Fighting Midland Funding & Bursey & Associates since 2013 in federal court pro se!

Category Archives: Baker v. Acarta

MUST READ if you are sued for a Chase account

The OCC press release regarding the  consent agreement with Chase about their collection & litigation practices and failure to comply with the SCRA.
September 19, 2013
Contact: Bryan Hubbard
(202) 649-6870

WASHINGTON – The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today announced an enforcement action against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio, JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A., San Francisco, California, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, the bank), for unsafe or unsound practices in connection with the bank’s non-home loan debt collection litigation practices and the bank’s non-home loan compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

The enforcement action requires the bank to provide remediation to affected consumers and to correct deficiencies in the bank’s practices and procedures related to the preparation and notarization of affidavits and other sworn documents used in the bank’s debt collection litigation and its SCRA compliance program.  The OCC’s action also directs the bank to improve its debt collection litigation policies, procedures and practices to ensure that affidavits and other sworn documents used in connection with non-home loan debt collection litigation are accurate, based on the personal knowledge of the bank employee signing the documents, or other applicable standard, and are notarized in accordance with all applicable legal requirements.

With respect to its SCRA compliance program, the OCC requires the bank to improve its policies and procedures for determining whether servicemembers are eligible for requested SCRA-related benefits, ensuring that the SCRA benefits are calculated correctly, and verifying the military status of servicemembers prior to seeking or obtaining default judgments on non-home loans.

The OCC’s action also directs the bank to conduct a review of all non-home lending debt collection litigation at the bank from January 1, 2009 until present, and all non-home lending SCRA accounts at the bank from January 2005 until present, to identify consumers eligible for remediation as a result of the deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices cited by the OCC.  The bank must submit a plan to the OCC detailing how remediation will be made to affected consumers.  OCC national bank examiners will monitor compliance with this order and the remediation required to be provided by the bank.

The 58-page consent order and stipulation to consent.

In a few weeks we have oral arguments re. standing, admissibility of evidence, joinder of debt buyer Acarta’s attorneys, amendment of my counterclaims and my cross-motion for summary judgment (SOL) in superior court.  If we actually get to trial, I’ll submit this consent order to show that Acarta can’t possibly rely on documentation from Chase.  Acarta didn’t even submit a Chase affidavit and relies only on “facsimiles” of monthly statements and a redacted spreadsheet to establish what I allegedly owe.

Debt buyers like Acarta must be ORDERED to vacate Chase credit card judgments and cease all litigation

The OCC ordered Chase to refund over $300 million to credit card holders who signed up for “fraud protection”.

It goes on and on … and nobody goes to jail!  

I am SO sick and tired of criminal bankers being “punished” by having to refund.  The big corporations defraud the working stiffs with impunity.

I just drafted a CFPB complaint for a client about the Equifax, Experian and CHASE incorrect credit reporting (and a number of other issues) and I will post a lot more about that here next week.  This weekend I have to finish my reply to the Acarta response to my motion for summary judgment (I’ll post the most recent filings ASAP) regarding the expired statue of limitation of an old CHASE charged off credit card.

Next I’ll file my CFPB complaint about the many suits by debt buyers such as Acarta for charged off Chase accounts.

It’s more bad news for JPMorgan Chase.

… The OCC also reprimanded the bank for allegedly using faulty documentation in consumer debt collection cases, and for failing to ensure compliance with federally mandated credit protections for military members.

The alleged conduct is similar to that revealed among the nation’s largest lenders in the robo-signing scandal that followed the housing crisis. JPMorgan was ordered to identify and compensate the affected consumers.

The OCC did not fine JPMorgan over its collection practices. California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a lawsuit against the bank over similar issues in May.

The bank said it had stopped filing credit card collection lawsuits in 2011 and had dismissed the lawsuits in question. …

While Chase stopped filing lawsuits in 2010, it SOLD many accounts to debt buyers who DID file suits.  The AZ court of appeals already ruled that the Card Member Agreement presented by Acarta was not admissible.

It is totally ridiculous to allow a DEBT BUYER to sue for accounts that the original creditor decided NOT to pursue in court because of faulty documentation.

The CFPB needs to put a stop to that practice and order REFUNDS and PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

After all, it is EXTREMELY stressful to be sued.

Not to mention that consumers had their credit ruined by these new judgments and they may have lost job and housing opportunities.

In my case with Acarta, it and its attorneys were FULLY aware of the Chase issues as I included several articles with my motions and appeal brief over a year ago.  Yet, they CONTINUE to pursue me in court and I will take this case wherever it needs to go.  I already prevailed on appeal once and I’m ready to take this to the AZ supreme court if necessary.

Acarta and its attorneys stole 2 years of my life and they will be PUNISHED.

I’ve been meaning to post about our “settlement” talks, hopefully that will be my next post.  I asked for $50,000 at our meeting the morning after Labor Day.   I’d rather take NOTHING than accept a couple thousand.

The American legal system is of course seriously flawed and that pro se litigants can’t get attorneys fees is one of several reasons why consumers can’t stand up to scummy debt buyers.  My roommate decided to move out last year because just as I thought I was done for a while with the legal crap after I submitted my Acarta reply brief to the court of appeals, I got served by Midland Funding.   You can not imagine how many nights I spent researching and writing motions and I was not good company.

If I had more time and money, I’d not only contact regulators and legislators, but I’d also notify the apparently hundreds or even thousands of consumers who were sued by Acarta for Chase accounts.  I haven’t checked the actual court records yet, but apparently Acarta filed numerous judgments in my court and I’ll have to check them out.

It’s truly incredible that our regulators go after Chase, but they let debt buyers get away with these lawsuits and I will make an effort to get Arizona and federal regulators to address these issues.