Consumer complaint received 2021-07-15
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Mortgage debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
Dear CFPB, Please find my Complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( a pretender Servicer ) and JP Morgan Chase for illegal collection of debt which I do not owe ; and my request to extend forbearance on my non-existing " loan account " where I transfer all my money to JP Morgan via XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX as a tax-free revenue after JP Morgan deceptively obtained from me a license to use my personal information in their securitization scheme started in XXXX with original owners, XXXX XXXX whom JP Morgan deceptively paid a commission of {$200000.00} for starting a first round of securitizaiton scheme. 

XXXX XXXX issued an Order to extend forbearances for six months of additional mortgage payment forbearance, in three-month increments, for borrowers who entered forbearance on or before XX/XX/XXXX. 

I clearly qualify for this Order and request CFPB to help with my extension until XX/XX/XXXX since I have nobody else to ask for it and JP Morgan wants to collect more money from me as their tax-free revenue via fake compnaies who pretend to be " servicers '' and " lenders 'XXXX XXXX appeared in XX/XX/XXXX and started to lie relentlessly about " purchasing '' my alleged " loan '' while nobody confirms to be a seller to XXXX. 

As " proof '' of its alleged " ownership '' XXXX sent me two forged Allonges to my Note - both of which are significantly different and illegit. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX new Allonge to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX which was sent to me by XXXX in respond to my Complaint to Florida Attorney General. 

XXXX XXXX " prepared '' an XXXXe to XXXX XXXX Loans on XX/XX/XXXX signed by Collateral Shipper XXXX XXXX. When I asked where XXXX worked and which authority he has to sign any financial documents, nobody was able to respond. 

XXXX deny this transfer while XXXX has no idea when they transferred my " loan ''. 

But Allonge of my Note means XXXX transferred " ownership '' of my alleged " loan '' on my closing day to XXXX XXXX XXXX who became the new " owner '' of my alleged " obligation '' while bear to repeat, XXXX vehemently deny it. 

The legal requirement for enforcement of a promissory note consists of possession plus authority granting the entitlement to enforce the note. Who can grant that authority? The answer must be the owner of the underlying obligation or someone who represents the owner of the underlying obligation. In either event, the owner of the underlying obligation must be identified. 

Here are NO owner of underling obligation was ever identified in my situation. Only lies, forgery and absurd runarounds. 

The playbook for the banks consists of wearing out the homeowner with strategies that misdirect attention from the real issue - who is the Holder in DUE COURSE. 

This Allonge # 1 was sent to me by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, after I contacted XXXX XXXX. 

After XXXX XXXX who apparently retained " ownership '' between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX until XXXX 's " nominee MERS '' hired XXXX to " assign '' my " mortgage '' to XXXX who said that they " purchased '' my loan in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX " - I submitted my complaint with Florida AG XXXX has no idea who hired their company - or instructed to conceal who is their client ( XXXXXXXX XXXX and JP Morgan and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX 's employees who call themselves " XXXX XXXX '' sent me a brand new Allonge # XXXX purportedly prepared by " XXXX Mortgage '' on XX/XX/XXXX where XXXX Mortgage transferred my alleged " loan '' to XXXX XXXX Loans, XXXX This Allonge # 2 is substantially different from Allonge # 1 provided by you on behalf of " your client '' XXXX since it completely lacks any authorized signatures. 

I guess " XXXX '' who sent me Allonge # 1 with stamped signature of " Collateral Shipper XXXX XXXX '' is on vacation or quit, so, the new " XXXX '' did not know about this Allonge and which was likely removeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  from their document forgery system XXXX, so, this XXXX sent me a new Allonge # 2 along with an absurd letter full of lies, as usual. 

Worth to mention, these are lies to Florida AG, after XXXX relentlessly lie to CFPB. 

According to HUD 's Rules, ALL endorsements must be on the Note first, with authorized signatures. Alloges are only allowed to be used if the Original Note has no more space for signatures. Each signature must state the name and the title of the person who signed it. 

According to XXXX, XXXX, who claimed to be a " Lender '' ( until XXXX transferred " ownership '' to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, must pool all loans into XXXX XXXX 's Trusts and issue securities which XXXX as a Lender sells to investors. 
Every trust must have these elements : Trust agreement : A trustor or settlor : A trustee : Beneficiaries who are identified and named : Some legally recognized interest, property or investment that has been entrusted to the trustee to manage on behalf of the beneficiaries. 
I many times asked XXXX to give me these documents but XXXX was never able to answer it. 

However, XXXX claims to be an " issuer '' of securities backed by my alleged " loan '' - while the Lender as you said was XXXX. 

XXXX did not claimed to be a " Lender '' but XXXX XXXX 's Senior VP XXXX XXXX insisted that the Issuer was XXXX. 

XXXX, XXXX and XXXX all agreed that they are " Servicers '' for someone XXXX the owner of the Debt ) whom none of them can identify. In other words, I have three Servicers and no one Master who is the owner of the alleged debt. 

Can you contact XXXX and ask which Allonge must be permanently attached to my note ; where is the Note and why XXXX did not endorsed it as required by HUD 's Rules? 

Who was an authorized officer at XXXX Mortgage who was in charge of all these " transfers '' ; and who is holder in due cause who has my Original Note and proof of purchase from XXXX - along with proof of payment received by XXXX after sale of my alleged " obligation '' Also, ask XXXX to identify XXXX XXXX 's Trust where XXXX XXXX pooled my " loan '' and identify Investors to whom XXXX as a Lender issued and sold securities. 

XXXX XXXX 's letter with explanations how XXXX XXXX for instance ) create Trusts and issue securities. 

The truth is - all Companies who appear as " Servicers '' do not do any collection or administration of anyone 's debt. They are hired by XXXX XXXX Bank solely to lie to homeowners. 

99 % of all homeowner transactions, correspondence, notices, response to QWR, response to DVL, and response to forbearance or modification is not generated by the company claiming to be the servicer. 

Although you might direct your letter or payment to the name of the company claiming to be a servicer, it is not received by them. 

Through a network of third-party outsource contracts the actual work of receiving, depositing and disbursing the proceeds of payments is conducted by other companies. 

The actual work of sending responses, correspondence and notices to homeowners is also performed by third parties. I have proof for it. 

And the work of accounting for payments is performed by the companies that actually received those payments not the apparent servicer. 

Those third-party companies are subject to agreements for contract administration. Some of them are referred to as corridor agreements ( most commonly with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX None of the third parties are subject to the control, instruction or ownership of the company that is pretending to be a servicer. Even the call center is usually manned by non -employees or contractors of the apparent servicer. 

When I call XXXX 's automated line, their answering system says that they do not have records of my " loan ''. I recorded their messages. 

The illusion is complete. The apparent servicer is a third party to everything about the homeowner transaction but it looks like it is in charge. 

Since several different companies perform different tasks that are attributed to the apparent servicer, and those companies do not communicate with each other, the responses I get are inconsistent and even relate to the wrong transactions. 

It will also not be the response of an actual servicer as the term is generally understood i.e., the company that receives and disburses money from payments received from homeowners. 

The structure requires one company to receive the payment, another company to account for it and still another to disburse and account for that function. 

There is no signature on most correspondence I received ( or electronic signatures ) because there is very little human intervention in the process. That creates a seemingly airtight argument for plausible deniability for mistakes. 

The bottom line is that I am not corresponding with or communicating with the company claiming to be a servicer. 

The same with alleged " servicing of escrow '' - these money are also stolen by XXXX XXXX Banks. If nobody has an account receivable for alleged " loans '' - they have nowhere to deposit your escrow money. 

As the result, ALL taxes and home insurances are paid from XXXX XXXX 's operation pools which consist from investors money - aka your Pension Funds. 

A common example to look for is who is paying the taxes. If it is XXXX, something is up. It obviously does not claim to be a creditor or a servicer. So, why XXXX would pay for the taxes if XXXX is supposedly just a computer processing company? 

The entire " lending '' industry for the past two decades has been one elaborate fraudulent scheme and basically mostly a Ponzi Scheme operated by major XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks and direct heinous fraud against homeowners who were brainwashed to think that they " borrowed '' some money to buy a home. 

The real issue in any action to enforce a note or enforce a lien is very simple. It is about money. 

More specifically about money owed. 

It is not about games to play to get money because the note or mortgage exists. it is about collecting an unpaid debt. 

Unless there is a debt and unless the debt is unpaid and unless the debt is due to the claimant there can be no claim or any demands for any payments. 

Why would anyone want to give money to someone just because they know about the original promise to pay money. 

Knowledge is valuable to be sure, but the homeowner is under no obligation to pay for that knowledge, since he/she already has it, to wit : a promise to pay was issued at origination of the transaction. 

But that promise was made in the context of what the homeowner believed to be a loan transaction with a specific lender who had a risk of loss on the transaction, just like the homeowner. 

If the promise was made without knowledge of the full details of the elements of the deal, then the homeowner is entitled to Full disclosure and participation in the entire deal, not just part of it. 

But the homeowner does not know what happened to that promise after he or she issued it. 

Since the counterparty to the transaction with the homeowner consists of a group of companies intending to make a profit on the sale of securities, the intent of the homeowner and the intent of the counterparty ( ies ) is entirely different. 

If the homeowner is excluded from the securities scheme then there is no consideration for the issuance of the promissory note. If the homeowner is included in the securities scheme, then the issuance of the note was an investment into the security scheme, for which the homeowner was entitled to compensation. 

That leaves open the question of the amount of compensation to which the homeowner might be entitled. as payment to the homeowner for starting the highly profitable securities scheme. 

XXXX XXXX '' benefit of homeowners ' signature on the Note is simple. 

For example, they sell {$2.00} XXXX worth of " certificates '' on the data from the origination of the first transaction with the homeowner. 

In my situation this first transaction was likely {$200000.00} " Mortgage '' to the prior owner by JP Morgan Chase in XXXX who started this securitization scheme. 

Then without disturbing the securitization structure the new sale or offer to refinance means new data. 

The new data is then the subject of a new sale for {$2.00} XXXX in " certificates ''. 

Since the investment bank is taking in {$2.00} XXXX but only paying out, at most, around {$1.00} XXXX they made an immediate " trading profit '' of {$600.00} XXXX on the first securities deal and then another {$2.00} XXXX on the second securities deal. 

The second securities deal required no payment to the homeowner because that payment had already been made. 

In other words, in my situation no financing was necessary at all - from XXXX or anyone else - since I signed documents which looked as " Mortgage '' which was undisclosed purchase from me by JP Morgan a license to use my information ( data ) to continue securitization scheme started by JP Morgan with XXXX in XXXX. 

This is why my mailbox was full of refinancing offers - JP Morgan needs new data to issue new securities by pushing me into a refinancing, preferably under predatory terms. 

If there is a third, fourth and fifth round of securitization based upon data that is based upon the first deal only, the profits of the investment bank rise to many multiples of the first deal, which is the only deal in which money is paid out to homeowners. 

And in some cases that is exactly what happened -- - after paying out {$1.00} XXXX to homeowners masqueraded as " loans '', the investment bank ended up with direct profits of more than {$10.00} XXXX -- - all without ever becoming the lender in a regulated loan transaction. 

Then you have the derivatives sold whose value is based upon the " value '' of the certificates that were sold. You can easily see why some brokerage houses were ensnared by leveraging since they were, for the first time, leveraging revenue. 

By borrowing 42 times the net worth of XXXX XXXX management thought they would be making hundreds of billions of dollars. And they would have if the fake trading market for certificates had not come to a grinding halt in XXXX. 

Instead, the selling topped and like any XXXX XXXX so did the " XXXX. '' And who made all of this possible? Gullible investors which include homeowners and pension funds. 

How much revenue did the investors ever see or receive from this scheme? Zero. 

Investment banks had inverted their role from being a broker to becoming the de facto principal without any of the liability of being a principal. 

Explaining this to the normal average homeowner is a virtually impossible task and that is why there is no collective outrage from homeowners except the self-destructive outrage against themselves. 

They're left paralyzed by the deceit promoted by XXXX XXXX Banks who operate this XXXX scam. 
The latest announcement from XXXX that it is selling servicing rights is an example of the con. It is a simple announcement that it is selling its servicing rights to the newly created XXXX a company that would not exist at all if it were not for an IPO that raised money for it to buy the servicing rights presumably sold but not warranted by XXXX. 

This is simply another one of thousands of announcements of transactions over three decades in which XXXX XXXX investment banks created, maintained, and promoted the illusion that any part of their claim of securitization of debt was ever true. 

The plain truth is that no asset ( debt is an asset ) is securitized unless it is sold in a real-world transaction in which the purchaser paid value in exchange for documents conveying ownership of the underlying obligation ( from someone who owns it ). 

This does not happen in residential mortgage loans. 

Best regards, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation