FRAUD ON THE COURT SYSTEM BY CHASE BANK

THIS IS SOME OF THE FRAUD THAT WENT ON IN THIS CASE. THIS IS CONSIDERED EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND FRAUD ON THE COURT.


You, the reader need to look at the items that were presented to the Court system and make your own determination on the Ethics of Chase Bank, JP Morgan. Do you really want to do business with thieves and liars in the financial market place of today. Al Capone, John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson would be proud of the way that Chase coerced the Judge into this foreclosure without any proof of ownership, the service of the notice (or lack of service) or the right to bring the suit to court. Please see the papers below. The first one is the one that tells the court that the bank owns the mortgage look at section N notice they left the document number blank and then notice the payment date compared with their right to collect date of November 2000 which was published earlier.

(I) Both the legal description of the mortgaged real estate and the common address or other

information sufficient to identify it with reasonable certainty:

LOTS 15 AND 16 IN THOMAS ESTATES, A SUBDWISION OF PART OF THE

SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 28,.

TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE THIRD RM., MASON COUNTY,

ILLINOIS, AS SHOWN BY PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 48.

COMMONLY KNOWN AS:

24101 N. Tanya Court

Manito, IL 61546

TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 672000

(J) Statements as to defaults: Mortgagors have not paid the monthly installments of

principal, taxes, interest and insurance for 12/01/99, through the present; the principal

balance due on the Note and Mortgage is $215,716.06, plus interest, costs, advances and

fees. Interest accrues at a per diem rate of $62.06.

(K) Name of present owner(s) of said premises:

Debra

(L) Names of other persons who are joined as defendants and whose interest in or lien on the

mortgaged real estate is sought to be terminated and alleged to be subordinate and inferior to

the mortgage of the Plaintiff:

(M) Names of persons who executed the Note, Assumption Agreement(s), or Personal

Guarantee which are attached hereto:

Debra

(N) Capacity in which Plaintiff brings this foreclosure: Plaintiff is the legal holder of the

indebtedness by virtue of the fact that it is the original mortgagee or, if applicable, by virtue

of the following:

Assignment recorded as document number:

Bank One, N.A.

Facts in support of a redemption period shorter than the longer of 7 months from the

date the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the mortgagors have been served with summons.

or by publication or have otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, or 3 months

from the entry of the judgment of foreclosure, whichever is later, if sought:

Unless otherwise alleged, Plaintiff will pray for a shortened redemption period after the filing

of the instant foreclosure action by separate petition if a shortened redemption period is

sought.

(P) Statement that the right of redemption has been waived by all owners of redemption:

There has been no executed waiver of redemption by all owners of redemption, however

Plaintiff alleges that it is not precluded from accepting such a waiver of redemption by the

filing of this complaint.

Page 2 of 5

The next documents are the sheriffs instructions for service to the defendants Please notice the hand written note on page 2 giving the Banks attorney the location for service to the defendant.

Although knowing the defendants location as stated on the sheriffs report no notice of hearing or suit was served on the defendants at any time. The attorney did however swear to the court that all efforts were used to find and serve the defendants. This is one instance of fraud on the court system. By perpetrating the fraud on the court, the Bank used the court system to deprive the defendants of a fair and balanced hearing as guaranteed by our constitutional rights. They also deprived the defendants of their rights to be safe and secure in their home without unlawful search and seizure. The bank by bringing the fraud on the court in the beginning of the case, actually stops the case at that point. Any thing that transpired after the fact, is vacated in the court when extrinsic fraud is proven to keep a defendant from a fair hearing.