Order Approving Settlement Between The United States Trustee Program and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Order Approving Settlement Between The United States Trustee Program and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

[U.S. Trustee Program]

U.S. Trustee Program

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Attached is the Order from the Court in relation to settlement that stemmed from, among other things, an objection by Debtor to a payment change notice from Chase and the results of a subsequent examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004.

US Trustee Program Settlment with JPMorgan Chase 2015 03 03

JPMorgan Chase Admits Failure to Comply with April 13, 2011 Independent Foreclosure Review Consent Order

JPMorgan Chase Admits Failure to Comply with April 13, 2011 Independent Foreclosure Review Consent Order

[U.S. Trustee Program]

U.S. Trustee Program

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

March 3, 2015

JPMorgan ADMITS that it did not comply with previous cease and desist consent orders issued through the Independent Foreclosure Review on April 13, 2011.
The U.S. Trustee Program entered into a settlement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA where the bank admits the following:
In the proposed settlement, Chase acknowledges that it filed in bankruptcy courts around the country more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed, under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy of the notices.  More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing the accuracy of the filings.  The rest of the notices were signed by individuals employed by a third party vendor on matters unrelated to checking the accuracy of the filings.
Similar to the April 13, 2011 Independent Foreclosure Review Consent Orders, Chase agreed to the following in the settlement with the U.S. Trustee Program:

Continue reading “JPMorgan Chase Admits Failure to Comply with April 13, 2011 Independent Foreclosure Review Consent Order” »

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On August 8, 2013 the Fifth Appellate District in the Court of Appeal of the State of California ordered the Thomas A. Glaski vs Bank of America, NA et al decision published, stating:

As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports.

Based on the importance of this case, the text of the July 31, 2013 ruling is listed verbatim:

Continue reading “Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION” »

Perils of Pooling: OneWest

Neil_GarfieldPerils of Pooling: OneWest

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of livinglies.wordpress.com and comes from the following URL: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/perils-of-pooling-onewest/

Apparently my article yesterday hit a nerve. NO I wasn’t saying that the only problems were with BofA and Chase. OneWest is another example. Keep in mind that the sole source of information to regulators and the courts are the ONLY people who understand mergers and acquisitions. So it is a little like one of those TV shows where the only way they can get an arrest and conviction is for the perpetrator or suspect to confess. In this case, they “confess” all kinds of things to gain credibility and then lead the agencies and judicial system down a rabbit hole which is now a well trodden path. So many people have gone down that hole that most people that is the way to get to the truth. It isn’t. It is part of a carefully constructed series of complex conflicting lies designed carefully by some very smart lawyers who understand not just the law but the way the law works. The latter is how they are getting away with it.

Continue reading “Perils of Pooling: OneWest” »