Weekend Economists Piece for Peace April 3-5, 2015

[Demeter]

69. FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against Chase, WAMU, Citi and two law firms

https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/fdic-employee-quits-and-goes-public-with-complaint-against-chase-wamu-citi-and-two-law-firms/

... Eric Mains resigned from his employment with the FDIC. He had just filed a lawsuit against Chase, Citi, WAMU-HE2 Trust, Cynthia Riley, LPS, WAMU, and two law firms. Since he felt he had a conflict of interest, he believed the best course of action was to resign effective immediately.

His lawsuit, told from the prospective of a true insider, reveals in astonishing detail the worst of the practices that have resulted in millions of illegal foreclosures. Some of his allegations cast a dark shadow over claims of Chase Bank on its balance sheet, as reported to the public and the SEC and the reporting of both Chase and Citi as to their potential liability for wrongful foreclosures. If he is right, and he proves these allegations, much of what Chase has reported as its financial condition will vanish from its financial statements and the liability side of the balance sheets of both Citi (as Trustee) and Chase (as servicer and “owner’) will increase exponentially. This may well have the effect of bringing both giants into the position of insufficient reserve capital and force the government to take action against both entities. Elizabeth Warren might have been right when she said that Citi should have been broken into pieces. And the same logic might apply to Chase.

He has also penned the phrase “wild goose Chase” referring to discovery of the true creditors and processing of applications for modification of loans. And he has opened the door for RICO actions against the banks and individuals who did the bidding of the banks as well as the individuals who directed those actions.

His Indiana lawsuit is filed in federal court. He alleges that

1. WAMU was not the actual lender in his own loan

2. That the loan was part of an illegal scheme from the start

3. That his loan was subject to claims of securitization but that those claims were false

4. That the REMIC Trust was never funded and therefore never had the capacity to originate or buy loans

5. That the intermediaries never followed the law or the documents for securitization of his loan

6. That the REMIC Trust never did purchase his loan

7. That Citi was therefore “trustee” for an unfunded trust

8. That Chase never purchased the loans from WAMU

9. That Chase could not have been the legal servicer over the loan because the loan was not in the trust

10. That Chase has filed conflicting claims as to ownership of the loans

11. That the affidavit of Robert Schoppe, whom Mains worked for, as to ownership of the loans was false when it states that Chase owned the loans

12. That the use of WAMU’s name on the loan documents was a false representation

13. That his loan may have been pledged several times by various parties

14. That multiple payments from multiple parties were likely received by Chase and others on account of the Mains “loan” but were never accounted for to the investors whose money was being used as though it was the Banks themselves who were funding originations and a acquisitions of loans

15. That the industry practice was to reap multiple payments on the same loan — and the foreclose as though there was balance due when in fact the balance claimed was entirely incorrect

16. That the investors were defrauded and that foreclosure was part of the fraudulent scheme

17. That Mains name and identity was used without his consent to justify numerous illegal transactions in which the banks repeated huge profits

18. That neither WAMU nor Chase had any rights to collect money from Mains

19. That Citi had no right to enforce a loan it did not own and had no authority to represent the owner(s) of the loan

20. That the modification procedures adopted by the Banks were used intentionally to force the borrower into the illusions a default

21. That Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, said that Chase and other banks used HAMP modifications as “a kind of predatory lending program.”

22. That Mains stopped making payments when he discovered that there was no known or identified creditor.

23. The despite stopping payments, his loan balance went down, according to statements sent to him.

24. That Chase has routinely violated the terms of consent judgments and settlements with respect to the processing of payments and the filing of foreclosures.

25. That the affidavits filed by persons purportedly representing Chase were neither true nor based upon personal knowledge

26. That the note and mortgage are void from the start.

27. That Mains has found “incontrovertible evidence of fraud, forgery and possibly backdating as well.” (referring to Chase)

28. That the law firms suborned perjury and intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court

29. That Cynthia Riley “is one overwhelmingly productive and multi-talented bank officer. Apparently she was even capable of endorsing hundreds of loan documents a day, and in Mains’ case, even after she was no longer employed by Washington Mutual Bank. Mains cites to deposition of Riley in JPM Morgan Chase v Orazco Case no 29997 CA, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida.

30 That Cynthia Riley was laid off in November 2006 and never again employed as a note review examiner by WAMU nor at JP Morgan Chase.

30. That LPS (now Black Knight) owns and operates LPS Desktop Software, which was used to create false documents to be executed by LPS employees for recording in the Offices of the Indiana County recorder.

31. That the false documents in the mains case were created by LPS employee Jodi Sobotta and signed by her with no authority to do so.

32. Neither the notary nor the LPS employee had any real documents nor knowledge when they signed and notarized the documents used against Mains.

33. Chase and its lawyer pursued the foreclosure with full knowledge that the assignment was fraudulent and forged.

34. That LPS was established as an intermediary to provide “plausible deniability” to Chase and others who used LPS.

35. That the law firms also represented LPS in a blatant conflict of interest and with knowledge of LPS fraud and forgery.


MORE...