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 In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

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

COMPLAINT for FRAUD, USURY, ANTITRUST & RICO UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PRICE FIXING, RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND OTHER CRIMES

BY ONGOING OPERATION OF ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

Now comes T Patrick Murray as Plaintiff and I accuse, aver and respectfully allege as follows:

I N T R O D U C T I O N

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 STRUCTURE OF COMPLAINT This case is unique as it concerns civil and criminal (alleged) actions by Chase and its counsel against one family in one foreclosure with one mortgage origination and amortization was in fact a series of frauds, usury and unjust enrichment engineered to appear invisible in plain sight with a brilliant benefit that was built in to, like a magician, divert the eye from the real trick. Now, as it concerns one family, there are averments, details and sections (largely regarding the foreclosure fraud allegation and those attendant counts herein) that concern only that family but are symbols or a sample size of a practice, pattern and systemic implementation of a conscious financial crime of collection of debt no longer owned and thus any loss precludes being injured, a crime which affects millions of families, not just one, not just mine, the plaintiffs family. Therefore, while certain aspects of this case are microscopic evidentiary details regarding parts of our injury as to fraud upon us and the court, who is also a co-defendant for inadvertent and unintentional but nonetheless repeated and negligent complicity and failure to check or limit a federally and 49 state investigated bank or verify the validity of the claims made by them when seeking the ultimate civil award- ones largest asset- ones HOME. So, this complaint will be divided into these sections: 1. SUMMARY OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION 2. SUMMARY OF NOVEL TRILLION DOLLAR USURY COUNT 3. SUMMARY OF MULTI-FACETED FRAUD COUNTS 4. SUMMARY OF CONSPIRACY, RACKETEERING & PRICE FIXING 5. SUMMARY OF INJURY TO US AND ALL AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS 6. MECHANICS OF MONEY & UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 7. STATE and FEDERAL COUNTS ITEMIZATIONS

JURISDICTION 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. VENUE 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

The nature of any injunctive relief that should be afforded to the class to prevent continuation of the wrongful conduct of defendants. Whether 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. Defendant CHASE is a corporation with principal place of business in Ohio, New York and transacted business in this district. Collectively two defendants identified are referred to here as J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan Chase subsidiaries affiliates are in business of origination and servicing of securities and 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 law firms that aided and abetted legal frauds. They are firms in New York and PA partnerships that I aver fraudulently represent Chase, and finally, there is the defendant Chester County Justice/Courts. Chester County Court System as it is a PA county agency municipal entity. For this Complaint, all may be referred to as Defendants and only Chase as Bank and Chase and counsel as foreclosing defendants. SUMMARY CHAIN OF EVENTS 1) Chase makes a loan which is only credit- no consideration. 2) Chase does not sign any contract with us. 3) Chase misrepresents material facts about loan and interest 4) Chase sells Note legally but fails to disclose or record assignment until last year AFTER they obtained a bogus default judgment. 5) We stop paying in late 2008 and Chase forecloses (09-05543) but dismisses case. Chase stops sending bills and we hear nothing for a lost 2 years. 6) Chase forum shops and files foreclosure again without reference by law to related case. Chase fails to attach elements to complaint. Credit report reflects only 33 payments delinquent. 7) Chase conspires with counsel and even colludes with HSBC (2nd mortgage) to assign and arrange for a shadow sheriff sale since HSBC did not foreclose within time limits. 8) Chase knowingly commits fraud as they bold faced (and unchecked0 file verifications, affidavits and other evidence that is manufactured, altered or completely fraudulent, and fail to disclose, admit or deny (or address) smoking gun assignment to SASCO 4XS 9) Chase knows they have no standing and inflicts intentionally emotion distress upon my family resulting in wife leaving due to stress of ongoing foreclosure They do this for 6 years, dragging it on (2 year delay, then 9 month delay after 2nd case filing with no replies to preliminary motions

10) Chases counsel instrument of fraud- co-conspirators in crime. County innocent inefficient and indifferent municipal operation who failed to provide the duet process they exist to provide citizens of county/state/country. 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 and also 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. THE NOVEL COUNT 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. How much higher than the 6.25% advertised on loan documents? Well, in year one, about 580% and year 5 107% and in year 30 it is in fact 6.25%... THE 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. 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 from THE MATRIX.

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. 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 30-year 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. LEGAL DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR CIVIL CASES: THE 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 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. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE & ABUSE OF PROCESS This is not an allegation but a truth, as the assignment I discovered filed without notice last year by Chase proves the 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. (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 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. COUNT 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 These six years. 2 These two cases (one with thousands of pages of discovery) 3 The research and the law learning 4 The opportunity cost it tolled on me- rendering me a dependent impotent- as I was unable to look for work as I was a professional pro se litigant 5 The stress was immeasurable 6 Health- my wife got severe depression and I lost 100 pounds 7 My wife descended into such a 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 8 She had a silent breakdown; she was advised by a psychiatrist to get a divorce due to foreclosure and last fall she indeed 9 My wife left the home and marriage as she said it symbolized the stress it inflicted. 10 All of this was ignored by the County Court- no one asked Chase to prove anything. How can you put a number on 6 years of not working? How can you put a price on marriage? How can you put a price on peace of mind and on happiness? Was Chase 100% responsible for our pain and suffering? No- but for most of it.

Say 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 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 (a million per year) trebled and unencumbered title to home for this false attack on my family 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. What rate would I 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%. Everyone was stunned and silenced. It seemed consumers were well aware that mortgage interest is usurious but no one seemed to have any idea just how front-end loaded it really is.

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 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 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 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. So why is the USA allowing this? 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 multi-billion 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. It is a never ending cycle as people continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime. Go 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 a payment or partial payment of interest 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 and there are indeed ACTUAL DAMAGES IN TORT EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL AMORTIZATION Lets use one last example- THE EASIEST ONE OF ALL. 360k loan. 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) We use this why? BECAUSE in 360 PAYMENTS we can easily see how Principal of 360k can be repaid $1000 a month and The Interest can be paid at a rate of $1001.33 a month

S U M M A R Y Payments (360) TOTAL P & I $2,001.33 $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

Date Principal Interest Escrow Balance BALANCES IF LEGAL 2014 $5,021.03 $18,994.97 $0.00 $354,978.97 348k 2015 $5,294.23 $18,721.77 $0.00 $349,684.75 336k 2016 $5,582.29 $18,433.70 $0.00 $344,102.45 324k 2017 $5,886.04 $18,129.96 $0.00 $338,216.42 312k 2018 $6,206.30 $17,809.69 $0.00 $332,010.11 300k (30k difference Year 5) 2019 $6,544.00 $17,472.00 $0.00 $325,466.11 288k 2020 $6,900.07 $17,115.93 $0.00 $318,566.04 276k 2021 $7,275.51 $16,740.48 $0.00 $311,290.53 264k 2022 $7,671.38 $16,344.61 $0.00 $303,619.15 252k (50k difference Year 10) 2023 $8,088.80 $15,927.20 $0.00 $295,530.35 240k 2024 $8,528.92 $15,487.07 $0.00 $287,001.43 228k 2025 $8,992.99 $15,023.00 $0.00 $278,008.44 216k 2026 $9,482.32 $14,533.68 $0.00 $268,526.12 204k 2027 $9,998.26 $14,017.73 $0.00 $258,527.86 192k 2028 $10,542.28 $13,473.71 $0.00 $247,985.58 180k 2029 $11,115.91 $12,900.09 $0.00 $236,869.67 168k 2030 $11,720.74 $12,295.25 $0.00 $225,148.93 156k (75k difference Year 20) 2031 $12,358.48 $11,657.51 $0.00 $212,790.44 144k 2032 $13,030.93 $10,985.07 $0.00 $199,759.51 132k 2033 $13,739.96 $10,276.03 $0.00 $186,019.55 120k 2034 $14,487.58 $9,528.42 $0.00 $171,531.98 108k 2035 $15,275.87 $8,740.13 $0.00 $156,256.11 96k 2036 $16,107.05 $7,908.94 $0.00 $140,149.06 84k 2037 $16,983.46 $7,032.53 $0.00 $123,165.60 72k 2038 $17,907.56 $6,108.44 $0.00 $105,258.04 60k 2039 $18,881.94 $5,134.06 $0.00 $86,376.10 48k 2040 $19,909.33 $4,106.66 $0.00 $66,466.77 36k 2041 $20,992.63 $3,023.36 $0.00 $45,474.14 24k 2042 $22,134.87 $1,881.12 $0.00 $23,339.27 12k 2043 $23,339.27 $676.73 $0.00 $0.00 0k

PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAID Totals $360,000.00 $360,479.86 $760,479.86 $1000 should go every month to principal/equity $1001.33 should go to interest due (the alternate equity accumulation and principal reduction listed on right side of table) BUT LOOK ABOVE AT THE STRUCTURE OF FRONT LOADING AND RECALL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SIMPLICITY I AM NOT RECALCULATING THE INTEREST AS PER FASTER REDUCED PRINCIPAL- I AM USING THE GROSS INTEREST DUE See how the first payment awards about $9 rather than $1000 to equity? Each year, the consumer pays $10,792 but a different portion of 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 new dynamic Principal to Interest ratio in the first years is 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 I 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. AND REMEMBER- THE INTEREST WOULD LOWER ALONG WITH THE PREDICTABLE REDUCTION IN PRINCIPAL AS WELL. 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 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. THEREFORE, THE CRIME IS 1) USURY 2) FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DYNAMIC RATIO 3) THE ARTIFICIAL SUSPENSION OF PRINCIPAL BALANCE TO INCREASE YIELD WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONSPIRACY AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND 4) THE ARTIFICIAL SUSPENSION OF AGGREGATE INTEREST DUE AS PER PRINCIPAL ARTIFICIALLY REPAID SLOWLY AS PER GRAPH BELOW

$2,001.33 $720,479.86 Sep, 2034 Total monthly payment Total of 360 payments Payoff date

Date Principal Interest Balance

Oct, 2004 $408.33 $1,593.00 $359,591.67 Nov, 2004 $410.14 $1,591.19 $359,181.53 Dec, 2004 $411.95 $1,589.38 $358,769.57

2004 $1,230.43 $4,773.57 $358,769.57 Jan, 2005 $413.78 $1,587.56 $358,355.80 Feb, 2005 $415.61 $1,585.72 $357,940.19 Mar, 2005 $417.45 $1,583.89 $357,522.74 Apr, 2005 $419.29 $1,582.04 $357,103.44 May, 2005 $421.15 $1,580.18 $356,682.29 Jun, 2005 $423.01 $1,578.32 $356,259.28 Jul, 2005 $424.89 $1,576.45 $355,834.39 Aug, 2005 $426.77 $1,574.57 $355,407.63 Sep, 2005 $428.65 $1,572.68 $354,978.97 Oct, 2005 $430.55 $1,570.78 $354,548.42 Nov, 2005 $432.46 $1,568.88 $354,115.97 Dec, 2005 $434.37 $1,566.96 $353,681.60

2005 $5,087.97 $18,928.02 $353,681.60

This gives a sense of gross disparity, when it should be $1000.00 and $1001.33, fixed.

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. 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 channeling 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 actually 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 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 is the central global clearinghouse for the falsified securities that caused the collapse itself. Its 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. CHASE IS AN ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATION WITH BANKING ACTIVITIES Organized crime, organized crime, and criminal organizations are terms that 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 appear legitimate like, say, a bank and people do business with them, and they exploit those customers in a subtle invisible way unlike when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for so-called "protection"- but no less injurious.

Chase is an example of the evolution of organized crime as it became disciplined enough to be organized as A CORPORATION and respect was automatic and indictments, overlooked. Chase and other banks that can be proven to have knowingly committed crimes of financial nature should under the law be considered organized.

Why?

Other organizationsincluding states, militaries, police forces, and corporationsmay sometimes use organized crime methods to conduct their business, but their powers derive from their status as social institutions. Chase is run by brilliant sociopaths, indeed.

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 and it is unfair and an example of corruption and apathy. 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.

Chase and Jaime Dimon are business oligarchs, simply.

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 But times change, and now formerly straight and clean operations have been corrupted buy greed and circumstance (2008 crisis). 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.

The statute makes it a federal crime to 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. ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES The scheme works as follows. 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. 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 Class Actions 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 MAY SALE A sale is scheduled for 5/15/14. We seek to stop that pending appeals and actions as this 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 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 serious- arguably as serious- as someone taking away your freedom or even your life. Hence FORECLOSURE is in fact civil capital punishment.

Because the HOME is the foundation of wealth, security and survival for 99% of the world who list 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 us- whether a soccer mom or serial killer. 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, Chase violated 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 is popularly