18,262,824 members doing good!

shares

share your passions, stories, inspirations, and more

Embattled home lender gives
Mar 20, 2007

Embattled home lender gives heavily to politicians

Ameriquest, a big donor to
both parties, accused of
duping low-income borrowers

John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer

Friday, August 12, 2005

A giant Orange County mortgage company accused of
duping low-income homeowners
has pumped more than $7 million into California politics since 2002, i
ncluding contributions to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer and dozens of other state legislators,
members of Congress and political committees.

Ameriquest's top executive, Roland Arnall, also has been one of
President Bush's top fundraisers, generating $12 million
for the president's political efforts during the past four years.
On July 28, Bush nominated Arnall, a billionaire who was ranked
No. 106 in the 2004 Forbes magazine list of the wealthiest Americans,
as ambassador to the Netherlands.

Since Schwarzenegger took office in 2003, he alone has pulled in more than
 $1.5 million from Ameriquest, Roland Arnall and his wife, Dawn. Ameriquest
also has given $1.5 million to groups backing the governor's political efforts and,
along with the Arnalls, has contributed $1.5 million to the California Republican
Party.

Ameriquest recently gave the governor a block of prime tickets and a luxury box
for the Rolling Stones' opening concert on their U.S. tour -- for Schwarzenegger's
use as a fundraiser.

"They're generous donors, and we're grateful for their support,'' said Marty Wilson,
the governor's chief fundraiser. Ameriquest's legal problems "are not our area of
concern.
The governor has expressed no particular concern about taking
Ameriquest's contributions.''

Arnall, 66, had been a major Democratic donor before he began raising and
contributing money
to Bush and Schwarzenegger. But Democrats haven't been forgotten.
 Ameriquest contributed
nearly $400,000 to the California Democratic Party in 2004 and 2005.
The mortgage lender
spent thousands on airfare, hotel rooms, food, gifts and football tickets to send
Assembly
Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, and other Democratic Assembly members
to Honolulu
for a party fundraiser at this past February's Pro Bowl.

Ameriquest, the nation's largest privately held mortgage lender,
 is under growing legal
scrutiny for its business practices in the fast-growing sub- prime lending market,
which
typically targets borrowers with credit problems and not enough income to qualify
for conventional loans.

On the day Arnall was nominated as ambassador, the company reported that it was
putting aside $325 million to settle predatory lending claims in 30 states,
including California.

A Connecticut case against Ameriquest was settled for $7 million last month,
and a class action
lawsuit filed in San Mateo Superior Court was settled in June for as much as
$50 million.
 Another potential class action suit is pending in federal court in San Francisco.

The suits accused Ameriquest employees of forging loan documents,
pumping up appraisals,
providing phony credit and employment histories and changing the terms of loans.
In the
San Mateo case, the company was accused of "bait- and-switch" tactics,
in which borrowers
found themselves facing higher interest rates, loan charges and payments than
 they originally were promised.

It wasn't the first time the company had run into trouble. In 1996 the company,
then known as Long Beach Mortgage Co., paid $4 million to settle a
federal suit claiming
the lender discriminated against minority, female and elderly borrowers by charging
them higher loan fees. In 2000, Ameriquest also settled a predatory lending dispute
with ACORN, a national coalition of community organizations.

The mortgage lender admitted no wrongdoing in the settlements,
arguing that it had tightened its lending procedures and provided credit to people
who otherwise would not get it.

The flood of contributions to politicians of both parties has no connection with the c
ompany's
legal problems, an Ameriquest spokesman said.

"We support candidates who share our belief in the importance of maintaining a
strong economy, job creation and reasonable regulation of lenders to
protect consumers,''
a company spokesperson said in a written response to The Chronicle's questions.

One of those candidates is Lockyer, a veteran Bay Area politician whose office has been
investigating Ameriquest for alleged predatory lending practices since December 2003.
Lockyer, who has made consumer protection the hallmark of his two terms as
attorney general,

 took $250,000 in contributions from the mortgage lender for his 2002
 re-election campaign and another $21,200 -- the maximum allowable --
in November 2003 for his since-abandoned campaign for governor.

"The attorney general doesn't let campaign contributions get in the way of his duty
to follow the law,'' said Tom Dressler, a spokesman for Lockyer. "The ability of
the office to do its job on behalf of consumers could be restricted if (Lockyer) had to
recuse himself every time a contributor's case came up.''

While Lockyer hasn't taken any contributions from Ameriquest since the state i
nvestigation began, he was a guest at the holiday party the Arnalls held last year
at their Holmby Hills estate in Los Angeles,
even as Justice Department officials were contemplating a multimillion-dollar
 suit against their company.

"The relationship between Lockyer and the Arnalls goes back a ways, and
we don't believe it's inappropriate for him to go to their house for a
Christmas party,''
Dressler said.

The money Ameriquest contributes to politicians buys access ordinary citizens
don't have,
said Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

"Do you think that Lockyer is not going to take a phone call from
Ameriquest if they gave him $250,000?'' he asked. "
He's not necessarily going to agree with them, or he might not drop the suit,
but (Ameriquest) has a chance to make their case.''

Political position, rather than party lines, guides Ameriquest's giving.

For years, Ameriquest and the Arnalls were among former
Democratic Gov. Gray Davis' biggest boosters. They gave thousands to
Davis' campaigns, and Roland Arnall, a former California State University trustee,
was on the transition team when Davis was elected governor in 1998.

Ameriquest in July 2003 pumped $100,000 into
"Taxpayers Against the Governor's Recall," which was fighting Republican
efforts to oust Davis from office.

But Davis lost the October 2003 recall election,
 and Schwarzenegger became governor. A month later,
 Ameriquest gave $100,000 to Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall Committee"
and the maximum $21,200 to the governor's campaign committee.

The mortgage lender spreads its wealth widely. Since 2004, for example,
Ameriquest has given money to 23 of California's 40 state senators and 53 of the 80
Assembly members.

That list includes legislators as conservative as Assemblyman Ray Haynes,
R-Murrieta (Riverside County), and as liberal as state Sen. Carole Migden,
D- San Francisco.

"This is a classic case of trying to buy political cover from both sides of the aisle,''
said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in
Santa Monica.
"Who's left to prosecute?
The company and the CEO have basically conflicted every public official out.''

There are no hard feelings when it comes to Ameriquest's
generosity, either. In 2001, Migden, then an assemblywoman
from San Francisco, drafted a bill aimed at
 fighting predatory lending practices by capping the interest rate
on sub-prime loans, banning balloon payments and barring companies
from hiding their fees inside the loan. Ameriquest and other subprime lenders
fought the bill and forced Migden to make some compromises
before it was passed by the Legislature and signed by Davis.

But just a few months later, in March 2002,
Ameriquest gave Migden $10, 000 for her campaign
for the state Board of Equalization. When she ran last year for state Senate,
the mortgage lender provided a $3,200 check.

"What they give is pocket change,'' Migden said,
especially with the new limits on campaign contributions.
"If you look at the numbers, they're not so consequential.
If they give you $1,000 a year, they're not adopting your kids. ''

Companies like Ameriquest are rich enough to spread their contributions
around in a state as politically divided as California, she added, making
themselves a visible political player.

"They want to feel comfortable to sit down and ask for an appointment,''
Migden said.

Even last year, when Roland Arnall was one of Bush's top fundraisers and
Dawn Arnall was a co-chair of the host committee for
the Republican National Convention in New York City,
 Roland Arnall gave $10,000 to the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, which sought to win back control of Congress
from the Republicans.

"Businesses want to succeed,'' said Larry Noble, executive director of the
Center for Responsible Politics in Washington.
"They want to make sure they get access and a hearing,
regardless of who's in office. They're very bottom-line oriented.''

The Arnalls' largesse

Some of the California politicians who have
received campaign contributions since 2002 from
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and its top executives,
Roland and Dawn Arnall:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: $1.5 million

Attorney General Bill Lockyer: $271,200

State Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland: $78,200

Democratic state Controller Steve Westly,
who is running for governor: $58,000

State Treasurer Phil Angelides,
who also is in the 2006 governor's race: $15,000

State Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough,
a candidate for lieutenant governor: $5,000

State Sen. Chuck Poochigian,
R-Fresno, a candidate for attorney general: $8,000

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria: $9,500

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco: $1,500

Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco: $3,500

Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael: $9,400

Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo,
a Democratic candidate for attorney general: $2,500

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo: $9,000

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove: $2,000

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: $1,000

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom: $500

Source: state and federal campaign finance reports

The flow of campaign cash

Ameriquest's support for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger d
oesn't always have his name on the check. In a number of cases,
the mortgage lender provided money to groups that turned around
and contributed to the governor
and his political allies. Here's an example of how the money flowed:

Ameriquest has donated $600,000 of the $1.4 million
collected since January by CALBUSPAC, the political arm of the
California Chamber of Commerce.

Ameriquest contributed $268,000 to The New Majority,
a Republican group based in Orange Country,
 which has raised $1 million this year.

Ameriquest also provided $200,000 of the $510,000 the California
Business Properties Association raised for its political fund.

That committee gave $175,000 to the California Republican Party
and $555, 000 to Citizens to Save

California, the group that qualified Schwarzenegger's
initiatives for the November special election.

The New Majority then donated $345,000 to Citizens to Save California.

The group gave $100,000 to Citizens to Save California.

In each case, the contributions to Schwarzenegger's
 political effort were made with no indication of Ameriquest's
 involvement, which wasn't reported until the required state c
ontribution reports were filed at the end of July.

E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

Ambassador Roland E. Arnall


http://thehague.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/4XM6Lxkf12Xrbe9ZiQYDMQ/Arnallofficiallarge.jpg
Ambassador
Roland E. Arnall
Download photo;
300 dpi (jpg)
Roland E. Arnall of California is Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.  He was sworn in by Secretary Rice on February 27, 2006. He presented his credentials to Her Majesty Queen Beatrix on March 8, 2006.


Previously, Amb. Arnall was Chairman of the Board of Ameriquest Capital Corporation, a privately held financial services company headquartered in Southern California.  Founded by Amb. Arnall in 1979 and driven by a vision to make homeownership a reality for millions of Americans, Ameriquest Capital Corporation has become one of the leading financial services companies in the United States.  Ameriquest’s success is based in part on the fact that it helped modernize the nonprime lending industry, which today is recognized as an essential part of home financing in America.   

Amb. Arnall began his entrepreneurial career as a young man selling flowers on street corners in Los Angeles. He entered the real estate business and, in the 1970s, expanded his business interests to financial services.  Over the years, he has made significant investments in a diversified portfolio of successful business ventures in technology, oil and gas exploration, real estate and insurance.

Amb. Arnall is an active citizen and philanthropist.  Amb. Arnall was a member of California's Education Task Force Committee and was a Trustee for 16 years of the California State University system, the largest university system in the world.  He is founding Co-Chairman and Trustee of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance.  He and his wife Dawn support dozens of animal protection, artistic, educational, medical, political, human rights, and religious organizations around the world.

Amb. Arnall was born in Paris, France on the eve of World War II and relocated to Montreal, Canada after the end of the war.  In the late 1950s, he moved to California with his family.


http://thehague.usembassy.gov/ambassador.html 




 


 
Complaint Says Hsu Admitted Fraud
Christopher Tomlinson/Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, via Associated Press

Norman Hsu being taken Thursday from Grand Junction, Colo., where he was arrested two weeks ago, back to San Mateo County, Calif., to face sentencing in a 15-year-old fraud case.

By ALAN FEUER and MIKE McINTIRE

Published: September 21, 2007

Norman Hsu, the Democratic fund-raiser with a habit of fleeing the law, confessed to F.B.I. agents last week that he had swindled investors in what the government describes as a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, and acknowledged pressuring at least some of them to contribute to political campaigns, prosecutors said in a criminal complaint unsealed yesterday.

Skip to next paragraph
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
The complaint, filed in the Federal District Court in Manhattan, charges Mr. Hsu with bilking hundreds of investors around the country out of at least $60 million over the last four years. It says he used some of that money to reimburse, in violation of election law, at least two people who, the government says, made a total of $60,000 in campaign donations at his request.

The complaint does not contend that Mr. Hsu confessed either to so vast a swindle or to reimbursing the donors. Nor does it specify which candidates received the illegal or coerced contributions, or who made them.

But the authorities confirmed that one of the candidates was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, whose presidential campaign has already said that it intends to return $850,000 to more than 200 people whose donations were bundled by Mr. Hsu. At a news conference yesterday, Michael J. Garcia, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said the Clinton campaign was cooperating in the investigation that led to the new complaint.

Mr. Hsu, 56, an apparel industry executive and major donor to Democratic candidates and causes, is charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and violating the Federal Election Campaign Act. Conviction on all counts could bring 45 years in prison.

Mr. Hsu surrendered to the authorities in San Mateo County, Calif., at the end of August after reports surfaced that he had been a fugitive in a separate fraud case there for the last 15 years. He was released on $2 million bail, but a week later fled again. On Sept. 6, while riding an Amtrak train from California bound for Denver, he fell violently ill. Taken to a hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., he was eventually arrested there by federal agents. He agreed not to fight extradition, and was returned to California yesterday.

The new complaint said that while in Colorado, Mr. Hsu reached out to federal agents on three occasions and asked to speak to them without his lawyers present. He is said to have told the agents that his business deals involved no real investments but were in fact fraudulent, and “admitted that he made implied threats to his investors to pressure them to contribute to political candidates he supported.” The threats, the authorities said, were that Mr. Hsu would cut the investors out of deals that he described as lucrative.

Working through two shell companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd., Mr. Hsu persuaded numerous investors from across the country to give him money, ostensibly to help secure short-term loans for various companies doing business in the apparel industry, the government said.

Though several investors were bullied into making donations, the Ponzi scheme had not been created to generate political contributions, David A. Cardona, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I.’s New York office, said at yesterday’s news conference. Rather, Mr. Cardona said, it was the cachet derived from Mr. Hsu’s political activities that gave his investment schemes a certain allure.

Those schemes, the complaint said, focused on several aspects of the apparel trade, among them helping obtain letters of credit for wholly imaginary manufacturers and financing the importing of “high-end” Chinese clothing that did not exist. As in all Ponzi schemes, the government said, Mr. Hsu paid interest to the first wave of investors with principal invested by secondary waves, and used this purported success to lure in more investors.

The experience of Joel Rosenman — a New York investor who was referred to in the complaint only as “Victim 1” but whose identity was confirmed by several lawyers involved in the case — is indicative of the scheme as a whole. Mr. Rosenman’s interactions with Mr. Hsu are laid out both in the complaint and in a civil suit filed yesterday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Mr. Rosenman, introduced to Mr. Hsu by a mutual friend in 2003, made an initial investment of $50,000 with him. In return, Mr. Rosenman received a check for $57,000 postdated for four and a half months later. The complaint said Mr. Rosenman’s successful cashing of the check helped him develop trust in Mr. Hsu, who claimed to have lined up clothing deals with major companies like Nordstrom, L. L. Bean and Hugo Boss.

By 2007, Mr. Rosenman had created an investment fund, Source Financing Investors, with friends and relatives that funneled more than $40 million into Mr. Hsu’s hands. In August, however, when reports about Mr. Hsu’s shadowy past began to surface, he was confronted by Mr. Rosenman, who was assured that his investments were not in danger, the government said.

But this month, Mr. Rosenman tried to cash a check for $1,031,300 that Mr. Hsu had given him, and, according to the complaint, the bank refused to accept it. The civil suit filed yesterday, brought against Mr. Hsu by Source Financing Investors, said $40.2 million of the fund’s money was missing.

Ronald Minkoff, a lawyer representing Source Financing Investors, said he had asked political campaigns that received contributions from Mr. Hsu and his network of investors to not dispose of the money.

“We are asking them to hold that money in escrow,” Mr. Minkoff said. “We are trying to find what we can find.”



    • John Edwards: “Predatory lending” beneficiary?

    By Michelle Malkin  •  August 17, 2007 08:41 AM

    Welcome to John Edwards’ America, a land where Democrat presidential candidates demonize the businesses that made them rich. Via the WSJ today, a fresh look at silky hypocrisy. Headline: “Edwards, Foreclosure Critic, Has Investing Tie to Subprime Lenders:”

    As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

    The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

    Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. “I intend to help these people,” the former North Carolina senator said.

    He also promised to cleanse his portfolio of any investments that may be profiting from their losses. “I am going to divest” from any Fortress funds that have a stake in the subprime lenders that filed the foreclosures, he said in a telephone interview. “I will not have my family’s money invested in these firms.”Such a man of belated principle is he.

    Mr. Edwards didn’t give details on how or when he was going to proceed, either to alter his holdings or to aid borrowers. He said he plans to begin making amends to New Orleans homeowners first by contacting them and “seeing where they are in the process.” He said his help may come from his own cash or in collaboration with a charity that specializes in repairing homes. The foreclosures, Mr. Edwards said, “run counter to what I’m about.”

    On the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards has particularly attacked lenders behind foreclosures in storm-slammed Louisiana. In April, he visited the devastated Lower Ninth Ward neighborhood to voice one of his main antipoverty planks: a proposal to rein in subprime-mortgage companies whose “shameful lending practices,” he said, threaten millions of working-class homeowners. “While Washington turns a blind eye, irresponsible lenders are pulling a fast one on hard-working homeowners,” Mr. Edwards said a few days later.

    At the time in late 2005 when Mr. Edwards went to work for Fortress, it already had a stake in one subprime lender that subsequently foreclosed on some Katrina victims, Green Tree Servicing LLC. While he was there, Fortress acquired a second, Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Fortress paid Mr. Edwards $479,512 in 2006 for part-time work, a Federal Election Commission report in May showed.

    After leaving the firm, he kept about half of his net worth in Fortress funds. And Fortress employees have collectively made up the largest class of political contributors to Mr. Edwards. Workers there put up more than $150,000 toward his presidential run in the first six months of the year.The WaPo asked Edwards about Fortress in May. He says he was clueless. Yeah:

    The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

    Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not.And besides, when Edwards is involved with it, it isn’t &ldquoredatory lending,” you see. It’s called helping the poor, of course! Spin, spin, spin those Two Americas, Johnny Boy. More from the WSJ:

    Edwards aides, while apologetic for the foreclosures, defended subprime lending in general. They pointed out the distinctions between subprime loans, which are extended to people with less-than-stellar credit, and &ldquoredatory” loans, which often target the same consumers but employ pressure sales tactics and punitive covenants that can strip equity from home buyers and tie them to onerous payments. Subprime loans, defenders note, can benefit many lower-income people previously locked out of home ownership.

    Mortgage experts say there’s no clear line dividing standard subprime loans from &ldquoredatory” ones. Generally speaking, said Thomas Lawler, a former official at mortgage buyer Fannie Mae, predatory loans carry high interest rates that are allowed to rise but not drop. They may be loaded with prepaid fees. Lenders may make monthly payments look smaller than they really are by not requiring borrowers to put taxes and insurance in escrow. And the loans generally don’t allow early payoff without a steep penalty. That bars refinancing if interest rates drop.Maybe someone should organize a “poverty tour” of those 34 homes in New Orleans whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress. They can rename the neighborhood “Edwardsville.”Have a chuckle. Read John Edwards’ campaign page on “fighting predatory mortgages.” Betsy Newmark weighs in:

    I still think that there is something suspect about this nothingburger of a job that Edwards had there at Fortress. He earned close to half a million dollars for a 15-month stint working at Fortress to study the relationship of capital and poverty, but seemed to miss the whole involvement of his employer with subprime lending. If you or I wanted to study poverty and capital, we’d probably have to go to a university and do some research. Giving a job for someone to do some study while on the job just doesn’t rate a six-figure salary for anyone besides a potential presidential candidate. It seems yet another way to get around the campaign finance laws.

    Posted in: John Edwards

    See what others have said

    Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
    Sticky Notes

    1. » That smell? Why it's John Edwards!

     is allowed to lie right to the American people - blatantly mislead the American voter - and there’s not one peep about it ( other than here and WSJ ).

    1. Thank you WSJ and thank you Michelle.

    2. reporting on this blatant hypocracy?

    3. Well, the WSJ and Washington Post are as MSM as it gets.

      And it’s “hypocrisy.”

    4. #13
      On August 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am, USMCgramma said:

      I love to repeat this: NC did NOT re-elect John Edwards to the Senate. He’s an empty suit.

    5. #14
      On August 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am, JammieWearingFool said:

      Hard to imagine how much longer the MSM will carry water for Teflon John.

      The rank hypocrisy would have buried any Republican long ago.

    6. #15
      On August 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am, Wade said:

      The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not.

      He asked? What did he think they would say, “yes we are predatory lenders“?

    7. #16
      On August 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am, swj719AWG said:

      He asked? What did he think they would say, “yes we are predatory lenders“?

      Edwards: “Are you preditory lenders?”

      Folks from Fortress: “You bet yer sweet, sweet ass we are. Look! *points* Piles of money!”

      E: *zones out, comes around* “I’m sorry, I seem to have been distracted by a large amount of lovely, life-giving money.” *rubs a handful of hundred dollar bills over his face and neck* “Did you say something?”

      FfF: “Nope. Didn’t say a thing…”

    8. #17
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am, Old Tanker said:

      Seems perfectly logical to me. Now he can promise a tax payer bailout to save his investment money……conflict of interest here??

    9. #18
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:10 am, ThackerAgency said:

      Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. “I intend to help these people,” the former North Carolina senator said.

      HAHAHAHAHA! Fix predatory lending practices by becoming a predatory lender.

      I’m amazed that ANYONE at all still considers this man credible. Um, but you need to be careful MM, he’s going to use your blog to claim ‘conspiracy from MM to shut him up’ so that he can raise more money.

      Um, this is Edwards’ MO. Spell it how you want (I’m sure spelling is a pet peave of yours), but Edwards is the definition of hypocrisy.

      He’s going to fix the health care system that his life’s work destroyed (suing doctors) by controlling the system. I drove by his house just last Saturday. The next door neighbor still has his “Go Rudy, 2008″ sign in front of his driveway.

      This guy is a J-O-K-E. Um, I don’t understand why any media outlet still considers him credible as a &lsquoublic servant’. I guess if he’s unemployed he has to do something.

    10. #19
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:16 am, JWS said:

      Edwards, Hillary, Obama. Sigh. If just one of the so called conservatives running for POTUS acted like the adult in the room, this thing would be over before it started. I mean, those three guys are beyond a joke…

    11. #20
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:19 am, terrig said:

      When I saw this this morning on the Fox News crawl it stated something about more hypocrisy by this clown. He never ceases to amaze me.
      I also don’t understand why he’s still considered “top tier”.
      He’s an absolute idiot if he believes this Fortress crowd would actually say they’re bad lenders. Meanwhile he’s standing there with his paws out collecting their dough off the backs of the poor, non savy mortgage seeking, downtrodden who can’t defend themselves from the likes of Fortress (sarc off). He will be sending that money back right?

    12. #21
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:22 am, On-my-soap-box said:

      It is obvious that every one of you lives in the “second America” therefore, you cannot understand anybody who lives in the “first America”.

    13. #22
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am, taylork said:

      The only reason why Edwards is still a “top-tier candidate,” despite polling at the same level as John “dead in the water” McCain, is because the MSM wants to pretend that Hilary isn’t a shoe in. We really ought to start ignoring the silky one and focus on Hildog exclusively. She’s got to be loving the fact that we’re too distracted with Edwards’ sillyness to point out ALL of her flaws and do more research on her past.

    14. #23
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am, geminicontender said:

      How can people still believe in this guy? #2 America had better wake up before #1 America ruins lives all around. What happened to taking care of ones own business instead of relying on “fakes’ like Edwards and his wife. She is as rude as he is and I hope that people discuss her illness too. No protection for her. She made her bed and now she has to sleep in it.

    15. #24
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am, taylork said:

      She made her bed and now she has to sleep in it.

      I think she had someone make her bed for her, someone in America #2 who’s still asking the Edwards’ for health insurance.

    16. #25
      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am, davidleerothmann said:

      Truth be told, the genuine Edwards story would do more to help people in poverty then his phony man-o-the-people act.

      Look at what we have learned about him. He acts in his own financial best interest. He invests his assets and time to maximize return. He worked hard to obtain an education, avoided the pitfalls of drugs and alcohol that derail the dreams of so many who start life in poverty. He kept his family together, and took responsibility for his own success. Isn’t that the conservative template for how to rise out of poverty?

      Of course, if he preaches that from the stump, they’ll throw him out of the Democratic Party.

    17. #26
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am, Thunder_Run said:

      Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/17/2007
      A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

    18. #27
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am, brentano said:

      I feel sorry for Edwards though.

      He’s getting scalded every day while Hillary seals her records.

    19. #28
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am, jrlingreenbay said:

      “Well, the WSJ and Washington Post are as MSM as it gets.”

      True enough Michelle - but I was speaking of even greater coverage, as we all know there would be if this were a GOP candidate.

      CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc…

      I credit those who have enlighted us, but many of the others would rather re-hash the ‘hypocracy’ of Mitt & Rudy’s pro / anti abortion stances, Fred’s lobbying, and family members who disagree with their relative’s candidacies.

    20. #29
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am, mnmike said:

      The Edwards’ are just strange.

    21. #30
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am, thirteen28 said:

      On August 17th, 2007 at 10:02 am, Old Tanker said:
      Seems perfectly logical to me. Now he can promise a tax payer bailout to save his investment money……conflict of interest here??

      Exactly. All of these calls for a bailout are just to save the butts of the hedge fund types like Forrest Investments and their investors who stand to get burned for their stupid, shortsighted investment decisions.

      No bailout, let ‘em fall on their faces as far as I’m concerned.

    22. #31
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am, Regulus said:

      Does anyone pay attention to Edwards anymore except for the entertainment value? Hillary’s stomping him in the polls by what, 30 points now?

      I’ve said it before: the problem with being mentally lazy is the temptation to believe that others are just as lazy as you are. I doubt that Edwards thought for a moment that anyone would work up the energy to do some digging on his background in this matter.

      He was half right: anyone still supporting his presidential fantasies probably doesn’t know, and doesn’t care.

      Hey Michelle, that kid who said “Look mommy - the Emperor has no clothes!” was you, wasn’t it?

    23. #32
      On August 17th, 2007 at 11:57 am, Regulus said:

      Um, but you need to be careful MM, he’s going to use your blog to claim ‘conspiracy from MM to shut him up’ so that he can raise more money.

      First thought that came to my mind, ThackerAgency, but you beat me to it.

    24. #33
      On August 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pm, trinitytim said:

      “Predatory lending” Is than anything like “Predatory Lawsuits”. Edwards is a hypocrite who needs to go back to his million dollar home and keep his mouth shut. Thank God the people of NC refused to send him back to the senate.

    25. #34
      On August 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm, jferg49 said:

      Does anyone think that slimy shyster really has a chance?…he’s a worm with arms…hey…what does Edwards (a lawyer) and a spermatozoa have in commmon?…
      they both have about one chance in a million of becoming a human being….

    26. #35
      On August 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

      This guy is the Al Sharpton of North Carolina. He does it so effortlessly. I would admire his talents if I was not so revolted by it.

      I also wonder what happened to his positive campaign.

      http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/inside-the-edwards-campaign-aka-the-flat-earth-society/

      http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/al-sharpton-colon-cancer-and-other-pains-in-the-rumpus/

      I suspect Al Sharpton will hire John
      Edwards to represent that woman basketball player that nobody cares about in her quest to get money from Imus.

      If Edwards truly wanted to benefit society (doubtful), he would help me a file a class action suit against the Social Security Administration so I can get back the money taken out of my paycheck for that worthless pyramid scheme.

      Worthless scheme…sounds like the Edwards campaign to a T.

      Respectfully,

      eric

    27. #36
      On August 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, Airforce_5_O said:

      His efforts to ignite the “angry poor” are just appalling. Yes let us just give away our money to those who are living off the Government sow. He is and always will be a rich white lawyer who wants power.
      Now stick that in your foreclosure and smoke it Johnny boy.

    28. #37
      On August 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm, AlohaGuy said:

      Michelle, I love it, Hypocrisy Fridays. Wasn’t Edwards also last Fiday’s Poster Boy for Hypocrisy? <img src=" width="15" height="15" />

      I think he has room in his house to take in all 34 families who are losing their homes.

      John - “How long are you going to be in the bathroom, I need to brush my hair?”

      Elizabeth - “Now John, there are 34 families ahead of you.”

      John - “But I’m First America, they’re only Second America.”

    29. #38
      On August 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm, CC said:

      This story should be brought directly to the people involved, those that lost their homes in Katrina, and who are being taken in by this hypocrisy.

      Also, all the msm, including CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, local affiliates, and print media should be bombarded by the public, demanding to know why this story, and so many others that they deliberately avoid, are not being reported to the public.

      Journalism has sunk to an all time low, and we need to remind them to do their jobs instead of following personal political agendas.

    Click here:
     

    Wednesday, August 29, 2007

    Norman Hsu


    Norman Who?

    Let me guess how Hillary Clinton will react to the revelations about Norman Hsu:

    "I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?' I was furious and getting more so by the second."

    Actually, I think the anger act would be her last resort.

    For now, her campaign is acting clueless, standing by Hsu's integrity.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.

    "He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

    Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.

    Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

    In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

    On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time. Hsu remembers the episode as part of a settlement with creditors when he also went through bankruptcy, Barcella said.

    ...As a Democratic rainmaker, Hsu -- who graduated from UC Berkeley and the Wharton School of Business -- is credited with donating nearly $500,000 to national and local party candidates and their political committees in the last three years. He earned a place in the Clinton campaign's "HillRaiser" group by pledging to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid.

    Records show that Hsu helped raise an additional $500,000 from other sources for Clinton and other Democrats.

    "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday.

    "During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."

    It's clear that Hillary is going to play the "I'm clueless" card -- AGAIN.

    Her supporters don't seem to care when Hillary claims to be a victim.

    Does the name David Rosen ring a bell?

    If Hillary and her people are so stupid when it comes to fundraising, can she really be trusted to run the country?

    If she's so willing to tolerate corruption in her campaign, what does that say about the sort of leadership we can expect from Hillary?

    I guess it's says that she's a lot like Bill.

    To quote Michelle Obama:

    "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

    My question for Hillary's supporters:

    Is it worse for presidential candidate Hillary to be a liar, or to be so stupid that she doesn't realize people are lying?
    ________________________

    UPDATE: Change of plans at Hillary headquarters--

    WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will give to charity the $23,000 in donations she has received from a fundraiser who is wanted in California for failing to appear for sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge.

    The decision came Wednesday as other Democrats began distancing themselves from Norman Hsu, whose legal encounters and links to other Democratic donors have drawn public scrutiny in the past two days.

    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also planned to turn over Hsu contributions to his 2004 presidential campaign to charity. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Al Franken, a Senate candidate in Minnesota, Reps. Michael Honda and Doris Matsui of California and Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania said they would divest their campaigns of Hsu's donations as well.

    Hsu is a fundraiser for Clinton and is described as a devoted fan of the presidential candidate and New York senator. He had planned to co-host a money event for Clinton on Sept. 30. In a statement Wednesday, Hsu said he believed he had resolved his legal issues, but said he would halt his work raising political money.

    "I would not consciously subject any of the candidates and causes in which I believe to any harm through my actions," he said. "Therefore, until this matter is resolved, I intend to refrain from all fundraising activities on behalf of all candidates and causes."

    Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the $23,000 included contributions from Hsu to Clinton's presidential campaign, her Senate re-election and her political action committee. The campaign did not plan to return any money Hsu raised from other donors, Singer said.

    "In light of the information regarding Mr. Hsu's outstanding warrant in California, we will be giving his contribution to charity," Singer said.

    Yesterday, campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said there was no plan to return any money.

    Today, Hillary camp's is giving up some money. The decision to hand over $23,000 of the donations from Hsu to charity is a poor attempt to distance Hillary from the impropriety.

    That sum is just a drop in her bucket.

    Given how many candidates are connected to Hsu's dirty money, I think this story should be far more significant in terms of the 2008 political landscape than Larry Craig's airport bathroom behavior.

    It should be but it won't be. The media are having way too much fun playing up Craig's case.
    ________________________

    More on the mysterious Mr. Hsu:
    Money has brought both trappings and trouble for Norman Hsu. Major contributions to the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other candidates have made the apparel executive an insider in elite political circl

    Imported from external blog


    Visibility: Everyone
    Posted: Tuesday March 20, 2007, 11:51 am
    Tags: [add/edit tags]

    Group Discussions start a discussion
    Comments
    Or, log in with your
    Facebook account:
    Compose your comment and submit:

    Cheeky Freaky (529)     		Tuesday March 20, 2007, 11:59 am
    very interesting...thank you...

    Lillian D. (43)     		Tuesday March 20, 2007, 12:28 pm
    You should join some of my other group like Mortgage Predatory Lending and subprime Loan I have lot of information their on Mortgage and you will see what going on with Mortgage's in today world I don,t know if you have a home but if you don't it good to know if you ever have intention of getting one.and even if you have a home it good to know if your ever going to refinace Lil

    Lillian D. (43)     		Thursday September 20, 2007, 10:10 am
    E-Mail | Comments | E-Mail Newsletters | RSS


    Associated Press
    Contractors Assisted Stevens Fundraisers
    By MATT APUZZO 09.19.07, 6:09 PM ET





    WASHINGTON - A construction worker who oversaw renovation of Sen. Ted Stevens' home said his company also paid him to help run fundraisers for the Alaska Republican, a practice that appears to violate federal campaign finance laws.

    Contractor Robert Williams is a key witness in a bribery investigation that stretches from Alaska to Capitol Hill and threatens legal and political headaches for the Senate's longest-serving Republican. The FBI is investigating whether Stevens received illegal gifts from VECO Corp., the once powerful Alaska oil contractor.

    Williams said he was in charge of "special projects" for VECO founder Bill Allen, and the renovation of Stevens' home was one such project. Others included working three or four fundraisers for Stevens while on the clock with VECO. Federal elections laws prohibit candidates from accepting donations or free services from corporations.

    Unlike other VECO employees, Williams did not itemize his time sheets with job codes so customers could be billed. When working on one of Allen's pet projects, Williams just logged his hours and VECO made sure he was paid.

    "I never had any doubts about it until the FBI came down and served me with subpoenas," Williams said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from his home in Alaska.

    At fundraisers, including at least one at the home of Stevens' brother-in-law, Williams said he was assigned odd jobs. He delivered ice, arranged for table rental or oversaw the four or five VECO employees parking cars.

    "If I didn't have parking patrol, I basically just had to be there to make sure nothing got messed up," Williams recalled.

    Williams said he also helped run annual fundraising pig roasts for Rep. Don Young, another Alaska Republican who has come under scrutiny in the VECO investigation. The fundraisers were among many Williams said he worked on during his more than 13 years at VECO.

    Stevens spokesman Aaron Saunders had no comment Wednesday. The senator has said he wants to avoid any suggestion he was trying to influence the investigation by discussing it publicly.

    A spokesman for Young's office referred questions to his campaign spokesman, who did not immediately return a call.

    Corporations are prohibited from donating to federal candidates, and that includes providing services, said Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington campaign lawyer and former Federal Election Commission counsel.

    "The company would have had to have been paid," Gross said.

    Young recently amended his campaign finance reports to reflect $38,000 in back payments to Allen for the fundraisers. A review of Stevens' campaign finance expenditures since 2000 revealed no payments to VECO or Allen for fundraising.

    Robert K. Kelner, another elections attorney and former Republican National Committee lawyer, said the question is whether Stevens or his campaign workers knew the VECO employees were on the clock.

    "Should a thoughtful candidate consider that possibility and look into it? Yes," Kelner said. "Do they have a legal obligation to be that thoughtful? No."

    Fundraising and favors are at the heart of the corruption investigation, which has ensnared several Alaska legislators. Allen has pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers and is cooperating with the FBI. He admitted in court last week that his employees provided "some labor" on Stevens' house in 2000, but Williams recalled the job in greater detail.

    Williams remembered spending two or three days a week for about six months at Stevens' house, supervising workers and installing hardwood floors. He also recalled moving a truckload of furniture, including a bed and a rug, from Stevens' mother-in-law's house to the senator's home.

    The renovation was supposed to have been just a concrete slab in the basement. But groundwater levels complicated the job, Williams said, so workers raised the house, built a new first floor and added electrical and plumbing connections.

    A few other VECO employees helped on the job and Williams hired outside contractors. A garage was added, though Williams isn't sure how that idea came up.

    VECO isn't in the residential construction business. Its workers build oil pipelines. But Williams said Allen often assigned him work for friends and family. Stevens and Allen are longtime friends, so Williams didn't think the renovation project was unusual.

    Stevens met with workers and knew VECO was handling the job, Williams said, so he assumed the senator was reimbursing VECO for his time. Stevens has said he paid every bill he received on the house.

    "Ted said he wanted to make sure everything is paid for," Williams recalled from an early meeting with Allen and Stevens.

    He recalls Stevens and his wife paying for flooring and is certain the senator paid for at least some of the work. But because Williams didn't record his time at Stevens' house, he said nobody could know for sure how much his time cost.

    At the time, he assumed that when he signed off on expenses and submitted them to VECO, the company would pass those bills on to Stevens. Now, he's not so sure.

    "I think Bill's ego got away from him," Williams said. "I think he did what he thought he could do."

    Allen liked to do things his own way and wasn't fussy about separating business and friendship, Williams said. "Bill's personal life and the company were one and the same."

    Williams testified about the house project before a federal grand jury in Anchorage. He couldn't remember the total cost of the renovation, but said the Justice Department seemed to already know more about the project than he did.

    Investigators were "very thorough" and had numerous documents and bills associated with the house, he said.

    "I thought everything was on the up and up," Williams said. "I'm disappointed with the way things turned out and I'm sorry for Ted."


    Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed



    Lillian D. (43)     		Thursday September 20, 2007, 11:39 am
    Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers
    Thursday, November 24, 2005
    From the logs: searches for Ameriquest, Arnall and Patrick
    Hadn’t checked the searches in a long time and it’s kind of entertaining to see how people find the site.

    Here are the 355 11/1 to 11/21 searches including “Ameriquest”:

    1. ameriquest layoffs 56 15.77%
    2. ameriquest settlement 9 2.54%
    3. ameriquest mortgage 9 2.54%
    4. ameriquest fraud 8 2.25%
    5. ameriquest complaints 7 1.97%
    6. ameriquest sucks 6 1.69%


    Continue reading ...

    Posted by Christine on 11/24/2005 at 12:03 AM
    2004 NEW Suit • Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers • (50) Comments • Permalink

    Wednesday, November 23, 2005
    Case management conference: Judge Wake sets tight schedule - damages - expert witnesses
    Almost forgot to finish this posting about the 11/17/05 case management conference in Phoenix.

    I had Anthony Ferlanti and Panda Management Company, Inc. (the Ameriquest spammer) dismissed. There’s no point to wasting any more resources on deadbeats, I just wanted to document who Ameriquest does business with.

    Judge Wake urged the attorneys for Capital One, Equifax and Target to consider a magistrate judge with only 30 or 40 cases as he has over 300 cases. Despite his promotion of the “great service” by magistrate judges, I doubt they’ll agree. Why do the defendants always vehemently oppose magistrate judges?

    He also discussed expert witnesses and that’s something that I’m really clueless about. The defendants intend to have experts regarding my damages. I’m going to have to read up on that. He asked whether the defendants had submitted interrogatories, they haven’t yet and they intend to do so.

    How do you value 4 years of your life?

    Staring at the LCD 14/7/360, being broke, not being able to help or even visit a dying relative, nothing but stress—and I STILL don’t have the Target and Cap One limits on my credit reports.

    PUNITIVE damages are definitely appropriate.

    Judge Wake moved the deadlines forward and I obviously won’t be going to Nicaragua this winter. Just as I finally got a clue about mobile sat connections.

    “SCHEDULING ORDER issued: Discovery due by 3/31/2006. Dispositive motions due by 4/14/2006. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/28/2006. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 11/17/05.”

    I had a lot of time to think during this 500 mile round trip to the hearing. I don’t know of any pro se with a jury trial and I never thought that I’d even consider taking this to trial pro se. But now I’m quite confident and nothing scares me anymore.

    Every juror has a credit report.

    I have NOTHING to lose.

    There’s NO way for me to screw this up.

    It doesn’t matter WHAT happens, I’ll always prevail because I’m right. If I don’t “win”, it’s not because there’s something wrong with me or my case, but because of a defective legal system and the corrupt “consumer advocate” lawyers.

    Of course I’d really like to get some COMPETENT legal help and if I just find the time to send out a bunch of press releases, maybe there is a lawyer who’ll give me some good legal advice for an hourly fee.

    Regarding expert witnesses.

    I have yet to be able to think of any expert other than possibly Fair Isaac. I don’t know why I shouldn’t just use the material from Fair Isaac’s websites.

    Why do I need experts?

    I can’t think of anyone more qualified than myself. Can I question the defendants’ experts’ qualifications?

    Can I ask how much the experts are paid for their testimony?

    I already posted about those scumbag “consumer advocates” who market their expert testimony for a fee such as $2,500 for an affidavit, payable in advance. “Consumer advocate” attorney David Szwak is one of those corrupt incompetent morons, sending out his “expert” testimony resume to other lawyers.

    Speaking of that low life, from his 8/02 e-mail:

    … I want to make an offer and see what we might work out. I have a great resource of links to nationwide practitioners who are willing to help consumers with legal questions, etc., filing suits. You have one of the best site for compiling information about victims and repeat violations/practices.

    It seems we ought to join forces. You have access to victims and pattern/practice data. We [collectively] have ability to bring legal actions
    on behalf of those victimized and to cover clients nationwide via NCLC and NACA.

    Some suits would permit grant monies to be awarded in your favor.

    We might also help promote your site. ...

    I accepted his offer and posted his ad at http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?t=928

    Of course that’s all he wanted - free advertising. He feigned interest in a client’s case initially (prior to my posting of his ad), kept stringing her along for several months to eventually decline her. He refused ALL my client referrals (not profitable) and he actually wrote:

    “The main problem with a BK consumer is that they have already caused maximum damage to their credit/rating. Causation to damage is tough where they have ruined their credit with a BK [a max derog]. “

    He ought the get the “most incompetent consumer credit lawyer award” for that one, what an idiot! More on super moron Szwak is at Cream skimming CONSUMER ADVOCATE lawyers sold out to the corporations

    So I’m wondering whether the grant money he promised (but never delivered) is only for class actions. Since neither NACA nor ANY of these fake consumer advocate organizations provide assistance to consumers, it would be too cool if I could ask for some cash for myself and have anything above a certain amount go to establish a self sustaining consumer litigation organization

    I’ve seen junk fax litigation settlements with part or all of the amount going to charitable organizations. Of course you’d have to get a lot more than I’ve gotten in my settlements so far to actually be able to do something and hire at least one COMPETENT lawyer.

    Every juror is extremely likely to be in need of such a service sooner or later.

    Well, first thing’s first, and that’s discovery. Judge Wake said he will decide in his ruling regarding the pending Target motion whether the reporting of the credit limits is required as a matter of law. If he decides that “complete” credit reporting does NOT include the credit limits, I’ll definitely appeal. But, I have to wait until the case is terminated, so the sooner we wrap this up, the better.

    Regardless of what happens, I’ll get a chance to learn from my mistakes, publish the events to help the next pro se do better and of course I can use what I learn against Experian and whoever remains in my first case.

    I really need to send out lots of press releases.

    Someone sent me
    Ameriquest Mortgage Illegal Purchase of Consumer Credit Reports and it’s great to see how these press releases are the gift that keeps on giving.

    There’s so much one can do, it’s too bad that I’m the only one “doing.”

    Posted by Christine on 11/23/2005 at 07:15 PM
    2004 NEW Suit • Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers • Capital One - ruthless banksters • RNB (Target) - not reporting credit limits • (2) Comments • Permalink

    Monday, November 21, 2005
    Civil rights groups paid off by Ameriquest support CEO Arnall for ambassador
    What a wonderful display of the corruption on Capitol Hill and in civil rights organizations:

    Ameriquest Exec Has Unexpected Backers

    Behind the scenes, the lender is trying to nail down a $325-million settlement that would break the logjam and probably assure Arnall’s confirmation.

    Meanwhile, others have lobbied for the nomination to be approved without delay. When the publicity-shy Arnall trekked to Capitol Hill for his confirmation hearing last month, his supporters inside the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room included Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Shanna Smith, head of the National Fair Housing Alliance; and Ricardo Byrd, head of the National Assn. of Neighborhoods, which pushes for economic development of minority and low-income communities.

    All three groups have benefited from Arnall’s philanthropy. As they tell it, Arnall, 66, is a believer in human rights, a value forged earlier in life when his Jewish family was forced to hide out in German-occupied France during World War II.

    Their support has gotten members’ attention, if not defused the concerns.

    “Let me say at the very outset that you have a very commendable life story, and I have great respect for it,” said Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), who has emerged as Arnall’s chief interrogator on Capitol Hill. “You have a number of friends who are friends of mine.”

    ....

    Corrupt bastards, everywhere I look. You might recall my posting Corrupt democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick praises Ameriquest CEO Roland Arnall

    Of course I did NOT get a response to my e-mail. Guilty as charged. They have NOTHING to say.

    … The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, for example, last year received more than $250,000 from Ameriquest for training and other organizational needs.

    Henderson, who has insisted that the money comes with no strings attached, declined to comment for this article.

    Byrd acknowledged that his association had received “a considerable amount” of money from Arnall over the years, much of which has been used to educate activists about the sub-prime mortgage market and its potential benefits for those in need of credit.

    But Arnall is “a man of integrity,” Byrd said, adding that Ameriquest ran into trouble with the states because it did not police its loan agents as well as it should have as the company rapidly expanded amid a boom in home refinancings.

    Patrick, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Massachusetts, said one of his earliest impressions of Arnall came when they met to negotiate the 1996 Long Beach Mortgage settlement at the Justice Department.

    “We sat around my conference table, we talked it through, and I’ll never forget Roland saying to me: ‘How am I supposed to explain this to my mother … that I’m being sued by the Justice Department for violations of human rights?’ “

    Arnall took a constructive role in the settlement talks and went on to support higher industry standards, Patrick said.

    About a year ago, Arnall invited Patrick to become a board member of ACC Capital Holdings, the parent of Ameriquest.

    Patrick, who declined to reveal his compensation as a board member, said he accepted the offer because he thought good could come of his involvement.

    “He wants to do the right thing,” Patrick said of Arnall.

    Corrupt Patrick “declined to reveal his compensation.” Does he really think that’ll make him look any better?

    Why isn’t there a LAW against corruption?

    I guess it’s because we wouldn’t have any legislators and there would be no consumer or civil rights organizations if corruption was illegal.

    A google for “define corrupt”

    Definitions of corrupt on the Web:

    * corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; “debauch the young people with wine and women”; “Socrates was accused of corrupting young men”; “Do school counselors subvert young children?”; “corrupt the morals”
    * lacking in integrity; “humanity they knew to be corrupt...from the day of Adam’s creation”; “a corrupt and incompetent city government”
    * crooked: not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive
    * alter from the original
    * bribe: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence; “This judge can be bought”
    * containing errors or alterations; “a corrupt text”; “spoke a corrupted version of the language”
    * defile: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; “sully someone’s reputation”
    * touched by rot or decay; “tainted bacon”; “`corrupt’ is archaic”
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    * In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. All forms of government are susceptible in practice to political corruption. Degrees of corruption vary greatly, from minor uses of influence and patronage to do and return favours, to institutionalised bribery and beyond. The end-point of political corruption is kleptocracy, literally rule by thieves, where even the external pretence of honesty is abandoned.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt

    * Changed from good to bad, dishonest, to make wicked, to defile.
    http://www.godonthe.net/dictionary/c.html

    Here’s the law we SHOULD have:

    NOBODY testifies in at any government hearing on behalf of any person or entity if compensation was received from that person or entity in the previous 5 years. Anyone testifying for a person or entity cannot accept any compensation whatsoever from that person or entity for 5 years from the testimoney.

    Patrick claims that Arnall wants to do the right thing. Read their Motions to dismiss! Ameriquest could have apologized for their loan agent’s failure to send me the credit reports and it could have provided the promised reports. It’s that simple.

    Instead, they were as vile as could possibly be, filed 3 motions to dismiss and LIED about the reason for my decline.

    They did not even fire the agent Beatrice for SELLING my data to another broker after reviewing the credit report. They LIED about declining my application due to my credit report. The FCRA and ECOA REQUIRES notification and disclosures so that consumers can take advantage of their rights under the FCRA. Ameriquest did everything it could to deprive me of those rights.

    Deval Patrick and all these “civil rights” corrupt thieving perverts WILL get what they have coming - sooner or later.

    c: notice of publication and request for comments to Finance@devalpatrick.com, Field@devalpatrick.com, Press@devalpatrick.com

    Posted by Christine on 11/21/2005 at 01:26 PM
    2004 NEW Suit • Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers • (0) Comments • Permalink

    Saturday, November 12, 2005
    Corrupt democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick praises Ameriquest CEO Roland Arnall
    Patrick backs Ameriquest owner for ambassador’s post

    By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | November 10, 2005

    Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick is urging the US Senate to approve a controversial ambassadorial nominee whose mortgage firm’s lending practices are under investigation in 30 states and whose wife helped finance a GOP television ad blitz that targeted John F. Kerry in last year’s presidential campaign.

    Patrick last month wrote the Senate Foreign Relations Committee praising Roland Arnall, the principal owner of Ameriquest Capital Corp., whom President Bush has nominated to be US ambassador to the Netherlands. Patrick lauded the Los Angeles businessman’s ‘’rectitude” and said that Arnall has demonstrated leadership and creativity in moving to correct his company’s practices.

    ‘’This is a good man,” Patrick wrote in an Oct. 19 letter addressed to Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican who chairs the committee, and to the ranking minority member, Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat.

    But his support for Arnall puts Patrick at odds with fellow Democrats and Kerry supporters, just as Patrick is trying to get traction in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor. The Democratic National Committee in Washington opposes the Arnall nomination, calling it an example of ‘’corruption and cronyism” in the Bush administration. Kerry also opposed the nomination.

    Patrick said this week he did not consider the political repercussions when he responded to a request from Arnall to write the letter.

    ‘’My support for this guy was not a political calculation,” he said in an interview. ‘’My support was based on his friendship and his character. If it was based on his politics, I would not have written that letter.”

    Arnall put Patrick, a former top US civil rights enforcer, on the Ameriquest board of directors in August 2004, to help resolve a wide-ranging investigation by regulators and attorneys general across the country. The privately held firm has over the years been forced to defend itself against allegations that it uses predatory lending practices directed at low-income minorities and the elderly.

    ....

    The rest of the article is well worth reading.

    This just goes to show what lowlife corrupt scum runs for office. Arnall put Patrick on the Ameriquest board of directors in August 2004 “to help resolve a wide-ranging investigation by regulators and attorneys general across the country.”

    How can Patrick so sell out?

    Values have been reduced to $$$$ and power.

    However, the real problem isn’t that Patrick is scum.

    The problem is that Patrick thinks he can still get ELECTED to Governor of Massachusetts!

    As the last election proved AGAIN, the American people really don’t care about corruption.

    http://www.devalpatrick.com/

    My e-mail to Finance@devalpatrick.com, Field@devalpatrick.com, Press@devalpatrick.com

    To Mr. Patrick and staff:

    According to an article in the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick praised Ameriquest CEO Roland Arnall and supported his appointment to ambassador.

    Nobody in their right mind would endorse a scumbag like Arnall unless paid off.

    Patrick is a disgrace to the democratic party and ought to be expelled.

    Most disgusted by the politician scum that runs for office,

    Christine Baker

    c: posted at [this URL].

    I don’t know whether political parties ever expel anyone. If they had any values, they would kick out a-holes like Patrick in 2 nanoseconds. But it’s really just about $$$ and power everywhere.

    There’s no integrity in any political party.

    You’d think that having the information available on the web, it would be easy to not only document and publicize the corruption, but to put pressure on the politicians. I just don’t see it happening.

    A stunt like Patrick’s Arnall praises should immediately result in him having to withdraw because he and his supporters SHOULD know that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected. His supporters ought to RUN!

    There should be similar postings at thousands of blogs. Patrick’s office should get thousands of e-mails demanding that he immediately retract his support of Arnall and send a new letter to the Senate, demanding that Arnall NOT be appointed.

    But, that’s not going to happen. The Ameriquest victims are *mostly* whiners and complainers, cowards afraid to offend anyone, scared sheep limiting their activities to anonymous rants.

    America 2005.


    Posted by Christine on 11/12/2005 at 03:53 PM
    2004 NEW Suit • Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers • Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

    Friday, November 04, 2005
    Republican Lugar FIGHTS for Ameriquest CEO Roland Arnall confirmation as Ambassador
    Lugar’s New Math: 9 to 9 = 8 to 2

    By Al Kamen

    Friday, November 4, 2005

    Feeling low because you’ve missed out on all the good ambassadorships? Cheer up! One exceptionally fine one, the Netherlands, which appeared filled just might be opening up again.

    Seems a most unusual snag has developed in the bid of Los Angeles multibillionaire and Ameriquest Mortgage Co. chairman and founder Roland E. Arnall , a longtime major Democratic contributor until recently, to that most excellent posting in the land of tulips and wooden shoes.



    Arnall and his wife, Dawn Arnall, were reportedly the single biggest source of financial support for President Bush since 2002, giving or raising at least $12.25 million. More than enough to erase all contributions to Democrats.

    But there were other concerns. Arnall’s company is the largest mortgage lender to lower-income people and those with iffy credit ratings. Regulators in 30 states have raised concerns about shoddy lending practices, alleged fraud, falsification of documents and bait-and-switch tactics.

    Arnall has set aside $325 million to settle the claims. The eight Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats had said they would nonetheless vote against Arnall, though they think he’s a good nominee, because the legal cloud over him had not been resolved—and some states wanted a commitment to change sales practices as part of a deal.

    Then Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he, too, still had problems and wanted to think about it, maybe talk it over with Arnall.

    “I do think it’s important who represents this country abroad,” Hagel said at the hearing. “I do think we should send people who are not under a cloud of investigation. Mr. Arnall, fairly or unfairly, finds himself in that position.”

    Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) nonetheless pushed for a vote. Hagel came down against Arnall, deadlocking the committee 9 to 9.

    Some thought the tie, as would usually be the case, blocked the nomination from going the floor for a vote. Not so.

    Lugar read the Senate rules to say the tally that counted was of the 10 senators present and they voted 8 to 2 for Arnall. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) protested that the proxies had to be included, but the nomination went to the Senate floor—at least for now.

    Democrats say if the nomination is brought up for a vote, they will challenge Lugar’s interpretation of the rules. They say the Senate parliamentarian has indicated the Dems would prevail.

    This may yet be worked out—but keep those sums at the ready.

    WTF is wrong with Lugar?

    Who voted for that corrupt moron and why?

    How can the Republicans possibly WANT someone as vile as Arnall anywhere but in prison?

    What could be MORE disgusting than the politicians?
    The consumer advocates

    There’s a forum for mortgage servicing fraud and I offered to assist with a press release about Arnall:

    Dutch TV researching Ameriquest Arnall and looking for attorneys and litigants

    Not ONE person did anything. The entire forum is nothing but a place for cream skimming lawyers and either nutcases or lenders in disguise to keep people from *doing* anything but rant. Specifically, there’s Greg Collins who does whatever he can to keep people from taking action—*he* is in the process of taking Ameriquest down. There’s no need for anyone to do anything because Greg is taking care of Ameriquest.

    He also lied to me about getting me an attorney for my case against Ameriquest. And he succeeded in getting me to settle instead of doing discovery and sending out another press release. Great job, Greg!

    Between the corrupt politicians, the corrupt consumer advocates and the lazy whining and not willing to *do* anything victims - why bother fighting?

    Posted by Christine on 11/04/2005 at 12:14 PM
    2004 NEW Suit • Ameriquest Mortgage - incompetent spammers • Politics • (0) Comments • Permalink

    Page 1 of 11 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 1:08 pm
    Edwards, Foreclosure Critic, Has Investing Tie to Subprime Lenders
    By Christopher Cooper
    Word Count: 1,973 | Companies Featured in This Article: Fortress Investment Group
    As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

    The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through ...

    • THE FULL WSJ.com ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 1:20 pm
    Home » Blogs » jzaharoff's blog
    1.2 million home foreclosures: how did it happen?
    Submitted by jzaharoff on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 16:33.
    Stephanie and her husband, a young couple with a family in Napa Valley, CA, took out loans to buy their first house in 2003. After making payments for two years, they refinanced to one loan, then their bank sold the loan to a subprime mortgage lender--and they quickly plunged into a financial vortex. Accused of a late payment, then allegedly swindled by a loss mitigation group, Stephanie and her husband ultimately sold their house, with nothing but stress to show for it.

    Gertrude Robertson, 89, lives in Seattle. When an independent mortgage broker convinced her to refinance three years ago, she obliged--and two years later, her payments rose by over $1000 and she's now terrified of being evicted.

    "I just wanted to be able to eat and sleep in my house and have a roof over my head," says Ms. Robertson.... "Every day at midnight when I go to sleep, I think maybe when I wake in the morning, they'll tell me to get out."

    U.S. foreclosures rose 42% last year; 1.2 million homes are in jeopardy. Each one has a story, like Stephanie's and Gertrude's.

    The questions are: Why are foreclosures rising? What will that mean?

    And what could we have done to stop it sooner?

    One simple reason for the rise in foreclosures is the recent flourishing of subprime loans in the last decade. As lending changed and it became lenders, not banks, who commonly made home loans, many new mortgage products appeared, and more and more consumers were aggressively steered to refinance their homes using subprime loans. A typical version has a fixed low rate for a few years, then the rate can rise quickly. And most applicants are measured on whether they can afford the low "teaser" rate, not the later, higher rate; when they can't pay it, like Gertrude Robinson, they may face foreclosure.

    What does this mean? The rash of foreclosures means a buildup in the supply of housing, which drives prices down--in other words, it generally weakens the housing market. The larger concern is that a substantial weakening of the housing market could hurt the larger economy as a whole.

    Why didn't we stop it?

    Some crucial answers lie in a new report by Common Cause, titled, "Ask Yourself Why... Mortgage Foreclosure Rates Are So High." Several experts testified before Congress in 2000 to warn of lending abuses, persuasion of families to take out loans beyond their means, steering minority homeowners into subprime loans unnecessarily, and more. Yet Congress didn't act.

    Over the next seven years, the mortgage lending industry spent $210 million in Washington lobbying and in campaign contributions as they worked to stave off regulation. Here's a few selections of how the report describes what happened:

    Since 1999, ten of the nation’s largest subprime mortgage lenders, their trade groups and their corporate parents have given more than $22 million in political contributions to federal candidates: $14 million to Republicans and more than $8 million to Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission reports. These special interests also have spent more than $187 million lobbying Washington over the same period, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the Senate Office of Public Records.

    As consumer and housing advocates successfully pushed for more state regulation of mortgage lenders, the industry went on the offensive. The industry backed legislation championed by former Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH). The Ney bill, reintroduced in 2005 with the sponsorship of Democratic Rep. Paul Kanjorski (PA), would have pre-empted many state restrictions in exchange for looser federal regulation. Since 1996, Ney and Kanjorski received more than $300,000 from the mortgage lending industry, more than $173,000 going to Ney and $140,500 to Kanjorski.

    Throwing in with Bob Ney? Not exactly a compelling case for the industry. There's more:

    According to congressional testimony and news accounts, millions of homeowners who took out subprime loans over the past several years to buy or refinance their homes did not understand the terms of those loans. As the interest rates on their mortgage loans increased over time, they found it impossible to keep up with their rising house payments. And in a housing market where home values are beginning to fall, they are not able to sell their homes for as much as they paid for them. As a consequence, millions of families now are facing foreclosure, and thousands more have already lost their homes.

    And it continues today:

    Even in 2007, faced with nearly daily headlines about abuses in subprime lending and growing worries about foreclosures, the mortgage lending industry is underplaying its responsibility for the problem.

    We're faced, again, with the problem of one wealthy special interest making a profit on the backs of average Americans, turning around and spending that profit on campaign contributions and heavy lobbying, and blocking policy that would protect individual citizens. They won't change their practices unless we change it for them, which is why we need to change our system and pass public financing for congressional elections.

    In such a system, where candidates who swear off private contributions and agree to spending limits can qualify to earn public funds to run their campaigns, we can elect lawmakers who respond first to voters, not to big money donors.

    Or we can continue to watch special interests dominate in Washington, as foreclosures continue to increase around the country, and the Gertrude Robinsons of the world go to sleep thinking, "maybe when I wake up in the morning, they'll tell me to get out." What kind of system do we want?



    Cross posted at CommonBlog.

    __________________________


    »
    jzaharoff's blog
    Login or register to post comments
    Right analysis - wrong therapy
    Submitted by Steve Love on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 09:59.
    "They won't change their practices unless we change it for them, which is why we need to change our system and pass public financing for congressional elections."

    I, too, am appalled at what is happening in the housing industry. Stagnate wages and ARMs are a perfect storm for foreclosures. You are right to expose this tragedy and draw attention to those who have profited from this terrible turn of events. That has nothing to do, however, with campaign funding.

    The problem is not with the giving of money to support a campaign but with what goes on in the head of the politician. Fairness cannot be legislated and the politician who wants to be fair can find all the funds in the world from BOTH SIDES if he plays his cards right. [A politican can run on a platform of having decided what is his position on an issue and get money from those who support that position or he can run on a "fairness" platform and get money from all sides who want to be at the table when what is "fair" is decided.] If you want to outlaw something, outlaw branding of conservatives and liberals as though there was only one meaning of those terms.

    Campaign financing reform will not change the attitude of those politicians who believe that the public interest is served by trickle-down economic policies and tax relief for the wealthy. Those are all political judgments that can only be rooted out of Washington by INTELLIGENT VOTING...besides the SCOTUS has decided that "money is speech" and a conservative court is not likely to reverse itself any time soon. That horse is dead. Stop beating it unless your goal is to just enhance voter frustration. :-(

    »
    Login or register to post comments
    I think you're overlooking the obvious
    Submitted by jzaharoff on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 12:59.
    "A politician who wants to be fair can find all the funds in the world from BOTH SIDES." Really? So while the mortgage lenders spend millions on one side--blocking regulation of their practices--are the people with foreclosed homes and spiraling debts also willing to spend millions of dollars to support political candidates who will fight for their side? I don't think so. More than 99% of Americans never give a contribution over $200, and their voices are not heard in this process. That's how the system works.

    Your theory fails on another level, which is that once in office, lawmakers immediately must begin fundraising for their reelection. At that point, they also have to cast votes and make policy decisions, so if they oppose a special interest-backed bill (or support a regulation of, say, subprime lenders), then they are likely to lose a significant chunk of campaign cash and hurt their own chance at reelection.

    Our lawmakers shouldn't have to make such calculations based on fundraising and special interest support. And while you're right that "intelligent voting" can help, and does, it's not the only issue: plenty of potential candidates with great ideas but little wealth and few wealthy friends will never have a chance to run for office, period, under our system, because you need to raise a ton of money to be able to run.

    Under a public financing system, candidates can seek support in the form of $5 contributions from any and all voters--not just wealthy ones--and qualify for public funds to run a campaign. And then they're responsible first to voters, not major donors.

    And this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. These systems are voluntary--like the systems in Maine and Arizona, and the model in the Fair Elections Now Act in the Senate--so they don't violate the first amendment. And it's very popular, because voters like the idea. Over 80% of the Maine legislature ran with public funds last cycle, for instance.

    So, thankfully, the "horse" is very much alive.

    »
    Login or register to post comments
    Politics is not Disneyland
    Submitted by Steve Love on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 10:19.
    What part of "money is speech" do you not understand? The issue is not what the law can ENABLE people to do with their money it is what it PREVENTS people from doing with their money, which is precisely where your public financing plans (desirable as they might be - I'm on your side)all end up being irrelevant.

    And as for finding support, "on balance" thanks to the internet and 527 groups there is all kinds of support for politicians who are on the right side of issues. Lobbyist are in the access business: access to the politician to sell their point of view and access to the public through ads. If a politician puts forth a rule at his office of never sitting down with a lobbyist who does not bring his antithesis with him to the sit-down, suddenly the politicans gets a balanced picture and the clout any lobbyist has is lessened. Congressmen are not so dumb as to think that a lobbyist has more than one vote, that, in fact, public advocate groups have more votes at hand than any industry, things return to some sense of proportionality.

    You are assuming that there is some causal relationship between money spent on lobbyists and legislation. There is none except that created by politicians who are willing to risk being voted out of office by ignoring the public's wellbeing...and there are a never-ending stream of those like there is a never-ending stream of illegal immigrants from Mexico willing to work in fields for $4.00 an hour. So, if you want the public to be served and not the special interests you elect good people up front and get rid of the bad guys at the next election. [You see, I suspect behind most every person wanting public campaign financing is a person who does not regularly donate to a "good guy" and does not involve themselves in the campaign of "good guys." There is no free lunch or easy way to good politics.

    So long as groups such as MoveOn.org, Campaing for America's Future, et.al., continue to gain strength there will be groups with access to the airwaves to counter "enemy" ads...or, at least, you will have a better change of changing things than in beating your head against the wall with some new version of public campaign financing restrictions that will never see the light of day.

    »
    Login or register to post comments

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 1:40 pm
    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/17/john-edwards-predatory-lending-beneficiary/

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 2:06 pm
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/24/bush-rewards-predatory-lender-with-ambassadorship/

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 2:55 pm
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D91438F934A35755C0A961948260

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 3:04 pm

    Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate



    Corruption, American Style
    by Michael S. Rozeff
    by Michael S. Rozeff


    DIGG THIS

    There is a new presidential candidate in town. His name is Christopher Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut. This article take a very small look at some of the corruption associated with him. The same story might be told of any politician, present and past. Dodd is not exceptional. He merely happens to be convenient.

    Before getting into the interesting details, I very briefly establish a very simple theory of corruption.

    The state’s power is inseparable from the robberies it commits. The state’s robberies are inseparable from corruption. Systematic corruption necessarily accompanies government. It is the stuff of every history of every government.

    The theory behind these connections is simple. The government’s lawmaking power creates opportunities to rob legally. To rob legally is to pass a binding law or regulation that favors one group at the expense of another. To an interest group anxious to rob, a legislator’s favorable vote is an economic good. If the lawmaker sets the price of that vote at zero, then there is excess demand for it. The lawmakers therefore must raise the price of their vote in order to ration it among the robbers who are bidding for it. The price includes campaign contributions, jobs when they retire, favorable publicity, and other favors. Graft and bribery are only the most crude forms of the auction. The overall result is endemic corruption that cannot be eliminated. There is no such thing as a clean government.

    Milking donors

    According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Senator Dodd has received $24.8 million in contributions between 1989 and 2006. He has spent $20.5 million. This leaves him a war chest of $4.3 million. His campaign organization has no debts.

    Prima facie evidence of corruption follows. In 2004, the financial sector paid $207.1 million to all Federal candidates (about 472 of them excluding judges). This averages to $439,000 each. Dodd was paid $2.7 million, or over 6 times the average.

    In his 2004 Senate race, Dodd won 66 percent of the vote to his opponent’s 32 percent. This repeated his 1998 victory in which he won 65 percent of the vote, having received $2 million from the financial sector.

    The current Wiki piece on Dodd reports that he received more money from the (failed) Big Five accounting firm of Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat. Arthur Andersen was involved in several frauds, including the Enron case. Andersen’s contributions are the tip of an iceberg. Since 1989, accounting firms have given Dodd’s campaigns $573,000. Securities and investment firms have given him $2.2 million. Among them are many big names. Accounting firms include: Deloitte & Touche, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst and Young. Financial concerns include Greenwich Capital Markets, Bear Sterns, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, American International Group, Lehman Brothers, Prudential Financial, and Credit Suisse First Boston.

    Why does the financial sector pay so much money to a candidate whose seat is so safe if not to receive favorable law-making in return?

    Dodd stays off the backs of his contributors plus he generates some favors for them. The Washington Post recently tagged him "The Banker’s Candidate." They write: "Each of these big-money interests applauds his light-handed approach to financial regulation and considers him a reliable friend..." It continues: "He also was the Senate's leading champion of a 1995 law that limited shareholders' right to bring class-action lawsuits against companies for alleged securities misdeeds." In addition, Dodd is helping to renew terrorist-insurance legislation which aids insurers by making the government co-insurer.

    At times, the Senator has supposedly taken positions unfavorable to the financial sector, such as limiting interest rates on mortgages and credit cards. However, these positions favor established financial institutions at the expense of newcomers willing to service higher risk clients.

    On Dodd’s fund-raising, the Post wrote: "He said he will not hesitate to shake Wall Street’s money tree, even though he is chairman of the committee that watches over its companies. But accepting millions of dollars from industries that his committee oversees will not affect his policy decisions, Dodd said. ‘My record speaks for itself,’ the senator said. ‘I haven't changed my tune. I've been, I think, fairly consistent in my views on these issues.’"

    Dodd’s doings

    Let us examine this record. Dodd pushed through a law called the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. According to a legal expert on the subject, this law did four things: (1) It raised the pleading standards for class action securities fraud cases to a level well above the level for fraud cases in general. (2) It substituted proportionate liability for joint and several liability. (3) It restricted RICO so that treble damages could no longer apply to securities fraud cases. (4) It adopted a highly lax position on making forward-looking financial predictions.

    These changes lowered the standards for both companies who report to investors and for auditors who certify accounting statements. It made it more difficult for investors to sue securities firms that issued the securities and promoted them. It made all these parties safer from lawsuits against fraud. It lowered the cost of fraudulent behavior and therefore encouraged more fraud. After a short time, these legal changes showed up in the form of mis-statements of earnings, associated with all sorts of creative accounting including suppression of the costs of stock options. These in turn led to inflated stock prices on a broad scale, contributing to the 1995–2000 stock market bubble.

    Eventually as the true earnings were revealed to the markets, huge numbers of companies restated earnings. These restatements often covered three years of past earnings, indicating serious accounting issues. The stocks of many firms fell sharply when the earnings restatements were revealed. From a situation where about 50 firms a year restated earnings, we arrived at a record 414 restatements in the year 2004.

    Dodd followed up on this legislation by pushing for and co-sponsoring The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. This law ended class action fraud suits in state courts. This legislation again reduced the legal liabilities of accounting firms. It lowered the cost of lax auditing and encouraged accounting firms to allow misleading accounting practices.

    The passage of these laws contributed to the increased laxity of the SEC in bringing actions against accounting firms, as the commissioners took their signals from Capitol Hill. Two Supreme Court cases also contributed to the rise of frauds that helped cause the stock market bubble. These are the 1991 Lampf, Pleva case and the 1994 Central Bank of Denver case. The former shortened the statute of limitations in securities fraud cases. The latter eliminated private "aiding and abetting" liability in securities fraud cases.

    Senator Dodd, who is currently excoriating regulators for their lax oversight on subprime mortgage lending, himself brought about lax application of fraud standards in the case of the securities markets. And in the current case of subprime mortgages, the influence of government has been heavy-handed, not light-handed. Dodd does not acknowledge the important role that legislators played in passing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that pushed lenders into making loans to poorer people. He does not acknowledge the liberalization of lending standards of the Federal Housing Administration, or the federally mandated affordable housing goals that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sought to meet by expanding their mortgage loans. He does not acknowledge the role played by a handful of important banks who set up subprime lending facilities and whose loanable funds exploded with the money-expanding policies of the Greenspan Federal Reserve.

    The racket

    Dodd has behaved no differently in office than hundreds and thousands of other officeholders. He has taken campaign contributions from interest groups. His subsequent votes have usually been to their liking. Was this cause and effect? Whether the robbers flocked to him because he happened to share their beliefs, or whether his beliefs and acts were shaped and reinforced by their contributions can’t be definitely ascertained. We know that he received their money, and we know that he used the state’s power on their behalf.

    Dodd did not engage in classic bribery or graft. He has not been accused of doing anything illegal in taking millions of dollars from financial interest groups while sponsoring legislation that benefited them in the multi-millions. All elected officials do this. But is this system and are these transactions corrupt or not? Robbery and corruption utterly pervade government and its doings. They always involve injustice, mishandling, misdeeds, payoffs, frauds, misrepresentations, schemes, pork barrels, favorites, exploitation, shadiness, and often worse.

    Senator Dodd claims to be incorruptible. He claims to believe 100% in the legislation he has sponsored. He claims he always has believed in it.

    The fact is that Senator Dodd, like all politicians, is paid money. The money is politely called a campaign contribution or a donation rather than a bribe. Those who give either believe in what someone like Dodd espouses or hope to influence his vote. They usually hope to gain something that will come at the expense of someone else.

    The Dodds of this world then produce or help produce laws for these donors or interest groups. But notice that when they spend most of the donations on campaigning, they become walking and talking advertisements paid for by those who donate to his campaign. They use the funds to sell various political points of view that benefit the donors. The money helps a candidate put together a coalition that can use power for an interest group without arousing excessive resistance to it. Politicians attempt to generate applause and support from the gainers behind them while also placating the losers whom they are robbing.

    The politician has a racket that is akin to that of a Mafia boss of bosses. He is paid a salary by all the taxpayer-victims. The underbosses then pay him to enable their robbery of the victims. This he does in the least invasive way. The underbosses also pay him to convince the victims that they are not being robbed, which he also accomplishes. The underbosses make enough out of these exchanges that they are gainers, net of all their costs which include their small share of salaries and their donations.

    Winning by losing

    Breathes there a Senator with ambition and vanity so dead who has not to himself said: "I should be President of this, my country." Christopher Dodd has just announced that he is running for the Presidency of these United States. He is bid 20 cents (out of $100) to win the nomination of his party, that is, the odds of his winning are 499–1.

    Even when candidates for office lose, they win. Before 1993, the money contributed to a political campaign could be and often was diverted to a candidate’s bank account. Retiring and defeated candidates could and did keep unused campaign contributions. Nowadays, the candidate with excess funds can spend it in other ways such as winding down his office, contributing to party committees, and supporting other candidates.

    But there are more creative uses for leftover campaign funds. The defeated candidate can donate the money to a nonprofit charity, such as a foundation headed by a close relative. He can form a public agency or a nonprofit agency and funnel the money to it. Large amounts can then be spent on parties, gifts, and dues. He can channel funds to companies he controls, or employ his spouse to work at a campaign committee. Before the campaign is over, he might buy a Mercedes.

    As noted earlier, systematic corruption necessarily accompanies government. Evidently, corruption necessarily accompanies campaigning for government office. The corruption associated with government spreads in widening circles because politics is theft. Candidates solicit contributions. The candidate spends most of these funds being a spokesman for parochial interests that seek to rob the public. What he does not spend, he uses to support other candidates or for personal purposes.

    When elected, the office holder secures the booty for his supporters as best he can. What else is government for? Government is theft. Government is corrupt.

    March 28, 2007

    Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

    Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

    Michael S. Rozeff Archives






    Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 3:13 pm
    http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7B8A2D1D15-C65A-46D4-8CBB-2073440751B5%7D/NY_CTD_PredatoryLending.pdf

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday October 8, 2007, 3:48 pm
    Go to Google News
    Photo 1 of 6

    Democratic presidential hopeful, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina speaks during a live, interactive online web cast with MySpace.com and MTV in Durham, N.H., Thursday, Sept. 27, 2007.(AP Photo/Jim Cole)


    Edwards to Accept Public Campaign Funds
    By NEDRA PICKLER – Sep 27, 2007

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards reversed course Thursday by signing onto the public financing system he once rejected with the belief he could raise more money on his own.

    The 2004 vice presidential nominee claimed higher moral ground in the debate over money in politics while announcing the change. But it comes after he brought in far fewer dollars than rivals Barack Obama and . Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    "It is worrisome seeing the amount of money that is being raised in this campaign," Edwards said on CNN. "This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."

    Money for the public financing fund comes from taxpayers who agree to set aside $3 from their income taxes. Candidates who take from the fund must comply with spending limits.

    Edwards' decision could put him at a disadvantage against his rivals and undermine the perception that he can win the nomination. He insisted he has enough money to run a serious campaign.

    Edwards pointed out that Clinton recently has been voicing support for the public financing system. But she was the first candidate in history to announce she would opt out of the system for both the Democratic primary and the general election.

    "We should find out if she means what she says," Edwards said. He challenged Clinton and Obama to join his pledge — an unlikely prospect.

    Obama's campaign told the leaders of the Service Employees International Union in a private meeting this week that a candidate would need $80 million to $100 million to compete in the unprecedented 25 states that hold elections in the first month of voting — and only Obama and Clinton can do that.

    After hearing the presentation, SEIU postponed a decision on whether to endorse Edwards — a sentimental favorite — until after the third-quarter campaign finance deadline. That deadline is Sunday and candidates are expected to disclose their overall totals.

    In the first six months, Obama raised $58.5 million and Clinton collected $52 million. Edwards raised $23 million.

    Edwards could get up to $21 million in public money for the primary, but his overall spending on the primary elections could not exceed about $50 million. Candidates eligible for public financing receive matching payments from the federal government for the first $250 of each individual contribution they raise.

    Edwards said he will take public financing "through the campaign, period." But Edwards advisers said later that if he wins the nomination, he wants to get the Republican nominee to agree to take public financing as well.

    Edwards also would be limited in what he spends in each state. The current spending limit for Iowa, for instance, is $1.5 million. That figure, however, does not count money spent on staff, fundraising and several other costs that could significantly increase the base limit.

    Still, Edwards has spent a great deal of time in Iowa and his campaign team will eventually have to prove to the Federal Election Commission that it did not exceed that threshold.

    Earlier Thursday, Edwards appeared in forum sponsored by MTV and MySpace where he took questions from a live audience and via online instant message. One online question noted his connection to subprime mortgage lenders that have foreclosed on homes in New Orleans.

    In August, Edwards divested roughly $16 million he had invested in Fortress Investment Group after learning that 34 New Orleans homeowners faced foreclosure by subprime mortgage companies owned by the equity firm, a company that paid him nearly half a million dollars last year for consulting advice.

    Though Edwards used $100,000 of his own money to start a fund to help those homeowners, he will not do the same in Iowa, where 107 homeowners face similar foreclosures, the Des Moines Register reported Thursday.

    "New Orleans I believe, is a unique situation," said Edwards, who argues that voters will judge him based on his longtime efforts to help working families, particularly in rural areas like where he grew up in South Carolina.

    Hosted by Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

    Lillian D. (43)     		Tuesday October 9, 2007, 11:39 am


    Leading The News

    Contributors, hopes for ’08, pull at Dodd
    By Alexander Bolton
    September 26, 2007
    Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is facing a fight with corporate executives who have donated millions of dollars to his presidential campaign.

    Dodd is under growing pressure from Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to write strict legislation regulating mortgage lenders at a time when nearly 2 million Americans face foreclosure on their homes.

    Many economic experts blame lenders who made loans to borrowers with poor credit ratings who failed to understand that interest payments would balloon or that house prices might stall, leaving them with properties worth less than their debt.

    Obama, Clinton, Frank and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have called for stricter regulation of lenders who specialize in sub-prime loans to buyers who had difficulty obtaining loans at regular interest rates.

    Dodd has kept quiet for much of this year on the need to pass legislation regulating mortgage lenders, an industry that has fiercely opposed past efforts by Congress to manage its business, say consumer advocates.

    Dodd has been in a difficult position. He has raised millions of dollars for his presidential campaign from bankers deeply involved in the sub-prime market.

    “He seemed more cautious about introducing legislation,” said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy at the Consumer Federation of America, in reference to Dodd.

    “He kept his powder dry on the need for new consumer-protection legislation until very recently,” Fishbein said.

    Eleven of the 20 biggest contributors to Dodd’s presidential campaign are companies with significant financial interest in sub-prime lending and would likely fight efforts by Congress to regulate that market.

    Employees at Citigroup gave Dodd’s campaign $147,000 through the first six months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group tracking presidential fundraising. Citigroup, which, according to the Center, is the second largest contributor to Dodd’s campaign, recently bought affiliates of Ameriquest Mortgage Company, a lender that consumer advocates have called one of most irresponsible contributors to the sub-prime crisis.

    “Citigroup is in the process of buying the worst lender we have left: Ameriquest,” said Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “Citigroup is buying what there is left of Ameriquest, its servicing platform. Those are the people who collect the payments from homeowners and who turn around and foreclose on you.”

    Rheingold said Citigroup’s investment bank transformed many of the sub-prime loans into securities that were then bought by investors, creating the market incentive for lenders to pump out as many sub-prime loans as possible.

    Dodd’s fourth-biggest contributor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose employees gave Dodd’s campaign $122,000 during the first half of 2007, also has a major interest in sub-prime lending. It owns Greenwich Capital Markets Inc., a prominent player in the sub-prime market.

    “Greenwich has been involved at a number of levels in sub-prime lending, from extending warehouse lines of credit to buying and securitizing loans through their own shelf registrations with the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] for a number of [loan] originators,” said Kevin Byers, a forensic certified public accountant who specializes in transactional analysis of mortgage and real estate issues.

    Bear Stearns, Dodd’s fifth-largest contributor, owns two large hedge funds in the Cayman Islands that filed for bankruptcy because of the sub-prime market meltdown. Bear Stearns employees gave Dodd’s campaign $120,000.

    Goldman Sachs, American International Group, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase & Co, UBS Americas and Bank of America are other companies that the Center for Responsive Politics has identified as Dodd’s biggest contributors and that have had big stakes in the sub-prime market.

    Employees from those companies have given Dodd’s campaign $510,000 this year. He raised $2.2 million from securities and investment firms for his presidential campaign, far more than from any other industry. He has raised $750,000 from hedge funds, many of which have made a big business of selling sub-prime mortgage-backed securities.

    Byers said even though sub-prime lending doesn’t seem profitable now, the market will change and many of the banks that have given to Dodd will have a stake in what Congress does.

    “Any increased regulation would have a material impact or potential material impact on their sub-prime mortgage business,” he said.
    Dodd broke his silence on the need for new legislation regulating lenders when Congress returned from its August recess. He unveiled a list of proposals that consumer advocates applauded.

    “My bill will end prepayment penalties — which only exist in the sub-prime market, and which penalize homeowners for trying to do the right thing by refinancing their mortgage,” said Dodd in a Sept. 5 press release. “It will prohibit brokers and lenders from ‘steering’ homebuyers to a more costly loan. And it will make brokers responsible to the people who pay them and ban them from acting as free agents who play lenders and borrowers off against each other.”

    Dodd’s announcement came a month after Clinton, his rival in the presidential race, announced in Derry, N.H., a plan to address mortgage-lending abuses.

    Clinton proposed requiring mortgage brokers to disclose that their compensation rises with mortgage rates and fees; requiring federal registration for mortgage brokers; eliminating prepayment penalties on mortgage products; and requiring lenders to include the cost of taxes and insurance in the assessment of high-risk mortgages.

    For his part, Obama has pushed legislation curbing lending practices since the 109th Congress. He reintroduced his Stop Fraud Act in April. The bill authorizes stiff penalties for mortgage fraud and guarantees aggrieved borrowers the right to sue creditors, a harrowing prospect for the mortgage industry and the investment firms that fund it.

    One Senate Republican aide observed that Clinton and Obama threatened to upstage Dodd on the hottest political issue of the year under his jurisdiction as Senate Banking Committee chairman. Consumer advocates noted that Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership and a senior member of the Banking Committee, also introduced legislation offering strict rules for lending.

    Frank outlined strict regulations for mortgage lenders soon after he took over as chairman of the Financial Services panel. In the last Congress, Frank also co-sponsored legislation with North Carolina Reps. Brad Miller (D) and Mel Watt (D) that consumer advocates described as tough rules for sub-prime lenders.

    “He’s come around to where he needs to be,” said Fishbein, of the Consumer Federation of America, in reference to Dodd’s recent call for legislation to reform lending practices. “Frank has been more outspoken going back into the last Congress.”

    Fishbein said the verdict on whether Dodd is a strong defender of consumer interests will come in the months ahead.

    “The proof will be in the pudding,” said Fishbein. “If he introduces a strong consumer-protection measure and moves on it, he will decide the cause of consumers is paramount.”

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/contributors-hopes-for-08-pull-at-dodd-2007-09-26.html

    Lillian D. (43)     		Wednesday October 10, 2007, 10:32 am
    I don't know if this was posted before but this is the first I heard about

    he will work for Deutsche Bank the one that took over MortgageIT.All Crooks



    Deutsche Bank Hires Greenspan for Securities Unit (Update3)


    By Elena Logutenkova



    Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Bank AG, Germany's biggest bank, said it hired former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as a consultant for its securities unit.

    Greenspan, 81, will provide ``advice and insight'' to the company's corporate and investment banking unit and its clients, the Frankfurt-based bank said today. Its securities unit is Europe's largest by revenue.

    Greenspan, who retired from the Fed in January 2006 after 18 years as chairman, is already advising Allianz SE's Pacific Investment Management Co., owner of the world's biggest bond fund. Deutsche Bank also counts former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow and former Senator George Mitchell among its advisers as it tries to narrow the gap with competitors in the U.S.

    ``Dr. Greenspan's position as one of the architects of the modern financial system gives him a unique perspective from which to help our clients make critical risk-management decisions,'' Chief Executive Officer Josef Ackermann said in a statement.

    The former chairman, who guided the U.S. economy through its longest expansion, has been giving paid lectures and is also writing a book, ``The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' due to be released on Sept. 17 by Penguin Press.

    Deutsche Bank is the second-biggest trader on the Wall Street behind Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The bank is ninth in global merger advice this year, with Goldman and Citigroup Inc. ranked as the top two advisers.

    The bank's second-quarter profit rose 31 percent, beating analysts' estimates as revenue from trading surged, boosted by ``favorable market-positioning'' in credit trading as U.S. housing suffered the worst slump in 16 years.

    Deutsche Bank shares rose 1.53 euros, or 1.6 percent, to 96.72 euros at 12:45 p.m. in Frankfurt, valuing the company at 51 billion euros ($70 billion). The stock has gained 13 percent over the past year.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Elena Logutenkova in Frankfurt at elogutenkova@bloomberg.net





    Lillian D. (43)     		Friday October 12, 2007, 3:38 pm



    Leading Clinton Donor
    Stays Below the Radar
    By IANTHE JEANNE DUGAN and BRODY MULLINS
    August 29, 2007; Page A6

    Norman Hsu is one of the leading political fund-raisers in the country this year. In fact, many fund-raisers say he is one of a small handful of people capable of raising more than $1 million -- a major feat considering the maximum donation allowed by an individual for 2008 races is $4,600 per candidate.


    Norman Hsu, left, with Hillary Clinton at a fund-raiser for the senator in New York in 2005.
    But longtime political donors are curious: "Who is Norman Hsu?" asks Robin Chandler Duke, a former ambassador and longtime supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    Until three years ago, Mr. Hsu never made a campaign contribution to a presidential candidate, according to federal election records. Now, though, several people involved in raising money for White House candidates say Mr. Hsu is a major player.

    Many "HillRaisers" -- people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- are dwarfed beside Mr. Hsu (pronounced "Shu"). Several people involved in Democratic presidential fund-raising say Mr. Hsu, an apparel executive, has raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of the top 20 Democratic fund-raisers in the country. The Clinton campaign doesn't disclose such details and declined to comment for this story.

    "Forget the politics -- Norman is widely regarded as decent, and enormously generous," says Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund manager who is a chief fund-raiser for Barack Obama, the Illinois senator who is Mrs. Clinton's strongest rival for the party's presidential nomination.

    "I have been blessed by what this country has given me and have tried to give back in many ways," Mr. Hsu said in an email to a Wall Street Journal reporter earlier this week. "One way has been through political contributions to candidates and causes I believe in. I have never asked for anything in return. I've asked friends and colleagues of mine to give money out of their own pockets and sometimes they have agreed," he added.

    People who have met him at events describe Mr. Hsu as warm, giving, charming and well-dressed. But unlike most big fund-raisers this cycle -- such as hedge-fund magnate Paul Tudor Jones for Mr. Obama and buyout pioneer Henry Kravis for Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain -- Mr. Hsu remains remarkably low-profile. Even some other Clinton fund-raisers say they don't know him at all and have been surprised to see him emerge as a top fund-raiser.

    DONATION DATA


    See details on political donations from the Paw family, Norman Hsu and a handful of Mr. Hsu's business associates in New YorkYesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that a modest home in a middle-class San Francisco suburb, where the family of mail carrier William Paw resides, is listed as the address for many contributions to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Hsu once listed the home as his address, according to public records, and the Paws' donations closely tracked his.

    Mr. Hsu's lawyer, Lawrence Barcella, took issue with a connection between his client and the Paws.

    "Like every fund-raiser, he asks friends, colleagues and others to support the causes and candidates he supports. That is what every fund-raiser in America for any cause -- political or nonprofit -- does," Mr. Barcella said in a written statement. "And, in none of these instances, to address the WSJ innuendo, has Mr. Hsu reimbursed them for their contributions."

    Campaign-finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission list Mr. Hsu as a consultant with a company called Components Ltd.; a director of another called Next Components; a designer for Because Men's Clothes; and an independent apparel consultant.

    Mr. Hsu has been connected with the Paws for at least a decade, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Hsu recently hired William Paw's 35-year-old son, Winkle Paw, to work for several of his New York apparel companies.

    According to campaign-finance records, Mr. Hsu made his first campaign contribution, in the amount of $2,000, to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry on July 21, 2004. Mr. Hsu has since donated $225,000 to Democratic candidates.

    During that same time, Mr. Hsu has "bundled" contributions from other donors for candidates. It is legal for individuals to ask friends, colleagues and family members to make donations to political candidates, though not to reimburse people for such donations.

    Most presidential candidates disclose the names of their bundlers, and a new law requires registered lobbyists to disclose how much money they raise for lawmakers beginning next year.

    Mr. Hsu supports other Democrats besides Mrs. Clinton. On June 23, he helped throw a "6th Anniversary of his 60th Birthday fund-raiser" for California Rep. Mike Honda. A few days later, he joined Blackstone Group Chairman Stephen Schwarzman and lawyer David Boies to host a $1,000-a-plate 40th-birthday bash for Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

    In the email to the Journal, Mr. Hsu listed several Democratic politicians to whom he has given money, and said he has never asked any for favors. They include Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell; New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine; Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy; California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.

    Representatives for each of the Democrats declined to comment for this story.

    Write to Ianthe Jeanne Dugan at ianthe.dugan@wsj.com and Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com

    RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS
    Related Content may require a subscription | Subscribe Now -- Get 2 Weeks FREE
    Related Articles from the Online Journal
    • Clinton to Return Funds Tied to Hsu
    • Arrest Warrant Is Issued for Hsu
    • Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below the Radar
    • Political Donor Hsu Faces Probe
    Blog Posts About This Topic
    • A Bad Smelling Hsu timothybirdnow.com
    • HSU ON VIEW prorev.com
    More related content Powered by Sphere

    Lillian D. (43)     		Sunday October 28, 2007, 5:51 am
    News Sunday, Oct 28, 2007

    Posted on Sun, Oct. 28, 2007
    Payday lenders fill war chests
    By AARON GOULD SHEININ - asheinin@thestate.com
    Related Content
    PAYDAY CASH | Which candidates have received money from payday lending sources since Jan. 1, 2006
    PAYDAY TROUBLES
    Industry fighting increased regulation, economic downturn:

    • Advance America, the Spartanburg-based payday lending leader, announced this week it is preparing for legislative fights in several states, including South Carolina, and that it is growing at a slower rate than in 2006.

    • This year, the company announced it was closing 103 branches nationally.

    • The company has pulled out entirely from Georgia and North Carolina, and is considering the same move in Pennsylvania.

    • Eleven states enacted payday lending legislation this year, in many cases lowering the interest rates or fees lenders can charge.

    SOURCES: The State; Stateline.org; National Conference of State Legislatures
    Donations plentiful to candidates in midst of possible predatory lending regulation

    Payday lenders have given nearly $64,000 to the 2008 candidates for president, with a vast majority of that going to Democrats, many of whom have accused the industry of unfair lending practices.

    In addition, U.S. lawmakers from South Carolina, as well as key state lawmakers, have taken thousands in contributions from payday lenders, their employees, political action committees or trade associations.

    The contributions come as the industry and its largest company, Spartanburg-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers Inc., face three S.C. lawsuits over accusations of predatory lending and violations of consumer protection laws.

    Payday lending critics also are trying to rally congressional support for federal legislation that would cap the interest rates that payday lenders can charge.

    Susan Lupton, a senior policy associate with the Center for Responsible Lending in Raleigh, said payday lenders fear Congress soon will act. After the 2006 passage of legislation that capped interest rates at 36 percent for payday loans to members of the military, the industry is worried lawmakers could try to set a similar cap across the industry, she said.

    “I’m quite sure the last thing they want is for that interest cap to be extended to other groups,” Lupton said. “If they’re giving money to national candidates, they want to be sure they’re hedging their bets.”

    Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson each has received more than $22,000 from payday lending sources, more than any other candidates during the campaign.

    Among the S.C. congressional delegation, Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has received $25,000 and Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint $9,600 since 2006. Overall, the delegation received more than $53,000 since 2002.

    In the S.C. General Assembly, Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, received a pair of $1,000 contributions to top the list after the first nine months of 2007.

    Lupton and others accuse payday lenders of preying on the poor by charging exorbitant interest rates and fees that often trap customers into a cycle of debt.

    The industry disputes those arguments. The Community Financial Services Association, a payday lending trade association, says in a “myth vs. reality” page on its Web site that its critics intentionally mislead policy makers and the public.

    For example, critics say payday loans often charge a 390 percent annual percentage rate. But, the association argues, its loans are not annual loans. They typically are 14-day loans that charge 15 percent interest for that period.

    “We’re being targeted, yeah,” said Steven Schlein, a spokesman for the association.

    The association in July hired S.C. Sen. Tommy Moore, the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial candidate, to be its executive vice president. Moore resigned his Senate seat to take the job. Moore’s job, in part, is to dispel “misperceptions about the service” and to further the group’s “efforts to promote responsible regulation,” Moore said after taking the job.

    ‘THE MONEY HAS AN INFLUENCE’

    Candidates are getting campaign contributions from the industry, Schlein said, in part because of efforts to tighten state and federal regulations.

    “The industry has a lot of issues before state legislatures and before Congress, and like any industry, they make contributions,” Schlein said. “But there are a lot of individuals in the industry who have a long history of political activity.”

    At the top of that list is Billy Webster, co-founder of Advance America. Webster worked in the Clinton administration and has long supported Hillary Clinton in her bid for the White House.

    New Mexico Gov. Richardson, also seeking the Democratic nomination, was Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations and secretary of Energy.

    Of the nearly $70,000 in industry contributions to presidential candidates, more than 35 percent came from Webster or members of his family. Another $14,000 came from George Dean Johnson, the other co-founder of Advance America, or his business interests.

    Advance America spokesman Jamie Fulmer said the company is not unlike others that “support candidates and also educate folks about the values of our product.”

    “There’s not any specific formula behind that,” Fulmer said. “Billy Webster has been active in the political process long before Advance America was even a company.”

    Fulmer said it’s unfair to paint the contributions as attempts to derail legislation.

    “Tying one to the other, while making it a better story, you have to put it in the full context: Billy has always been active politically,” Fulmer said.

    But state Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, said contributions typically come with strings attached.

    “Every candidate has to respond and deal with contributions in their own way and ... make sure they don’t let the contributions influence their actions,” he said. “But, in real life, you know, I know, the money has an influence.”

    Hawkins has not received payday lending money.

    ‘THE NEW VIDEO POKER’

    Hawkins also is suing the industry.

    He and state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, have filed twin lawsuits against Advance America and other payday lenders on behalf of a Myrtle Beach couple who claim they were unable to pay back their payday loan and the lenders should have known it.

    In the other lawsuit, former U.S. Attorney Pete Strom was joined by 13 state lawmakers in suing Advance America and other companies. They accuse the companies of violating consumer protection laws.

    Of those attorney-lawmakers, two — Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, and Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg — received contributions from payday lenders.

    Thomas took $1,000 from World Acceptance Corp. of Greenville in April and Hutto took $1,000 from QC Holdings of Overland Park, Kan., in July.

    Hawkins chaired the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that heard testimony this year on his bill to tighten payday lending regulations. The bill died after it was watered down by the industry’s allies.

    “The payday lending industry has become the new video poker in South Carolina, and they are determined to exert as much influence as they can in the political process, and evidence of that is that this legislative year they successfully killed any kind of reasonable regulation,” Hawkins said.

    Key members of the S.C. House and Senate have received more than $15,000 in contributions from payday lenders so far this year. The maximum contribution to a state legislator is $1,000.

    Hawkins’ lawsuit targets Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Carolina Payday Loans, Check into Cash of South Carolina, Check N Go of South Carolina and Local Cash Advance of South Carolina.

    Fulmer, the Advance America spokesman, said the lawsuits are frivolous, adding that his company follows the law.

    “We certainly don’t take the accusations lightly,” Fulmer said. “We operate a legal and regulated business in the state, and we’re going to continue to defend our business practices in the courtroom and intend to do so on the merits of the case.”

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

    For the candidates for president, the issue creates a potential conflict.

    Many of the Democratic candidates have railed against payday lenders and other industries that target lower-income people who need non-traditional forms of credit, such as subprime mortgages.

    Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, an outspoken critic of payday lenders, has said if elected he would pursue tighter restrictions on the industry. Edwards, an S.C. native, has not received campaign contributions from the industry in this campaign, although he did when he first ran in 2004.

    (Edwards also has been criticized for his ties to a subprime lender that foreclosed on S.C. homes.)

    Richardson pushed for new payday lending regulations in New Mexico, although he later was criticized by fellow Democrats who accused him of watering down earlier, stronger proposals.

    Efforts to reach Richardson’s campaign were unsuccessful.

    Clinton, too, has worked to limit payday lenders’ influence, said Zac Wright, her S.C. spokesman.

    “Hillary has been a leader in the Senate on cracking down on payday lending abuses,” Wright said. “She opposed the weakening of the Community Reinvestment Act that would’ve led to an increase in payday loan stores in low-income neighborhoods. She called for hearings on payday loans and military families, and pushed the FDIC to close a loophole allowing for payday loans.”

    Still, the Center for Responsible Lending would just as soon the candidates talk the talk but not take the money, Lupton said.

    “I’d rather any candidate who gets this money say, ‘Oh, this is too toxic to take. I’m going to give it back.’”

    Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658.

    http://www.thestate.com/news/story/213312.html


    Bob Connolly (6)     		Thursday November 1, 2007, 7:27 am
    THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO CLEAN UP EACH STATES OFFICES AND HAVE THESE PEOPLE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEAT. I AM NOT SURPRISED THOUGH AT GOOD OLE ARNIE.
    I SEE THIS HAPPENING ALL OVER CALI

    Lillian D. (43)     		Thursday November 1, 2007, 2:19 pm
    Yes I agree with that but right now the ones runing are all doing the same thing.Lillian

    Lillian D. (43)     		Monday December 3, 2007, 6:51 am
    Business
    Ameriquest Faces Lawsuit by Borrowers
    by Chris Arnold

    Listen Now [6 min 4 sec] add to playlist

    Day to Day, May 30, 2007 · Ameriquest was a high-flying sub-prime lender during the housing boom, and was accused of predatory lending by state prosecutors. The company now faces a class-action lawsuit from borrowers.

    Chris Arnold talks to people who lost their homes after getting Ameriquest loans and to former employees who describe the hyper-aggressive sales practices.

    Your Money
    The Mortgage Market: What Happened?

    by Veena Trehan





    Joe Raedle
    Nationwide, foreclosures surged by 47 percent in March compared with a year ago, according to RealTrac, which follows mortgage foreclosures. Getty Images




    The Fraud Factor
    Instances of outright mortgage fraud are also coming to light. Reports of suspected fraud from federally regulated institutions more than doubled between 2003 and 2006. Federal officials estimate mortgage fraud totaled from $1 billion to $6 billion in 2005 alone.

    One strategy involved organized groups that sold several homes in a neighborhood based on inflated appraisals. An individual would buy a property, then sell it to a real or straw buyer at an inflated price and pocket the difference. Often, a ring of appraisers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents and closing attorneys colluded with the seller to push through the deal.

    Such schemes temporarily drove up prices in neighborhoods, hurting other, earnest buyers who paid for homes that quickly lost their value.
    Quicker processing times to accommodate the growth in mortgage volume made the system "abuser friendly," says Robert Russell, counsel to the Office of Thrift Supervision, which regulates some lending institutions. Rewarding brokers for sale volume, rather than for loan repayment, also contributed.



    NPR.org, April 26, 2007 · As the nationwide real-estate boom of recent years goes bust, economists and regulators are questioning the role that mortgage lenders played in helping to create an overheated housing environment. Here, an overview of what happened:

    A Rush of New Buyers

    In the early 2000s, the economy was healthy, interest rates were low and consumers felt a bit flush – all of which helped push real-estate values up across the country. With values escalating, lenders felt more confident about making mortgages to customers whose poor credit histories had prevented them from buying homes in the past. (When values are rising, borrowers are less likely to default, because they can take money out of their homes if they run into trouble.)

    That put more potential homebuyers in the market, helping to raise home-ownership rates to a record 69 percent in 2004 – which pushed housing prices up more. Skyrocketing prices (double-digit growth year over year was common in some areas) lured real-estate speculators, creating even more demand — and driving the cycle further.

    Risky Loans Proliferated

    To attract this growing pool of borrowers, lenders repurposed "creative financing" products that had previously been marketed to high-income borrowers seeking flexibility with their money. Among the most popular were variations on the adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM.

    ARMs are loans whose interest rates adjust up or down periodically. The initial rate is typically fixed for a period of two or three years. The benefit is that the starter rates are lower for ARMs than for traditional, fixed-rate mortgages. That means lower monthly payments, making homeownership more affordable and allowing borrowers to qualify for a bigger loan.

    Some of the creative ARM products that flourished of late included interest-only and payment-option loans. With the former, a borrower only pays the interest on the loan — not the principal balance — during the introductory period. With payment-option ARMs, borrowers get to choose how much they pay each month: enough to cover the interest plus the principal, the interest only... or less than the interest. In that last scenario, the unpaid interest is tacked on to the principal, leaving borrowers owing more than the amount of the original loan.

    How prevalent were these loans? Nearly 23 percent of all mortgages taken out in 2005 were interest-only ARMs, and more than 8 percent were payment-option ARMs, according to First American LoanPerformance. In certain once-sizzling markets, the numbers were much higher: For example, 34 percent of all new mortgages in California in 2005 were interest-only.

    These products made sense to borrowers who thought they'd live in their homes for a few years, then sell at a profit or refinance. But now that housing sales have stalled and prices are softening, borrowers can't do either very easily.

    And many borrowers are facing painful payment hikes: According to a First American CoreLogic study, one-third of ARMs taken out between 2004 and 2006 began with "teaser" rates below 4 percent. Payments on these loans will double on average – if they haven't already done so, says study author Dr. Christopher Cagan.

    Growth in Subprime Lending

    And then there were the loans to borrowers with poor credit. Subprime loans expanded to 20 percent of the mortgage market in 2006, from 9 percent a decade earlier. These loans carry higher interest rates to compensate for the risk posed by borrowers. They can be traditional fixed-rate loans, but most are ARMs, according to Susan Wachter of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

    Recent subprime loans were rife with risky terms — interest-only payment options, penalties for paying off the loan early (which makes it costly to refinance into a better loan), and low documentation requirements, meaning borrowers needed little paperwork to verify that they could, in fact, afford the loans. (These so-called "liar loans" accounted for about 58 percent of all loans in 2006, according to First American LoanPerformance).

    Kathleen Keest of the Center for Responsible Lending says the pairing of these new loan types and new pool of borrowers was dangerous.

    "They took the riskiest of products and sold them to the weakest borrowers to compound risk," Keest says.

    Unethical Practices

    In the old days, most homeowners obtained mortgages from their local bank or credit union, which adhered to strict lending rules. Nowadays, the lion's share of homebuyers' business (70 percent) goes to independent mortgage brokers — some of whom get bonuses for steering borrowers to higher-interest loans.

    Experts say many recent borrowers were put into ARMs that are likely to cost far more over the life of the loan than if they'd chosen a fixed-rate option. Often, consumers could have locked in fixed-rate loans at low interest rates, but lenders downplayed the advantages of these loans.

    Experts also cite numerous cases where borrowers say they didn't understand the loan structure — and the escalating payments; in many cases, they couldn't really afford them. Jennie Haliburton, a 77-year-old widow in Philadelphia, told NPR she refinanced into a subprime ARM that now costs her $300 more than the $800 she was originally told she'd pay. Her loan resets in May 2008. If the current interest rate holds, the monthly payments will grow to $1,218; depending on rates, they could eventually reach almost $1,700 — 95 percent of her Social Security income.

    Loose Oversight

    New loan products allowed more Americans to own their own homes than ever before. But regulators exercised little oversight over the booming mortgage market. The Federal Reserve and four other federal regulators did not issue guidance for nontraditional mortgages until last year. They recommended that lending institutions consider the borrowers' ability to make payments over the life of the loan before underwriting, and that they improve disclosure to consumers.

    Yet many, including Federal Reserve executive Roger T. Cole, say it was too little, too late. "Given what we know now, yes, we could have done more, sooner," Cole told Congress in March.

    But the loans are already out there; all that's left is to wait for the fallout. According to First American CoreLogic, this year and next, about $260 billion in prime ARMs and $376 billion in subprime ARMs will begin to reset.

    So What Now?

    Several lenders are taking steps to curtail the rising tide of foreclosures. Washington Mutual plans to refinance up to $2 billion in subprime loans at below-market rates. Citigroup and Bank of America are working with an advocacy group to similarly target $1 billion in subprime mortgages, focusing on cities with high foreclosure rates. Freddie Mac is fueling the market with a commitment to buy up to $20 billion in subprime loans, and Ohio is floating a $100 million bond issue to help troubled homeowners.

    The new environment may also drive new solutions. Lenders now face falling home prices, large loan portfolios with no money down, and a home-foreclosure process that may cost them tens of thousands of dollars. Renegotiating loans -– lowering the interest rate or extending the payment period –- may be more attractive than foreclosing.


    Related NPR Stories
    April 13, 2007
    Lawmakers, Lenders Target Subprime-Loan Issue
    April 13, 2007
    Home-Ownership Group to Aid Subprime Victims
    April 12, 2007
    'Marketplace' Report: Subprime Help
    April 11, 2007
    Illinois Pushes Mortgage 'Counseling' Plan
    April 10, 2007
    Foreclosures May Weaken Home Prices, Spending
    April 9, 2007
    Mortgage Mail Offers: Caveat Emptor
    April 3, 2007

    Lillian D. (43)     		Sunday December 23, 2007, 7:48 am
    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Transcripts to Help Homeowners


    GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER:

    Very nice. Well, thank you very much. Sit down, please. It's wonderful to be here in Stockton, and it's wonderful to have Secretary Paulson here with us. He came out here from Washington to talk to us about our crisis, with the sub-prime crisis that we have here in this state and all over the country, as far as that goes. First of all, let me just say - I want to just say also, Mayor Chavez, thank you very much for the nice introduction, and thank you for hosting his event here today. We really appreciate it. You've been a great leader. Let's give him a big hand for his great work. (Applause)

    And Senator Machado, thank you very much for being here today. I know you are very interested in that subject, and we have talked about it several times. And also Assemblyman Aghazarian, thank you very much, and also Assemblywoman Galgiani, thank you so much for being here today. Give them all a big hand also for their great work. (Applause)

    I have to tell you that I am a little bit on a high today, because we have been, since the State of the State Address last January, we have been talking about health care reform, and that we are gong to go and solve our crisis, that we have 6.7 million people uninsured in this state, and that we really want to have comprehensive health care reform. Well, yesterday, after a whole year of negotiating and traveling up and down the state, and talking to Democrats and Republicans, and the labor leaders and business leaders, and insurance providers, and all the different experts and different stakeholders, and we brought them all together. Yesterday the Assembly passed our health care bill, our universal health care bill, and now we are moving on to the Senate. So this was a great step forward, a great step closer to our finish line.

    So when we get that done, let me tell you something, I will be extremely happy, because this will be the first state in the union that will have universal health care. This country has tried this for almost 100 years. Way back in 1912 they have talked about universal health care. As a matter of fact, it was Teddy Roosevelt that talked about it. Now, 1912, this goes back when the Titanic went down, just to show you how far back. And this country has not been able to do that. Think about that. They were not able to do that, no state was able to do that.

    But our state, I guarantee you, will be successful, because our state will have both of the parties, and labor and business interests, and the experts in the health care, all working together. So I just wanted to let you know why I'm very excited today. (Applause)

    Thank you. But this is, of course, the responsibility of a governor. You have to come in, you have to have vision, and you have to bring people together. And this is what I promised when I was elected, to bring both parties together and to solve problems. And we have tackled a lot of big problems in this state, if it is reforming Workers' Compensation, or bringing businesses back to the state, creating almost a million new jobs in this state, or starting to rebuild California, our Strategic Growth Plan to build our roads again, to build more schools, expand our universities and all of those things. That's the responsibility of our legislators and the governor, to work together and to create this action.

    But then also we have to deal with situations that one doesn't plan on, which is this crisis that we're in, the kind of burden that the homeowners are facing today that have bought a home and they want to become part of the American Dream, and now all of a sudden they have achieved the American Dream and they have this home, and all of a sudden they're facing a crisis and they don't know which way to go.

    So we, of course, jumped into action just two months ago, and we started making agreements with the lenders and with the servicers to go and to start making certain adjustments and to freeze the interest rates, not to jack up the interest rates. And we were very successful in making deals with 25 percent of the lenders, and we just recently increased that amount and went up to 33 percent of the lenders. We found an additional three that wanted to come into this partnership.

    And then after that we were very successful in putting aside 1.2 million dollars to launch a campaign. Now, why is the campaign important? It's because we want to let the borrowers know, don't make the mistake and avoid the lender, which so many have done. You know, you get a phone call, they don't want to answer the phone. They say, "Oh, my God, this is the call where they're taking my house away. I'm not going to answer the call." Or they get a mail and they ignore the mail, they don't respond. Big mistake. Get in touch and work this out with your lender. If you're a borrower, work it out with the lender, because it was a two-way street to get into the mess and it takes a two-way street to get out of the mess, so they both have to work together.

    So what we basically want to do is, we want to go and all work together, everyone work together. And I'm so happy that the federal government is doing exactly the same thing. They made agreements with the lenders and with the services, and they have done a great, great job, with 20 more lenders. The Secretary is going to talk about that. So again, you're going to have a chance afterwards to ask questions on anything, if it has to do with this subject or any other subject. Feel free, loosen up, relax. We're all going to talk about something that is a serious subject, but at the same time let's have a good time. And let's not make it too formal, the whole thing. I know you're a little frozen right now, because you say, "Oh, my God, the Secretary of the Treasury is here, Secretary Paulson is here. We've got to straighten out our back, he's from Washington, he's so official." But he's a cool guy. (Laughter) He's a cool guy, I can promise. He's a cool guy, okay? (Applause)

    So let me introduce Secretary Paulson. (Applause)

    SECRETARY PAULSON:

    I tell you, that is a very tough act to follow. Let me say I'm honored to be here with a governor who has done such a great job in leading this state, and in being out in front and attacking this sub-prime problem. So I'm honored to be here.

    Now, my job as Treasury Secretary is to spend a great deal of time focused on our economy. And our economy is healthy. The biggest risk to the economy is the housing problem right now, the housing slump. I've found that when I go around to different areas of the country where there are issues and talk to people, I learn. And so I was in Orlando, Florida yesterday, I was in Kansas City earlier today, and now here. Three different cities, different economic makeups, different issues, but they all have one thing in common; they all have high rates of foreclosure.

    In Orlando and Stockton they had five or six years of unrealistically high appreciation of home prices, and now they've got dramatic declines. But Orlando has a stronger economy right now. You have other issues; you have high unemployment rates and so on. We're all working together to solve the problem.

    Now, let me tell you about something that the Governor has already talked about, and that's the Hope Alliance that has been put together. We've worked to put this together, and it is a nationwide, industrywide approach to deal with the sub-prime problem. Because what we have here are the servicers representing 90 percent of the sub-prime industry, with the support from the lenders. And so the lenders have signed on to this and have supported this, which helps the servicers do what they need to do, and helps them stand up to potential lawsuits and counselors. And so this is an effort, and it's got three prongs to this approach.

    The first, which the Governor mentioned, which is just essential, is outreach, getting to people in advance of the problem. Because what I was at first shocked to hear is that 50 percent of the people who lose their homes to foreclosure never talk to anyone. They're afraid to talk to people, they're embarrassed to talk to people. So in a minute when I turn it over to Pam Canada of NeighborWorks, I think she'll really make this point to you. But the first part of this aggressive outreach is a toll free number, advertising, really getting to people in advance.

    The second part of this program is we're working to increase the number of solutions, creative solutions, affordable solutions, for homeowners who are struggling, mortgage solutions. So, new products: HUD has an FHA select program which will help 50,000 homeowners that are having problems with their mortgage this year. President Bush has proposed legislation which needs to pass - we need the House and the Senate to act on it - which is an FHA modernization bill, which will come up with an additional program to help 200,000 more people. So we need this. We have proposed legislation to increase the limits on tax exempt financing so that states like California can use it to help homeowners who are struggling with mortgage payments. Right now there's a program that lets the states help first-time homebuyers; this would expand that. So that's a program, the private sector is developing new products. So that's the second part.

    And the third part also the Governor mentioned, which is very important, and that is coming up with a systematic way to efficiently move homeowners who are struggling with mortgage payments and are able to own homes into sustainable mortgages. Now, the part that has received the most publicity is a way to fast-track homeowners that have adjustable rate mortgages - and let me remind you that there are 1.8 million adjustable rate, sub-prime mortgages where the rate will be resetting in 2008 and 2009. So you've seen the problem to date; the problem is going to get much worse unless we do something about it. So these mortgages are going to reset, and this program is to fast-track those homeowners that are going to be unable to afford the higher rate, but have the capability, the financial capability to own a home, into a very quick modification which would be a five-year interest rate freeze.

    That's got the publicity, but there's another group of homeowners that are going to be facing resets that have a stronger financial situation. And they will be put into a process to refinance the mortgage, often at a lower rate than even the initial rate. Some will have no problem meeting the mortgage payments, and others will need to go through a somewhat longer process to make the case that they're going to need the interest rate freeze. But this group also will avoid foreclosure. So I talk about this not as the interest rate freeze, but foreclosure avoidance. That's what we're trying to do, keep people in their homes.

    And then of course there will be some group of homeowners that haven't been able to even make the initial interest rate, and they're going to need a customized approach to be put into one of these HUD products or some other financing. And some of these people won't have the capability to own a home and they'll become renters again. But again, they can be helped greatly by counseling.

    So this is a three-part plan. There is no silver bullet. There is nothing that we can come up with in the government that is going to totally take away the impact of a housing boom that was unsustainable, lax lending practices, a great deal of easy money. And so we will, as an economy we will pay some price, but we want to do everything we can to make a difference. This isn't a silver bullet; it will make a difference. And as the Governor said, we need multiple solutions, multiple approaches.

    So with that, let me tell you, I look forward to your questions also. And I'm going to turn this over to Pam Canada, NeighborWorks. Counseling is critical. I'm sure she'll tell you that if you don't reach out for help you can't be helped. You've got to reach out first. The ostrich approach doesn't work. And so, Pam? (Applause)

    PAM CANADA:

    I'm so very pleased to be here with Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and Governor Schwarzenegger. Thank you very much for allowing us to participate. There are many others here as well that are here because they're stakeholders and are working to help in some fashion against this issue, and helping people to preserve their homeownership. It is critical for our neighborhoods, it's critical for our surrounding communities and our economy, as well as, of course, the families themselves that are going through this particular problem.

    NeighborWorks HomeOwnership Center, Sacramento Region, has been working on preventing foreclosure and helping people avoid foreclosure for quite a while now, as have many of our NeighborWorks organizations up and down the state, and of course across the nation with NeighborWorks America, in partnership with various state governments and the federal government, and of course private sector businesses that are stepping up and realizing they're a serious stakeholder in this issue and need to play a part in helping to find solutions.

    What is being seen here in Stockton is being seen by NeighborWorks organizations around the country. Working with NeighborWorks America we've recently launched a consumer outreach ad campaign, and we worked with our state government as well as local cities and others to create a coalition for homeownership preservation. Several of our other NeighborWorks organizations around the state have also worked together with their elected officials and with their private sector partners, financial institutions, insurance companies and others to create coalitions that bring partners together that are stakeholders in this issue and have the same common goals of preventing foreclosure and helping people find solutions. There are solutions to be found.

    However, over 1 million homeowners may be in danger of foreclosure in 2008. As Secretary Paulson mentioned, there are many more adjustable rates to be adjusted, and there are many people who are, as we speak, concerned about losing their home, and not sure what to do or where to turn. Having press events such as this, and working with our various media in getting the word out, is one way to make people more aware of what can they do. We've seen over and over, and talked to hundreds of thousands of people up and down the state that just don't know. They get a letter in the mail and they start to pack the boxes and move. They don't want the Sheriff to come and knock on the door while they're there, be embarrassed in front of their children or their neighbors and lose their home. They don't know that there might be a solution out there. So the more we can put the word out and help people prevent or find a potential solution to preserve homeownership, the stronger we will all be.

    We, as a NeighborWorks organization, our primary business model is actually helping people prepare for successful homeownership. It was just in the last couple of years that our business model has shifted a bit, and our counseling focus has shifted to the post-purchase counseling. And we still do the pre-purchase counseling as much as possible, and try to also get the word out, the message there too, that for people who now want to enter the homeownership market and buy their first home - which it's a very good time to do - be prepared and learn how to become a homeowner that has a successful long-term opportunity to be a homeowner for years and years and generations to come. Look into homeownership education that will prepare you for long-term homeownership.

    We have done a phone bank with Univision. We got huge numbers of calls with Univision, and that was wonderful. We've also worked with a couple of local cities in our region to bring foreclosure information and education to the various communities, and it's been very successful. One of those cities that we recently worked with Senator Machado and Assemblyman Aghazarian, as well as Congressman McNerney and Congressman Cardoza, who helped host an event close by here at the Stockton Arena, and the Mayor also helped with that. And we had 500 people show up at that Foreclosure Information Workshop. It was overwhelming. As the mayor said, it was good news, bad news. A lot of people came, and that's good; they got some information. And the difficult part was seeing so many people that needed that type of help.

    One of the families that attended that event and reached out because they were concerned about their own home and the possibility of losing their home through foreclosure, one of those families is here with us today to talk about their experience, from the clinic and the additional education and counseling that they received through NeighborWorks. I'd like to introduce our friends here, Mr. and Mrs. Shields, and their Housing Counselor with NeighborWorks, Mike Himes. (Applause)

    MIKE HIMES:

    There's a lot of media about you can stay in your home, there are things the lenders are willing to do to work it out with you. And there are many clinics that happen, many opportunities for people to go and find out how that happens. But where the missing link is after the meeting is finished and they walk out the door, how do they put all of that together? How do they get in contact with their lender? How do they determine whether homeownership is affordable? What opportunities are available to them?

    And this is where the counseling comes in. It's pretty exciting to do what we do, because we are able to see the face of the people that this is happening to. These are real people, and I get a little annoyed when I hear, "Well, they should have known what they got into." But in reality, I look back at the time when I bought my first house, and who did I put my trust in? Of course the loans were just the standard fixed rate FHA loan during that period of time, and things have changed. But you know, you trust the people that are telling you, "Here's how you're going to get into the home." But it's more than just getting into a home. It's getting yourself set up so that the financing options that are available to you are going to make that a healthy ownership for you.

    We talk to a lot of people who are struggling in keeping their homes, and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Things are better now than they were a few months ago, and we're finding more and more lenders now opening up to options for potential home buyers.

    John and Kelley, it's a very interesting situation, because when they came in for their counseling they had everything laid out. They had all of their forms filled out, they had their income tax return, they had all of their bills, they had all the correspondence with their lender already written up. They had a timeline of everything they did. So I pretty much said, "Well, we're done." I didn't have to say much of anything, since they had done the work. But not everyone is in that situation. You know, everybody at some point in time needs a helping hand up, and that's where the counseling comes in; how to speak to that lender, how to put together all of these documents that are going to be required so that the lender can review them and make some decision, and then help possibly in some negotiating, in making sure the loan stays affordable.

    I'm very excited about government intervention, the things that are happening in the state and on a federal level, and I really appreciate you gentlemen for everything that you're doing there. And we're finding now more servicers opening up and saying, "Yeah, we can do this." And it's a pretty great thing that's happening. We see a lot of opportunities for success.

    Anyway, at this point in time I'm going to turn the microphone over to John. Thanks for being here, John. (Applause)

    JOHN SHIELDS:

    Thank you. We were invited to attend this meeting at the town hall to share with others the need to seek help from the various organizations available. We contacted the number, 888-995-HOPE organization, and we let them direct us, and they took down some financial information for us and they directed us to NeighborWorks. This is the program in Sacramento. We immediately contacted Mike, and we made an appointment. Excuse me, I'm a little nervous. Mike helped us, to steer us in the right direction, because we were a little nervous and we didn't know where we really stood at this point.

    After that we contacted our mortgage company, and we started working with our mortgage company to see if we can try to work out a resolution with them. At our mortgage company they immediately - well, not immediately, it took some time. It took like two months. We kept calling them over and over and over, trying to get some sort of feedback and some help. And they sent us a packet in the mail, and this was a modification package that they sent us. So they asked us to fill out the modification package and to send it back to them. We did that, and now they're in the process of trying to work out something for us.

    We felt like we wanted to walk away from our home, but we didn't. We continued to try to contact them, over, over and over. And again, with the help from this gentleman over here, Mike, we feel a little bit at ease.

    KELLEY SHIELDS:

    We can sleep now.

    JOHN SHIELDS:

    Now we can sleep a little bit. It's been difficult. We have our children - and we're sure everybody else is going through the same problem that we're going through. But it does work, but you have to call the different organizations out there. I didn't have faith.

    You know, I commute back and forth from Stockton-San Jose, and I stopped in the middle of the Altamont, and I figured I would go ahead and give one of the counselors all my financial information. It took me about an hour to give them. After I did that, they immediately gave me two numbers to contact, and I turned around and I contacted them, and I was able to get an appointment with them, with NeighborWorks. And then we went down there, and -

    KELLEY SHIELDS:

    It put your mind at ease.

    JOHN SHIELDS:

    It did put my mind at ease. Now, hopefully, my mortgage company will go ahead and be able to work with us. (Applause)

    GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER:

    That was the last speaker. That was really great, I like the way you explained that. And I can really feel for you and how difficult it is. And I liked that, when you both stood up here, because it sounded like my wife and me standing together. She's always telling me what to say, so it was the same thing. (Laughter) So I can totally see the situation here. Very good.

    But anyway, the difficulty you can see here already is just how difficult it is for some people to even talk to their financial institutions, to talk to the bank and to the lenders and the people that give you the money, to understand the forms and all this. So this is why I think the message here is get help. This is the important thing. Even if you didn't get help when you got into the mess, get help now. This is the important thing.

    So let's open it up to some questions. The Secretary and I, we both are ready, or if the Mayor wants to join in, if you have questions for him. As a matter of fact, anyone that you have questions for here. There maybe is a specific question that you have for the Senator or anything like this. They all are ready to answer your questions. So let's start right back here. Yes?

    QUESTIONS/ANSWERS:

    Q: Thank you, Governor and Secretary Paulson. I'm with the California Reinvestment Coalition, and we're an advocacy group comprised of 250 non-profits throughout the state. And I just want to acknowledge you for taking a leadership position on these issues, and in particular in pushing for long-term loan modifications, which we think are the best way to help the most people deal with the crisis. At the same time, we have some concerns about the limitations of the two proposals, and I'd like to just raise a couple of issues and see if you would respond.

    One, it seems that in large part these proposals are relying on voluntary compliance from the industry. We really need these loan modifications. I know that the Commissioner of the Department of Corporations has taken some strong steps in collecting data to make sure that the promises are being kept, and I just wanted to get a reaction as to whether that could be kind of the beginning of more detailed information that's made publicly available, so that everyone knows that the industry is complying with these promises that are so needed.

    And then secondly, a concern that the universe of borrowers who would be assisted by the rate freeze programs, the loan modifications, is somewhat narrow. And just to raise one specific, a large number of people have defaulted on loans as a result of a rate reset, and your programs really focus on people who are facing resets and their loans becoming unaffordable. And it seems like there's really no significant difference between those two categories of folks. And I think I didn't even hear, Secretary Paulson, that group represented amongst the three or four groups that you had talked about. Can you extend the benefits of your good programs to include borrowers who have fallen behind as a result of these unaffordable rate resets who are really similarly situated? They're just on the wrong side of the reset.

    And again, I thank you for your efforts.

    GOVERNOR: Well, thank you very much. I just want to go first on this one here, because we started a little bit earlier our program and our negotiations with the lenders. So I can tell you, like I said earlier, that we have increased from having 25 percent of the lenders now to 33 percent. So there was great reaction there, that more and more lenders are coming in and want to be part of it. And with the great work of what the Secretary has done, to have 20 lenders, to make a deal with 20 lenders, that's really powerful. So we are covering a lot of ground here.

    But No. 2, within a short period of time we have gotten the numbers back, because we are interested not only to make a deal, but to actually see results. And so one of the things that I'm very happy to share with you today is, there's anywhere between 20 percent increases in modifications in the loan, up to 400 percent increases. So there is a huge progress that has been made since we have gotten into this.

    So I was very happy to hear that the lenders and the servicers are really willing to help. I don't think they're out to get anyone. I don't think there's a conspiracy to take the people's homes away. I have had the experience, since I have been in real estate my whole life, since I came to this country. I can tell you that banks, when they make the deal, or lenders make a deal, they want to get rid of this problem and they want you to deal with it. They don't want to take the house back, they don't want to take the property back and then have to resell it and all of those things, and lose money on that. So I think there is a willingness there, that is what we have noticed, and so we are very happy about that.

    The other thing I want to say is I don't think when we make agreements with lenders that this is a deal where we think it's going to solve 100 percent of the problems. No. If we can just take out a big chunk of the problems - people, for instance, they are specifically people that are in their homes, people that are paying their mortgages, and people that cannot afford the increase in the mortgage. Let's help that group. And of course there are people that are going to say, what about the people that are paying their mortgage regularly, why are you not helping them, the people that are not really in this kind of a troubled situation? Well, we can't help everybody, but we can help the people that really need the help most, and that's what we are trying to do.

    And with that, I'll hand it over now to Secretary Paulson. Please.

    SECRETARY PAULSON: Governor, you covered most of the points, but again, this is - lenders do not like foreclosure. It's not in their best interest. Under normal circumstances what you would find is, if a homeowner had problems making a mortgage payment, they would get together with the lender, and in most cases they would work something out, they would strike a deal. What we've done here is get the private sector together to avoid what I would call a market failure. And why do I say a market failure? Well, first of all, the system has changed a bit. The firm you are making your mortgage payment to is in all likelihood not the firm that originated the mortgage, and the investors are now scattered around the world. This makes the decision making process very cumbersome. Now, that would work when you had a stable housing market, but now with the number of struggling homeowners you've got a volume of resets coming.

    And so what this program does is it comes up with a way of fast-tracking homeowners that are going to face problems making a payment, and comes up with something which is a market solution during a period where it's a very unprecedented period. So again, this is something that lenders want to do, servicers want to do, and homeowners want to do.

    But I've got your point, and one of the things we've pressed for, and one of the things you're going to see, is you're going to see some benchmarks and public disclosure so we can follow and monitor. Because if this isn't working we're going to need to make changes. We're absolutely going to need to make changes. So we're going to be all over this, we're going to watch it and make changes if need be. That's No. 1.

    No. 2, this program if forward looking. So I'm sure there are people that have run into trouble in the past - and again, this doesn't preclude the servicers or the lenders helping out those people. And that's why I would just urge those people to go right ahead and call that 888-995-HOPE, and call that and ask for help. And there very well may be help.

    GOVERNOR: Thank you. Yes, you have a question? Please.

    Q: My question is this: Most of the people that are homeowners out here in Stockton, they were put in loans that you had to refinance it every two years. And then your house goes up, so of course you're going to try to pull some money out of there to do some type of improvement. But when the market just automatically bottomed on us like this, we can't refinance. And then, like myself, I went through a death in the family made me - put me in a situation where I am going to go into foreclosure. But I work every day, I've never been late until this situation happened. But the mortgage company is not trying to help me. I've called the HOPE line. They tell me to put my house up for a quick sale. That's not help. And you know, I've lived in this home for two and a half - well, three years, I've struggled to pay for this by myself, raising two grandkids. Where's the help for us?

    SECRETARY PAULSON: I tell you, when I hear your story, I'll tell you, I'm glad I've come here and I'm glad I've heard the story, because it is a sad story. And unfortunately, and very unfortunately, it is difficult to come up with a program that is going to work in every case. And we've gone through a period of unprecedented rises in home prices, we've had a big slump here, and it's not going to work in every case. I don't know what else to say other than that. And I'm hoping that maybe some of the programs that we're asking Congress to approve, the FHA Modernization Act which will have HUD programs to help up to 200,000 home buyers, will make a difference. And so without knowing more about your situation it's difficult for me to help you right here. But I've got to tell you something, it is something we should all care about a great deal. I don't know, Governor, what you would add to that?

    GOVERNOR: First of all, I very much appreciate that you're pointing this out. I would like to just tell you that this is the case a lot of times, that people when they go into an investment - I've done this many times - where you say I know the way real estate is going in California, it's going like this. And if I buy a house today with 500,000, for 500,000 dollars, in two years from now when they ask me to refinance it will be worth 600,000 dollars. Yes! Right? Well, then you find out two years later it's worth 400,000 dollars, and now they come to you and say you have to refinance, and there's nothing available for you and you lose your house.

    So I totally understand that problem, and I want to get your card, because I want to find out why your lender cannot help you. Okay? So please give me your card. Thank you. (Applause)

    SECRETARY PAULSON: Governor, one additional point to make here, because you and I have been focusing on the immediate problem, which is to help people in need today, help our economy, help our communities. There's another aspect of this also. What kinds of policy changes do we need to make in the future to make sure things like this don't happen again?

    GOVERNOR: Absolutely.

    SECRETARY PAULSON: And so what kinds of things? And there's just a variety of things that need to be done differently. The Federal Reserve - I haven't had a chance to read all of them yet, but they have come out with some new regulations on unfair and deceptive lending practices there. There are going to be some regulations on disclosure. And just a lot of disclosure is meaningless. We need good disclosure that people understand. Any of us that have bought a home know you've got pages and pages of boilerplate, which is just sort of covering someone's behind; it's hard to read and understand. We need simple disclosure that say's your interest rate is this, and in a couple of years it could be as high as this, and both parties sign it. (Applause)

    That's not going to help you today. You know, that may help your grandchildren, or your children, so I'm must delighted that the Governor is going to take up your case. But unfortunately, there are all too many stories like yours in this country today, and we're just doing everything we can to help.

    GOVERNOR: The important thing also to know is - and you know, I'm the forever optimist in all of those things - the good side about it is that you couldn't be having this problem in a better state than California. And the reason why I'm saying that is - (Applause)

    I'm telling you. And the reason why I'm saying that is because for us, if you look at history, of how much our property values have gone up, how much our homes have gone up - I remember that I got a house in 1980, and then by the year 2000 I donated the house to a Catholic church down in Los Angeles for helping them build the Cathedral. And by that time that house, that cost us 600,000 dollars, by that time was 3 million dollars. Now, this is from 1980 to 2000, this is 20 years. I mean, think about that. But the reality of it, I only put in there 40,000 dollars, and the value went up from 600,000 to 3 million dollars. We're talking about 2.4 million dollars it gained in value with a down payment of 40,000 dollars. So that is reality in California.

    Now, in the meantime, yes, the market went like this, with several bumps. Several times it probably went below value of what I paid for it, and then it went up again. So the longer you can hold onto your property - this crisis is not going to last. This is a bump in the road, that's how you have to look at it. This is a bump in the road, and eventually the market is going to take off again, and there will be more demand than there is supply, and all of those things will happen. So that's the good news.

    That's why I say in other states they have a problem, because who wants to move there? Let's be honest, who wants to move there? But this state everyone, the whole world wants to live here, everyone wants to come here, and that makes the values of the property go up. So that's the good news about the whole thing. (Applause)

    Yes, please.

    Q: Yes. For people that are already losing their house or have lost their property, they had to pay capital gains, because the IRS sees it as a gain, a profit. Are they going to be doing something about that? Because they already lost their home, they cannot afford to live there, they have to go and rent a house, and on top of that pay taxes on whatever their house sold for. The bank sold it for half of the amount they paid for it, so they're responsible for the difference. Are they going to do something about that, not to charge people for the capital gain? And how far are they going to go back to forgive people the profit, that the IRS called a profit?

    SECRETARY PAULSON: First of all, I don't have a solution for you on a capital gain. You know, I would like it if we had a lower capital gains tax. Unfortunately, the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't make that decision, Congress does. And I do believe that often when there's a capital gain it isn't a real capital gain after inflation. So there's no doubt that if you're forced to sell and able to sell your house, that is a tax that I personally believe is unfair, and I wish it didn't exist.

    The one thing we've proposed, the Treasury has proposed, and I believe will be enacted by Congress is some tax relief for those homeowners who as part of a restructuring in working through their home situation have their principle on their mortgage reduced. And they would normally be hit with a tax on that, and I think you're going to find legislation that provides relief from that. And in a very perverse case, if someone loses their home in foreclosure and so their mortgage debt has gone away, they could be hit with a tax on that debt forgiveness, and so we're proposing tax relief there. I wish I was able to give you the tax relief on capital gains, but that's a tough thing to get from the Senate and the House.

    GOVERNOR: There's a question right over here. Please.

    Q: Governor, Mr. Treasurer, I'm Steve Pitola (PH) I'm a retired mortgage banker here in the area. And I've seen a lot of loan processes, I've also maintained my real estate license. A lot of things got us into this situation, but a lot of it is greed. What are we going to do to professionalize the real estate business, the oversight lack of your Department of Real Estate who allowed these things to go on? They knew what was happening. One of the worst things that's happened is the real estate agent is also acting in many facets during the process. He may be doing the loan, he may be doing something with the title, the appraisal. The VA and FHA codes - that's not the law, but it's in codes - prohibit more than one piece of the transaction. That's a safety thing.

    These people are making killings with these loans. And of course if they're going to make more money with a sub-prime loan, and they ignore the offers of FHA and VA, which protect the consumer - many of these people would not be in that case if they were able to buy FHA or VA. And with a lot of the programs that the state has, the CHAFA which are excellent for first time homebuyers, those offers were ignored or the prices just could not keep up with it, and nor could the incomes. A 44,000 dollar median income is not going to buy a 400,000 dollar house.

    I want to see the colleges in this state professionalize the business. It would take a transitional period. If you want to become an accountant you take 132 units of college. That way people will understand the process of how the money is made, what the ethics are of business law, and the economics that go about making money in this economy of ours. It isn't just grabbing the commission check and going down to the Mercedes dealer and buying something. There's a lot of complicated things, how the money is determined, all these things that go into rate resetting. It isn't just because the bank wants to make more money. No, there are many, many facets, from our world, global position, which is in jeopardy because of this. We need to say I am now an educated real estate agent with a business degree that allows me to do business in this state. Not coming from the car wash, two weeks later, and you have a license to ruin somebody's financial life forever. And a lot of these people out here are the victims of those types of things. DRE is just a cash cow. They need to be investigated, and that, sir, is your responsibility. (Applause)

    GOVERNOR: First of all, thank you very much for your suggestion. And we have three legislators sitting here, and I'm sure they will respond to that. Yes, please, Senator.

    SENATOR MACHADO: Your questions and your comments are right on. This past year I worked with the Governor to initiate legislation that would provide greater oversight.

    With respect to the Governor's Department, the Department of Corporations, the Department of Real Estate, we did provide them with additional resources to be able to provide for that oversight. In addition, we worked very closely with Preston DuFauchard to make sure that they would go out and do the outreach, and appraise the licensees under that Department to determine what they were doing. And as a result of that we are in communication for additional reforms to address the very problems that you have raised. There is no excuse for the predatory nature of some of these agents. The oversight is being taken care of - not as fast as we would all like, because it's a question of resources, and it's a question of understanding the problem and being able to react to it. But I want to say that the Governor's Office, the Governor personally, has been very interactive with this, and with his three agencies we have been able to make monumental steps this past year, and we are not finished.

    GOVERNOR: Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator, we really appreciate that. A big hand for him. (Applause)

    But I think what is also important to know is that a lot of times when you have a crisis like we have now it gives us an opportunity for everyone in the Legislature and the Governor's Office, all the way up to Washington, to really look at the whole situation and to see, where did we fall short? What do we need to do so that this crisis does not happen again? And there are several things that can be done.

    And I'll just tell you as an example, when I came into office we knew that our levees are vulnerable, that if one levee breaks it will wipe out hundreds of thousands of homes, there will be huge flooding and all this, and they're very vulnerable to an earthquake or any big storm. No one would listen to it. This was not a sexy idea, so no one paid any attention to it at all. Only after we have gone back and gone back, and tried to get this done, only after Katrina happened and the people in California found out that our levees are more vulnerable than the ones in New Orleans, then all of a sudden everyone in California responded. And it passed on the ballot like this, the 4.1 billion dollar measure, as you all remember. But they didn't respond before. It was the crisis. It was the crisis that did it, that woke everyone up.

    And I guarantee you that this crisis will wake everyone up too, and to look at everything again, the way we do our dealings, the way real estate works, the way the lending works, the borrowers and everyone. Because like I said, it's a two-way street. It's the borrowers made mistakes, and the lenders make mistakes in this, and now together we have to get out of this mess. So thank you for participating, we appreciate it very much. Thank you. (Applause)

    Anything back here? Yes?

    Q: My name is Ralph (IA)

    GOVERNOR: Just a second.

    Q: Oh, okay. The big part of the problem as I see it, is it's a plumbing issue. And of course what you're doing is great with helping the people from going into foreclosure. But we have in Stockton alone over 1,000 REOs. And so with that competition, as for this lady here, it's tough to sell the homes. If we were able to come up with 35, 40 million in private investing, finance the rest to buy those 1,000 homes and then set a limit where we only put out 10 to 15 a month, so a 10-year process in doing away with those 1,000 homes - is there something that you can do to help negotiations with the bank to come up with something like that, to eliminate all this competition and help the people that are going into foreclosure, so that they can have an opportunity to sell their homes, or have the value high enough that they can refinance?

    GOVERNOR: Well, there are some companies that came forward, and they started investing for bridge loans to help people, because a lot of times - and maybe David, you could talk about the bridge loans? But there are many people that have a situation where their mortgage payment is, let's say, 1,200 dollars, to make up a number. And then all of a sudden it jumps to 1,600 dollars. So they don't need for someone to give them 1,600 dollars, but they maybe need someone to help them with that 400 dollar difference for the next 2 or 3 years until the property value goes up and until you can refinance. So it doesn't take that much money, but it's a bridge loan. So there are people now coming forward that invest in bridge loans. And David here has been very much - this is David Crane, who is our advisor in economics and job creation and financial situations. Maybe you can get into that a little bit.

    DAVID CRANE: Thank you, Governor. We announced something a week or two ago in Oakland, for example, where a foundation contributed a million dollars as a start to create a program to bridge 20 to 50 Oakland homeowners for roughly 10 years, through the difficult period on their loans. And these were people who would otherwise not qualify for any beneficial effect from the streamline program that the Governor or the Secretary announced, or a case-by-case modification with their lender. And that program is also tied to financial literacy classes where the borrower has to take financial literacy classes and learn more about how to manage their finances. Also, they have to eschew all debt, take on no new debt in connection with this process, as they get through this 10-year period.

    And the Governor's plan is to grow that program larger. This next week, for example, we're meeting with a number of other foundations to add capital to this program, and maybe one of those foundations could be helpful in this particular region. In fact, if you have foundations in the Central Valley or the Stockton area that you want to refer to us for that purpose, send them our way and we'll see what we can do. Thank you.

    GOVERNOR: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause)

    >>: We're going to have time for one last question, please.

    GOVERNOR: God, you're strict today. Wow. Do you come from the school teaching background? Unbelievable. Yeah, there's one over here, please.

    Q: Thank you, Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary Paulson, for coming today. I'm one of those homeowners, and I struggled with coming here because I thought, gee, I don't want everybody to know. But in June I'm staring down the barrel on an 8,000 dollar a month mortgage payment. So if anybody needs help, I think I certainly do. And I think the problem is very complex, because both of my neighbors are mortgage brokers, and I just started talking to them, and they said, "We're in the same situation." And we thought wow, how did this happen? All of us are educated. And like you, Secretary Paulson, I am a civil servant, and I worked for some time in Washington. So you would think - I never saw myself in this situation, but unfortunately I and all my educated neighbors are in the same position.

    So I wanted to know if there was anyone here that could help someone like me, who has talked to the bank - in fact, Secretary Paulson, I wrote you a letter.
    Source: U.S. Department of State

    judythpiazza@newsblaze.com


    Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News
    http://newsblaze.com/story/20071220065644tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html




    Lillian D. (43)     		Wednesday January 30, 2008, 8:45 am

    How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power


    Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

    Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
    Saturday September 25, 2004
    The Guardian


    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
    The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

    His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

    Article continues
    The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
    The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

    Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

    While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

    Tantalising


    Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

    Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

    Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

    The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

    The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

    The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

    A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

    Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

    In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

    One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

    The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

    August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

    By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

    By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

    Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

    In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

    There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

    There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

    Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

    May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

    May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

    By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

    Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

    Red-handed


    Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

    The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

    Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

    Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

    The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

    But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

    "SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

    Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

    The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

    Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

    Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

    Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

    In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

    The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

    The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

    The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

    Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

    The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

    In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

    "You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

    "This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

    "The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horseshit. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

    "There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

    Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

    What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

    The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

    In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

    Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

    Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

    Biography


    Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

    The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

    The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

    In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

    The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

    However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

    The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

    However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

    More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.





    Special report
    United States of America

    World news guide
    North American media

    Media
    New York Times
    Washington Post
    CNN

    Government
    US government portal
    White House
    Senate
    House of Representatives




    Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html










    Lillian D. (43)     		Saturday February 2, 2008, 2:10 pm



    Schwarzenegger sets California campaign fundraising record
    By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
    Article Launched: 11/19/2007 03:45:49 PM PST


    SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has become the most prolific campaign fundraiser in California history, taking in more than $125 million for his various political committees, according to an Associated Press review of fundraising records.
    In doing so, he has surpassed Gray Davis, the governor he ousted four years ago in a recall election that focused in large part on Davis' seemingly incessant fundraising.

    Schwarzenegger's political committees have taken in $125.8 million since he jumped into the gubernatorial recall campaign in August 2003. Davis took longer—seven years—to raise $120 million for two gubernatorial campaigns and to fight the recall effort against him.

    The money has been rolling in to Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts, mainly from large and small businesses and business executives, even though he suggested that he would rely on his own fortune to pay for his campaigns.

    "The biggest problem we have is that California is being run by special interests," the former actor said after announcing his candidacy on "The Tonight Show" on Aug. 6, 2003. "I will go to Sacramento and clean house. I don't need to take money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make decisions for the people."

    An AP investigation before Schwarzenegger won re-election last fall showed he was closing in on Davis' record. A subsequent review of finance records filed to the secretary of state's office found the governor has

    since surpassed his predecessor.
    Schwarzenegger has continued to raise money this year even though he is barred by state law from running for a third term in 2010.

    So far in 2007, he has taken in more than $6.2 million to pay off debts from his 2006 re-election campaign, restock his ballot measure committee and pay for some staff travel and other expenses through a new officeholder committee.

    Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said Schwarzenegger's fundraising "shows that when somebody gets into office, many of the things they say before they get into office are nonstarters. For example, 'I don't need to take money from special interests' and 'I don't need to raise campaign money.'"

    Schwarzenegger has used $32.7 million of his own money on his two races for governor and several ballot measure campaigns. That total is not included in the $125.8 million figure.

    A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Julie Soderlund, said the governor has "absolutely kept his promise" about fundraising.

    He makes policy decisions based on "what he thinks is best for the state" and doesn't accept contributions from public employee unions and Indian tribes that negotiate contracts with the governor's office, she said.

    Soderlund said Schwarzenegger's record on issues such as the environment and health care show he is willing to break with his campaign supporters.

    "The governor has time and again demonstrated his independent decision-making with regard to policy issues," she said. "Those who have chosen to contribute to him or an initiative he's moving forward have done so because they support the idea or his vision."

    An advocate for campaign reform said interests that give thousands of dollars to politicians expect that their contributions will gain them influence.

    "They are not giving it as an altruistic act," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause.

    The biggest disappointment isn't the fact that Schwarzenegger has raised large amounts of campaign money, Feng said.

    "It's that he hasn't added to his platform a comprehensive reform proposal for changing the way that money controls politics," she said.

    The Republican governor has proposed a fundraising moratorium for himself and legislators during about a four- to-five month period each year when final decisions are made on the state budget and other legislation.

    But the proposal has met with criticism that it would only shift fundraising efforts to other times of the year and fail to blunt the influence of big donors.

    "If the governor wants to really tackle the issue of too much money in politics, he needs to be bold in his solution," Feng said. "Trying to create some blackout periods or tinkering around with disclosure requirements is not going to change the system."

    She added that getting caught up in the money chase is inherent to California politics under the current system.

    "We need a major overhaul along the lines of public financing," Feng said.

    The California League of Conservation Voters gives Schwarzenegger an average score of 57 out of 100 for his signings and vetoes of environmental bills over the last four years, but his best marks come from business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce.

    During his four years in office, the Republican governor has vetoed nearly 93 percent—all but three—of the 41 employment and consumer-related bills the chamber has labeled "job killers."

    "From day one in office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has demonstrated his commitment to protecting California's economy and encouraging job creation," the chamber's president, Allan Zaremberg, said in a statement. "The governor continues to veto bills that would have placed California's competitiveness in peril."

    The California Labor Federation has a different take on Schwarzenegger's record. It gave him an average score of 20 out of 100 on legislation he has signed and vetoed that the federation supported over the first three years of his administration.

    Not surprisingly, Schwarzenegger's biggest donors are business executives and corporations.

    DHL courier service founder William Robinson has contributed more than $3 million to the governor's campaign committees. Spanish-language television magnate Jerry Perenchio and Stockton developer and San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos have given more than $2 million each.

    Mortgage lender Ameriquest Capital Corp. and its founders, Roland and Dawn Arnall, have given $1.5 million. So has Henry Nicholas, chairman of NS Holdings LLC of Aliso Viejo.

    Other big donors include Public Storage Co. chairman B. Wayne Hughes, Chevron Corp. and Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens.

    ———

    On the Net: http://www.ss.ca.gov

    http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_7507719

    Lillian D. (43)     		Saturday February 2, 2008, 2:11 pm



    Schwarzenegger sets California campaign fundraising record
    By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
    Article Launched: 11/19/2007 03:45:49 PM PST


    SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has become the most prolific campaign fundraiser in California history, taking in more than $125 million for his various political committees, according to an Associated Press review of fundraising records.
    In doing so, he has surpassed Gray Davis, the governor he ousted four years ago in a recall election that focused in large part on Davis' seemingly incessant fundraising.

    Schwarzenegger's political committees have taken in $125.8 million since he jumped into the gubernatorial recall campaign in August 2003. Davis took longer—seven years—to raise $120 million for two gubernatorial campaigns and to fight the recall effort against him.

    The money has been rolling in to Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts, mainly from large and small businesses and business executives, even though he suggested that he would rely on his own fortune to pay for his campaigns.

    "The biggest problem we have is that California is being run by special interests," the former actor said after announcing his candidacy on "The Tonight Show" on Aug. 6, 2003. "I will go to Sacramento and clean house. I don't need to take money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make decisions for the people."

    An AP investigation before Schwarzenegger won re-election last fall showed he was closing in on Davis' record. A subsequent review of finance records filed to the secretary of state's office found the governor has

    since surpassed his predecessor.
    Schwarzenegger has continued to raise money this year even though he is barred by state law from running for a third term in 2010.

    So far in 2007, he has taken in more than $6.2 million to pay off debts from his 2006 re-election campaign, restock his ballot measure committee and pay for some staff travel and other expenses through a new officeholder committee.

    Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said Schwarzenegger's fundraising "shows that when somebody gets into office, many of the things they say before they get into office are nonstarters. For example, 'I don't need to take money from special interests' and 'I don't need to raise campaign money.'"

    Schwarzenegger has used $32.7 million of his own money on his two races for governor and several ballot measure campaigns. That total is not included in the $125.8 million figure.

    A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Julie Soderlund, said the governor has "absolutely kept his promise" about fundraising.

    He makes policy decisions based on "what he thinks is best for the state" and doesn't accept contributions from public employee unions and Indian tribes that negotiate contracts with the governor's office, she said.

    Soderlund said Schwarzenegger's record on issues such as the environment and health care show he is willing to break with his campaign supporters.

    "The governor has time and again demonstrated his independent decision-making with regard to policy issues," she said. "Those who have chosen to contribute to him or an initiative he's moving forward have done so because they support the idea or his vision."

    An advocate for campaign reform said interests that give thousands of dollars to politicians expect that their contributions will gain them influence.

    "They are not giving it as an altruistic act," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause.

    The biggest disappointment isn't the fact that Schwarzenegger has raised large amounts of campaign money, Feng said.

    "It's that he hasn't added to his platform a comprehensive reform proposal for changing the way that money controls politics," she said.

    The Republican governor has proposed a fundraising moratorium for himself and legislators during about a four- to-five month period each year when final decisions are made on the state budget and other legislation.

    But the proposal has met with criticism that it would only shift fundraising efforts to other times of the year and fail to blunt the influence of big donors.

    "If the governor wants to really tackle the issue of too much money in politics, he needs to be bold in his solution," Feng said. "Trying to create some blackout periods or tinkering around with disclosure requirements is not going to change the system."

    She added that getting caught up in the money chase is inherent to California politics under the current system.

    "We need a major overhaul along the lines of public financing," Feng said.

    The California League of Conservation Voters gives Schwarzenegger an average score of 57 out of 100 for his signings and vetoes of environmental bills over the last four years, but his best marks come from business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce.

    During his four years in office, the Republican governor has vetoed nearly 93 percent—all but three—of the 41 employment and consumer-related bills the chamber has labeled "job killers."

    "From day one in office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has demonstrated his commitment to protecting California's economy and encouraging job creation," the chamber's president, Allan Zaremberg, said in a statement. "The governor continues to veto bills that would have placed California's competitiveness in peril."

    The California Labor Federation has a different take on Schwarzenegger's record. It gave him an average score of 20 out of 100 on legislation he has signed and vetoed that the federation supported over the first three years of his administration.

    Not surprisingly, Schwarzenegger's biggest donors are business executives and corporations.

    DHL courier service founder William Robinson has contributed more than $3 million to the governor's campaign committees. Spanish-language television magnate Jerry Perenchio and Stockton developer and San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos have given more than $2 million each.

    Mortgage lender Ameriquest Capital Corp. and its founders, Roland and Dawn Arnall, have given $1.5 million. So has Henry Nicholas, chairman of NS Holdings LLC of Aliso Viejo.

    Other big donors include Public Storage Co. chairman B. Wayne Hughes, Chevron Corp. and Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens.

    ———

    On the Net: http://www.ss.ca.gov

    http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_7507719

    Lillian D. (43)     		Saturday February 2, 2008, 2:11 pm



    Schwarzenegger sets California campaign fundraising record
    By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
    Article Launched: 11/19/2007 03:45:49 PM PST


    SACRAMENTO—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has become the most prolific campaign fundraiser in California history, taking in more than $125 million for his various political committees, according to an Associated Press review of fundraising records.
    In doing so, he has surpassed Gray Davis, the governor he ousted four years ago in a recall election that focused in large part on Davis' seemingly incessant fundraising.

    Schwarzenegger's political committees have taken in $125.8 million since he jumped into the gubernatorial recall campaign in August 2003. Davis took longer—seven years—to raise $120 million for two gubernatorial campaigns and to fight the recall effort against him.

    The money has been rolling in to Schwarzenegger's campaign accounts, mainly from large and small businesses and business executives, even though he suggested that he would rely on his own fortune to pay for his campaigns.

    "The biggest problem we have is that California is being run by special interests," the former actor said after announcing his candidacy on "The Tonight Show" on Aug. 6, 2003. "I will go to Sacramento and clean house. I don't need to take money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make decisions for the people."

    An AP investigation before Schwarzenegger won re-election last fall showed he was closing in on Davis' record. A subsequent review of finance records filed to the secretary of state's office found the governor has

    since surpassed his predecessor.
    Schwarzenegger has continued to raise money this year even though he is barred by state law from running for a third term in 2010.

    So far in 2007, he has taken in more than $6.2 million to pay off debts from his 2006 re-election campaign, restock his ballot measure committee and pay for some staff travel and other expenses through a new officeholder committee.

    Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said Schwarzenegger's fundraising "shows that when somebody gets into office, many of the things they say before they get into office are nonstarters. For example, 'I don't need to take money from special interests' and 'I don't need to raise campaign money.'"

    Schwarzenegger has used $32.7 million of his own money on his two races for governor and several ballot measure campaigns. That total is not included in the $125.8 million figure.

    A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Julie Soderlund, said the governor has "absolutely kept his promise" about fundraising.

    He makes policy decisions based on "what he thinks is best for the state" and doesn't accept contributions from public employee unions and Indian tribes that negotiate contracts with the governor's office, she said.

    Soderlund said Schwarzenegger's record on issues such as the environment and health care show he is willing to break with his campaign supporters.

    "The governor has time and again demonstrated his independent decision-making with regard to policy issues," she said. "Those who have chosen to contribute to him or an initiative he's moving forward have done so because they support the idea or his vision."

    An advocate for campaign reform said interests that give thousands of dollars to politicians expect that their contributions will gain them influence.

    "They are not giving it as an altruistic act," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause.

    The biggest disappointment isn't the fact that Schwarzenegger has raised large amounts of campaign money, Feng said.

    "It's that he hasn't added to his platform a comprehensive reform proposal for changing the way that money controls politics," she said.

    The Republican governor has proposed a fundraising moratorium for himself and legislators during about a four- to-five month period each year when final decisions are made on the state budget and other legislation.

    But the proposal has met with criticism that it would only shift fundraising efforts to other times of the year and fail to blunt the influence of big donors.

    "If the governor wants to really tackle the issue of too much money in politics, he needs to be bold in his solution," Feng said. "Trying to create some blackout periods or tinkering around with disclosure requirements is not going to change the system."

    She added that getting caught up in the money chase is inherent to California politics under the current system.

    "We need a major overhaul along the lines of public financing," Feng said.

    The California League of Conservation Voters gives Schwarzenegger an average score of 57 out of 100 for his signings and vetoes of environmental bills over the last four years, but his best marks come from business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce.

    During his four years in office, the Republican governor has vetoed nearly 93 percent—all but three—of the 41 employment and consumer-related bills the chamber has labeled "job killers."

    "From day one in office, Gov. Schwarzenegger has demonstrated his commitment to protecting California's economy and encouraging job creation," the chamber's president, Allan Zaremberg, said in a statement. "The governor continues to veto bills that would have placed California's competitiveness in peril."

    The California Labor Federation has a different take on Schwarzenegger's record. It gave him an average score of 20 out of 100 on legislation he has signed and vetoed that the federation supported over the first three years of his administration.

    Not surprisingly, Schwarzenegger's biggest donors are business executives and corporations.

    DHL courier service founder William Robinson has contributed more than $3 million to the governor's campaign committees. Spanish-language television magnate Jerry Perenchio and Stockton developer and San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos have given more than $2 million each.

    Mortgage lender Ameriquest Capital Corp. and its founders, Roland and Dawn Arnall, have given $1.5 million. So has Henry Nicholas, chairman of NS Holdings LLC of Aliso Viejo.

    Other big donors include Public Storage Co. chairman B. Wayne Hughes, Chevron Corp. and Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens.

    ———

    On the Net: http://www.ss.ca.gov

    http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_7507719

    Lillian D. (43)     		Sunday February 3, 2008, 3:13 pm
    MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS EXCLUSIVE
    Wall Street donates millions to top presidential candidates
    Posted on Fri, Feb. 01, 2008Digg del.icio.us AIM reprint print email
    BY GREG GORDON
    ggordon@mcclatchydc.com

    WASHINGTON -- Employees of Wall Street investment banks, whose role in the unregulated subprime mortgage market helped stall the U.S. economy, have donated more than $5 million to the top four Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.

    A McClatchy analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings found that employees and executives of 12 firms -- including Merrill Lynch, Citicorp, Lehman Brothers and Swiss-owned UBS -- made hefty contributions to candidates in both parties but seemed to be betting more on Democrats.

    The companies are among those who have the most at stake in the next election: They've already sustained losses approaching $100 billion, politicians are talking about tougher regulations and the new administration will have a large hand in crafting policies to address the subprime crisis. With the prospect of growing foreclosures for homeowners with shaky credit, the value of hundreds of billions of dollars in bundled mortgages could plummet.

    Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois were the leading recipients of cash from employees of these firms, collecting half the $7.4 million in donations to 15 major presidential candidates.

    Through Dec. 31, Clinton had collected more than $2 million in donations from employees of 12 banking firms caught up in the subprime mess. She received $373,020 from Morgan Stanley workers, $316,001 from Goldman Sachs employees and nearly $290,000 from Citicorp. workers.

    Obama got $1.7 million from the same firms, including $288,835 from Goldman Sachs employees, $242,395 from UBS workers and $226,805 from Lehman Brothers employees.

    Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the New York senator ``went to Wall Street and directly challenged the industry to take specific steps to stem the subprime housing crisis. She is intent on fixing the housing crisis and making sure that people are able to keep their homes.''

    Clinton has proposed a three-month freeze on mortgage foreclosures, a plan that would drive down the value of bundled mortgages held by the banks. She also wants to force banks to require lenders to freeze mortgage interest rates for five years at the sub-market ''teaser'' levels that enabled millions of Americans to buy homes that they couldn't afford.

    In Thursday night's debate with Clinton, Obama said he opposed an interest rate freeze, ''not because we need to protect the banks,'' but because it would drive up interest rates across the board.

    Obama's spokesmen didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

    On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received $893,915 in donations, topped by $146,970 from employees of Merrill Lynch, $124,050 from Morgan Stanley workers, $121,950 from Lehman Brothers employees and $120,000 from Goldman Sachs workers.

    Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose campaign was so starved for cash in December that he took a $3 million bank loan, got $704,423 from employees of investment banks and two large banks, led by $145,715 from Merrill Lynch workers and $124,661 from Citicorp. employees.

    Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said the governor's political contributors supported ''his experience and his vision for strengthening the country'' and that Romney's positions on the subprime crisis were ''driven by his desire to help American homeowners and stabilize'' the economy.

    Aides to McCain, who has a reputation as a campaign finance reformer, didn't respond to requests for comment about his donations from subprime industry players.

    The investment banking firms -- either major subprime lenders or firms that now hold portfolios of subprime loans -- had little to say about their employees' and executives' donations.

    Spokeswoman Selena Morris of Merrill Lynch, which has written off some $20 billion in losses on subprime mortgages and securities in recent months, said that ''neither Merrill Lynch nor its PAC contribute to presidential campaigns.'' Its employees, she said, ``are free to participate in the political process just like any other citizen.''

    A spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley, which wrote off $9.4 billion in losses last year, declined to comment, and representatives of several of the other firms didn't respond to requests for comment.

    Michael Calhoun, the president of the North Carolina-based Center for Responsible Lending, said that predatory lending legislation already has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. He said he suspected that the investment banks ''want to have that outcome influenced by the administration,'' either the Bush administration or the next president's.

    Other government decisions also could affect the firms' bottom lines.

    Patricia McCoy, a University of Connecticut law professor, said the industry wanted to avoid legislation that would allow homeowners who were facing foreclosure on their mortgages to sue the current holders of subprime loans.

    But Allen Fishbein, who watches over the housing industry for the Consumer Federation of America, said his group thought that with more accountability, big banks would do a better job of policing the kinds of mortgages that were written.

    Consumer groups also are pushing Congress and the Bush administration to rewrite bankruptcy laws to allow judges to write down mortgage debts on primary residences. That's a measure that Wall Street mortgage holders are sure to resist, Fishbein said.

    AT A GLANCE

    Here are the firms and their employees' total donations to all presidential candidates through Dec. 31:

    Goldman Sachs, $1,046583; Citicorp, $961,745; Morgan Stanley, $913,914; Lehman Brothers, $906,652; Merrill Lynch, $712,603; Credit-Suisse, $545,911; UBS, $498,470; J.P. Morgan, $458,327; Bear Stearns, $373,427; Bank of America, $351,654; Deutsche Bank, $331,927; Wachovia, $258,376.

    SOURCE: Federal Election Commission



    Lillian D. (43)     		Friday April 3, 2009, 12:33 pm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5TebC1EYnA


    Click here: YouTube - The King of Predatory Lending, Roland Arnall

    Malcom R. (0)     		Wednesday October 27, 2010, 9:20 am
    "It's clear that Hillary is going to play the "I'm clueless" card -- AGAIN....can she really be trusted to run the country?" This is, I think, a pertinent and important question for people ask themselves.
    http://www.bethfranchini.com

    Author

    Lillian D.
    Author Tools:
    Compose New Share
    female, age 59, married, 4 children
    Campbell Hall, NY, USA
    LILLIAN'S SHARES
    Mar
    28
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Bringing Invalid Soldiers to the PollsScene at the Polls in NY, the Veterans in 1812 and 1864.Union Home and School for Soldier's Children, 58th Street Near 8th AvenueSoldier's Depot, Dining Room (1st Floor)Soldier's Depot - Receiving Room (1st Floor...
    Mar
    27
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
      Schoolteacher, husband found shot to death in Town of Newburgh home Police hint that shootings were murder-suicide   Photo 1 of 2  |   ;Zoom Photo + Investigators confer outside the home. Neighbors ...
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Couple's deaths ruled murder-suicide Husband used handgun to kill wife, self: cops ShareThis Photo 1 of 1  |   ;Zoom Photo + Investigators have ruled the deaths of Kimet Kojtari and his wife, Hiria, of the Town of N...
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Authorities: Man Set Fire, Committed Suicide Red Cross Aiding Displaced Apartment Residents POSTED: 6:00 am EST January 5, 2010UPDATED: 5:18 pm EST January 5, 2010     OCOEE, Fla. -- ...


    ads keep care2 free
    SHARES FROM LILLIAN'S NETWORK
    Feb
    9
    by Kat Y.
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    AN OPINION:" NATIVE VOTE 2012, INDIAN COUNTRY POLITICS AND NATIVE CANDIDATE MIKE RACCOON EYES, FOR CITY COUNCIL IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA"by Kat Wounded Cougar Kinney(Note from Mike Raccoon Eyes: This masterful political essay was contributed by Indian ...
    Feb
    8
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Please check out this link and sign and help promote the petitions on here and elsewhere:- https://www.facebook.com/ groups/135262813259562/ Please share. Hopefully see you there. Hope you're well Very Best Regards Darren
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima Radiation Bird Studies   ………& hellip;……&h ellip;……&he llip;……&hel lip;……&hell ip;……&helli p;……     Fuk...
    Feb
    6
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    Radioactive xenon-135 is produced from iodine-135 as a result of nuclear fission, and it acts as the most significant neutron absorber in nuclear reactors.[11]   129Xe is produced by beta decay of129I, which has a half-life of 16 million year...
    (0 comments  |  discussions )
    US Fukushima Song - "Fukushima Dreamin" http://youtu.be/1Wvz3yBSE ZI    Nuclear Madness (Music Video) http://youtu.be/BELv94DHQ gE   RUSSIAN  http://youtu.be/IuhuyiQbM U0   Atomic Waste - ( Protest Song Against Nuclear...


    ads keep care2 free
    MORE MEMBER BLOGS
    Feb 11
    Blog: BRICKS~WORSHIPING~ by Donna M.
    (0 comments  |  discussions ) — BRICKS~WORSHIPING~ more
    Blog: BRICKS-WITNESSING~ by Donna M.
    (0 comments  |  discussions ) — BRICKS-WITNESSING~ more
    Blog: BRICKS~THE DISCIPLINE OF PRAYER~ by Donna M.
    (0 comments  |  discussions ) — BRICKS~THE DISCIPLINE OF PRAYER~ more
    Blog: frankkinston - Norton Collection of Classic and Scientific Literature - Livejournal by Perry B.
    (0 comments  |  discussions ) — Ivanhoe, the classic novel by Sir Walter Scott, about a valiant knight has been cut and rewritten in an attempt to appeal to modern readers, according to Norton Collection of Classic and Scientific Literature. David Purdie is an author and the... more
    Blog: BRICKS~REFLECTION AND MEDITATION~ by Donna M.
    (0 comments  |  0 discussions ) — BRICKS~REFLECTION AND MEDITATION~ more
     
    Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
    Copyright © 2012 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved