November 28, 2012

It is no secret, for those of you who follow this website, that pursuant to the sworn deposition testimony of Lawrence Nardi, who was previously employed by Washington Mutual and thereafter by JP Morgan Chase, which sworn deposition testimony is under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury, that there was NEVER a mortgage loan schedule as to any mortgage loans “purchased” by JPM from the FDIC pursuant to the Purchase and Asset Agreement (PAA) between the FDIC and JPM dated September 25, 2008, which was the day that WaMu failed. A full copy of the Nardi deposition transcript will be e-mailed to anyone who requests it from us.

It is also no secret that JPM admitted, in its Motion for Summary Judgment in the case which Deutsche Bank filed against it and the FDIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that JPM is NOT the successor in interest to WaMu. This affirmative representation by JPM in its filing to the U.S. District Court, which expressly stated that only CERTAIN assets and liabilities were assumed by JPM from the FDIC, constitutes a judicial admission against JPM. Despite this, JPM continues to go around the country claiming, in court filings and other written documents, to be the “successor in interest” to WaMu in its effort to foreclose. This is the same type of lie which MERS perpetrated when it told the Supreme Court of Nebraska that it has no interest in mortgage loans and does not collect money, etc., yet states in filings in the other 49 states that it is the “mortgagee” (in a mortgage) or “beneficiary” (in a Deed of Trust) and is entitled to foreclose.

JPM is thus either lying to the United States Federal Court, or is lying to all other courts in the U.S. Our opinion, in view of the Nardi deposition and the filing/judicial admission in the DB case, is that JPM is lying to numerous courts around the country as to being the “successor in interest” to WaMu and claiming it has the right to foreclose. This is one of the largest judicial frauds ever committed, which is being done on a national scale.

The foreclosure mills, including the Shapiro Fishman & Gache Firm in Florida and the Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg Firm (a foreclosure mill based in New Jersey with a branch office in Florida) have reacted to these undisputed facts with recent court filings seeking to strike homeowner defenses to foreclosure with motions seeking to strike the homeowners’ defenses and for sanctions. Perhaps these foreclosure mills think that the Courts will not be made aware of the sworn admissions of Mr. Nardi (made under the penalty of perjury) and the judicial admissions of JPM in the DB Federal litigation. Anyone facing these types of challenges needs to file the Nardi deposition and request that the Court take judicial notice of the admissions of JPM in the DB Federal litigation. If it is found that the foreclosure mill asserted a frivolous motion, the homeowner should seek sanctions against JPM and the foreclosure mill as available under applicable law, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Desp