Category: business ethics

NJ | Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure (via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge)

On By southwerkIn business ethics3 Comments

There are few assaults upon our dignity as crushing as the theft of all of our possessions. It is not so much the large items like refrigerators and televisions that are missed. Humans attach value to the strangest things. Instead of the microwave they lament the loss of their wedding pictures. When logic would dictate the loss of the computer should be the first cause of regret, they think of the old worn chair that has sat in the living room for years. Considering the great value placed upon personal privacy and possessions, would it not seem logical and prudent that those entrusted with the safety of the public should investigate and seek to punish the guilty. But the investigators would only need a mirror to discover the perpetrator of this crime, law enforcement itself.

It seems unfair that the bank never has to worry about these mistakes in judgment. It seems unfair that the bank, should use so many public resources to serve its interests.

The victim is asking $500,000 dollars in damages.

That seems fair, first, to recompense her for damages and second, to discourage the sheriff and his deputies from any more random home raids.

James Pilant

NJ | Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure HILLSIDE – A 76-year-old Hillside woman has filed a claim for damages against Union County, alleging that officers of the county sheriff’s department illegally entered her home and removed the entire contents because they had the wrong address of a foreclosure. In the document, obtained by Tina Renna of The County Watchers, Ozzie Leak claims that Union County Sheriff Ralph F … Read More

via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Affidavits Not Enough to Prove Ownership of a Mortgage Note (via DANNLAW)

On By southwerkIn business ethics
A Bank?

For almost two years banks have been foreclosing on homes and many times the only evidence of ownership was a notarized piece of paper with the signature of a “robo-signer,” often a person with no legal training whatever, often people who had no concept of the effects of the documents to which they attached their names.

In Deutche Bank v. Triplett, the banks were told, “No.” This is part of a chain of decisions where the courts have said to the banks, “You cannot foreclose without actual documents showing ownership (my interpretation).”

In other words, signing a notarized statement that your bank owns the property is not enough to foreclose on property.

With the MERS system in use by many of the big mortgage firms (Countrywide for example), there is an absence of proper paperwork in at least hundreds of thousands of cases. MERS only has computer records, no paperwork. This computer program run by a private company saved banks from the hassle of going through the process of changing ownership without bothering with that time-consuming paperwork like filing documents at the county court-house or paying the state mandated fees for transferring ownership.

Some judges believe that evading state law and taxes is illegal.

If you want to understand MERS, go to my article here –MERS And Ownership or here – Congress Leaps In To Protect The Banking Industry?

Building on the landmark Wells Fargo v. Jordan Decision, Ohio’s 8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County) ruled this week that an affidavit alleging that a foreclosure plaintiff held the note prior to filing of a complaint for foreclosure is not sufficient evidence to support a foreclosure judgment. In Deutche Bank v. Triplett, the court of appeals held: “… Deutsche  Bank’s affidavit of ownership, sworn out more than a year after the fore … Read More

via DANNLAW

California AG to Use $6.5M Settlement to Help Foreclosed Homeowners (via Loaning4Less.com™)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

There was fraud in many home mortgages. We should see more of these cases but California is one of the few states where there have been prosecutions.

It is difficult to convince me that with Countrywide’s vast portfolio that this practice was uncommon. One of the best ways to defraud a homeowner is to sell him on the idea of cheap credit, lowering his monthly payments, knowing all along the loan will revert to a floating rate. That new interest rate produces a devastating increase in monthly payments forcing foreclosure. This is fraud. Conning people into home loans is what the great lecturers on personal responsibility claim was a rare event.

I don’t think so.

Here is one of my articles on this subject – Bank of America Sued Over Countrywide Mortgage Related Investments

James Pilant

California AG to Use $6.5M Settlement to Help Foreclosed Homeowners California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Friday that the $6.5 million settlement from two former Countrywide Financial Corp. executives will be used to establish a fund to help foreclosed homeowners. The settlement comes from a litigation that began more than two years ago against Angelo Mozilo and David Sambol. According to the lawsuit, Countrywide lured buyers with low teaser rates, sometimes as low as 1 percent, and failed to inform … Read More

via Loaning4Less.com™

BOA: BAD BANK, BAD BANK, WORSE BANK (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

On By southwerkIn business ethics1 Comment

Right!

This is how I feel as well. It’s a good read. Be warned, he’s really upset. But so am I when I’m dealing with this issue.

Here is my writing on the same subject. You can see that I get passionate about foreclosures too.

Robo-Signing Foreclosure Freeze Update (via Foreclosureblues)

Lots of Links on the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis (via Rortybomb)

“We Can Either Have a Rational Resolution to the Foreclosure Crisis or We Can Preserve the Capital Structure of the Banks. We Can’t Do Both” (via Foreclosureblues)

Sheldon Whitehouse Weighs In On The Foreclosure Crisis

Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape (via Rortybomb)

Foreclosure Speed Made Loan Modifications Impossible

The Vast Majority Of Foreclosures Were Done Correctly?

In total, I have 46 posts about the mortgage crisis.

James Pilant

BOA: BAD BANK, BAD BANK, WORSE BANK COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary Bank of America to Create Troubled Loans Unit BANK STILL ATTEMPTING TO KEEP FORECLOSURES A POLITICAL ISSUE AS LEGAL OPTIONS RUN OUT EDITOR’S NOTE: As for what this means for homeowners, it is obvious that BOA is trying to come up with some formula that will be politically acceptable the final result of which will still be that they will get hundreds of thousands o … Read More

via Livinglies’s Weblog

Net Neutrality alert: Verizon to throttle data speeds for heaviest users (via Between The Lines)

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

Is net neutrality important to you personally? How much data speed do you use? If you are like me and my family, you can only suspect that you might be a heavy user. That’s not good predictive power. If this policy is applied to you, it is probably going to be a surprise when your data speed is too slow for Netflix.

They are looking for their Internet Service.

Read the opening of the post –

The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start powering up those devices next week.

In a nutshell, if you’re a heavy user – and you really have no way of knowing if that’s you or not – then Verizon Wireless “may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand.”

I don’t think we should let private industry decide these policies. The FCC regulated television and radio for decades bringing order out of chaos. Why shouldn’t we have standard policies across the nation? We are at the mercy of a handful of suppliers due to consolidation allowed by the very same government that people believe shouldn’t be regulating this at all. If we received our Internet services whether wired or wireless from hundreds of sources, all this would have been solved by competition. But a limited number of suppliers have no reason to cut prices to compete when they simply own the lines alone.

More from the web site –

That’s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don’t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?

I think so too. Why should I be charged for something I can’t measure? And what can I do to fix it if I need that bandwidth? I teach online. This is not an academic exercise. This is my work, and I’m not the only one that uses their home computer for something besides World of Warcraft.

In a monopolistic system of suppliers, I have no say at all. At least with the FCC, I’ve got a chip on the table.

James Pilant

P.S. The web site, Between the Lines, was my source and I would like you to visit if this subject interesting.

The Skuggi Report: Net Neutrality Made Simple (via Skuggi_Net)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

This author has done a great job of breaking down a difficult subject into a straightforward narrative.

He wrote this little masterpiece of summary and I provide it to you.

Please visit his web site and thank him for his effort.

James Pilant

Net Neutrality is seen in two views of recent the first being a savior of the internet and the other it’s doom and to be honest depending on its implication it can be both.   The theory behind Net Neutrality is that it will keep the internet unrestricted, you pay for X level of service and you get that service with no services being blocked.   If one person on one ISP (Comcast, Adelphia, Verizon etc.) can get access to a type of content at the sp … Read More

via Skuggi_Net

Espresso, WiFi, & Confidentiality with a Twist of Lemon (via Bow Tie Law’s Blog)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Does an attorney violate client confidentiality by using public broadband? It appears so. There are clear implications for any profession in which confidentiality is a responsibility. Is this the first shot in a dispute about using public Internet access for professionals or all of us?

Maybe we should all be more aware of the risks to our own data?

Read this fascinating article on using the web and an attorney’s fiduciary duty.

James Pilant

Espresso, WiFi, & Confidentiality with a Twist of Lemon Many attorneys, as with a large contingent of the general public, do not possess much, if any, technological savvy. Although the Committee does not believe that attorneys must develop a mastery of the security features and deficiencies of each technology available, the duties of confidentiality and competence that attorneys owe to their clients do require a basic understanding of the electronic protections afforded by the technology they use in t … Read More

via Bow Tie Law’s Blog

Andrew Comments On “Law Prohibiting Price Gouging In Oklahoma (via 40/29 tv.com)”

On By southwerkIn business ethics

On my regular commentators, Andrew, would like to add his thought to my previous post, “Law Prohibiting Price Gouging In Oklahoma (via 40/29 tv.com).”

I like the spirit of this law. It prevents unethical businesses from profiting from the misfortune of others.

Here’s a hypothetical situation. If Company “A” and Company “B” are both hardware stores in the same town when an emergency hits. Company “A” is owned by an unethical man who ratchets up his prices to make a buck off of the emergency. Company “B” is owned by an ethical man who keeps his prices steady (perhaps out of a sense of duty to his community, who knows). Now say I am a resident of this town. In the aftermath of this emergency, if I hear that Company B’s prices are lower than Company A’s, then I will prefer to do business with Company B. Thus, ideally, ethics will win out over greed.

This hypothetical only applies to situations where healthy competition is established in each market. If you live in a small town where there is only one hardware store or one grocery store, then the residents are at the mercy of the store owner.

So it seems that this law will definitely help out the small town folks, and I see nothing wrong with it at all.

Andrew is good commentator and I appreciate his thoughts. I have urged him to write his own blog or to write full articles for mine but he prefers his current role.

If you write some interesting content, I am likely to post it. I get to choose when and my editorial decisions may not make much sense to you but I will try to do my best to be fair.

James Pilant

Inside the Beltway… (via Scenarios and Strategy)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Click on the link below to see the cartoon. It’s a good one. The battle over net neutrality illustrated. This is delicious. And it is accurate.

Fighting the net neutrality battle for a small blog seems almost hopeless but there a lot of us. We’re disorganized and highly independent. It doesn’t make for good group cohesion. But we have our anger and each of us has our own niche on the web. Maybe we can make some difference in this battle.

James Pilant

Inside the Beltway... From Christopher Wright, a comic illustrating a theme that we’ve visited before (e.g., here and here)  While he focuses on Net Neutrality, one should feel free to substitute the Corporatist concern of one’s choice– energy policy, agricultural policy, financial industry policy, pharmaceuticals, intellectual property, etc., etc.– the mechanism works in just the same way… Corporations are people, the Supreme Court averred as it proscribed any im … Read More

via Scenarios and Strategy

Wichita police testing out 6 body-mounted cameras (via The Wichita Eagle)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

From the article by Stan Finger –

A half-dozen Wichita police officers are testing a new body camera system that records everything the officers see and do outside their vehicles.

The field tests began two weeks ago and will continue for another two weeks, Capt. Jeff Easter said Wednesday.

“Anything that they get out of the vehicle on, they’ll record,” Easter said of the officers. “Anything is evidence. You never know what’s going to happen in front of you when you get out on the scene.”

Early results are promising.

“It’s a very good system,” Easter said. “The video quality is amazing. It’s much better than any other camera system we’ve looked at in the past.”

The system is manufactured by Taser, which is letting Wichita police try it out. The head-mounted system resembles a Bluetooth and can also be attached to an officer’s hat or eyewear.

I’m a little surprised that the police are adopting these without any fuss. I have read and directly heard about the police disabling cameras. But apparently it has become a useful tool for the officer.

I’m a little more interested in what this means for the rest of us. I recognize that the technology is available to be purchased now but it is not the same. These things kick on every time an officer exits the car. They keep all of what is seen for a year. This is no short time surveillance camera in a tie. While we are not police officers whose department is willing to spend the $5,000 a year necessary, we will eventually be the beneficiaries of the technology. Soon at a reasonable price you will be able to make a record of everything you see 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It might be useful taking college classes or at a family reunion or in large scale use changing the social fabric of the nation.

Will all Americans adapt their behavior to an utterly continuous recording of themselves by countless others? What will be the long term social effects?

In terms of business ethics, what we have here is the private becoming public. Discussions, comments and negotiations will all be easily recorded in the most informal of circumstances with the ability to keep records for years. Is there a disclosure requirement? Is there going to be an unspoken agreement not to use these in negotiation? Can they be used in court? This kind of evidence could come back to bite you as long as it exists and eventually those records will exist for the course of our lives or longer.

Will states or the federal government regulate their use? That is an important question. There is some regulation of recording phone calls. The grounds for this is that there is no consent from one of the parties. That would be a similar justification for laws on continuous viewing by personal cameras.

These things worry me. We seem as a society to do things without discussion and debate. When we do it turns every single time into a debate over personal freedom versus government regulation whether or not these are significant factors in the issue. Every subject can be classified that way but that doesn’t mean it fits into that box. Surveillance is more of an issue of what can new technology do and “what the effects are.” What are the advantages of this technology? Does it conflict with our customs and morality? What effects will it have in different areas of endeavor; medical operations, trial, sports, sex, and countless others. Once we think about the effects then we can start putting it into legal or regulatory boxes. But in current discussion the boxes come first and we never do the often subtle thinking that allows humanity to make reasonable and intelligent decisions.

James Pilant

P.S.

I went to a “gadget site” on the web. I couldn’t get a price but the system ad read this way. I think you’re supposed to feel like Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible move.

This High Quality Body Camera set is ready for Covert Operations. This complete set is all you need. At a much better and higher resolution then our lower priced Body Cam, you get what you pay for. This is the best there is. Camera is powered by the DVR unit itself so there is no stupid 9 volt batery to weight you down.