The Examiner.com reports:
"The ethically-challenged San Bernardino County is expected to receive yet another black eye within a week or so. Sheriff's Department officials are accused of falsifying training records that were submitted to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), resulting in tens of thousands of dollars being paid to each recipient that was not earned.
P.O.S.T. was created to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. Certificates include basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive. Specialized certificates can also be awarded. Each new level brings with it a raise in hourly pay.
Sources close to the investigation say that up to 27 sealed indictments were issued this past Friday by two grand juries. Some of those involved are said to be high-level officials of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and the indictments could go all the way to the top.
The story originally came to light last year when a local political blog, iepolitics.com, reported details of the story the department had attempted to cover up. Mainstream media did not pick it up. However, during the 2010 Primary when appointed incumbent Sheriff Rodney Hoops faced two opponents, transportation officer Mark Averbeck, and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department deputy Paul Schrader, the issue resurfaced and some local media covered the story. Hoops quickly dismissed it as having been fully investigated.
Originally, the department claimed that three individuals were involved including, including a captain and his wife. The captain was allowed to pay back approximately $16,000 and then retire. His wife was transferred to a new assignment. But a report surfaced showing many more than three participants. The department continued to cover up the story but eventually the Grand Jury became involved. Now the department's employees are waiting to find out how many of their management staff will be indicted. An answer is expected by March 7".
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Officials expected to be named in indictments involving P.O.S.T. scandal - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-los-angeles/officials-expected-to-be-named-indictments-involving-p-o-s-t-scandal#ixzz1FI0MIYR4
Blogger Bob's comments: FIRST, What is troubling is the election-time cover-up of the P.O.S.T. false reports--didn't these certifications have to get signed off by Sheriff's Department management? SECOND, weren't there verification procedures in place approved by the command structure? If not, why not? Who knew about the false submissions and did nothing about them AFTER the falsity of submissions came to the attention of Hoops and his Captains? Why wasn't this openly and truthfully dealt with prior to the election by the sheriff's department, the media? It was an issue in the election but it was dismissed as resolved so basically no big deal? THIRD, the question that nags me is what else is the Sheriff's Department burying (no pun intended)? Since the consolidation of the Coronor's office and the Sheriff's department, which this blogger questioned as creating potential conflicts of interest, are notices of death certificates being sent to the Registrar of Voters? I am hearing from relatives of deceased people, that they are still getting mail in ballots for their deceased family members. Can we trust this Sheriff's management team to protect the integrity of the ballot box if they can't accurately oversee and police their own filling out forms under the penalty of perjury? FOURTH, why 2 grand juries?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Mitzelfelt,a public official, threatens to sue people for spreading rumors about his wife?? Huh?? Did Brad Just Get Hot Sticked or What??
According to the January 28, 2011 edition of the San Bernardino Sentinel [SBCSentinel@yahoo.com] in an article entitled "Supervisor Mitzelfelt Denies Nepotism Accusation":
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
..
“In January of 2007, the board of supervisors appointed a new supervisor to the board [i.e., Brad Mitzelfelt]. The spouse of the supervisor was introduced into employment within the supervisor’s district in August of 2007. I believe this contract that was approved violated the [California] Government Code 1090 to 1099, as the supervisor, by the hiring of a spouse, illegally obtained monetary compensation in the form of her salary due to this hiring.” Government Code section 1090 prohibits an elected official from participating in a decision in which he or she has a financial interest. Winkler further charged that Megan Blaney-Mitzelfelt’s hiring by the county, while Brad Mitzelfelt is in office, constituted an “unfair hiring practice under the laws of California, an equal opportunity employer.” In response to Winkler’s assertions, which were made during the public comment portion of the meeting, Brad Mitzelfelt said, “I had nothing to do with my wife getting her job. I’d suggest you get your news from more credible sources. I also want to put you on notice that anyone who spreads rumors about my wife will be sued by me.”
..
Blogger Bob's comments:
(1) Mrs. Mitzelfelt (who by the way appears to be a nice lady and I will assume for now is qualified for the position) was introduced early on in Brad's campaign as the horse loving spouse that stood (I just had one of his old campaign flyers in my hands--wierd timing) next to Brad; it would have been interesting to have known she worked for the Sun, in front of which Brad was going for an endorsement!
(2) I find Brad's perception of legal rights challenged at best (maybe that's from all those super-lawyers he's voted to hire)--since when does a public official have legal standing to sue for his wife's alleged defamation?? The plain and simple fact, is that he does not have that right--she might, depending on what is said, where and when assuming the Anti-SLAPP statute(s) do(es) not apply, but Mitzelfelt as a former media rep for the USMC and former chief of staff for a first district supervisor, knows that, so what can this little outburst be really reflective of? Surely Brad knows that the appearance of impropriety in these charged times can be everything, esp if it its a soft job. Heck didn't someone just get convicted (Rex Gutierrez) for having a job (that his former boss,also a first district supervisor) that he did not do much work at?
(3) Besides, unless Megan did not live at Mitzelfelt's house and used another name, don't ya think County HR knew who she was? Who would risk a career ender by not hiring Brad's wifey?
(4) As for the hiring and whether it was illegal or an unfair labor practice, it will be what it is, if the DA's office gets off its duff and scrutinzes this (opps-- I forgot, this is the same DA's office that endorsed Brad and visa versa);
(5) We know the union and or any personnel commission did not file an unfair labor practice when Mrs. M. was hired-- with the county being so broke, a number of wage hikes were not only approved by the Board of Supervisors shortly after Brad got in, but pushed through by Brad as its newest Chair--so was wifey's job (assuming for the sake of argument it was a challengable hire from a personnel commission and or unfair labor practice standpoint) grievance-proofed by the global deal he made sure was approved?
..
Where's Jeff Wright when you need to shake things up?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
PRIVACY ALERT(POST #2)---ANOTHER WAY TO PROTECT UNAUTHORIZED USE OF INFORMATION GATHERED ON YOU!!!!!
PRIVACY ALERT!!(Post #2) A site called "spokeo.com" has your personal info-- everything from pics you've posted on FB [Facebook(c)] or web, your approx credit score, home value, income, age, even credit card #'s. Remove yourself by searching your name, find your page, copy the URL & then go to the bottom of the page & click on the Privacy link to remove yourself.
Blogger Bob: Its free! As information becomes available, additional alerts will be posted.
Blogger Bob: Its free! As information becomes available, additional alerts will be posted.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Mortgage Relief Program information--new program that may help recently laid off folks!!
Appearing in the Desert Dispatch (Barstow) newspaper is an article about a mortgage assistance/relief program called "Unemployment Mortgage Assistance Program". To apply, visit keepyourhomecalifornia.org or call (888) 954-5337. It may help some who lost their job recently, are looking and don't want to lose their home while looking. Here is the link to the article: http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/help-10153-unemployed-homeowners.html, You might also check prior post(s) on this blog for mortgage helpline to call (some prior blog dates to look @ 1/10/2011, 1/6/2011, 12/23/2010, 10/11/2010, 9/30/2010).
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The US Department of Justice will do nothing locally if this is any sign!!
January 19, 2011
Siegelman Appeal Shines Spotlight on Obama's Dismal DOJ
[See link @ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Pulls-a-Clinton-by-Robert-Scheer-110119-598.html]
By Roger Shuler
[Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer]
.
Attorneys for Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy will present oral argument this afternoon before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing their clients' convictions on corruption charges should be reversed.
.
Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, was at the heart of the most notorious political prosecution of the George W. Bush era. A three-judge panel will hear oral argument at 1 p.m., CST, today at the federal courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida.
.
It's fitting that the Siegelman hearing comes as a former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) official launched a blistering attack on the Obama administration's "look forward, not backwards" approach to the apparent crimes of the Bush administration. J. Gerald Hebert said former Bush officials had received "get out of jail free cards," meaning those responsible for the Siegelman prosecution and other legal atrocities have not been held accountable.
.
Hebert, who served in multiple supervisory roles in a 20-year career with the Justice Department, says the Obama administration has a "disturbing pattern" of failing to pursue corruption cases. In a wide-ranging interview with Raw Story, Hebert said the current DOJ has disregarded its fundamental mission:
.
The 20-year DOJ veteran also criticized the administration's refusal to investigate or prosecute any serious criminal activities from the Bush-era, such as sanctioning the waterboarding of military detainees and directing the political firings of US Attorneys. These "at a minimum deserve complete investigation," he said.
.
The Obama administration's excuse "to look forward and not backward" fails to fulfill the agency's "duty" to investigate, he said--a charge that includes "any federal office holder who violates the Constitution or federal law."
.
Hebert now serves as executive director of the Campaign Legal Center and is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law School. He points to the conviction of former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay in Texas state court as an example of the Obama DOJ's weakness:
.
On the heels of the successful prosecution of DeLay for money laundering and conspiracy in Texas, Hebert said he hoped it was clear that the Department of Justice had nothing to do with that conviction.
.
Rather, the Obama administration's Justice Department in August closed down a six-year investigation into DeLay--without filing a single charge.
.
He said that the success of the Travis County District Attorney's office, which had DeLay sentenced to three years in jail, not only highlighted the Justice Department's "unfathomable" failure in one prosecution, but also a "disturbing pattern" of less vigorous pursuit in congressional corruption cases since Obama took office.
.
Federal prosecutors are "gun shy," Hebert says, in the wake of a botched prosecution involving the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens in Alaska:
"It is unfathomable for me to believe that after all was said and done, and knowing as much information that was out there about what DeLay and his high-level cronies had done, that there wasn't a single prosecution," Hebert continued.
.
"So my hats are off to the Travis County prosecutors who were able to at least bring some amount of justice to this," he said.
.
The Obama DOJ, inexplicably, failed to use information from convicted GOP felon Jack Abramoff in a case against DeLay:
.
Hebert noted that his disbelief also rests in the fact that the Justice Department had given convicted former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff a deal to delay his sentencing for months in exchange for providing information.
.
"They delayed his sentencing so they could take advantage of that," he explained, expressing shock that Abramoff's information did not result in a DOJ indictment of DeLay.
.
"In the arrogant world that Tom DeLay lived in, he was kingpin," Hebert said. "He did a lot of damage to people, and to the democracy ultimately, when he tried to undermine and circumvent important rules about corporate funding and clean money."
.
"DeLay basically put Congress up for sale," he continued. "He went down and stood on the corner of K Street and tried to sell it."
.
As for Siegelman, he is confident about the outcome of today's hearing. The judges are not expected to release an opinion for about three months. But Siegelman sees hopeful signs, reports Glynn Wilson of The Locust Fork News:
.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the convictions of Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy back in June of last year and ordered the appeals court to review them again, in light of a recent high court ruling questioning the application of a vague honest services fraud law in the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.
.
"I believe that the U S Supreme Court vacated the earlier ruling of the Eleventh Circuit and sent my case back because the court wants a different result," Siegelman said. "That's good news for me."
.
What could be at stake for the country in general, considering that the Siegelman/Scrushy case involved a standard political transaction that generally has not been seen as a crime?
.
"If I do not win," Siegelman said, "every governor, every member of Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama should be subject to prosecution."
.
A subplot to the Siegelman story involves the Obama administration's utter lack of spine on matters of justice. Hebert said Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have violated their oaths of office:
"When [Obama and Holder] took over they made it clear that they weren't going to get caught up in the past," Hebert said. "They were going to look to the future and make it a brighter day and full of hope."
.
But this view is inconsistent "with the Constitution, federal law and what the Department of Justice is sworn to uphold," he insisted.
.
Hebert said he believed that in wanting to appear nonpartisan, they instead weakened the Justice Department, sending a consequential message to the American people.
.
"It's one thing to want to appear like you're above the political fray and your cases aren't motivated by politics," Hebert pointed out. "But it's another to not hold people accountable and to not bring justice."
.
By allowing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others to escape scrutiny, Obama and Holder are sending a dangerous message:
"Bush and Cheney are not above the law," Hebert concluded. "Whether it's the president, the vice president or any federal office holder who violates the Constitution or federal law, or there are serious allegations suggesting that such violations may have existed, then the Department of Justice has a duty and an obligation to fully investigate that [and]if there are no consequences to any of the actions that violated the federal law in the last administration, then why would anybody think that they would ever be prosecuted for doing it in the future?"
.
Author's Bio: Roger Shuler lives in Birmingham, Alabama, and works in higher education. Shuler became interested in justice-related issues after experiencing gross judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. This corruption has a strong political component. The corrupt judges are all Republicans, and the attorney who filed a fraudulent lawsuit against Shuler has strong family ties to the Alabama Republican Party, with indirect connections to national figures such as Karl Rove. In fact, a number of Republican operatives who have played a central role in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (a Democrat) also have connections to Shuler's case. Shuler is married, with no kids and two Siamese cats and the author of the blog Legal Schnauzer. The blog is written in honor of Murphy, Shuler's miniature schnauzer (1993-2004)who did so much to help his wife and Shuler survives their nightmarish experience with corrupt judges. Shuler grew up in Springfield, Missouri, and is pretty much a lifelong St. Louis Cardinal baseball fan. Shuler lived in Birmingham for almost 30 years and has adopted the UAB Blazers as his Southern college football and basketball team to follow. Also, follow East Tennessee State basketball. An avid reader, both fiction and non-fiction. Influential writers on public affairs are Kevin Phillips, Michael Lind, Thomas Edsall, E.J. Dionne, Molly Ivins, and Scott Horton.
...
Blogger Bob's comments: Crime does pay and the risks are lower than ever.
Siegelman Appeal Shines Spotlight on Obama's Dismal DOJ
[See link @ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Pulls-a-Clinton-by-Robert-Scheer-110119-598.html]
By Roger Shuler
[Cross Posted at Legal Schnauzer]
.
Attorneys for Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy will present oral argument this afternoon before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing their clients' convictions on corruption charges should be reversed.
.
Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, was at the heart of the most notorious political prosecution of the George W. Bush era. A three-judge panel will hear oral argument at 1 p.m., CST, today at the federal courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida.
.
It's fitting that the Siegelman hearing comes as a former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) official launched a blistering attack on the Obama administration's "look forward, not backwards" approach to the apparent crimes of the Bush administration. J. Gerald Hebert said former Bush officials had received "get out of jail free cards," meaning those responsible for the Siegelman prosecution and other legal atrocities have not been held accountable.
.
Hebert, who served in multiple supervisory roles in a 20-year career with the Justice Department, says the Obama administration has a "disturbing pattern" of failing to pursue corruption cases. In a wide-ranging interview with Raw Story, Hebert said the current DOJ has disregarded its fundamental mission:
.
The 20-year DOJ veteran also criticized the administration's refusal to investigate or prosecute any serious criminal activities from the Bush-era, such as sanctioning the waterboarding of military detainees and directing the political firings of US Attorneys. These "at a minimum deserve complete investigation," he said.
.
The Obama administration's excuse "to look forward and not backward" fails to fulfill the agency's "duty" to investigate, he said--a charge that includes "any federal office holder who violates the Constitution or federal law."
.
Hebert now serves as executive director of the Campaign Legal Center and is an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law School. He points to the conviction of former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay in Texas state court as an example of the Obama DOJ's weakness:
.
On the heels of the successful prosecution of DeLay for money laundering and conspiracy in Texas, Hebert said he hoped it was clear that the Department of Justice had nothing to do with that conviction.
.
Rather, the Obama administration's Justice Department in August closed down a six-year investigation into DeLay--without filing a single charge.
.
He said that the success of the Travis County District Attorney's office, which had DeLay sentenced to three years in jail, not only highlighted the Justice Department's "unfathomable" failure in one prosecution, but also a "disturbing pattern" of less vigorous pursuit in congressional corruption cases since Obama took office.
.
Federal prosecutors are "gun shy," Hebert says, in the wake of a botched prosecution involving the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens in Alaska:
"It is unfathomable for me to believe that after all was said and done, and knowing as much information that was out there about what DeLay and his high-level cronies had done, that there wasn't a single prosecution," Hebert continued.
.
"So my hats are off to the Travis County prosecutors who were able to at least bring some amount of justice to this," he said.
.
The Obama DOJ, inexplicably, failed to use information from convicted GOP felon Jack Abramoff in a case against DeLay:
.
Hebert noted that his disbelief also rests in the fact that the Justice Department had given convicted former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff a deal to delay his sentencing for months in exchange for providing information.
.
"They delayed his sentencing so they could take advantage of that," he explained, expressing shock that Abramoff's information did not result in a DOJ indictment of DeLay.
.
"In the arrogant world that Tom DeLay lived in, he was kingpin," Hebert said. "He did a lot of damage to people, and to the democracy ultimately, when he tried to undermine and circumvent important rules about corporate funding and clean money."
.
"DeLay basically put Congress up for sale," he continued. "He went down and stood on the corner of K Street and tried to sell it."
.
As for Siegelman, he is confident about the outcome of today's hearing. The judges are not expected to release an opinion for about three months. But Siegelman sees hopeful signs, reports Glynn Wilson of The Locust Fork News:
.
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the convictions of Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy back in June of last year and ordered the appeals court to review them again, in light of a recent high court ruling questioning the application of a vague honest services fraud law in the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.
.
"I believe that the U S Supreme Court vacated the earlier ruling of the Eleventh Circuit and sent my case back because the court wants a different result," Siegelman said. "That's good news for me."
.
What could be at stake for the country in general, considering that the Siegelman/Scrushy case involved a standard political transaction that generally has not been seen as a crime?
.
"If I do not win," Siegelman said, "every governor, every member of Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama should be subject to prosecution."
.
A subplot to the Siegelman story involves the Obama administration's utter lack of spine on matters of justice. Hebert said Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have violated their oaths of office:
"When [Obama and Holder] took over they made it clear that they weren't going to get caught up in the past," Hebert said. "They were going to look to the future and make it a brighter day and full of hope."
.
But this view is inconsistent "with the Constitution, federal law and what the Department of Justice is sworn to uphold," he insisted.
.
Hebert said he believed that in wanting to appear nonpartisan, they instead weakened the Justice Department, sending a consequential message to the American people.
.
"It's one thing to want to appear like you're above the political fray and your cases aren't motivated by politics," Hebert pointed out. "But it's another to not hold people accountable and to not bring justice."
.
By allowing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others to escape scrutiny, Obama and Holder are sending a dangerous message:
"Bush and Cheney are not above the law," Hebert concluded. "Whether it's the president, the vice president or any federal office holder who violates the Constitution or federal law, or there are serious allegations suggesting that such violations may have existed, then the Department of Justice has a duty and an obligation to fully investigate that [and]if there are no consequences to any of the actions that violated the federal law in the last administration, then why would anybody think that they would ever be prosecuted for doing it in the future?"
.
Author's Bio: Roger Shuler lives in Birmingham, Alabama, and works in higher education. Shuler became interested in justice-related issues after experiencing gross judicial corruption in Alabama state courts. This corruption has a strong political component. The corrupt judges are all Republicans, and the attorney who filed a fraudulent lawsuit against Shuler has strong family ties to the Alabama Republican Party, with indirect connections to national figures such as Karl Rove. In fact, a number of Republican operatives who have played a central role in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (a Democrat) also have connections to Shuler's case. Shuler is married, with no kids and two Siamese cats and the author of the blog Legal Schnauzer. The blog is written in honor of Murphy, Shuler's miniature schnauzer (1993-2004)who did so much to help his wife and Shuler survives their nightmarish experience with corrupt judges. Shuler grew up in Springfield, Missouri, and is pretty much a lifelong St. Louis Cardinal baseball fan. Shuler lived in Birmingham for almost 30 years and has adopted the UAB Blazers as his Southern college football and basketball team to follow. Also, follow East Tennessee State basketball. An avid reader, both fiction and non-fiction. Influential writers on public affairs are Kevin Phillips, Michael Lind, Thomas Edsall, E.J. Dionne, Molly Ivins, and Scott Horton.
...
Blogger Bob's comments: Crime does pay and the risks are lower than ever.
Monday, January 17, 2011
PRIVACY (Post #1) -- ONE OF MANY SUCH POSTS THAT MAY HELP PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY
How to delete address, cell number from Facebook | Safe and Secure - CNET News
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-200287...
Facebook is now disclosing users' addresses and phone numbers to app developers, and though you have to OK access, it might still be a good idea to remove the info from your profile. Read this blog post by Larry Magid on Safe and Secure.
Thought I'd start a trend--someone that wanted to be your DA that cares about your privacy expectations!!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-200287...
Facebook is now disclosing users' addresses and phone numbers to app developers, and though you have to OK access, it might still be a good idea to remove the info from your profile. Read this blog post by Larry Magid on Safe and Secure.
Thought I'd start a trend--someone that wanted to be your DA that cares about your privacy expectations!!
Monday, January 10, 2011
DEUTSCHE NATIONAL BANK & AURORA LOANS FORECLOSURES STOPPED--SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS IN THE WORKS--GET WORD OUT!!!
On Deutsche National Bank/Aurora Loans in California this tidbit may be of some interest to consumers, prosecuting agencies, banks and court staffs:
A class action was filed on behalf of homeowners with Deutsche Bank loans in California, and the filing attorney has been able to reach a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) with the lender, to stop foreclosures until February 15, for settlement discussions, and asked that I pass along this message asking anyone with such a home loan to contact her:
IMPORTANT - PLEASE GET THE WORD OUT and possibly SAVE A HOME. If one is in foreclosure with Deutsche National Bank (services is Aurora Loans) in the state of CALIFORNIA and applied for HAMP - You may be part of the STIPULATION filed in FEDERAL COURT that includes YOU that STOPS YOUR FORECLOSURE NOW. Please call 714-372-2264 Law Offices of Lenore Albert now. (Stipulation filed Friday 1/7/11).
Isn't Mike Ramos stopping these type of foreclosures in our county??
BOB CONAWAY
A class action was filed on behalf of homeowners with Deutsche Bank loans in California, and the filing attorney has been able to reach a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) with the lender, to stop foreclosures until February 15, for settlement discussions, and asked that I pass along this message asking anyone with such a home loan to contact her:
IMPORTANT - PLEASE GET THE WORD OUT and possibly SAVE A HOME. If one is in foreclosure with Deutsche National Bank (services is Aurora Loans) in the state of CALIFORNIA and applied for HAMP - You may be part of the STIPULATION filed in FEDERAL COURT that includes YOU that STOPS YOUR FORECLOSURE NOW. Please call 714-372-2264 Law Offices of Lenore Albert now. (Stipulation filed Friday 1/7/11).
Isn't Mike Ramos stopping these type of foreclosures in our county??
BOB CONAWAY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)