, WAMU sold and assigned, without recourse,
their entire interest in the Mortgage Loan Contracts (―Receivables‖) as the Debt/Obligations,
under a Transfer and Servicing Agreement, to MBS Investors, Certificate/Bondholders. These
Receivables were then securitized as part of a large pool of Receivables. Certificates were then
registered and issued to investors.

13. From that time on, the Trust was the only mortgagee, the only owner of the Note
and Mortgage. This Trust must abide by a set of governing documents called the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement (―PSA‖) according to New York law.

PSA INTENTIONALLY IGNORED

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


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

15. According to the deposition of Angela Melissa Nolan VP of JP Morgan Chase in
the case styled: Deutsche Bank National Trust As Trustee For JPMAC 2007-CH5-JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA Case# 50-2008-, Chase, in direct violation of the prospectus and PSA, kept the
Notes its own vault under the pretense that it was ―safer‖ in that location.

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

16. The practice of not following the PSA governing agreement appears to be routine
with the largest banks thus subjecting the Servicers or Originating banks to securities fraud by
the SEC. In riveting sworn testimony in Kemp V Countrywide, Linda De Martini, supervisor and
operational team leader for the Litigation Management Department for BAC Home Loans
Servicing L.P., testified that Countrywide NEVER delivered the notes to the trusts.

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

17. The January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) Report also
referred to Kemp V. Countrywide with circumstances similar to that of Owners loan in the instant


case, stated that the borrowers home could not be foreclosed because it had failed to both
indorse and deliver the note to the MBS Trust.

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

18. On November 15, 2010 an article by NAKED CAPITALISM entitled ―More
Evidence That Mortgage Loans Were Not Properly Conveyed to Securitization Trusts” also
validated that large banks routinely failed to deliver borrowers notes which had been sold to
MBS Trusts:

―We‘ve described in various articles how evidence is growing that the participants
in mortgage securitizations sometime early in this century appear to have ignored
the requirements of a variety of laws and their own contracts. We believe the most
serious and difficult to remedy problem results when the parties involved in the
creation of a mortgage securitization failed to take the steps necessary to convey
the loans to the legal entity, a trust, which was set up to hold them. As we
wrote: …. there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not
conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and
servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage
securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a
check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The
minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B
(sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust). The proper conveyance of the note is
crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and
can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is ―real party of
interest‖). .. It isn‘t simply that the notes had to go through a particular chain of
parties to get to the trust. All these steps had to be accomplished by a particular
date, which was generally no later than ninety days after the trust closed. And all
the assets conveyed to the trust had to be ―performing‖, meaning the borrower was
current on his payments. The evidence that the deal creators violated these
stipulation is widespread... Another proof of the failure to adhere to these
requirements is that the note are often conveyed to the trust right before the
foreclosure. This fix is impermissible for three reasons: it is far too late (years after
the cutoff), it is typically directly from the originator to the trust (in violation of the
requirement that it go through all the intermediary parties) and it occurs after they
have defaulted (contrary to the stipulation that the loan be performing).Some
investigators have been trying to provide more convincing proof of their belief that
these abuses were not merely widespread but pervasive...This practice is more than
a little problematic. Transferring non-performing loans into a trust or making an


out-of-time assignment is a void act under New York trust law (and mortgage
securitization trusts are organized as New York trusts)..

19. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase, in concert with the largest
banks recklessly and intentionally violated both the law and their own PSA governing
agreements in order to sell borrowers Notes multiple times as bearer paper to multiple MBS
Trusts as suggested by Forensic auditor Charles J. Horner, of Charles J. Horner & Associates
Forensic Document Examiners, Bonita, CA., in a Foreclosure Investigation Report he conducted
for a client:
Conspiracy, Deceitful Acts, Failure To Comply With 424B5 [424B5 is "A
form of prospectus that discloses information, facts or events covered in both
paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) shall be filed with the Commission [SEC] no later than
the second business day following the earlier of the date of the determination of
the offering price or the date it is first used after effectiveness in connection with
a public offering or sales, or transmitted by a means reasonably calculated to
result in filing with the Commission by that date."] – Pursuant to the Pooling &
Servicing Agreement (PSA) as quoted above, the conduit entities must assign all
mortgages at the time of the issuance of the certificates to the Trustee. I have
noted that no Assignment of Deed of Trust assigning the security instruments to
LaSalle Bank has ever been recorded in Nevada County where the subject
property is situated. It would be safe to assume that all certificates would have
been issued as of the date of this report.. Since no assignment to date has been
recorded, now exists a case whereby both Washington Mutual a/k/a JP Morgan
Chase and LaSalle Bank as Trustee conspired to deceive the certificate holders
into thinking that all mortgages have been securitized and the security instruments
have been assigned to the Trustee at the time the certificates were issued when in
fact they have not. This is a deceitful and fraudulent act whereby the certificates
holders are unsecured on the outset and leaves open the possibility of double
selling the certificates abroad. Furthermore, this act represents a violation of the
PSA and prospectus as registered with the Security Exchange Commission and
IRS REMIC code possibly making any future assignments to the Trust voidable.

20. There is no evidence that the Owners Mortgage Note was ever officially
transferred to the Trust to the now purported holder-in-due-course __________________pass
through certificates. As a result, the note was put out of eligibility under New York law.

21. According to Horace v. LaSalle Bank, Re: Alabama No. 3:08cv1019-MHT (WO),
US District Court, M.D., Eastern Division, February 17, 2009, it was ruled: ―the trust failed to
follow its own pooling and servicing agreement, and did not follow applicable New York law


when trying to obtain assignment of Horace's note and mortgage." Without proof the mortgage
had been assigned to the trust, the trustee lacked standing to foreclose. Furthermore:

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

WAMU NOT TRUE LENDER

22. Upon information and belief, WAMU did not advance funds to Owners loan with
any of its own assets on __________________, the closing date of the loan, and thus WAMU
was not the true creditor. Owners loan, as well as Millions of other loans across America, were
pre-funded by pre-sold securities by investors of MBS. It was common practice on Wall Street
to ―forward sell‖: Investment banks on Wall Street sold Investors Mortgage-Backed Securities in
advance of the procurement of the mortgage loans thus pre-funding said loans by way of a
Prospectus. Each MBS prospectus defines the criteria for the types of mortgages represented in
an MBS Trust. According to allegations in a Kentucky RICO Class Action suit filed against the
largest banks:

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

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


prospectus‘, went to investors and pre-sold bonds before the loans were
originated.‖

23. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports -TBA Trading
and Liquidity in the Agency MBS Market by James Vickery Joshua Wright Staff Report No.
468-August 2010:

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

24. When Owners submitted their loan application to Chase, the criteria on said
application was extrapolated and then matched with corresponding criteria from an MBS Trust
as defined in its Prospectus. Once a match was made, funds provided by the Investors were then
forwarded to the so-called ―Lender‖ to create the illusion that the so-called Lender was funding
the loan. Thus the true creditor was the Investors of the MBS Securities.

25. WAMU was never the lender of Owners Mortgage loan. Hence, Chase, in its
capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, has no standing to make its Complaint as only the
true ―creditor‖ has standing to foreclose a mortgage.

WAMU SOLD OWNERS A PREDATORY LOAN PRODUCT

26. WAMU sold Owners a known predatory Option Arm loan product with a
negative amortization which according to sworn testimony by confidential witnesses in the
Federal Home Finance Authority V. JP Morgan Chase lawsuit filed on September 2, 2011,
earned WAMU and its employees vast sums of money at the expense of borrowers:


§239. WaMu Bank pushed its Option ARM loans on borrowers regardless of their
sophistication, income level, or financial stability. An Option ARM loan is
typically a 30-year Adjustable Rate Mortgage (―ARM‖) that initially offers the
borrower four monthly payment options: (i) a specified minimum payment (which
was typically lower than the interest payment and therefore caused the loan to
grow, referred to as negative amortization), (ii) an interest-only payment, (iii) a
15-year fully amortizing payment, and (iv) a 30-year fully amortizing payment.
The rate of an ARM loan also adjusts monthly and if the loan rate was higher than
the required interest in the payment, the balance of the loan would increase (called
negative amortization). Fay Chapman, WaMu Bank‘s former Chief Legal Officer,
candidly admitted to the Seattle Times in an article published on October 26, 2009,
that ―[m]ortgage brokers put people into the product who shouldn‟t have been.‖
In 2003, WaMu originated $32.3 billion of Option ARM loans. By 2005, that
number almost had doubled to $64.1 billion.

26. WAMU‘s predatory loan product had another consequence as Owners ―Option
Arm‖ loan product had a negative amortization which pursuant to under UCC sec 3-104 renders
said Note as non-negotiable.

(a) § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT:

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

27. A negative amortization fails this test. Since these types of notes are not
negotiable instruments, the transfer and sale of said notes are subject to the provisions of UCC
Article 9, not Article 3. Article 9 states:

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

28. Owners Note principal balance was recorded as $ ____________ on
____________. By ____________, said balance had increased to $ ____________ thus
rendering said note as non-negotiable.


29. No assignment was recorded at the ____________ County Recorder‘s Office
which means that Chase could not have legally acquired Owners Note as a negotiable instrument
as Owners Note was non-negotiable.

REMICS

30. Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (hereinafter ―REMICS‖) were created
in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. The REMIC is referred to in the world
of finance as an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle), or SPE (Special Purpose Entity.).

31. REMICs are investment vehicles that hold commercial and residential mortgages
in trust and issues securities, in the instant case, a Mortgage-backed security, representing an
undivided interest in these mortgages.

32. The trustee for the Trust has sworn under oath with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (―SEC,‖) and the Internal Revenue Service (―IRS,‖) that as a mortgage asset ―pass
through‖ entity, it cannot own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS as it would then be taxed on
the interest earned from the Note.

33. This allows the Trust to qualify as a REMIC rather than an ordinary Real Estate
Investment Trust (―REIT‖). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax will be
charged to the trust.

34. To avoid double taxation, under Internal Revenue Code 860, Owners loan was
placed in a Special Purpose Vehicle (―SPV‖) Trust so that only the shareholders would be taxed
and therefore, the shareholders are the real parties in interest.

35. Moreover, because of IRS code 860, the Trust is not the real and beneficial party
in interest because the REMIC does not own the Note, the shareholders do.

36. By distributing the tax liabilities to the shareholders, the REMIC has also
distributed the parties in interest.

OWNERS LOAN IS NO LONGER A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT


37. Once the REMIC containing Owners loan was formed, Owners loan was
converted into a security owned by thousands of shareholders throughout the world and was
traded on Wall Street.

38. When Owners note became a securitized instrument, it forever lost its identity as a
Negotiable Instrument and was no longer enforceable as a Mortgage Note. A negotiable
instrument can only be in one of two states after undergoing securitization, not both at the same
time. It can either be a loan or a stock.

39. Once the instrument is traded as a stock, it is forever a stock and therefore
regulated, as this loan was, by the SEC as a stock.

40. Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU can no longer claim that
it is a real party in interest, or even that the loan stills exists as a loan, since double dipping is a
form of securities fraud.

41. Since WAMU sold Owners loan to a REMIC and Owners loan was securitized
into stock, WAMU forever lost the ability to enforce, control or otherwise foreclose on Owners
property, including the right to assign the Mortgage or endorse the Note. It was no longer the real
party of interest.

42. By way of a prospectus, the MBS investors agreed to an operating plan that
defined the functions of the SPV conduit which was used to funnel funds to the investor from the
pool. Since the words ―conduit‖ and ―vehicle‖ convey the fact that no actual business events of
taxable or monetary significance takes place in the REMIC, the investors are the creditors,
having been the only parties to advance funds from which the Owners loan was funded.

43. The Servicer, first WAMU and then Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest
to WAMU, were merely administrative entities which collected the mortgage payments and
escrow funds.

44. Moreover, if Chase were to have a financial stake in the mortgage loan, the MBS
Trust would lose its REMIC pass-through tax status.

THE BANKS GAME THE SYSTEM THEY CREATED

45. Banks do not use their own funds to make loans. Banks issue money obtained
from the Federal Reserve (―Fed‖) through signatures on promissory notes. The bank converts
these signatures into money and registers the value of the mortgage loan in its ledger as an Asset
of the Federal Reserve. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code 1-201(24) and 3-104: it is the
signature on the promissory note which creates the ―money.‖ The bank then establishes an
account containing the ―money‖ the loan just created and thereby becomes the source of funds
that a borrower receives as a ‗loan‘.

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

―A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the
depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer's deposit of checks or
currency in the bank. Of course they [the banks] do not really pay out loans from
the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be
created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in
exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.‖
— Federal Reserve Bank
Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics, p. 6

46. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that the Insiders on Wall Street, the
largest banks and the privately-owned Federal Reserve, (the ―Conspirators‖), gamed their own
system. The so-called Lenders established funding warehouses which were nothing more than
―money-laundering‖ facilities. Once the Note was signed by the Owners in the instant case, and
millions of others similarly situated across America, Borrowers Promissory Notes became
negotiable instruments or cash.

47. The so–called Lender then went to the Federal Reserve and was ―credited‖ 10
times the amount of the Note. Under normal mortgage loan circumstances, the Lender would
credit the borrower 10% of the money it received to fund the borrowers loan, retain 10% as
reserves and then use 80% to fund loans to others as demonstrated in the Federal Reserve
Publication ―Modern Money Mechanics‖ on page 8:

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


48. However, because the mortgage loans had been pre-funded by Investors of the
MBS‘s, Chase, in concert with other large banks, committed fraud as they used the Owners Note
in the instant case, and the notes of millions of others borrowers similarly situated across
America, to obtain funds from the Fed, while simultaneously being paid for said Note by the
MBS Trust thereby collecting more than ten times the amount of each mortgage loan.

49. According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (―GAAP‖) rules, the
borrowing bank must post collateral to the Fed in return for the loan. Such collateral includes:
mortgages, consumer loans, and commercial loans. But because the Conspirators own and
control the system, they could manipulate it with devastating consequences.

50. The money drawn from the Fed is a liability to the Bank and is registered on the
public side of the Bank‘s books. According to the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices
(GAAP) which every bank must abide by, this liability must then be offset by registering the
Note as collateral, or an asset held by the Fed. To game the system, the Conspirator banks used
Public Funds obtained through the Fed, but registered the asset/collateral on the private side of
their books in direct violation of the GAAP. In other words, the banks ledgered the asset to the
Private side of their ledgers and the liability to the Public side, thus increasing the National Debt,
money owed to the Fed, by Billions.

51. Furthermore, borrowers mortgage payments were also supposed to be paid to the
Fed in order to properly discharge the liabilities created by the mortgage loans, but instead these
payments were funneled to the MBS Trusts.

52. Upon information and belief, Chase, and other large banks, used the Fed to
convert the mortgage notes into money, took the money and converted it into profits.

SERVICER IS DEBT COLLECTOR

53. Since Owners loan went into default, it was written off by the REMIC
subsequently, the Trust received tax credits from the IRS. Therefore, the debt was discharged
and settled.


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

55. Under the UCC, the Promissory Note is a one-of-a-kind instrument and any
assignment must be as a permanent fixture onto the original Note, much like a check.

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

57. The original Note had to be either destroyed, or in the case of Chase, fraudulently
retained in its own vault, upon securitization because the Note and the stock cannot exist at the
same time.

58. Under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Servicer can buy
back the Note as a non-performing non-secured debt like collection agencies that buy non-
performing credit card debts.

59. This purchase is of a discharged asset and cannot be re-adhered to the original
Mortgage, since the original Note was a one-of-a-kind instrument, not part of the discharged
asset.

60. Therefore the purchaser of the discharged asset can never be the holder-in-due-
course of the original Note and the debt is, at best, un-secured.

61. The attempt by CHASE to claim ownership of the original Note by the purchaser
of the discharged asset is fraudulent and characterized as ―reverse engineering.‖

62. There is no perfection of title.

TRUSTEE MUST HAVE POSSESSION OF ORIGINAL BLUE INK NOTES

63. In order to retain its tax status, fund the Trust and legally collect money from
investors who bought into the REMIC, the Trustee of the REMIC must have possession of all the
original blue ink Promissory Notes, original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a
complete paper chain of title. As demonstrated in the earlier deposition of a VP of Chase at


paragraph 15, Chase kept the notes in their own vault for a variety of reasons, all designed to
defraud the American public in accordance with their Conspiracy.

BANKS SOLD THE SAME NOTES MULTIPLE TIMES

64. The January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) report stated that
the investment banks sold the notes as securities multiple times to multiple trusts simultaneously,
notes the Conspirators kept in their vaults and under their control. On pages 24 and 25 of the
FCIC Report‘s preface, the following statement corroborates that fact:

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

TRANSFER INTO MBS TRUST REQUIRES AN ASSIGNMENT

65. At the moment of the Note‘s transfer to investors, WAMU was paid in full
without recourse for Owners note and as such, had no further authority as ―Lender.‖ Thus
WAMU could not legally transfer any interest in the Owners Note or Mortgage to any party
according to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) of the MBS Trust:

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

CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS – LAS-VEGAS STYLED “INSURANCE”

Upon information and belief, Owners allege that in another facet of the Conspirators scheme, the
best, brightest, and most sinister on Wall Street, together with the largest banks, robbed untold
Trillions from the American public by their use of unregulated ―insurance‖ policies taken out on
MBS bonds called Credit Default Swap‘s, which were and still are, as Author Charles Davi
stated: ―the destroyer of economies‖*. Credit default swaps are ―Casino-styled ―bets,‖ and the


Insiders who took out these bets, wagered that the mortgages they themselves originated,
mortgages which the Owners allege were ―designed to fail,‖ would do just that thus allowing the
banks to collect on the bets they placed. It appears that the bets placed by the largest banks, most
notably Goldman Sachs, were paid off at 100 cents on the dollar in the wake of the economic
crisis by Insurance giant AIG with American taxpayer TARP funds. *How to Understand The
Derivatives Market By Charles Davi The Atlantic Jul 16 2009,

66. In a February 7, 20110 New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson and
Louse Story entitled ―Testy Conflict With Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Edge,‖ the
following corroborates that allegation:

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

67. In a Kentucky RICO class action suit against the largest banks, Attorney
McKeever alleges that the largest banks also collected Trillions on derivative Contracts.

The Double and Triple Dip and Derivative Contracts: Most MBS/Trusts were
covered by an insurance policy, commonly referred to as a Derivative or Collateral
Contract. These Derivative Contracts are not recorded or regulated by the SEC.
Upon information and belief, the Defendants have attempted to receive distribution,
fees or proceeds or have received distributions from the liquidation of the
borrower‘s homes, when the actual beneficiaries under the homeowners‘ loans, the
shareholder/investors have been made whole by a Derivative Contract. In other
instances, the MBS has been ―closed‖ months or years prior. Funds collected from
the loans allegedly within the MBS, are no longer being paid to the investors, but
are an unearned windfall to the servicer. Additionally, there is no contract between
the investors and the foreclosing entity which would allow them so act as a
Plaintiff in a Foreclosure even when the MBS is not shut down.


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

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

68. Chase‘s lack of ownership of the mortgage and promissory note in the instant case
goes to the very heart of any claim of standing, permeates the entire proceeding and subverts the
integrity of the instant case.

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

69. Chase is not a ‗party in interest‘. The real parties in interest of Owners note are
the investors for the GMACM-2003J MBS Trust. Chase which is proceeding here as the alleged
mortgagee, which has no standing to so proceed.

70. Chase does not have the authority to make presentments without dishonor on
behalf of the Real Parties in Interest under F.R.C.P. 17 (a) Real Party in Interest. and 19 (a) for
lack of joinder. In re Gavin, 319 B.R. 27, 31 (1st. BAP 2004). The court ruled that Indy Mac
Federal was not the real party in interest pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the joinder of the owner of the note is required by Rule 19. “[A]n action must be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-
66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).

―A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an
individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of


the action.‖ Lebanon Correctional Institution v. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio
St.2d 176 (1973).
―A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an
individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of
an action.‖ Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603,
897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold, ―If plaintiff has offered no evidence
that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

71. Based on the Securitization of the Mortgage, Promissory Note as Receivable and
the Mortgage Loan Installment Contract, Chase has no enforceability rights as owner, holder or
holder in due course (―HDC‖) under §17(A)(1) AND §19 (A) and UCC 810 ILCS 5.

72. According to UCC (810 ILCS 5/): The holder of a note must be a Holder In Due
Course: A party who acquires possession of an instrument (usually a check, promissory note, or
installment sale contract) after giving value for it, in good faith, and without notice that there are
any defenses; the holder in due course takes free of any claims.

FORECLOSING PARTY MUST SUFFER LOSS

73. Standing requires that a party will suffer financial loss derived from non-
performance (i.e., nonpayment) of the subject contract. Since the MBS Investors purchased
Owners note, the investors are the creditors.

74. Because WAMU sold Owners note and was thus paid in full for subject Loan
transaction, Chase, in its capacity as successor in interest to WAMU, does not stand to suffer any
loss or harm should they be enjoined from foreclosing on Owners Property.

Constitutional standing under Article 3 requires, at a minimum, that a party must
have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant‘s
conduct, that the injury be traced to challenged action, and that it is likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision. (Valley Forge Christian Coll. V.Am. United for
Separation of church and State, 454 US 464, 472, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed. 2d 700
(1982) (citations and internal quotations omitted)).

NOTE MUST BE INDORSED FOR CHASE TO MAKE CLAIM


75. Under Illinois law, only the entity entitled to enforce the note may bring a
complaint to foreclose the mortgage against the mortgagor. See Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v.
Nelson, 890 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).

76. In order for Chase to be entitled to enforce Owners note, Chase must demonstrate
that it is a ―party in interest‖ by showing that it is a creditor with a security interest in the subject
real property. See Mims, 438 B.R. at 57 (finding that as movant ―failed to prove it owns the Note,
it has failed to establish that it has standing to pursue its state law remedies with regard to the
Mortgage and Property‖). Cf. Brown Bark I L.P. v. Ebersole (In re Ebersole), 440 B.R. 690, 694
(Bankr. W.D. Va. 2010) (finding that movant seeking relief from stay must prove that it is the
holder of the subject note in order to establish a ‗colorable claim‘ which would establish standing
to seek relief from stay).

77. For Chase to ―prove‖ that it has the right to enforce Owners note, said note must
be indorsed either to Chase directly, or in blank.

78. Illinois Attorney and author, Kevin Hudspeth, stated in a legal article entitled
―Murky MERS‖: ―If the plaintiff claims to be the holder of the note, it must demonstrate that the
note is indorsed—either specifically to the plaintiff or in blank— and that the plaintiff is in
possession of the note.‖ He cites the following law to corroborate that statement:

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

Sec. 3-205. Special indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement.
(b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special
indorsement, it is a "blank indorsement". When indorsed in blank, an instrument
becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone
until specially indorsed.

Compare 810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-301 (2010) (naming a holder as a party
entitled to enforce) with 810 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-201(b)(21)(A) (2010)


(defining holder, in part, as a person in possession). See also In re Wilhelm, 407
B.R. 392, 401 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009).

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

79. Mr. Hudspeth continues: ―the note‘s indorsement will presumably be clear from
the copy attached to the plaintiff‘s complaint. Thus, assuming the plaintiff establishes that it is in
possession of the note in some way, the indorsement alone should suffice to demonstrate the
plaintiff‘s right to enforce. (Owners emphasis)

THE ALLEGED INDORSEMENT

80. Chase attached to its complaint to foreclose Owners property, a copy of Owners
note as its Exhibit B. On page 6 of Owners Note, there appears an undated indorsement which
reads: ―Pay to the Order of ______(blank) WITHOUT RECOURSE, Washington Mutual Bank,
FA. Said indorsement was allegedly signed by Jess Almanza, as Vice President for WAMU. Said
unauthenticated indorsement in blank serves to memorialize the sale/transfer of Owners loan
which had previously taken place. As such, if WAMU had recorded the required assignment on
their non-negotiable negative amortized loan, said blank indorsement would constitute ―bearer
paper‖ thus providing Chase the requisite evidence it required to claim that it was the holder of
Owners note.

81. Owners allege that Chase does not have the requisite evidence needed to claim it
is the holder of Owners Note as Chase falsely created the indorsement needed to ―prove‖ it had
the ability to enforce Owners note.

82. An ever-increasing quantity of lawsuits filed on behalf of homeowners,
governmental agencies and MBS investors have accused Chase of fraudulently creating
documents in order to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings. As such,
Owners conducted an Internet search on the so-called ―indorser‖ of Owners note and discovered


that other documents allegedly indorsed by Jess Almanza as VP of WAMU (and Long Beach
Mortgage Company) bore an exact replica of the so-called indorsement which appears on page 6
of Owners promissory note. When said indorsement on Owners note is transposed directly over
other alleged indorsed documents by Jess Almanza found on the Internet, the signature and
stamp are precisely and absolutely identical. EXHIBIT 3

83. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that Chase intentionally falsified
Owners Note by utilizing a computerized ―photo-shopped‖ stamp, or some other device to create
said blank indorsement allegedly signed by WAMU VP Jess Almanza.

84. For Owners note to be considered ―bearer paper‖, Ms. Almanza must have
personally indorsed Owners note and her signature must have been authenticated by a notary.

85. Owners allege that Ms. Almanza did not personally indorse Owners Note, nor was
her signature authenticated by a legal notary, thus rendering said document as fraudulent.

86. Chase‘s pattern of deceit has become blindingly conspicuous when one simply
conducts an Internet query on ―Chase, fraud,‖ for 1,540,000 hits appear instantaneously. The
practice of Chase fraudulently preparing the necessary foreclosure documents needed to prove
standing appears to be widespread:

9-2010 NY TIMES - JPMorgan Suspending Foreclosures: ―In a sign that the
entire foreclosure process is coming under pressure, a second major mortgage
lender said that it was suspending court cases against defaulting homeowners so it
could review its legal procedures. The lender, JPMorgan Chase, said on
Wednesday that it was halting 56,000 foreclosures because some of its employees
might have improperly prepared the necessary documents. All of the suspensions
are in the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by a court, including
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida and Illinois. ...GMAC and Chase
say that their lapses were technical and will soon be remedied with new filings.
But defense lawyers are seizing on these revelations and say they will now work
to have their cases thrown out... Potentially, hundreds of thousands of cases could
be in doubt....―I don‘t want to say that every one of these cases is wrong and a
fraud on the court, but it is a big concern for us,‖ J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge
of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Florida, said in an interview last week after
GMAC‘s announcement. ―Everyone is going to have to look at these cases more
closely,‖ whose circuit includes St. Petersburg...‖


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

87. In an article entitled ―Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud‖ written by
Matt Reynolds of Courthouse News Service on January 17, 2012, the author reports that
although previously warned, Chase has not abandoned its practice of creating fraudulent
documents:

LOS ANGELES (CN) – ―JPMorgan Chase routinely fabricated documents to
deceive bankruptcy judges, going so far as to Photoshop documents to "create the
illusion" of standing "in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases," according to a
federal class action. Lead plaintiff Ernest Michael Bakenie claims that Chase's
"pattern and practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other
bankruptcy players" bore rich fruit: that Chase secured motions for relief of stay
and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases. "Through the use of fabricated
assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust,
notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-
negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs'); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and
practice of playing 'hide-and-seek' with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy
players," the complaint states. "Chase intentionally conceals the identity of the
true parties in interest entitled to enforce the tens of tens of thousands of
residential non-negotiable promissory notes (the 'MLNs') for its own financial
benefit, at the expense of the class and to the detriment of the integrity of the
bankruptcy system." Bakenie says Chase used a network of attorneys to file more
than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the
Central District of California, "wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled
to monies due under the terms of MLNs."

88. An article written on February 28th, 2012 entitled ―Banks Steal Homes, And I
Have Proof‖, Foreclosure Defense Attorney Mark Stopa offers more validation of widespread
fraudulent indorsements:

―...I defend foreclosure cases. In that role, I look closely at every promissory
note and every indorsement on those notes that come across my desk. I‘ve
encountered the name ―Danielle Sterling‖ a fair number of times as an indorser on


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

89. Fischer and Shapiro, the law firm prosecuting the instant lawsuit on Chase‘s
behalf, have openly admitted to altering foreclosure documents in a manner similar to what was
necessary to falsify the Indorsement on Owners Note in the instant case. On a front page
Chicago Tribune article dated Saturday March 26, 2011 entitled ―Altered Documents Stay
1,700 Foreclosures‖ it was stated:

―Fisher and Shapiro LLC, one of the top three law firms used by mortgage
servicers to handle their local foreclosure actions, reported to the court that, in a
breach of protocol, affidavits in the cases were changed...the admission to the
court by Fisher and Shapiro does not involve rubber-stamping of documents but
rather removing the signature page, altering the affidavits content and reattaching
the content page, the (Cook County Circuit Court) said.


90. For Chase, or their attorneys, Fischer and Shapiro, to falsify the indorsement on
Owners Note, the signature page had to be removed, the indorsement printed or affixed, and the
content page reattached, in the exact same process Fischer and Shapiro admitted to.

91. According to the deposition of Angela Melissa Nolan VP of JP Morgan Chase in
the case styled: Deutsche Bank National Trust As Trustee For JPMAC 2007- CH5-JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA Case# 50-2008, Chase, in direct violation of the law, routinely produced the
allonges, assignments and indorsements needed to create the illusion of a legal foreclosure:

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

92. Chase is attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure proceedings
by fraudulently falsifying Owners Note in order to claim ownership of the Owners indebtedness
and literally steal the Owners home.

93. By falsifying the Indorsement on Owners Note, Chase has committed criminal
fraud thus voiding Owners note ab initio.

Criminal fraud voids a contract, ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the
object be to deceive the public, third persons or one party endeavor thereby to


cheat the other. Antle v. Sexton, 137 III. 410, 27. N. E. 691 [affirming 32 III. App.
437]; Crocker v. Manley, 164 III. 282, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196, 45 N. E. 577;
Prentice v. Crane, 234 111. 302, 84 N. E. 916; Gillespie v. Fulton Oil & Gas Co.,
236 III. 188. 86 N. E. 210; Prout v. Hoy Oil Co., 263 111. 54, 105 N. E. 26;
Wachsmuth v. Martini, 45 111. App. 244.

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

94. Moreover, Chase‘s falsification of Owners documents is subject to fine and
imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341:

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

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


at a loss of $993,792.16. Robinson was sentenced to 57 months in prison for
participating in this fraud.

95. If Chase argues that its crimes and violations of the law have exceeded the
Statute of Limitations, according to the Doctrine Of Fraudulent Concealment, said Statute
is subject to being tolled:

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

96. Owners allege that said Indorsement is defective and was meant to facilitate a
fraudulent foreclosure; a practice routinely not caught by defense attorneys nor the courts.

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

CHASE MISREPRESENTS ITS CAPACITY AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
WAMU

97. In its complaint to foreclose Owners property, Chase claims that it is the holder of
the beneficial interest under Owners Mortgage in the capacity of successor in interest to the
assets of WAMU.

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

99. On September 25, 2008, the Director of the OTS, by Order Number 2008-36,
closed WAMU and subjected it to Receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC).


100. On September 25, 2008, a proposed Purchase and Assumption Agreement
(―PAA‖) was entered into by and among: the FDIC as receiver of WAMU; the FDIC in its
corporate capacity; and JP Morgan Chase bank, NA upon which final settlement and amended
PAA took place on September 30, 2010. (the proposed PAA is published at
http://www.fedic.gov/about/freedom/washington _Mutual_P and _A.pdf;

101. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that their specific loan which Chase
is seeking to foreclose, was in fact, never sold by the FDIC to Chase or otherwise legally
acquired.

102. Chase has admitted, in filings by its counsel in the Federal matter of Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, etc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and JPMorgan
Chase Bank National Association et al, Case No. 1:09-CV-1656 (RMC) that:

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

103. Despite this record admission which is binding upon Chase, Chase, both directly
and indirectly through its Servicer Chase Home Finance LLC, has instituted a foreclosure
proceeding where it claims, in official court filings and documents filed in the public record and
sent to the Owners herein through the mails, to be the ―successor in interest to Washington
Mutual Bank‖ for purposes of attempting to justify legal entitlement to institute foreclosure
proceedings, doing so based upon nothing more than an unsworn allegation supported by
fraudulent documents.

CHASE’s ROLE IS THAT OF SERVICER

104. The Owners loan was sold to MBS Investors without recourse sometime between
its recording date of ______________ and the ______________ Trust cut-off date of
______________. Therefore, at the time of WAMU‘s acquisition by the FDIC in September
2008, WAMU would have been the Servicer of Owners loan, not the Lender. Hence, Chase
could have only acquired the servicing rights on Owners loan as the governing PAA states:


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

105. Chase, as the Servicer of Owners loan, does not have standing to foreclose
Owners property. ―The servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the
holder of the note has standing to enforce the note.‖ See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at
8.

106. In Bayview Loan Servicing, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 1188., the record reflected that the
plaintiff at most, serviced the mortgage payments.

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

CHASE PURCHASES PARTIAL ASSETS FROM FDIC

107. The FDIC sold defined assets of WAMU to Chase as set forth within the PAA,
hence, Chase did not acquire the firm ―in toto‖ but instead acquired specifically defined assets
and liabilities on a strict and written schedule from the FDIC. (page 10 PAA)

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

108. In order to determine if Owners Note was included in said assets, Chase must
produce the written schedule from the FDIC.


CONCLUSION

109. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that by the securitization and
sale of this Receivable, the enforceability of the original Receivable, or Note, was lost and Chase
is not the holder of the Note. Chase cannot hold the note which was sold to another party
without recourse.

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

111. Therefore, when Chase commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Owners
to seize their property on ______________, it did so wholly without color of authority and was
committing slander of title. When Chase recorded its Lis Pendens notice with the
______________County Recorder‘s Office, it intentionally recorded a false document.

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

113. The doctrine of standing is designed to ensure that only those parties with a real
interest in the outcome of the controversy bring suit. Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211,
221 (1999). Accordingly, a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action must have a beneficial
interest in the mortgage. Winkelman v. Kiser, 27 Ill. 20, 21 (1861).

114. Chase has no right to foreclose on behalf of unknown investors because of a lack
of agency, lack of authority and lack of knowledge of whether the note has been discharged.
Thus, Chase does not have the right to request possession of the property claimed.

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

116. Chase falsified an unauthenticated indorsement on Owners note to make it appear
that Chase had a claim to Owners indebtedness. Chase filed and pursued a foreclosure suit
against Owners using a fraudulent Mortgage Indorsement.

117. The actions taken by Chase constitutes false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent,
criminal or otherwise illegal conduct under the law.

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


York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko" decision from Ohio Federal Court). The
court concluded: ―Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the
promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this
case.‖

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

119. Standing is founded "in concern about the proper-and properly limited-role of the
courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail
himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that
he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634
(1937).

120. Owners allege that Chase cannot hide behind the simplistic notion that ―It just
didn‘t have its paperwork in order‖ as suggested by those who have not taken the time to
research what is really going on in our country, for the evidence is both overwhelming and
indisputable: Chase, and other banks have no rights to the mortgages they are foreclosing on, nor
are they holders in due course. This is a sham being perpetrated under our very noses and the
tragedy is that few are doing anything about it.

121. Therefore, this Court is urged in the strongest possible way to apply a
presumption of falsity when reviewing any documentary evidence filed by Chase. Such a
presumption is not just warranted, it is compelled by the extent to which Chase has acted in a
malicious and wanton manner evincing complete contempt for the judicial process and the rights
of persons having interests contrary to their own. This is particularly true because Chase‘s
contempt for due process is compounded by their specific intention to obviate the requirement
that documents prepared for legal use be truthful, authentic, and legitimate.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FRAUD)

122. Chase by its predecessor, WAMU, committed fraud with regard to the Loan to
Owners related to the Property as set forth in the Counterclaim.


THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (UNCLEAN HANDS)

123. In light of Chase‘s fraud and lack of standing, Chase is proceeding with unclean
hands and should be barred from seeking relief from Owners.

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

WHEREFORE, Owners, ______________, respectfully request that this Court grant judgment in
their favor and against Chase and for such other and further relief that this Court deems
necessary and proper.&

COUNTER-CLAIM FOR:

COUNT I: COMMON LAW FRAUD, FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
COUNT II: SLANDER OF TITLE,
COUNT III: CIVIL CONSPIRACY
COUNT IV: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
COUNT V: VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT
("FDCPA") 15 USC § 1692
COUNT VI: UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES - VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS
CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT 815 ILCS 505/1
TO 515
COUNT VII: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
COUNT VIII : BREACH OF CONTRACT
COUNT IX : RICO-18 U.S.C.§§1961 et seq

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

THE PARTIES


1. Counter-plaintiff Owners, ______________ (collectively ―Owners‖) are, and at
all times mentioned herein are the title holders to the property that is the subject of this
Counterclaim, the location of which is commonly known as 6581 ______________ (―the
Property‖) which they custom built and purchased in ______________.

2. Owners request that this court take judicial notice of the Secretary of State‘s
official records wherein many of these parties are not registered to engage in any business in the
State of Illinois and there is no evidence of their legal standing capacity to maintain any lawsuits
in this state.

3. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in
this Complaint, JP Morgan Chase NA (hereinafter ―Chase‖), is a New York corporation not
licensed to do business in the state of Illinois. Chase was, and is, in the business of being a
"servicer" of "federally related mortgage loans" as those terms are defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C.
§§ 2602(1) and 2605(i) (2). Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase was
and is in the business of the collection of consumer debts, either on behalf of itself or others and
it is therefore subject to the Illinois Consumer and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505.

4. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in
this Complaint, Chase was and is in the business of purchasing and otherwise taking assignment
of consumer credit transactions described in the Federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15
U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., originated by others.

OTHER PARTIES

5. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that Chase Home Finance
LLC (Hereinafter CHF) is a wholly owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase which acquired
WAMU Home Loans Servicing, LP (―WAMU‖) an Ohio corporation not licensed to do business
in the state of Illinois. CHF was, and is, in the business of being a "servicer" of "federally related
mortgage loans" as those terms are defined in RESPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2602(1) and 2605(i) (2).
Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that CHF was and is in the business of the
collection of consumer debts, either on behalf of itself or others and it is therefore subject to the
Illinois Consumer and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505.


6. Chase is a wholly-owned subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase which purchased
specific assets of WAMU which, upon information and belief, is a partial successor in interest to
WAMU. In the event that Chase responds to the counterclaim that it is not responsible for the
actions of WAMU or the other related and affiliated entities to WAMU, Owners reserve the right
to add additional parties to this counterclaim. Chase has brought its Complaint against Owners
and it specifically alleges that it was a ―Successor In Interest‖ to WAMU and thus Chase is
referenced herein with regard to the actions of WAMU Servicing, and the actions of its affiliates,
CHF.

7. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned
herein, WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, NA (―WAMU‖), is a California corporation not
licensed to do business in the state of Illinois; and was and is an entity in the business of
originating, purchasing and otherwise taking assignment of consumer credit transactions.
Owners entered into a loan with WAMU (―Loan‖ and in reference to all of the Loan Documents
―Loan Documents‖) pursuant to a promissory note (―Note‖) and secured by a mortgage
(―Mortgage‖) on the Property.

8. Owners are informed and believe and thereon allege, that at all times mentioned
herein ______________TRUST (hereinafter ―______________‖); is a _____________
corporation not licensed to do business in the state of Illinois and was the ―depositor‖ for loans
originated by WAMU into Mortgage backed Securities Collateralized Debt Obligations
(―CDO‘s‖) In Trust For Registered Holders Of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
______________ of which Owners Loan is a part of Securitized Asset Backed Receivables for
______________.

9. Owners reserve the right to add additional parties to this counterclaim. Chase has
brought its Complaint against Owners and it specifically alleges that it is the successor in interest
to WAMU Servicing‖) and thus Chase is referenced herein with regard to the actions of WAMU
Servicing, and the actions of its affiliates, WAMU.

10. Upon information and belief, Owners allege that the actions of WAMU and its
affiliates are the actions of Chase and that Chase is liable to Owners for their actions.


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Counterclaim arises out of a foreclosure proceeding replete with fraud by
Chase related to the Property of Owners. It is brought by Owners who are being sued for
foreclosure by Chase which lacks standing as a real party in interest to the underlying Note.

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

Defenses are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

15. Owner ______________ has conducted extensive research on the topic of
foreclosure as it relates to the anomalous events now unfolding in our country in ___ quest to
discover what is really happening ―beneath the covers.‖ _____ extensive research revealed that
the so-called Economic Crisis was intentionally engineered by Insiders on Wall Street, the
largest Banks and the Federal Reserve (―the Conspirators‖).

16. The matters raised by Owners in their affirmative defenses and counterclaims
cannot be viewed in a vacuum and need to be viewed in the larger context of what the
―Conspirators‖ were doing. Thus, Counter-Plaintiff Owners are also submitting ―Supplemental
Evidence‖, a chronological synopsis of the events which comprise this Conspiracy.

17. Upon information and belief, Chase is attempting to foreclose on Owners‘
Property without standing to do so and has taken the following improper actionable wrongs
against Owners.

a.) WAMU sold Owners a known predatory Option Arm loan product with a
negative amortization promising that if rates increased Owners could
refinance;

FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure

FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure

Similaire à FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure (20)

Plus de lauren tratar

Plus de lauren tratar (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosure