JOE BACA's Co-Sponsoring (New?) HAMP BILL SHOWS HE DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE YET

"Rep. Baca Sponsors [in a press release earlier today] Bill to Aid Homeowners in Loan Modification Process"--ah, not really Joe

The Press Release further states:

"Bill Would Create New Office to Resolve Problems with Loan Modification Programs

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Joe Baca (D-Rialto) introduced legislation to assist struggling homeowners seeking loan modifications through the often complex Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The Office of the Homeowner Advocate Act of 2010 creates an independent office to assist homeowners, housing counselors, and attorneys in resolving problems with HAMP, and give homeowners a greater level of control over the loan modification application process.

While the housing markets in the Inland Empire are showing signs of recovery, too many homeowners still find themselves needing assistance in order to keep their homes and while the government run loan modification program is well-intentioned, I have heard from numerous constituents whose applications either get lost in a flood of paperwork or do not receive the proper attention from officials before it is too late to prevent the foreclosure process. This responsible bill would create an outside office, the Office of the Homeowner Advocate, to improve the HAMP process and ensure all eligible homeowners get a fair shot at keeping their homes.”

Blogger Bob's comments:

Joe, too bad you are clueless as usual.

First, the HAMP program is one in which a homeowners "enters" into a temporary “workout” with a servicer or lender which agrees to accept partial payments for the next 3+ months. These payments are not refundable. The foreclosure “clock” also continues to run while a homeowner is in the “workout.” There are no assurances that the homeowner will receive a long term or permanent change in loan terms. There are a significant number of homeowners who entered into HAMP workouts only to receive a letter at the end of the workout period stating they do not qualify for a modification.

Second, in a legal decision written in 2009 by US District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz [Antonio Escobedo v Countrywide Homes Loan, Inc, Case 09CV1557 BTM (BLM)--available at the United States District Court for California, Southern District's website] the court ruled that the homeowner had no enforceable right under HAMP should the lender or servicer blow off the refinance, take the payments made under false pretenses and foreclose anyway. Creating the Office of the Homeowner Advocate (OHA) [proposed by Senator Al Franken (D-MN) which appeared in S. 3793, the Job Creation and Tax Cuts Act introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)], does not change the fact this is a plan with no teeth. The banks can do what they want, can fraud the homeowner, act in bad faith and get away with it, Joe.

Joe, I know you are trying to generate positive media before an election like your bud Mike Ramos, but you are only showing you are still flailing at non-solutions.

What is Congressman Joe Baca Sr up to?

I was "visited" by someone at my office unannounced earlier this week who seems to float in and out of Joe Baca, Sr's circle (who I had seen before) and was reminded there are a lot of Joe's relatives in Barstow I would not recognize around me (that look like me). The message Joe? Saw Mike Townsend at an NAACP meeting where Kamala Harris spoke last Saturday who is now back with Joe Baca's office? I guess the alleged rift between them has been bridged. Interesting. It would be a lot easier for Joe to call me like I have asked him to to give me whatever explanation he wants.

Woman says DA harassed her as she sought pardon---Everyone else takes sexual harassment seriously except San Bernardino County?

Woman says DA harassed her as she sought pardon
......
Blogger Bob's comments: Why does it seem that some in San Bernardino County want to create a safe haven for sexual harassers? Not only have I seen what appears to be a pattern of defending the harasser in our local papers and in the County Administrative process which reviews complaints, but I have seen almost a ridgeback approach in the courts as of late toward sexually predatory conduct in civil cases--could it be the permissive environment that is allowed at the top? Hope not.

Integrity of your prosecutorial team DOES COUNT -- look at NC Crime Lab Accused of Hiding, Doctoring Evidence

NC Crime Lab Accused of Hiding, Doctoring Evidence
......
Blogger Bob's comments:

The integrity of the people we chose to prosecute other citizens does count!

(1) What was Mitzelfelt doing a no-no at 7:22 pm? (2) Will Ramos be alone? (3) AG Candidate Harris in SB

An observer noted that Brad Mitzelfelt and a certain staff member were talking about a real estate deal at 7:22 pm at the Outpost Cafe yesterday (7/22/2010)--that certain person has been known to walk through developer's plans at the County and is reputed to have an active real estate license. Does anyone remember the quote of Mitzelfelt in the Sun (that he now denies) that after Adelanto tossed out Nursery Products, that "we will find Nursery Products another place, like maybe in Hinkley"? Is Mitzelfelt still using county resources to favor curry with his developer buds? If this was legit county business, why wasn't it done during County time at the county's office's (and there are several of them just minutes away).
...
Some sources are unproven but have some indicia of the likelihood of being reliable--one source suggested that one of the ongoing investigations is looking at some aspect of the management tier under Mike Ramos and that when its all said and done, Mike Ramos will be walking away with some others close to him--and potential replacements are supposedly being evaluated/considered as I write this.
...
One of the AG candidates (Kamala Harris) is coming down here for a town hall meeting on Saturday at 4 pm at the Inghram Community Center (2050 N. Mount Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino CA 92411)--apparently Steve Cooley, her republican opponent was invited, but no word on whether he will show. Few state wide candidates have come down here as of late. That Harris would show is interesting.
...
Bell was this week--will San Bernardino County be next?

The Dismissal of Irwin's charges due to Mike Ramos' Ineptness or his Plan??

Joe Nelson: [in response to your article @ http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_16085205] I told you, I told you, I told you, when you did not want to hear during the campaign [and as I recall Frank Guzman told you as well]-- Mike Ramos may have either stalled prosecutions in his public integrity unit so his buds' criminal liability under state statutes would vanish for statute of limitations reasons (and his prosecution was just window dressing, campaign fodder and or a way to remind his competition within the party who is boss until the cases got tossed) or is he just a terrible DA for anything except gangbanger prosecutions (oh wait a second, his conviction rate is 30% under what the typical major County DA department does). You (Joe Nelson), Joe Baca, Sr. & Jerry Lewis helped re-elect him. So who is watching the hen house? Jerry Brown's attentions have been turned to the City of Bell it seems.
....
Blogger Bob's comments: Is Irwin's case really coming down to undisclosed gifts or services on a FPPC 700 form and related comments? If so, don't we have some serious problems with Mike Ramos who did not disclose a five figure payment to his wife? and then signed a disclosure form under penalty of perjury not disclosing that payment? Didn't Brad Mitzelfelt's mis-report the source of some of his campaign contributions and sign an FPPC 460 form under penalty of perjury when he ran for election (after being appointed by the BOS)? Is Irwin being hammered because he lobbied for a deal a lot of other people seemed in love with? How is that different from certain employees of the BOS sheparding plans through the approval process and planning commission for a developer bud--in fact don't some of those staffers have real estate licenses? Do we have the smell of selective prosecution in the air yet?

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown sues eight top Bell officials--and why not San Bernardino County's officials??Next in line??

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown sues eight top Bell officials [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times
....
The lawsuit can be found at the following link: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1988_document_3.pdf
...
Attorney General Jerry Brown's press release is at: http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1988&
...
Blogger Bob's comments: I guess this was the rumored mid-September action? or maybe more troubling is some's suggestion that the AG is distancing himself from Ramos? Has San Bernardino become more political heat than Brown can afford right now??
...
...

Study Shows How the Innocent Confess to Crimes

Study Shows How the Innocent Confess to Crimes

Ramos--how in the world did you miss this one ??

Did you see where Michael Richman, who along with his political consulting company MPR Strategies LLC, supposedly agreed to pay back the County of San Bernardino the $49K the County Board of Supervisor's initially gave him [Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_16073975].
...
My first question is: Why didn't the County also collect interest on the money Richman was given and the County's costs to civilly prosecute him?
...
My second question: Wasn't Richman's activities as alleged, a criminal enterprise (political activity on county time) that used "wires" (cell phones) for an illegal purpose, a form of racketeering under federal RICO laws? Why didn't the $325.00 per hour hot shots hired by the County Counsel and paid for by the Board of Supervisors prosecute this under the civil anti-racketeering statutes where treble damages could be collected if it is a criminal enterprise (more pointedly, why was this not a crime as well)? Why do I sense that this witness' cooperation component to this "settlement" is going to be as useless as the guy that is being laughed that could not get the DA past a mistrial in the Guttierrez case?
...
My third question: How is this theft of County money for political purposes any different than Guttierrez's alleged time card violations or Irwin's alleged actions?
..
Blogger Bob's comments: That the County DA is not prosecuting all (what appear to be) criminal takings of public funds for political purposes in this county is not only amazing, but suggests an overall scheme to:
(1) selectively prosecute or litigate (which means protect people Ramos and or the Board of Supervisors like and or are fearful of, by exacting civil settlements),
(2) decriminalize criminal abuse of taxpayer resources for political purposes by letting the chosen ones (the people the Republican political machine still needs or can't dump) buy their way out of trouble AND by doing so, set the precedent when one or more of the current Board of Supervisors gets nailed (for a political use of county resources and or time), for them to seek the same break, all the while carrying out some window dressing actions (the trial and retrial of Guttierrez). Are the current BOS folks feathering their nests for the eventual fall?
(3) By the way, the County Grand jury's comments about expanding staffs are right on--why would that be done folks in a bad economic environment? Its an election season and they need all the friendly faces out there projecting a positive image they can muster! That the County spent the time to respond is not surprising--its evidence of a guilty state of mind!
...
What monkeys are running this banana cart?

Mike Ramos Issues Statement re Proposals--ok let's work on it!!!

Folks--after spending record amounts running a re-election campaign & raising a war chest far in excess of the costs incurred from the very people Ramos says have too much control over our government and seeking the endorsements of the "super" supervisors (and there is much much more I could talk about but won't), he proposes the following:

[find at http://www.sbcounty.gov/da/]

"For nearly seven years the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, through its Public Integrity Unit, has been a constant observer of city, county, school and district governmental operations through the review, evaluation and investigation of over 500 complaints. For the last three years, the Unit has conducted an intense investigation of the functioning of the San Bernardino County government. That experience has resulted in the several observations and recommendations for reform. San Bernardino County government is woefully imbalanced. The Board members have become “Super” Supervisors who exercise both broad executive powers, in addition to their critical legislative role. Both directly, and through their staffs, the Board regularly directs County employees to perform, or not perform, certain tasks and functions; to avoid or target enforcement efforts; and to hire, fire or promote certain staff. Additionally, they often intervene in personnel and other critical Human Resource functions. County employees feel they have no choice but to comply with Board direction, even when they strongly disagree. The County Administrative Officer (CAO) is the chief executive for the County’s 19,000 employees. However, until the current CAO’s contract, the CAO could be dismissed at any time for any reason by any three members of the Board. Accordingly, there was always powerful pressure to set aside the public interest when that direction displeased a majority of the Board. The CAO had only as much authority as the Board was willing to allow. The American system of checks and balances between co-equal branches of government is non-existent in San Bernardino County. The opportunities for residential and commercial development are huge in our vast County. To have influence over the County’s most powerful government officials could be a great advantage. That advantage is easily obtained in a County where there are no campaign contribution limits. The combination of an imbalance of power and unlimited money in County politics is an easy formula for government corruption. Prosecution can interrupt, but can never bring an end to corruption under such a system. County reform recommendations: • Non-Intervention Provisions: The adoption of non-intervention provisions that would prohibit a member of the Board of Supervisors from instructing or interfering with County employees in the performance of their duties or from interfering in litigation. (San Diego, Los Angeles and Monterey Counties all have such provisions.) • An Independent CAO: The contractual provisions for the current CAO requiring a 4/5’s vote for removal for specific reasons should be made into law. Further, a CAO could have a four-year term during which they could not be removed except as above. Every four years the Board could re-appoint or select another executive leader. This would help to re-establish the co-equal authority of the executive branch of County government. (Sacramento County has some of these provisions.) • No-Gift Policy: In a County tainted by corruption, there is every reason to adopt a countywide no-gift policy, such as one in effect in Orange County. Campaign Finance reform recommendations: • Campaign Contribution Limits: San Bernardino County needs a thorough review of its campaign finance laws. The County should adopt campaign contribution limits, such as are in effect in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Cruz, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Diego and San Francisco counties. This County should never have another election where many thousands of dollars in contributions come from any one source. • Instant Reporting of Campaign Contributions: Transparency should not only occur at specified times but should be a daily commodity. The County should adopt provisions that require the instant reporting of contributions over a specified level. All elected County officials and candidates for county office should be required to have official websites where such information must be immediately posted. • Regulation of PACs: Provisions should be adopted that will prevent the abuse of Political Action Committees (PACs). PAC officers and directors should be clearly specified; no expenditure of a PAC should occur without a meeting and vote of their directors; minutes of every such meeting should be kept, noting all present; no PAC should be permitted to contribute to another PAC; and PACs should be completely transparent with instant online reporting of contributions made and received. Implementation: Over 100 jurisdictions in California have laws stricter than those in the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq). The Act specifically allows for Cities and Counties to have their own, more stringent, provisions. San Bernardino County should no longer be the exception with regard to fundamental campaign reform. Coupled with the additional government recommendations noted above, I believe that such a program of reform could substantially improve and promote a fair, and effective County Government focused on service to our citizens. These are all concepts that should be thoroughly discussed. I invite public input. If there is support for these provisions, I would look forward to working with the public to explore the most effective and timely way to implement them. Michael A. Ramos San Bernardino County District Attorney"

Blogger Bob's comments:

Ok when is this overdue process going to start?

I would propose (1) scheduling an open public roundtable-type meeting where strategies can be discussed on whether to do a piecemeal approach to reform or do much larger/comprehensive approach (a meeting which would invite the supervisors to come and take a position on what they would support --the big concern here would be that the larger the reform package attempted the more delay there may be in getting something passed), (2) bullet points can be discussed and agreed to at that round table on what issues/concerns to cover, steps to be taken & time tables (as well as discussion about legislative initiatives at a County level and potentially the need for a proposition to be drafted and given to the voters if the County will not sign on to needed reform), (3) a committee formed from attendees to draft an initial county-wide ordinance and then (4) hosting community town hall type meetings where an agenda and draft ordinance can be introduced and revisions/changes urged with the idea that what is submitted is a starting point, not a pre-packaged fiat accompli and (5) at each stage, the media attend and if possible, the discussion recorded by the County and be made available for public viewing..

I will volunteer to work WITH you because we do need to take back our government from special interests. I would ask each of the Board of Supervisors full and complete cooperation in the process.