Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

FBI: Beware of Loan Modification Scams

Paul Kiesel — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:08:26 GMT

According to the Justice Department, San Joaquin Valley has been a hotbed for loan modification scams, as cities like Stockton, Modesto and Merced top the foreclosure rankings among cities nationwide.

Last week, Representative Dennis Cardoza (D-Modesto), urged Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate mortgage-reduction schemes that are being marketed to distressed homeowners throughout the Valley.

Most of these scams ask homeowners for an upfront fee in order to start a loan modification program. At best, the homeowners may end up paying for work that is completed by the group asking for the money, however, it's work that likely could have been done for free through other non-profit organizations or loan-modification assistance programs (i.e. Community Housing Council, a non-profit based in Fresno). At worst, the homeowners pay for work that isn't done at all.

Cardoza wrote to Mukasey that it was "imperative" that law enforcement authorities "crack down on these foreclosure scams quickly and comprehensively. Cardoza pointed out that San Joaquin Valley residents are particularly vulnerable because of the region's foreclosure crisis.

The scams are typically initiated over the phone or through the mail, however, the people running the scams sometimes show up at the homes they're targeting. The companies will then offer the distressed homeowner their services to renegotiate the mortgage in exchange for an up-front fee amounting to one month's mortgage payment or more.

Just last week, in Modesto, "some homeowners attended a workshop in which they were asked to pay $3,500 for getting their mortgage woes resolved," (San Jose Mercury News, 10/27/08).

The FBI is aware of this problem, as they report to having 1,569 pending mortgage fraud investigations open as of last month. However, it is clear that number will rise and more resources will need to be poured into combating mortgage fraud, as incidences of it has annually doubled between 2003 and 2007.

The FBI has also been taking some flack recently due to their late arrival to all of the rampant mortgage fraud that's been taking place over the last couple years, but part of that is due to the agency not having enough agents to cover the continuing spread of mortgage fraud, as the housing and foreclosure crisis gets worse. The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Current and former officials say the cutbacks have left the bureau seriously exposed in investigating areas like white-collar crime, which has taken on urgent importance in recent weeks because of the nation’s economic woes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Cardinal Mahony Claims "The Archdiocese Today is Safe For Children"

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:34:54 GMT

Cardinal Roger Mahony believes that hundreds of years of sexual abuse, that has taken place throughout various Catholic orders, is "all behind us" now. What evidence supports his assertion?

Just because the Cardinal paid $660 million to settle more than 500 sexual abuse cases -- the largest settlement in the country -- it doesn't mean his assurances are any more valid than when the Cardinal promised, in 2007, to release sealed documents related to the cases (sealed by the church). Those documents, almost two years later, have yet to be released. So technically Cardinal, it's not all behind us.

Below is an article from the Los Angeles Times detailing recent news concerning the Feds case against the Los Angeles Archdiocese:

Los Angeles - The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

The probe, in which U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien is personally involved, is aimed at determining whether Mahony, and possibly other church leaders, committed fraud by failing to adequately deal with priests accused of sexually abusing children, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.

Authorities are applying a legal theory in an apparently novel way. One federal law enforcement source said prosecutors are seeking to use a federal statute that makes it illegal to "scheme . . . to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

In this case, the victims would be parishioners who relied on Mahony and other church leaders to keep their children safe from predatory priests, the source said.

To gain a conviction on such a charge, prosecutors would have to prove that Mahony used the U.S. mail or some form of electronic communication in committing the alleged fraud, the source said.

The inquiry has been underway since at least late last year, the source added.

O'Brien declined to comment, refusing to even confirm the existence of the investigation.

J. Michael Hennigan, who represents Mahony and the archdiocese, confirmed that federal prosecutors had contacted the archdiocese and requested "information about a number of individual priests, at least two of whom are deceased."

He said he was also aware that some witnesses had testified before the panel.

But Hennigan said he has been informed that Mahony is not a target of the inquiry.

"We have been and will continue to be fully cooperative with the investigation," Hennigan said.

Mahony has repeatedly apologized for the church's sex scandal and asked for forgiveness for not acting sooner to remove priests who abused minors. He has declared that the archdiocese handles abuse allegations seriously, notifying police when complaints are made and removing priests from active ministry when allegations are deemed credible.

As the Catholic Church's highest-ranking official in Southern California, Mahony has been dogged for years by allegations of covering up the sexual misconduct of priests.

The cardinal was accused of transferring priests who molested children to other parishes rather than removing them from the priesthood and alerting authorities.

Rest of article here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Cardinal Mahony's Effort to Block Iraq War Veteran's Sexual Abuse Claim

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:49:21 GMT

Below is a story that details Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony acting in typical Cardinal Mahony fashion: As a suppresser of truth and a promoter of impostures and mistruths.

From Los Angeles CityBeat:

In 2002, with the Catholic Church molestation scandal erupting around him, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony took to the media to make an announcement: “We want every single thing out, open and dealt with, period,” he insisted.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese then spent the better part of a year stonewalling the release of church personnel files – which, when finally liberated, revealed the identities of the abusers and those who aided them.

Nearly seven years later, things haven’t changed much. A new chapter to the sex abuse scandal has recently opened, and once again the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is doing its best to close it.

In this case, the alleged victim is an Iraq war veteran.

In documents obtained by L.A. City Beat, a man identified as “John TH Doe” says he was 16 years old when a priest in his L.A.-area Catholic high school sexually abused him. For years he said nothing. At the age of 22, he enlisted in the Air Force, where he has served continuously since 1993, flying countless, dangerous combat missions in the Iraqi theater.

After years of silence, while still serving in Iraq, John TH Doe is now ready for his day in court.

There’s a chance, however, that day could never come.

Last week, as lawyers for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles tried to downplay news that Cardinal Mahony had come under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office for his role in dealing with pedophilic priests, those same lawyers were taking an unprecedented step – quietly pushing a legal challenge in Los Angeles County superior court that would seek to deny John TH Doe, and potentially other California servicemen and women who were molested by members of the church, their chance at justice.

The case begins in 2002 when, in response to a public outcry over widespread allegations of child molestation in the Catholic Church, the California legislature opened a civil window that allowed victims of sexual abuse to file suit against their abusers, no matter when the alleged abuse occurred, or when the statute of limitations for the crime should have expired.

That window closed in 2003, but for members of the military serving in active duty during that time who missed the deadline, there was hope in a little known law: the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act of 1940. SCRA suspends statutes of limitation where men and women in active military duty are concerned. “The period of a service member’s military service,” the law states, “may not be included in computing any period limited by law, regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or proceeding in court.”

The law was designed to allow members of the military to serve without having legal woes in their civilian lives cloud their ability to fight, and to protect their legal rights should they be unable to return home for a court date.

But there’s a small loophole in the law, one the archdiocese is trying to exploit. It allows the court to use its discretion to ignore the law and throw out SCRA cases it deems meritless. And that’s exactly what lawyers for the Archdiocese are asking Judge Emilie H. Elias to do.

“Plaintiff in this case is not someone who was drafted or a guardsman or reservist called to active duty,” lawyers for the diocese argue in their court filings. “He is not entitled to have the SCRA ‘liberally constructed’ in his favor.”

In other words, the archdiocese says, because John TH Doe volunteered to serve his country and fight in Iraq, instead of being drafted, the protections of the SCRA shouldn’t apply.

“Our client was abused as a child,” says Vince Finaldi, John TH Doe’s attorney, at the Newport Beach-based law firm Manly & Stewart. “He didn’t file earlier because he was serving this nation. If the court is going to exercise discretion, it should be in favor of those ravaged by priests in California and throughout the United States.”

Calls to Lee Potts, the Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman lawyer representing the archdiocese, went unanswered.

So far, there’s just one other SCRA case, in San Diego. There, “John Roe 65,” a career military man, has told the court he was stationed in Guam during the 2003 sexual abuse filing period; in his remote location, he had no idea a window for a lawsuit existed. He filed suit under the SCRA in 2008, two years after he got out of the military. The Catholic Diocese of San Diego is fighting that case, too.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Cardinal(s) Wrong

Paul Kiesel — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:30:26 GMT

Cardinal George is wrong on his stance of Obama addressing this year's graduating class at Notre Dame University.

Ten priests in the Roman Catholic order that helps run the University of Notre Dame want the school to reconsider having President Barack Obama deliver this year's commencement address. They're wrong, too.

Why? Because it's not their graduation. It's the students' graduation. And what do the seniors who will be graduating from Notre Dame think: They appear to strongly back the university's invitation to Obama. The campus newspaper reports that 97 percent of the letters that have come in on the subject from graduating seniors are supportive.

So why does the American Life League, a Catholic pro-life organization, want to remove Notre Dame from future Catholic foundation funding? Because they don't think the students at the school are Catholic enough and, frankly, they likely disapprove of many of President Obama's policies.

This "political" and theological stunt by poorly advised cardinals and priests comes down to the disapproval of one's, in this case Obama's, political ideologies and they're turning a joyous occasion for many hard-working seniors into a publicity stunt, unfairly stealing the attention that should be focused squarely on the graduating class and the President's upcoming appearance.

However, this isn't the first time the Catholic church has had its priorities out of whack. Look at what took place in Fresno last week, as Bishop John T. Steinbock felt vindicated by a Fresno's jury verdict: Jurors unanimously agreed that Monsignor Anthony Herdegen molested two brothers from 1959 to 1972 while Herdegen was a priest at St. John's Catholic Church in Wasco. The jurors didn't find the church liable.

In a statement, Bishop Steinbock expressed regret that Herdegen had abused the Santillans, "even though the diocese learned that they were abused years after it occurred [FLAT OUT LIE]."

"Bishop Steinbock emphasized that if even one child is sexually abused, that is one child too many," the statement said. "Child sexual abuse afflicts all of society, and no community or institution is free from its effects -- even the church [SECOND FLAT OUT LIE]."

Steinbock's position on sexually abused children is sadly disingenuous: A little over two years ago, a Fresno jury found Father Eric Swearingen guilty (9-3) of molesting a former altar boy, however, Bishop John J. Steinbock has continued to allow this man to work with children at the Holy Spirit Parish in Fresno, California.

If this is the best the Catholic church has, when it comes to its leaders and rank and file members throughout the country, I'm unimpressed.

However, kudos to Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, who said in a statement last month that the invitation does not mean the university supports all of Obama's positions but that he will be honored as an "inspiring leader."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Fresno Diocese Continues to Let "Accused" Child Molester Work with Children

Paul Kiesel — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:20:46 GMT

A little over two years ago, a Fresno jury found Father Eric Swearingen guilty (9-3) of molesting a former altar boy, however, Bishop John J. Steinbock has continued to allow this man to work with children at the Holy Spirit Parish in Fresno, California.

What is Bishop Steinbock thinking? Would a school district allow a teacher faced with the same situation as Swearingen (I find it inappropriate to refer to him as "Father," as it shows deference to a man who, frankly, doesn't deserve it) to continue working with children? As a parent, would you want your children around a man like that?

Bishop Steinbock, based on his actions, could care less about the future safety of children within any of his parishes and this was especially punctuated yesterday, as he waltzed into a Fresno courtroom, for another clergy sexual abuse case involving one of his former priests, and casually winked at the jury. His attitude, though, changed almost immediately after being questioned by the plaintiff's attorney, Jeff Anderson.

Jeff Anderson: Bishop, when did you first realize or learn that when an adult lays his hands on the genitals of a child and manipulates the genitals of a child and places them on the body of a child for sexual purposes, it was a crime? When did you first realize that?

Bishop: You know, it's really hard for me to say. I think society --

Anderson: No, you.

Bishop: Me?

Anderson: You.

Bishop: I think I thought along with society for so many years it was --

Anderson: Bishop, I'm going to ask you to focus on the question. When did you first learn that it was a crime for an adult, a person over the age of 18, to engage in sex with a kid?

Bishop: Well, I think we would all think that was always a criminal case.

Anderson: If you knew that, then why didn't you turn it over to the law enforcement for them to determine whether or not a crime had been committed and the statute of limitations had passed or not?

Bishop: Because I do not have an allegation of that against him. This is way back in 1995. As I said, I had no cause to take his faculties or away. There was no allegation.

Anderson: You were concerned about a civil suit because you go on to say [in the Bishop's own notes from 1995], "There can always be a civil suit," right?

Bishop: Well, there can always be a civil suit. But I'm also thinking of his, you know, that might be a civil suit against him. I mean, I wasn't aware that they'd probably just come at the Diocese alone. I figured they would also go after the priest.

Wow! Steinbock's responses at one point show that back in 1995, when the current allegation was brought to his attention, he was more concerned with a civil suit than turning over any evidence of wrongdoing by his clergymen to the authorities.

Again, what is Steinbock thinking and who above him (i.e. the Pope, Cardinal Mahony) would allow for this type of behavior to continue in ANY Catholic diocese throughout the world?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Rick Santorum and Bishop Steinbock: "Secular" Society is to Blame for Rampant Clergy Sexual Abuse

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:24:03 GMT

These two guys, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and Bishop John T. Steinbock, claim that society, in particular secular or liberal society, is to blame for all of the "recent" sex abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church.

Wrong. Their logic is wrong. Their interpretation and understanding of Catholic Church history is completely wrong: These sex abuse scandals are not a "recent" problem, in fact, sexual abuse in and of itself is tied to the origins of the Catholic Church. But before we get to that, let's look at their disgusting comments and mistruths first:

Rick Santorum on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos (7/31/05)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire. You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

You’ve reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you still stand by that statement?

SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people’s behavior. I don’t think anyone…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn’t that what conservatives used to say about liberals, when they used to say they were trying to excuse criminals?

SANTORUM: I think what I’m saying is that the culture of liberal sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s had a profound impact on everybody and their sexual mores. It had a profound impact on the church.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you singled out Boston in…

SANTORUM: I singled out Boston in 2002. In July of 2002, that was the epicenter. We did not know…

(And clearly this guy still doesn't know what's going on within his church and what's been going on within his church for centuries, but more on that in a second.)

Bishop John T. Steinbock addressing sexual abuse within the Fresno Diocese to Central California Catholic Life, in a 2004 letter

[. . .] Society itself simply did not understand the grave harm to children caused by sexual abuse nor know how to respond to child abuse. In fact it was rarely spoken about publicly, and this is true not only in the church but in all of society. Since the mid 1980’s, some bishops may have failed to respond in a way we now know is appropriate, usually out of ignorance of the grave harm caused by child abuse, but most bishops took immediate action when news of an abused child came to their attention [. . .]

[. . .] The way society has understood child abuse and responded to child abuse has evolved over the years. Only in the early 1980’s did society as a whole begin to become aware of the scope of the problem, and begin to speak publicly of it. The bishops began to take action in the mid 1980’s, as they also grew in this societal awareness of the problem. Most bishops did their best to protect children. If a priest was known to have a problem with minors, he would be sent to a program for therapy, directed by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and only put back into ministry when there was a professional opinion by a psychiatrist or psychologist that there was little risk by that individual of being a danger to children. Often that priest would be put into a ministry where he would not be in direct contact with children.

Are These Guys Serious?

1. They've assumed all people who hold "liberal" values are not religious. I don't need to start naming names, but anybody reading this could list off a dozen names of friends who are politically or socially liberal and who are also theistic.

2. I would dare either one of them to write one of the many definitions of the word "liberal" or "secular" in the comment section of this blog, without referencing a dictionary, and see if either men come close to the correct definition(s) of the two words.

3. Santorum is apparently an intellectual lightweight and it shows in his interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos and Steinbock is lying: Swearingen, a man who was found guilty of molesting a young boy (9-3) by a jury of his peers, is currently in direct contact with children.

Below is an example of how dead wrong both Santorum and Steinbock are in their belief that society is to blame for the "recent" rampant sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergymen:

One Richalmus, abbot of Schonthal, around 1270 penned an entire treatise on demons [the church would use demons during the Middle Ages as a reason or source for the growing frequency of sexual transgressions committed against women and children], rich in first-hand experience: He sees (but only when his eyes are shut) countless malevolent demons, like motes of dust, buzzing around his head -- and everyone else's. Despite successive waves of rationalist, Persian, Jewish, Christian, and Moslem (sic) world views, despite revolutionary social, political, and philosophical ferment, the existence, much of the character, and even the name of demons remained unchanged from Hesiod through the Crusades.

Demons, the "powers of the air," come down from the skies and have unlawful sexual congress with women. Augustine believed that witches were the offspring of these forbidden unions. In the Middle Ages, as in classical antiquity, nearly everyone believed such stories. The demons were also called devils, or fallen angels. The demonic seducers of women were labeled incubi; of men, succubi. There are cases in which nuns reported, in some befuddlement, a striking resemblance between the incubus and the priest- confessor, or the bishop, and awoke the next morning, as one fifteenth-century chronicler put it, to "find themselves polluted just as if they had commingled with a man." There are similar accounts, but in harems not convents, in ancient China. So many women reported incubi, argued the Presbyterian religious writer Richard Baxter (in his Certainty of the World of Spirits, in 1691), "that 'tis impudence to deny it."

Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World" (1997)

The evidence (most of which is too voluminous to relate and would bore you even further if I listed it all within this blog) shows that it's not society's fault for the Catholic Church's inability to protect children and women, but the Church's fault.

However, I'm certain that Santorum and Steinbock would have the impudence to deny any and all of the evidence that contradicts their ignorant beliefs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Ernest Nelson Found Guilty in UCLA Body-Parts Program Scandal

Paul Kiesel — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:53:39 GMT

SEE BOLD CAPS FOR EDITORIAL COMMENTS

From the Los Angeles Times:

A businessman accused of selling body parts from corpses donated to UCLA medical school in a scandal that tarnished the reputation of the university's willed body program THE PROGRAM, DURING 1999-2003, WHEN ERNEST NELSON AND HENRY REID, THE PROGRAM'S FORMER DIRECTOR, WERE PURCHASING AND SELLING PARTS FROM ONE ANOTHER, WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS VENERABLE AS UCLA HAS TRIED TO PORTRAY IT; IN FACT, UCLA'S WILLED BODY PROGRAM WAS STILL RECOVERING FROM A 1993 INCIDENT (CADAVERS, FROM THE WILLED BODY PROGRAM WERE HANDLED "WITHOUT DIGNITY" AND DUMPED INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN ALONG WITH OTHER MEDICAL WASTE FROM THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE) was found guilty today in Los Angeles Superior Court of conspiring to commit grand theft, embezzlement and tax evasion .

Prosecutors alleged that Ernest V. Nelson, 51, cut up heads, torsos and other parts from donated bodies and sold them without UCLA's permission to medical and pharmaceutical research companies, collecting $1.5 million between 1999 and 2003. THE PEOPLE, THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL AGAINST MR. NELSON, TRIED ARGUING THAT UCLA HAD LOST $1.5 MILLION VIA NELSON AND REID'S CHICANERY. HOWEVER, IF NELSON HAD STOLEN $1.5 FROM UCLA, THEN LOGICALLY SPEAKING, UCLA WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE SOLD THE PARTS ON ITS OWN AND COLLECTED THAT MUCH MONEY, RIGHT? AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN UCLA WOULD HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL BODY PARTS TRAFFICKING; MEANING THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE (NOR SHOULD HAVE) BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THAT MUCH MONEY BY USING, NOT SELLING, THE DONATED BODIES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH. THEREFORE, THE IDEA THAT NELSON STOLE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS FROM UCLA IS NOT ONLY A REACH, BUT IT'S AN OUTLANDISH ARGUMENT.

The bodies were donated to UCLA for medical and scientific research (AH, SEE, FOR RESEARCH, NOT FOR UCLA TO SELL AT $1.5 MILLION) at the university. The scandal over the sale of the body parts became public in 2004 and prompted UCLA to shut down the program for more than 18 months. UCLA ALSO HAD TO ATTEND TO OTHER PROBLEMS THAT WERE DISCOVERED THROUGHOUT THE PROGRAM, TOO: SANITARY ISSUES; "CADAVER ROOMS" THAT WERE OVERCROWDED; MAJOR ACCOUNTING, BOOKKEEPING AND INVENTORY ISSUES, ETC.

Prosecutors said Nelson hatched the scheme with the director of the willed body program, Henry Reid (WHO, BY THE WAY, WAS NEVER CALLED TO THE STAND TO TESTIFY AGAINST NELSON, EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE'S CASE WAS LARGELY BUILT AROUND REID'S ACTIONS, INTENT AND MALEVOLENCE AND THEN HOW NELSON WORKED WITH HIM TO SELL THE BODY PARTS (AND PREPARE THEM) TO PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COMPANIES. WHY WASN'T REID CALLED TO THE STAND? BECAUSE, INCREDULOUSLY, THE PROSECUTION FORGOT TO FILE THE CORRECT PAPERWORK AND FOLLOW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO TRANSFER REID TO LOS ANGELES FROM THE FEDERAL PRISON HE'S CURRENTLY RESIDING IN WITHIN A TIMELY MANNER.), who pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to commit theft. Reid received checks from Nelson totaling $43,000 in return for giving him access to the bodies, prosecutors said.

Nelson's attorney argued that the payments to Reid were legitimate. He accused the program director of pocketing the money instead of forwarding it to the university. (WHICH WAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT: UCLA HAD THREE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING DR. ROBERT B. TRELEASE, A PATHOLOGY PROFESSOR WHO FREQUENTLY USED BODIES FROM THE WILLED BODY PROGRAM TO INSTRUCT MEDICAL STUDENTS AND WHO, IN THE PAST, HAD A MORE ACTIVE ROLE WITHIN THE PROGRAM, SET UP A BANK ACCOUNT, COUNTER TO TYPICAL UCLA ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, AT A WESTWOOD BANK OF AMERICA BRANCH, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME ACCOUNT USED BY HENRY REID TO FUNNEL THE MONEY MADE FROM SELLING PARTS TO NELSON, INTO HIS OWN PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT. UCLA, BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THEN WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THAT BANK ACCOUNT, CONSIDERING THREE RESPECTED EMPLOYEES SET UP THE ACCOUNT BACK IN 1995, TWO YEARS BEFORE REID BECAME THE PROGRAM'S DIRECTOR... HMM...?)

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE WITHOUT MY COMMENTARY.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

If You Have an Option ARM Loan with FDIC IndyMac, Read This!

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:47:57 GMT

Any Californian who has a Pay Option ARM loan from IndyMac (now FDIC IndyMac) that was originated between 2004 and 2007 and has faced or will be facing an interest rate reset (ballooned monthly payment), should contact the bank or seek legal counsel before next Friday, October 14.

According to the FDIC, Option ARM borrowers have 90 days to respond to the notice of IndyMac being taken over by the federal government, if they want to be able to modify their loan or take legal action against IndyMac. When does the 90 day period end? October 14. Where did the notice come from? The FDIC claims that when newspapers reported that the Office of Thrift Supervision transferred control of IndyMac to the FDIC, on July 11, the newspaper articles throughout the State of California served as a notice to the public.

However, most borrowers of Option ARM loans never got a formal notice. Regarding this issue, the only notices that have been sent out are to named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits against IndyMac Bancorp. In fact, the FDIC has refused to notify other Californian consumers of Option ARM loans that their time to take action is running out, and this is a big problem because tens of thousands of Option ARM borrowers have been left in the dark and do not realize that the date is rapidly approaching for them to seek a fair remedy to their troubled mortgage situation (or pending situation).

The FDIC has a contact number listed on their website under the page titled: FDIC Loan Modification Program for Distressed IndyMac Mortgage Loans. On the bottom of this page it states: Borrowers who are delinquent or who are experiencing financial hardship and are falling behind on their IndyMac Federal mortgage should call 1-800-781-7399 to speak with an IndyMac Federal customer service representative.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

The Mormon Church Should Be Less Concerned with HBO's "Big Love" and More Concerned with Sex-Abuse Statute of Limitations

Paul Kiesel — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:47:16 GMT

Since Monday, there have been several articles circulating online reporting on how offended the Mormon Church is by an upcoming episode of HBO's "Big Love."

In the episode, a sacred ritual ceremony will be performed and this has some Mormons, particularly the Latter-day Saint (LDS) bishops, up in arms. The church has always been secretive of such ceremonies, and only LDS members in good standing are allowed to participate and attend such ceremonies. Non-Mormons, according to LDS doctrine, are not allowed to attend, nor are they allowed to enter inside the temples where the ceremonies are being performed (this includes weddings).

It is thought to be the first time the ritual, in which participants move to a higher level of understanding of their religion, will be shown on TV, according to Reuters.

However, the church has bigger issues to grapple with: How will a church that is seemingly ever-growing in financial prosperity be able to handle the many sexual-abuse lawsuits that will be filed against LDS bishops and other church leaders, when the statutes of limitation are extended for victims of sexual abuse?

The Mormon church and the Catholic church have a lot more in common than just being the two biggest religious groups that supported the passage of Proposition 8, the LDS also does its best to cover up allegations of sexual abuse within the church.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

California's Ticking Option ARM Time Bomb

Paul Kiesel — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:29:12 GMT

"Optimists, look away now." This is the first sentence of a very brief article in last week's The Economist. The subhead reads "A nasty mortgage product promises yet more misery," and the title of the article is "Ticking time bomb." However, it's not until the fourth sentence of the first paragraph that the reader has any idea what The Economist is actually describing: Option ARM loans. And it is these type of loans that will precipitate another huge hit to the already fragile mortgage/housing market over the next 12-18 months.

The Economist does a well enough job, considering the article is only four paragraphs, of giving a remedial understanding as to what's still at stake in the mortgage crisis. The Option ARM loan, which I've mentioned at least a dozen times during the last few months, is a type of loan that allows borrowers to pay some of the interest rate monthly, leaving the principal balance unpaid and the remaining unpaid interest to compound each month, resulting in a negative amortizing loan. Typically, an Option ARM loan allows for a three or five year teaser rate payment period (introduction period that allows for a partial interest rate payment) and then the loan recasts at a new interest rate (7-9%) or the loan recasts prior to that period because the loan, as it negatively amortizes, balloons and once it exceeds the principal balance by 10-15%, it automatically recasts. Meaning one month a payment could be $1200, and the next month it could be $3200, regardless if the three or five year introductory payment period has ended or not.

Originally, banks like Washington Mutual and World Savings thought that as housing prices rose, the product made all the more sense, because when the loan hit its recast point, the borrower could refinance into a better loan, with the equity gained in the home. Since home prices have plummeted in recent months, that plan has backfired.

Now it looks like about 1.4 million households currently carry a teaser rate payment loan, most of them in California, and the interest rates have yet to recast. At stake is about $500 billion, about half of the subprime loan losses, but these loans, when they begin to rise in defaults, will be economically more severe, as the wave of recasts will fall within a much narrower window of months (6-12 months), and when property values are already low, at prices that haven't been seen since 2003 in some markets (subprime defaults helped burst the housing bubble and push home prices lower; what happens when home prices are already low?).

"When house prices are falling and refinancing is difficult, as is now the case, the option ARM is the financial equivalent of a bikini in winter. Homeowners end up owing more on a property that is worth less. Delinquencies are already rising fast. Write-offs for option ARMs at Washington Mutual, a stumbling thrift, have zoomed from .49% in the last quarter of 2007 to 3.91% in the second quarter [. . .] The biggest wave of recasts is due to happen in 2010 and 2011 [. . .] borrowers' monthly payments will then surge by 60-80%," (The Economist, 8/14/08).

Other than Wells Fargo, no bank is impervious to the looming option-ARM storm. Wachovia, for instance, sold an option-ARM product called Pick-a-Pay and it accounts for 45% of its consumer lending. Pick-a-Pay loans were used often by predatory lenders.

Banks will also be suffering further economic and legal ramifications because of these option ARM loans, as they misled borrowers and investors, the former through TILA violations, by manipulating TILA forms, thus, allowing for the amount of option ARM loans to penetrate the market. It's only a matter of time, regardless of the most optimistic economic predictions, until the option ARMs explode into unaffordable payments, ushering in another wave of foreclosures, a second declivity in home values and more failed banks.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel