“Here It Comes” (RICO Case Against JP Morgan/Chase) LINDA ZIMMERMAN V JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA
September 2, 2011
(updated post from this morning, as we have literally received a blizzard of telephone calls since this post was first put up today)
Thirty-two Plaintiffs have filed a multi-count Complaint in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida against JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance, LLC. The Plaintiffs retained Jeff Barnes, Esq., whose Firm, W. J. Barnes, P.A., filed the action last Friday.
The 29-page Complaint alleges several causes of action including violations of the Florida RICO Act, and requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief on a national level to halt all Chase-related foreclosure activity in the eight (8) separate states in which the Plaintiffs reside. The Complaint alleges a pattern of criminal activity on the part of JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance in connection with the institution of both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures, including but not limited to the filing and recording, in the public records, of forged and fraudulent documents; fraudulent collection activities; intentional misuse of the MERS system; and the intentional misrepresentation, in foreclosures across the United States, that Chase is the “successor in interest” to Washington Mutual Bank when in fact Chase itself has affirmatively represented, in multiple Federal court filings in different states, that it is NOT the successor in interest to WaMu, and only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities from the FDIC as Receiver for WaMu.
The issue here appears to be that JP Morgan has been running around suing people for foreclosure alleging that it is the successor in interest of Washington Mutual (remember WaMu, the bank that got me interested in writing in the first place when they were paying dividends out of capitalized interest? Yes, them.) when in fact all they acquired was certain defined assets and liabilities on a strict and written schedule from the FDIC.
The FDIC, of course, is the actual “receiver” when a bank fails – they “take it over” and then do whatever – in this case, parcel out the assets and liabilities for whatever they can get. This was one of those “forced marriage” deals but it appears that Chase did not acquire the firm “in toto”.
‘Ya can’t sue over something you don’t own, basically, or so the allegation is, and yet it is alleged they have and are, repeatedly and knowingly.
Incidentally, this is not one of the so-called “mass-joinder” lawsuits; this is a suit filed on behalf of named plaintiffs. If you’re interested in it contact the actual attorney in question who you can find at the linked item.
Guess I will be heading over to the court house tomorrow morning to get the complaint…