RE : VP XXXX : MUFG Union BankXX/XX/XXXX MEMORANDUM Subject : Financial Elder Abuse MUFG Union Bank, XXXX XXXX CA TO : Dept of Justice Public Inquiry Unit ; XXXX XXXX File XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX   XXXX  Introduction : A mortgage involves two parties ; a trust deed involves three parties : a Borrower ( the Trustor ), a Lender ( the Beneficiary ), and the title company, escrow company, or bank ( Trustee ) that holds title to the lien for the benefit of the lender and whose sole function is to initiate and complete the foreclosure process at the request of the lender. When the Beneficiary and the Trustor are the same, the Bank is the beneficiary. In a foreclosure process the Bank will tend to be both judge and jury. This places the Bank is a powerful position ;. Union initiates a false foreclosure and benefit from the outcomes. You are placed in a vulnerable position in relation to the Bank.This encourages the Bank to be aggressive and reluctant to negotiate billing disputes ; and encourages the pace of false billing. In our experience, Union Bank will employ extortion by false foreclosure as a more efficient solution than dispute resolution.

1. A fixed rate option Plan can be either a trust deed or a mortgage ; but a mortgage is not a trust deed. It is always a mortgage. But a product called Fixed Rate Optiondoes n't even rate a passing mention. It is not a real product, but a general statement about a class of products that do appear in the Glossary. Under the Transfer Agreement the Consumer has an equitable right to choose his prefered option. But under the Banks wilful insistence to both offer and choose, there is no equitable contract. And in fact despite the illusion of Transfer, nothing is transferred. The original equity account will not be closed, but maintained and used. It order for the Transfer to be equitable, the Bank must respect the right of the Consumer to make the choice.That is the meaning of the word Option. But the Bank refuses to recognize the right of the Consumer to choose, which is inherent in the Agreement. Unfortunately, there was no identifying, recognizable label that identified it as a HELOC ; it was simply presented as a Fixed Rate Option by XXXX. He fraudulently substituted a HELOC for the mortgage. requested by Plaintiffs. The XXXX Tax Statement, ( attached ) issued by the Bank, in 2018, unambiguously depicted the Plaintiffs account as a mortgage.There 's obviously a conflict. Plaintiffs were lulled into believing they had a mortgage. But It can not be both a Mortgage and HELOC. It is one or the other. The contract is inherently flawed ; it must be considered void, for incoherent.

2.FTC Act, Section 5. An agreement based on a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead is unconscionable. A contract may be found to be unconscionable based on several different factors :.

3.Why is the HELAOC so critical to the Banks business strategy that it will lie, cheat and misrepresent to customers? The term Fixed Rate Option, on a monthly statement title, turns out not be be an option, at all, but simply an extension of the closed equity account, something we never agreed to ; a false filing ; yet XXXX   insists that there is no other choice except to bend the knee. And while we were questioning, the account has somehow morphed into three accounts, with slightly different numbers, all variations of an equity account statement closed last year! And XXXX XXXX  in the Vice President 's office states that it is the way accounting is done by the Bank, and there's no other choice because you were fooled by XXXX.

You may never know how payments are allocated, or chopped up to create partial payments that generate penalties, interest and negative amortization ; ad infinitum. These misrepresentations are bared by California Financial Senior Abuse Codes 368, 484,482,115,487 ; 368 ( d ) and as well as Identity Theft, But apparently XXXX believes that she has impunity because the phony contract has an arbitration clause and it provides laissez faire. In a letter datedXX/XX/XXXX, she states that she is willing to correct the Bank 's false charges with a back dated fixed rate of {$800.00} ; but when Plaintiff asks to track a payment that was not due inXX/XX/XXXX, she will not respond, but states that the payment dated XX/XX/XXXXfor XXXX was not considered! ( in retaliation for having complained to the XXXX ) the lost payment has disappeared from her radar. Crimes and Criminal Procedure ; theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by Bank Officer ( US Code Title 18. ) In the capacity of Assistant to the Vice President XXXX XXXX continues to insist that the Bank has an inherent right to fabricate accounts.

XXXX XXXX, their accountant, creates new rules for the benefit of the Bank, and is a valued employee. She writes in her letter of XX/XX/XXXX, When we transfer balance ... we transfer the principal balance only and any unpaid interest remains on the principal balance. False fact! The Disclosures actually state, when your line of credit draw period ends your monthly payments ... will consist of principal and interest to fully amortize the outstanding balance ( XXXX  ). And contrary to US Code Title 18 Although many of the Banks accounting practices are contrary to GAAP, the standard, as well as the Banks Disclosures, XXXX states that..the Bank doesn't accept current payments if past disputed interest payments are still due. A rule invented by XXXX, to facilitate splitting payments among several fabricated accounts in order to charge penalty and interest. Several fabricated accounts which shuffle credits and payments, hide charges and confuse customers with unprecedented accounting fraud. Blatant violations of PC 115 ; 115.5 ; PC 950 ( grand theft via false foreclosure ) ; PC 368 ( senior abuse ), and equitable estoppel, to prevent the Bank from taking unfair advantage of seniors when through false language or conduct ; the person to be stopped has induced another person to act in a certain way, which resulted in the other person injured in some way.

The criminal actions of the bank are an undue burden. They will do anything that they can get away with.

. Undue Influence : VP XXXX  abused our trust while he exercised unreasonable pressure, and the threat of rising interest rates to obtain Agreement. He misinformed Plaintiffs, did not provide a meaningful disclosure of various other credit terms ; so that the Plaintiffs were not able to compare more readily the various available credit terms and loan options.

.Duress : VP XXXX used the threats of pending interest rate increases, he stressed that time was of the essence, in order to obtain agreement XXXX insisted that it was a traditional mortgage.. The wolf comes dressed as a wolf.

C.Unequal Bargaining Power : VP XXXX took unreasonable advantage of the Plaintiffs. XXXX was aware that they obviously did not understand the contract terms, and that the contract represented a HELOC, not a traditional mortgage.

D.Unfair Surprise : XXXX falsely claimed that the term, Fixed Rate Option Plan, was the term the Bank used to describe a traditional mortgage. It was bait and switch to a HELOC. He made material misrepresentations in bad faith.The choice of account is designed and orchestrated by the Bank to keep customers in a state of high anxiety so that they become prey to false billing, which generates penalty and interest charges to the consumer and benefits to the Bank. The false charges begin with questionable small amounts that would have ordinarily gone to Small Claims Court for disposition. For example, Plaintiffs closed the Equity account onXX/XX/XXXX, nevertheless the Bank would not process the closure date until the end of XX/XX/XXXX. When queried, the Bank replied because that's the Bank policy, period. Although the Transfer Agreement states, Any day that a portion of your account balance is transferred to a new ... Fixed Rate Option Plan is a fixed rate option transfer date. The Bank tried to keep the customer in a state of anxiety. The use of non-judicial foreclosure notices to resolve disputes about false billings was particularly effective. It was used to extort unverified charges. It is fraud in the factum, The Bank must have strategized that by increasing the anxiety level of elders, it would train them, eventually, to pay without question to avoid harassment. A brainwashing to achieve the conditioned response leading to total compliance.

E.Misrepresentation : VPXXXX XXXX   knew that his statements were false ; but he intended to have the Plaintiffs rely on his statements ; and after several high pressure sessions, by raising the Plaintiff 's levels of anxiety ; he achieved the result : the Plaintiffs did rely on the misrepresentations.

The Bank further clouded the issue by misrepresenting the account as a mortgage. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the Plaint believed that he had a mortgage. Until in XX/XX/XXXX, when he received a foreclosure notice as result of a dispute over a false charge. The Bank could have gone to arbitration, but elected instead for file for foreclosure to steal the house. The Notice alerted Plaintiffs that they had been misinformed ; that the account a HELOC. It lacked judicial safeguards.They were extorted, harmed by this imposition. It was a timed technique, beginning with false charges too small to pursue they would soon snowball into substantial claims. Plaintiffs queries were ignored until the Bank apparently believed that the dollar amount had reached the level of enlightenment.

F. Undue Influence : This is where the Bank exercised unreasonable pressure in order to press the Plaintiffs to sign the contract.Where VP XXXX took advantage of the Plaintiffs age, and vulnerability. The regime of Identity Theft and false filings kicked in. For example, although the Bank had a direct draw agreement on Plaintiffs checking account to pay monthly bills, the Bank maliciously neglected and finally refused to do so. This enabled the Bank to dun for late payments and penalties enriching the Bank further still. In retrospect the foreclosure notice is seen as malicious prosecution for a wrongful purpose ; clearly meant to intentionally inflict emotional and financial distress.

G. Illegal practices : Elder Abuse statutes and US Code Title 18 Sec.1005 ; As noted, Plaintiffs had been led astray by the yearly tax statement of the Bank , that identified the account as a Mortgage. Plaintiffs now recognize that they were victims of a bait and switch.Nothing prepared the Plaintiffs shock when learning that they were caught in a HELOC. The Bank had revived the closed equity account, for billing purposes, and added two more fictional, unpurposed accounts, with which to play their game of Whack the Mole with payments that were only partially credited, the balance placed in the fictitious accounts in order to generate further penalties and interest.. An abuse specifically targeted by Title 18. This is similar to the XXXX XXXX smackdown. Where redress is a matter of public policy, H.Unfair Surprise : When the party who creates the contract includes a term in the contract without the other parties knowledge and is not within the other parties expectations ; as the term, Fixed Rate Option Plan was falsely represented by XXXX as a Traditional Mortgage. it is axiomatic that no offer can be accepted unless offeree knows what he has accepted. Although the Plaintiffs requested clarification several times after signing, none was forthcoming until the filing of the Foreclosure. Plaintiffs were unlawfully unaware that the switch was made by XXXX. ( Article 2 Uniform Commercial Code. ( UCC 2-209. ) I.Unequal Bargaining Power : This occurs where one party has an unreasonable advantage of the other. It was not until five months later that Plaintiffs became aware of the switch. The Bank is aware that the Plaintiffs did not understand the contract terms. Because the XXXX  Tax Statement sent by the Bank unambiguously depicts the account as a mortgage, this had led us to believe that our instructions had been duly noted and followed. A Fixed Rate Option Plan, mischaracterized by XXXX is a general term for all available options. One of which is the traditional mortgage, which XXXX  concealed. XXXX  falsely represented and omitted to disclose a material fact : the switch was actually.

J.Acting with the intent to deceive and defraud, XXXX mis-stated the meaning of the term Fixed Rate Option. He failed to state that the Bank does not even use this term in its glossary of products, because it is categorical, not a specific product. XXXX falsely claimed that it was how the Bank referred to a mortgage. In fact, it can represent anything all or nothing at all. XXXX took advantage of our age and our trust ( after many years of business banking there ) to deceive Plaintiffs.

1.Federal Felonies : The Bank manufactured several fictitious account numbers, in our names, to facilitate the illegal practice of chopping designated payments into several pieces, instead of crediting them to the proper account. A felony violation of 18 U.S.Code 1005. The so-called segments were employed to extort undocumented payments as the basis of false foreclosure.The false account numbers opened in behalf of Plaintiffs enabled the game of Whack the Mole, as they shifted money around with the intention to stuff the false filings with mis-directed cash ; to be added to profit.

( Bank entries, reports and transactions ; covered felonies under 18 US Code ) .Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization with intent to injure or defraud such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , or any agent or examiner appointed to examine the affairs of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ... [ is in breach of federal regulations ] See also XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX) ( debtor awarded punitive damages of {$3.00} million against Wells Fargo for servicing abuses. Court declared that Wells Fargo exhibited reprehensible actions. The court had previously found that the bank improperly applied payments to interest and fees, instead of principal and improperly charged the debtor more than {$24000.00} in fees. ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX ) 2.California felony statutes : In XX/XX/XXXX the California Legislature required employees of banks to report suspected suspected financial elder abuse. This law was based on the fact that financial institutions typically have the first opportunity to recognize signs of senior fraud. The failure to report suspected abuse subjects the offender to a maximum of {$5000.00} fine. To the contrary, MUFG Union Bank employs elder abuse with hubris, as a policy.

Penal Codes 115 and 115.5 prohibits the filing of false documents, manufacturing alternate accounts cited by XXXX XXXX  as company policy ; Penal Code 950 is grand theft, which the Bank violates in its use of false foreclosure ; Penal Code 368 is especially protective of seniors by mandating triple damages for abuse, a population targeted by the Bank in their advertisements searching for prey. XXXX should be aware that Identity Theft, which she approves of and justifies as Bank policy, now carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and substantial fines.The statutes allow for triple damages in order to discourage elder abuse. XXXX XXXX, Supervisor in Consumer Lending, in response to my complaint exclaimed that it was impossible in a telephone conversation in XX/XX/XXXX ; if the Bank changed its procedures there are over 1000 accounts that would have to be changed.

3.Despite these State and Federal prohibitions, despite Cease and Desist Notices from the Plaintiffs, these practices continue to be standard operating procedures ; with the Bank refusing to cease and desist. Decisions by the Bank which are utterly unreviewable, must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious. The abuse is widespread, acknowledged and approved of ; it is the MUFG Union Bank policy.

Under California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30, plaintiffs must prove several things to show that an older person was exploited. The defendant retained, appropriated, hid or took the property or money of the elderly person or helped someone else with doing so.The older adult was either XXXX or older or was a dependent adult at the time and that the person who took, retained, appropriated or hid the property did so for an unlawful purpose or with the intent to defraud the victim. Finally, the victim suffered harm that was caused by the defendants actions.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX