FedUpUSA

Archive for September 3rd, 2011

After much time and a fairly-serious read, here’s my two cents on Bill Still’s No More National Debt.

First, this is not a cocktail book.  By that I mean it’s not something you can go through in an hour or two and intuitively understand.  A huge portion of the book is historical context – in fact, the majority of it is exactly that; a look back.

Historical precedent is extremely important.  Leverage, coming out soon (look to the left, you’ll find out how to order it) has the same sort of historical chronology, because any work of this sort must.  If you can’t catalog those who came before you and why their prescriptions failed, you have no business pontificating on the future.

Expect to spend a good amount of time with this one, and bring your cellphone – the inclusion of “HyperScan” codes is a new idea.  I’m not sure I find their inclusion compelling, and one of the issues related to this sort of multimedia “external” technology is its durability.  After all, a feature of a book is that 100 years from now, if its on your shelf, it’s still able to be read.  How do we reasonably expect these codes to still work even a decade or two from now – say much less a century down the road?  Nonetheless in the present tense in which I’m reading the book I like their inclusion.

Bill sets forth a path that could be followed, but there are some caveats.  I believe he gives them good coverage, but there remains this soft undercurrent in the existing proposals (Kucinich’s being one that is gone over) in the attempt to retain the bloated and inflated asset-price structure that has come from unbridled credit creation.  Unfortunately, there is no free lunch.  The appearance of prosperity where it does not really exist doesn’t help anyone – except, of course, the “moneychangers.”  There’s no simple solution to that problem, but it’s something that we as a society will inevitably have to deal with; the consequences of what we’ve done as a nation in regard to monetary policy are not disjoint from the policy itself, and in my view neither can the response be singularly focused in the monetary field.

All in all I find this a compelling read and well worth the time, but do be prepared to spend the time.  This is a work that I haven’t had time to put through my mental grinder until recently, mostly due to being on deadline myself and knowing after the first chapter or two that it was not going to be something I could knock back in a nice quiet evening with a glass of Cognac – at least not if I intended to actually read, as opposed to simply scanning, the contents.

Recommended.

From Jeff Barnes, Esq. over at ForeclosureDefenseNationwide:

THIRTY-TWO PLAINTIFFS FILE RICO ACTION AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE BANK AND CHASE HOME FINANCE

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.

Since this article was originally posted this morning, we have had almost non-stop telephone calls from other victims of JPM and CHF who have told us the same thing over and over: that in their foreclosure, the same “Chase is the successor to WaMu” representation was made, which was done in an apparent attempt to foist a cloak of legal standing on the Chase entity which instituted the foreclosure. It thus appears, even at this early juncture, that the scope of the illegal and fraudulent conduct set forth in the Complaint is even more widespread than we could have imagined.

The Asset Purchase Agreement between the FIDC and Chase is over 70 pages long, yet the purchase by Chase of the certain assets from the FDIC as Recceiver for WaMu coincidentially took place on exactly the same day that WaMu failed and was taken over by the FDIC.

The Complaint details the common wrongful actions of JPM and CHF utilized in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures instituted across the United States, characterizing the conduct as a “nationalized fraud”.

The Plaintiffs have also filed a Request for Production of Documents which is being served on JPM and CHF which requests the production of fifty-four (54) separate categories of documents relating to the Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans. This same discovery has previously been compelled, by Court Order, to be produced by foreclosing parties in numerous other cases throughout the United States where Mr. Barnes and his local counsel have propounded this discovery in connection with individual foreclosure challenges.

The Complaint is not a class action and is not a “mass joinder” case. It is a multi-Plaintiff action, which is not subject to the rigors of class actions such as certification of the class, and was never, at any time, advertised or intended to be a “mass joinder” case such as those the subject of the recent “K2″ debacle. The case is also not related or affiliated, in any way, to any other litigation instituted against the Chase entities by any other group or which may be posted on any other websites, which other websites are apparently attempting to link other Chase-related lawsuits with the Florida action the subject of this article.

The action is the second RICO-based Complaint filed by Mr. Barnes’ Firm in recent weeks. The Firm previously filed an action in Arizona against M&I Marshall & Isley Bank which is grounded in part on violations of the Arizona RICO statute. That action is pending in Tuscon.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

Well, who coulda known you can’t foreclose on something you don’t own?