-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC
20530
STATE OF NEW YORK120 Broadway )New York, NY 10271
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA16th Floor, Strawberry
SquareHarrisburg, PA 17120
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY270 Park Avenue New York, New
York 10017
PHELAN LAW FIRM3545 JFK BlvdPhiladelphia PA 19422
BERG LAW FIRM43 5th AveNY NY 100434
CHESTER COUNTY COURT SYSTEM200 W Market StreetWest Chester PA
19345
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Third Circuit
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY MURRAY ) CIVIL ACTIONPlaintiff ) FEDERAL
#2-14-cv-02282-TONv. ) FEDERAL #2-13mc-00207-FLR JP MORGAN CHASE )
Chester 09-05543/12-05579BERG LAW ) Superior 90 EDA 2014PHELAN LAW
) Two Appeals Were FiledCHESTER COUNTY COURTS ) Superior 180 EDA
2013Defendants ) BANKR. 14-10376
JURY DEMAND
-
COMPLAINT for RICO UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FRAUD & USUSRY BY
ONGOING
OPERATION OF ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
Now comes T Patrick Murray as Plaintiff and I accuse, aver and
respectfully allege as follows:
WELCOME TO THE LARGEST CRIME IN 200 YEARS OF A NATION
As the risk of ridicule, rejection, presumption of
sensationalism or the accusations of handicap of stupidity or
riddled by the injury of natural dim witted perception, I aver,
after six years of preparation, investigation, calculation and
legal elucidation, that the crimes I accuse Chase and accomplices
herein of are so vast in scope, so wide in breadth, so deep in
severity and so hidden in plain sight that, if given the chance to
be proven true, it would result in reorganization of lending and
banking laws in America and millions of inevitable adjustments for
damages done unto those in foreclosure and those not, as two crimes
bracket this Complaint, the good payer crime of usurious theft and
the bad payer crime of fraudulent foreclosure.
Rich, poor, in default or in good standing, all those with a
mortgage are potential parties to this or future actions based upon
the novel counts herein. Allow me the chance, I pray, for Court and
a jury, if for only a day
THE MONEY MATRIX
This is a civil action against J.P. Morgan Chase & Company
and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. for misconduct related to
origination and amortization servicing of single family residential
mortgages, as well as their methods for foreclosure by fraud of
many formerly owned debts they sold before 2008 to third parties
now the holders in due course with standing only to foreclose. This
amounts to two distinct and unrelated exercises, operations and
infrastructures of legal and financial FRAUD, unique in design and
intent, but identical in results of injury and enrichment- one at
expense of the other and a cover up to avoid investigation and
indictment.
It is a decent into truths we reject like an organ- for the
truth is indeed foreign to most of us. Like metaphysical movie THE
MATRIX, the character is asked if he wants the truth or the
lie.
-
These binary self-deterministic nodes in space-time are the
intersection of reality and destiny, and if the movie, the truth
was the red pill, and conscious somnolence was the blue pill.
I seek not to provoke the Court in no other way than to gain
their attention for a preliminary hearing as- to note- after two
foreclosure actions after six years, I as Defendant of underlying
case, has not enjoyed due process, or any process, failing to
experience a single hearing in a matter equal to civil capital
punishment- the sale of my home loss of all. My life left due to
it.
Will you not read these averments with religious holiness, but
the substance and weight of the truth is felt as only the truth
inscribed can touch the heart through the soul and the eyes.
I pray this Court explore the depths of evidenced allegation of
esoteric finance manipulation.
As described in the allegations below, Defendants misconduct
resulted in the issuance of improper mortgages, premature and
unauthorized foreclosures, violation of service members and other
homeowners rights and protections, the use of false and deceptive
affidavits and other documents, and the waste and abuse of taxpayer
funds.
Each of the allegations regarding Defendants contained herein
applies to instances in which one or more, and in some cases all,
of the Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged.
By engaging actions averred herein, JP MORGAN CHASE and counsel
violated Federal State laws in the origination, collection,
monetization, amortization and foreclosure default mitigation as
they collected on insurance and credit default hedges. This
Complaint, if true, would result in trillions of dollars in damages
as millions, I aver, were deprived/cheated of six figures. And I
have exact math.
I aver they also violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the
Securities Act of 1933 [5 U.S.c. 77q(a)(2) and (3) ("Securities
Act") by and various consumer laws by engaging in fraud, forgery,
perjury, fraud upon courts, negligently misrepresenting foreclosure
facts (no standing) and unrelated acts were a failure to disclose
key mortgage deal terms, by intent, formulas, and the structure of
front loaded dynamic ratio co-efficient for dynamic daily adjusted
interest to equity from on amazing loan with loan-shark rates
enjoyed by Mr Dimon who sells residential paper appearing as modest
safe 6% paper to Street but is in fact a con.
-
The front.
Dimon is actually a non fiction Mr Soprano, except Mr. Dimon is
smarter and his front isnt a strip joint and a sanitation W2, but a
national fancy pants bank which is a word to mean guys in suits
playing casino games in constricts called markets with chips they
did not earn but were given to them to play with, and as such, this
corrupted them.
Dimon is a gentleman, not a thug. He is a criminal but not a war
criminal- yet the damage he has done to millions is wrong. Chase
not mafia- a facade financial organized crime corporation.
Dimon is not a made man but a CEO, and instead of joining in
blood a group called our thing he opted for the inside game and he
had a much better thing- his thing is the Fed, the group that has a
hold on the rates and rules themselves, and from his chair at New
York Fed, expresses a daily conflict of interest grey blurry line
between the profits of the Fed and the quasi-municipal
functions.
Chase withheld at closing and before and during the information
about the process by which the mortgage loan was originated,
amortized unfairly with front loaded interest, upon default,
insured against injury despite selling it years ago without
disclosure compounded by sworn verification that was knowingly
fraudulent in nature.
Finally, foreclosure is entirely criminal enterprise itself,
without resorting to hyperbole.
From inception to assignment to collection of prepaid interest
undisclosed to foreclosure JP MORGAN CHASE's financial interests in
the transaction trumped law, common sense, common decency and the
attention of law enforcement officers elected and entrusted to
indict those who profit from others injury on a national, organized
crime, RICO level as Chase does under Dimon, whom I filed a private
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against in PA.
I seek temporary injunctive relief, restitution for usury,
disgorgement of unjust profits, rebate interest, criminal and civil
penalties and all other appropriate and necessary equitable relief
from Defendants- all I allege criminals except the County- they
were innocent and apathetic useful idiots I aver.
-
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Banks because the
Banks have transacted business in this District, because Chase
committed acts proscribed by False Claims Act in this District.
This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b) as to all
claims and causes of action asserted in this complaint. This Court
also has jurisdiction and venue over this action pursuant to
Sections 20(b), 20(d) and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 US.c.
77t(b), 77t(d), 77v(a)]. CHASE transacts business in this judicial
district and, in connection with certain of the acts, transactions,
and courses of business described in the complaint. This court also
has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334, 151 and 157.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction\ pursuant to 28 1331,
1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. 45(a) and U.S.C. 53(b), 1391(b)
and (c), and 15 U.S.C. 53(b).
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 because the action arises under the laws of the United States
and 31 U.S.C. 3732(a) to the extent claims arise under the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3733 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, 31
U.S.C. 3732(b), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the claims asserted by the States in this action
because those claims are so related to the claims because as claims
arise out of the same transactions under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. 3729 to 3733.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)(2), 31 U.S.C.
3732(a) 28 U.S.C. 1409
THE PARTIES
Diversity of parties is one reason this Court has
jurisdiction.
PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff Timothy Murray is an individual award winning
filmmaker presently out of work because he spends full time dealing
with this fraud (hereinafter known as PLAINTIFF) I aver defendants'
practices constitute fraud on the court as they NEVER over 6 years
had standing
(Exhibit A they hid)
-
The nature of any injunctive relief which should be afforded to
the class to prevent continuation of the wrongful conduct of the
defendants. Whether the defendants should be required to disgorge
the benefits obtained from its wrongful conduct.
The nature and amount of civil damages that should be paid.The
nature and amount of civil sanctions that should be assessed.That
nature and amount of punitive damages that should be assessed.
DEFENDANTS
Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Company is a diversified
global financial services firm. It is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in New York, New York. Chase is a national banking
association. It is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.
JP MORGAN CHASE Inc. is the principal U.S. broker-dealer of JP
MORGAN CHASE Inc., a global financial services firm headquartered
in New York City. Defendant CHASE is a New York corporation with
principal place of business in Ohio, New York and transacted
business in this district. On September 25, 2008, Washington
Mutual., a federal savings bank in Henderson, Nevada, failed, and
J.P. Morgan Chase, purchased substantially all assets and assumed
deposit and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank., pursuant to
Purchase Assumption Agreement with Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank,
F.S.B.
Collectively two defendants identified are referred to here as
J.P. Morgan.
J.P. Morgan subsidiaries affiliates are in business of
origination and servicing of mortgage loans. Defendants operate a
mortgage servicing business that services millions of home loans
annually.
Defendants have operated as a common enterprise externally while
engaging in the unlawful acts and practices alleged below in a
perfect double life that resembles a popular politician on the take
whose true nature is only revealed when the evidence of crime
surfaces, like now.
Because Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of
them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices
alleged below.
The defendant is a publicly traded corporation that provides
mortgage services to
-
various parties in mortgage industry. CHASE has principal place
of business at Columbus Ohio and New York.
Chase does business in every court in the United States of
America by agent or employee including this Court. This defendant
may be served by delivering service of process to Jaime Dimon or
Michael Ohara of Berg Law Firm, who is counsel to the President and
CEO.
Lastly, Phelan and Berg Law Firms are New York and PA
partnerships that I aver fraudulently represent Chase, and Chester
County Court System as it is a PA county agency municipal
entity.
On May 30, 2008, J.P. Morgan Chase & Company acquired The
Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (now the Bear Stearns Companies LLC) by
merger, including its subsidiary EMC Mortgage Corporation (now EMC
Mortgage LLC).
For this Complaint, all may be referred to as Defendants.
THE SMOKING GUN
Finally, after all the litigation and wasting of time and
uncertainty of truth and proof and anxiety of true legality and
enforceability of judicial order evicting us from a tom depriving
us of equity.
After the default judgment and scheduling of sale last year, a
miracle occurred.
We found that one in a million needle in hay stack, that one
smoking gun, that one piece of evidence no one could escape the
implications of as to adjusting perception of the court and correct
any errors, mollify any prejudice, eliminate any bias and reversing
any judgments adverse to defendant homeowner which resulted in
scheduled sale of home in a mere 6 weeks.
COUNT 1: USURY
What does the banking industrys biggest secret concern?
Mortgages.
When it comes to mortgages, most consumers are knowledgeable and
able to choose between various loan products and select the right
home loan for their risk
-
tolerance.
The most highly promoted loan type of all, the 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage, is the one most often selected. I am averring
shocking truths about the 30-year fixed that equally stunned both
consumers and mortgage industry experts alike.
WHY?
Consumers choose a 30-year fixed based on two things and only
two things- a low fixed rate and a low fixed payment. But I found
that only ONE of those two things is actually true.
The other one is false.
Which one is false?
The part about the interest rate being fixed.
Contrary to public opinion, interest rate on a 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage is NOT fixed.
Thats right, NOT fixed.
You will learn that a 30-year fixed rate mortgage is actually
ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE and the rate consumers are really paying
on them is much, much higher than they could imagine, completely
blocking financial freedom.
BIGGEST COUNT: THE TRILLION DOLLAR USURY HIDDEN IN PLAIN
SIGHT
JP MORGAN Chase Directly Violated Holder Rule (and UCL) By
Omitting Germane Interest Rate Notice from its Loan Documents.
Because common wisdom says that a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
must actually have a fixed rate, its an easy sell for the lenders,
who profit substantially from the misnomer.
Amortization Manipulation
The longer the mortgage amortization, the greater amount of
mortgage interest payable.
-
The process of making regular, periodic decreases in the book or
carrying value of an asset.
For example, when a bond is purchased at a price above 100, the
difference between the purchase price and the par value, the
premium, is amortized.
Premiums are usually amortized in roughly equal amounts that
completely eliminate the premium by the time that the bond has
matured or by the call date, if applicable
Liquidation of a loan or security by means of periodic
reductions.
The principal amount of loans is amortized by the periodic,
usually monthly, payment of a fraction of the principal calculated
to repay the entire amount of principal due by the date of the last
scheduled periodic payment. Amortization methods differ based upon
the type of loan.
Mortgage loans and securities usually have level payments of
principal and interest.
For such amortizations, the interest consumes most of the early
payments and, therefore, principal amortization increases as the
loan ages.
Many business loans use level amortization with equal
principal/interest ratios each payment.
PLEASE REPEAT THIS AS IT PROVES IF BUSINESS ASKS, A FAIR LOAN
EXISTS
Banks are offering these longer amortizations under the guise of
"affordability". The payments are indeed cheaper per month, but the
increase in total interest costs can be staggering.
In order to understand the misnomer, youll have to learn a lot
more about mortgages and this first table/exhibit will explain.
This chart I am creating here reveals each years payment goes to
Principal (to the loan balance, to the consumer) and how much goes
to Interest (to the lender).
For example, well use an average American conforming loan, a
$360,000 30-year loan at a fixed interest rate of just 5.31%.
-
Why?
It makes the illustration of the crime easier to comprehend, as
the baseline payment is approximately $2000 a month and the total
owed in principal (360k) is very close to total interest owed
(364k)
For financial instruments, the time from the inception of a loan
or investment instrument with scheduled principal repayments to the
due date of contractually obligated principal repayment.
For fixed assets, the period from the acquisition of a fixed
asset to the date of the last periodic reduction (made to reflect
depreciation) of the book value of that asset.
Assets may be depreciated until the book value is zero, but
sometimes are only depreciated until the book value is reduced to
an assumed salvage value.
REMEDIAL EFFECTIVE OR REAL INTEREST RATE
The Effective Rate calculation is a measure of the actual
interest rate consumers pay on their home loans by factoring in the
front-end loaded interest.
The formula asks, What rate would I really pay if I only held a
front-end loaded loan for X number of years?
Using a financial calculator:
PV = equity built in a given time period.N = number of years
being analyzedPMT = monthly payment(as a negative sum)CPT, then
I/Y(Compute, then Interest/Year) = Actual Interest Rate
When we applied this formula to our sample 6.0% 30-year loan,
the results were as follows:
If our sample 6.0% loan is kept for 25 years, the consumer would
wind up paying almost $270k over 25 years for $104k in loan
equity.
Entered into our formula, the actual rate is 9.43%. Thats right,
9.43%, not 6.0%!And thats based upon giving up the loan only 5
years early.
-
Now how much would the real rate be if that loan was kept for 20
years?
The answer is 14.82%. What about for 15-years?
The answer keeps rising. Its a 24.16% interest rate.
Paying $161,879 with less than $44,000 to principal shouldnt
seem like 6% rate because it isnt
And it only gets worse.
Holding a 6.0% fixed-rate 30-year loan for 10 years costs an
actual 43.48% interest rate.
Keeping it for 7 years results in paying a staggering 68%
interest rate to the lender. Keeping it for only 5 years results in
the equivalent of a 102% rate. Holding it for 3 years yields an
actual 182% rate and 1 year a 580% rate!
I informally polled hundreds of consumers as well as mortgage
industry experts, some of whom have over 25 years of experience in
the business, with the following question:
If you held a 6.0% 30-year fixed-rate loan for 7 years,
considering interest is front-end loaded and youre not waiting 30
years, what rate do you think youd really wind up paying?
The responses to this question and reaction to the correct
answer spurred this lawsuit.
Every time, the consumer or expert guessed between 8% and 12%
with an occasional highest answer of triple, which would represent
18%.
There was never a guess greater than 18% and yet the reality is
that the Effective Rate is actually 68%, almost 400% greater than
any guess.
The guesses were logical, yet so far off that it became
instantly clear that a gross and major misconception on the part of
the general public existed. It was also clear that these numbers
had never been disclosed to consumers.
-
Not one respondent had ever heard of an Effective Rate
calculation or a similar formula.
What impacted me the most, however, was the reaction of the
respondents after I revealed the actual answer of 68%.
One respondent after another was stunned and silenced. It seemed
consumers were well aware that mortgage interest is front-end
loaded but no one seemed to have any idea just how front-end loaded
it really is.
What the Effective Rate demonstrates is that the only way to
wind up paying the low advertised Note Rate is to keep the loan for
all 30 years. Due to the interest being front end loaded, the rate
becomes ADJUSTABLE based upon how long the loan is kept.
On a 6.0% 30-year fixed, the low fixed 6.0% Note Rate is
absolute MINIMUM rate a consumer will pay. Even though the monthly
payment is fixed, a consumer may wind up paying as much as a 580%
interest rate. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is an Adjustable Rate
Mortgage-
ACTUAL DAMAGES IN TORT EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL AMORTIZATION
The following schedule shows how the loan really works, and keep
in mind that at the same rate, it works exactly the same as any
other loan amount.
Whether a 30-year loan around 6.0% has a balance of $50,000 or
$500,000, the proportion of Principal to Interest is the same.
I have chosen 360k @ 5.31% over 30 years as it makes the complex
simpler.
360k 5.31% 30 years (360 payments)
S U M M A R YPayments (360) TOTAL P & I$2,001.33 $720,479.86
(360k principal + 36.5k interest)
$360,000.00 in principal repaid in 360 $1000.00
payments$360,479.86 in interest paid in 360 $1001.33 payments
-
DatePrincipalInterestEscrowBalance |
2014 $5,021.03 $18,994.97 $0.00 $354,978.972015 $5,294.23
$18,721.77 $0.00 $349,684.752016 $5,582.29 $18,433.70 $0.00
$344,102.452017 $5,886.04 $18,129.96 $0.00 $338,216.422018
$6,206.30 $17,809.69 $0.00 $332,010.112019 $6,544.00 $17,472.00
$0.00 $325,466.112020 $6,900.07 $17,115.93 $0.00 $318,566.042021
$7,275.51 $16,740.48 $0.00 $311,290.532022 $7,671.38 $16,344.61
$0.00 $303,619.152023 $8,088.80 $15,927.20 $0.00 $295,530.352024
$8,528.92 $15,487.07 $0.00 $287,001.432025 $8,992.99 $15,023.00
$0.00 $278,008.442026 $9,482.32 $14,533.68 $0.00 $268,526.122027
$9,998.26 $14,017.73 $0.00 $258,527.862028 $10,542.28 $13,473.71
$0.00 $247,985.582029 $11,115.91 $12,900.09 $0.00 $236,869.672030
$11,720.74 $12,295.25 $0.00 $225,148.932031 $12,358.48 $11,657.51
$0.00 $212,790.442032 $13,030.93 $10,985.07 $0.00 $199,759.512033
$13,739.96 $10,276.03 $0.00 $186,019.552034 $14,487.58 $9,528.42
$0.00 $171,531.982035 $15,275.87 $8,740.13 $0.00 $156,256.112036
$16,107.05 $7,908.94 $0.00 $140,149.062037 $16,983.46 $7,032.53
$0.00 $123,165.602038 $17,907.56 $6,108.44 $0.00 $105,258.042039
$18,881.94 $5,134.06 $0.00 $86,376.102040 $19,909.33 $4,106.66
$0.00 $66,466.772041 $20,992.63 $3,023.36 $0.00 $45,474.142042
$22,134.87 $1,881.12 $0.00 $23,339.272043 $23,339.27 $676.73 $0.00
$0.00
PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAIDTotals $360,000.00 $360,479.86
$760,479.86
$1000 should go every month to principal or equity$1001.33
should go every month to interest due
But it does not- the first payment awards about $9 rather than
$1000 to equity
Each year, the consumer pays $10,792 but a different portion of
that total gets credited to Principal and to Interest.
In the first year, $8950 of the payments go straight to the
lender and the remaining $1842 gets credited back to the consumer.
Here are some other facts gleamed from this schedule:
-
It takes 19 years before half a payment to Principal consumer
$5482 Principal, $5309 Interest
It takes 24 years before 2/3 of the monthly payment goes to
Principal.
After 7 years, the consumer has paid $75,600 but only $15,541
goes to Principal.After 10 years, over 84% of the starting balance
is still owed.After 15 years, over 71% of the starting balance is
still owed.
At that point, consumer has paid $161,000 in payments, more than
the original starting balance.
After 21 years, half of the starting balance is still owed. At
that point, I would have paid $226,800 with only $75,000 of it
going to Principal.
The numbers are heavily skewed in favor of the lender because
they are designed to be. Its due to something many consumers are
familiar with, front-end loaded interest.
Even though monthly payment is fixed, each payment has a
different contribution to Principal than Interest, and contribution
to Interest in the first years is much greater than in the last
years.
This is an illegal usurious front ended amortization ratio
favoring interest early, undisclosed.
The result of this system is that the lender collects their
interest first, up front.
The complaint herein is paradoxically simple and vastly complex,
and can be reduced to a simple concept- the interest on mortgage
loans is front-end loaded, stacked against them.
But we also found that those same consumers, no matter how
educated, as well as mortgage industry experts, do not realize that
the front-end loaded interest completely throws off the fixed
interest rate schedule. Look back at Year 1.
The consumer pays $10,792 but only $1842 of it gets credited
back to Principal.
What if he sold his house after that first year?Would it seem
like he paid a 6.0% rate?
-
Look even after 10 years.
The consumer pays lender almost $108,000 but less than $25,000
of it goes back to Principal.
Thats not a 6.0% rate. The same holds true for longer periods of
time like 20 and 25 years.
So if a 30-year fixed is kept for even 1 month less than 30
years, the rate consumers really wind up paying on it is
higher.
How much higher?
The Effective Rate Formula reveals what the actual,real interest
rate would be if a front-end loaded loan was kept for less than the
entire 30-year term.
RECYCLE THE MARK
The Effective Rate also shows that the entire concept of the
30-year loan is based upon the single principle of keeping it for
the entire term. The banks have been relying upon consumers to
concentrate on the fact that it all evens out 30 years later.
But how many consumers keep the same mortgage for 30 years?
NATIONALLY, HOMEOWNERS KEEP MORTGAGES FOR 5 YEARS ON AVERAGE.
Which is why second part of the crime is banker-initiated
REFI
FRAUD BY INDUCEMENT: THE TWO STEP LONG CON
This fraud is a two step old school fraud that involves a mark
(homeowner) who is lent $0 real money by the bank (they are only
extended credit as banks are legally prohibited from lending their
money) and then, after about 5 or 7 years, they get a call or
mailed offer for refinancing at a lower rate and a lower
payment.
This is the key to the crime, but how is lowering the rate and
payment a crime?
Well, like any crime (murder for example) one must have a
motive.
-
What motive does a homeowner have to refinance? Easy- saving
money. So why is the BANK the one initiating most refis? Why would
they intentionally take LESS profit or interest?
Because they are NOT- they are perpetrating a complex fraud by
inducement RICO crime.
Whether they refinance, move for a new job across the country,
whether theyre about to have kids are about to move onto college
Americans keep home loans for an average of just 5 years.
They keep their homes for longer than 5 years, but their
mortgages for only 5.
Previously, the long-standing national average was 7 years but
with the golden era of refinancing of the early 2000s, the average
has decreased to just 5 years.
By combining the 5-year statistic with the U.S. Department of
H.U.D.s 2003 data which shows the national average mortgage
interest rate is 6.16%, the Effective Rate Formula shows that
homeowners are paying a 107% interest rate on their mortgages,
their biggest and best investments - most without ever realizing
it.
That is WHAT THIS CASE and MY FILM is all about.
Eradication of ignorance about the mechanics of money, lending
and law.
And lenders are quietly earning an average of 107% in interest
on billions of dollars of home loans, significantly contributing to
record profits quarter after quarter.
On cars, they pay between 0 and 15%, on credit cards they pay
between 0 and 30% and yet on their low 6.0% fixed-rate mortgage,
the largest debt of all, they pay an average rate of 107%.
Their credit card balances may be only 15k and the auto loan may
be 20k but that super high-rate mortgage has a balance of 100k or
200k or more.
Consumers are paying the highest rate on their largest loan. An
average American who earns $50,000/year, has a wife and 2 children,
a modest retirement account and a 30-year mortgage.
We give him a credit card that has a $150,000 balance with an
APR of 107% and
-
tell him that hes now responsible for it the debt it his. What
would happen to his familys life and future outlook if he had that
credit card?
What would it do to them financially?
The answer is that it would probably devastate his family and
severely limit any opportunity they had to gain or build
wealth.
The numbers prove that the 30-year fixed rate mortgage is
equivalent to a giant credit card with an astronomical APR.
Millions upon millions of American consumers have this credit
card, this massive liability, which serves as nothing but a giant
mountain standing in the way of financial hopes and dreams.
The mountains bigger than Mount Everest yet remains invisible
due to the deceptive nature of the game. And no matter how much
more consumers earn at work and no matter how much their other
investments return, it winds up being meaningless in the long run
because that home loan, that 107% APRd credit card is sucking all
the wealth-building power out of them.
If you have ever re-financed a mortgage, you have been a victim
of this hidden scheme.
You should never re-finance without a concrete plan in place to
decrease the amount of excessive interest you will be legally
obligated to pay.
OUR STORY IS EVERYONES STORY
Almost losing our home to sheriff sale many times over 6 years
WITHOUT A SINGLE HEARING or A SINGLE WORD ON ANY TRANSCRIPT is the
most stressful thing next to cancer, and we have managed to put off
the sale by reminding both the Bank and the Court that we had two
things on our side- the truthful evidence of innocence (or the lack
of standing of Chase to foreclose) and the real issue of a feature
film about not just this foreclosure but all foreclosures, forcing
all involved todo the right thing or risk indictment and conviction
by the highest court in the land- the quarter billion jurist
sitting on the incorruptible Court of Public Opinion, who
adjudicates in the jurisdiction of media and mass
communications.
-
As we continued our dual mission- to save our home and also
create a professional investigative documentary film to augment
awareness mitigate ignorance by many means for many families.
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
The Court and County denied us due process and equal protection
and was grossly negligent as they were indifferent in their pattern
of abuse of discretion. Chase denied us those rights as well by
obtaining a default judgment without notice, in view of evidence of
lack of standing, and aware they were fraudulently filing all
pleadings and we were responding and still denied us.
Bias, prejudice, judge who should have recused himself- errors
and omissions, the list goes on.
There are three possibilities.
1) Innocent Error or Mistake, Compounded By Systemic Integration
Of Bad Habits2) Apathetic Indifference Resulting in Unintentional
but Actual Gross Negligence3) Simple Old Fashioned Corruption with
Banks Bribing ad Buying Judges
We are not accusing anyone of a crime (except Chase and their
Counsel) but we are putting Chester County Court, Clerk,
Prothonotary and Sheriff on Notice of an ongoing private public
record investigation and civil lawsuit seeking a trillion dollars
in damages to destroy Chase and use asset liquidation to compensate
millions of victims of crimes.
So first things first- what are these crimes we are
alleging?
Fraudulent Foreclosure for those who do not pay their mortgage
RICO usury, unjust enrichment and fraud by inducement for those who
pay their mortgages
GERMANE MOTION FILED LAST SUMMER RECENTLY REVIVED
Docket 2:13-mc-00207-LFR JP MORGAN CHASE v. MURRAY et alJUDGE L.
FELIPE RESTREPO presidingDate filed: 07/31/2013
Requesting a stay of sale scheduled for 5/15/14 presently.
-
THE STORY SO FAR
So where are we now?
1) Conducting The Private Investigation2) The call to peaceful
activism by litigation3) Private Criminal Complaints4)
$1,000,000,000,000.00 RICO Federal ClassActions Lawsuit 3rd
Circuit5) PA Superior Court Appeal6) Lawsuit Against Chester County
Justice Center7) Calling and Organizing The Victims8) Press
Conference and Press Releases9) The FTC and Justice Department and
The Media10) The Documentary Film Release
THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS
Millions of Americans have lost, are losing and will lose their
homes.This story isnt about the legitimate foreclosures that
deserve the proceeds of a sheriff sale.
This story isnt about getting a free home while others
faithfully pay a mortgage every month.
This story is about the fact that our most basic right is the
protection of confiscation of our most precious assets- our lives,
our freedoms and our possessions.
Of all lifes material possessions (most of which are worthless
in every sense of the word) there is one that is unique and not
only valuable, its actually priceless.
Home, Sweet, Home
Over 95% of foreclosures- the civil equivalent of the death
penalty where a person loses their largest financial asset and by
extension, too often, they subsequently lose everything- such as
their spouse, family and mind- if not their life- because nothing
on Earth short of death is as traumatic and life-changing as
foreclosure as life is largely lived in real estate we all call
home.
When T Patrick Murray, an award winning filmmaker who spent all
his money on his films and in 2008, it was when his spouse lost her
job as a practicing attorney
-
but who is also a chemical engineer, mother and calculus teacher
with a Masters In Business Administration as well.
Together they looked for work and began a 6 year odyssey to
defend the foreclosure, as one of them having advanced degrees in
law and business, they worked 100 hours a week to learn about
germane law and the intricacies of financial derivatives, and to
discover evidence that the debt Chase asserted to be owed, the one
we were accused as having defaulted upon, was in fact not a debt at
all, and even if it were, it was not owed to Chase.
We searched for years.
We learned much.
We learned that taking that away is about as serious- arguably
as serious- as someone taking away your freedom or even your
life.
Hence, civil capital punishment.
Besides the foundation of wealth, security and survival for 99%
of the world who list their homes as their most valuable financial,
social and psychological asset.
The only right protecting us from the biased or abbreviated or
otherwise defective procedure is called due process- a guaranteed
processor check and balances within the justice system that errs on
the side of the defendant before any of these precious priceless
three things can ever be taken away from any of us- whether a
soccer mom or serial killer.
DOUBLE STANDARD
Thats why killers get years and years of appeals before they are
killed by the state, as the state would not want to kill an
innocent defendant, or put them in prison for life without parole
if innocent, or, in the civil arena of law, take away their home
rendering them and their small children literally homeless, broken
and possibly destroyed as individuals and as a societal unit.
Yet while we provide lawyers and years of appeals to killers of
children before taking their lives, we utterly fail to protect hard
working taxpayers without a criminal record from the sale of their
home by banks investigated by 49 states for seriously improper
judicial foreclosure procedure.
-
In fact, we saw friends who within a single month lost their
home - without a compulsory appeal, or independent review of cases
by an objective quasi-public agency nor provision of legal
assistance for this civil matter (as if it was a criminal matter as
stakes are so high)
The mere fact that a bank can lend out more than we deposit
tells us something that is just common senseif everyone went to the
bank at the same time to withdrawal money it could not possibly be
there. This is why bankers fear a run on the banks because we all
believe that one day we could go to a bank to withdraw money and it
would not be there.
A bank DOES NOT have to give you your money back and they can
place limits on how much you can withdrawal! It sounds absurd that
a bank wouldnt have your money but again goes back to regulation
(word hated by banking industry). Also the fact that they do not
have to have money on hand to cover the loans they provide their
customers. Not to mention the amount of leveraging that takes
place.
Dont believe me ask your banker this question: is there ever a
possibility that I could come to the bank and be denied access to
my money? If they say no you already know they are lying because if
that were the case there would not be a need for FDIC insurance and
there would not be limits on the amounts of money that FDIC
covers.In closing, the average person spends over 34% of their
after tax income on interest payments alone simply look at
amortization schedule of a fixed loan you get.
Notice that nearly all the interest is always front loaded in
the early years so that the bank gets their money first and then
the principal gets repaid. A never ending cycle as people
continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime.
For fun, calculate and total all current loan payments and see how
much income is going towards interest- the great American RICO
Ponzi scheme in action.
Forget the USA, but beginning in 1981 Canada and its
civil/commercial courts, secured jointly and severally by the bonds
and malpractice insurance of its broadly-defined legal profession,
had repeated opportunity backed by moral, lawful, and legal direct
responsibility not to allow US and UK courts to be used as clearing
houses for falsified-in-fact nominal securities.
The 1981 amendment to the criminal law was directly tied to, and
intended to replace, the 1939 Act whose preamble spelled out the
evil of front-loading and the Act expressly prohibited it:
-
The cost of any such loan or any part thereof [loan fees] ...
shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance. The
criminal amendment under what is now s. 347(1)(b) stipulates, and
was intended to stipulate, against precisely the same act:
Every one who receives [including converts] a payment or partial
payment of interest [loan fees] at a criminal rate [in advance] is
guilty of an indictable offense [a felony].
Through malfeasance of office, and in reckless disregard of the
foreseeable consequences, courts willfully, persistently,
unlawfully, and illegally subverted, through both positive action
and actionable negligence, any and all laws intended to prevent
either the practice of front loading, or the concealment of same
through either or both of false attestations of principal amount on
the face of the securities. Or the deliberate and fraudulent
omission to disclose collateral side agreements requiring
redirection and/or ownership by the nominal creditor of the
proceeds in whole in part.
Had courts simply obeyed the criminal law and done their jobs in
good faith, they would have caused a major disruption in the global
financial markets by the fact of it. Americas privately-owned
financial institutions are major players in global markets and
among the leading global exploiters of securities falsified by
undisclosed side agreements that convert legally-defined and
recognized interest illegally into principal in advance.
They issue securities in the international markets that are
secured by what the issuers know and admit to be underlying
criminal contracts that are expressly tied to international
anti-money-laundering treaties. And that is the undoing of our only
remaining legal or actual defense; that it did what it did because
by enforcing the criminal law it would have caused chaos in the
domestic and global financial markets.
But that is the victims whole point in law and in equity
(damages). Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have all
had their economies destroyed not only because Canada failed to do
what it was legally required to do under its own laws, and in
breach of its international treaties also, but more damningly
because of the unlawful and illegal means by which it sought to
conceal its initial and continuing wrong-doing.
America has already been illegally seized by its
commercial/civil courts which function as private corporations in
their own right and as de facto agents of private
-
banks.
We need to get their country back from the technically criminal
cabal that has plainly seized unlawful and illegal control.
THE MAY SALE
A sale is still scheduled for 5/15/14. We seek to stop that
pending appeals and actions as this
THE BANKRUPTCY OPTION GAME
If we do not find relief, stay or a TRO we will file bankruptcy
to stop May sale, but wouldnt it just be nice to actually have a
hearing for these Motions ripe since summer?
ONE ACTION RULE
THIS MAY NOT BE CALIFORNIA BUT the spirit of the ONE ACTION RULE
is not unlike any of the various claim and issue preclusion legal
theories, and Chase should bot be able to file two cases for one
identical cause of action- it is simply barred by estoppel.
State law in a progressive state, CA, restricts a lender with a
secured interest in real property (for example, the lender on your
home mortgage) to taking only one action to enforce the debt.
If you fall behind in your mortgage payments, Californias one
action rule says that your mortgage lender can only take one action
against you, whether it is to conduct a trustees sale, sue on the
promissory note for the balance of the debt, or judicially
foreclose.
The one action rule states There can be but one form of action
for the recovery of any debt or enforcement of any right secured by
mortgage upon real property (CalCode Civ. Proc.726(a)).
This means that a mortgage lender is only allowed to do one of
the following:
foreclose non-judicially (conduct a trustees sale) foreclose
judicially, or sue the borrower personally on the promissory note
for the balance of the debt.
-
Ultimately, this rule limits a lender to bringing only one
foreclosure proceeding or court action against a borrower who falls
behind in mortgage payments.
Relationship to Security First Rule
From the face of the statute, the one action rule appears to
allow the lender to sue the borrower personally based on the
promissory note and skip foreclosure altogether.
However, California courts have interpreted the rule to mean
that a lender must pursue the real estate before suing the borrower
personally Walker v. Community Bank, 10 Cal. 3d 729 (1974)
This is known as the security first rule.
The goal of this rule is to prevent a secured lender from suing
the defaulting borrower on the debt itself before foreclosing on
the security interest.
This means that a mortgage lender (whether its loan is a first
mortgage, second, or HELOC) must foreclose the security (your home)
rather than suing you directly on underlying promissory note. (Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. 726(a)).
As a result of the one action and security first rules, the
lenders options are significantly limited when a borrower defaults
on a mortgage.
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, VEXATIOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE OF PROCESS
This is not an allegation but a truth, as the assignment I
discovered filed without notice last year by Chase proves tyne
simple fact that they DID NOT HAVE STANDING and were in fact in the
act of FRAUD UPON COURT where, unchecked, they remain and continue
with impunity.
The foreclosure was wrongful is based on (1) the position that
paragraph 22 of the mortgage authorizes only the lender-beneficiary
(or its assignee) to (a) accelerate the loan after a default and
(b) elect to cause the Property to be sold and (2) the allegation
that a non-holder of the deed of trust, rather than the true
beneficiary as per PA RCP to initiate the foreclosure.
I allege that
-
(1) corpus of Trust was pool of mortgage notes purportedly
secured by liens on homes (2) section 2.05 of Pooling Servicing
Agreement mortgage files transferred to SASCO (3) trustee or
initial custodian was required as being held on behalf of the
Securitized Trust; (4) my note was transferred to the Trust prior
to its closing date; (5) the assignment of the Note did occur by
the closing date in 2005; (6) the transfer to the trust attempted
by the assignment of Note recorded last year (9 years late but
legally) occurred long after trust was closed.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
There is absolutely nothing more full of anxiety, more a source
of pressure and fear, of anger and helplessness and an encroaching
foreboding loss of hope, as sheriff sale dates approach without a
the border check of a judicial toll which, even if automated by an
adjudication form of EZ Pass allow (or rather do not permit) the
procession to execution (sheriff sale, making a family homeless and
most likely divorced) is only in fact executed after a
computerized, compulsory and compelled cursory review of a check
list of items that if not met as a criteria- prevents the
foreclosure closure, so to speak.
How can the Court, if it sees the fraud of the foreclosure and
the usury of the fraud, compensate:
1 These six years.2 These two cases (one with thousands of pages
of discovery)3 The research4 The law learning5 The opportunity cost
it tolled on me- rendering me a dependent impotent- as I was unable
to look for work as I was a professional pro se litigant6 The
stress was immeasurable 7 I lost 100 pounds8 My wife descended into
depression where we became estranged because of the uncertainty of
the foreclosure and the change it imposed upon our lives to
vigorously defend it, and as a result, it destroyed our marriage as
had no emotional or physical intimacy for 2 years and she would not
even speak with me about the Chase case (she wanted to pay them
off) despite qualifications of a Masters In Business Administration
as well as a law degree. She scared her to death9 She had a silent
breakdown; she was advised by a psychiatrist to get a
-
divorce due to foreclosure and last fall she indeed10 My wife
left the home and marriage as she said it symbolized the stress it
inflicted.
How can you put a number on 6 years of not working?How can you
put a price on marriage?On happiness?
Was Chase 100% responsible for our pain?No.
But if I accused you falsely of sexual harassment, it will
negatively affect you even in the best case scenario where you are
completely exonerated. I would have COST you so much in time,
energy, emotion and effort (as well as opportunity cost) for a
FRAUD- a case and a cause not true at all, hence, I am deprived of
standing without injury and moreover, my fraud on court is a felony
which makes my claim of victimhood- if fraudulent- a catalyst for
instant karmic justice where I am no longer forced to PROVE THE
NEGATIVE as the real victim is revealed and the real criminal
(Chase) is exposed by one innocent assignment recordation after
default judgment was obtained and the finish line was within 4
lengths at the Kentucky Derby.
I seek punitive damages of $600000 trebled and unencumbered
title to home for this false attack
THE ILLEGAL INTEREST MATH FORMULA
We use this for cost (1+($100/$300))^(365/14))-1)) = 1807.5417 =
180,754.17%) (means raise to the power of)
The method all financial institutions calculate the amount of
interest due from borrowers is criminal fraud in the U.K., while
concurrently being not yet recognized as illegal in the U.S.- and
this lawsuit seeks to change that.
How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% per day on a credit
card in US?
The difference since 1974 when the U.S./Canadian method was
criminalized in the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than
all outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada.
The structure of the analysis (thus far) also substantially
understates the real
-
economic consequences in that the extra payments made by the
borrower earn zero interest themselves.
For example, at 15% per annum the extra $171,806 is simply the
sum of the extra 11.32 years worth of payments as if the borrower
would otherwise stuff the money under a mattress.
If the lost opportunity cost is taken into account (i.e., the
true financial and economic damage) the amounts are greater and
increasingly so at higher stated rates (e.g., $519,135 at 15%).
Mathematically, the proper way to look at it is to assume that
the borrower has up to several other loans and at the same rate of
interest such that the extra payments on the first loan could be
used to pay down the debt on the second and subsequent loans (or
put into a personal investment account).
At the end of the 30 year comparison period the borrowers total
debt on all loans is $519,135 less (or investment earnings $519,135
greater) based on a nominal rate of 15%.
This is vastly more if the overpayments on the mortgage were
applied to credit card debt.
At 6% the foregone interest on the overpayments is only the $662
difference between $9,564 and $10,226. The overpayments with
interest, from the far right column, are the true measure of the
benefits to the institution and cost to the borrower (and society
in the aggregate).
Even if a particular borrower does not have other loans to which
the overpayments could be applied, the creditor is either in the
business of loaning overpayments to someone else (small percentage)
or using them (vast majority by amounts) as a deemed equity base to
advance new credit at interest. At a nominal 30% department store
credit card rate, the overcharge with interest is indicated as
$83,863,243 or about $84 million per initial $100,000. The effect
is absolutely breathtaking.
This is no mere technicality, but the very air in which credit
card companies breathe.
Over just the past five years for example, a typical department
store's use of the
-
nominal method has boosted its total card-user debt by about
$180 million.
Based on the same cash flows, had interest charges been made at
a true 30% per annum (about 2.21% per month) then the card-users
would owe about $420 million instead of the $600 million total debt
which has resulted from charging 2.5% per month (a real 34.5% per
annum).
Multiply the dollar amounts by ten for the U.S.
The highest nominal Visa credit card rate that I have
encountered in the U.S. is a stated or claimed 79.9% (Premier Bank
Visa). Note the psychological manipulation inherent to not crossing
the 80% threshold, yet the actual charge rate of 6.66% per month is
an effective or real annual rate of 117% (rounded) and not
79.9%.
Now the 37 percentage point discrepancy represents a 32%
increase in cost of borrowing, per se, or about 24% of gross
interest paid/collected (again on any given day recall that at a
stated 24% the 2.68 percentage point error represents only about
10.5% of gross revenue per day).
And critically, like an iceberg, where most of the mass floats
below the surface of the water, the nominal method error manifests
increasingly over time as debt still owing that would not otherwise
be owing at the real annual rate.
At a real annual rate of 15% there is exactly $0 left owing on
the contract after 18.68 years of monthly payments of $1,264.55 on
a $100,000 mortgage.
If the lender claims that the stated 15% per annum is nominal
and not real, then there is $171,806 still owing on the contract
after 18.68 years of monthly payments of $1,264.55 on a $100,000
mortgage.
Again, that is why the U.K. criminalized this insidiously
fraudulent methodology in 1974 when I was 3 years old.
From both an ongoing profitability and public policy perspective
the most significant aspect of the nominal method is the
exponential nature of the error and its relationship to the spread
nature of institutional credit.
For example, assume that banks advance at a nominal 15% and pay
depositors a nominal 6% so as to use the examples already covered,
and also because certain other factors dictate that such a
seemingly large spread is actually more appropriate
-
than it may first appear.
Of the extra $519,135 gained from borrowers over the 30 year
period only $10,226 or about 2% will find its way into the accounts
of depositors.
The remaining $509,000 or 98% will be retained by the financial
middleman that makes its profit on the spread between interest
collected from borrowers and that paid out to depositors.
The use of the nominal method can easily triple or quadruple the
inherent profitability of the banking/credit business even after an
allowance is made for greater defaults.
At a nominal 60%/year a credit card can gross an actual 80% per
annum (at 5% per month).
It can pay its bond-holders, say, 10% per annum, and make a
gross return of 70% per annum while telling card-holder they are
paying 60%!
Once again here is the deal offered to the public:
Mortgage Principal: $100,000Annual Interest Rate: 15%Monthly
Payment: $1,264.44
If you sign in the U.K. you have undertaken to pay $283,293 over
18.68 years.If you sign in the U.S. you have undertaken to pay
$455,198 over 30 years.
One is 93% more expensive than the other.
Lenders may claim that money is inherently less valuable in a
world with 15% interest rates than in one with 6% interest rates
and that it is therefore not fair to simply compare the extra money
cost of the nominal method.
The $171,800 extra cost at 15%, however, is almost 18 times
greater than the $9,564 increase at 6%, representing an absolute
increase of 1,800% in terms of extra dollars out of the borrowers
pocket from the math error, per se.
Regardless of the relative value of money, the nominal method
will cost the borrower 93.68% more of it at a stated 15%, compared
to only 9% more money at a stated 6%.
-
The nominal method presents a new and substantially greater real
error with every marginal increase in the stated annual rate. In
summary and conclusion, there are two distinct issues; the first is
the staggering amounts of debt and money involved (trillions of
dollars since just 1974).
Something as important as this certain way a financial
institution determines the amount of interest it assesses for its
own account, can be recognized, prohibited, denounced and
criminalized as false and seriously misleading in the U.K. while
legal (or not understood yet) throughout the U.S. as nobody talks
about it
The conventional power-of-two exponential nature of it based on
calculating semi-annually
Calculating monthly results in a somewhat greater relative error
(about 10% per se, or 440 times greater at a stated 20% v 1%
calculated monthly but only 400 times greater at 20% per annum
calculated semi-annually versus 1% per annum calculated
semi-annually).
MORTGAGE LOAN IS SIMPLE INTEREST SAYS SO ON THE TERM SHEET
How can something as manifestly important as a certain way that
banks calculate the amount of interest due from borrowers be
recognized as prohibited as criminal fraud in U.K., while
concurrently being required by law in U.S. under consumer
protection law.
How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% per day on a U.K.
credit card, but 0.065753% per day in the U.S. and Canada?
The difference since 1974 when the U.S./Canadian method was
criminalized in the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than
all outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. (and Canadian) nominal method is criminal in the U.K.
for very good reasons.
The following comparison has been designed so as to demonstrate
the cost of the nominal method in terms of dollars out of a
borrower's pocket instead of rate differences.
-
Because most consumer interest payments are made monthly we will
deal with the application of the nominal method for interest or
"calculating monthly" as it is called in finance.
The nominal method is also referred to as the "straight
division" method because lender takes the stated annual rate and
divides both components of the rate by number of payments a
year.
For example, if a borrower agrees to pay interest at 12% per
annum by monthly payments, then the lender will go into her account
and assess 1% each month.
Most American (and Canadian) consumers think this procedure is
correct.
Financial institutions are in the business of knowing that it is
not. It would not be such a problem if the error were consistent,
but, again, the nominal method error increases exponentially in
favor of lender as the stated annual rate is increased.
At the higher levels associated with credit card rates the error
is positively obscene.
The first step is to be certain to compare like things, and to
use a long enough period so as to clearly demonstrate the
significance of the thing being measured.
A 30 year period is the standard amortization period on
residential mortgage in the U.S.
Using $100,000 as a comparison loan amount, over 30 years at 6%
per annum using the nominal method, the required monthly payment
will be $599.55.
If the interest charges were determined at a real 6% per annum,
then the monthly payment would be only $589.37. Comparing two
different monthly payment streams, however, using two different
calculation methodologies, would confound the results.
To determine the extra cost of the nominal method, and only the
nominal method, it is necessary to compare identical payment
streams applied against identical loans where the one and only
difference (single variable) is the calculation method.
Given a fixed loan amount ($100,000) and a fixed monthly payment
amount ($599.55) the only way to measure the extra cost in dollars
is by the time (and total payments) required to pay off the
debt/contract (the amortization period).
-
At a real 6% per annum a $100,000 loan requires 28.67 years to
pay off with monthly payments of $599.55. If the lender uses the
nominal method, then the same loan takes exactly 30 years to pay
off based on the same monthly payment.
The cost of nominal method less 16 payments of $599.55 total of
$9564 per $100000 borrowed.
The total interest cost is the total payments (360 months x
$599.55 = $215,838) minus the principal sum loaned ($100,000) with
the result being $115,838.
The $9,564 difference (the vig) from the use of the nominal
method therefore represents a 9% increase in the total dollar cost
of borrowing, or about 8.25% of the total interest money
paid/collected over the 30 year period.
What then happens to the extra cost when the same technically
incorrect nominal technique is applied at 15% per annum? That is
the approximate weighted average stated lending rate over the 30
year period 1974 to 2004 (about equal to prime plus 3%).
Does the error stay the same at about $9,500?
Does a two and a half times increase in the stated rate from 6%
to 15% cause a similar increase in the extra cost from $9,500 to
about $23,000 for each $100,000 borrowed?
Or is there something more but which bankers never talk about
publicly?
Again the example is a $100,000 loan repaid over 30 years and at
a "nominal" 15% per annum the required monthly payment is
$1,264.44.
If interest were at a real 15% per annum, then the monthly
payments would be about $75 less at $1,189.46, but once again we
want to isolate the extra cost of the nominal method and so that is
the assumed (or control) payment amount.
At a real 15% per annum a $100,000 loan requires 18.68 years to
pay off based on monthly payments of $1,264.44. If the lender uses
the nominal method, then it takes exactly 30 years to pay off the
same loan with the same monthly payment.
Now the cost to the borrower is 135.88 extra payments (11.3
years) of $1,264.44 per month or $171,806 per $100,000
borrowed!
-
Here again the total interest cost is the total payments to be
made (360 x$1,264.44 = $455,198) minus the principal sum loaned
($100,000) with the result being $355,198.
Now the $171,806 difference represents a 93.68% increase in the
total dollar cost of borrowing or 48% of the total interest
paid/collected over the 30 year period.
The interest cost should be $183,436 over 18.68 years but at
this higher level the error in the nominal method adds 11.32 extra
years to create a debt with interest payments of $355,198.
What may appear to be a trivial difference is actually a form of
mathematically engineered leverage which increases the total cost
of borrowing (cost of the contract) by 93% at a stated interest
rate of 15% per annum.
A mortgage or any term loan is designed with the monthly payment
amount determined so as to be just slightly more than the initial
(first month's) interest cost so that the loan will take 30 years
(or whatever desired amortization period) to pay off.
By using the nominal method, at any given rate, the creditor
gets to both collect larger payment amounts which pay down the loan
relatively quickly at the rate stated and collect those larger
payments for 30 years anyway.
It is also irrelevant that many lenders no longer make loans for
fixed terms of 30 years.
The 30 year period is simply a standardized reference period by
which to demonstrate the radically different effects of the same
math error at different "nominal" interest rates.
At 15% per annum, over any given 30 year period, lenders will
increase the total amount of interest money exacted from all
borrowers by 93% by simply using the nominal method.
Of course loan agreements dont say "nominal method" much less
explain what it means.
In the USA no one will even LISTEN to this and in Canada it is
simply the explanation given if and when (rarely in practice) a
borrower discovers that their monthly payment does not correspond
to the rate of interest stated and declared in
-
the agreement.
In the US there is no need for an explanation because nominal
method is required by law.
At the nominal 30% annual rate on many department store credit
cards the monthly payment needed to retire a $100,000 debt over 30
years is $2,500.34. If the calculations are done correctly, then
the same debt is retired after 8.21 years based on the same monthly
payment.
At a stated 30% per annum, a real 8.21 year debt costing
$146,000 in interest is leveraged by the nominal method into a 30
year debt costing $653,000 in interest!
If we want to mitigate the coming (potential) hyperinflation, a
good start is to eliminate this systemic bias of U.S. banks to
higher nominal, and therefore higher still real, interest
rates.
Now is the time to force U.S. (and Canadian) banks to abandon
the fraudulent calculation methodology, while nominal interest
rates are at the low end of their exponential error field.
Even if rates were to stay at exactly 6% for the next 30 years,
we would still save about 10% of all the interest money that will
accrue over the entire period just by eliminating Bankers
Bonus.
Also, you realize of course that the system is educating your
children not to understand geometric mathematical relationships for
precisely this reason. It is much harder to rob someone if they
understand how they are being robbed.
That is why mainstream media can consistently describe a real
rate of 180,000% on a payday loan as somewhere between 180% and
850% and virtually no one notices.
It is arguably the single most important determinant-in-fact of
their quality of life and the masses are looking straight at Empire
State Building and being told that it is a child's doll house.
Yet they have no clue even that there is something wrong with
the numbers.
We have been made innumerate, ignorant, apathetic and
emasculated as we refuse to fight this.
-
There was one government (or government sponsored) study that I
came across related to the payday loan industry where it was
suggested, ever so subtly, that many customers of payday loan
companies are already suffering depression, augmented by having to
pay $100 to get their $400 paycheck two weeks early.
Thus the real annual rate may well drive them further into
depression then litigation,
This is really a battle for your mind the money is just a
detail. A deliberately simplified nominal rate example will make
the principle clear.
Assume that half of all loans are at a nominal 30% and the other
half are at a nominal 0% for a year. The average rate is a nominal
15%, corresponds to actual 16.1% (monthly payment).
But in fact the lender(s) will receive an effective 34.5% from
the half of all loans at a nominal 30%, and 0% from the other half
at a nominal 0%. The average-in-fact is therefore half of 34.5% or
17.25% and not 16.1% based on a stated/nominal average 15%.
In this (most extreme) example standard deviation or average
variance of the rate per contract accounts for a greater increase
in percentage point gain (1.15 percentage points (i.e., from 16.1%
to 17.25%) than nominal method itself (1.1 percentage points (i.e.,
from 15% to 16.1%)).
Both factors cross leverage/cross-compound-upon other.
(Concealed loan fees have same geometric effect, and loan fees plus
the nominal method on the same loan have a truly astronomical
effect.)
How can something as manifestly important as a certain way that
financial institutions calculate interest due from borrowers be
prohibited as criminal fraud in the U.K., while concurrently being
required by law in the U.S. under consumer protection
legislation?
How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% a day on a U.K.
credit card, but 0.065753% per day in U.S. and Canada? The
difference since 1974 when U.S./Canadian method was criminalized in
the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than all outstanding
consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada.
-
Is there any more important determinant of quality of life for a
typical human than the broadly-defined concept of interest?
It pervades and saturates the price of everything. In the past
fifty years alone, in many areas it has quietly caused the average
price of a home to increase from about four years average annual
wage, to more than ten years average wage. And the velocity of
interest is enormous.
Vast sums can turn on fractions of a percent changes in the
rate.
That is why base unit of measurement in the finance business is
the basis point or 1/100 of 1%.
Assume that you have a billion dollars to lend to facilitate the
daily purchase of stocks on Wall Street and that you charge 1/8 of
1%.
Settlement occurs upon closing of the market so you are limited
to one cycle/trade per day (although, again, you are not
speculating in the price of stocks but advancing credit to others
who are). Your gross return for the year is 37% or $370
million.
But that is only in this time zone. You can perform the same
function in Hong Kong after the closing bell and settlement in New
York London following settlement in Hong Kong.
Now your gross annual return is 155% or $1,550 millions on
$1,000 millions of initial capital, plus you still have your
initial capital.
Also note that tripling the number of daily iterations from 1 to
3 causes much more that a three-fold increase in the annual yield
by 37%. And that is based on just 250 trading days per year.
If you can perform the same function for a 1/8th of 1% gain per
iteration three times per 24 hour cycle somewhere in the world,
then your gross annual return goes to 293% or a $2.93 billion gross
gain or profit per year per $1 billion. Shift frame of reference to
a typical payday loan.
The most common example given in the mainstream media involves
the giving of a postdated (check) for $400, payable in two weeks
time (14 days), for a net cash advance of $300 today.
-
Typically, you can expect to pay up to $100 in interest and fees
for a $300 payday loan and the government says that amounts to
effective annual interest rate of 435 per cent on a 14-day
loan.
The mainstream media generally report the same example
transaction to the public as carrying an effective annual interest
rate of from about 400% to 850%, while also implying that
determination of the rate is a kind of black art that can give
different results at different times.
One went as low as 180% per annum.
Nobody appears to have complained or even mentioned it.
Will the Honorable Judge reading this get it and conclude this
AVERMENT like a scientific thesis radical in design requires one
thing- the unobstructed opportunity to be judged, be made an
argument as due process unabbreviated in court with jury of
peers.
I pray this is your view.
At the same time, a careful examination of dozens of mainstream
articles purporting to explain the many class-action lawsuits that
have been initiated against payday loan companies across North
America, reveals many that are simply dripping with mens rea or
guilty conscience (guilty mind) in their use of evasive
language.
The cause of the system's guilty conscience is that the interest
rate defined by that transaction, as a matter of cold, hard,
verifiable fact, is just over either 580% or possibly 180,000% per
annum.
It is simple calculation and easily verifiable. PROVE ME WRONG.
TELL ME WHY THE 360k wouldnt make sense if the 2001.19 payment was
divided 1000 to equity 1000 and change to interest, fixed?
So what is it about the mind that allows us to function in a
world where there is no more real determinant of our quality of
life than interest generally, where vast fortunes turn on small
changes in rates, but where a typical observer/player cannot tell,
from the three simple and given elements of the loan transaction
just described, that the annual interest rate is about 180,000% and
not 180% - a thousand-to-one difference in magnitude?
-
It is precisely analogous (height-wise) to not being able to
tell the difference between a child's doll house and the Empire
State Building!
The concurrent paradox is as to how the bogus nominal interest
calculation methodology that is prohibited and criminalized in the
U.K. under the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (and multiple U.K.
Criminal Code statutes), is actually required by law in the U.S.
under the federal 1968 Consumer Protection Act (Regulation Z).
Under the nominal method same transaction is said to carry an
annual interest rate of 869%.
The relevant dictionary definition of nominal is existing in
name only, not real or actual.
If all consumer debt in the U.S. were recalculated (since
criminalization of the U.S. method by the U.K. in 1974), using the
same cash flows, but so that the lender receives interest amounts
equal to the annual rate disclosed/agreed to, instead of the larger
amounts determined by the recognized fraudulent formula, with the
balance of any given payment applied to principal reduction for the
next month, then there would today be no consumer debt in the U.S.
- it is that significant a difference.
Consider that you have just signed the following mortgage
contract:
Mortgage Principal: $100,000Annual Interest Rate: 15%Monthly
Payment: $1,264.44
If you signed this in the USA- no problem for the bank but you
just got screwed. If in the U.K., then you agreed to pay the lender
a total of $283,293 for a $100,000 loan.
If you signed document at a U.S. bank, you agreed to pay lender
$455,198 for a $100,000 loan.
One is 93% more expensive than the other. The issue is no more
or less than that. In the U.S., Visa banks, for example, that
charge 2% per month on balances, declare annual rate is 24%.
Such is illegal (criminal) in the U.K. where all lenders must
declare 26.82% per
-
annum as the true annual rate to 2% per month. At this level the
2.82 percentage point difference accounts for 10.5% of Visa's gross
interest revenue in the U.S. (on any given day).
After thirty years interest overcharge compounded carry-forward
is vastly greater tha debt itself. And admittedly it is not just
disclosure as annual rate is rate borrower expressly contracts
to!
So it is more correct to say that in the U.K., based on a
disclosed/ declared 24% per annum, a lender may assess no more than
1.808% per month, mathematical equivalent to 24% per annum.
At this level the error, again at 2.82 percentage points on 24%,
is over 20 times the maximum legal variance of 1/8 of 1% for
disclosure accuracy. Above about 5% per annum the math error is
above 1/8 of 1% per annum and would otherwise be illegal on that
basis alone.
Either way, nature of discrepancy is geometric or exponential
with respect to represented annual rate.
At 1% per annum the difference is tiny, but at a stated annual
rate of 20% it is 20 x 20 = 400 times greater, per se. At a stated
30% it is 900 times greater, per se.
At a stated annual rate of approximately 15%, general use of the
fraudulent methodology exactly doubles the amount of interest
assessed/received by all financial institutions, measured at the
end of a twenty-five year period.
Chase is Enron without the energy deals there is no product or
service being offered for me to buy they are simply looking for a
way to loan me money.
Think about it, you really are either depositing money or
withdrawing money and the bank charges you for the privilege of
doing so.
A Rico bank fronted Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment
operation that pays returns to investors from paid by subsequent
investors rather than from actual profit earned.
Now substitute the words ponzi scheme for bank.
A bank is a investment operation that pays returns to investors
(account holders)
-
from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors
rather than from any actual profit earned.
There is a little known knowledge about practice of institution
called fractional reserve banking.(See Brief)
It sounds complicated but it simply means that banks are legally
allowed to lend out more money than they have on hand. This was a
major reason for the meltdown in the economy that has taken place
over the past year and that is still continuing with the bank
failures that are happening on a weekly basis (140 in 2009 and
counting in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015).
So hypothetically every time you deposit one dollar into a bank
account they have the legal right to lend out $10.
This is also known as leverage.
So this seems to be how a bank makes money.
We, as depositors, deposit our money into a bank because it is
safe and secure, protected by FDIC insurance (as noted on the drive
through window) and they turn around and lend our money back to us
at a higher rate. What is the typical rate on a savings
account?
Less than 1% and what is the rate on your credit card, car loan,
student loan, personal loan, home equity loan, and/or mortgage?
Lets tack on fees for missing a payment, overdrawing your
account, not keeping enough money in your account, not using using
your credit card, etc, etcthe picture starts to become clearer.
One of the greatest legal Ponzi schemes ever created
Again a bank makes its money off of the money you deposit into
it and off of interest payments and fees they charge that keep
increasing. Now you see why it is so important for them to find
ways to catch people with these crazy rules noted in fine print of
applications and ever changing agreements we sign.
It behooves them to contractually be able to raise rates or
change the terms for any reason and without cause. It is actually
taking Congressional intervention in order to stop banks from
charging excessive fees and the bank are fighting the
-
legislation tooth and nail!
Its a great business to allow account to go over limit or to
promote variable rate mortgage.
They build in the profit margins on the front end (called
amortization) and rake in the dough on the back end and no one is
any wiser. It is literally a multibillion dollar business
enterprise built solely off of other peoples money (like the stock
market).
Now fundamentally just by the mere fact that a bank can lend out
more than we deposit tells us something that is just common senseif
everyone went to the bank at the same time to withdrawal money it
could not possibly be there.
This is why bankers fear a run on the banks because we all
believe that one day we could go to a bank to withdraw money and it
would not be there.
A bank DOES NOT have to give you your money back and they can
place limits on how much you can withdrawal! It sounds absurd that
a bank wouldnt have your money but again goes back to regulation
(word hated by banking industry).
Also the fact that they do not have to have money to cover the
loans they have out.
Not to mention the amount of leveraging that takes place for
loan creation.
Dont believe me ask your banker this question: can my bank deny
me access to my money?
If they say no you already know they are lying because if that
were case there would not be a need for FDIC insurance and there
would not be limits on amounts of money that FDIC covers.
In closing, the average person spends over 34% of their after
tax income on interest payments alone simply look at the
amortization schedule of any type of loan you get.
Notice that nearly all the interest is always front loaded in
the early years so that the bank gets their money first and then
the principal gets repaid. A never ending cycle as people
continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their
lifetime.
For fun, calculate and total all your current loan payments and
see how much of
-
your income is going towards the interestthats bankingthe great
American RICO Ponzi scheme in action.
Forget the USA, but beginning in 1981 Canada and its
civil/commercial courts, secured jointly and severally by the bonds
and malpractice insurance of its broadly-defined legal profession,
had repeated opportunity backed by moral, lawful, and legal direct
responsibility not to allow US and UK courts to be used as clearing
houses for falsified-in-fact nominal securities.
The 1981 amendment to the criminal law was directly tied to, and
intended to replace, the 1939 Act whose preamble spelled out the
evil of front-loading and the Act expressly prohibited it:
The cost of any such loan or any part thereof [loan fees] ...
shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance. The
criminal amendment under what is now s. 347(1)(b) stipulates, and
was intended to stipulate, against precisely the same act:
Every one who receives [including converts] a payment or partial
payment of interest [loan fees] at a criminal rate [in advance] is
guilty of an indictable offense [a felony].
A FELONY? MORALLY DIMON IS GOING TO TRIAL IF LAW OF USURY IS
ENFORCED.
The felony is AMORTIZATION USURY BY DYNAMIC FRONT LOADED
INTEREST TO EQUITY RATIO WITHIN FIXED PAYMENT
FRAUD
The elements of a fraud cause of action are (1)
misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of the falsity or scienter, (3)
intent to defraudthat is, induce reliance, (4) justifiable
reliance, and(5) resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996)
12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)
These elements may not be pleaded in a general or conclusory
fashion. (Id. at p. 645.)
Fraud must be pled specificallythat is, a plaintiff must plead
facts that show with
-
particularity the elements of the cause of action. (Ibid.)
CHASES fraud implemented through forged documents, alleges that
defendants act caused Plaintiff to rely on the recorded documents
and ultimately lose the property which served as his primary
residence, and caused Plaintiff further damage, proof of which will
be made at trial.
This allegation is a general allegation of reliance and
damage.
FRAUD UPON COURT
Through malfeasance of office, and in reckless disregard of the
foreseeable consequences, courts willfully, persistently,
unlawfully, and illegally subverted, through both positive action
and actionable negligence, any and all laws intended to prevent
either the practice of front loading, or concealment of same
through either or both of false attestations of principal amount on
the face of the securities.
Or the deliberate and fraudulent omission to disclose collateral
side agreements requiring redirection and/or ownership by the
nominal creditor of the proceeds in whole in part.
Had courts simply obeyed the criminal law and done their jobs in
good faith, they would have caused a major disruption in the global
financial markets by the fact of it.
RICO: CHASE ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE
Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out
at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
As currently amended it includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder,
kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, theft,
embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of
justice, slavery, racketeering within a white collar banking
business falls under crimes as defined by Title 18 as so does
usury, unjust enrichment by embezzlement and securities fraud as
well as fraud upon the court.
I do not aver that Chase is 100% criminal- I am not a fool and I
know much of their business is legal. That is a given. As Enron
actually made legitimate deals while it created meta-shell offshore
entities, so to does Chase do a great deal of honest banking. That
is not at issue here, and if my registration and insurance is
-
valid, police may still ticket for blowing off the stop
sign.
With Chase as the recent 49 state investigation they, I aver,
simply bought their way out of- not in a settlement of corruption
but a settlement legal but moral corruption of the spirit of legal
investigation.
So we must show a pattern of racketeering activity and by law
that requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of
which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the
last of which occurred within ten years after the commission of a
prior act of racketeering activity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow
the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether
the facts of a specific case give rise to an established
pattern.
Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar
purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission,
or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and
are not isolated events." H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone
Co.
Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to
either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its
nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91452, 84 Stat.
922 October 15, 1970), was an Act of Congress signed into law by
U.S. President Richard Nixon.
The Act was the product of hearings in the Select Committee on
Improper Activities in Labor Management of 1957-1959 and McClellan
hearings of 1962-1964.
The Act prohibits the creation or management of a gambling
organization involving five or more people if it has been in
business more than 30 days or accumulates $2,000 in gross revenue
in a single day.
It also gave grand juries new powers, permitted detention of
unmanageable witnesses, and gave authorization to protect
witnesses, both state and federal, and their families.
This last measure helped lead to the creation of WITSEC, an
acronym for witness security.
BERG AND PHELAN AND (unknowingly) COUNTY are, I aver, guilty
of:
-
Aiding or assisting organized crime enterprises (if the action
was for financial gain)
CHASE IS A PROVEN CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE BY RECENT SETTLEMENTS
Investigation by the Attorney Generals of the States of Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Virginia; and the District of Columbia prove
this.
CONSPIRACY
CHASE engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to commit fraud on the
court, and to breach the class members mortgage covenants for the
purpose of unlawful gain for each of the defendants. As a result of
this civil conspiracy, civil wrongs committed against plaintiff and
millions of ignorant others.
The motivation for the civil conspiracy was the defendants
appetite for the millions of dollars in fees which they desired to
claim by taking advantage of and perverting the foreclosure and
mortgage amortization repayment process. As result of the civil
conspiracy plaintiff was injured very damaged.
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION TO DEFRAUD
In the course and conduct of their loan servicing and
collection, Defendants in numerous instances have represented,
directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers
are obligated to pay amounts specified in lawsuit. The Defendants'
communications for default-related services such as property
inspections, title reports, and foreclosure trustee services.
In truth and fact, in numerous instances, consumers are not
obligated to pay the amounts that have been specified in
Defendants' communications for foreclosure services such as
property inspections, title reports, and foreclosure trustee
services.
-
Defendants include in the amounts they represent as owed fees
that have been marked up beyond the actual cost of the services
and/or fees that are for performance of unnecessary or unreasonable
services, in violation of the mortgage contract.
Chase made false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or
practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
4S(a).
STIPULATED ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES
The scheme works as follows. Defendants order default- related
services from the default subsidiaries, which in turn obtain the
services from third-party vendors.
The default subsidiaries then charge Defendants a fee
significantly marked up from the third-party vendors' fee for the
service, and the Defendants, in turn, assess and collect these
marked-up fees from mortgage contracts serviced by Defendants are
substantially similar to the standard Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form
contracts and contain form language regarding what occurs if a
borrower defaults on his loan.
The Security Instrument authorizes servicer, in cases of
default, to:
The mortgage contract between a lender and borrower typically
consists of two documents: the promissory note ("Note"), and the
mortgage ("Security Instrument")
The pay for whatever is reasonable or appropriate to protect the
note holder's interest in the property and rights under the
security instrument, including protecting and/or assessing the
value of the property, and securing and/or repairing the
property.
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE CONSUMER PRACTICESWITH RESPECT TO
FORECLOSURE PROCESSING
Chases unlawful conduct has resulted in injury to the States and
citizens of the States who have had home loans serviced by the
Banks. The harm sustai