13M30
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL.
V.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
The motion for leave to intervene to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion.
REUTERS-
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that banks sued by the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency over mortgage-backed securities that were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cannot appeal a preliminary lower court ruling.
In 2011, the FHFA sued 18 banks, including Barclays Plc , Bank of America Corp, Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc and JPMorgan Chase & Co, accusing them of violating securities laws by misleading Fannie and Freddie about $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities they purchased.
The Supreme Court said that banks involved in 13 lawsuits in the same U.S. district court that have yet to be settled did not have permission to seek review of a New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from April.
[REUTERS]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Let’s folks put the case brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency against J P Morgan Chase Bank in perspective. No doubt for the reason that Chase is one of our largest financial institutions, Chase has enjoyed remarkable success before courts of the United States as it pertains to Chase’s fraudulent servicer and foreclosure schemes involving mortgage notes originated by former Washington Mutual Bank. Federal Housing Finance Agency vs. Chase has taught us that former Washington Mutual Bank sold and/or transfer a huge number of its mortgage notes to various trusts prior to its being taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This fact should foreclose Chase Bank’s stance that the FDIC had placed in receivership every note ever originated by Washington Mutual Bank. it should therefore refute Chase Bank’s ability to establish ownership of a Washington Mutual note strictly by the Purchase and Assumption Agreement executed between the FDIC and Chase regarding the Washington Mutual assets purchased by Chase from the FDIC. That Chase did not assume ownership of every note ever originated by Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC takeover, should prompt the courts to take a closer look as Article III, Section 3.3 of the infamous purchase and assumption agreement. That part of the agreement, done in caps, specifies that all notes transferred by the FDIC to Chase was done so by a “receiver’s deed” executed by the FDIC in favor of Chase Bank. Chase nationwide has been enabled to establish ownership of former Washington Mutual notes it claims having purchased from the FDIC, without having to prove purchase by the requisite receiver’s deed. If the truth be told, Chase has and continues to take fraudulent advantage of the fiasco of former Washington Mutual Bank who has lost account of the notes it packaged and sold to trusts and/or parts unknown. While lying about ownership interests in Washington Mutual notes, Chase and its attorneys do not have to be bothered with someone finding the notes sent by WAMU to places and parts unknown. The only distressing thing here however are the courts that have nullified the UCC in order for Chase to maintain standing to enforce notes it absolutely do not own.