UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

555 4th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20530

STATE OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway )
New York, NY 10271

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017

PHELAN LAW FIRM
3545 JFK Blvd
Philadelphia PA 19422

BERG LAW FIRM
43 5th Ave
NY NY 100434

CHESTER COUNTY COURT SYSTEM
200 W Market Street
West Chester PA 19345















IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

TIMOTHY MURRAY ) CIVIL
Plaintiff ) FEDERAL #2-14-cv-02282-TON
v. ) FEDERAL #2-13mc-00207-LFR
JP MORGAN CHASE ) Chester 09-05543/12-05579
BERG LAW ) Superior 90 EDA 2014
PHELAN LAW ) Superior 180 EDA 2013
CHESTER COUNTY COURTS ) (Two Appeals Were Filed)
Defendants ) BANKR. 14-10376
JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT for FRAUD, USURY, ANTITRUST & RICO
UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PRICE FIXING, RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND OTHER CRIMES
BY ONGOING OPERATION OF ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

Now comes T Patrick Murray as Plaintiff and I accuse, aver and respectfully allege as
follows:


I N T R O D U C T I O N

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

STRUCTURE OF COMPLAINT

This case is unique as it concerns civil and criminal (alleged) actions by Chase and its
counsel against one family in one foreclosure with one mortgage origination and
amortization was in fact a series of frauds, usury and unjust enrichment engineered to
appear invisible in plain sight with a brilliant benefit that was built in to, like a magician,
divert the eye from the real trick.

Now, as it concerns one family, there are averments, details and sections (largely
regarding the foreclosure fraud allegation and those attendant counts herein) that concern
only that family but are symbols or a sample size of a practice, pattern and systemic
implementation of a conscious financial crime of collection of debt no longer owned and
thus any loss precludes being injured, a crime which affects millions of families, not just
one, not just mine, the plaintiffs family.

Therefore, while certain aspects of this case are microscopic evidentiary details regarding
parts of our injury as to fraud upon us and the court, who is also a co-defendant for
inadvertent and unintentional but nonetheless repeated and negligent complicity and
failure to check or limit a federally and 49 state investigated bank or verify the validity of
the claims made by them when seeking the ultimate civil award- ones largest asset-
ones HOME.

So, this complaint will be divided into these sections:

1. SUMMARY OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION

2. SUMMARY OF NOVEL TRILLION DOLLAR USURY COUNT

3. SUMMARY OF MULTI-FACETED FRAUD COUNTS

4. SUMMARY OF CONSPIRACY, RACKETEERING & PRICE FIXING

5. SUMMARY OF INJURY TO US AND ALL AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS

6. MECHANICS OF MONEY & UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

7. STATE and FEDERAL COUNTS ITEMIZATIONS

JURISDICTION

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.

VENUE

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

The nature of any injunctive relief that should be afforded to the class to prevent
continuation of the wrongful conduct of defendants. Whether 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. Defendant CHASE is a
corporation with principal place of business in Ohio, New York and transacted business
in this district.

Collectively two defendants identified are referred to here as J.P. Morgan.

J.P. Morgan Chase subsidiaries affiliates are in business of origination and servicing of
securities and 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 law firms that aided and abetted legal frauds.

They are firms in New York and PA partnerships that I aver fraudulently represent
Chase, and finally, there is the defendant Chester County Justice/Courts.

Chester County Court System as it is a PA county agency municipal entity.

For this Complaint, all may be referred to as Defendants and only Chase as Bank and
Chase and counsel as foreclosing defendants.

SUMMARY CHAIN OF EVENTS

1) Chase makes a loan which is only credit- no consideration.

2) Chase does not sign any contract with us.

3) Chase misrepresents material facts about loan and interest

4) Chase sells Note legally but fails to disclose or record assignment until last year
AFTER they obtained a bogus default judgment.

5) We stop paying in late 2008 and Chase forecloses (09-05543) but dismisses case.
Chase stops sending bills and we hear nothing for a lost 2 years.

6) Chase forum shops and files foreclosure again without reference by law to related
case. Chase fails to attach elements to complaint. Credit report reflects only 33 payments
delinquent.

7) Chase conspires with counsel and even colludes with HSBC (2nd mortgage) to assign
and arrange for a shadow sheriff sale since HSBC did not foreclose within time limits.

8) Chase knowingly commits fraud as they bold faced (and unchecked0 file verifications,
affidavits and other evidence that is manufactured, altered or completely fraudulent, and
fail to disclose, admit or deny (or address) smoking gun assignment to SASCO 4XS

9) Chase knows they have no standing and inflicts intentionally emotion distress upon my
family resulting in wife leaving due to stress of ongoing foreclosure They do this for 6
years, dragging it on (2 year delay, then 9 month delay after 2nd case filing with no
replies to preliminary motions
10) Chases counsel instrument of fraud- co-conspirators in crime. County innocent
inefficient and indifferent municipal operation who failed to provide the duet process they
exist to provide citizens of county/state/country.

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 and also 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.

THE NOVEL COUNT

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.

How much higher than the 6.25% advertised on loan documents?

Well, in year one, about 580% and year 5 107% and in year 30 it is in fact 6.25%...

THE 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.

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 from THE MATRIX.

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.

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.


LEGAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR CIVIL CASES: THE 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 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.

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & ABUSE OF PROCESS

This is not an allegation but a truth, as the assignment I discovered filed without notice
last year by Chase proves the 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.

(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 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.

COUNT
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 research and the law learning
4 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 litigant
5 The stress was immeasurable
6 Health- my wife got severe depression and I lost 100 pounds
7 My wife descended into such a 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 death
8 She had a silent breakdown; she was advised by a psychiatrist to get a divorce due
to foreclosure and last fall she indeed
9 My wife left the home and marriage as she said it symbolized the stress it inflicted.
10 All of this was ignored by the County Court- no one asked Chase to prove
anything.

How can you put a number on 6 years of not working?
How can you put a price on marriage?
How can you put a price on peace of mind and on happiness?
Was Chase 100% responsible for our pain and suffering? No- but for most of it.
Say 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 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 (a million per year) trebled and unencumbered title
to home for this false attack on my family

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.

What rate would I 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 analyzed
PMT = 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%. Everyone was stunned and silenced. It seemed
consumers were well aware that mortgage interest is usurious but no one seemed to have
any idea just how front-end loaded it really is.

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 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: $100,000

Annual 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 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 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: $100,000
Annual 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. So why is the USA allowing this?

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 multi-billion 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. It is a never ending cycle as
people continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime. Go 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 a payment or partial payment of interest 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 and there are
indeed ACTUAL DAMAGES IN TORT EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL
AMORTIZATION

Lets use one last example- THE EASIEST ONE OF ALL. 360k loan.

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)

We use this why?

BECAUSE in 360 PAYMENTS we can easily see how

Principal of 360k can be repaid $1000 a month and

The Interest can be paid at a rate of $1001.33 a month

S U M M A R Y

Payments (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
Date Principal Interest Escrow Balance BALANCES IF LEGAL

2014 $5,021.03 $18,994.97 $0.00 $354,978.97 348k
2015 $5,294.23 $18,721.77 $0.00 $349,684.75 336k
2016 $5,582.29 $18,433.70 $0.00 $344,102.45 324k
2017 $5,886.04 $18,129.96 $0.00 $338,216.42 312k
2018 $6,206.30 $17,809.69 $0.00 $332,010.11 300k (30k difference Year 5)
2019 $6,544.00 $17,472.00 $0.00 $325,466.11 288k
2020 $6,900.07 $17,115.93 $0.00 $318,566.04 276k
2021 $7,275.51 $16,740.48 $0.00 $311,290.53 264k
2022 $7,671.38 $16,344.61 $0.00 $303,619.15 252k (50k difference Year 10)
2023 $8,088.80 $15,927.20 $0.00 $295,530.35 240k
2024 $8,528.92 $15,487.07 $0.00 $287,001.43 228k
2025 $8,992.99 $15,023.00 $0.00 $278,008.44 216k
2026 $9,482.32 $14,533.68 $0.00 $268,526.12 204k
2027 $9,998.26 $14,017.73 $0.00 $258,527.86 192k
2028 $10,542.28 $13,473.71 $0.00 $247,985.58 180k
2029 $11,115.91 $12,900.09 $0.00 $236,869.67 168k
2030 $11,720.74 $12,295.25 $0.00 $225,148.93 156k (75k difference Year 20)
2031 $12,358.48 $11,657.51 $0.00 $212,790.44 144k
2032 $13,030.93 $10,985.07 $0.00 $199,759.51 132k
2033 $13,739.96 $10,276.03 $0.00 $186,019.55 120k
2034 $14,487.58 $9,528.42 $0.00 $171,531.98 108k
2035 $15,275.87 $8,740.13 $0.00 $156,256.11 96k
2036 $16,107.05 $7,908.94 $0.00 $140,149.06 84k
2037 $16,983.46 $7,032.53 $0.00 $123,165.60 72k
2038 $17,907.56 $6,108.44 $0.00 $105,258.04 60k
2039 $18,881.94 $5,134.06 $0.00 $86,376.10 48k
2040 $19,909.33 $4,106.66 $0.00 $66,466.77 36k
2041 $20,992.63 $3,023.36 $0.00 $45,474.14 24k
2042 $22,134.87 $1,881.12 $0.00 $23,339.27 12k
2043 $23,339.27 $676.73 $0.00 $0.00 0k

PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAID

Totals $360,000.00 $360,479.86 $760,479.86

$1000 should go every month to principal/equity $1001.33 should go to interest due
(the alternate equity accumulation and principal reduction listed on right side of table)
BUT LOOK ABOVE AT THE STRUCTURE OF FRONT LOADING AND RECALL THAT
IN THE INTEREST OF SIMPLICITY I AM NOT RECALCULATING THE INTEREST AS
PER FASTER REDUCED PRINCIPAL- I AM USING THE GROSS INTEREST DUE

See how the first payment awards about $9 rather than $1000 to equity? Each year, the
consumer pays $10,792 but a different portion of 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 new dynamic Principal to
Interest ratio in the first years is 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 I 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. AND REMEMBER-
THE INTEREST WOULD LOWER ALONG WITH THE PREDICTABLE
REDUCTION IN PRINCIPAL AS WELL.

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 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.

THEREFORE, THE CRIME IS 1) USURY 2) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DYNAMIC
RATIO 3) THE ARTIFICIAL SUSPENSION OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE TO
INCREASE YIELD WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONSPIRACY AND UNJUST
ENRICHMENT AND 4) THE ARTIFICIAL SUSPENSION OF AGGREGATE
INTEREST DUE AS PER PRINCIPAL ARTIFICIALLY REPAID SLOWLY AS PER
GRAPH BELOW




$2,001.33 $720,479.86 Sep, 2034
Total monthly payment Total of 360 payments Payoff date

Date Principal Interest Balance
Oct, 2004 $408.33 $1,593.00 $359,591.67
Nov, 2004 $410.14 $1,591.19 $359,181.53
Dec, 2004 $411.95 $1,589.38 $358,769.57
2004 $1,230.43 $4,773.57 $358,769.57
Jan, 2005 $413.78 $1,587.56 $358,355.80
Feb, 2005 $415.61 $1,585.72 $357,940.19
Mar, 2005 $417.45 $1,583.89 $357,522.74
Apr, 2005 $419.29 $1,582.04 $357,103.44
May, 2005 $421.15 $1,580.18 $356,682.29
Jun, 2005 $423.01 $1,578.32 $356,259.28
Jul, 2005 $424.89 $1,576.45 $355,834.39
Aug, 2005 $426.77 $1,574.57 $355,407.63
Sep, 2005 $428.65 $1,572.68 $354,978.97
Oct, 2005 $430.55 $1,570.78 $354,548.42
Nov, 2005 $432.46 $1,568.88 $354,115.97
Dec, 2005 $434.37 $1,566.96 $353,681.60
2005 $5,087.97 $18,928.02 $353,681.60

This gives a sense of gross disparity, when it should be $1000.00 and $1001.33, fixed.









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.

SUMMARY

Front-loading is not some quaint legal technicality it is the legal and actual technicality
that has driven the fraudulent global financial economy for at least the past 200 years.

I will loan you $100,000 at 30% as long as you agree to give me a negotiable security
that claims that I loaned you $130,000 at 6%, and a secret/unregistered side agreement
for a $30,000 kick-back to me from the nominal proceeds. It is much easier to defraud
and steal from domestic and international financial markets if I can conceal real terms
and underlying risk.

Virtually every high (and low) finance transaction in the world today follows the same
model while secretly channeling literally billions in kick-backs to select members (or
sectors) of the legal profession. There are many techniques that financial institutions use
to steal from their customers and from society, some more flagrant than others.

Front-loading, however, is directly analogous to the one ring that rules them all, the
master technique that dominates others in terms of leverage and therefore profitability.
The United States actually had a clear opportunity to destroy that ring in 1981 but the
will of men failed, and twenty-five years later the whole global system began to
massively unravel.

Front-loading is a disease that infects the global financial economy.

The USAs own precedent and example by their own legal system had the cure in 1981
and chose instead to conceal its knowledge of the disease and of the cure from the rest of
the world in order to exploit and profit from it.

Now as the rest of the financial world lies in smoldering ruins, one countrys privately-
owned banks appear to have escaped carnage and that country is the USA (and
Canada).

The media, effectively owned and operated by those same banks, brag to the rest of the
world how superior management is behind these crimes.

The reality is that the USA is the central global clearinghouse for the falsified securities
that caused the collapse itself. Its a virtual pyramid-central by reason of its
accommodation of racketeering and other organized crime activities.

Chase criminally skimmed all the gravy and sold the diseased husks into the international
markets. It has been a 30-year run, but, as with Dr. Faustus, eventually Hell demands his
due.

Or at least the D.A.

CHASE IS AN ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATION WITH BANKING
ACTIVITIES
Organized crime, organized crime, and criminal organizations are terms that categorize
transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by
criminals, who intend to engage in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.
Some criminal organizations, such as terrorist organizations, are politically motivated.
Sometimes criminal organizations appear legitimate like, say, a bank and people do
business with them, and they exploit those customers in a subtle invisible way unlike
when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for so-called "protection"- but no less
injurious.
Chase is an example of the evolution of organized crime as it became disciplined enough
to be organized as A CORPORATION and respect was automatic and indictments,
overlooked. Chase and other banks that can be proven to have knowingly committed
crimes of financial nature should under the law be considered organized.
Why?
Other organizationsincluding states, militaries, police forces, and corporationsmay
sometimes use organized crime methods to conduct their business, but their powers
derive from their status as social institutions. Chase is run by brilliant sociopaths, indeed.
There is a tendency to distinguish organized crime from other forms of crimes, such as
white-collar crime, financial crimes, political crimes, war crime, state crimes and treason.
This distinction is not always apparent and the academic debate is ongoing and it
is unfair and an example of corruption and apathy.
For example, in failed states that can no longer perform basic functions such as
education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty,
organized crime, governance and war are often complementary to each other.
Chase and Jaime Dimon are business oligarchs, simply.
In the United States, the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) defines organized crime
as:
"The unlawful activities of [...] a highly organized, disciplined association
"Criminal activity as a structured group is referred to as racketeering
But times change, and now formerly straight and clean operations have been corrupted
buy greed and circumstance (2008 crisis).

THE US CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE STATUTE APPLIED TO OTHER CRIMES

The Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute (commonly referred to as The Kingpin
Statute) is a United States federal law that targets large-scale drug traffickers who are
responsible for long-term and elaborate drug conspiracies.
Why is this germane? Because the spirit of the law is not drug focused but criminal
hierarchy focused- if you cut off the head of any dangerous group they may cease to
operate criminally.
Unlike the RICO Act, which covers a wide range of organized crime enterprises, the CCE
statute covers only major narcotics organizations.
However, I aver any major felonies, from murder to rape to conspiracy to commit grand
larceny to embezzlement to loan sharking are alike and any distinction is a matter of
morality not legality, and as such, I aver a drug enterprise is not different than a financial
crimes enterprise.
The statute makes it a federal crime to conspire to commit a continuing series of felony
violations of a single drug act when such acts are taken in concert with 5 or more other
persons.
However, I aver that drugs are not the limits of the crime types- certainly an assignation
service would qualify for indictment under this law.
For conviction under this statute, the offender (the CEO or Don) must have been an
organizer, manager, or supervisor of the continuing operate of SYSTEMIC CRIMINAL
ACTS and have obtained substantial income/resources from violations, or, as I aver,
ANY FELONY.
The sentence for a first CCE conviction is a mandatory minimum 20 years' imprisonment
(with a maximum of life imprisonment), a fine of not more than $2 million, and forfeiture
of profits and any interest in the enterprise.
Under the so-called "super kingpin" provision added as subsection (b) to the CCE statute
in 1984, a person convicted of being a "principal" administrator, organizer, or leader of a
criminal enterprise that either involves a large amount of narcotics (at least 300 times the
quantity that would trigger a 5-year mandatory-minimum sentence for possession).
This is discriminatory as this is all ABOUT MONEY therefore the test is not drugs but ill
gotten gains- the crime has to generate a large amount of money (at least $10 million
gross during a single year), and kingpin must serve a mandatory life without possibility
of parole (referred to as a "living death)
I guess some kingpins (CEOs) and some criminal industries (banking) and untouchable-
to be white with an MBA allows you to engage in polite discreet abstract numbers crime
without guns and gangs and escape not only conviction but indictment or even cursory
investigation. I have burden to prove this.

ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES

The scheme works as follows.

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.

THE STORY SO FAR

So where are we now?

1) Conducting The Private Investigation
2) The call to peaceful activism by litigation
3) Private Criminal Complaints
4) $1,000,000,000,000.00 RICO Federal Class Actions Lawsuit 3rd Circuit
5) PA Superior Court Appeal
6) Lawsuit Against Chester County Justice Center
7) Calling and Organizing The Victims
8) Press Conference and Press Releases
9) The FTC and Justice Department and The Media
10) The Documentary Film Release
THE MAY SALE

A sale is scheduled for 5/15/14. We seek to stop that pending appeals and actions as this

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 Habits
2) Apathetic Indifference Resulting in Unintentional but Actual Gross Negligence
3) 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

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 FORECLOSURE is in fact civil capital punishment.
Because the HOME is the foundation of wealth, security and survival for 99% of the
world who list 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 us- whether a soccer mom or serial killer.

WRONGFUL SHERIFF SALES AND FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

Under States consumer protection laws, Banks are prohibited from engaging in unfair
deceptive practices with respect to consumers. FHA regulations and guidance and HAMP
and other MHA servicer participation agreements establish requirements to be followed
in the foreclosure of single family residential mortgages that are FHA insured, or where
the servicer conducting the foreclosure is an MHA participant. Each of the Banks
regularly conducts or manages foreclosures on behalf of entities that hold mortgage loans
and have contracted with the Bank to service such loans. In the course of their conduct,
management, and oversight of foreclosures, Chase violated foreclosure requirements. In
the course of their conduct, management, and oversight of foreclosures in the plaintiff
States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. Chases
failure to follow appropriate foreclosure procedures, and related unfair and deceptive
practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. failing to properly identify the foreclosing party;
b. charging improper fees related to foreclosures;
c. preparing, executing, notarizing or presenting false and misleading documents, filing
false and misleading documents with courts and government agencies, or otherwise using
false or misleading documents as part of the foreclosure process (including, affidavits,
declarations, certifications, substitutions of trustees, and assignments)
d. preparing, executing, or filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings without personal
knowledge of the assertions in the affidavits and without review of any information or
documentation to verify the assertions in such affidavits. This practice of repeated false
attestation of information is popularly known as robo-signing. where third parties
engaged in robo-signing on behalf of Banks & did so with knowledge/approval of Banks
e. executing and filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings that were not properly
notarized in accordance with applicable state law; if. misrepresenting the identity, office,
or legal status of the affiant executing foreclosure-related documents;
g. inappropriately charging servicing, document creation, recordation and other costs
and expenses related to foreclosures; and
h. inappropriately dual-tracking foreclosure and loan modification activities, and failing
to communicate with borrowers with respect to foreclosure activities.

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.

Some states restrict 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 has a 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.

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, 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 security (home) rather than suing you directly on underlying
promissory note.

As a result of the one action and security first rules, the lenders options are significantly
limited when a borrower defaults on a mortgage. And as such, I aver Chase lost their
chance in 2010.

THE OTHER MAJOR COUNTS

I aver that the single acts of 1) amortization front loading theft/unjust
enrichment/racketeering and the systemic fraudulent execution of foreclosure judicial
proceedings comprise a litany of federal law violations including, but hardly limited to,
the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and PRICE FIXING and RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE

To determine whether a particular state statute that restrains competition was intended to
be preempted by Act, courts will engage in a two-step analysis, as set forth by the
Supreme Court Rice v. Norman Williams Co.

First, they will inquire whether the state legislation "mandates or authorizes conduct that
necessarily constitutes a violation of the antitrust laws in all cases, or ... places irresistible
pressure on a private party to violate antitrust laws in order to comply with the statute."
Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S; Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)

"Our decisions reflect the principle that the federal antitrust laws pre-empt state laws
authorizing or compelling private parties to engage in anticompetitive behavior."

Second, they will consider whether the state statute is saved from preemption by the state
action immunity doctrine (aka Parker immunity). In California Retail Liquor Dealers
Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980), the Supreme Court
established a two-part test for applying the doctrine:

"First, the challenged restraint must be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed
as state policy; second, the policy must be actively supervised by the State itself." Id.
Under older Section 1 precedent, it was not settled how much evidence was required to
show a conspiracy. For example, a conspiracy could be inferred based on parallel
conduct, etc.

That is, plaintiffs were only required to show that a conspiracy was conceivable.

Since the 1970s courts have held plaintiffs to higher standards, giving antitrust
defendants an opportunity to resolve cases in their favor before discovery under
FRCP 12(b)(6).

To overcome a motion to dismiss, under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, must plead
facts, consistent with FRCP 8(a), sufficient to show that a conspiracy is plausible (and not
merely conceivable or possible). This protects defendants from bearing the costs of
antitrust "fishing expeditions," however it deprives plaintiffs of perhaps their only tool to
acquire evidence (discovery).

Second, courts have employed more sophisticated and principled definitions of markets.
Market definition is necessary, in rule of reason cases, for the plaintiff to prove a
conspiracy is harmful.

It is also necessary for the plaintiff to establish the market relationship between
conspirators to prove their conduct is within the per se rule.

In early cases, it was easier for plaintiffs to show market relationship, or dominance, by
tailoring market definition, even if it ignored fundamental principles of economics.

In U.S. v. Grinnell, 384 U.S. 563 (1966), the trial Judge composed the market only of
alarm companies with services in every state, tailoring out any local competitors; the
defendant stood alone in market, but had the court added up the entire national market, it
would have had a much smaller share of the national market for alarm services that the
court purportedly used.

The appellate courts affirmed this finding; however, today, an appellate court would
likely find this definition to be flawed. Modern courts use a more sophisticated market
definition that does not permit as manipulative a definition. The Act was aimed at
regulating businesses. However, its application was not limited to the commercial side of
business. Its prohibition of the cartel was also interpreted to make illegal many labor
union activities. This persisted until 1914, when the Clayton Act created exceptions for
certain union activities.

VIOLATION OF CLAYTON ACT Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. 13

The Clayton Act made both substantive and procedural modifications to federal antitrust
law. In those sections, the Act thoroughly discusses following four principles of
economic trade:

1) price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially
lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce

2) sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the
seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different
product (tying") when these acts substantially lessen competition, Act Section 3, at 15
U.S.C. 14);

3) mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition
Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. 18

4) any person being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those
corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging Act Section 8; codified 1200
at 15 U.S.C. 19

This act empowers private parties injured by violations of the Act to sue for treble
damages under Section 4 and injunctive relief under Section 16.
The Supreme Court has expressly ruled that the "injunctive relief" clause in Section 16
includes the implied power to force defendants to divest assets.

Under the Clayton Act, only civil suits could be brought to the court's attention and a
provision "permits a suit in the federal courts for three times the actual damages caused
by anything forbidden in the antitrust laws", including court costs and attorney's fees.

VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the
market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not
against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which
unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors,
is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it
has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect us.
The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or
on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through
misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

Section 1 violation has three elements:

An agreement which unreasonably restrains competition and which affects interstate
commerce. A Section 2 violation has two elements:

(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic
accident.

Violations "per se" and violations of the "rule of reason"

Violations "per se": these are violations that meet the strict characterization of Section 1
("agreements, conspiracies or trusts in restraint of trade").

A per se violation requires no further inquiry into the practice's actual effect on the
market or the intentions of those individuals who engaged in the practice.

Conduct characterized as per se unlawful is that which has been found to have a
"'pernicious effect on competition' or 'lack[s] . . . any redeeming virtue'"

Such conduct "would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease
output." When a per se rule is applied, a civil violation of the antitrust laws is found
merely by proving that the conduct occurred and that it fell within a per se category.

Conduct considered per se unlawful includes horizontal price-fixing and horizontal
market division. Violations of the "rule of reason": A totality of the circumstances test,
asking whether the challenged practice promotes or suppresses market competition.

Unlike with per se violations, intent and motive are relevant when predicting future
consequences.

The rule of reason is said to be the "traditional framework of analysis" to determine
whether Section 1 is violated.

The court analyzes "facts peculiar to the business, the history of the restraining, and the
reasons why it was imposed "to determine the effect on competition in the relevant
product market.

A restraint violates Section 1 if it unreasonably restrains trade.

A "quick look" analysis under the rule of reason may be used when "an observer with
even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in
question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets," yet violation is
also not one considered illegal per se.

Taking a "quick look," economic harm is presumed from the questionable nature of the
conduct, and the burden is shifted to the defendant to prove harmlessness or justification.
The quick-look became a popular way of disposing of cases where conduct was in a grey
area between illegality "per se" and demonstrable harmfulness under "rule of reason"

ILLEGAL PRICE FIXING

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or
sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market
conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and
demand. The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as
possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount,
or stabilize prices.

The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether
expressed or implied. Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers. The
purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders.

For example, manufacturers and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price;
set a common minimum sales price, where sellers agree not to discount the sales price
below the agreed-to minimum price; buy the product from a supplier at a specified
maximum price; adhere to a price book or list price; engage in cooperative price
advertising; standardize financial credit terms offered to purchasers; use uniform
trade-in allowances; limit discounts; discontinue a free service or fix the price of one
component of an overall service; adhere uniformly to previously-announced prices
and terms of sale; establish uniform costs and markups; impose mandatory
surcharges; purposefully reduce output or sales in order to charge higher prices; or
purposefully share or pool markets, territories, or customers.

Price fixing is permitted in some markets but not others; where allowed, it is often known
as resale price maintenance or retail price maintenance.

In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient.

The anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price
transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and also results in a
deadweight loss.

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under
section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by
U.S. Department of Justice, but Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction for civil
antitrust violations.

Private individuals or organizations may file lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust
violations, and depending on the law, recover attorney fees and costs expended on
prosecution of a case.

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust
laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the
exchange affects the prices individual competitors set.
Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal
price fixing agreement. Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the
appearance of agreeing on price.

Vertical price fixing includes a manufacturer's attempt to control the price of its product
at retail. In State Oil Co. v. Khan, the Supreme Court held price fixing is still
considered a breach of Sherman Act.

In United States v. Sharp heard in Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total
sum of $ 585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid
crystal display panels, which was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman
Act in history.

In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offense under section 45 of the Competition Act.
Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States
(s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). In the United States, agreements
to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se. It does not matter
if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause or if the agreement
is unspoken and tacit.
In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same,
discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a
price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price
advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announces.
Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include
agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE CONSUMER PRACTICES
WITH 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 sustained by such citizens includes payment of improper fees and charges,
unreasonable delays and expenses to obtain loss mitigation relief, improper denial of loss
mitigation relief, loss of homes due to improper, unlawful, or undocumented
foreclosures. The harm to the States includes the subversion of their legal process and the
sustained violations of their laws.

The States (and individuals like me) have had to incur substantial expenses in the
investigations and attempts to obtain remedies for the Banks unlawful conduct.

GROSS MISCONDUCT ADMITTED IN RECENT SETTLEMENT

Chase mortgage loans secured by residential properties sold to trusts and owned by
individual trusts and certificate holder citizens of the States, and of the United States, if
trust is solvent.

Chase is engaged in trade or commerce in each of the Plaintiff States and is subject to the
consumer protection laws of the States in the conduct of their debt collection, loss
mitigation and foreclosure activities. The consumer protection laws of the Plaintiff States
include laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C)(a)(1)(G) (2009), and 31 U.S.C.
3729(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(7) (1986) Chase knowingly presented or caused to be
presented to the United States false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval,
including but not limited to improper claims for payment of FHA residential mortgage
insurance or guarantees.
In so doing, Defendants acted knowingly; that is, the Banks possessed actual knowledge
that the claims for payment were false or fraudulent; acted in deliberate ignorance of the
truth or falsity of the claims for payment; acted in reckless disregard of truth or falsity of
claims for payment.

By virtue of the acts described above, the Banks made, used, or caused to be made or
used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.

In so doing, the Defendants acted knowingly; that is, the Banks possessed actual
knowledge that the information, statements and representations were false or fraudulent;
acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, statements and
representations; or acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information,
statements and representations.

By virtue of the acts described above, the Banks made, used, or caused to be made or
used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or
property to the government, and concealed or improperly avoided or decreased an
obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the United States. In so doing, the
Defendants acted knowingly; that is, the Banks possessed actual knowledge that the
information, statements and representations were false or fraudulent; acted in deliberate
ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information, statements and representations; or
acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, statements and
representations.
By virtue of the acts described above, the Banks conspired with one or more persons: to
present or cause to be presented to the United States false or fraudulent claims for
payment or approval; to make, use, or cause to be made or used, a false record or
statement material to a false or fraudulent claim; and, to make, use, or cause to be made
or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or
property to the government; or to conceal or improperly avoid or decrease an obligation
to pay money or property to the United States.

VIOLATION OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM, RECOVERY
AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1989, 12 U.S.C. 1833A (FIRREA)

In connection with matters within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Banks
knowingly and willfully engaged in conduct that: (a) falsified, concealed or covered up
by artifices, schemes or devices, material facts, (b) made statements and representations
that violate 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), and (c) made and used false writings or documents
knowing the same to contain materially false and fictitious statements and entries.

CONSUMER INJURY

Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result of
Defendants' violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendants have been unjustly
enriched as a result of unlawful act or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court
Defendants will not stop injuring, reaping unjust enrichment, harm public interests.

VIOLATIONS OF FTC ACT

I also bring action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC
Act) , 15 U.S.C. 53(b), to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation
of contracts, restitution, refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and
other equitable relief for Defendants' acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 45 (a).

Chase engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities in violation of Sections 17(a)
(2) and (3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(2) & (3)].

A violation of Sections 17(a)(2) or (3) of Act may be established by a showing of
negligence. Aaron v. SEC, 448 U.S. 680, 697 Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
45(a), prohibits "unfair deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce."

Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive acts or
practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. Acts or practices are unfair under
Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or likely to cause substantial injury to consumers
that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves that is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers. 15 U.S.C. 45(n)

VIOLATIONS OF PATRIOT ACT

Section 329 introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or
employee of the government who acts corruptly as well as the person who induces the
corrupt act in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is
not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively
they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned.
Penalties apply to financial institutions that do not comply with an order to terminate any
corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or
the Secretary of Treasury under Section 319.
VIOLATION OF Bank Secrecy Act, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B

Subtitle B modifies the Bank Secrecy Act makes it a requirement that financial
institutions report suspicious transactions; through the creation of anti-money laundering
programs and by better defining anti-money laundering strategy; and by making it a
requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency
receipts that are over US$10,000. The subtitle increases civil and criminal penalties for
money laundering and introduces penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders
and certain record keeping requirements. Subtitle B also legislated for the creation of a
secure network, improved protection of U.S. Federal reserve banks and instructed United
States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to support any country
that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism.

VIOLATIONS FOR STANDARDS FOR RECORD KEEPING

A number of measures were taken to improve record keeping and reporting. The FDIC
Act was amended by section 355 to allow written employment references to contain
suspicions of involvement in illegal activity in response to a request from another
financial institution, but makes clear that it does not require the disclosure or shield from
liability to who makes a disclosure that is found to have been made with malicious intent.
Due to the broad scope of such a definition it was further narrowed to those investment
companies that permit an investor to redeem part of their investment within two years
after the investment was made; exclude investment companies with less than
US$1,000,000 in assets by the end of the calendar quarter; and exclude funds that were
organized in the U.S., that are organized or sponsored by a U.S. person, or that sells
ownership interest to U.S. people.

Section 359 brought Money Services Businesses (MSBs) those who operate informal
value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system under the definition
of a financial institution. This makes it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate
anti-money laundering operations in this segment of the U.S. economy. A report was also
ordered to determine whether additional legislation was required for MSBs, but this
found that more legislation was not necessary.

However, the report did find that law enforcement and regulatory communities should
undertake a comprehensive program to enhance their knowledge concerning the range of
mechanisms used in informal value transfer systems in order to better understand them
and to determine whether they think that any additional legislation is needed.


THE MANY FRAUDS
COMMON LAW 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 specifically that is, a plaintiff must plead facts that show with
particularity the elements of the cause of action. (Ibid.)

CHASES fraud implemented through lies, perjury, robosigning, failure to disclose 2005
assignment, forum shopping, fraud upon court, lying to authorities, forged documents
alleging that defendants acts 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 and other specific violations of state
and federal law in our case. This allegation is a general allegation of reliance and
damage, and we have exhaustive evidence

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.

FRAUD BY INDUCEMENT

Fraud by inducement occurred at loan origination when the terms of the loan (and the
nature of the transaction) were not disclosed intentionally, as was the dynamic ratio of the
fixed payment.
THE DOCTRINE OF CLAIM PRECLUSION AND ABSURDITY

The entire foreclosure, if not the entire case itself, SHOULD be dismissed with prejudice
in light of new information, as it proves that Chase and Phelan have been lying the
entire time.

But that is another matter to be dealt with later. Now we seek simply a stay of the sale so
as to allow time to schedule a hearing on the matter of this new evidence, as well as
hearing for Petition to Open (which just gained strength by virtue of this miraculous
evidence confirming the lack of standing) which, for sake of conservation of judicial
resources, should be combined into one single hearing.

One final note we do not know why the Petition has heretofore been ignored by the
Court- it may be innocent oversight or administrative error- but an asset worth nearly a
million dollars our home- where our children sleep- is the stakes and they could not be
any higher.

Therefore, we urge the Court to err on the side of caution, as to deny a stay would be
wrong as we have not had one minute of due process in a courtroom, and by the highest
law in the land:

We are guaranteed such a hearing before confiscation of our home by Chase.

And Chase we can now prove DOES NOT HAVE ANY STANDING TO DO THIS.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION, PREJUDICE, BIAS, ERROR AND GROSS
NEGLIGENCE

The next question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying me due
process and exhibiting bias by omission or enforcement of double standards. Judge
should have recused.

Defendants, and each of them, also knew that the act of recording the Assignment of
Note without the authorization to do so would cause Plaintiff to rely upon Defendants
actions by attempting to negotiate a settlement with representatives of Chase, agents of
JP MORGAN.

The assignment mentioned in this allegation is the assignment of mortgage recorded in
June 2013 no other assignment of mortgage is referred to in the second cause of action.

SEE EXHIBIT A SMOKING GUN SASCO 4XS 2005 ASSIGNMENT for $1.00

CHESTER COURT FAILURE TO CHECK CRIMINAL VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute targets criminals responsible for long-term
crimes.
The anti-racketeering statute- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO)- targets offenders who work at top levels of criminal organizations.
In 1990 2 percent of Federal offenders were convicted of racketeering or CCE charges.
Most racketeering convictions based on RICO 27 percent or interstate travel in aid of
racketeering were 28 percent. Predicate offenses on which racketeering convictions were
based were primarily gambling offenses (21 percent), drug offenses (23 percent), and
threats and extortion (22 percent).
Defendants in both racketeering and CCE cases were less likely than other Federal
defendants to plead guilty but were as likely as others to be convicted. This entire
operation (amortization usury and fraud) comprise a crime worse than drug dealing.

NO INJURY: INSURANCE AND CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS
The FHA provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA approved lenders
throughout the United States.

Among other things, FHA insures mortgages on single family housing, which refers to
one-family dwellings. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 1709; see generally 24 C.F.R. Part 203.

FHA mortgage insurance provides lenders with protection against losses when home
buyers default on mortgage loans insured by FHA. 12 U.S.C. 1710, 24 C.F.R. Part
203.

FHA-approved lenders, known as Direct Endorsement Lenders, ensure that loans meet
strict underwriting criteria, including income-verification, credit analysis, and property
appraisal, established by the FHA to be eligible for insurance. See 24 C.F.R. 203.5(c)-
(e) (requirements for underwriter due diligence, mortgagor income evaluation and
appraisal).

The FHA insurance operations are funded by a statutorily established Mutual Mortgage
Insurance Fund (MMIF). 12 U.S.C. 1708(a). Chase is indeed a criminal enterprise; I
ask Court- let me prove it.

UNFAIR ASSESSMENT OF FEES

In the course and conduct of their loan servicing and collection, Defendants in numerous
instances have assessed and collected default-related fees that they were not legally
authorized to collect pursuant to mortgage contract. Defendants' actions cause or are
likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid
themselves and that is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition.

Therefore, Defendants' acts constitute unfair acts in violation of Section 5 of the FTC
Act. Defendants in numerous instances have made representations about different aspects
of consumers' loans, including amounts owed for many items.

In truth and in fact, Defendants did not have a reasonable basis for the representations at
the time the representations were made.

Therefore, the making of the representations in Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or
practice in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
45(a).

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 conspiracy I 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.

Defendants' communications for default-related services such as property inspections,
title reports, and foreclosure trustee services are interstate fraud acts as well.

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).

EXTORTION
Extortion (also called shakedown and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money,
property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.
Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of
money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence
which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property is sufficient to commit
the offense.
Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of
something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of
something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In robbery, whether armed or not, the offender
takes property from the victim by the immediate use of force or fear that force will be
immediately used (as in the classic line,
"Your money or your life." (or your house)
Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written
instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if he or she does not comply
with the extortionist's will.
Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat,
whereas robbery does not. In United States federal law, extortion can be committed with
or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. In blackmail, which
always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim
or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or
incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging,
though neither is legally considered extortion.
It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels
indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid
legal consequences.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence,
merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion.
Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police,
revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a
compromising position), etc.
In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a
computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of interstate commerce.
Extortion requires that accused willingly and knowingly knew asking for money not
owed under threat of loss of home are untrue leveraged manipulations and elements of
the crime.
The message only has to be sent (but does not reach recipient) to commit crime of
extortion.
Coercion: the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an
involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation,
trickery, or some other form of pressure or force.
These are used as leverage, to force victim to act in the desired way.
Loan sharking: A loan shark is a person or body that offers unsecured loans at high
interest rates to individuals, often backed by blackmail or threats of violence.
Price gouging: a pejorative term for a seller pricing much higher than is considered
reasonable or fair.
In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that applies in some of the United States
only during civil emergencies.
Racket- A service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem
that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist.
Terrorism is most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror.
It is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is
perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack),
and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at
present, the international community has been unable to formulate an agreed, legally
binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.

RICO: CHASE IS A BANK AND AN ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE

CHASE IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE BY SETTLEMENTS in 49 STATES:

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 DC proved this.

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 Chase I aver simply bought their way out
of- not in a settlement of corruption- a 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. 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,
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)

THE BIG AND THE SMALL COUNTS

Until now I have focused on the national impact of the crimes or actions that I aver
injured me but also, systemically, injured and continue to injure millions. However, I
must also specify how exactly they ruined my life by fraud in foreclosure and usury in
amortization. Therefore, in the interest of brevity, I am summarizing the issues, counts
and since I am limited in time and resources, the results of the forensic audit of my
particular loan is still ongoing, and therefore, I ask the Court to allow me to present
specifics (exhaustive) in a supplemental or an amended pleading, or by entry into the
record at a hearing or, in nothing else, at trial.

So as time, space and common sense prevent me from itemizing all the ways this criminal
operation violates laws- so I am listing the laws I aver were broken and I recognize that I
have burden to produce evidence by trial through discovery to support claims.

VIOLATIONS of CARIOUS COUNTS of TITLE 18

!241. Conspiracy against rights
!242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
!246. Deprivation of relief benefits
!285. Taking or using papers relating to claims
!287. False, fictitious or fraudulent claims
!335. Circulation of obligations of expired corporations
!336. Issuance of circulating obligations of less than $1
!402. Contempt constituting crimes
!472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
!473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
!474. Digital, or electronic images for counterfeiting obligations or securities
!477. Possessing or selling impressions of tools used for obligations or securities
!479. Uttering counterfeit foreign obligations or securities
!480. Possessing counterfeit foreign obligations or securities
!481. Electronic images for counterfeiting foreign obligations or securities
!484. Connecting parts of different notes
!491. Tokens or paper used as money
!495. Contracts, deeds, and powers of attorney
!504. Printing and filming of United States and foreign obligations and securities
!505. Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers
!506. Seals of departments or agencies
!513. Securities of the States and private entities
!514. Fictitious obligations
!643. Accounting generally for public money
!644. Banker receiving unauthorized deposit of public money
!656. Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee
!657. Lending, credit and insurance institutions
!658. Property mortgaged or pledged to farm credit agencies
!666. Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
!873. Blackmail
!880. Receiving the proceeds of extortion
!892. Making extortionate extensions of credit
!893. Financing extortionate extensions of credit
!894. Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means
I have itemized a few major ones:

18 U.S. Code 892 - Making extortionate extensions of credit

(1) To extend credit means to make or renew any loan, or to enter into any agreement,
tacit or express, whereby the repayment or satisfaction of any debt or claim, whether
acknowledged or disputed, valid or invalid, and however arising, may or will be deferred.

(2) The term creditor, with reference to any given extension of credit, refers to any
person making that extension of credit, or to any person claiming by, under, or through
any person making that extension of credit.

(3) The term debtor, with reference to any given extension of credit, refers to any
person to whom that extension of credit is made, or to any person who guarantees the
repayment of that extension of credit, or in any manner undertakes to indemnify the
creditor against loss resulting from the failure of any person to whom that extension of
credit is made to repay the same.

(4) The repayment of any extension of credit includes the repayment, satisfaction, or
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or claim, acknowledged or disputed, valid or
invalid, resulting from or in connection with that extension of credit.

(5) To collect an extension of credit means to induce in any way to make repayment
thereof.

(6) An extortionate extension of credit is any extension of credit with respect to which it
is the understanding of the creditor and the debtor at the time it is made that delay in
making repayment or failure to make repayment could result in the use of violence or
other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property of any person.

(7) An extortionate means involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of
violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property of
any person (a) Whoever makes any extortionate extension of credit, or conspires to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(b) In any prosecution under this section, if it is shown that all of the following factors
were present in connection with the extension of credit in question, there is prima facie
evidence that the extension of credit was extortionate, but this subsection is nonexclusive
and in no way limits the effect or applicability of subsection (a):

(1) The repayment of the extension of credit, or the performance of any promise given in
consideration thereof, would be unenforceable, through civil judicial processes against
debtor

(A) in the jurisdiction within which the debtor, if a natural person, resided or (B) in every
jurisdiction within which the debtor, if other than a natural person, was incorporated or
qualified to do business at the time the extension of credit was made.

(2) The extension of credit was made at a rate of interest in excess of an annual rate of 45
per centum calculated according to the actuarial method of allocating payments made on
a debt between principal and interest, pursuant to which a payment is applied first to the
accumulated interest and the balance is applied to the unpaid principal.

(3) At the time the extension of credit was made, the debtor reasonably believed that
either (A) one or more extensions of credit by the creditor had been collected or
attempted to be collected by extortionate means, or the non-repayment thereof had been
punished by extortionate means; or (B) the creditor had a reputation for the use of
extortionate means to collect extensions of credit or to punish the non-repayment thereof.

(4) Upon making of the extension of credit, the total of the extensions of credit by the
creditor to the debtor then outstanding, including any unpaid interest or similar charges,
exceeded $100 (c) In any prosecution under this section, if evidence has been introduced
tending to show the existence of any of the circumstances described in subsection (b)(1)
or (b)(2), and direct evidence of the actual belief of the debtor as to the creditors
collection practices is not available, then for the purpose of showing the understanding of
the debtor and the creditor at the time the extension of credit was made, the court may in
its discretion allow evidence to be introduced tending to show the reputation as to
collection practices of the creditor in any community of which the debtor was a member
at the time of the extension.

18 U.S. Code 893 - Financing extortionate extensions of credit

Whoever willfully advances money or property, whether as a gift, as a loan, as an
investment, pursuant to a partnership or profit-sharing agreement, or otherwise, to any
person, with reasonable grounds to believe that it is the intention of that person to use the
money or property so advanced directly or indirectly for the purpose of making
extortionate extensions of credit, shall be fined under this title or an amount not
exceeding twice the value of the money or property so advanced, whichever greater, shall
be imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code 894 - Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means

(a) Whoever knowingly participates in any way, or conspires to do so, in the use of any
extortionate means (1) to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit, or (2) to
punish any person for the non-repayment thereof, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (b) In any prosecution under this section, for
the purpose of showing an implicit threat as a means of collection, evidence may be
introduced tending to show that one or more extensions of credit by the creditor were, to
the knowledge of the person against whom the implicit threat was alleged to have been
made, collected or attempted to be collected by extortionate means or that the non-
repayment thereof was punished by extortionate means. (c) In any prosecution under this
section, if evidence has been introduced tending to show the existence, at the time the
extension of credit in question was made, of the circumstances described in section 892
(b)(1) or the circumstances described in section 892 (b)(2), and direct evidence of the
actual belief of the debtor as to the creditors collection practices is not available, then for
the purpose of showing that words or other means of communication, shown to have been
employed as a means of collection, in fact carried an express or implicit threat.

The court may in its discretion allow evidence to be introduced tending to show the
reputation of the defendant in any community of which the person against whom the
alleged threat was made was a member at the time of the collection or attempt at
collection.

18 U.S. Code 402 - Contempt Constituting Crimes

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process,
order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of
the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the
act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any
statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was
committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title
and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

This section shall not be construed to relate to contempt committed in the presence of the
court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempt
committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command
entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the
United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in
this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.

COUNTS SPECIFIC TO OUR SPECIFIC FORECLOSURE CASE

QUIET TITLE
VIOLATION DOCTRINE OF LACHES
PRECLUSION FOR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
PRECLUSION FOR DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICTA
CHASE ABUSE OF PROCESS
CHASE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CHASE FORUM SHOPPING
CHASE FAILURE to PLEAD WITH SPECIFICITY
CHASE TILA and RESPA and HOEPA Violations

JAIME DIMON PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
FALSE STATEMENTS TO AUTHORITIES
GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY COUNTY WITHOUT INTENT OR MALICE
EMBEZZLEMENT & GRAND LARCENY & LOAN SHARKING
SECURITIES FRAUD
BREACH OF CONTRACT
VIOLATION of The Spirit of Dragonetti Act
VIOLATION as An Ongoing Vexatious Litigant
VIOLATION of Duty for Proceeding with Lack of Jurisdiction
VIOLATION and TORT for Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress
(Counts Were Itemized Ad Nauseum as Defendant and Will Be Attached as Exhibit)

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The plaintiff is entitled to a civil relief order declaring the defendants actions and
practices described herein violate the state code and rules. Plaintiff is entitled to civil
relief order declaring defendants' actions and practices constitute an abuse of foreclosure
and amortization process. Plaintiff is entitled to a civil relief order declaring the
defendants' actions and practices constitute a fraud on the court.

The plaintiff is entitled to a civil relief order permanently enjoining the defendants from
engaging in said actions and practices in the future.

The plaintiff is entitled to a civil relief order declaring defendants' actions and practices
violate the Federal and local law.

I request that the Court invoke its inherent authority and powers under the LAW to enter
appropriate equitable and declaratory Orders and Judgments designed to remedy the
abuses described in the Plaintiffs complaint.
The defendants had actual knowledge of their conduct and willfully chose to continue the
conduct in violation of the law and the court's authority.

The defendants intended these actions for the purpose of being unjustly enriched.

The actions of the defendants have injured the plaintiff and continue to injure other in his
abstract unformed class. As a result of this conduct the defendants are liable to the
plaintiff for actual damages, punitive damages, etc.

Counts to be clarified, condensed and edited in amended complaint to be filed

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I seek a trial by jury for this very novel count (usury) that if true, affects MILLIONS of
citizens. But I first seek a TRO, a stay of sale, setting aside default judgment, striking
order denying Petition, a TRO, order granting me my due process rights before
deprivation of my home, punitive trebled damages for the intentional infliction of
emotional pressure/distress and with prejudice a dismissal of current foreclosure case,
sanctions against Chase, and quiet title or well just chance to have a day in Court as to
foreclosure and my claims herein.

As a great general once said, if you want to win a war, start a war

Thank you, Honorable Court. I think, unlike lower jurisdictions, I will enjoy at least a
hearing or consideration of evidence. Either way, in this cause of action and dozens
consequent germane counts, I say with grit and spit, know I have not yet begun to fight


THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF RELIEF I SEEK

We are seeking a stay of sale scheduled 5/15/14

We are seeking that the default judgment is set aside.

We are seeking that denial of Petition to Open is reversed.

We are seeking dismissal with prejudice.

We are seeking sanctions.

We are filing a complaint with FTC, PA DA and Justice Department

We are filing a complaint regarding Judge Griffith with PA Bar

We are suing Chase, Phelan, Berg and Chester County Court

We are seeking punitive damages.

We are seeking RICO trebled damages.

We are seeking a hearing, or, a re-hearing

We are seeking an TRO (injunction)

We are seeking investigation of PA foreclosure process by county state agencies

We are networking with activist groups to spread awareness

We are emailing, faxing and mailing thousands of reporters and bloggers

We are finishing the HD film about this injustice.

We are proposing new legislation regarding foreclosure

We are requesting a moratorium on sheriff sales

We are seeking the setting aside denial of Petition to Open

We are appealing to Superior Court of PA

We are seeking removal to Federal Court

We are asking for a stay of sale pending review and full adjudication

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SCHEDULING HEARING OF CO-FILED MOTION FOR TRO REQUESTED

Prepared By
_______________________
Timothy Patrick Murray
Plaintiff Pro Per
200 S Valley Road Paoli PA 19301 First Filed 4.17.2014 / Amended Filed 5/6/2014
TanujaMurray@gmail.com FilmStudios@iCloud.com 323377001 / 6105646646

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I swear under penalty of law I mailed or sent by email to Defendants or counsel.

________________________ ______
Timothy Patrick Murray DATE
PRO PER SUI JURIS

NOTICE
LAWSUIT and UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE is the subject of feature documentary by
award winning filmmaker called CHASING JP MORGAN. Also, I intend by
Motion to REQUEST PERMISSION TO FILM PROCEEDINGS and anyone related
to case may provide a statement that will be included without censoring in fairness.