Wall Street Banks Pay $50 million To Deal with Guilt Pre-Memorial Day 2011

It's All Better Now that The Big Wall Street Banks

have Apologized...NOT!!!

4,454 soldier deaths in Iraq,

1,598 in Afghanistan and

Jamie (I missed the Vietnam draft

by 3 years) Dimon deeply apologizes...

By Justin Blum
May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp. and Morgan Stanley units will pay $22.4 million to resolve U.S. allegations that they improperly foreclosed on active-duty soldiers, including some who suffered severe injuries, without first obtaining court orders.

The Bank of America unit will pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit alleging improper foreclosure on about 160 members of the military between 2006 and 2009, the Justice Department said in a statement today. Morgan Stanley’s Saxon Mortgage Services Inc. unit will pay $2.35 million to resolve a lawsuit alleging it improperly foreclosed on 17 service members from 2006 to 2009.

“The men and women who serve our nation in the armed forces deserve, at the very least, to know that they will not have their homes taken from them wrongfully while they are bravely putting their lives on the line on behalf of their country,” Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general overseeing the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in today’s statement.

The foreclosures violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which was enacted to shield deployed military personnel from financial stress, according to the Justice Department.

‘Not Acceptable’

“These errors are not acceptable, and we certainly regret them,” Terry Laughlin, head of Bank of America’s unit managing foreclosures and defaulted loans, said in an e-mail. “While most cases involve loans originated by Countrywide and the improper foreclosures were taken or started by Countrywide prior to our acquisition, it is our responsibility to make things right.”

Morgan Stanley apologizes to the military families affected by the mistakes, Mark Lake, a spokesman for the New York-based bank, said in an e-mailed statement.

“Our servicemen and women deserve the highest level of customer service,” Lake said. “Saxon has taken meaningful steps to ensure it has appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply fully with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.”

Last month, JPMorgan Chase and Co. agreed to pay $27 million in cash to about 6,000 active-duty military personnel who were overcharged on their mortgages, cut interest rates on soldiers’ home loans and return homes that were wrongfully foreclosed upon, according to settlement terms filed in federal court in Beaufort, South Carolina.

JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon apologized this month for improperly foreclosing on U.S. military personnel.

‘Deeply Apologize’

“We deeply apologize to the military, the veterans, anyone who’s ever served this country,” Dimon said during the New York-based bank’s annual shareholder meeting.

In many instances, the lenders knew or should have known about the military status of the service members, according to the Justice Department. Victims included people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some of those in the military foreclosed on by Saxon were severely injured in the line of duty or suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder, according to the Justice Department.

Fannie and Freddie Owe Our Grandchildren $134 Billion While Executives Make Millions

The FHFA has defended executive pay at Fannie and Freddie

in the past by saying the salaries were necessary to recruit and

retain talented executives who can run big, complex companies.

The Center for Public Integrity
By: John Solomon and
Julie Vorman
May 26, 2011

Over the last two years, the Obama administration has approved a whopping $34.4 million in compensation to the top six executives of the financially troubled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants while lacking basic protections to ensure such compensation is warranted, a federal watchdog found.

The largesse flowed to the six executives even though the two companies they run struggle to staunch billions of dollars in losses, remain in government conservatorship, and are required to repay taxpayers for assuming the companies’ liabilities during the mortgage crisis. Fannie and Freddie are tapping Treasury Department funds each quarter to help pay 10 percent dividends owed to the U.S. government.

“The need for effectiveness, integrity, and transparency in FHFA’s programs and operations cannot be overstated,” said Inspector General Steve Linick, a former Justice Department prosecutor confirmed by Senate last year to watch over federal housing programs. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have received almost $154 billion in taxpayer funding to support the still-fragile housing market. In addition, they own or guarantee about $5.4 trillion in residential mortgage obligations.”

Compensation Fast Facts

• Fannie Mae Chief Executive Michael J. Williams received a compensation package totaling $9.3 million in 2009 and 2010, according to a March report by the FHFA inspector general. That figure includes an annual salary around $900,000, a similar amount in long-term incentive awards each year, plus $2.9 million in annual deferred pay. All three types of compensation are paid in cash.
• Fannie Mae’s chief financial officer, David M. Johnson, was paid $4.6 million in 2009 and 2010. The company’s general counsel, Timothy Mayopoulos, had a compensation package of $4.5 million for the two years, the inspector general said.
• At Freddie Mac, Chief Executive Charles Haldeman had a two-year compensation package totaling $7.8 million in salary, incentive awards and deferred pay. Freddie’s chief financial officer, Ross Kari, was paid $4 million and its general counsel, Robert Bostrom, took home $5.2 million, according to the inspector general. Continue Reading

Blatant Mortgage Document Fraud: Linda Green, Come Out..Come Out Wherever You Are.

Thanks to and a hat tip for Jim Sinclair for the Channel 7 WHDH investigative reporting on blatant morgtgage document fraud. You can see they're all the same name - but they're not written by the same person. "So what does that mean?" John O'Brien, Register, Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds "It means as far as I'm concerned, they're fraudulent documents."

Marie McDonnell, President of McDonnell Analytics: As I said to Hank in the interview, the extent and scope of the fraud is unimaginable and shocking…even for me, which is saying a lot!

Early Childhood Prgrams At Risk...But not Oil Company $2 billion per Year Tax Breaks

Wonder the Result if Pre-School Children

had a Say in Who Goes to Washing D.C.

as an "Elected Representative?"

News Observer
By: David T Taylor Jr.
5/20/2100

GOLDSBORO -- Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently pointed to the benefits of early childhood education for individuals and to the economy as a whole. "The payoffs of early childhood programs can be especially high," he said. "For instance, preschool programs for disadvantaged children have been shown to increase high school graduation rates. Because high school graduates have higher earnings, pay more taxes and are less likely to use public health programs, investing in such programs can pay off even from the narrow perspective of state budgets; of course, the returns to the overall economy and to the individuals themselves are much greater."

So what are our North Carolina legislators thinking when they cut the funding of vital preschool programs, Smart Start and More at Four, and reorganize them to disrupt continuity with our K-12 system?

The key to our future work force is our investment in at-risk children birth to 5 years of age. There is data to show that North Carolina is failing to address the needs of preschool children and is therefore allowing one-third of our children to drop out of school and struggle to become productive responsible citizens. We cannot afford to allow one-third of our future work force to fail to become contributors to our economy.

We are competing with the Chinese, who are pouring money into preschool programs. China is investing in early brain and child development. If China develops one-tenth of its potential work force, it will surpass the United States in economic capacity. We cannot afford to cut our investment in our youngest children at this critical time. We need a "growth" strategy for our future, not a shortsighted "deficit" strategy.

The statistics paint a depressing picture of our future work force. One in three 5-year-old children do not have age-appropriate language skills. One in three third-graders cannot read at grade level, putting them at high risk to drop out of school.

The best way to address these embarrassing statistics, and assure a healthier work force for our state, is to invest in at-risk preschool children.

In spite of our excellent Smart Start program, which has become a national model, we have never served more than 47 percent of preschool children identified to be at-risk for school failure. More at Four was designed to bridge the gap between birth-to-3 and kindergarten. It was appropriately assigned to the state Department of Public Instruction, to assure continuity from preschool to kindergarten.

Our Early Intervention program has always moved at-risk children from the Department of Health and Human Services to Education after the third birthday. Moving More at Four away from Education makes little sense to professionals who work with at-risk children at the community level.

As a pediatrician who cares for many at-risk children, I would hope our legislators could follow the advice of Bernanke and adopt a "growth" strategy that increases our investment in our youngest children. Our current preschool programs are super; they just are not funded well enough to provide the outcomes we need in the current global economy.

We must do the right thing now for our youngest at-risk children and invest more, not less, in their future and our future.

David T. Tayloe Jr., M.D., has been a pediatrician in Goldsboro since 1977. He is a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a current member of the Governor's Early Childhood Advisory Council and medical director for Reach Out and Read of N.C.

The Senate has blocked a bill to repeal about $2 billion a year in tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies....

IRS Extends Home Energy Credit to a 3 Year old

Center for Public Integrity
By: Laurel Adams
May 19, 2011

Stimulus-funded tax credits for home owners making energy efficient upgrades caught on quickly—more than 6.8 million individuals claimed over than $5.8 billion in residential energy credits on 2009 tax returns. But the Internal Revenue Service is unable to verify if individuals claiming credits are actually entitled to them.

A review by Treasury’s tax administration inspector general found that the IRS cannot accurately track and account for the home energy credits.The IRS does not require third-party documentation proving taxpayers actually purchased qualifying home improvements or that improvements were made at a principal residence. IRS relies on individuals claiming energy credits to provide correct information on their tax returns.

The 2009 Recovery Act included provisions for homeowners investing in energy efficiency measures or renewable energy sources. In return, tax payers received a reduction in the amount of taxes owed. Homeowners could credit 30 percent of the cost of alternative energy equipment and energy efficiency measures, like new doors or windows. Investments were only eligible if they were made to an individual’s principal or secondary residence, rental properties and new construction were not eligible.

A computer analysis of 6.4 million 2009 tax returns with energy credits processed last year identified 5 percent that did not show any indication of home ownership. The credits claimed on these tax returns amounted to more than $234 million.

The inspector general also found 362 ineligible individuals who claimed $404,578 in energy credits. The IRS lacks a process to identify prisoners or individuals under 18, which is the minimum age for entering a contract required for purchasing a home. But IRS does have information which could have been used to identify fraudulent credits.

“Despite having the data available, the IRS did not develop a process to identify these individuals who filed tax returns erroneously claiming these credits,” the inspector general stated.



Individuals were also allowed credits over the maximum amount of $1,500. The inspector general audit found 171 individuals whose credit exceeded $1,500, amounting to a total of $453,220. The audit determined IRS had failed to implement an electronic filing reject code that would have automatically rejected claim amounts over $1,500.

Recommendations by the inspector general include requesting information supporting eligibility requirements on tax returns, creating a process to screen prisoners and underage filers, and implementing the reject code to disqualify credits that exceed the limit.

FAST FACT : The inspector general identified 100 individuals under the age of 18 who were allowed $61,091 in home energy credits. The youngest individual receiving the credit was 3 years old.