http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/12/11/high_court_considers_whether_feds_can_make_everyone_a_criminal
Friday, December 11, 2009
High Court Considers Whether Feds Can Make Everyone a Criminal
by Ken Klukowski
What if there was a federal law stating that anytime you owe anyone a duty to be honest and you violate that duty, you’re committing a federal felony? Guess what—there already is. And now the Supreme Court is deciding whether to strike it down.
There’s a federal law on the books called “honest services fraud,” making it a crime to deprive anyone of the “intangible right of honest services.” In other words, if you’re in a relationship where you have a duty to provide a service to someone (government, employer, etc.), and you engage in any sort of deceit resulting in them not getting your honest, good-faith efforts, then you’ve committed a felony that could land you in federal prison for twenty years.
The idea behind the law didn’t start off too badly. Because the federal government provides the U.S. Postal Service, it’s a federal crime to use the U.S. mail to engage in fraud. From that, Congress wanted to go after any fraud where the criminal used the mail service.
But the problem with government is that it tends to expand, including expanding its ability to throw people in jail.
Fortunately, the Constitution provides a check on this power. Often these days, “due process” is used as a catchall to advance any number of legal theories, most of them liberal. But one correct doctrine from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment is that a statute can be “void for vagueness.”
What that means is that one of the principles of our criminal-law system is the concept of “notice.” Although ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law must be written with sufficient clarity that if a particular action is a crime, a citizen who does due diligence into that law should be put on notice that the action he’s thinking of is criminal.
Put otherwise, if a law is so vague that a person can’t tell if a particular action falls within what that law forbids, then the law is so vague that it would violate due process to punish him for breaking it. You can’t justly punish someone if they couldn’t have known that what they did is forbidden.
That was what the Court heard arguments about in two cases on Dec. 8. One was Black v. U.S., where three corporate employees engaged in a fraudulent scheme. The other was Weyhrauch v. U.S., where a state representative in the Alaska legislature engaged in some shady business.
The problem is this: Fraud is already illegal in all fifty states. If you lie, cheat or steal, you can go to prison and be forced to pay restitution. This isn’t about people getting away with doing wrong; district attorneys and state authorities are more than capable of enforcing their state laws to hold dishonest people accountable
The federal government shouldn’t be involved in a law that is so sweeping that everyone reading this column could be thrown in prison. Yet I guarantee you that you’ve violated this law at least once.
The justices clearly got this point. Justice Breyer—the most moderate of the liberals on the Court—posed hypothetical situations such as one where a boss stops by a worker’s cubicle, then the worker lies about focusing on his current work task to get the boss to move on down the office so that the worker can resume looking at race-track forms instead of working. Breyer pointed out that this would deprive the company of “honest services” to the financial loss of the company, and could be prosecuted under this law. Both he and Justice Sotomayor were looking for a way to save the statute by narrowing its meaning to avoid such situations.
Sensing it was on shaky ground, the Obama Justice Department tried to assure the Court that the law would realistically only be applied in cases of bribery, kickbacks, or conflicts of interest where there is a financial impact.
Although the Court could interpret the statute as a narrow one barring those three specific crimes, it looks like there may be five votes to strike it down altogether as being void for vagueness. It’s unclear, because Chief Justice Roberts seemed troubled that Black’s court briefs didn’t fully argue that issue. But Black’s lawyer pointed out that it was a central argument before the lower courts in this case, and Justice Scalia tried to save the possibility by signaling that he was in favor of picking up on that question where the lower courts left off, instead of having to do “somersaults” to save a statute that should be struck down.
Scalia compared this statute to a fictional criminal law that says, “No person shall commit a bad act.” There’s no way to know exactly what that means, and it gives government too much power to prosecute for any “bad act” it chooses. Even if “bad act” only means “bribery,” Scalia continued, it violates due process for a person to have to take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before that definition is put in place. The law must be written in a way that people understand from the beginning what sorts of behavior are forbidden.
One very unfortunate fact for the Obama-Holder Justice Department is that Black is being represented by the person who should have been America’s first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court: Miguel Estrada. On questions such as Roberts’ concern about briefing the vagueness issue, Estrada’s answers and arguments were brilliant, and may have cleared the high hurdle needed to get the Court to take the much more aggressive route of striking down the statute.
Chief Justice John Marshall—who did more to shape the role of the courts in America than any other man—said in 1819 in one of the Court’s most famous opinions that the power to tax is the power to destroy. That’s very true.
But it can also be said that the power to imprison is the power to destroy. The federal government is already too big, and too intrusive into our lives. The Founding Fathers designed a Constitution to limit the scope of government. It looks like the Court will have an opportunity to do so here. A decision is likely around March of 2010.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
PICTURES
Here's the former CEO of Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union.
Here's the CEO of Down East Credit Union, Does it look like he is enjoying the spoils from taking my property last year? Can you say Cancun? BOOKS
Barbara Johnson - Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
In case you missed it:
TABLE OF CONTENTS of Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
is available for purchase as a paperback ($23.99) or a Kindle edition ($9.99)
on www.Amazon.com. To go directly to the book page, click
http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251668088&sr=1-1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface: Birds of a Feather Don’t Stick Together! i
Introduction: A Law Case: A Game of Chess v
1. Marriage and Divorce: “She got the ring, he got the finger.” 1
2. Child Custody: For the Love of a Child 19
3. Guardians ad litem: Arsenic in a Report 39
4. Child Support: With Pleasure or Punishment 57
5. His, Hers, and Theirs! No, not Children, Property! What's Mine is Mine and What's Yours is Mine (and Financial STatements) 75
6. Relocation and Child Removal Cases: Genii, genii, come out of your bottle and make my wish come true! 83
7. Restraining Orders: Gang-banged in court or in jail. It’s the law. 95
8. Contempts: A Woman’s Heaven and a Man’s Hell 113
9. Rape and Date Rape: When is rape not rape? 127
10. Child Protection Agency Cases: Wars Against Governmental Kidnapping 141
11. Fraud, Fraud on the Court and Complicity by the Court: From Riches to Rags 151
12. Immigration Fraud: The new internal terrorism: marital immigration, artificial insemination for anchor babies and ultimately child support 163
13. Employment Discrimination: Dirty! 173
14. Estates and Trusts: Judges make paper hay 185
15. Criminal Cases, Including Parental Kidnapping and Paternity Fraud: Does the number of imprisoned guilty convicts exceed the number of imprisoned innocent convicts or vice versa? 195
16. Relief from Wrongdoing in Other Actions, Malicious Prosecution, Pro se-ers Suing the World: Opportunity or No Opportunity to Succeed? 205
17. Federal Abstention Doctrines and the Domestic Relations Exception” to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: A heavily legal chapter only for the highly motivated reader 217
18. Immunity and the Pseudo Eleventh Amendment: Formulas for the Courts’ A-bombs 245
19. Quasi-judicial, Prosecutorial, and Qualified Immunities: Protecting Judges’ Parasites, the Other Enemies of the People 263
20. Legal Malpractice: Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coops 281
21. Court Reporters: Beware of Transcription Companies 297
22. Appellate cases: Fellow Brethren, My Golfmates, “Please save my face. Thanks!” 313
23. Intimidation and Insolence of Judges: Voodoo Club of Judges and Zombies 321
24. The Bar v Barb and Barb v. The Bar et al 343
25. Court Reform 353
ENDNOTES 361
Please forward this announcement to everyone who you believe would be interested. Thank you.
Read the customer reviews as they come in after publication and/or write your own review!
Unsubscribe to delete your email address.
Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact
Apdo #404-4013Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas20501-Costa Rica
veritas.johnson74@gmail.combarbjohnson74@gmail.com
SKYPE ID: barbaracjohnson74SKYPEIN: 978-961-0079 (Call forwarded from Massachusetts to Costa Rica. The cost to you is only the cost from your phone to the Massachusetts number.) New!Phone 506-2446-6724 (506 is the Country Code)
False Allegations: http://www.falseallegations.comFormerly, Participating Attorney: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml Campaign 2002: http://www.barbforgovernor.com ----- The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed. There are four people who can do the job: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it. It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it. At least I'm trying. What are you doing?
It is dangerous to be rightwhen the government is wrong. --- VOLTAIRE
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --- ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
In case you missed it:
TABLE OF CONTENTS of Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice
is available for purchase as a paperback ($23.99) or a Kindle edition ($9.99)
on www.Amazon.com. To go directly to the book page, click
http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251668088&sr=1-1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface: Birds of a Feather Don’t Stick Together! i
Introduction: A Law Case: A Game of Chess v
1. Marriage and Divorce: “She got the ring, he got the finger.” 1
2. Child Custody: For the Love of a Child 19
3. Guardians ad litem: Arsenic in a Report 39
4. Child Support: With Pleasure or Punishment 57
5. His, Hers, and Theirs! No, not Children, Property! What's Mine is Mine and What's Yours is Mine (and Financial STatements) 75
6. Relocation and Child Removal Cases: Genii, genii, come out of your bottle and make my wish come true! 83
7. Restraining Orders: Gang-banged in court or in jail. It’s the law. 95
8. Contempts: A Woman’s Heaven and a Man’s Hell 113
9. Rape and Date Rape: When is rape not rape? 127
10. Child Protection Agency Cases: Wars Against Governmental Kidnapping 141
11. Fraud, Fraud on the Court and Complicity by the Court: From Riches to Rags 151
12. Immigration Fraud: The new internal terrorism: marital immigration, artificial insemination for anchor babies and ultimately child support 163
13. Employment Discrimination: Dirty! 173
14. Estates and Trusts: Judges make paper hay 185
15. Criminal Cases, Including Parental Kidnapping and Paternity Fraud: Does the number of imprisoned guilty convicts exceed the number of imprisoned innocent convicts or vice versa? 195
16. Relief from Wrongdoing in Other Actions, Malicious Prosecution, Pro se-ers Suing the World: Opportunity or No Opportunity to Succeed? 205
17. Federal Abstention Doctrines and the Domestic Relations Exception” to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: A heavily legal chapter only for the highly motivated reader 217
18. Immunity and the Pseudo Eleventh Amendment: Formulas for the Courts’ A-bombs 245
19. Quasi-judicial, Prosecutorial, and Qualified Immunities: Protecting Judges’ Parasites, the Other Enemies of the People 263
20. Legal Malpractice: Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coops 281
21. Court Reporters: Beware of Transcription Companies 297
22. Appellate cases: Fellow Brethren, My Golfmates, “Please save my face. Thanks!” 313
23. Intimidation and Insolence of Judges: Voodoo Club of Judges and Zombies 321
24. The Bar v Barb and Barb v. The Bar et al 343
25. Court Reform 353
ENDNOTES 361
Please forward this announcement to everyone who you believe would be interested. Thank you.
Read the customer reviews as they come in after publication and/or write your own review!
Unsubscribe to delete your email address.
Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact
Apdo #404-4013Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas20501-Costa Rica
veritas.johnson74@gmail.combarbjohnson74@gmail.com
SKYPE ID: barbaracjohnson74SKYPEIN: 978-961-0079 (Call forwarded from Massachusetts to Costa Rica. The cost to you is only the cost from your phone to the Massachusetts number.) New!Phone 506-2446-6724 (506 is the Country Code)
False Allegations: http://www.falseallegations.comFormerly, Participating Attorney: http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml Campaign 2002: http://www.barbforgovernor.com ----- The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed. There are four people who can do the job: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it. It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it. At least I'm trying. What are you doing?
It is dangerous to be rightwhen the government is wrong. --- VOLTAIRE
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --- ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)
INFORMATION ON BANKS
From: Bob Hurt
To: lawmen@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: [Lawmen: 3236] National Bank Act
I have dredged up a little info on the National Bank Act and associated laws, including mortgage insurance code. Why? Well, most mortgagor home owners have only a vague idea how they managed to get a mortgage loan. No contract appears to exist between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The mortgagor signs a loan application, the mortgage company gets a bank to agree to fund it, and a title company closer gets the borrower to sign a mortgage security agreement and promissory note, and a deed or deed of trust, and the closer distributes checks to the seller, mortgage company, and other entities. No one bothers to ask whether the bank lent its own money or someone else’s, whether the appraiser overvalued the property at the urging of the realtor and mortgage company, and so on.
You might therefore think it wise to review the laws relating to the Office of Comptroller of Currency, the National Bank Act, and the Federal Reserve Act. You might like having a little history on national banking and what problems it solved.
I do not provide this information to complain or criticize, merely to inform. Take some time and go over this information.
National Bank Act of 1864 Overview
http://occ.gov/
About the OCC: The Changing World of Banking
Email your questions to our historian.
Banking has changed in many ways through the years. Banks today offer a wider range of products and services than ever before, and deliver them faster and more efficiently. But banking's central function remains as it has always been. Banks put a community's surplus funds (deposits and investments) to work by lending to people to buy homes and cars, to start and expand businesses, to put their children through college, and for countless other purposes. Banks are vital to the health of our nation's economy. For tens of millions of Americans, banks are the first choice for saving, borrowing, and investing.
The history of the interaction between American banking and American government is the subject of this web-based exhibit. It focuses on the rise of the national banking system and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which was established to supervise it.
National Banking System Created (1832-1864)
In less settled parts of the country, lending standards tended to be more liberal. There farmers could frequently obtain bank loans to buy land and equipment and finance the shipment of farm products to market. Because of the unpredictability of weather and market conditions, loan losses tended to be higher too.
When the second Bank of the United States went out of business in 1832, state governments took over the job of supervising banks. This supervision often proved inadequate. In those days banks made loans by issuing their own currency. These bank notes were supposed to be convertible, on demand, to cash -- that is, to gold or silver. It was the job of the bank examiner to visit the bank and certify that it had enough cash on hand to redeem its outstanding currency. Because this was not always done, many bank note holders found themselves stuck with worthless paper. It was sometimes difficult or impossible to detect which notes were sound and which were not, because of their staggering variety.
By 1860 more than 10,000 different bank notes circulated throughout the country. Commerce suffered as a result. Counterfeiting was epidemic. Hundreds of banks failed. Throughout the country there was an insistent demand for a uniform national currency acceptable anywhere without risk.
In response, passed the National Currency Act in 1863. In 1864, President Lincoln signed a revision of that law, the National Bank Act. These laws established a new system of national banks and a new government agency headed by a Comptroller of the Currency. The Comptroller's job was to organize and supervise the new banking system through regulations and periodic examinations.
National Bank Notes: A Uniform Currency (1865-1914)
The new system worked well. National banks bought U.S. government securities, deposited them with the Comptroller, and received national bank notes in return. By being lent to borrowers, the notes gradually entered circulation. On the rare occasion that a national bank failed, the government sold the securities held on deposit and reimbursed the note holders. No owner of a national bank note ever lost his or her money.
National bank notes were produced and distributed through an involved process. Once the basic engraving and printing were done (at first by private printers, later by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing), the notes were entered on the books of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, then returned to the printer where the seal of the Treasury Department was stamped on each.
Next, the notes were shipped to the bank whose name appeared on them, where they were signed by two senior bank officers. The notes were then ready for circulation. National bank notes were the mainstay of the nation's money supply until Federal Reserve notes appeared in 1914.
National bank notes featured elaborate scenes and portraits drawn from American history. The complexity of their design was intended to foil counterfeiters. Today, collectors prize national bank notes as outstanding examples of the engraver's art.
The Road to Deposit Insurance (1929-1970)
The onset of the worldwide depression in 1929 was a disaster for the banking system. In the last quarter of 1931 alone, more than 1,000 U.S. banks failed, as borrowers defaulted and bank assets declined in value. This led to scenes of panic throughout the country, with long lines of customers queuing up before dawn in hopes of withdrawing cash before the bank had no more to pay out.
The banking crisis was the first order of business for President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The day after taking office, on March 5, 1933, he declared a bank holiday, closing all the country's banks until they could be examined and either be allowed to reopen or be subjected to orderly liquidation. The bulk of this work fell to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In June 1933, Congress enacted federal deposit insurance. Accounts were covered up to $2,500 per depositor (now $100,000). Other laws were passed regulating bank activities and competition, with the objective of limiting risks to banks and reassuring the public that banks were, and would remain, safe and sound.
The Rise of Modern Banking (1970-Today)
During the last quarter century, banking has undergone a revolution. Technology has transformed the way Americans obtain financial services. Telephone banking, debit and credit cards, and automatic teller machines are commonplace, and electronic money and banking are evolving. The techniques of bank examination have changed, too. Today OCC examiners use computers and technology to help ensure that the banks they supervise understand and control the risks of the complex new world of financial services.
The OCC supervises national banks and enforces federal banking laws. It rules on new charter and merger applications for national banks, and conducts basic research on banking and the economy. The tools have changed, but for the OCC, the basic mission remains the same as in the days of Lincoln: to ensure a safe, sound, and competitive national banking system that supports the citizens, communities, and economy of the United States.
Banking units like these interactive video systems -- which can be placed in a shopping mall, supermarket or banking branch lobby -- connect bank customers to bank product specialists who can execute transactions from a central office.
The Bank Act of 1864 in the Statutes at large
National Bank Act
June 3, 1864, ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99
Short title, see 12 U.S.C. 38
TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING
· CHAPTER 1—THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
· CHAPTER 2—NATIONAL BANKS
· § 21. Formation of national banking associations; incorporators; articles of association
· § 21a. Amendment of articles of association
· § 22. Organization certificate
· § 23. Acknowledgment and filing of certificate
· § 24. Corporate powers of associations
· § 24a. Financial subsidiaries of national banks
· § 25. Omitted
· § 25a. Participation by national banks in lotteries and related activities
· § 26. Comptroller to determine if association can commence business
· § 27. Certificate of authority to commence banking
· § 28. Repealed.]
· § 29. Power to hold real property
· § 30. Change of name or location
· § 31. Rights and liabilities as affected by change of name
· § 32. Liabilities and suits as affected by change of name or location
· §§ 33 to 34c. Transferred
· § 35. Organization of State banks as national banking associations
· § 36. Branch banks
· § 37. Associations governed by chapter
· § 38. The National Bank Act
· § 39. Reservation of rights of associations organized under Act of 1863
· § 40. Virgin Islands; extension of National Bank Act
· § 41. Guam; extension of National Bank Act
· § 42. Territorial application
· § 43. Interpretations concerning preemption of certain State laws
· CHAPTER 3—FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Mortgage Insurance Code (12 USC 1707 et seq)
Federal Reserve Act Overview
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hurt2460 Persian Drive #70Clearwater, FL 33763+1 (727) 669-5511Donate to my Law Scholarship fundLearn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREEDownload Files FREE from the Lawmen ArchiveImprove your financial fortunes with GetZooks!Save Fuel
Foreclosure Requires the Original Note
Where the complaining party can not prove the existence of the note, then there is no note. To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note. See In Re: SMS Financial LLc. v. Abco Homes, Inc. No.98-50117 February 18, 1999 (167 F. 3d. 235; 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.) Volume 29 of the New Jersey Practice Series, Chapter 10 Section 123, page 566, emphatically states, “...; and no part payments should be made on the bond or note unless the person to whom payment is made is able to produce the bond or note and the part payments are endorsed thereon. It would seem that the mortgagor would normally have a Common law right to demand production or surrender of the bond or note and mortgage, as the case may be. See Restatement, Contracts S 170(3), (4) (1932); C.J.S. Mortgages S 469 in Carnegie Bank v Shalleck 256 N.J. Super 23 (App. Div 1992),606 A2d 389, the Appellate Division held, “When the underlying mortgage is evidenced by an instrument meeting the criteria for negotiability set forth in N.J.S. 12A:3-104, the holder of the instrument shall be afforded all the rights and protections provided a holder in due course pursuant to N.J.S. 12A:3-302" Since no one is able to produce the “instrument” there is no competent evidence before the Court that any party is the holder of the alleged note or the true holder in due course. New Jersey common law dictates that the plaintiff prove the existence of the alleged note in question, prove that the party sued signed the alleged note, prove that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the alleged note, and prove that certain balance is due and owing on any alleged note. Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any security is by actual possession of the security. See Matter of Staff Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1977), “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the only notice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his agent or bailee.” Bankruptcy Courts have followed the Uniform Commercial Code. In Re Investors & Lenders, Ltd. 165 B.R. 389 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1994), “Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (NJUCC), promissory note is “instrument,” security interest in which must be perfected by possession...” Unequivocally the Court’s rule is that in order to prove the “instrument”, possession is mandatory. In addition to the note, another element of proof is necessary – an accounting that is signed and dated by the person responsible for the account. Claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note, the person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger. See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, ( Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, ( Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986).
CREDIT RIVER DECISION
To: lawmen@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: [Lawmen: 3236] National Bank Act
I have dredged up a little info on the National Bank Act and associated laws, including mortgage insurance code. Why? Well, most mortgagor home owners have only a vague idea how they managed to get a mortgage loan. No contract appears to exist between the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The mortgagor signs a loan application, the mortgage company gets a bank to agree to fund it, and a title company closer gets the borrower to sign a mortgage security agreement and promissory note, and a deed or deed of trust, and the closer distributes checks to the seller, mortgage company, and other entities. No one bothers to ask whether the bank lent its own money or someone else’s, whether the appraiser overvalued the property at the urging of the realtor and mortgage company, and so on.
You might therefore think it wise to review the laws relating to the Office of Comptroller of Currency, the National Bank Act, and the Federal Reserve Act. You might like having a little history on national banking and what problems it solved.
I do not provide this information to complain or criticize, merely to inform. Take some time and go over this information.
National Bank Act of 1864 Overview
http://occ.gov/
About the OCC: The Changing World of Banking
Email your questions to our historian.
Banking has changed in many ways through the years. Banks today offer a wider range of products and services than ever before, and deliver them faster and more efficiently. But banking's central function remains as it has always been. Banks put a community's surplus funds (deposits and investments) to work by lending to people to buy homes and cars, to start and expand businesses, to put their children through college, and for countless other purposes. Banks are vital to the health of our nation's economy. For tens of millions of Americans, banks are the first choice for saving, borrowing, and investing.
The history of the interaction between American banking and American government is the subject of this web-based exhibit. It focuses on the rise of the national banking system and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which was established to supervise it.
National Banking System Created (1832-1864)
In less settled parts of the country, lending standards tended to be more liberal. There farmers could frequently obtain bank loans to buy land and equipment and finance the shipment of farm products to market. Because of the unpredictability of weather and market conditions, loan losses tended to be higher too.
When the second Bank of the United States went out of business in 1832, state governments took over the job of supervising banks. This supervision often proved inadequate. In those days banks made loans by issuing their own currency. These bank notes were supposed to be convertible, on demand, to cash -- that is, to gold or silver. It was the job of the bank examiner to visit the bank and certify that it had enough cash on hand to redeem its outstanding currency. Because this was not always done, many bank note holders found themselves stuck with worthless paper. It was sometimes difficult or impossible to detect which notes were sound and which were not, because of their staggering variety.
By 1860 more than 10,000 different bank notes circulated throughout the country. Commerce suffered as a result. Counterfeiting was epidemic. Hundreds of banks failed. Throughout the country there was an insistent demand for a uniform national currency acceptable anywhere without risk.
In response, passed the National Currency Act in 1863. In 1864, President Lincoln signed a revision of that law, the National Bank Act. These laws established a new system of national banks and a new government agency headed by a Comptroller of the Currency. The Comptroller's job was to organize and supervise the new banking system through regulations and periodic examinations.
National Bank Notes: A Uniform Currency (1865-1914)
The new system worked well. National banks bought U.S. government securities, deposited them with the Comptroller, and received national bank notes in return. By being lent to borrowers, the notes gradually entered circulation. On the rare occasion that a national bank failed, the government sold the securities held on deposit and reimbursed the note holders. No owner of a national bank note ever lost his or her money.
National bank notes were produced and distributed through an involved process. Once the basic engraving and printing were done (at first by private printers, later by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing), the notes were entered on the books of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, then returned to the printer where the seal of the Treasury Department was stamped on each.
Next, the notes were shipped to the bank whose name appeared on them, where they were signed by two senior bank officers. The notes were then ready for circulation. National bank notes were the mainstay of the nation's money supply until Federal Reserve notes appeared in 1914.
National bank notes featured elaborate scenes and portraits drawn from American history. The complexity of their design was intended to foil counterfeiters. Today, collectors prize national bank notes as outstanding examples of the engraver's art.
The Road to Deposit Insurance (1929-1970)
The onset of the worldwide depression in 1929 was a disaster for the banking system. In the last quarter of 1931 alone, more than 1,000 U.S. banks failed, as borrowers defaulted and bank assets declined in value. This led to scenes of panic throughout the country, with long lines of customers queuing up before dawn in hopes of withdrawing cash before the bank had no more to pay out.
The banking crisis was the first order of business for President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The day after taking office, on March 5, 1933, he declared a bank holiday, closing all the country's banks until they could be examined and either be allowed to reopen or be subjected to orderly liquidation. The bulk of this work fell to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In June 1933, Congress enacted federal deposit insurance. Accounts were covered up to $2,500 per depositor (now $100,000). Other laws were passed regulating bank activities and competition, with the objective of limiting risks to banks and reassuring the public that banks were, and would remain, safe and sound.
The Rise of Modern Banking (1970-Today)
During the last quarter century, banking has undergone a revolution. Technology has transformed the way Americans obtain financial services. Telephone banking, debit and credit cards, and automatic teller machines are commonplace, and electronic money and banking are evolving. The techniques of bank examination have changed, too. Today OCC examiners use computers and technology to help ensure that the banks they supervise understand and control the risks of the complex new world of financial services.
The OCC supervises national banks and enforces federal banking laws. It rules on new charter and merger applications for national banks, and conducts basic research on banking and the economy. The tools have changed, but for the OCC, the basic mission remains the same as in the days of Lincoln: to ensure a safe, sound, and competitive national banking system that supports the citizens, communities, and economy of the United States.
Banking units like these interactive video systems -- which can be placed in a shopping mall, supermarket or banking branch lobby -- connect bank customers to bank product specialists who can execute transactions from a central office.
The Bank Act of 1864 in the Statutes at large
National Bank Act
June 3, 1864, ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99
Short title, see 12 U.S.C. 38
TITLE 12—BANKS AND BANKING
· CHAPTER 1—THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
· CHAPTER 2—NATIONAL BANKS
· § 21. Formation of national banking associations; incorporators; articles of association
· § 21a. Amendment of articles of association
· § 22. Organization certificate
· § 23. Acknowledgment and filing of certificate
· § 24. Corporate powers of associations
· § 24a. Financial subsidiaries of national banks
· § 25. Omitted
· § 25a. Participation by national banks in lotteries and related activities
· § 26. Comptroller to determine if association can commence business
· § 27. Certificate of authority to commence banking
· § 28. Repealed.]
· § 29. Power to hold real property
· § 30. Change of name or location
· § 31. Rights and liabilities as affected by change of name
· § 32. Liabilities and suits as affected by change of name or location
· §§ 33 to 34c. Transferred
· § 35. Organization of State banks as national banking associations
· § 36. Branch banks
· § 37. Associations governed by chapter
· § 38. The National Bank Act
· § 39. Reservation of rights of associations organized under Act of 1863
· § 40. Virgin Islands; extension of National Bank Act
· § 41. Guam; extension of National Bank Act
· § 42. Territorial application
· § 43. Interpretations concerning preemption of certain State laws
· CHAPTER 3—FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Mortgage Insurance Code (12 USC 1707 et seq)
Federal Reserve Act Overview
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hurt2460 Persian Drive #70Clearwater, FL 33763+1 (727) 669-5511Donate to my Law Scholarship fundLearn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREEDownload Files FREE from the Lawmen ArchiveImprove your financial fortunes with GetZooks!Save Fuel
Foreclosure Requires the Original Note
Where the complaining party can not prove the existence of the note, then there is no note. To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note. See In Re: SMS Financial LLc. v. Abco Homes, Inc. No.98-50117 February 18, 1999 (167 F. 3d. 235; 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.) Volume 29 of the New Jersey Practice Series, Chapter 10 Section 123, page 566, emphatically states, “...; and no part payments should be made on the bond or note unless the person to whom payment is made is able to produce the bond or note and the part payments are endorsed thereon. It would seem that the mortgagor would normally have a Common law right to demand production or surrender of the bond or note and mortgage, as the case may be. See Restatement, Contracts S 170(3), (4) (1932); C.J.S. Mortgages S 469 in Carnegie Bank v Shalleck 256 N.J. Super 23 (App. Div 1992),606 A2d 389, the Appellate Division held, “When the underlying mortgage is evidenced by an instrument meeting the criteria for negotiability set forth in N.J.S. 12A:3-104, the holder of the instrument shall be afforded all the rights and protections provided a holder in due course pursuant to N.J.S. 12A:3-302" Since no one is able to produce the “instrument” there is no competent evidence before the Court that any party is the holder of the alleged note or the true holder in due course. New Jersey common law dictates that the plaintiff prove the existence of the alleged note in question, prove that the party sued signed the alleged note, prove that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the alleged note, and prove that certain balance is due and owing on any alleged note. Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any security is by actual possession of the security. See Matter of Staff Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1977), “Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the only notice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his agent or bailee.” Bankruptcy Courts have followed the Uniform Commercial Code. In Re Investors & Lenders, Ltd. 165 B.R. 389 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1994), “Under the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (NJUCC), promissory note is “instrument,” security interest in which must be perfected by possession...” Unequivocally the Court’s rule is that in order to prove the “instrument”, possession is mandatory. In addition to the note, another element of proof is necessary – an accounting that is signed and dated by the person responsible for the account. Claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note, the person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger. See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, ( Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, ( Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986).
CREDIT RIVER DECISION
NaturalNews) Jerome Daly is one of the few men to take on the might of the Federal Reserve in the courts and win. 40 years ago, a Minnesota bank attempted to foreclose on Daly`s mortgage but he humiliated them, thanks to his profound knowledge of Fractional Reserve Banking and a courageous, scrupulously honest judge. The judge delivered a dynamite decision that blasted the Federal Reserve and National Banks as unconstitutional and fraudulent. Understandably, the bankers have tried to bury this case and keep the controversial decree from public knowledge.
Those of you who may be facing the grim prospect of foreclosure on your mortgage, or if you know someone who is facing foreclosure, then the incredible story of Jerome Daly will delight and amaze you.
Jerome Daly was an attorney in Minnesota in the 1960s. In May, 1964, he took out a mortgage for $14,000 with The First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, on a property described as Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
Somehow, three years later, Mr. Daly fell behind on his mortgage payments and the bank initiated proceedings to foreclose. The case was heard before a jury in Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, at 10 a.m. on December 7th, 1968. The trial justice was Martin V. Mahoney, a remarkable, no-nonsense man of great integrity and fair-play.
Jerome Daly, being a lawyer, defended himself. The main witness for the prosecution was a Lawrence V. Morgan, President of The First National Bank of Montgomery.
The main issues were whether or not the loan transaction constituted a legal `consideration` and whether or not Mr. Daly waived his rights to complain by having paid his loan for three years.
For any loan transaction to be legal and binding a lawful `consideration` must be brought to the table by both parties. Mr. Daly said that as a consideration he put up his property of Lot 19, Fairview Beach. Mr. Daly further asserted that the bank provided no consideration but merely created the money out of thin air!
Under cross examination by Jerome Daly, Mr. Morgan the bank president spoke candidly and truthfully. Nevertheless, his evidence astonished the judge and jury.
Mr. Morgan admitted that by making a book-keeping entry the bank created the money out of nothing but that this was standard practice exercised by his bank in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank. When questioned by Daly he also conceded that he knew of no United States Law or Statute that gave the bank authority to create money out of nothing.
The court was gobsmacked. Justice Mahoney was heard to say, "That sounds like fraud to me."
The bank went on to claim that the Defendant, Daly, accepted the ledger book credit and by paying his mortgage for almost three years he waived his right to complain about the consideration and was legally estopped from doing so.
At 12.15 p.m. the jury returned a verdict. They unanimously found for the Defendant, Jerome Daly.
Justice Mahoney`s Judgment and Decree makes for fascinating reading. Here are some of his major points.
1. The Plaintiff (the bank) was not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach
2. Because there was no lawful consideration the Mortgage was Null and Void
3. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink
4. The Plaintiff had no right, title, interest, or lien on the property
5. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $75
In his Memorandum Justice Mahoney went on to say, "The jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
He also said, "Even if the Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense [sic] to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them."
And incredibly... "Plaintiff`s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing [sic] or upon which any lawful rights can be built."
Amazing! A properly accredited U.S. judge actually said this in a properly convened U.S. court!
"...It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emmission [sic] of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful..."
Then the case took another incredible turn.
The bank appealed, as was their right to do so; but a lawful appeal must be made within 10 days and accompanied by fee of $2. If the Clerk of the Court does not receive the appeal and the appropriate $2 fee within 10 days, as is required by the strict Appeals Statutes, then the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal.
When the Notice of Appeal and the $2 fee arrived on Justice Mahoney`s desk for him to make his return to the District Court the judge made a second landmark decision. After examining the two $1 bills he saw that they were Federal Reserve notes. Justice Mahoney refused the notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the notes were without any lawful consideration and void for any purpose.
Justice Mahoney would not accept the Federal Reserve notes to pay for the Appeal process because they were not true money but represented instruments of debt. If the bank had paid in silver dollars, half-dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, or even pennies, their appeal would have been legitimate and would have been heard.
Justice Mahoney offered the bank a hearing on the issue but they failed to request one. Then the District Court ordered Mahoney to show cause as to why the Appeal should not be allowed. Mahoney then ordered a hearing on January 22nd, 1969, for the purposes of making Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
But no representative of the First National Bank of Montgomery turned up in court, nor was there any continuance requested by the bank or its attorney.
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Justice Mahoney made some extraordinary observations. The following 12 points are quoted directly from his report (http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/C...)...
1. The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the United States. The creation of this money or credit constitutes the creation of fiat money upon the books of these banks.
2. When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existance [sic] is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.
3. The Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes [no matter what denomination] for the cost of printing of each note which is less than one cent. The net effect of the entire transaction is that the Federal Reserve Bank obtains Federal Reserve Notes comparable to the ones they placed on file with the Clerk of the District Court...for the cost of printing only.
4. From 1913 down to date, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are privately owned. As of March 18, all gold backing is removed from the said Federal Reserve Notes. No gold or silver backs up these notes.
5. The Federal Reserve Notes in question in this case are unlawful and void...being contrary to Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States...are not lawful money of the United States; are in violation of the Constitution of the United States and are not valid for any purpose.
6. Said Notes are fiat money, not redeemable in gold or silver coin upon their face, not backed by gold or silver, and the notes are in want of some real or substantial fund being provided for their payment in redemption.
7. The sole consideration paid for the One Dollar Federal Reserve Notes is in the neighborhood of nine-tenths of one cent, and therefore, there is no lawful consideration behind said Notes...As a matter of fact, the "Notes" are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay.
8. The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks...and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration. The activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.
9. The Federal Reserve and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is for the benefit of an idle monopoly and is used to rob, blackmail and oppress the producers of wealth.
10. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in its operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States; confers an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; holds all of our fellow citizens in dependence; is subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. It has defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The two banking Acts and Sec. 462 of Title 31, U.S.C. pages 41 and 42, are therefore unconstitutional and void.
11. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations.
12. No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired thru [sic] the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.
This is a thoroughly amazing legal decision, unprecedented in the history of the United States. Justice Mahoney was not a man to mince his words. He was courageous in the extreme, perhaps even reckless, to deliver such a decree against the Federal Reserve.
But the great fortitude of this remarkable judge may have cost him his life.
Less than 6 months later, in June, 1969, Justice Martin V. Mahoney died in a mysterious boating accident. Those close to him say his body was heavily poisoned.
Justice Mahoney`s decree still stands and has not been challenged or overturned to this very day.
We owe it to the memory of this brave man to get his audacious milestone judgment out into mainstream public awareness.
Some citizens, facing foreclosure, have quoted this case as a precedent but ended up losing their cases. Not every judge in America possesses the integrity and decency of Judge Mahoney. Isn`t it time to stamp out this fraud and corruption that is so endemic in the legal, business, and political institutions of our world today?
Those interested in examining the original documents of this monumental legal decision will find scores of documents at:
http://www.counterthink.com/025687.html
_________________________________________________________
Minnesota State Law Library DOCKET SERIES
Law on the Edge: the Credit River Case Files
Documents from the court's files in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, Scott County, Minnesota
1968-12-09 Judgment and Decree
1968-12-10 Notice of Appeal
1968-12-11 Appeal
1968-12-11 letter TRM to HPH
1968-12-18 letter TRM to HPH
1968-12-18 Notice of Appeal
1968-12-19 Affidavit of Surety EM
1968-12-19 Affidavit of Surety FD
1968-12-20 Affidavit of TRM
1968-12-27 letter JD to PF (first page only)
1969-01-06 Notice of Refusal to Allow Appeal
1969-01-07 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-01-07 Application for an Order
1969-01-08 Order to Show Cause
1969-01-15 Affidavit of Prejudice
1969-01-15? Motion
1969-01-16 letter HEF to LEL
1969-01-16 letter HPH to AEH
1969-01-16 Order Transferring File
1969-01-17 letter TRM to LEL
1969-01-17 letter TRM to MVM
1969-01-17 Notice of Motion
1969-01-20 letter LEL to JD
1969-01-20 letter LEL to MVM
1969-01-23 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Judgment
1969-01-24 Return to Order to Show Cause
1969-01-30 Order to make Return on Appeal
1969-02-07 The Daly Eagle
1969-02-10 letter TRM to AEH
1969-02-25 Notice of Appeal
1969-03-28 letter HPH to clerk of the SCt
1969-04-15 Order Dismissing Appeal
1969-06-11 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-06-23 Application for an Order
1969-06-23 letter JCJ to district judge
1969-06-23 Order to Show Cause
1969-06-26 Affidavit of Jerome Daly
1969-06-26 Return to Order to Show Cause
1969-06-30 letter HEF to AEH
1969-06-30 letter HEF to JCJ
1969-07-01 letter TRM to AEH
1969-07-17 Affidavit for Attachment
1969-07-18 Affidavits of sureties
1969-07-18 Surety Bond
1969-07-22 Order to Sheriff of Ramsey County
1969-07-22 Order to Sheriff of Scott County
1969-07-31 letter TRM to HPH
1969-08-01 Motion to Dismiss Appeal
1969-08-04 letter HPH to AEH
1969-08-28 Counter-affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-08-29 Supplemental Return to Writ of Attachment
1969-08-29 letter TRM to HPH
1969-09-03 letter TRM to AEH
1969-09-03 letter TRM to HPH
1969-09-05 slip opinion In re Jerome Daly
1969-10-01 Order
1969-10-09 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-10-09 Order to Show Cause
1969-10-17 Motion for Contempt
1969-11-04 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-11-04 Order Directing Return of File
1969-11-05 letter TRM to AEH
1969-11-10 Affidavit of John Mahoney
1969-11-17 letter JFC to HPH, with copy of foreclosure papers
1969-12-01 Affidavit of Theo R Mellby
1969-12-04 letter TRM to HPH
1969-12-08 letter HPH to AEH
1969-12-12 Motion to Advance Action to Trial
1969-12-19 Order Setting Action for Trial
1969-12-24 letter AEH to HPH
1970-05-15 letter TRM to JMF
1970-05-20 letter JFD to TRM
1970-06-19 Stipulation of Dismissal
1971-12-30 letter TRM to HPH
Undated handwritten notes
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/CreditRiver.html
OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Quite the candidate for governor!
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/State_House_4/Secret_Augusta_Meeting.shtml
News : State House
Last Updated: Dec 4, 2009 - 5:41:34 PM
Same-Sex Marriage Secret Augusta Meeting Press Release By Christian Civic League of Maine StaffDec 4, 2009 - 3:46:26 PM
Email this article Printer friendly page
Contact: Mike Hein, Administrator, mikehein@cclmaine.orgThe Christian Civic League of Maine has issued the following press release about the Maine Senate President's upcoming meeting aimed at legalizing homosexual marriage, in defiance of the voters of Maine:
The Christian Civic League of Maine has learned that Maine Senate President Elizabeth H. (Libby) Mitchell (Democrat - Kennebec County) is planning to hold a closed-door, high-level strategy meeting at her legislative office in the Capitol with the leading proponents of homosexual marriage in the state. The meeting is planned for Wednesday, December 9th, and will discuss strategies for winning homosexual marriage following the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage law. The meeting will be attended by State Senator Mitchell; Zachary L. (Zach) Heiden, Legal Director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union; Betsy Smith, Executive Director of EqualityMaine; and Katherine R. (Kate) Knox, an attorney for the Portland-based law firm Bernstein Shur, Sawyer, & Nelson and lobbyist for EqualityMaine.The Senate President's meeting with the director of legal affairs for the Maine Civil Liberties Union and an attorney for the state's most powerful law firm strongly suggests that the proponents of homosexual marriage will soon mount an effort to win homosexual marriage through the courts, in clear defiance of the expressed will of the people of Maine.The Christian Civic League of Maine calls on the Senate President to open this meeting to the press and to the public. Deliberating on this matter in secret contravenes the most basic principle of our democratic form of government: that all matters concerning the public will be discussed openly and freely. The secretive nature of the meeting is all the more regrettable since homosexual marriage is the most important issue ever to be taken up by Maine's Legislature.The Christian Civic League pledges to continue its efforts to relentlessly oppose any attempt by the liberal establishment to impose the institution of homosexual marriage on the people of Maine.
Send us feedback on this page by clicking hereCopyright by Maine Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/State_House_4/Secret_Augusta_Meeting.shtml
News : State House
Last Updated: Dec 4, 2009 - 5:41:34 PM
Same-Sex Marriage Secret Augusta Meeting Press Release By Christian Civic League of Maine StaffDec 4, 2009 - 3:46:26 PM
Email this article Printer friendly page
Contact: Mike Hein, Administrator, mikehein@cclmaine.orgThe Christian Civic League of Maine has issued the following press release about the Maine Senate President's upcoming meeting aimed at legalizing homosexual marriage, in defiance of the voters of Maine:
The Christian Civic League of Maine has learned that Maine Senate President Elizabeth H. (Libby) Mitchell (Democrat - Kennebec County) is planning to hold a closed-door, high-level strategy meeting at her legislative office in the Capitol with the leading proponents of homosexual marriage in the state. The meeting is planned for Wednesday, December 9th, and will discuss strategies for winning homosexual marriage following the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage law. The meeting will be attended by State Senator Mitchell; Zachary L. (Zach) Heiden, Legal Director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union; Betsy Smith, Executive Director of EqualityMaine; and Katherine R. (Kate) Knox, an attorney for the Portland-based law firm Bernstein Shur, Sawyer, & Nelson and lobbyist for EqualityMaine.The Senate President's meeting with the director of legal affairs for the Maine Civil Liberties Union and an attorney for the state's most powerful law firm strongly suggests that the proponents of homosexual marriage will soon mount an effort to win homosexual marriage through the courts, in clear defiance of the expressed will of the people of Maine.The Christian Civic League of Maine calls on the Senate President to open this meeting to the press and to the public. Deliberating on this matter in secret contravenes the most basic principle of our democratic form of government: that all matters concerning the public will be discussed openly and freely. The secretive nature of the meeting is all the more regrettable since homosexual marriage is the most important issue ever to be taken up by Maine's Legislature.The Christian Civic League pledges to continue its efforts to relentlessly oppose any attempt by the liberal establishment to impose the institution of homosexual marriage on the people of Maine.
Send us feedback on this page by clicking hereCopyright by Maine Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
CERT. MAIL # 7006 2150 0005 2595 1260
November 22, 2009
Senator Elizabeth Mitchell
3 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Dear Senator Mitchell,
I read the announcement of your candidacy in the gubernatorial race in 2010. The state of affairs in Maine, coupled with the public distrust of government officials and their lack of leadership, the unresponsiveness of our officials and the lack of accountability where fraud, waste and abuse exist are issues that our next governor must face. Many of the gubernatorial candidates are veterans of Augusta politics, or are currently sitting as members of the State Legislature, and have contributed to the public's distrust of government. Their pattern of obstruction of justice, their blatant disregard for the law and their poor, political job performance have resulted in the loss of jobs, homes and children of taxpayers who have paid the salaries of these candidates. The exception to the veterans of Augusta is Donna Dion, former Mayor of the City of Biddeford, who contributed greatly to the corrupt political machinery that exists today.
Some of the issues of concern to the veteran candidates on the campaign trail are health care, creating jobs and putting Mainers back to work, lowering taxes, and out of control spending. For years, attempts were made to bring forward to these candidates the abuse and misuse of Federal and State funding, to no avail. The theft of peoples' homes/businesses/livelihoods by a corrupt banking system and local official corruption, cannot sustain the economy. Supt. of Bureau of Financial Institutions, Lloyd LaFountain, has grossly violated the law, rules and regulations that govern his position, specifically, Title 9-B §211(3), protect consumers against unfair practices by financial institutions.
Speaker of the House, Hannah Pingree, acknowledges that times are difficult financially but adds, "in turbulent times even more, you need someone who understands the political process and how to move Maine forward." Times are difficult financially due to the failure of those in authority to hold officials accountable when they aid and abet the demise of Maine families and misuse taxpayer money. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Gov. John Baldacci ordered Maine state departments to curtail spending by $63 million to make sure the budget is balanced. (Sun Journal Nov 20, 2009) The Governor's plan to not fill vacancies in order to reduce state expenditures falls short. The big issue is misuse of taxpayer money and the refusal of the Appropriations committee to further investigate this matter is questionable. Why would this Committee not be interested in misuse of funds? Governor Baldacci was given evidence of where to investigate misuse, or theft, of public funding. He chose to brush it under the rug.
Candidates want to lure tourists and people to relocate to this State, I ask that you go deep into your conscience and ask yourself why people would want to come to a State where its citizens are
abused, harassed, retaliated against, have their homes, jobs, livelihoods, children stolen right out from under their feet, thrown out into the street like wild animals, are maliciously prosecuted for seeking help and everything is just brushed under the rug. It's time to pick up the rug and clean up the mess.
Before you finish your term as President of the Senate next spring, I am requesting a meeting with you and Speaker of the House, Hannah Pingree. The following issues need your intervention and questions need to be answered:
fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer State and Federal funding
Evidence of Medicaid Fraud
H.U.D. Funding; (Disclosure of Federal Funding is NOT a privacy issue -
per Bob Mills, Biddeford City Councilor, disclosure comes under the privacy act)
Unfair and deceptive trade practices by financial institutions
Judicial abuse, official oppression
The State of Maine, and its people, cannot move forward unless, and until, the necessary steps are taken to rectify the fraud, waste and abuse being perpetrated at the expense of honest, decent, and hardworking people of Maine.
I look forward to hearing from you and Rep. Pingree on a date, time and place in which to meet.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Lafortune
P.O. Box 187
Biddeford, Maine 04005
cc: Rep. Hannah Pingree, Speaker of the House
Senator Kevin Raye
Rep. Philip Curtis
others
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=304087&ac=PHnws
Baldacci's budget fix frustrates candidates
Some say the governor's action fails to make needed structural changes in state government.
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. :ap -->December 21, 2009
Gov. John Baldacci has proposed a plan that plugs a $438 million hole in Maine's current two-year budget.
The midpoint for that biennium is July 1, 2011. Before that, in November 2010, voters will elect a replacement for Baldacci, who is barred by term limits from running for re-election.
So whoever is elected out of what today is a broad field of candidates will have to contend with how Baldacci's proposed budget cuts affect state government.
A number of those candidates commented on Baldacci's plan, which also must be worked on and approved by the Legislature.
Many, regardless of party, were unhappy that the budget plan didn't make structural changes in state government.
"What is missing from the budget is any thoughtful analysis – public analysis – of which programs are worth preserving and which are not," said Sen. Peter Mills, a Republican candidate from Cornville. (Peter Mills' sister is Maine's Attorney General.)
Methods to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and agencies within state government are lacking, Mills said, and the directive to establish them "really has to come from the chief executive." (The only people who have knowledge "to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and agencies within state government are people who have had DIRECT CONTACT with such agencies.)
Rosa Scarcelli, a Democratic candidate from Portland, also noted what she saw as a lack of a measuring stick for programs.
"As a result, we really have no idea if we're cutting good programs or services and leaving bad ones on the books, or are we just guessing?" said Scarcelli. "This is why we need better fiscal management so we know what's working and what needs to be cut."
Matt Jacobson, a Republican candidate from Cumberland, said he was disappointed in the proposal because of the "fundamental dishonesty" inherent in the process. First, he said, the revenue projections the budget is based on appear flawed. And Jacobson, like several candidates, took issue with the plan to rely on $35 million in federal money for Health and Human Services.
"We've budgeted for the federal government to come and give us more money. There is no bill before Congress to come and do that," said Jacobson, adding that he believes that a federal health reform bill would actually add to Maine's costs, but there was no recognition of that in the proposed budget fix.
Scarcelli also opposed using federal stimulus money to plug holes or "support programs that are likely unsustainable." The one-time money, she said, should be used for one-time purposes.
Bruce Poliquin, a Republican candidate from Georgetown, said to rely on possible federal assistance was irresponsible and the "financial equivalent of keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best."
"This was maybe a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really restructure how we govern ourselves, and our elected officials really missed the boat," Poliquin said.
A number of candidates said they were unhappy with what they saw as budgetary tricks to move money around. Eliot Cutler, an independent candidate from Cape Elizabeth, called the plan "really problematic."
"This budget just pushes the snowball down the road," Cutler said.
Making transfers between cash pools, delaying payments to towns and transferring money from one fiscal year to the next and then back again are all examples of "gimmicks," he said.
Cutler pushed one of his proposals: examining which programs in state government should be cut by using a process similar to the federal government's method for determining which military bases to close.
That would take politics out of the process, he said, and provide clear direction of what needs to be taken out of state government.
Lynne Williams, a Green Independent candidate from Bar Harbor, said she has proposed basing the annual budget on a five-year moving average. The average would be based on actual income, not unpaid taxes or fines – just what the state takes in. And that average would be the ceiling for the next year's budget.
"What that does is it evens out the...cyclical, up-and-down nature of the thing," Williams said.
John Richardson, a Democratic candidate from Brunswick, said he sees the need for the cuts but would have done it differently. He would have set targeted budget numbers and asked state workers to reach those numbers. They are on the front lines and intimately understand their jobs, he said. (Really?)
"They hold the keys to a better way of doing business," Richardson said. (the ones I've contacted should be REMOVED from their jobs!)
Richardson and others also said any budget proposal also needs to include thoughts on growing the state's economy. (The economy CANNOT grow when our elected officials allow the theft of business properties, in concert with the judicial system, and put decent, honest, hardworking people OUT OF BUSINESS! It is no longer "taxation without representation.....it goes one step further......."taxation by citation."
"The single biggest tax we're missing in the state is income tax," said Les Otten, a Republican candidate from Greenwood.
The state, Otten suggested, has been focused on trying to maintain jobs in the public sector, not create jobs in the private sector. The state needs to look at what's standing in the way of job creation, Otten said, including tax policy, health insurance costs, the lack of an energy policy and burdensome rules and regulations.
Steve Rowe, a Democratic candidate from Portland, raised the importance of maintaining the investments in critical state programs.
"While we must live within our means, we must also meet our constitutional commitment to protect the public, educate our children and care for our most vulnerable," Rowe said. (Steve Rowe, former Maine Attorney General, didn't meet HIS constitutional commitments as Attorney General. We can expect him to do so as Governor?????????)
Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell of Vassalboro, a Democratic candidate, said the Legislature would closely examine the budget proposal and hold extensive public hearings. Throughout years of budget cuts, the Legislature has tried to maintain investments in research and development, energy, education and targeted work force development. That's still the case, she said.
It's important to look at the recession in the national and international light, she said, and figure out how to help small businesses here succeed and how to generally make the state prosper. (She hasn't responded to my correspondence regarding the state of affairs in Maine. Neither has Speaker of the House, Hannah Pingree (her mother sits in the U.S. House of Representatives.)
"We've got to position ourselves so we're stronger coming out of this recession than we were going in," she said. (Ignoring the serious concerns/corruption within the State of Maine will NOT make us, or this country stronger! She must justify her run for governor.)
Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at:
mwickenheiser@pressherald.com
Baldacci's budget fix frustrates candidates
Some say the governor's action fails to make needed structural changes in state government.
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. :ap -->December 21, 2009
Gov. John Baldacci has proposed a plan that plugs a $438 million hole in Maine's current two-year budget.
The midpoint for that biennium is July 1, 2011. Before that, in November 2010, voters will elect a replacement for Baldacci, who is barred by term limits from running for re-election.
So whoever is elected out of what today is a broad field of candidates will have to contend with how Baldacci's proposed budget cuts affect state government.
A number of those candidates commented on Baldacci's plan, which also must be worked on and approved by the Legislature.
Many, regardless of party, were unhappy that the budget plan didn't make structural changes in state government.
"What is missing from the budget is any thoughtful analysis – public analysis – of which programs are worth preserving and which are not," said Sen. Peter Mills, a Republican candidate from Cornville. (Peter Mills' sister is Maine's Attorney General.)
Methods to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and agencies within state government are lacking, Mills said, and the directive to establish them "really has to come from the chief executive." (The only people who have knowledge "to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and agencies within state government are people who have had DIRECT CONTACT with such agencies.)
Rosa Scarcelli, a Democratic candidate from Portland, also noted what she saw as a lack of a measuring stick for programs.
"As a result, we really have no idea if we're cutting good programs or services and leaving bad ones on the books, or are we just guessing?" said Scarcelli. "This is why we need better fiscal management so we know what's working and what needs to be cut."
Matt Jacobson, a Republican candidate from Cumberland, said he was disappointed in the proposal because of the "fundamental dishonesty" inherent in the process. First, he said, the revenue projections the budget is based on appear flawed. And Jacobson, like several candidates, took issue with the plan to rely on $35 million in federal money for Health and Human Services.
"We've budgeted for the federal government to come and give us more money. There is no bill before Congress to come and do that," said Jacobson, adding that he believes that a federal health reform bill would actually add to Maine's costs, but there was no recognition of that in the proposed budget fix.
Scarcelli also opposed using federal stimulus money to plug holes or "support programs that are likely unsustainable." The one-time money, she said, should be used for one-time purposes.
Bruce Poliquin, a Republican candidate from Georgetown, said to rely on possible federal assistance was irresponsible and the "financial equivalent of keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best."
"This was maybe a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really restructure how we govern ourselves, and our elected officials really missed the boat," Poliquin said.
A number of candidates said they were unhappy with what they saw as budgetary tricks to move money around. Eliot Cutler, an independent candidate from Cape Elizabeth, called the plan "really problematic."
"This budget just pushes the snowball down the road," Cutler said.
Making transfers between cash pools, delaying payments to towns and transferring money from one fiscal year to the next and then back again are all examples of "gimmicks," he said.
Cutler pushed one of his proposals: examining which programs in state government should be cut by using a process similar to the federal government's method for determining which military bases to close.
That would take politics out of the process, he said, and provide clear direction of what needs to be taken out of state government.
Lynne Williams, a Green Independent candidate from Bar Harbor, said she has proposed basing the annual budget on a five-year moving average. The average would be based on actual income, not unpaid taxes or fines – just what the state takes in. And that average would be the ceiling for the next year's budget.
"What that does is it evens out the...cyclical, up-and-down nature of the thing," Williams said.
John Richardson, a Democratic candidate from Brunswick, said he sees the need for the cuts but would have done it differently. He would have set targeted budget numbers and asked state workers to reach those numbers. They are on the front lines and intimately understand their jobs, he said. (Really?)
"They hold the keys to a better way of doing business," Richardson said. (the ones I've contacted should be REMOVED from their jobs!)
Richardson and others also said any budget proposal also needs to include thoughts on growing the state's economy. (The economy CANNOT grow when our elected officials allow the theft of business properties, in concert with the judicial system, and put decent, honest, hardworking people OUT OF BUSINESS! It is no longer "taxation without representation.....it goes one step further......."taxation by citation."
"The single biggest tax we're missing in the state is income tax," said Les Otten, a Republican candidate from Greenwood.
The state, Otten suggested, has been focused on trying to maintain jobs in the public sector, not create jobs in the private sector. The state needs to look at what's standing in the way of job creation, Otten said, including tax policy, health insurance costs, the lack of an energy policy and burdensome rules and regulations.
Steve Rowe, a Democratic candidate from Portland, raised the importance of maintaining the investments in critical state programs.
"While we must live within our means, we must also meet our constitutional commitment to protect the public, educate our children and care for our most vulnerable," Rowe said. (Steve Rowe, former Maine Attorney General, didn't meet HIS constitutional commitments as Attorney General. We can expect him to do so as Governor?????????)
Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell of Vassalboro, a Democratic candidate, said the Legislature would closely examine the budget proposal and hold extensive public hearings. Throughout years of budget cuts, the Legislature has tried to maintain investments in research and development, energy, education and targeted work force development. That's still the case, she said.
It's important to look at the recession in the national and international light, she said, and figure out how to help small businesses here succeed and how to generally make the state prosper. (She hasn't responded to my correspondence regarding the state of affairs in Maine. Neither has Speaker of the House, Hannah Pingree (her mother sits in the U.S. House of Representatives.)
"We've got to position ourselves so we're stronger coming out of this recession than we were going in," she said. (Ignoring the serious concerns/corruption within the State of Maine will NOT make us, or this country stronger! She must justify her run for governor.)
Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at:
mwickenheiser@pressherald.com
Sent via Chellie Pingree’s web page on Tuesday December 29, 2009
Hi Chellie,
Thanks for your e-mail request for a campaign donation. Last May, I went to your web page and requested a meeting with you. At least three months later, I got a call from your Portland office. I briefly described my issue and then forwarded supporting documents. Several days after, I got a reply from your office, telling me that I needed to hire an attorney. I didn't need to contact your office to learn this tidbit of information. As you well know, justice costs a lot of money in this country. Last year I lost approximately $400,000 worth of property, including my home of 32 years and a business of 20 years. I have no resources left to tap into to get my justice. In the last year, I have provided to several Federal Agencies, nearly enough evidence to prove that my property was taken fraudulently. When I contacted your office last May, I was hoping that you would be able to help me with these Federal Agencies, as you advertise on your website, rather than give me the brush-off. I'm a little confused, when I met you during your campaign, you seemed like a sincere person, but as we all know, actions speak louder than words. I apologize if losing everything that I have worked for in the last 40 years seems important to me, but maybe because it is. I know that what happened to me is happening to many Mainers, I call it property theft. Will our public officials' paychecks have to stop before we get their attention? Will they become better listeners when they are thrown into the street, like some of us have? I hope you'll understand if I'm unable to contribute to your campaign at this time.
Thank You Leon Bard
P.S. The person that is responsible for taking my property is a Republican.
Hi Chellie,
Thanks for your e-mail request for a campaign donation. Last May, I went to your web page and requested a meeting with you. At least three months later, I got a call from your Portland office. I briefly described my issue and then forwarded supporting documents. Several days after, I got a reply from your office, telling me that I needed to hire an attorney. I didn't need to contact your office to learn this tidbit of information. As you well know, justice costs a lot of money in this country. Last year I lost approximately $400,000 worth of property, including my home of 32 years and a business of 20 years. I have no resources left to tap into to get my justice. In the last year, I have provided to several Federal Agencies, nearly enough evidence to prove that my property was taken fraudulently. When I contacted your office last May, I was hoping that you would be able to help me with these Federal Agencies, as you advertise on your website, rather than give me the brush-off. I'm a little confused, when I met you during your campaign, you seemed like a sincere person, but as we all know, actions speak louder than words. I apologize if losing everything that I have worked for in the last 40 years seems important to me, but maybe because it is. I know that what happened to me is happening to many Mainers, I call it property theft. Will our public officials' paychecks have to stop before we get their attention? Will they become better listeners when they are thrown into the street, like some of us have? I hope you'll understand if I'm unable to contribute to your campaign at this time.
Thank You Leon Bard
P.S. The person that is responsible for taking my property is a Republican.
ARTICLES FROM THE NEWS
SEC Charges Three Subprime Lenders with Fraud
by Jann Swanson on
Email Page (New!) Print Bookmark
Three former mortgage executives were charged with fraud on Monday for activities growing out of their roles at the defunct New Century Mortgage
The charges were brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which accused the three of covering up the rapidly declining financial condition of their firm before it filed for bankruptcy in April, 2007.
The three are Brad Morrice, former Chief Executive; Patti Dodge the former CFO and former Controller David Kenneally. The SEC is seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants from future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of funds with prejudgment interest and to bar them from acting as an officer or director. The suit, filed in federal court in the Central District of California also seeks unspecified civil penalties.
New Century was one of the largest of the independent providers in the subprime lending market, lending to persons with poor credit or high debt ratios.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The government accused the officers of attempting to keep investors in the dark about the financial condition of New Century, assuring investors that the business was performing well while failing to disclose a growing incidence of loan defaults, mandatory loan repurchases and requests for repurchases.
The SEC also charges that Dodge and Kenneally fraudulently accounted for some of the expenses associated with repurchasing bad loans. Kenneally, with Dodge's knowledge, allegedly changed New Century's accounting method for loan repurchases. These changes violated generally accepted accounting standards and led to what the SEC said were materially overstatements of the company's financial prospects.
The executives are also charged with causing substantial investor losses. The company announced in February 2007 that it had to restate its 2006 financial statements at which point its stock plunged 36 percent to the high teens. It was trading at less than $1 when the company finally filed for bankruptcy.
Today's indictments come less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the creation of a new interagency fraud unit that will oversee investigations into the mortgage meltdown. The SEC is a participant in that fraud unit. At the time of that announcement Holder made it clear that investigations of subprime mortgage irregularities were already underway and that prosecutions would be forthcoming.
Judge upholds rule on foreclosure
Homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure got some good news Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that makes it harder for lenders to foreclose on home mortgages.
The case, which was heard by a panel of federal judges in November, concerned whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, could foreclose on residences on behalf of lenders. The electronic system records the ownership of residential mortgages for the mortgage banking industry.
Dawson said the company could not foreclose on a home because it did not provide evidence that it held the note on the residence and didn't show that it was an agent of the lender.
About half of all U.S. mortgages "whose loans have been securitized, sliced and diced are now held by (MERS)," according to a blog posted by securities analyst Barry Ritholtz.
The case started in bankruptcy court two years ago.
MERS asked bankruptcy Judge Linda Riegle for permission to start foreclosure proceedings against a property owned by Lisa Marie Chong. Bankruptcy trustee Lenard Schwartzer objected, saying the electronic system was not a "real party in interest" in the mortgage loan.
Like many mortgages, Chong's loan had been securitized, meaning it had been pooled or packaged into a security held by investors.
MERS was unable to show that it had possession of the note. The bankruptcy judge ruled in Schwartzer's favor. The decision was appealed to federal court.
In his decision Tuesday, Dawson said the registration system does not lose money when borrowers fail to make payments on home mortgages.
Dawson ruled that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems must at least provide evidence that it was a representative of the mortgage loan holder, which it failed to do.
"Since MERS provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a real party in interest with standing," Dawson said, affirming the bankruptcy court ruling.
Real estate attorney Tisha Black-Chernine said the ruling is good news for struggling borrowers and home-owners.
"It will have a dramatic effect on lenders being able to foreclose," she said.
Because the decision makes it more difficult to foreclose, she hopes lenders will be more willing to negotiate with homeowners struggling to meet mortgage payments by approving short sales or making other concessions.
In a short sale, a lender agrees to let a homeowner sell his home for less than is owed. This is particularly helpful, because many homeowners owe far more than their homes are worth since home prices have fallen.
Houses sold in short sales typically go for 30 percent more than homes sold after foreclosure, Black-Chernine said.
Appraisers looking at the short sale price will use it in determining the market value. Thus, avoiding foreclosure results in higher market values for other houses, she said.
"It should help buoy home prices," Black-Chernine said.
Bill Uffelman, chief executive officer of the Nevada Bankers Association, a trade group, predicted that most foreclosures will be able to proceed because the real mortgage owners and notes will be able to be identified in most cases. However, he said many homeowners facing foreclosure may be able to stay in their homes longer because of the delay.
"In the end in 99.9 percent of the cases, ownership of the note will be proved," he said.
Although the decision is believed to be the first of its kind in Nevada, the Kansas Supreme Court made a similar finding in a similar case.
An attorney for the electronic system did not return a call for comment on whether it will appeal.
Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0420.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/judge-upholds-rule-on-foreclosure.html
by Jann Swanson on
Email Page (New!) Print Bookmark
Three former mortgage executives were charged with fraud on Monday for activities growing out of their roles at the defunct New Century Mortgage
The charges were brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which accused the three of covering up the rapidly declining financial condition of their firm before it filed for bankruptcy in April, 2007.
The three are Brad Morrice, former Chief Executive; Patti Dodge the former CFO and former Controller David Kenneally. The SEC is seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants from future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of funds with prejudgment interest and to bar them from acting as an officer or director. The suit, filed in federal court in the Central District of California also seeks unspecified civil penalties.
New Century was one of the largest of the independent providers in the subprime lending market, lending to persons with poor credit or high debt ratios.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The government accused the officers of attempting to keep investors in the dark about the financial condition of New Century, assuring investors that the business was performing well while failing to disclose a growing incidence of loan defaults, mandatory loan repurchases and requests for repurchases.
The SEC also charges that Dodge and Kenneally fraudulently accounted for some of the expenses associated with repurchasing bad loans. Kenneally, with Dodge's knowledge, allegedly changed New Century's accounting method for loan repurchases. These changes violated generally accepted accounting standards and led to what the SEC said were materially overstatements of the company's financial prospects.
The executives are also charged with causing substantial investor losses. The company announced in February 2007 that it had to restate its 2006 financial statements at which point its stock plunged 36 percent to the high teens. It was trading at less than $1 when the company finally filed for bankruptcy.
Today's indictments come less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the creation of a new interagency fraud unit that will oversee investigations into the mortgage meltdown. The SEC is a participant in that fraud unit. At the time of that announcement Holder made it clear that investigations of subprime mortgage irregularities were already underway and that prosecutions would be forthcoming.
Judge upholds rule on foreclosure
Homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure got some good news Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson upheld a bankruptcy court ruling that makes it harder for lenders to foreclose on home mortgages.
The case, which was heard by a panel of federal judges in November, concerned whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, could foreclose on residences on behalf of lenders. The electronic system records the ownership of residential mortgages for the mortgage banking industry.
Dawson said the company could not foreclose on a home because it did not provide evidence that it held the note on the residence and didn't show that it was an agent of the lender.
About half of all U.S. mortgages "whose loans have been securitized, sliced and diced are now held by (MERS)," according to a blog posted by securities analyst Barry Ritholtz.
The case started in bankruptcy court two years ago.
MERS asked bankruptcy Judge Linda Riegle for permission to start foreclosure proceedings against a property owned by Lisa Marie Chong. Bankruptcy trustee Lenard Schwartzer objected, saying the electronic system was not a "real party in interest" in the mortgage loan.
Like many mortgages, Chong's loan had been securitized, meaning it had been pooled or packaged into a security held by investors.
MERS was unable to show that it had possession of the note. The bankruptcy judge ruled in Schwartzer's favor. The decision was appealed to federal court.
In his decision Tuesday, Dawson said the registration system does not lose money when borrowers fail to make payments on home mortgages.
Dawson ruled that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems must at least provide evidence that it was a representative of the mortgage loan holder, which it failed to do.
"Since MERS provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a real party in interest with standing," Dawson said, affirming the bankruptcy court ruling.
Real estate attorney Tisha Black-Chernine said the ruling is good news for struggling borrowers and home-owners.
"It will have a dramatic effect on lenders being able to foreclose," she said.
Because the decision makes it more difficult to foreclose, she hopes lenders will be more willing to negotiate with homeowners struggling to meet mortgage payments by approving short sales or making other concessions.
In a short sale, a lender agrees to let a homeowner sell his home for less than is owed. This is particularly helpful, because many homeowners owe far more than their homes are worth since home prices have fallen.
Houses sold in short sales typically go for 30 percent more than homes sold after foreclosure, Black-Chernine said.
Appraisers looking at the short sale price will use it in determining the market value. Thus, avoiding foreclosure results in higher market values for other houses, she said.
"It should help buoy home prices," Black-Chernine said.
Bill Uffelman, chief executive officer of the Nevada Bankers Association, a trade group, predicted that most foreclosures will be able to proceed because the real mortgage owners and notes will be able to be identified in most cases. However, he said many homeowners facing foreclosure may be able to stay in their homes longer because of the delay.
"In the end in 99.9 percent of the cases, ownership of the note will be proved," he said.
Although the decision is believed to be the first of its kind in Nevada, the Kansas Supreme Court made a similar finding in a similar case.
An attorney for the electronic system did not return a call for comment on whether it will appeal.
Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0420.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/judge-upholds-rule-on-foreclosure.html
LINKS
LINKS
Walter Burien - The Biggest Game in Town http://www.cafr1.com/
Clint Richardson's Blog - http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-biggest-game-in-town-walter-burien-and-comprehensive-annual-financial-reports/
THE LISBON REPORTER http://www.lisbonreporter.com/
Richard Mack http://sheriffmack.com/
Victim of (Judicial) Greed http://victimofjudicialgreed.blogspot.com/
Bank Fraud Documents http://www.4shared.com/file/189433925/6ead09f/FBI_Docs.html
Brenden Smith Wishlist https://www.box.net/file/383931772/encoded/36702536/98cfe7ee1f4e0a5963030b19181106b2
Walter Burien - The Biggest Game in Town http://www.cafr1.com/
Clint Richardson's Blog - http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-biggest-game-in-town-walter-burien-and-comprehensive-annual-financial-reports/
THE LISBON REPORTER http://www.lisbonreporter.com/
Richard Mack http://sheriffmack.com/
Victim of (Judicial) Greed http://victimofjudicialgreed.blogspot.com/
Bank Fraud Documents http://www.4shared.com/file/189433925/6ead09f/FBI_Docs.html
Brenden Smith Wishlist https://www.box.net/file/383931772/encoded/36702536/98cfe7ee1f4e0a5963030b19181106b2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)