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

COMPLAINT for RICO UNJUST ENRICHMENT, FRAUD & USUSRY BY ONGOING OPERATION OF ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
Now comes T Patrick Murray as Plaintiff and I accuse, aver and respectfully allege as follows: WELCOME TO THE LARGEST CRIME IN 200 YEARS OF A NATION As the risk of ridicule, rejection, presumption of sensationalism or the accusations of handicap of stupidity or riddled by the injury of natural dim witted perception, I aver, after six years of preparation, investigation, calculation and legal elucidation, that the crimes I accuse Chase and accomplices herein of are so vast in scope, so wide in breadth, so deep in severity and so hidden in plain sight that, if given the chance to be proven true, it would result in reorganization of lending and banking laws in America and millions of inevitable adjustments for damages done unto those in foreclosure and those not, as two crimes bracket this Complaint, the good payer crime of usurious theft and the bad payer crime of fraudulent foreclosure. Rich, poor, in default or in good standing, all those with a mortgage are potential parties to this or future actions based upon the novel counts herein. Allow me the chance, I pray, for Court and a jury, if for only a day THE MONEY MATRIX This is a civil action against J.P. Morgan Chase & Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. for misconduct related to origination and amortization servicing of single family residential mortgages, as well as their methods for foreclosure by fraud of many formerly owned debts they sold before 2008 to third parties now the holders in due course with standing only to foreclose. This amounts to two distinct and unrelated exercises, operations and infrastructures of legal and financial FRAUD, unique in design and intent, but identical in results of injury and enrichment- one at expense of the other and a cover up to avoid investigation and indictment. It is a decent into truths we reject like an organ- for the truth is indeed foreign to most of us. Like metaphysical movie THE MATRIX, the character is asked if he wants the truth or the lie.

These binary self-deterministic nodes in space-time are the intersection of reality and destiny, and if the movie, the truth was the red pill, and conscious somnolence was the blue pill. I seek not to provoke the Court in no other way than to gain their attention for a preliminary hearing as- to note- after two foreclosure actions after six years, I as Defendant of underlying case, has not enjoyed due process, or any process, failing to experience a single hearing in a matter equal to civil capital punishment- the sale of my home loss of all. My life left due to it. Will you not read these averments with religious holiness, but the substance and weight of the truth is felt as only the truth inscribed can touch the heart through the soul and the eyes. I pray this Court explore the depths of evidenced allegation of esoteric finance manipulation. As described in the allegations below, Defendants misconduct resulted in the issuance of improper mortgages, premature and unauthorized foreclosures, violation of service members and other homeowners rights and protections, the use of false and deceptive affidavits and other documents, and the waste and abuse of taxpayer funds. Each of the allegations regarding Defendants contained herein applies to instances in which one or more, and in some cases all, of the Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged. By engaging actions averred herein, JP MORGAN CHASE and counsel violated Federal State laws in the origination, collection, monetization, amortization and foreclosure default mitigation as they collected on insurance and credit default hedges. This Complaint, if true, would result in trillions of dollars in damages as millions, I aver, were deprived/cheated of six figures. And I have exact math. I aver they also violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 [5 U.S.c. 77q(a)(2) and (3) ("Securities Act") by and various consumer laws by engaging in fraud, forgery, perjury, fraud upon courts, negligently misrepresenting foreclosure facts (no standing) and unrelated acts were a failure to disclose key mortgage deal terms, by intent, formulas, and the structure of front loaded dynamic ratio co-efficient for dynamic daily adjusted interest to equity from on amazing loan with loan-shark rates enjoyed by Mr Dimon who sells residential paper appearing as modest safe 6% paper to Street but is in fact a con.

The front. Dimon is actually a non fiction Mr Soprano, except Mr. Dimon is smarter and his front isnt a strip joint and a sanitation W2, but a national fancy pants bank which is a word to mean guys in suits playing casino games in constricts called markets with chips they did not earn but were given to them to play with, and as such, this corrupted them. Dimon is a gentleman, not a thug. He is a criminal but not a war criminal- yet the damage he has done to millions is wrong. Chase not mafia- a facade financial organized crime corporation. Dimon is not a made man but a CEO, and instead of joining in blood a group called our thing he opted for the inside game and he had a much better thing- his thing is the Fed, the group that has a hold on the rates and rules themselves, and from his chair at New York Fed, expresses a daily conflict of interest grey blurry line between the profits of the Fed and the quasi-municipal functions. Chase withheld at closing and before and during the information about the process by which the mortgage loan was originated, amortized unfairly with front loaded interest, upon default, insured against injury despite selling it years ago without disclosure compounded by sworn verification that was knowingly fraudulent in nature. Finally, foreclosure is entirely criminal enterprise itself, without resorting to hyperbole. From inception to assignment to collection of prepaid interest undisclosed to foreclosure JP MORGAN CHASE's financial interests in the transaction trumped law, common sense, common decency and the attention of law enforcement officers elected and entrusted to indict those who profit from others injury on a national, organized crime, RICO level as Chase does under Dimon, whom I filed a private CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against in PA. I seek temporary injunctive relief, restitution for usury, disgorgement of unjust profits, rebate interest, criminal and civil penalties and all other appropriate and necessary equitable relief from Defendants- all I allege criminals except the County- they were innocent and apathetic useful idiots I aver.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Banks because the Banks have transacted business in this District, because Chase committed acts proscribed by False Claims Act in this District. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b) as to all claims and causes of action asserted in this complaint. This Court also has jurisdiction and venue over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 US.c. 77t(b), 77t(d), 77v(a)]. CHASE transacts business in this judicial district and, in connection with certain of the acts, transactions, and courses of business described in the complaint. This court also has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334, 151 and 157. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction\ pursuant to 28 1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. 45(a) and U.S.C. 53(b), 1391(b) and (c), and 15 U.S.C. 53(b). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the action arises under the laws of the United States and 31 U.S.C. 3732(a) to the extent claims arise under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3733 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, 31 U.S.C. 3732(b), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims asserted by the States in this action because those claims are so related to the claims because as claims arise out of the same transactions under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3733. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)(2), 31 U.S.C. 3732(a) 28 U.S.C. 1409 THE PARTIES Diversity of parties is one reason this Court has jurisdiction. PLAINTIFF Plaintiff Timothy Murray is an individual award winning filmmaker presently out of work because he spends full time dealing with this fraud (hereinafter known as PLAINTIFF) I aver defendants' practices constitute fraud on the court as they NEVER over 6 years had standing (Exhibit A they hid)

The nature of any injunctive relief which should be afforded to the class to prevent continuation of the wrongful conduct of the defendants. Whether the defendants should be required to disgorge the benefits obtained from its wrongful conduct. The nature and amount of civil damages that should be paid. The nature and amount of civil sanctions that should be assessed. That nature and amount of punitive damages that should be assessed. DEFENDANTS Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Company is a diversified global financial services firm. It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in New York, New York. Chase is a national banking association. It is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. JP MORGAN CHASE Inc. is the principal U.S. broker-dealer of JP MORGAN CHASE Inc., a global financial services firm headquartered in New York City. Defendant CHASE is a New York corporation with principal place of business in Ohio, New York and transacted business in this district. On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual., a federal savings bank in Henderson, Nevada, failed, and J.P. Morgan Chase, purchased substantially all assets and assumed deposit and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank., pursuant to Purchase Assumption Agreement with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, F.S.B. Collectively two defendants identified are referred to here as J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan subsidiaries affiliates are in business of origination and servicing of mortgage loans. Defendants operate a mortgage servicing business that services millions of home loans annually. Defendants have operated as a common enterprise externally while engaging in the unlawful acts and practices alleged below in a perfect double life that resembles a popular politician on the take whose true nature is only revealed when the evidence of crime surfaces, like now. Because Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. The defendant is a publicly traded corporation that provides mortgage services to

various parties in mortgage industry. CHASE has principal place of business at Columbus Ohio and New York. Chase does business in every court in the United States of America by agent or employee including this Court. This defendant may be served by delivering service of process to Jaime Dimon or Michael Ohara of Berg Law Firm, who is counsel to the President and CEO. Lastly, Phelan and Berg Law Firms are New York and PA partnerships that I aver fraudulently represent Chase, and Chester County Court System as it is a PA county agency municipal entity. On May 30, 2008, J.P. Morgan Chase & Company acquired The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (now the Bear Stearns Companies LLC) by merger, including its subsidiary EMC Mortgage Corporation (now EMC Mortgage LLC). For this Complaint, all may be referred to as Defendants. THE SMOKING GUN Finally, after all the litigation and wasting of time and uncertainty of truth and proof and anxiety of true legality and enforceability of judicial order evicting us from a tom depriving us of equity. After the default judgment and scheduling of sale last year, a miracle occurred. We found that one in a million needle in hay stack, that one smoking gun, that one piece of evidence no one could escape the implications of as to adjusting perception of the court and correct any errors, mollify any prejudice, eliminate any bias and reversing any judgments adverse to defendant homeowner which resulted in scheduled sale of home in a mere 6 weeks. COUNT 1: USURY What does the banking industrys biggest secret concern? Mortgages. When it comes to mortgages, most consumers are knowledgeable and able to choose between various loan products and select the right home loan for their risk

tolerance. The most highly promoted loan type of all, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, is the one most often selected. I am averring shocking truths about the 30-year fixed that equally stunned both consumers and mortgage industry experts alike. WHY? Consumers choose a 30-year fixed based on two things and only two things- a low fixed rate and a low fixed payment. But I found that only ONE of those two things is actually true. The other one is false. Which one is false? The part about the interest rate being fixed. Contrary to public opinion, interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is NOT fixed. Thats right, NOT fixed. You will learn that a 30-year fixed rate mortgage is actually ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE and the rate consumers are really paying on them is much, much higher than they could imagine, completely blocking financial freedom. BIGGEST COUNT: THE TRILLION DOLLAR USURY HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT JP MORGAN Chase Directly Violated Holder Rule (and UCL) By Omitting Germane Interest Rate Notice from its Loan Documents. Because common wisdom says that a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage must actually have a fixed rate, its an easy sell for the lenders, who profit substantially from the misnomer. Amortization Manipulation The longer the mortgage amortization, the greater amount of mortgage interest payable.

The process of making regular, periodic decreases in the book or carrying value of an asset. For example, when a bond is purchased at a price above 100, the difference between the purchase price and the par value, the premium, is amortized. Premiums are usually amortized in roughly equal amounts that completely eliminate the premium by the time that the bond has matured or by the call date, if applicable Liquidation of a loan or security by means of periodic reductions. The principal amount of loans is amortized by the periodic, usually monthly, payment of a fraction of the principal calculated to repay the entire amount of principal due by the date of the last scheduled periodic payment. Amortization methods differ based upon the type of loan. Mortgage loans and securities usually have level payments of principal and interest. For such amortizations, the interest consumes most of the early payments and, therefore, principal amortization increases as the loan ages. Many business loans use level amortization with equal principal/interest ratios each payment. PLEASE REPEAT THIS AS IT PROVES IF BUSINESS ASKS, A FAIR LOAN EXISTS Banks are offering these longer amortizations under the guise of "affordability". The payments are indeed cheaper per month, but the increase in total interest costs can be staggering. In order to understand the misnomer, youll have to learn a lot more about mortgages and this first table/exhibit will explain. This chart I am creating here reveals each years payment goes to Principal (to the loan balance, to the consumer) and how much goes to Interest (to the lender). For example, well use an average American conforming loan, a $360,000 30year loan at a fixed interest rate of just 5.31%.

Why? It makes the illustration of the crime easier to comprehend, as the baseline payment is approximately $2000 a month and the total owed in principal (360k) is very close to total interest owed (364k) For financial instruments, the time from the inception of a loan or investment instrument with scheduled principal repayments to the due date of contractually obligated principal repayment. For fixed assets, the period from the acquisition of a fixed asset to the date of the last periodic reduction (made to reflect depreciation) of the book value of that asset. Assets may be depreciated until the book value is zero, but sometimes are only depreciated until the book value is reduced to an assumed salvage value. REMEDIAL EFFECTIVE OR REAL INTEREST RATE The Effective Rate calculation is a measure of the actual interest rate consumers pay on their home loans by factoring in the front-end loaded interest. The formula asks, What rate would I really pay if I only held a front-end loaded loan for X number of years? Using a financial calculator: PV = equity built in a given time period. N = number of years being 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%. One respondent after another was stunned and silenced. It seemed consumers were well aware that mortgage interest is front-end loaded but no one seemed to have any idea just how front-end loaded it really is. What the Effective Rate demonstrates is that the only way to wind up paying the low advertised Note Rate is to keep the loan for all 30 years. Due to the interest being front end loaded, the rate becomes ADJUSTABLE based upon how long the loan is kept. On a 6.0% 30-year fixed, the low fixed 6.0% Note Rate is absolute MINIMUM rate a consumer will pay. Even though the monthly payment is fixed, a consumer may wind up paying as much as a 580% interest rate. A 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is an Adjustable Rate MortgageACTUAL DAMAGES IN TORT EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL AMORTIZATION The following schedule shows how the loan really works, and keep in mind that at the same rate, it works exactly the same as any other loan amount. Whether a 30-year loan around 6.0% has a balance of $50,000 or $500,000, the proportion of Principal to Interest is the same. I have chosen 360k @ 5.31% over 30 years as it makes the complex simpler. 360k 5.31% 30 years (360 payments)

SUMMARY
Payments (360) $2,001.33 TOTAL P & I $720,479.86 (360k principal + 36.5k interest)

$360,000.00 in principal repaid in 360 $1000.00 payments $360,479.86 in interest paid in 360 $1001.33 payments

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

PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAID Totals $360,000.00 $360,479.86 $760,479.86

$1000 should go every month to principal or equity $1001.33 should go every month to interest due But it does not- the first payment awards about $9 rather than $1000 to equity Each year, the consumer pays $10,792 but a different portion of that total gets credited to Principal and to Interest. In the first year, $8950 of the payments go straight to the lender and the remaining $1842 gets credited back to the consumer. Here are some other facts gleamed from this schedule:

It takes 19 years before half a payment to Principal consumer $5482 Principal, $5309 Interest It takes 24 years before 2/3 of the monthly payment goes to Principal. After 7 years, the consumer has paid $75,600 but only $15,541 goes to Principal. After 10 years, over 84% of the starting balance is still owed. After 15 years, over 71% of the starting balance is still owed. At that point, consumer has paid $161,000 in payments, more than the original starting balance. After 21 years, half of the starting balance is still owed. At that point, I would have paid $226,800 with only $75,000 of it going to Principal. The numbers are heavily skewed in favor of the lender because they are designed to be. Its due to something many consumers are familiar with, front-end loaded interest. Even though monthly payment is fixed, each payment has a different contribution to Principal than Interest, and contribution to Interest in the first years is much greater than in the last years. This is an illegal usurious front ended amortization ratio favoring interest early, undisclosed. The result of this system is that the lender collects their interest first, up front. The complaint herein is paradoxically simple and vastly complex, and can be reduced to a simple concept- the interest on mortgage loans is front-end loaded, stacked against them. But we also found that those same consumers, no matter how educated, as well as mortgage industry experts, do not realize that the front-end loaded interest completely throws off the fixed interest rate schedule. Look back at Year 1. The consumer pays $10,792 but only $1842 of it gets credited back to Principal. What if he sold his house after that first year? Would it seem like he paid a 6.0% rate?

Look even after 10 years. The consumer pays lender almost $108,000 but less than $25,000 of it goes back to Principal. Thats not a 6.0% rate. The same holds true for longer periods of time like 20 and 25 years. So if a 30-year fixed is kept for even 1 month less than 30 years, the rate consumers really wind up paying on it is higher. How much higher? The Effective Rate Formula reveals what the actual,real interest rate would be if a front-end loaded loan was kept for less than the entire 30-year term. RECYCLE THE MARK The Effective Rate also shows that the entire concept of the 30-year loan is based upon the single principle of keeping it for the entire term. The banks have been relying upon consumers to concentrate on the fact that it all evens out 30 years later. But how many consumers keep the same mortgage for 30 years? NATIONALLY, HOMEOWNERS KEEP MORTGAGES FOR 5 YEARS ON AVERAGE. Which is why second part of the crime is banker-initiated REFI FRAUD BY INDUCEMENT: THE TWO STEP LONG CON This fraud is a two step old school fraud that involves a mark (homeowner) who is lent $0 real money by the bank (they are only extended credit as banks are legally prohibited from lending their money) and then, after about 5 or 7 years, they get a call or mailed offer for refinancing at a lower rate and a lower payment. This is the key to the crime, but how is lowering the rate and payment a crime? Well, like any crime (murder for example) one must have a motive.

What motive does a homeowner have to refinance? Easy- saving money. So why is the BANK the one initiating most refis? Why would they intentionally take LESS profit or interest? Because they are NOT- they are perpetrating a complex fraud by inducement RICO crime. Whether they refinance, move for a new job across the country, whether theyre about to have kids are about to move onto college Americans keep home loans for an average of just 5 years. They keep their homes for longer than 5 years, but their mortgages for only 5. Previously, the long-standing national average was 7 years but with the golden era of refinancing of the early 2000s, the average has decreased to just 5 years. By combining the 5-year statistic with the U.S. Department of H.U.D.s 2003 data which shows the national average mortgage interest rate is 6.16%, the Effective Rate Formula shows that homeowners are paying a 107% interest rate on their mortgages, their biggest and best investments - most without ever realizing it. That is WHAT THIS CASE and MY FILM is all about. Eradication of ignorance about the mechanics of money, lending and law. And lenders are quietly earning an average of 107% in interest on billions of dollars of home loans, significantly contributing to record profits quarter after quarter. On cars, they pay between 0 and 15%, on credit cards they pay between 0 and 30% and yet on their low 6.0% fixed-rate mortgage, the largest debt of all, they pay an average rate of 107%. Their credit card balances may be only 15k and the auto loan may be 20k but that super high-rate mortgage has a balance of 100k or 200k or more. Consumers are paying the highest rate on their largest loan. An average American who earns $50,000/year, has a wife and 2 children, a modest retirement account and a 30-year mortgage. We give him a credit card that has a $150,000 balance with an APR of 107% and

tell him that hes now responsible for it the debt it his. What would happen to his familys life and future outlook if he had that credit card? What would it do to them financially? The answer is that it would probably devastate his family and severely limit any opportunity they had to gain or build wealth. The numbers prove that the 30-year fixed rate mortgage is equivalent to a giant credit card with an astronomical APR. Millions upon millions of American consumers have this credit card, this massive liability, which serves as nothing but a giant mountain standing in the way of financial hopes and dreams. The mountains bigger than Mount Everest yet remains invisible due to the deceptive nature of the game. And no matter how much more consumers earn at work and no matter how much their other investments return, it winds up being meaningless in the long run because that home loan, that 107% APRd credit card is sucking all the wealth-building power out of them. If you have ever re-financed a mortgage, you have been a victim of this hidden scheme. You should never re-finance without a concrete plan in place to decrease the amount of excessive interest you will be legally obligated to pay. OUR STORY IS EVERYONES STORY Almost losing our home to sheriff sale many times over 6 years WITHOUT A SINGLE HEARING or A SINGLE WORD ON ANY TRANSCRIPT is the most stressful thing next to cancer, and we have managed to put off the sale by reminding both the Bank and the Court that we had two things on our side- the truthful evidence of innocence (or the lack of standing of Chase to foreclose) and the real issue of a feature film about not just this foreclosure but all foreclosures, forcing all involved todo the right thing or risk indictment and conviction by the highest court in the land- the quarter billion jurist sitting on the incorruptible Court of Public Opinion, who adjudicates in the jurisdiction of media and mass communications.

As we continued our dual mission- to save our home and also create a professional investigative documentary film to augment awareness mitigate ignorance by many means for many families. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS The Court and County denied us due process and equal protection and was grossly negligent as they were indifferent in their pattern of abuse of discretion. Chase denied us those rights as well by obtaining a default judgment without notice, in view of evidence of lack of standing, and aware they were fraudulently filing all pleadings and we were responding and still denied us. Bias, prejudice, judge who should have recused himself- errors and omissions, the list goes on. There are three possibilities. 1) Innocent Error or Mistake, Compounded By Systemic Integration Of Bad 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 GERMANE MOTION FILED LAST SUMMER RECENTLY REVIVED Docket 2:13-mc-00207-LFR JP MORGAN CHASE v. MURRAY et al JUDGE L. FELIPE RESTREPO presiding Date filed: 07/31/2013 Requesting a stay of sale scheduled for 5/15/14 presently.

THE STORY SO FAR So where are we now? 1) Conducting The Private Investigation 2) The call to peaceful activism by litigation 3) Private Criminal Complaints 4) $1,000,000,000,000.00 RICO Federal ClassActions 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 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 seriousarguably as serious- as someone taking away your freedom or even your life. Hence, civil capital punishment. Besides the foundation of wealth, security and survival for 99% of the world who list their homes as their most valuable financial, social and psychological asset. The only right protecting us from the biased or abbreviated or otherwise defective procedure is called due process- a guaranteed processor check and balances within the justice system that errs on the side of the defendant before any of these precious priceless three things can ever be taken away from any of us- whether a soccer mom or serial killer. DOUBLE STANDARD Thats why killers get years and years of appeals before they are killed by the state, as the state would not want to kill an innocent defendant, or put them in prison for life without parole if innocent, or, in the civil arena of law, take away their home rendering them and their small children literally homeless, broken and possibly destroyed as individuals and as a societal unit. Yet while we provide lawyers and years of appeals to killers of children before taking their lives, we utterly fail to protect hard working taxpayers without a criminal record from the sale of their home by banks investigated by 49 states for seriously improper judicial foreclosure procedure.

In fact, we saw friends who within a single month lost their home - without a compulsory appeal, or independent review of cases by an objective quasi-public agency nor provision of legal assistance for this civil matter (as if it was a criminal matter as stakes are so high) The mere fact that a bank can lend out more than we deposit tells us something that is just common senseif everyone went to the bank at the same time to withdrawal money it could not possibly be there. This is why bankers fear a run on the banks because we all believe that one day we could go to a bank to withdraw money and it would not be there. A bank DOES NOT have to give you your money back and they can place limits on how much you can withdrawal! It sounds absurd that a bank wouldnt have your money but again goes back to regulation (word hated by banking industry). Also the fact that they do not have to have money on hand to cover the loans they provide their customers. Not to mention the amount of leveraging that takes place. Dont believe me ask your banker this question: is there ever a possibility that I could come to the bank and be denied access to my money? If they say no you already know they are lying because if that were the case there would not be a need for FDIC insurance and there would not be limits on the amounts of money that FDIC covers.In closing, the average person spends over 34% of their after tax income on interest payments alone simply look at amortization schedule of a fixed loan you get. Notice that nearly all the interest is always front loaded in the early years so that the bank gets their money first and then the principal gets repaid. A never ending cycle as people continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime. For fun, calculate and total all current loan payments and see how much income is going towards interest- the great American RICO Ponzi scheme in action. Forget the USA, but beginning in 1981 Canada and its civil/commercial courts, secured jointly and severally by the bonds and malpractice insurance of its broadly-defined legal profession, had repeated opportunity backed by moral, lawful, and legal direct responsibility not to allow US and UK courts to be used as clearing houses for falsified-in-fact nominal securities. The 1981 amendment to the criminal law was directly tied to, and intended to replace, the 1939 Act whose preamble spelled out the evil of front-loading and the Act expressly prohibited it:

The cost of any such loan or any part thereof [loan fees] ... shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance. The criminal amendment under what is now s. 347(1)(b) stipulates, and was intended to stipulate, against precisely the same act: Every one who receives [including converts] a payment or partial payment of interest [loan fees] at a criminal rate [in advance] is guilty of an indictable offense [a felony]. Through malfeasance of office, and in reckless disregard of the foreseeable consequences, courts willfully, persistently, unlawfully, and illegally subverted, through both positive action and actionable negligence, any and all laws intended to prevent either the practice of front loading, or the concealment of same through either or both of false attestations of principal amount on the face of the securities. Or the deliberate and fraudulent omission to disclose collateral side agreements requiring redirection and/or ownership by the nominal creditor of the proceeds in whole in part. Had courts simply obeyed the criminal law and done their jobs in good faith, they would have caused a major disruption in the global financial markets by the fact of it. Americas privately-owned financial institutions are major players in global markets and among the leading global exploiters of securities falsified by undisclosed side agreements that convert legally-defined and recognized interest illegally into principal in advance. They issue securities in the international markets that are secured by what the issuers know and admit to be underlying criminal contracts that are expressly tied to international anti-money-laundering treaties. And that is the undoing of our only remaining legal or actual defense; that it did what it did because by enforcing the criminal law it would have caused chaos in the domestic and global financial markets. But that is the victims whole point in law and in equity (damages). Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have all had their economies destroyed not only because Canada failed to do what it was legally required to do under its own laws, and in breach of its international treaties also, but more damningly because of the unlawful and illegal means by which it sought to conceal its initial and continuing wrong-doing. America has already been illegally seized by its commercial/civil courts which function as private corporations in their own right and as de facto agents of private

banks. We need to get their country back from the technically criminal cabal that has plainly seized unlawful and illegal control. THE MAY SALE A sale is still scheduled for 5/15/14. We seek to stop that pending appeals and actions as this THE BANKRUPTCY OPTION GAME If we do not find relief, stay or a TRO we will file bankruptcy to stop May sale, but wouldnt it just be nice to actually have a hearing for these Motions ripe since summer? ONE ACTION RULE THIS MAY NOT BE CALIFORNIA BUT the spirit of the ONE ACTION RULE is not unlike any of the various claim and issue preclusion legal theories, and Chase should bot be able to file two cases for one identical cause of action- it is simply barred by estoppel. State law in a progressive state, CA, restricts a lender with a secured interest in real property (for example, the lender on your home mortgage) to taking only one action to enforce the debt. If you fall behind in your mortgage payments, Californias one action rule says that your mortgage lender can only take one action against you, whether it is to conduct a trustees sale, sue on the promissory note for the balance of the debt, or judicially foreclose. The one action rule states There can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property (CalCode Civ. Proc.726(a)). This means that a mortgage lender is only allowed to do one of the following: foreclose non-judicially (conduct a trustees sale) foreclose judicially, or sue the borrower personally on the promissory note for the balance of the debt.

Ultimately, this rule limits a lender to bringing only one foreclosure proceeding or court action against a borrower who falls behind in mortgage payments. Relationship to Security First Rule From the face of the statute, the one action rule appears to allow the lender to sue the borrower personally based on the promissory note and skip foreclosure altogether. However, California courts have interpreted the rule to mean that a lender must pursue the real estate before suing the borrower personally Walker v. Community Bank, 10 Cal. 3d 729 (1974) This is known as the security first rule. The goal of this rule is to prevent a secured lender from suing the defaulting borrower on the debt itself before foreclosing on the security interest. This means that a mortgage lender (whether its loan is a first mortgage, second, or HELOC) must foreclose the security (your home) rather than suing you directly on underlying promissory note. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 726(a)). As a result of the one action and security first rules, the lenders options are significantly limited when a borrower defaults on a mortgage. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, VEXATIOUS LITIGATION, ABUSE OF PROCESS This is not an allegation but a truth, as the assignment I discovered filed without notice last year by Chase proves tyne simple fact that they DID NOT HAVE STANDING and were in fact in the act of FRAUD UPON COURT where, unchecked, they remain and continue with impunity. The foreclosure was wrongful is based on (1) the position that paragraph 22 of the mortgage authorizes only the lender-beneficiary (or its assignee) to (a) accelerate the loan after a default and (b) elect to cause the Property to be sold and (2) the allegation that a non-holder of the deed of trust, rather than the true beneficiary as per PA RCP to initiate the foreclosure. I allege that

(1) corpus of Trust was pool of mortgage notes purportedly secured by liens on homes (2) section 2.05 of Pooling Servicing Agreement mortgage files transferred to SASCO (3) trustee or initial custodian was required as being held on behalf of the Securitized Trust; (4) my note was transferred to the Trust prior to its closing date; (5) the assignment of the Note did occur by the closing date in 2005; (6) the transfer to the trust attempted by the assignment of Note recorded last year (9 years late but legally) occurred long after trust was closed. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS There is absolutely nothing more full of anxiety, more a source of pressure and fear, of anger and helplessness and an encroaching foreboding loss of hope, as sheriff sale dates approach without a the border check of a judicial toll which, even if automated by an adjudication form of EZ Pass allow (or rather do not permit) the procession to execution (sheriff sale, making a family homeless and most likely divorced) is only in fact executed after a computerized, compulsory and compelled cursory review of a check list of items that if not met as a criteria- prevents the foreclosure closure, so to speak. How can the Court, if it sees the fraud of the foreclosure and the usury of the fraud, compensate: 1 2 3 4 5 These six years. These two cases (one with thousands of pages of discovery) The research The law learning The opportunity cost it tolled on me- rendering me a dependent impotentas I was unable to look for work as I was a professional pro se litigant 6 The stress was immeasurable 7 I lost 100 pounds 8 My wife descended into depression where we became estranged because of the uncertainty of the foreclosure and the change it imposed upon our lives to vigorously defend it, and as a result, it destroyed our marriage as had no emotional or physical intimacy for 2 years and she would not even speak with me about the Chase case (she wanted to pay them off) despite qualifications of a Masters In Business Administration as well as a law degree. She scared her to death 9 She had a silent breakdown; she was advised by a psychiatrist to get a

divorce due to foreclosure and last fall she indeed 10 My wife left the home and marriage as she said it symbolized the stress it inflicted. How can you put a number on 6 years of not working? How can you put a price on marriage? On happiness? Was Chase 100% responsible for our pain? No. But if I accused you falsely of sexual harassment, it will negatively affect you even in the best case scenario where you are completely exonerated. I would have COST you so much in time, energy, emotion and effort (as well as opportunity cost) for a FRAUD- a case and a cause not true at all, hence, I am deprived of standing without injury and moreover, my fraud on court is a felony which makes my claim of victimhood- if fraudulent- a catalyst for instant karmic justice where I am no longer forced to PROVE THE NEGATIVE as the real victim is revealed and the real criminal (Chase) is exposed by one innocent assignment recordation after default judgment was obtained and the finish line was within 4 lengths at the Kentucky Derby. I seek punitive damages of $600000 trebled and unencumbered title to home for this false attack THE ILLEGAL INTEREST MATH FORMULA We use this for cost (1+($100/$300))^(365/14))-1)) = 1807.5417 = 180,754.17%) (means raise to the power of) The method all financial institutions calculate the amount of interest due from borrowers is criminal fraud in the U.K., while concurrently being not yet recognized as illegal in the U.S.- and this lawsuit seeks to change that. How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% per day on a credit card in US? The difference since 1974 when the U.S./Canadian method was criminalized in the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than all outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada. The structure of the analysis (thus far) also substantially understates the real

economic consequences in that the extra payments made by the borrower earn zero interest themselves. For example, at 15% per annum the extra $171,806 is simply the sum of the extra 11.32 years worth of payments as if the borrower would otherwise stuff the money under a mattress. If the lost opportunity cost is taken into account (i.e., the true financial and economic damage) the amounts are greater and increasingly so at higher stated rates (e.g., $519,135 at 15%). Mathematically, the proper way to look at it is to assume that the borrower has up to several other loans and at the same rate of interest such that the extra payments on the first loan could be used to pay down the debt on the second and subsequent loans (or put into a personal investment account). At the end of the 30 year comparison period the borrowers total debt on all loans is $519,135 less (or investment earnings $519,135 greater) based on a nominal rate of 15%. This is vastly more if the overpayments on the mortgage were applied to credit card debt. At 6% the foregone interest on the overpayments is only the $662 difference between $9,564 and $10,226. The overpayments with interest, from the far right column, are the true measure of the benefits to the institution and cost to the borrower (and society in the aggregate). Even if a particular borrower does not have other loans to which the overpayments could be applied, the creditor is either in the business of loaning overpayments to someone else (small percentage) or using them (vast majority by amounts) as a deemed equity base to advance new credit at interest. At a nominal 30% department store credit card rate, the overcharge with interest is indicated as $83,863,243 or about $84 million per initial $100,000. The effect is absolutely breathtaking. This is no mere technicality, but the very air in which credit card companies breathe. Over just the past five years for example, a typical department store's use of the

nominal method has boosted its total card-user debt by about $180 million. Based on the same cash flows, had interest charges been made at a true 30% per annum (about 2.21% per month) then the card-users would owe about $420 million instead of the $600 million total debt which has resulted from charging 2.5% per month (a real 34.5% per annum). Multiply the dollar amounts by ten for the U.S. The highest nominal Visa credit card rate that I have encountered in the U.S. is a stated or claimed 79.9% (Premier Bank Visa). Note the psychological manipulation inherent to not crossing the 80% threshold, yet the actual charge rate of 6.66% per month is an effective or real annual rate of 117% (rounded) and not 79.9%. Now the 37 percentage point discrepancy represents a 32% increase in cost of borrowing, per se, or about 24% of gross interest paid/collected (again on any given day recall that at a stated 24% the 2.68 percentage point error represents only about 10.5% of gross revenue per day). And critically, like an iceberg, where most of the mass floats below the surface of the water, the nominal method error manifests increasingly over time as debt still owing that would not otherwise be owing at the real annual rate. At a real annual rate of 15% there is exactly $0 left owing on the contract after 18.68 years of monthly payments of $1,264.55 on a $100,000 mortgage. If the lender claims that the stated 15% per annum is nominal and not real, then there is $171,806 still owing on the contract after 18.68 years of monthly payments of $1,264.55 on a $100,000 mortgage. Again, that is why the U.K. criminalized this insidiously fraudulent methodology in 1974 when I was 3 years old. From both an ongoing profitability and public policy perspective the most significant aspect of the nominal method is the exponential nature of the error and its relationship to the spread nature of institutional credit. For example, assume that banks advance at a nominal 15% and pay depositors a nominal 6% so as to use the examples already covered, and also because certain other factors dictate that such a seemingly large spread is actually more appropriate

than it may first appear. Of the extra $519,135 gained from borrowers over the 30 year period only $10,226 or about 2% will find its way into the accounts of depositors. The remaining $509,000 or 98% will be retained by the financial middleman that makes its profit on the spread between interest collected from borrowers and that paid out to depositors. The use of the nominal method can easily triple or quadruple the inherent profitability of the banking/credit business even after an allowance is made for greater defaults. At a nominal 60%/year a credit card can gross an actual 80% per annum (at 5% per month). It can pay its bond-holders, say, 10% per annum, and make a gross return of 70% per annum while telling card-holder they are paying 60%! Once again here is the deal offered to the public: Mortgage Principal: $100,000 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 SO ON THE TERM SHEET How can something as manifestly important as a certain way that banks calculate the amount of interest due from borrowers be recognized as prohibited as criminal fraud in U.K., while concurrently being required by law in U.S. under consumer protection law. How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% per day on a U.K. credit card, but 0.065753% per day in the U.S. and Canada? The difference since 1974 when the U.S./Canadian method was criminalized in the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than all outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. (and Canadian) nominal method is criminal in the U.K. for very good reasons. The following comparison has been designed so as to demonstrate the cost of the nominal method in terms of dollars out of a borrower's pocket instead of rate differences.

Because most consumer interest payments are made monthly we will deal with the application of the nominal method for interest or "calculating monthly" as it is called in finance. The nominal method is also referred to as the "straight division" method because lender takes the stated annual rate and divides both components of the rate by number of payments a year. For example, if a borrower agrees to pay interest at 12% per annum by monthly payments, then the lender will go into her account and assess 1% each month. Most American (and Canadian) consumers think this procedure is correct. Financial institutions are in the business of knowing that it is not. It would not be such a problem if the error were consistent, but, again, the nominal method error increases exponentially in favor of lender as the stated annual rate is increased. At the higher levels associated with credit card rates the error is positively obscene. The first step is to be certain to compare like things, and to use a long enough period so as to clearly demonstrate the significance of the thing being measured. A 30 year period is the standard amortization period on residential mortgage in the U.S. Using $100,000 as a comparison loan amount, over 30 years at 6% per annum using the nominal method, the required monthly payment will be $599.55. If the interest charges were determined at a real 6% per annum, then the monthly payment would be only $589.37. Comparing two different monthly payment streams, however, using two different calculation methodologies, would confound the results. To determine the extra cost of the nominal method, and only the nominal method, it is necessary to compare identical payment streams applied against identical loans where the one and only difference (single variable) is the calculation method. Given a fixed loan amount ($100,000) and a fixed monthly payment amount ($599.55) the only way to measure the extra cost in dollars is by the time (and total payments) required to pay off the debt/contract (the amortization period).

At a real 6% per annum a $100,000 loan requires 28.67 years to pay off with monthly payments of $599.55. If the lender uses the nominal method, then the same loan takes exactly 30 years to pay off based on the same monthly payment. The cost of nominal method less 16 payments of $599.55 total of $9564 per $100000 borrowed. The total interest cost is the total payments (360 months x $599.55 = $215,838) minus the principal sum loaned ($100,000) with the result being $115,838. The $9,564 difference (the vig) from the use of the nominal method therefore represents a 9% increase in the total dollar cost of borrowing, or about 8.25% of the total interest money paid/collected over the 30 year period. What then happens to the extra cost when the same technically incorrect nominal technique is applied at 15% per annum? That is the approximate weighted average stated lending rate over the 30 year period 1974 to 2004 (about equal to prime plus 3%). Does the error stay the same at about $9,500? Does a two and a half times increase in the stated rate from 6% to 15% cause a similar increase in the extra cost from $9,500 to about $23,000 for each $100,000 borrowed? Or is there something more but which bankers never talk about publicly? Again the example is a $100,000 loan repaid over 30 years and at a "nominal" 15% per annum the required monthly payment is $1,264.44. If interest were at a real 15% per annum, then the monthly payments would be about $75 less at $1,189.46, but once again we want to isolate the extra cost of the nominal method and so that is the assumed (or control) payment amount. At a real 15% per annum a $100,000 loan requires 18.68 years to pay off based on monthly payments of $1,264.44. If the lender uses the nominal method, then it takes exactly 30 years to pay off the same loan with the same monthly payment. Now the cost to the borrower is 135.88 extra payments (11.3 years) of $1,264.44 per month or $171,806 per $100,000 borrowed!

Here again the total interest cost is the total payments to be made (360 x$1,264.44 = $455,198) minus the principal sum loaned ($100,000) with the result being $355,198. Now the $171,806 difference represents a 93.68% increase in the total dollar cost of borrowing or 48% of the total interest paid/collected over the 30 year period. The interest cost should be $183,436 over 18.68 years but at this higher level the error in the nominal method adds 11.32 extra years to create a debt with interest payments of $355,198. What may appear to be a trivial difference is actually a form of mathematically engineered leverage which increases the total cost of borrowing (cost of the contract) by 93% at a stated interest rate of 15% per annum. A mortgage or any term loan is designed with the monthly payment amount determined so as to be just slightly more than the initial (first month's) interest cost so that the loan will take 30 years (or whatever desired amortization period) to pay off. By using the nominal method, at any given rate, the creditor gets to both collect larger payment amounts which pay down the loan relatively quickly at the rate stated and collect those larger payments for 30 years anyway. It is also irrelevant that many lenders no longer make loans for fixed terms of 30 years. The 30 year period is simply a standardized reference period by which to demonstrate the radically different effects of the same math error at different "nominal" interest rates. At 15% per annum, over any given 30 year period, lenders will increase the total amount of interest money exacted from all borrowers by 93% by simply using the nominal method. Of course loan agreements dont say "nominal method" much less explain what it means. In the USA no one will even LISTEN to this and in Canada it is simply the explanation given if and when (rarely in practice) a borrower discovers that their monthly payment does not correspond to the rate of interest stated and declared in

the agreement. In the US there is no need for an explanation because nominal method is required by law. At the nominal 30% annual rate on many department store credit cards the monthly payment needed to retire a $100,000 debt over 30 years is $2,500.34. If the calculations are done correctly, then the same debt is retired after 8.21 years based on the same monthly payment. At a stated 30% per annum, a real 8.21 year debt costing $146,000 in interest is leveraged by the nominal method into a 30 year debt costing $653,000 in interest! If we want to mitigate the coming (potential) hyperinflation, a good start is to eliminate this systemic bias of U.S. banks to higher nominal, and therefore higher still real, interest rates. Now is the time to force U.S. (and Canadian) banks to abandon the fraudulent calculation methodology, while nominal interest rates are at the low end of their exponential error field. Even if rates were to stay at exactly 6% for the next 30 years, we would still save about 10% of all the interest money that will accrue over the entire period just by eliminating Bankers Bonus. Also, you realize of course that the system is educating your children not to understand geometric mathematical relationships for precisely this reason. It is much harder to rob someone if they understand how they are being robbed. That is why mainstream media can consistently describe a real rate of 180,000% on a payday loan as somewhere between 180% and 850% and virtually no one notices. It is arguably the single most important determinant-in-fact of their quality of life and the masses are looking straight at Empire State Building and being told that it is a child's doll house. Yet they have no clue even that there is something wrong with the numbers. We have been made innumerate, ignorant, apathetic and emasculated as we refuse to fight this.

There was one government (or government sponsored) study that I came across related to the payday loan industry where it was suggested, ever so subtly, that many customers of payday loan companies are already suffering depression, augmented by having to pay $100 to get their $400 paycheck two weeks early. Thus the real annual rate may well drive them further into depression then litigation, This is really a battle for your mind the money is just a detail. A deliberately simplified nominal rate example will make the principle clear. Assume that half of all loans are at a nominal 30% and the other half are at a nominal 0% for a year. The average rate is a nominal 15%, corresponds to actual 16.1% (monthly payment). But in fact the lender(s) will receive an effective 34.5% from the half of all loans at a nominal 30%, and 0% from the other half at a nominal 0%. The average-in-fact is therefore half of 34.5% or 17.25% and not 16.1% based on a stated/nominal average 15%. In this (most extreme) example standard deviation or average variance of the rate per contract accounts for a greater increase in percentage point gain (1.15 percentage points (i.e., from 16.1% to 17.25%) than nominal method itself (1.1 percentage points (i.e., from 15% to 16.1%)). Both factors cross leverage/cross-compound-upon other. (Concealed loan fees have same geometric effect, and loan fees plus the nominal method on the same loan have a truly astronomical effect.) How can something as manifestly important as a certain way that financial institutions calculate interest due from borrowers be prohibited as criminal fraud in the U.K., while concurrently being required by law in the U.S. under consumer protection legislation? How can 24% per annum be equal to 0.058952% a day on a U.K. credit card, but 0.065753% per day in U.S. and Canada? The difference since 1974 when U.S./ Canadian method was criminalized in the U.K. now accounts for an amount greater than all outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. and Canada.

Is there any more important determinant of quality of life for a typical human than the broadly-defined concept of interest? It pervades and saturates the price of everything. In the past fifty years alone, in many areas it has quietly caused the average price of a home to increase from about four years average annual wage, to more than ten years average wage. And the velocity of interest is enormous. Vast sums can turn on fractions of a percent changes in the rate. That is why base unit of measurement in the finance business is the basis point or 1/100 of 1%. Assume that you have a billion dollars to lend to facilitate the daily purchase of stocks on Wall Street and that you charge 1/8 of 1%. Settlement occurs upon closing of the market so you are limited to one cycle/trade per day (although, again, you are not speculating in the price of stocks but advancing credit to others who are). Your gross return for the year is 37% or $370 million. But that is only in this time zone. You can perform the same function in Hong Kong after the closing bell and settlement in New York London following settlement in Hong Kong. Now your gross annual return is 155% or $1,550 millions on $1,000 millions of initial capital, plus you still have your initial capital. Also note that tripling the number of daily iterations from 1 to 3 causes much more that a three-fold increase in the annual yield by 37%. And that is based on just 250 trading days per year. If you can perform the same function for a 1/8th of 1% gain per iteration three times per 24 hour cycle somewhere in the world, then your gross annual return goes to 293% or a $2.93 billion gross gain or profit per year per $1 billion. Shift frame of reference to a typical payday loan. The most common example given in the mainstream media involves the giving of a postdated (check) for $400, payable in two weeks time (14 days), for a net cash advance of $300 today.

Typically, you can expect to pay up to $100 in interest and fees for a $300 payday loan and the government says that amounts to effective annual interest rate of 435 per cent on a 14-day loan. The mainstream media generally report the same example transaction to the public as carrying an effective annual interest rate of from about 400% to 850%, while also implying that determination of the rate is a kind of black art that can give different results at different times. One went as low as 180% per annum. Nobody appears to have complained or even mentioned it. Will the Honorable Judge reading this get it and conclude this AVERMENT like a scientific thesis radical in design requires one thing- the unobstructed opportunity to be judged, be made an argument as due process unabbreviated in court with jury of peers. I pray this is your view. At the same time, a careful examination of dozens of mainstream articles purporting to explain the many class-action lawsuits that have been initiated against payday loan companies across North America, reveals many that are simply dripping with mens rea or guilty conscience (guilty mind) in their use of evasive language. The cause of the system's guilty conscience is that the interest rate defined by that transaction, as a matter of cold, hard, verifiable fact, is just over either 580% or possibly 180,000% per annum. It is simple calculation and easily verifiable. PROVE ME WRONG. TELL ME WHY THE 360k wouldnt make sense if the 2001.19 payment was divided 1000 to equity 1000 and change to interest, fixed? So what is it about the mind that allows us to function in a world where there is no more real determinant of our quality of life than interest generally, where vast fortunes turn on small changes in rates, but where a typical observer/player cannot tell, from the three simple and given elements of the loan transaction just described, that the annual interest rate is about 180,000% and not 180% - a thousand-to-one difference in magnitude?

It is precisely analogous (height-wise) to not being able to tell the difference between a child's doll house and the Empire State Building! The concurrent paradox is as to how the bogus nominal interest calculation methodology that is prohibited and criminalized in the U.K. under the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (and multiple U.K. Criminal Code statutes), is actually required by law in the U.S. under the federal 1968 Consumer Protection Act (Regulation Z). Under the nominal method same transaction is said to carry an annual interest rate of 869%. The relevant dictionary definition of nominal is existing in name only, not real or actual. If all consumer debt in the U.S. were recalculated (since criminalization of the U.S. method by the U.K. in 1974), using the same cash flows, but so that the lender receives interest amounts equal to the annual rate disclosed/agreed to, instead of the larger amounts determined by the recognized fraudulent formula, with the balance of any given payment applied to principal reduction for the next month, then there would today be no consumer debt in the U.S. - it is that significant a difference. Consider that you have just signed the following mortgage contract: Mortgage Principal: $100,000 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. At this level the error, again at 2.82 percentage points on 24%, is over 20 times the maximum legal variance of 1/8 of 1% for disclosure accuracy. Above about 5% per annum the math error is above 1/8 of 1% per annum and would otherwise be illegal on that basis alone. Either way, nature of discrepancy is geometric or exponential with respect to represented annual rate. At 1% per annum the difference is tiny, but at a stated annual rate of 20% it is 20 x 20 = 400 times greater, per se. At a stated 30% it is 900 times greater, per se. At a stated annual rate of approximately 15%, general use of the fraudulent methodology exactly doubles the amount of interest assessed/received by all financial institutions, measured at the end of a twenty-five year period. Chase is Enron without the energy deals there is no product or service being offered for me to buy they are simply looking for a way to loan me money. Think about it, you really are either depositing money or withdrawing money and the bank charges you for the privilege of doing so. A Rico bank fronted Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from paid by subsequent investors rather than from actual profit earned. Now substitute the words ponzi scheme for bank. A bank is a investment operation that pays returns to investors (account holders)

from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned. There is a little known knowledge about practice of institution called fractional reserve banking.(See Brief) It sounds complicated but it simply means that banks are legally allowed to lend out more money than they have on hand. This was a major reason for the meltdown in the economy that has taken place over the past year and that is still continuing with the bank failures that are happening on a weekly basis (140 in 2009 and counting in 2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015). So hypothetically every time you deposit one dollar into a bank account they have the legal right to lend out $10. This is also known as leverage. So this seems to be how a bank makes money. We, as depositors, deposit our money into a bank because it is safe and secure, protected by FDIC insurance (as noted on the drive through window) and they turn around and lend our money back to us at a higher rate. What is the typical rate on a savings account? Less than 1% and what is the rate on your credit card, car loan, student loan, personal loan, home equity loan, and/or mortgage? Lets tack on fees for missing a payment, overdrawing your account, not keeping enough money in your account, not using using your credit card, etc, etcthe picture starts to become clearer. One of the greatest legal Ponzi schemes ever created Again a bank makes its money off of the money you deposit into it and off of interest payments and fees they charge that keep increasing. Now you see why it is so important for them to find ways to catch people with these crazy rules noted in fine print of applications and ever changing agreements we sign. It behooves them to contractually be able to raise rates or change the terms for any reason and without cause. It is actually taking Congressional intervention in order to stop banks from charging excessive fees and the bank are fighting the

legislation tooth and nail! Its a great business to allow account to go over limit or to promote variable rate mortgage. They build in the profit margins on the front end (called amortization) and rake in the dough on the back end and no one is any wiser. It is literally a multibillion dollar business enterprise built solely off of other peoples money (like the stock market). Now fundamentally just by the mere fact that a bank can lend out more than we deposit tells us something that is just common senseif everyone went to the bank at the same time to withdrawal money it could not possibly be there. This is why bankers fear a run on the banks because we all believe that one day we could go to a bank to withdraw money and it would not be there. A bank DOES NOT have to give you your money back and they can place limits on how much you can withdrawal! It sounds absurd that a bank wouldnt have your money but again goes back to regulation (word hated by banking industry). Also the fact that they do not have to have money to cover the loans they have out. Not to mention the amount of leveraging that takes place for loan creation. Dont believe me ask your banker this question: can my bank deny me access to my money? If they say no you already know they are lying because if that were case there would not be a need for FDIC insurance and there would not be limits on amounts of money that FDIC covers. In closing, the average person spends over 34% of their after tax income on interest payments alone simply look at the amortization schedule of any type of loan you get. Notice that nearly all the interest is always front loaded in the early years so that the bank gets their money first and then the principal gets repaid. A never ending cycle as people continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime. For fun, calculate and total all your current loan payments and see how much of

your income is going towards the interestthats bankingthe great American RICO Ponzi scheme in action. Forget the USA, but beginning in 1981 Canada and its civil/commercial courts, secured jointly and severally by the bonds and malpractice insurance of its broadly-defined legal profession, had repeated opportunity backed by moral, lawful, and legal direct responsibility not to allow US and UK courts to be used as clearing houses for falsified-in-fact nominal securities. The 1981 amendment to the criminal law was directly tied to, and intended to replace, the 1939 Act whose preamble spelled out the evil of front-loading and the Act expressly prohibited it: The cost of any such loan or any part thereof [loan fees] ... shall not be compounded or deducted or received in advance. The criminal amendment under what is now s. 347(1)(b) stipulates, and was intended to stipulate, against precisely the same act: Every one who receives [including converts] a payment or partial payment of interest [loan fees] at a criminal rate [in advance] is guilty of an indictable offense [a felony]. A FELONY? MORALLY DIMON IS GOING TO TRIAL IF LAW OF USURY IS ENFORCED. The felony is AMORTIZATION USURY BY DYNAMIC FRONT LOADED INTEREST TO EQUITY RATIO WITHIN FIXED PAYMENT FRAUD The elements of a fraud cause of action are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of the falsity or scienter, (3) intent to defraudthat is, induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) These elements may not be pleaded in a general or conclusory fashion. (Id. at p. 645.) Fraud must be pled specificallythat is, a plaintiff must plead facts that show with

particularity the elements of the cause of action. (Ibid.) CHASES fraud implemented through forged documents, alleges that defendants act caused Plaintiff to rely on the recorded documents and ultimately lose the property which served as his primary residence, and caused Plaintiff further damage, proof of which will be made at trial. This allegation is a general allegation of reliance and damage. FRAUD UPON COURT Through malfeasance of office, and in reckless disregard of the foreseeable consequences, courts willfully, persistently, unlawfully, and illegally subverted, through both positive action and actionable negligence, any and all laws intended to prevent either the practice of front loading, or concealment of same through either or both of false attestations of principal amount on the face of the securities. Or the deliberate and fraudulent omission to disclose collateral side agreements requiring redirection and/or ownership by the nominal creditor of the proceeds in whole in part. Had courts simply obeyed the criminal law and done their jobs in good faith, they would have caused a major disruption in the global financial markets by the fact of it. RICO: CHASE ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATE Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. 1961. As currently amended it includes: Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering within a white collar banking business falls under crimes as defined by Title 18 as so does usury, unjust enrichment by embezzlement and securities fraud as well as fraud upon the court. I do not aver that Chase is 100% criminal- I am not a fool and I know much of their business is legal. That is a given. As Enron actually made legitimate deals while it created meta-shell offshore entities, so to does Chase do a great deal of honest banking. That is not at issue here, and if my registration and insurance is

valid, police may still ticket for blowing off the stop sign. With Chase as the recent 49 state investigation they, I aver, simply bought their way out of- not in a settlement of corruption but a settlement legal but moral corruption of the spirit of legal investigation. So we must show a pattern of racketeering activity and by law that requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plusrelationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91452, 84 Stat. 922 October 15, 1970), was an Act of Congress signed into law by U.S. President Richard Nixon. The Act was the product of hearings in the Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor Management of 1957-1959 and McClellan hearings of 1962-1964. The Act prohibits the creation or management of a gambling organization involving five or more people if it has been in business more than 30 days or accumulates $2,000 in gross revenue in a single day. It also gave grand juries new powers, permitted detention of unmanageable witnesses, and gave authorization to protect witnesses, both state and federal, and their families. This last measure helped lead to the creation of WITSEC, an acronym for witness security. BERG AND PHELAN AND (unknowingly) COUNTY are, I aver, guilty of:

Aiding or assisting organized crime enterprises (if the action was for financial gain) CHASE IS A PROVEN CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE BY RECENT SETTLEMENTS Investigation by the Attorney Generals of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia; and the District of Columbia prove this. CONSPIRACY CHASE engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to commit fraud on the court, and to breach the class members mortgage covenants for the purpose of unlawful gain for each of the defendants. As a result of this civil conspiracy, civil wrongs committed against plaintiff and millions of ignorant others. The motivation for the civil conspiracy was the defendants appetite for the millions of dollars in fees which they desired to claim by taking advantage of and perverting the foreclosure and mortgage amortization repayment process. As result of the civil conspiracy plaintiff was injured very damaged. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION TO DEFRAUD In the course and conduct of their loan servicing and collection, Defendants in numerous instances have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers are obligated to pay amounts specified in lawsuit. The Defendants' communications for default-related services such as property inspections, title reports, and foreclosure trustee services. In truth and fact, in numerous instances, consumers are not obligated to pay the amounts that have been specified in Defendants' communications for foreclosure services such as property inspections, title reports, and foreclosure trustee services.

Defendants include in the amounts they represent as owed fees that have been marked up beyond the actual cost of the services and/or fees that are for performance of unnecessary or unreasonable services, in violation of the mortgage contract. Chase made false or misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 4S(a). STIPULATED ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES The scheme works as follows. Defendants order default- related services from the default subsidiaries, which in turn obtain the services from third-party vendors. The default subsidiaries then charge Defendants a fee significantly marked up from the third-party vendors' fee for the service, and the Defendants, in turn, assess and collect these marked-up fees from mortgage contracts serviced by Defendants are substantially similar to the standard Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form contracts and contain form language regarding what occurs if a borrower defaults on his loan. The Security Instrument authorizes servicer, in cases of default, to: The mortgage contract between a lender and borrower typically consists of two documents: the promissory note ("Note"), and the mortgage ("Security Instrument") The pay for whatever is reasonable or appropriate to protect the note holder's interest in the property and rights under the security instrument, including protecting and/or assessing the value of the property, and securing and/or repairing the property. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE CONSUMER 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, and 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 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) and (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, the 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; or acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the 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 their unlawful act or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court. Defendants will not stop injuring consumers, reaping unjust enrichment, harm public interests. THE DOCTRINE OF CLAIM PRECLUSION AND ABSURDITY The entire foreclosure, if not the entire case itself, SHOULD be dismissed with prejudice in light of this 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 confusion 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 your courtroom, and by the highest law in the land, we are guaranteed such a hearing before confiscation of our home by Chase, whom we can now prove DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT 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. 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 illgotten 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 who 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. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired. 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 RECORDS A number of measures were taken to improve record keeping and reporting. Section 351 amended the BSA to give financial institutions legal immunity from liability for any disclosures of suspicious transactions or activities to appropriate authorities, or for failing to notify any person identified in such a disclosure, and prohibits this disclosure from being made public. The Federal Deposit Insurance 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. Section 356 made the U.S. Department of Treasury establish regulations that require brokers and dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to submit Suspicious activity reports (SARs) when they see suspicious activity. Section 355 also specified that a report be produced jointly by the Secretary of Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Securities and Exchange Commission with recommendations for effective regulations to apply the requirements of the BSA with regards to investment companies. After defining what was meant by "investment companies", the final report found that certain types of investment companies were more susceptible to money laundering than other types of investment companies in particular it found that mutual funds and hedge funds are most vulnerable, and that closed-end funds, interval funds, commodity pools, private equity funds, venture capital funds and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), for various reasons, were not as vulnerable to money laundering or particularly attractive to money launderers. The final conclusion FinCEN came to in the report was that as there were so many types of investment companies they should apply the same definition to all investment companies except commodity pools and those funds that only primarily invest in real estate. 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 organised in the U.S., that are organised 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. Section 365 amends the BSA and makes it a requirement of anyone who does business file to file a report to FinCEN for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000. It also makes it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements. Section 366 ordered a study into why there were too many Currency Transaction Reports (also known as CTRs). There were so many filed in the 2002 financial year (12.3 million were filed and only 118,678 CTR exemptions were made) that Congress was concerned that it was adversely affecting the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. The study found that businesses were filing unnecessary reports for several reasons, and made various recommendations that might alleviate the problem. Among them, it recommends that FinCEN should work with the federal bank regulators, as well as banks, to reduce, as appropriate, fear of adverse regulatory consequences from making incorrect exemption determinations, including issuing an Advisory encouraging the use of the exemption process 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. CCE is codified as Chapter 13 of Title 21 of the United States Code, 21 U.S.C. 848. The statute makes it a federal crime to commit or 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. FAILURE TO CHECK A KNOWN CRIMINAL AND VEXATIOUS LITIGANT Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute targets drug traffickers responsible for longterm crimes. The anti-racketeering statute, which includes the 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. CCE offenders constituted less than 1 percent of Federal drug offenders. Most racketeering convictions based on RICO 27 percent or interstate travel in aid of racketeering 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. FORECLOSURE IS A FORM OF JUDICIAL 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.") 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 pricegouging, 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 the individual sent the message willingly and knowingly as 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 (crime): 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: 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 a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. CHASE IS AN ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATION WITH BANKING ACTIVITIES Organized crime, organized crime, and often criminal organizations are terms which 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 force people to do business with them, as when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for so-called "protection". Gangs may become disciplined enough to be considered organized. An organized gang or criminal set can also be referred to as a mob. Other organizations including states, militaries, police forces, and corporationsmay sometimes use organized crime methods to conduct their business, but their powers derive from their status as formal social institutions. 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 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. The term Parliamentary Mafia-cracy is often attributed to democratic countries whose political, social economic institutions are under control of few families and business oligarchs 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 and such crime is commonly referred to as the work of the Mob. But times change, and now formerly straight and clean operations have been corrupted buy greed and circumstance (2008 crisis). 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, the Banks violated FHA 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 in affidavits is popularly known as robo-signing. where third parties engaged in robo-signing on behalf of Banks, they did so with knowledge and 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. FHA 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. See generally 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.

LOAN SHARKS IN LITIGATION: WIFE LEAVES, PRO SE FULL TIME WAY Here is a summary of the underlying case as I seek relief from sale in May A party may seek relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b) for: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) Newly discovered evidence that, with Treasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) The judgment is void; (5) The judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; (6) Any other reason that justifies relief. "The Court further ruled in Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co., Inc. to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), movant must show the quoting Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Miller, 402 F.2d 134, 143 (8th Cir. 1968)). "opposing party engaged in a fraud or misrepresentation that prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting its case." Relief under Rule 60(b) (3) may be granted in situations involving "egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated." 2. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals defines "Fraud upon the court" as, "that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." 3 &"a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." The court ruled in duty of candor case Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky,10 F.3d 33860b that, "Fraud on the court" consists of conduct: (1) on part of of icer of the court, (2) that is directed to judicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment

or is concealment when one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court." Attorneys are officers of the court, See People v. Zajic. 4 In Sandstrom v. Chel Lawn Corp.5, the court found "Litigant commits "fraud on court" when litigant and attorney concoct some unconscionable scheme calculated to impair court's ability fairly adjudicate dispute." In Abatti v. C.I.R., the court found, "Fraud on the court" may occur when acts of party prevent his adversary from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense." Petitioner's 60(b) & 60(b)(3) claims are independent as ruled in Chewning v. Ford Motor Company, "Under Rule 60(b), SCRCP, a party may seek to set aside a final judgment for fraud upon the court. This right is independent of the Rule 60(b)(3) ground for relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party. Relief for fraud upon the court is not subject to the one year limit placed on relief under Rule 60(b)(3). Moore's Federal Practice 60.21[4][a] (3d. ed. 2000) defines the actionable behavior as "fraud that does, or at least attempts to, defile the court itself." Intrinsic fraud refers to "fraud presented and considered in the judgment assailed, including perjury & forged documents." The Court in Lightsey v. Flanagan defined the `extrinsic' (Kenner v. C.I.R., 387F. 3d 689 (1968) Court stated, "an officer of the court..are all attorneys" See Bulloch v. United States, "Whenever officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". Sandstrom v. Chel Lawn Corp., 904 F. 2d 83. -Fed CivProc 1741 Similarily defined by Court in Derzack v. County of Allegheny, Pa., stating, fraudulent scheme of fabricating key evidence and fraudulently concealing evidence to support their business loss claim and subsequently covering-up their scheme constituted "fraud on the court" warranting sanctions (Television & Radio, Inc.,) See H. Lightsey & J. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil Procedure 407 (2d ed. 1985) type as, "frauds collateral or external to the matter tried such as bribery or other misleading acts which prevent movant from presenting all of case or deprives one of opportunity to be heard."

Extrinsic fraud is further defined by Court in Hilton Head Ctr., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, as "fraud that induces a person not to present a case or deprives a person of the opportunity to be heard." The Court in Davis v. Davis found for `fraud on the court', specifically distinguished from fraud as under Rule 60(b)(3), was found where an attorney in a divorce action did not file the opposing side's answer and then represented to the court that the opposing party was in default. Affirming the trial court's decision to vacate the default decree, the court found, "This reasonably may be held to have been extrinsic fraud upon her and upon the court." This is consistent with disciplinary opinions finding misrepresentations to be fraud upon Court. Under Rule 60(b), courts have broad discretion to relieve a party from final judgment, order or proceeding for the specific reasons outlined in the rule, as well as, under Rule 60(b)(6), for "any other reason that justifies relief." The court in Pierce v. Cook & Co., ruled that Rule 60(b)(6) gives courts a "grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a case." The Tenth Circuitheld that "relief from final judgments may be had under Rule 60(b)(6), when such action is appropriate to accomplish justice..." This type of relief sought is well-established in the Tenth Circuit such as when Court in McGraw v. Barnhart stated that Rule 60(b)(6) "`should be liberally construed when substantial justice will thus be served.'" PERJURY AND FORGERY Although perjury alone will not serve to vacate a judgment, it is considered fraud upon the court when it involves or is suborned by an attorney.13 14 In the Ford case the court agreed with petitioner and Evans, 294 S.C. at 529, 366 S.E.2d at 46. See,In re Celsor, 330 S.C. 497, 501, 499 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1998) (finding improper

signature without valid power of attorney, notarization of that signature, and misrepresentation to court to be fraud upon the court); In re Jennings, 321 S.C. 440, 446, 468 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1996). Pierce, 518 F.2d (See generally Moore's Federal Practice, supra, at 60.21[4][b] & [c]) The court in Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters ruled, "Involvement of an attorney, as an officer of the court, in a scheme to suborn perjury would certainly be considered fraud on the court," violators had created an illegal ongoing plot between Ford, Ford's attorneys, and a witness to hide the truth in a series of products liability cases. Legal Standard for Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. provides for sanctions against "any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation" Legal Standard for inherent power The court in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., ruled Federal Courts have "the inherent power to manage own proceedings and to control conduct of those who appear before them." The Court can "punish conduct which abuses the judicial process," and impose fees against a party "when the party practices a fraud upon the court." Id. Berg and Phelan are in violation of L.R. 9 83-3.1.2, Standards of Professional Conduct, which states, "In order to maintain the effective administration of justice and the integrity of Court, attorney shall be familiar with and comply with standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of PA UNFAIR ASSESSMENT OF FEES In the course and conduct of their loan servicing and collection, Defendants in numerous nstances 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 countervailing 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). 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. The plaintiff requests 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 in the class 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. 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 channelling 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 and Canada 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 miraculously 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 and Canada are the central global clearinghouse for the falsified securities that caused the collapse itself. 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. Counts to be clarified, condensed and edited in amended complaint to be filed PRAYER FOR RELIEF I 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 that I have not yet begun to fight 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 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 THIS IS A DRAFT The filed amended complaint will have these additional COUNTS QUIET TITLE FRAUD UPON COURT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FALSE STATEMENTS TO AUTHORITIES GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY COUNTY WITHOUT INTENT OR MALICE EMBEZZLEMENT & GRAND LARCENY & LOAN SHARKING UNJUST ENRICHMENT CONSPIRACY BY COMPLICITY

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SCHEDULING HEARING OF CO-FILED MOTION FOR TRO REQUESTED (EMERGENCY) Prepared By _______________________ Timothy Patrick Murray Plaintiff Pro Per 200 S Valley Road Paoli PA 19301 Filed 4.17.2014 TanujaMurray@gmail.com FilmStudios@iCloud.com 323377001 6105646646

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

VERIFICATION I swear under penalty of law all herein in true under heretofore mentioned penalty of law. ______________________ Timothy Murray, Plaintiff CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I swear under penalty of law I mailed out or sent by email pleadings to Defendants and counsel. ________________________ Timothy Patrick Murray PRO PER SUI JURIS ______ DATE DATE ______