Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...



In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information



    No friends yet


No joined groups.
Charles Ponzi

Charles Ponzi

  • Karma
  • Member since
    Sunday, 30 August 2015 04:33
  • Last online
    12 hours 46 minutes ago
  • Profile views

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information



    No friends yet


No joined groups.
  • Germany cuts Saudi arms exports by quarter in wake of Khashoggi scandal

    Matthew Robinson and Nadine Schmidt, CNN

    Updated 1845 GMT (0245 HKT) January 17, 2019
    Germany cut its arms exports by 22.7% in 2018, from 6.24 billion euros in the previous year to 4.82 billion euros.
    Germany cut its arms exports by 22.7% in 2018, from 6.24 billion euros in the previous year to 4.82 billion euros.

    (CNN)The German government has announced that its arms exports fell by close to 23% in 2018 compared to the previous year.
    In figures provided to CNN by the German Economy Ministry, total arms exports fell by 22.75% in 2018 from 6.24 billion euros ($7.10 billion) in the previous year to 4.82 billion euros ($5.49 billion). The downward trend in the country's arms exports has been witnessed every year since 2015, when Germany exported a record-breaking 7.86 billion euros.
    A ministry spokesman cited Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision in October 2018 to halt all arms sales to Saudi Arabia after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul as a reason for the sharp decline.

    "The Chancellor clarified to the federal government shortly after the discovery of the Khashoggi case that there was no longer grounding to sell arms to Saudi Arabia," he said in a statement provided to CNN.
    The ministry confirmed that Germany had not changed its position regarding exports to Saudi Arabia in the intervening months, and noted that no sales had been made to the Middle Eastern nation in the fourth quarter of last year.
    "There are currently no permits for arms exports to Saudi Arabia," the spokesman confirmed.
    Angela Merkel announced in October 2018 that Germany would halt all arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the Jamal Khashoggi scandal.
    Angela Merkel announced in October 2018 that Germany would halt all arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the Jamal Khashoggi scandal.
    Speaking to members of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party in October, Merkel said: "I agree with all those who say, that the already limited arms exports (to Saudi Arabia) cannot take place in the current circumstances.
    "There is an urgent need to clarify what happened -- we are far from this having been cleared up and those responsible held to account," she said regarding the Khashoggi case.
    The moratorium on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, however, is only believed to be valid until March this year, according to German news site Deutsche Welle, when the German government will be obliged to decide whether or not to maintain the ban or relax it.
    The ministry spokesman nevertheless confirmed to CNN that Germany has "one of the most restrictive and rigorous arms exports regimes in the world." He also confirmed that Berlin is "very transparent" in regards to its arms export policy.
    These are the countries still selling arms to Saudi Arabia
    These are the countries still selling arms to Saudi Arabia
    Notably, the federal government publishes a thorough report on its arms exports twice a year for the federal government and the public to scrutinize.
    Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against Arms Trade welcomed Germany's reduction in arms sales, but questioned why the country had taken so long to restrict exports to countries including Saudi Arabia.
    "The German government was right to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and we hope that it will set a precedent for the other arms dealing governments in Europe to follow," he told CNN.
    "However, the arms sales should never have been allowed in the first place. For decades now, the Saudi regime has had one of the most appalling human rights records in the world, and since 2015 it has waged a brutal war on Yemen. It should not have taken the murder of a journalist for the German authorities to act."
    Smith noted that it is important to halt arms sales not solely in the short term, but also to "end the mindset that allowed them to happen for so long." He expressed hope that the reduction seen in 2018 will be the "start of a wider look at Germany's arms export policy," and that the country will build on 2018 to halt all arms sales to other dictatorships and human rights abusers.

    Figures provided by the economy ministry to German politician Sevim Dağdelen and seen by CNN, however, reveal that Germany is continuing to export large amounts of arms to other Middle Eastern nations.
    In particular, arms exports amounting to 40,188,518 euros were sold to the United Arab Emirates in the fourth quarter of 2018, and 55,882,061 euros worth of arms were sold to Qatar in the same period.

  • Dear Ombudsman for the State of Victoria

    Your File Reference C/15/12800

    The Legal Services Board and Commission claimed that undercover operations by the US Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force in cases about the Reserve Bank of Australia were nonsensical and fanciful, and on behalf of relatives of a criminal law attorney called Mr Tehan QC, it required information about US SEC Protected Disclosers and prosecutors under, they claim, US Vice President Biden. (Mary Jo White and Eileen Decker were appointed by President Barack Obama and they act independently of the White House).

    The Chief Attorney Jorge Dopico from the New York Supreme Court Attorney Grievance Committee (telephone 1+ 212 401-08 00) informs me that MasterCard’s lawyer Ms Ravelo and her criminal associates were imprisoned in connection with passing Reserve Bank of Australia material between lawyers in the USA, and therefore I believe there was nothing nonsensical or fanciful about the investigations and prosecutions by the US Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.

    It also seems to me that your Victorian government officials carried out their intentions as reported on your file on August 1, 2015 which was a few days before the Legal Services Board and Commission claimed that a landlord called Glenn Jones had been evicted (which is obviously preposterous unless landlords are evicted in Australia) and therefore required information about prosecutors under US Vice President Biden. Please investigate your LSBC’s attempts to obtain information about politicians and prosecutions and SEC Protected Disclosers.

    The complaint on your file by our association’s Dennis Sgargetta and Associates was bcc’d to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and was also filed as a submission with the Australian Senate’s Inquiry into Bribery. Reserve Bank of Australia officials – defended by the same attorney Tehan – were found guilty of bribing people like Saddam Hussein, Prime Minister Razak of Malaysia, a black market nuclear-weapons broker, and the Vietnamese Communist Party officials led by Colonel Luong whose central bank officials were being looked after by our association’s colleagues in Richmond Melbourne Australia.

    Victorian Supreme Court Justice E. Hollingworth recently released the case from a nationwide national security gag order, and she specifically refers to the Submissions at the Senate Bribery Inquiry which includes the complaint on your file C/15/12800 which has your advice that there was corrupt conduct in the Victorian Government’s Legal Services Board and Commission. Please investigate the LSBC’s use of their public office to obtain information about politicians and prosecutions and SEC Protected Disclosers for a family called Tehan whose brother was the QC who defended one of the Reserve Bank of Australia officials called Mr Wong.

    Please also investigate the LSBC’s use of its public office to obtain information with the assistance of a psychiatrist Associate Professor Dr Peter Doherty. Dr Doherty was instructed to obtain information about SEC Protected Disclosers on the back of the unbelievable story that a landlord called Mr Glenn Jones had been evicted, but because landlords are not evicted, it looks as if your Victorian government officials and Dr Doherty went along with pretences to obtain information for those officials in the LSBC, obtain information for relatives of Tehan QC, and to carry out the threats made by LSBC staff like the threat to imprison our association’s spokesman Mr Elliott Sgargetta. Leaning on people looked like perversion of the course of justice according to Dr Branson’s Bank Reform Now organisation.

    Using false pretences to find out about investigations into Reserve Bank Officials is all the more alarming when one realises that the LSBC’s chair is Ms Bennett and she is a co-director with the RBA Payment Card Committee member Mr Wayne Byers, and the RBA payment card committee was aware of the US investigations into Ms Keila Ravelo’s criminal racket before the arrests were made.

    Also alarming is the advice the LSBC gave to an accountant via the Counterterrorism Minister Robert Clark that the LSBC wasn’t aware of the same investigations by US law enforcement that are in Dr Doherty’s notes of his interrogation of an SEC Protected Discloser. Misleading the Counterterrorism Minister while there are people like a black market nuclear weapons broker taking bribes from Reserve Bank officials looks like your officials should be arrested for hindering AUSTRAC and counter terrorism police.

    Our group of whistleblowers are conferring soon and are taking matters to the US Secret Service so your prompt update on your progress with investigating the complaint in C/15/12800 would be appreciated.

    Yours faithfully

    Dr Eugene Warner

  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' NZ Worries and $75 billion' in the forum.
    Chunky capital concerns over big four banks' Kiwi arms

    Australian Financial Review 14 Jan 2019 12:15 AM

    Sarah Thompson, Anthony Macdonald

    As the big four banks tackle Australia's banking regulator and how exactly it wants them to raise another $75 billion capital, there is another storm brewing across the Tasman.

    And while the numbers out of New Zealand may be smaller, bankers reckon the storm front is both more fierce and more likely to spark equity raisings or asset sales than regulator changes back home.

    The big four banks are likely to need about another $15 billion to $20 billion in tier one capital in their Kiwi subsidiaries to keep banking in New Zealand.

    The Reserve Bank of New Zealand wants Australia's big four - which together account for nearly 90 per cent of NZ's bank assets - to lift tier one capital to 16 per cent, from about 13 per cent.

    RBNZ's proposal isn't due to be finalised until June, however banks reckon the writing is on the wall.

    Whatever the final outcome, they're going to need to start building capital levels. And while they may be given five years to make the jump, the build would need to begin shortly.

    Fund managers reckon the banks have four options to raise the capital; retain more profits in their NZ subsidiaries; launch equity raisings; sell assets; re-think the size of their NZ loan books.

    All options are expected to be considered. It's obviously not an ideal time to go to shareholders with big rights issues. Bank shares are down 15 per cent in the past year, on average, while investors are worried about the market more broadly.

    And retaining more profits in their NZ subsidiaries would likely put pressure on group dividends, which may see the pendulum swing in favour of asset sales.

    The other as-yet-unanswered question is how APRA would treat increases in NZ capital back home. Will the NZ requirements end up as a capital re-allocation inside the banks, or something more?

    It's one fundies and bankers will be watching closely this year. The end result is likely to be more pressure on each bank's return on equity - Goldman Sachs analysts are talking about a 1 percentage point haircut from existing ROE levels, which range from 10 to 14 per cent.

    ANZ Banking Group is likely to be the most impacted in NZ with a $5.8 billion gap, on Macquarie's numbers, ahead of National Australia Bank ($4.8b), Westpac Banking Corp ($3.5b) and Commonwealth Bank of Australia ($4.2b).

    2 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Qld Child Abuse Inquiry Sub 11' in the forum.
    Justice System Reform for Tasmania.

    Having had recent discussions with Kevin Lindeberg re the proposals/policies for a National CCC, it came to my mind that some readers may be interested in a read from his website.

    I have intermittently communicated with Kevin re The Heiner Affair, over several decades. He has never given up; a model of tenacity and integrity I'll simply say what an incredible, inspiring man. I am pleased he is "still standing" as he recently assured me.

    Identifying with several of the failures in process, cover-ups and other 'modus operandi' (too many to list here), I add — corruption is alive and flourishing in other states, and not limited to Tasmania. But, we already knew that surely? Seems to me, it's like wire coat hangers — they seem to breed without help.

    Here is a link. Of course, its a long read. I suspect a browse visit, and some return reads will provide any interested reader with some déjà vu.

    Appalling, shocking, unacceptable stuff. Another Grrrrrr!!!!!

    2 days ago
  • As McGarvie advised the Counterterrorism Minister Robert Clark that the LSBC wasn't aware of RICO and American investigations, County Recorder Fraud Complainants/Whistlblowers - with concerns about the LSBC's 'spying' on mortgage fraud victims - are from 1 hour 11 minutes. They've gone to the Secret Service in Santa Ana.

    3 days ago
  • Dear Mr Stewart

    There was nothing nonsensical or fanciful about the bribery. What was nonsensical and fanciful were the attempts by the legal services board to 'spy' for the criminal side.

    While Victorian Supreme Court Justice Hollingworth had Suppression Orders in place, the Tehan family relatives of the Australian Counter-terrorism Minister Dan Tehan and the criminal defense QC Patrick Tehan used a character called Trevor McTaggart to get information on people in the SEC witness program called the "Office of the Whistleblower".

    Tehan QC was defending a murderer called Ali Ali. Ali Ali was a self described member of the Taliban. He was found with a flight manual in his prison cell not long after 9/11.

    Tehan QC defended Reserve Bank executives who were on bribery charges with those that were charged with paying bribes to the Communist Party of Vietnam's Col. Luong. The case was monumental with recipients of alleged bribery including Prime Ministers and Presidents like Saddam Hussien and Najib Razak.

    McTaggart's and Tehans' colleagues in the Legal Services Board (who came from places like APRA and the audit firm at the center of the CBA Scandal where it was used by Al Quada) were reported by their clients like the Sgargettas thanks to excellent advice from terrified staff inside the Legal Services Board.

    The Ombudsman advised Sgargetta & Assoc that there seemed to be corruption in the Legal Services Board.

    BankReformNow also thought there was an extraordinary cover up by the LSB.

    Please investigate the Legal Services Board for breaching the Suppression Orders and for using their public office to get information for relatives of a QC on the other side of international criminal investigations.

    Andrew Stewart
    Investigation Officer

    Level 2, 570 Bourke Street
    Melbourne VIC 3000

    Direct: +61 3 9613 6286 | Regional Callers (excl. mob.): 1800 806 314
    Fax: +61 3 9602 4761 | DX: 210174 Melbourne

    4 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' lolita' in the forum.
    FBI Chief Exposes MK Ultra Programs That Murder, Use, & Traffic Children – High Level People Involved

    Published 2 years ago

    on December 3, 2016

    By Arjun WaliaCE Staff Writer

    Never before has so much been exposed in the mainstream about those we call our ‘leaders,’ those we ‘vote’ for, and those who appear one way in front of the masses, but represent something completely different when it comes to getting things done. 2016 seems to be a landmark year for transparency in the mainstream, and that’s in large part thanks to the efforts of researchers, activists, and whistleblowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
    advertisement - learn more

    Unfortunately, what is being revealed to us is extreme corruption within Western politics and our entire political, corporate, and financial systems.

    Whether it hints at a hidden government, the enactment of corporate/financial agendas, or rigged elections (as we saw in the DNC this year), the “disastrous rise of misplaced power” that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address as president of the United States is and has been happening for decades, and it’s destroying our planet.

    The entire political process up to this point has been about brainwashing the masses into accepting various agendas.

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”

    – Edward Bernays (“the father of public relations”), Propaganda, 1928 (note that Bernays’ book, Propaganda, begins with the above quote).
    advertisement - learn more

    The bright side to all of these revelations is the fact that we are waking up to what has been happening, the ability for people to simply ‘see’ through so much deception, like that which occurred on 9/11 or what is happening at Standing Rock for example, are excellent catalysts for people to have a shift in consciousness (defined here as awareness, perception, self-awareness etc) about our world and what is really happening on it.

    As a result, more and more people every year desire change, and so the heart and collective intention of the human race begins to manifest it, we are living in the shift now.

    Not only do these ruling bodies exist to brainwash us, some of our supposed leaders have been and are involved in some very disturbing things. Many of these revelations have been made by credible sources presented by several alternative media outlets, and have since been dubbed as ‘fake news,’ despite how clearly the elite were and are scrambling to hide this information that threatens their power and their ability to control the human race.

    These revelations include pedophilia, child trafficking, and murder.

    With regards to pedophilia, ever since Donald Trump brought to light the allegations against Bill Clinton and his treatment of women, others have come forward to corroborate his story.

    Register to watch our exclusive 4-part interview series with Anneke.

    One of the most recent examples is former U.S. State Department official Steve Pieczenik. His roles within U.S. politics were many, having been the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker, and also serving the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, and George H.W. Bush. If you’ve done research into U.S. politics, being associated with names like Kissinger and Bush is an automatic red flag. What’s even more concerning to some is that he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many consider to be corrupt and even evil, operating under the guise of good deeds. However, he was removed from the membership as early as October 2012, the same time he started whistleblowing.

    He says: “We know that both of them have been a major part and participant of what’s called The Lolita Express, which is a plane owned by Mr. Jeff Epstein, a wealthy multi-millionaire who flies down to the Bahamas and allows Bill Clinton and Hillary to engage in sex with minors, that is called Pedophilia.” (source)

    Here is some background coverage that was done on it last year. I’m not saying these examples are proof of a massive elitist global pedophile ring, but there have been several examples like this, and various scandals that have gone completely unreported by mainstream media.

    Former U.S. representative Cynthia McKinney also knew about pedophilia within the government in 2005. She grilled Donald Rumsfeld on DynCorp’s child trafficking business of selling women and children. (source)

    This is important information to share, especially with all that’s going on with the Pizzagate scandal, which the elite are also trying to debunk. Here is another Pizzagate video put together by the underground resistance network.

    It’s hardly surprising that they are trying to discredit this story, but with all of the other stories from investigations out there that are already verified, it’s important that we don’t ignore this and that somebody within the power structure actually initiates an investigation.
    Investigations Reveal That It Goes Far Beyond Pedophilia

    Unfortunately, investigations into this type of behaviour reveal that many working for mainstream politics, its corporate structure, the big banks, and parts of the military industrial complex (CIA, contractors, etc.) could be involved in even more disturbing things.

    Not only are these children abused, but they are tortured and often murdered as part of ‘satanic’ sacrifice ceremonies. Many of them, based on my research, are subjected to mind control techniques as well.

    We learned this in detail through our 4.5 hour interview with survivor Anneke Lucas which you can watch free on CETV starting Jan 17th. You can register to watch this interview here.

    Ted Gunderson, former FBI special agent and head of their L.A. office, worked to uncover and expose these horrors before he died. A simple YouTube search of his name will show you what exactly he spent his last years researching (source). Here’s one of his last lectures.

    He is one of several dozen to have investigated this topic and found some disturbing facts.

    Below is another lecture that describes in detail what he’s experienced.

    4 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Sue Maynes Perpetual Securitization Mortgage' in the forum.
    I am not hugely up on financial terms and all the intricacies that entails BUT....

    I have found this document, flicked through it and it appears to be details of all mortgaged land in Australia handled by banks - for the purpose of acting as collatoral to allow banks to borrow.

    The stated purpose of the doc is:
    This Information Memorandum relates solely to a proposed issue of Notes by Perpetual Trustee Company
    Limited ABN 42 000 001 007, in its capacity as trustee of the TORRENS Series 2014-1 Trust (the
    “Trustee”). This Information Memorandum does not relate to, and is not relevant for, any other purpose."

    Of course, I looked up the Torrens Trust and found:
    Torrens Trust/The
    Private Company

    Company Profile
    Sector: Financials
    Industry: Specialty Finance
    Sub-Industry: Other Financial Services
    Torrens Trust acts as trustee of series trust. The trust issues secured, pass-through, sequential pay, and floating rate debtr securities.

    Corporate Information
    Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd
    Level 7 , 9 Castlereagh Street
    Sydney NSW 2000

    So the banks provide information on mortgaged properties, to a private company acting as trustee of a series trust.

    I looked up Perpetual Trustee Company and its blurb states "In 1885, a committee of business and professional people, including future Prime Minister, the Honourable Sir Edmund Barton, gathered in Sydney for the purpose of forming a trustee company."

    So Perpetual was set up to increase wealth.

    Now another Trust Series document from 2 banks states:
    Bendigo and Adelaide Bank announces
    TORRENS Series 2015-1 Trust

    Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (BEN) has announced the marketing of its latest mortgage backed securities issue under the TORRENS securitisation program.

    The offer will be known as TORRENS Series 2015-1 Trust, and will offer securities denominated in AUD, with final tranche sizes to be determined subject to market conditions. The issue will be backed by Australian prime residential mortgages originated by BEN.

    The banks are offering YOU securities, backed by Aust prime residential mortgages.…/20150603/pdf/42yzgxm9wq6dph.pdf

    Does that not establish that your mortgage, is used by the banks to organize trusts for the purpose of selling securities that use your land as collatoral - and that therefore your mortgage repayments are the dividends going to the securities???

    And does it NOT appear that the Trust is set up through Perpetural - which means they would also earn dividends???

    Can someone who really understands this stuff explain it to us all please?

    4 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' SMSF and APRA's warning to David Murray' in the forum.
    Regulators sound alarm over SMSF property speculation
    Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said the government was “asleep at the wheel when it comes to listening to advice and managing risks in the economy”. Picture: Kym Smith
    Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said the government was “asleep at the wheel when it comes to listening to advice and managing risks in the economy”. Picture: Kym Smith

    Michael Roddan
    12:00AM January 14, 2019

    A surge in property speculation by leveraged self-managed super funds amid sliding house prices in the nation’s biggest cities has sparked concerns among the powerful Council of Financial Regulators that many may be in over their heads.

    Confidential documents, obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information rules, reveal a renewed rush by SMSFs to take out mortgages for property investment despite an increasing crackdown by the major banks to close off the problematic credit products.

    Documents collated for the regulator show the total value of property investment loans held by SMSFs has raced to $39 billion — more than 5 per cent of all assets in the $700bn self-managed super sector by the end of the June quarter.
    Read Next

    Dastyari confirms split with wife

    Loans for property investment through SMSFs are considered “limited recourse” because if the loan defaults, the bank can claw back only the specific asset bought with the loan, not the rest of the assets in a fund. However, as loans can account for a large share of a particular SMSF’s assets, this can leave the borrower vulnerable to changes in property prices, risking pushing a retiree on to the age pension.

    The number of limited-­recourse borrowing arrangements has risen dramatically from just 0.1 per cent of SMSF assets a decade ago to more than 5 per cent, as more SMSF owners have been encouraged to pile into investment properties by financial advisers and “one-stop-shop” SMSF advisories, which collect lucrative fees for establishing the funds and tipping trustees into housing assets.

    Sydney home values have fallen more than 11 per cent from their July 2017 peak, while Melbourne values have dropped more than 7 per cent since November 2017. Analysts are expecting further falls this year.

    Ratings agency Moody’s last week tipped Sydney house prices to fall 3.3 per cent this year with prices in Melbourne off 6 per cent.

    The documents reveal that the Australian Taxation Office, which regulates the SMSF sector, has raised concerns with Treasury about the accelerating house price falls in Sydney and Melbourne.

    “Of interest is that NSW and Vic have the highest number of SMSFs and Sydney is ranked first and Melbourne ranked third for falling house prices,” the ATO’s director of superannuation told Treasury in September.

    Since then, the fall in house prices in Sydney and Melbourne has accelerated.

    The concern about the use of the borrowings in SMSFs follows revelations at the financial services royal commission of systemic problems across financial advice outfits that spruik SMSF property investment and stand to win lucrative fees whether or not it is in the best interests of clients.

    Almost one in 10 SMSF owners have accessed limited-­recourse borrowing arrangements, which are mostly used to fund property investments.

    The Productivity Commission last week also called for dramatic reforms of the super sector including cutting down the use of multiple funds, addressing under­performance and warning that people in SMSFs with balances of less than $500,000 could be better off in regular funds.

    The PC said that “given recent growth, coupled with taxpayers ultimately underwriting (in large part) any gross underperformance of SMSFs through the age pension, ongoing monitoring (of limited-recourse borrowing arrange­ments) was clearly warranted to ensure that SMSF borrowing to fund investments does not have the potential to generate systemic risks in the future. Many of the concerns expressed about limited-recourse borrowing arrangements relate not to their potential impact on the superannuation or financial system, but on SMSF members for whom such arrangements might not be appropriate.”

    The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has been targeting poor consumer outcomes in the sector — finding that 90 per cent of financial advice given to SMSF owners failed to be in their best interests — the figures show the pace of borrowing has reignited in the most recent quarter.

    By the end of June, limited-­recourse borrowing arrangements had grown to $39bn, an increase from the $32bn figure recorded at the end of March. This compares with a figure of just $418 million in June 2008.

    The Council of Financial Regulators, a collection of representatives from Treasury, ASIC, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Reserve Bank of Australia, was tasked with a review of limited-recourse borrowing arrangements following David Murray’s Financial System Inquiry.

    The 2014 inquiry recommended the government ban limited-recourse borrowing arrangements, citing the need to “prevent the unnecessary build-up of risk” and ensure super remained a vehicle for retirement income “rather than a broader wealth management vehicle”.

    It was the only recommendation the Turnbull government rejected, noting that it did “not consider the data sufficient to justify significant policy intervention” as it tasked the Council of Financial Regulators to “monitor leverage” and report back in three years.

    Since that decision, limited-­recourse borrowing arrangements have grown by a further $17bn.

    Opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen said the government was “asleep at the wheel when it comes to listening to advice and managing risks in the economy”.

    “The Liberal Party has continued to recklessly ignore the financial stability risks associated with Australia having the second-highest household debt in the OECD for years now,” Mr Bowen said.

    Labor has proposed banning limited-recourse borrowing arrangements if it wins office.

    Treasurer Josh Frydenberg declined to comment yesterday but said today the government is “monitoring” the situation.

    “Non-recourse borrowing by SMSFs is 2.9 per cent of total SMSF assets which is a small proportion of their overall assets, less than 1 per cent of the overall lending by banks and a very small part of the housing market which is valued at $6.5 trillion,” he said.

    “That being said, it is something that has to be monitored which is exactly what the government has done.”

    Mr Frydenberg said the government asked the Council of Financial Regulators to review non-recourse lending to SMSFs and to use enhanced ATO data to “report back to government within

    three years in order to inform consideration of whether changes to the borrowing regulations might be appropriate in the future.”

    “The government is expecting this report by the end of next month,” he said.

    In September, Commonwealth Bank became the last major lender to stop offering the products, following Westpac ending the sale of LRBAs in July.

    APRA told the Murray inquiry it had “long had reservations about extending the ability of superannuation funds to borrow” as “additional direct leverage may amplify returns but exposes superannuation fund members to greater financial risks”.
    Michael Roddan
    Michael Roddan is a business reporter covering banking, insurance, superannuation, financial services and regulation.

    4 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Look at the date: Shirley Joseph & The Clintons' in the forum.
    While documents were dropping off at Judicial Watch, Howard Bowles, Shirley Joseph Khazak jewish convert to Hills Bible Church Wantirna Jennie Pakula and their staff were desperate to obtain information about PACs. Look at the date. Elliot Sgargetta was right.

    Judicial Watch Forces Release of Clinton State Department Conflict of Interest Docs

    JULY 30, 2014
    Text Size

    Documents Detail Road Map of over 200 Conflict-of-Interest Rulings that led to $48 Million in Income for Clinton Entities

    (Washington, DC)—Judicial Watch announced today the release of more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers of proposed Bill Clinton speaking and consulting engagements during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The documents were obtained as result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)). The lawsuit is ongoing.

    June 2011 documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by controversial Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

    Mr. Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe. And 215 times, the State Department stated that it had “no objection.”

    Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others—as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

    “These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind. That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage. No wonder it took a court order to get these documents. One can’t imagine what foreign policy issues were mishandled as top State Department officials spent so much time facilitating the Clinton money machine.”

    Under established protocols of the State Department, and supplemented by a December 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Clinton Foundation and Obama Presidential Transition Team, a designated ethics official from the State Department’s legal office was assigned to review any “potential or actual conflict of interest” for Mrs. Clinton while she served as secretary of state. Copies of all decisions were sent to a top adviser to Secretary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and chief of staff at the Department of State.

    The Washington Examiner published a report today on the documents by Judicial Watch Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison and Examiner Senior Watchdog Reporter Luke Rosiak. Morrison and Rosiak note that Mr. Clinton “earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

    According to the State Department documents:

    Mr. Clinton spoke before a UBS Wealth Management audience in Chicago in April, 2012. The State Department document notes that attendees would be “approximately 300-400 ultra-high net worth clients, prospective clients, and UBS Financial Advisers.”

    Mr. Clinton spoke to an event hosted by Wells Fargo in San Francisco in October, 2011. The State Department document notes that the event is “being held for Wells Fargo Private Bank and Wells Fargo Family Wealth Group clients, which are clients that have at least $5 million and $50 million in assets respectively.”

    At a “mutually agreeable date” in April 2010, Mr. Clinton was due to speak at Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. “This would be a private speech of up to 350 friends and patrons on Mohegan Sun,” the State Department document noted. “The event will not be open to the public. The event will not be publicly advertised.”

    For a speech in Moscow in June 2010 sponsored by the investment bank Renaissance Capital, Mr. Clinton would address the theme of “Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.” The document notes that “Renaissance Capital is an investment bank focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and sub-Saharan Africa.”

    At the Ritz Carlton in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Mr. Clinton spoke at a March 2011 ticketed event targeting “the business community in Grand Cayman.”

    The potential for conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s international ventures grew increasingly controversial in late 2008 when the former president released a list of donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.” According to an AP wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the foundation. Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman …” CNN at the time warned that Clinton’s “complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.”

    The controversy deepened further when it was revealed that among those vetting Mrs. Clinton for the job of Secretary of State was Bill Clinton’s former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton family confidant, who, the Washington Postwrote in 1999 “endeared herself to the Clintons with her never-back-down, share-nothing, don’t-give-an-inch approach …” After clearing Mrs. Clinton for the DOS job, Mills was named the incoming Secretary’s Chief of Staff. Ms. Mills was a featured speaker at Bill Clinton’s 2012 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.

    In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Ms. Mills conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Royce C. Lamberth called Cheryl Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco… Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.” Ms. Mills is currently on the Board of Directors of BlackRock, a leading investment firm. BlackRock is run by Larry Fink who reportedly wanted to be Treasury Secretary for Barack Obama and now, according to another report, is “angling for the job” in a Hillary Clinton administration.

    View all the Clintons’ conflict of interest documents here.

    4 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' MERS service agreement exhibit 10' in the forum.
    EX-10.1 2 g03559exv10w1.htm EX-10.1 MORTGAGE LOAN SUBSERVICING AGREEMENT

    Exhibit 10.1
    This SUBSERVICING AGREEMENT ( this “SA”) is made as of September 25th, 2006 between:
    ebank MORTGAGE, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (“Lender”) and a subsidiary of ebank, a federally chartered thrift, whose address is 2401 Lake Park Drive, Suite 200, Smyrna, Georgia; and
    SUNSHINE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation (“Subservicer”), whose address is 2401 Lake Park Drive, Suite 300, Smyrna, Georgia
    A. Subservicer is in the business of originating, servicing and subservicing real estate mortgage loans.
    B. Lender is an affiliate of Subservicer.
    C. Subservicer has the capacity to subservice for Lender the residential mortgage loans currently in Lender’s closed loan portfolio (which, together with any mortgage loans hereafter added with Parties’ consent, are collectively the “Mortgage Loans”). Lender is or will be either (1) the owner of the Mortgage Loans or (2) the owner of the Servicing Rights to the Mortgage Loans. For reference in succeeding paragraphs of this SA, any mortgage loans for which Lender is the owner loan or for which Lender may acquire ownership of the servicing rights in the future, are referred to as “subservicing” or simply as Mortgage Loans.
    D. Lender desires that Subservicer subservice the Mortgage Loans and Subservicer is in agreement to do so, on the terms and conditions hereinafter provided.
    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained in this SA, the Parties agree as follows:
    1.1 For purposes of this SA, each of the following terms shall have the meaning(s) specified:
    “Account Maintenance Fee” is defined in Section I.B(2) of Schedule II.
    “Advances” is defined in Section 3.5.
    “Agencies” mean Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae, each an “Agency”.
    “Ancillary Income” means all fees, administrative fees and other income collected by Subservicer with respect to the Mortgage Loans, either directly from Mortgagors or from others, including without limitation, Optional Insurance premiums, late charges, insufficient funds check charges, assumption fees, release of liability fees, partial release fees, deed release and satisfaction fees

    and any other incidental fees permissible under Applicable Requirements, but does not include (1) servicing fees paid by an Investor to Lender pursuant to a contractual agreement under which Lender is obligated to service any of the Mortgage Loans for such investor; (ii) reimbursement of Advances or certain expenses as herein provided; (iii) the fees and charges described in Sections I.A, I.B, I.D, I.E, I.F, I.G, I.H, I.I, I.J, I,K, I.L, and I.M., Part II and Part III of Schedule II; (iv) collections of T&I and P&I payments from Mortgagors; (v) Loss Mitigation Fees; (vi) origination fees and points even if (for Lender’s convenience) reported by Subservicer to the IRS (vii) prepayment penalties, which shall be retained by Lender; nor (viii) pay-by-phone fees, which shall be retained by Subservicer and for which Subservicer shall pay all associated vendor charges.
    “Applicable Requirements” means and includes, as of the time of reference, all of the following: (i) all Mortgage Loan-related contractual obligations of any Prior Servicer, of Lender and of Subservicer, contained in the mortgage loan documents for which Lender or Subservicer or any prior Subservicer was at any time responsible; (ii) all applicable Mortgage Loan-related federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements (including statutes, rules, regulations and ordinances) binding upon Lender or Subservicer or Prior Subservicer; (iii) all other applicable Mortgage Loan-related requirements and guidelines of (1) each governmental agency, board, commission, instrumentality or other governmental body or officer having jurisdiction (including without limitation those of FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, HUD, USDA/RHS, and VA and their respective Guides) and (2) any applicable PMI companies, including without limitation their respective Guides; and (iv) all other applicable judicial and administrative judgments, orders, stipulations, awards, writs and injunctions.
    “ARM” means an adjustable rate Mortgage Loan that allows the holder of the promissory note secured thereby to periodically adjust the interest rate based on movement in a specified index in accordance with the schedule set forth in said promissory note.
    “Balloon” refers to a Mortgage Loan the principal of which will not fully amortize before the scheduled maturity of the Mortgage Loan.
    “Business Day” means any day other than (i) a Saturday or Sunday, or (ii) a day on which insured depository institutions in Georgia are authorized or obligated by law to be closed.
    “Confidential Information” means, but is not limited to, any items (irrespective of the media used) marked by the disclosing Party as confidential, any items identified by the disclosing Party which qualify as a trade secret pursuant to state law, technical and business information relating to the disclosing Party’s customers, products, research and development, production, manufacturing and engineering processes, computer software, costs, finances, marketing, production, future business plans, subcontractors, the Mortgagors or obligors under any Mortgage Loan, and Lender’s mortgage loan products, whether delivered prior to, contemporaneously with or after the execution of this SA. The term “Confidential Information” shall not include information which : (i) was already known to the receiving Party prior to the time it is disclosed to the receiving Party; (ii) is in or has entered the public domain through no breach of this SA or other wrongful act of the receiving Party; (iii) has been rightfully received from a third party without breach of this SA; (iv) has been approved for release by written authorization of the disclosing Party; or (v) is required to be disclosed to regulators pursuant to the final binding order of a governmental agency or court of competent jurisdiction or as otherwise


    required by law, provided that the disclosing Party has been given reasonable notice thereof and the opportunity to contest same if desired.
    “Cut-Off Date” means the last day of an Investor accounting cycle or reporting cycle, as the context indicates.
    “Escrow Accounts” means all funds and accounts at the time of reference held under the related Mortgage Loans by or for Lender on behalf of the Mortgagors, Investors or others, including but not limited to: (i) Mortgage Loan trust funds and impound accounts maintained or controlled by or for Lender for the purpose of paying, when due, Mortgage Loan-related real estate taxes, special assessments and/or ground rents, hazard insurance premiums, and mortgage insurance premiums; (ii) P&I collections (including payoff funds) not yet remitted to the appropriate Investors; (iii) undisbursed loss draft proceeds arising as a result of insured losses to Mortgage Loan collateral, buydown funds and other unapplied funds; and (iv) all other Mortgage Loan funds held by or for Lender in connection with the Mortgage Loans which do not constitute Lender’s corporate funds.
    “Exit Fee” is defined in Part II of Schedule II.
    “Exit Related Charges” is defined in Part II of Schedule II.
    “FDIC” means the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and any successor.
    “FHA” means the Federal Housing Administration within HUD and any successor.
    “FHLMC” or “Freddie Mac” means the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and any successor.
    “Fidelity” means Fidelity Information Services, Inc, the computer service bureau that provides Subservicer’s Fidelity System.
    “Fidelity System” means Subservicer’s automated mortgage loan servicing system.
    “FNMA” or “Fannie Mae” means the Federal National Mortgage Association and any successor.
    “GNMA” or “Ginnie Mae” means the Government National Mortgage Association and any successor.
    “Guides” means, as of the time of reference, all Mortgage Loan-related published guidance of FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, HUD, USDA/RHS, VA and any PMI companies, including without limitation mortgagee letters, announcements, circulars, handbooks and manuals which establish requirements or procedures applicable to the origination, administration, assignment, pooling, servicing or subservicing of the Mortgage Loans or claims against any identity previously named herein.
    “Hazard Insurance” means all policies of property insurance insuring against loss or damage to any Mortgaged Premises by fire and other perils, including without limitation all endorsements and


    riders thereto, and including so-called fire and extended-coverage insurance policies, homeowner’s insurance policies, flood insurance policies and windstorm insurance policies.
    “HUD” means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and any successor.
    “Investor” means, as of the time of reference: (i) Lender, with respect to portfolio Mortgage Loans owned by Lender and subserviced by Subservicer hereunder; (ii) Fannie Mae with respect to Mortgage Loans owned or securitized by Fannie Mae; (iii) Freddie Mac with respect to Mortgage Loans owned or securitized by Freddie Mac; (iv) with respect to Mortgage Loans collateralizing securities guarantee by Ginnie Mae, either the Party having Issuer responsibility or the holders of related Ginnie Mae-guaranteed certificates or Ginnie Mae, as the context shall indicate; and (v) each owner and holder of Mortgage Loans subserviced by Subservicer for Lender hereunder, other than any owner and holder referred to in the clauses (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv).
    “IRC” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.
    “IRS” means the Internal Revenue Service or any successor.
    “Lender” means the Party identified as such at the top of Page 1 of this SA.
    “Loss Mitigation Fees” are the fees and expenses for loss mitigation activities.
    “MBSO” is defined in Section 2.9.2.
    “MERS” means the Mortgage Electronic Registration System and Mortgage Electronic Registration, Inc., or any successor, collectively or singly, as the context requires.
    “MERS Mortgage Loan” means any Mortgage Loan registered with MERS, whether at or after the transfer date of such Mortgage Loan.
    “Mortgage”, “Mortgages”, and “Mortgage Loans” means the fixed-rate or adjustable mortgage loans and the fixed-rate or adjustable mortgages, security deeds, trust deeds, deeds of trust and other documents securing those loans which comprise the residential mortgage loans being transferred, together with any such loans hereafter subserviced hereunder by mutual agreement of Lender and Subservicer.
    “Mortgaged Premises” means the real estate encumbered by a Mortgage to secure a Mortgage Loan.
    “Mortgagor” means the one or more mortgagors, trustors of trust deeds and deeds of trust, the grantors of any Mortgage securing a Mortgage Loan and the owners of the Mortgaged Premises at the time of reference.
    “NCUA” means the National Credit Union Administration and any successor.


    “Optional Insurance” means mortgage/credit life insurance, accidental death insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance or any similar optional insurance covering a Mortgagor for which premiums are collected by the Subservicer.
    “Original Subservicing” means, as the context shall indicate, (i) the Mortgage Loans existing in the Lender’s portfolio as of the date of the execution of this SA or (ii) the subservicing of those Mortgage Loans as of the date of execution of this SA.
    “Parties” means Lender and Subservicer referred to in this SA, each a “Party”.
    “Person” means a human individual, partnership (limited or general), corporation, limited liability company, joint venture, joint stock company, association, unincorporated organization, government or agency or political subdivision thereof, or other entity.
    “P&I” means principal and interest.
    “PMI” means private mortgage insurance.
    “PMI Companies” means the insurance companies that have issued or will issue PMI policies insuring any of the Mortgage Loans.
    “Prime Rate” means the fluctuating prime rate established each Business Day under the “MONEY RATES” column in The Wall Street Journal.
    “Prior Servicers” means, individually or collectively, all individuals and entities that at any time originated, serviced or subserviced any of the Mortgage Loans.
    “Recon Firm” is defined in Section 2.5(d)(2).
    “REO” means real estate owned, i.e. real property for which the title was acquired by an Investor or by Lender through foreclosure of a Mortgage or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
    “Servicing Rights” means the rights and responsibilities with respect to servicing and subservicing the Mortgage Loans and the associated Escrow Accounts and Mortgage Loan Files.
    “Subservicer” means the Party identified as such at the top of Page 1.
    “T&I” means taxes and insurance.
    “Term” is defined in Section 5.1.


    “Transfer Date” means, for each Mortgage Loan, the date of delivery of the subservicing of such Mortgage Loan to Subservicer for subservicing hereunder.
    “UCC” means the Uniform Commercial Code.
    “USDA/RHA” means the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service and any successor.
    “VA” means U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and any successor.


    2.1 In General
    (a) The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though restated in their entirety. Subservicer hereby agrees to subservice the Mortgage Loans pursuant and subject to the terms of this SA. Subservicer acknowledges and agrees that its provision of services hereunder will be subject to Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) oversight, review and examination.
    (b) Subservicer has only those duties specified in this agreement. The Parties agree that Fannie Mae’s Guide will be the applicable “Guide” as to any servicing function to be performed by subservicer hereunder unless Applicable Requirements necessitate that another standard or procedure be applied to the particular Mortgage Loan(s) in question.
    2.2 Compliance
    (a) Subservicer will comply with, and Subservicer will endeavor to cause each Mortgagor to comply with, all Applicable Requirements and will not take any actions that would constitute or lead to violations of law by Lender or ebank.
    (b) Where applicable, Subservicer will comply with the National Housing Act, as amended, and with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003, as amended, and with all rules and regulations issued under each of those statutes, and with the requirements of PMI companies, including requirements concerning the giving of notices and submitting of claims required to be given or submitted to FHA, USDA/RHS, VA or to PMI Companies, to the end that the full benefit of any applicable FHA insurance, the guaranty of the United States of America, or PMI will inure to the benefit of Lender and Investors as their interests may appear. Subservicer will prepare a monthly report of all such notices and/or claims to Investor if requested in writing by Investor.
    2.3 Duties of Subservicer with Respect to Mortgage Loans
    Until the principal balance and any accrued interest due is paid in full, unless subservicing is sooner terminated pursuant to the terms hereof, but subject always to the Applicable Requirements and Lender’s performance of its obligations under Section 3.5, Subservicer shall:
    (a) Collect payments of principal, interest and applicable escrow deposits for taxes, assessments and other public charges that are generally impounded, hazard insurance premiums, FHA insurance or PMI premiums, and all other items, as they become due;
    (b) Accept payments of P&I and Escrow Account deposits only in accordance with the Mortgage Loan documents. Deficiencies in or excess payments or deposits shall be accepted and applied, or accepted and unapplied, or rejected in accordance with Applicable Requirements;


    (c) Apply all payments and escrow account deposits collected by it from the Mortgagor, and maintain permanent mortgage account records which shall accurately reflect: (i) at any time and in chronological order the date, amount, distribution, payment due date and other transactions affecting the amounts due from or to the Mortgagor; and (ii) the latest outstanding balances of principal, escrow, advances and unapplied funds;
    (d) Pending disbursement, segregate and hold Escrow Accounts in an institution selected by Lender, whose deposits are insured by the FDIC or NCUA, meeting the requirements of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or Ginnie Mae, as appropriate, in such manner as to show the custodial nature thereof, and so that the Investor and each separate Mortgagor whose funds have been contributed to such account(s) will be individually protected, to the extent permitted by law, under the rules of the FDIC or NCUA. Subservicer’s records shall show the respective interests of the Investor and each Mortgagor in all such Escrow Accounts. All funds collected for P&I shall be held and carried in Subservicer’s records either (i) as trustee for Lender, or (ii) as trustee for Lender as custodian for other Investors, as appropriate, and shall be established in such a manner as to comply with all applicable rules and regulations of any governmental agency insuring or guaranteeing the Mortgage Loan(s). Subservicer shall deposit funds into Escrow Accounts within (2) Business Days after funds are applied to the Mortgage Loans. All transfers to and withdrawals from Escrow Accounts will be accomplished through check, wire or ACH transfers; and Lender agrees to establish and maintain all Escrow Accounts in accordance with Agency or other Applicable Requirements, to cooperate with Subservicer to facilitate appropriate draws on such Escrow Accounts and to honor (or if Lender is not a bank or thrift, to direct the banks or thrifts holding Lender’s Escrow Accounts to honor) all such cash items, wires or ACH transfer requests initiated by Subservicer;
    (e) If any federal or state stature or rule of law requires the payment of interest on Escrow Account deposits, then Subservicer will pay such interest on Escrow Accounts which it maintains or controls, subject to Subservicer’s rights of reimbursement under Section 3.5 of this SA. Lender will have the obligation to notify Subservicer if it originates and transfers for subservicing to Subservicer any loans in states where the payment of such interest on Escrow Accounts is applicable. Subservicer will determine the amount of deposits to be made by Mortgagors in accordance with RESPA, and will perform and furnish to each Mortgagor all analyses of the Escrow Account in conformity with Applicable Requirements;
    (f) Maintain accurate records reflecting the status of taxes, ground rents and other recurring charges generally accepted by the mortgage servicing industry that would become a lien on the Mortgaged Premises if unpaid. For all Mortgage Loans providing for the payment to and collection by Subservicer of Escrow Account deposits, Subservicer shall pay such charges for which Escrow Account deposits are maintained before any penalty date and, whenever possible and when required by Applicable Requirements, in time to secure maximum discounts available. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, should any penalty be incurred on loans transferred to Subservicer within 30 days of the tax due date and Lender has failed to notify Subservicer of such imminent disbursement requirement, Lender will be obligated to reimburse Subservicer for said penalty;
    (g) If funds held in a Mortgagor’s Escrow Account are insufficient to timely pay, when due and in full, related real estate taxes and assessments, mortgage insurance premiums, hazard insurance


    premiums, or other items customarily paid from the established Escrow Account, Subservicer will: (1) make Advances to pay such items; (2) endeavor to collect the repayment of the Advances from the Mortgagor in accordance with Applicable Requirements; and (3) request reimbursement from Lender in accordance with Section 3.5;
    (h) For any Mortgage Loan for which Escrow Account deposits have been waived or suspended by Lender, then, upon (i) notification to Subservicer by Subservicer’s tax service of non-payment of real estate taxes, or (ii) notification to Subservicer of non-payment of any other items for which the Lender established escrow collections, or (iii) the failure of any Mortgagor to timely submit evidence of premiums paid on renewal policies of hazard insurance, Subservicer will endeavor to obtain the necessary funds or policies from the Mortgagor. If the Mortgagor fails to timely cure the default, then Subservicer will: (1) make an Advance to pay any delinquent taxes or other delinquent escrow items; (2) if necessary, “force place” lapsed hazard insurance in at least an amount sufficient to protect Lender’s interest; (3) request reimbursement from Lender in accordance with Section 3.5; and (4) take appropriate steps to collect the Advances as quickly as Applicable Requirements permit, and (if not already in place and if Lender is permitted to do so under Applicable Requirements) establish a fully funded Escrow Account at the earliest practicable time;
    (i) Assure that improvements on the Mortgaged Premises securing each Mortgage Loan are insured by Hazard Insurance issued by companies acceptable to Investor in an amount at least equal to the unpaid principal balance of the Mortgage Loan or the full insurable value of the improvements, whichever is less, of a type at least as protective as fire and extended coverage, and containing a “standard” mortgagee clause in the form customarily used in the area in which the Mortgaged Premises are located. In all events, the provisions of the underlying Mortgage Loan documents shall prevail. During the course of subservicing, the mortgagee clause under the Hazard Insurance will name the party insured as follows:
    ebank Mortgage, LLC
    Its Successors and/or Assigns
    2401 Lake Park Drive Suite 200
    Smyrna, GA 30080
    2.4 Other. Subservicer shall be responsible for further safeguarding each Investor’s interest in the Mortgaged Premises and rights under the Mortgage Loan by:
    (a) Inspecting the Mortgaged Premises in accordance with Applicable Requirements, and performing such other inspections as, in Subservicer’s opinion, prudent and sound business judgment dictate;
    (b) To the extent possible, securing any Mortgaged Premises found to be vacant or abandoned and advising Investor of the status thereof;
    (c) Notifying Investor promptly if Subservicer receives written notice of any lien, bankruptcy, condemnation, probate proceeding, tax sale, partition, local ordinate violation, condemnation in the nature of eminent domain or similar event that would, in Subservicer’s judgment,


    impair the Investor’s security; and Subservicer shall assist Investor in undertaking appropriate action to preserve its security;
    (d) Advising Lender promptly upon receipt of any request for a partial release, easement grant, substitution, subdivision or re-subdivision, subordination, alteration, or waiver of security instrument terms, and (if required by Applicable Requirements or if approved by the related Investor) seeking necessary consents to such request;
    (e) (1) Advising Lender promptly in all cases (and advising the related Investor if that Investor is other than the Lender) of any change in ownership of the Mortgaged Premises subject to a Mortgage Loan, and complying with all instructions of Lender and Investor(s) with respect to the acceleration or modification of the indebtedness;
    (2) Notifying Lender promptly following Subservicer’s receipt of an inquiry concerning, or request for approval of, an assumption and supplying all information in the possession of Subservicer which is requested by Lender to facilitate the preparation by Lender of any required disclosures. Lender, if applicable, will prepare and forward (or arrange for delivery of) all disclosures to the assumptors within period set by Applicable Requirements and send a copy of all disclosures to Subservicer. With respect to an assumption, Subservicer shall have no other responsibility or liability regarding disclosures required from Lender (or the Investor if other than Lender, if applicable) or the accurace of the same, except as set forth in this Section 2.4.
    (3) If Lender (and the related Investor) authorize an assumption subject to qualification of the assumptors and receipt of further documentation, the Subservicer shall, upon receipt of a signed contract and an application fee from the Mortgagor and proposed assumptors, provide a Blank application form for completion by the Mortgagor and assumptors, with applicable verification forms from the Mortgagor and proposed assumptors, as applicable, Subservicer will process the application (i.e., request credit reports and verify all information on the completed application) and forward the completed assumption package to Lender for further processing. Lender will then underwrite the requested assumption, request any required Investor and/or PMI Company, FHA or VA approval, and forward approved assumption to Subservicer for final transfer and assumption.
    (f) Maintaining, at all times and at Subservicer’s expense, a policy of Errors and Omissions insurance coverage as required by the Agencies. One of the purposes of such coverage is to provide Lender and Investor protection in liquidating a Mortgage Loan against a net loss that can be attributed to the Mortgaged Premises from hazard or peril required by the Investor to be insured and that otherwise would be insured but for Subservicer’s negligence in allowing insurance coverage to lapse or failing to keep a sufficient amount of insurance in force.
    (g) The disbursing of insurance loss settlements, including:
    (1) the receiving of reports of Hazard Insurance losses and assuring that proof of loss statements are properly filed;
    (2) authorizing the restoration and rehabilitation of the Mortgaged Premises;


    (3) collecting, endorsing and disbursing the insurance loss proceeds and arranging for progress inspections and payments, if necessary;
    (4) complying with all applicable FHA, VA or PMI company requirements pertaining to giving of notices and settlement of mortgage insurance losses; and
    (5) endeavoring to preserve the priority of the Mortgage lien by complying with applicable mechanics’ lien laws, to the extent commercially available and in accordance with Subservicer’s present practices and disbursement practices customary in the mortgage servicing industry
    (h) Processing insurance loss drafts in the following manner:
    (1) Provided that the Mortgage Loan is current in all respects, Subservicer may endorse and deliver to Mortgagor (without prior inspection of the Mortgaged Premises and completion of repairs) settlement drafts for losses up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00);
    (2) With respect to settlement drafts for losses greater than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), but not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), Subservicer may exercise its discretion as to the necessity of inspection and completion of repairs prior to endorsement and delivery of the draft. Subservicer’s discretion will be based on factors such as the extent of the loss, Mortgage Loan payment history, extent of Mortgage Loan amortization, probable equity in the Mortgaged Premises, and any other relevant factors; and
    (3) Before endorsement and delivery of settlement drafts for losses greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), Subservicer shall have an inspection of the Mortgaged Premises performed to ensure that the repairs have been completed.
    (i) Preparing and filing all necessary 1098 tax reports with appropriate Investors, Mortgagors and the IRS, in accordance with Applicable Requirements, covering the period of Subservicer’s subservicing of the related Mortgage Loans. If the Parties subsequently agree in writing, Subservicer shall do 1098 reporting for the entire calendar year in which the Transfer Dates for the Original Subservicing Mortgage Loans occur provided that sufficient information necessary to file such reports is provided by Lender for the periods prior to the respective Transfer Dates on a timely basis and at its sole expense and that Lender shall remain responsible for any errors or omissions in such information provided by Lender.
    2.5 ARM Adjustments; Investor Accounting and Remittances: Paid in Full Mortgage Loans.

    Subject to Applicable Requirements, Subservicer shall:
    (a) Make and implement ARM interest rate adjustments and monthly payment amount adjustments and give all required notices, which adjustments and notices will accurately reflect changes in the applicable Mortgage Loan rate index. Subservicer shall timely notify the Investor, to the extent notification is required by Applicable requirements, of the effective date and method of implementation of such interest rate and payment amount adjustments, any changes to Investor’s share of collections of P&I, and of all prepayments of any Mortgage Loan hereunder by Mortgagor.


    (b) Furnish, upon individual request by Lender, the standard reports available through Subservicer’s Fidelity System. Customized reports, computer tapes, specialized interfaces and downloads requested by Lender will be at Lender’s expense, if available from, or capable of being developed with, Subservicer and the Fidelity System. Subservicer will prepare a Statement of Work and obtain Lender’s written approval before proceeding with any such requests. In no event shall Subservicer be required to prepare manual reports.
    (c) Not accept any prepayment of any Mortgage Loan except as required or permitted under Applicable Requirements, nor waive, modify, release or consent to postponement on the part of the Mortgagor of any term of the Mortgage Loan documents without the prior consent of the Investor.
    (d) (1) Upon receipt of funds which pay a Mortgage Loan in full, Subservicer shall: (i) request the promissory note and original recorded security documents and assignments thereof, if any, from Lender, Agency or document custodian, as appropriate; (ii) prepare and arrange for the required execution and acknowledgement of any documents required by law to be executed by Lender to effectuate release, satisfaction or reconveyance of the related Mortgage; (iii) for so-called “reconveyance states”, prepare and send to the Trustee any necessary request for reconveyance, release, satisfaction or reconveyance documents, together with any applicable fees and charges in connection therewith; (iv) for non-reconveyance states, either (A) prepare and send to the public officer responsible for the recording of real estate documents any necessary release or satisfaction documents, together with any required fees, or (B) prepare and send to the Mortgagor or the Payoff Agent any necessary release or satisfaction documents, for further processing at the behest of the Mortgagor; and (v) refund any unapplied Mortgagor deposits. Lender (or the Mortgagor, to the extent permissible under Applicable Requirements) shall bear Subservicer’s out-of-pocket costs paid to third parties to complete a release, satisfaction or reconveyance process. Lender shall at all times cooperate, in a commercially reasonable manner, with Subservicer to accomplish the timely discharge of record of each instrument which evidenced or secured a paid-in-full Mortgage Loan, so as to avoid the severe penalties which Lender and Subservicer might otherwise incur.
    (2) Subservicer reserves the right to subcontract from time to time with, and use the services of, one or more outsource firms (each a “Recon Firm”), to perform certain duties of Subservicer. Lender agrees: (i) to exert its best efforts to support Subservicer, to assure timely preparation, execution, recording and filing of appropriate reconveyance, release, satisfaction and reconveyance documents; and (ii) from time to time, at Subservicer’s request, to adopt appropriate resolutions appointing designated officers of Subservicer and Subservicer-designated officers of such Recon Firms as duly authorized signing officers of Lender to (A) request necessary documents from Lender’s document custodians; and (B) to execute and record appropriate reconveyance, release, satisfaction and reconveyance documents, provided in each instance that Subservicer has provided reasonable background information if requested by Lender and has performed reasonable due diligence activities on Subservicer’s designees. A suggested form of corporate resolution for that purpose is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Schedule 2.5(d).
    (e) Where Investors require, for a paid-in-full transaction, interest paid through the end of the month although interest collectible from the Mortgagor is paid only to the actual date of the pay-off, advance funds to cover any uncollected due the Investor, as provided in Section 3.5.
    (f) Remit and report to Lender, to the Agencies and other Investors as follows:


    (1) remit to Lender by check, wire or ADC transaction:
    (A) P&I payments collected on behalf of Lender on warehouse or portfolio Mortgage Loans, within (ten) 10 Business Days after the related cut-off date, which, as established by Lender is month-end as it falls during the calendar year;
    (B) service fees collected on behalf of Lender with respect to Agency-owned or third-party-owned Mortgage Loans within (ten) 10 Business Days after the end of each month;
    (C) recoveries of Advances theretofore funded to Subservicer by Lender, within (ten) 10 Business Days after the end of each month; and
    (D) all other sums (if any) then due Lender from the Subservicer under this SA, within ten (10) Business Days after the end of each month;
    except that Subservicer may deduct from (A), ), (C) and (D) any compensation and any other sums then due Subservicer;
    (2) remit to the applicable Agencies and other Investors P&I payments, guaranty fees, and provide reports due from Subservicer in accordance with Applicable Requirements;
    (3) deliver Agency and other Investor cut-off reports, including each monthly Freddie Mac Midanet Reconciliation Reports, to Lender within five (5) Business Days after the related Investor Cut-Off Date; and
    (4) submit, within ten (10) Business Days after the end of each month:
    (A) itemized statements to Lender to describe the compensation and any other sums then due Subservicer; and
    (B) all other portfolio reports due Lender hereunder, unless a longer or shorter time period therefor is specified elsewhere in this SA.
    (g) If Lender requires that Subservicer report and remit directly to any Agency with respect to all mortgage loans service-retained by Lender for that Agency, then Subservicer must subserviced one hundred percent (100%) of mortgage loans which are service-retained by Lender for that Agency; and Subservicer will submit all reports and make all remittances to that Agency under Lender’s assigned “seller/servicer” number or under such other number as Lender and Agency may designate in writing to Subservicer.
    (h) If any Investor instructs Lender to transfer the subservicing of any Mortgage Loan(s), and Lender shall deliver such notice to Subservicer, then Subservicer shall immediately acknowledge, in writing to Lender, the Investor’s request and proceed in accordance with Investor’s instructions. If Lender determines and instructs Subservicer not to proceed with the Investor’s instruction, Lender


    agrees to hold Subservicer harmless from any action taken against Subservicer by the Investor, and from any loss or damage, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting therefrom.
    (i) Manage Escrow Accounts and related deposit accounts as directed by Lender, hold any related custodial deposit accounts associated with receipt, disbursement and accumulation of principal, interest, taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance, etc. as trustee for Lender and/or Investors and/or Mortgagors with the exception of Ginnie Mae servicing. Pursuant to Ginnie Mae’s regulations, Subservicer is not permitted to withdraw./disburse funds from the P&I custodial accounts; however, subservicer shall (i) initiate payments (ACH call-in) in behalf of Lender to the MBS Participant Trust Company and (ii) deliver fully-prepared checks drawn on Lender’s account ready for execution and delivery to the security holders paid by check. Any benefit or value derived from Escrow Account deposits shall accrue to the exclusive benefit of Lender.
    2.6 Delinquency Control
    Subservicer shall:
    (a) Be responsible for protecting Investor’s investment in the Mortgage Loans by endeavoring to maintain the maximum possible number of Mortgage Loans in a current status, dealing quickly and effectively with Mortgagors who are delinquent or in default. Subservicer’s delinquent Mortgage Loan subservicing program shall include: (i) an adequate accounting system which will immediately and accurately indicate the existence of delinquent Mortgage Loans, (ii) a procedure that provides for sending delinquent notices, assessing late charges and returning insufficient payments; and (iii) procedures for the individual analysis of distressed or chronically delinquent Mortgage Loans and the counseling of the related Mortgagors.
    (b) As may be required by the Applicable Requirements, provide Lender and Investor with a month-end collection and delinquency report identifying and describing the status of any delinquent Mortgage Loans, and will from time to time as the need may arise, provide Lender and Investor with Mortgage Loan service reports relating to any items of information which Subservicer is otherwise required to provide hereunder, or detailing any matters Subservicer believes should be brought to the special attention of Lender and/or Investor.
    (c) In accordance with Applicable Requirements and with counsel selected by Subservicer, manage the foreclosure or other disposition of title to the Mortgaged Premises securing any Mortgage Loan, the transfer of the Mortgaged Premises to FHA or VA and the collection of any applicable mortgage insurance or guaranties and, pending completion of these steps, protect the Mortgaged Premises from waste and vandalism. If the Investor is the successful bidder at foreclosure sale or accepts a deed in lieu of foreclosure, Subservicer will have title to the Mortgaged Premises conveyed into any name designated by Investor, except that Subservicer will not itself accept or acquire title to REO.
    Subservicer has no responsibilities concerning REO unless the Investor requests that Subservicer pay the accruing real estate taxes on the REO until the Investor’s ultimate disposition of the REO. If requested by Lender, Subservicer shall also manage the marketing and maintenance of REO, using Subservicer’s standard practices and vendors for such services, in which case Subservicer shall: (i) provide for the eviction of any unauthorized persons or personal property from the REO pursuant to Applicable


    Requirements; (ii) not permit the REO to be occupied or rented; (iii) use reasonable efforts to dispose of the REO as soon as possible and promptly notify Lender of any bona-fide written offer received for the REO and, if such offer if accepted by Lender, assist Lender in the settlement of the transaction and promptly remit the proceeds of the sale to Investor; (iv) provide for ordinary maintenance and repair of the REO including, as necessary, winterization, snow removal, lawn care, pool maintenance, and debris removal. If any single item of repair under clause (iv) exceeds $2,500.00, Subservicer shall obtain Lender’s prior written approval before incurring such expense; if Lender fails to approve such expense, Subservicer’s obligations hereunder shall be deemed modified accordingly. Subservicer shall be entitled to recoup all of its actual expenses incurred under this Section 2.6 including court costs and attorney’s fees. Subservicer’s compensation for managing REO as provided for in this Section 2.6(c) is as provided in Section I.D of Schedule II.
    2.7 Audits, Books and Records
    (a) Lender and its duly authorized employees, agents, accountants and financiers shall have the right, on reasonable prior written notice and during normal business hours of Subservicer, to review Subservicer’s books, records and accounts pertaining to the Mortgage Loans and subservicing thereof. Subservicer will cooperate in all reasonable ways with the requests of Lender’s auditors, providing, however, that Lender remain the point of contact and intermediary. Any requests for Mortgage Loan audit or confirmation to be performed by Subservicer’s audit firm at Lender’s request on Lender’s Mortgage Loans shall be at Lender’s sole expense.
    (b) Subservicer will keep records satisfactory to Lender and Investor(s) pertaining to each Mortgage Loan, and subject to Applicable Requirements: (i) such records shall be the property of Lender; and (ii) upon any transfer of the related subservicing or upon expiration of this SA, such records shall be delivered to Lender or Lender’s designee at Lender’s expense. Subservicer shall deliver such records in the form and manner as are customarily used by Subservicer upon the transfer of servicing.
    2.8 Insurance
    Subservicer will maintain in effect at all times and at its cost, a blanket fidelity bond acceptable to the Agencies. If so requested by Lender, Subservicer shall cause evidence of the existence of such coverage to be delivered to Lender.
    2.9 Optional Services (see Schedule I)
    Lender shall have the right to elect the following optional services now offered by Subservicer:
    2.9.1 Private Label Servicing (“PLS” Option)
    (a) If the related box appearing immediately after the signature blocks of the Parties to this SA contains an “X” at the time of execution of this SA by Lender, then Lender has elected to utilize PLS as offered by Subservicer. If Lender elects PLS, Subservicer will provide coupon books (or monthly statements if Lender elects the MBSO option) to the affected Mortgagors customized with the Lender’s logo and other camera-ready customized graphic designs provided by Lender, at its expense, in the format specified by Subservicer for such purposes. Lender hereby grants to Subservicer the non-exclusive license to use Lender’s name and logo, in any reasonable manner consistent with the purposes


    of this SA; provided, however, that Subservicer shall not engage in any form of advertising utilizing either the name or logo of Lender without Lender’s prior written consent and authorization.
    (b) If Lender has elected to utilize PLS, the additional cost of same is specified in Section I.G of Schedule II.
    (c) Lender may not elect PLS unless Subservicer will subservice not less than one thousand (1,000) Mortgage Loans hereunder at the time of the First Transfer Date.
    2.9.2 Monthly Borrower Statement Option (“MBSO”)
    (a) If the Parties hereafter so agree, or if the related box appearing immediately after the signature blocks of the Parties to this SA contains an “X” at the time of execution of this SA by Lender, then Lender has elected to utilize MBSO offered by Subservicer. If Lender elects MBSO, Subservicer will mail monthly billing statements to the Mortgagor(s) under each Mortgage Loan.
    (b) If Lender has elected to utilize MBSO, the additional cost of same is specified in Section I.J of Schedule II.
    2.9.3 MERS Mortgage Loans
    (a) If the related box appearing immediately after the signature blocks of the Parties to this SA contains an “X” at the time of execution of this SA by Lender, or if at any time hereafter, any MERS Mortgage Loans are subserviced by Subservicer, then Subservicer’s duties to Lender and Lender’s duties to Subservicer with respect to the MERS Mortgage Loans shall be only those same duties specified in this SA applicable to one-to-four family residential Mortgage Loans, except as follows:
    (1) Subservicer shall, on behalf of Lender, be responsible for the registration of any Mortgage Loans with MERS closed on acceptable MERS documentation. In the event that preparation and recording of any mortgage assignments or other documentation is required to perfect the eligibility of any Mortgage Loan to be a MERS Mortgage Loan, these functions remain the responsibility of Lender.
    Lender shall be either the owner of the servicing rights to, or the beneficial owner of each MERS Mortgage Loan. Subservicer shall be identified as the subservicer for each MERS Mortgage Loan. Prior to the registration of any MERS Mortgage Loan, each Party shall provide to the other its MERS “ORG ID” number, which shall be used by the other Party solely for the activities permitted pursuant to this SA. For each MERS Mortgage Loan, Lender will provide Subservicer with the Mortgage Identification Number (“MIN”) and designate whether or not it is a MERS as Original Mortgagee (“MOM”) loan. Such information shall be provided in a format reasonably specified by Subservicer. Following receipt of such information, Subservicer shall promptly populate the MIN, registration date, MOM and registration flag, and Lender’s and Subservicer’s ORG ID fields on the Fidelity System master file of the MERS Mortgage Loan.
    (2) The foreclosure of any MERS Mortgage Loan shall identify MERS as the mortgagee of record and party to whom title should be conveyed upon completion of foreclosure, unless


    Lender otherwise designates in writing at the time Lender approved the MERS Mortgage Loan for foreclosure. If Lender requires that the foreclosure occur in a name other than MERS, Subservicer may elect to automatically, on an individual case basis, complete the deregistration of the MERS Mortgage Loan and, if reinstatement occurs, any re-registration of the MERS mortgage loan.
    (3) Lender shall be responsible for verifying all MERS information related to the MERS Mortgage Loans (including without limitation the validity of the MIN) and shall notify Subservicer in writing of any changes; provided, however, that Subservicer shall update MERS in connection with (1) any Mortgagor name change processed by Subservicer on the Fidelity system in connection with the transfer of any interest in the Mortgaged Premises or assumption of the MERS Mortgage Loan; (2) any foreclosure first legal action, reinstatement or liquidation of the Mortgaged Premises to the extent that such matters are directly handled by Subservicer under the terms of this SA; and (3) any release and satisfaction of a paid-in-full MERS Mortgage Loan. Lender shall be responsible for all Quality Assurance reviews of MERS Mortgage Loans, as such reviews are required from time to time by MERS.
    (4) For any MERS Mortgage Loan identified by Lender to Subservicer for servicing transfer and for which Lender provides sufficient information, Subservicer shall prepare a Transfer of Servicing (TOS) report from the Fidelity System service release workstation and transmit the TOS report to MERS. Subservicer may also, at its election, provide such transfer information to MERS manually or by other means of interface with MERS. Lender and the party to whom the MERS Mortgage Loan is to be transferred shall be responsible for review and verification of transfer information, confirmation or correction of the terms of transfer, and all documentation required by MERS in connection with the transfer. Subservicer may elect to perform this function on behalf of Lender provided all necessary information is provided in a timely manner.
    (5) At all times during the Term of this SA, Lender shall maintain such authorizations with MERS as are necessary to permit Subservicer to perform its obligations. Lender acknowledges that Subservicer shall be entitled to execute on behalf of Lender, or authorize MERS to execute on behalf of Lender or in MERS own name, documents to the same extent as Subservicer or its designated employees, as officers of Lender, are authorized to execute documents in Lender’s name pursuant to the terms of this SA. Upon request of the Subservicer, Lender shall adopt such resolutions or ratify the scope of authority of such resolutions with respect to MERS Mortgage Loans.
    (6) Lender shall be responsible for maintaining any investor, warehouse financing, permanent financing or securitization information on MERS for the MERS Mortgage Loans for obtaining any consents required by MERS of any parties holding any ownership or collateral security interest in connection with the registration, deregistration, release or transfer of any interest in a MERS Mortgage Loan.
    (7) All MERS costs and expenses associated with MERS Mortgage Loans, whether incurred by third parties or billed by MERS, shall be billed to and paid by Lender, excepting only that Subservicer shall bear the cost of maintaining its MERS membership.
    (b) The Parties acknowledge that the subservicing of MERS Mortgage Loans is being made at Lender’s request and direction and for Lender’s convenience and, as a result thereof, Subservicer


    shall, except to the extent that Subservicer fails to fulfill its express undertakings with respect to MERS Mortgage Loans pursuant to this SA, be entitled to full indemnification by Lender pursuant to Section 8.3. Each Party shall promptly notify the other of any claim or demand filed by MERS or any other party with respect to a MERS Mortgage Loan.
    (c) The additional cost to Lender for MERS Mortgage Loans is specified in Section I.L of Schedule II.
    3.1 Documentation
    Lender shall provide (or cause any transferor servicer or subservicer of any Mortgage Loans to provide) to Subservicer, at no cost to Subservicer:
    (a) Before commencement of subservicing hereunder, copies of all files, documents and record which are deemed necessary or appropriate by Subservicer to receive in order to conduct the subservicing of the Mortgage Loans currently in Lender’s portfolio as of Transfer Date. It is understood that Subservicer shall not receive and is not responsible for safeguarding Lender’s original documents unless Subservicer has requested and received same;
    (b) applicable documentation for each Mortgage Loan to be subserviced hereunder, to enable Subservicer to convert or audit all required database fields and to continue subservicing the Mortgage Loan on Subservicer’s Fidelity System, without necessity of special enhancements, optional subsystems or special programming. All such documentation must be delivered to Subservicer promptly, either before or just after the related Transfer Date, and, in all events, within a reasonable amount of time before any Investor reporting is due from Subservicer;
    (c) if applicable and as soon as possible, a complete and accurate listing of any Mortgage Loans where the Mortgage Loan payment is inclusive of personal or group insurance, in any such detail as Subservicer may reasonably require, including without limitation the name of the insurance company, type of premium coverage, premium amount, and the name and telephone number of the individual at Lender’s firm or affiliate knowledgeable of such coverage.
    (d) written evidence (or appropriate electronic data confirming) that a hazard insurance policy is in force for each Mortgage Loan delivered to Subservicer for subservicing. Prior to the transfer date for Original Subservicing Mortgage Loans and with sufficient time prior to policy expiration, Lender will notify all carriers of hazard insurance policies to send all future notifications to or at the direction of Subservicer. Lender will indemnify and hold Subservicer harmless from any loss or damage resulting from lapse or insufficient coverage of hazard insurance coverage or insufficient evidence of coverage delivered to Subservicer on or before the related Transfer Date; and
    (e) for each Mortgage Loan to be subserviced hereunder, all at Lender’s cost, the transfer of any existing real estate tax service contracts and transferable life of loan flood zone determination to Subservicer; see the provisions of Section 1.E of Schedule II concerning real estate tax service contracts or transferable life of loan flood zone determinations not then in existence.


    3.2 Further Notification
    Lender shall:
    (a) advise Subservicer upon delivery of each Mortgage Loan submitted for subservicing as to whether the Mortgage Loan is in a warehouse (unsold) status or, if sold, specific information regarding the intended permanent Investor. If a Mortgage Loan which has been delivered to Subservicer of the sale in a warehouse (unsold) status is sold, Lender will immediately notify Subservicer of the sale and will deliver a written copy of the permanent Investor’s purchase advice or funding detail report immediately thereafter. If the Investor charges a penalty for late reporting, remittances, etc., which were caused by Lender’s delay in notifying Subservicer of the Investor’s purchase of the Mortgage Loan(s), Lender agrees to promptly pay the penalty and Subservicer shall have no liability on account thereof; and
    (b) discharge Subservicer from all funding liability for all Advances related to any Mortgage Loan included in any pool created through Mortgage-Backed Securities or Certificates, including Advances due to negative amortization to the extent that Subservicer makes remittances to Investors. Subservicer will reimburse Lender as recoveries are made from Mortgagors.
    3.3 Default
    If: (i) Lender fails to pay to Subservicer any sums as and when due and payable to Subservicer under this SA, whether as compensation, reimbursement or otherwise; or (ii) any secured party holding a security interest granted by Lender as debtor shall demand that Subservicer pay over to that secured party any sums otherwise payable to Lender under this SA; or (iii) Lender shall be in default hereunder in any other material respect, then Subservicer shall: (A) be entitled to set off, against its damages, all sums due from Subservicer to Lender hereunder; and (B) have and may exercise all other remedies permitted by law for breach of contract.
    3.4 Compliance
    During the Term of this SA, including any extensions hereof, Lender agrees to comply with those Applicable Requirements relating to the Mortgage Loans that are the responsibility of Lender.
    3.5 Advances
    (a) Lender has agreed: (i) to bear the risk of credit losses inherent in the Mortgage Loan servicing and subservicing portfolios hereunder, except for those losses caused by Subservicer’s failure to comply with Applicable Requirements (including failure to comply with the provisions of this SA) and except as explicitly agreed to be borne by FHA, VA, any Investor or any PMI company; and (ii) to fund to Subservicer or reimburse Subservicer the amount of all advances required to be made by Subservicer (collectively, the “Advances”) to third parties: (A) under the terms of this SA; (B) under any applicable Servicing Agreements by which Lender or Subservicer is or may be bound; or (C) otherwise under Applicable Requirements.
    (1) Subservicer will notify Lender not later than one (1) Business Day before any Investor P&I remittance is due if P&I funds must be immediately deposited into the appropriate P&I account for remittance to such Investor;


    (2) Lender will reimburse Subservicer for T&I and other non-P&I advances once each month, through a process of netting the amount due Subservicer against the sums due Lender. If Subservicer believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the net monthly remittance next due Lender from Subservicer will be a negative amount, then Lender will provide funding or reimburse Subservicer therefore within two (2) Business Days after Lender’s receipt of Subservicer’s written request therefore.
    Without limiting the generality of the term “Advances”, Advances may be triggered by the need to pay any of the following: principal and/or interest to an Investor; interest to Mortgagors on their Escrow account balances; FHA mortgage insurance premiums or PMI, ground rents, taxes, special assessments or hazard insurance premiums over and above the amounts held in the related Escrow Accounts for such purposes; costs, expenses and fees of foreclosure or of acquiring title to the Mortgaged Premises by deed in lieu of foreclosure; costs, expenses and fees related to the management, maintenance and disposition of REO; and costs, expenses and fees of conveyance of any Mortgaged Premises to FHA, VA or a PMI company or to inspect or protect or repair the Mortgaged Premises; and recording charges and trustees’ fees incident to release, reconveyance or satisfaction of any paid in full Mortgage Loan.
    (b) Subservicer shall diligently endeavor to collect and recover from the Mortgagor(s), in accordance with Applicable Requirements, all Advances made by Subservicer which are not timely paid by, but which are the ultimate obligations of, the Mortgagors. If and when Subservicer is required to pay interest to any Investor through the end of a month, even though interest on an underlying Mortgage Loan ceased to accrue as of the date of payoff, the interest not collected as a consequence of the payoff before the end of such month shall be treated as an Advance to be paid or reimbursed by Lender, except to the extent the loss is attributable to Subservicer’s failure to apply timely payments actually received.
    (c) Upon any collection of Advances by Servicer from time to time, such collections shall be promptly applied in full, to the extent thereof, in the following order of priority: (i) to reimburse Subservicer for any unrecouped Advances disbursed by Subservicer from Subservicer’s corporate resources if Subservicer has elected in any instance to fund Advances from its own corporate resources; and (ii) any excess shall be refunded to Lender.
    (d) Subservicer shall utilize funds of Lender under this Section 3.5 solely to fund Advances required to be made by Subservicer under this SA or otherwise under Applicable Requirements. As a part of the monthly report set due Lender, Subservicer will, at Lender’s written request, provide complete supporting documentation to Lender detailing Subservicer’s uses of Lender’s funds.
    3.6 Document Custodians; Expenses
    Lender will utilize Subservicer’s document custodians (to the extent permitted by Applicable Regulations) and bear the entire cost of establishing and maintaining each document custodian regime or any other Investor with respect to any of the Mortgage Loans. To the maximum extent permissible under Applicable Requirements, Lender will instruct each custodian to cooperate with reasonable requests of Subservicer, especially in connection with requests for documents or information to enable Subservicer to process releases of paid-in-full Mortgage Loans.


    4.1 Compensation to Subservicer
    For providing the services outlined in this SA, the Parties agree that:
    (a) Subservicer shall be paid the fees and funded for Advances and certain expenses as provided in Schedule II and elsewhere in this SA (i) during the Term, and (ii) after termination or expiration of this SA and until completion of the transfer of subservicing to Lender or its designee if Subservicer is continuing to provide the services required of it hereunder with respect to the Mortgage Loans.
    (b) Subservicer reserves the right to charge Lender: (i) for any additional out-of-pocket costs which Subservicer incurs for the setup and subservicing of any Mortgage Loan which is not then compatible with, and therefore cannot be subserviced on Subservicer’s Fidelity System without special enhancements, optional subsystems or special programming.
    (c) Any miscellaneous costs incurred by Subservicer from extraordinary requests by Lender or any Investor shall be billed to Lender at cost and promptly paid by Lender upon receipt of billing therefore.
    4.2 Solicitation
    (a) Lender and Subservicer, including any of their respective affiliates, reserve the right to solicit individual Mortgagors for Optional Insurance. At Subservicer’s request, Lender agrees to enter into written joint marketing agreements with the insurance companies customarily used by Subservicer to market Optional Insurance, which agreements shall contain confidentiality provisions consistent with the provisions in this SA. Subservicer agrees that all such contracts for Optional Insurance solicitations shall, if nonpublic personal information shall be used in connection therewith, bind all such parties that (i) any nonpublic personal information concerning Mortgagors provided to them shall only be used for purposes of performing the services for which they have been engaged (ii) they may not disclose any such nonpublic personal information to others without Lender’s prior written consent; and (iii) they shall maintain adequate security policies and procedures designed to protect such nonpublic personal information from any inappropriate use or disclosure. Any resulting income from Optional Insurance will be allocated in accordance with Section I.C of Schedule II.
    (b) Except upon the prior written request or consent of Lender, neither Subservicer nor any affiliate of Subservicer (and not of Lender) shall solicit a refinancing of any Mortgage Loan nor sell, rent or otherwise provide to anyone a list of any of the Mortgage Loan Mortgagors.
    5.1 Term.
    The original term shall be for five (5) years, commencing on the 1st day of January, 2007 and ending on the day before the fifth (5th) anniversary of that commencement date. The Term shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year periods after the initial five (5) years of the Term unless


    either Lender delivers written notice of non-renewal to Subservicer not less than three (3) months before or Subservicer delivers written notice of non-renewal to Lender not less than six (6) months before the expiration of the original period of any extension of the Term, as the case may be.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this SA, upon request of the OTS or Lender, this Agreement may be terminated i
    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Howard Bowles' PAC Cases with Clinton in the forum
    The Arkansas swamp continues to bleed, while the spotlight shines on the Clinton Foundation. Part 1 of the Arkansas Swamp covered dozens of arrests, indictments, guilty pleas, and a key chart indicating potential upcoming arrests, from the ongoing investigations taking place in Little Rock, Arkansas. One sung like a bird, while another strong-armed others to remain silent, and yet another set out for murder-to-hire. It is important to review Part 1 to understand the magnitude of the Arkansas swamp, and the potential squeeze it may be putting on the Clinton Foundation. Their investigations have already connected senators, legislators, lobbyists, non-profits, and companies, spanning four states, with the primary focus in Arkansas. Some may believe that the Clintons haven’t been involved in Arkansas dealings for quite some time – they would be mistaken.

    Deputy AG Llyod Warford, head of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in Little Rock, made it very clear that there are ongoing investigations on a Federal level as well. This is what he had to say when asked if more indictments are coming:

    I’m reasonably certain there will be more people charged, either by us or the feds. While our investigation is separate from the federal investigation, we have communicated with them about our targets and their targets, and to some extent there’s been some cooperation.

    When Warford was asked if they were investigating any legislators, he said “yes” and confirmed those legislators had not yet been charged. Again, they have four million documents being held in a vault that they created, in addition to 200 GB of data they pulled out of DHS. Warford also confirmed that his unit is investigating Medicaid fraud schemes at other behavioral health providers besides Preferred Family Healthcare. This is important information to make a mental note of.

    Before getting to the testimony heard on December 13th, by financial analysts John Moynihan and Larry Doyle on the Clinton Foundation, and how the Arkansas swamp investigations connect to the Clintons, there are a few key events that have taken place over the past couple of weeks.

    More Arrests, Convictions & Lawsuits

    indictments, arrests, jail, guilty pleasFIRST CASE
    Henry Wilkins IV, former Arkansas State Senator and Jefferson County Judge, who pleaded guilty in April to conspiring to commit offences against the United States, was scheduled for sentencing on December 7th after already having been delayed. It was then postponed again, until January 30, 2019, based on a sealed motion granted by Chief US District Judge Brian Miller in Little Rock. Both the government and Wilkins’ attorneys filed a joint motion to postpone sentencing. Why would sentencing be postponed for a man who pleaded guilty eight months prior? What’s in that newly sealed motion? Are they still working on a plea deal, and possibly gathering additional information to their ongoing investigation? Henry Wilkins IV comes from three generations of family members in the political arena, and the connections to the Bill and Hillary Clinton are significant, as seen later in this article.

    On November 5th Harold “H.L.” Moody, a special events coordinator for Pulaski County Youth Services, was arrested on two counts of receipt of child pornography, three counts of distribution of child pornography, and a single count of conspiring to advertise child pornography. He also smoked methamphetamine while at his desk during regular work hours. Moody had that job for nearly two years before his arrest and was previously a DNC political consultant. He was a communications director for the Democratic Party of Arkansas for a year-and-a-half, and prior to that, he was chairman of the Pulaski Democratic Party for two years.

    The nature of the photographs and videos Moody is accused of distributing, contain images of babies and young children being raped. According to agent Bennett’s testimony, she observed Moody as initially viewing the images, then distributing them, and had escalated to hosting sessions whereby people in a secure chatroom were streaming live videos of infants being raped. Despite all of this, Moody’s attorney stated that if the judge allowed him to remain free while awaiting trial in January, there were two business owners who offered to let Moody work for them. Those businesses were not disclosed. There is a connection to this case described further down in this article.

    Attorneys for Jim Parsons, a former Ecclesia College board member, is suing Preferred Family Healthcare and its subsidiaries Decision Point, Dayspring Behavioral Health Services, and Wilbur D. Mills Treatment Center, for ill-gotten state taxpayer money. His attorneys filed the illegal exaction lawsuit on November 27, 2018. This is an interesting case, as it names additional names that are not listed in past arrests or indictments, and could very well be some of the players listed in indictments as “Person” or “Employee” (see key chart in Part 1). The suit also lists executives and board members or lobbyists. The suit lists $52.8 million from state taxpayers between 2011 and 2016, distributed by Arkansas DHS’s Medicaid programs.

    Some of the names listed in this suit, that are not already listed in previous arrests or indictments, are Mark Kastner, Lisa Fairley, Gary McMurtry, Patricia Wallace, Stan Melton, John Benson, Wendell Parish, Robert Berry, and Anthony Henderson. The lawsuit doesn’t involve Ecclesia College, another Arkansas case covered in Part 1, however, Parsons is suing the college in Washington County Circuit Court, seeking the return of funds that were involved in that kickback scheme as well.

    Another conviction in a Philadelphia case recently took place on December 3rd, which just so happens to include D.A. Jones, a lobbyist who waved his right to a grand jury and pleaded guilty in December, 2017 for conspiring with a former Arkansas state legislator and Preferred Family Healthcare to spend nearly $1 million on illegal political activity and kickbacks to conspirators. This case is covered in the Arkansas Swamp Part 1. Kenneth Smukler of Pennsylvania was convicted of making and concealing illegal campaign contributions in two Congressional primary elections. Smukler worked for Congressman Bob Brady, who was running against Philadelphia Municipal Judge Jimmie Moore, and orchestrated a payment of $90,000 with Moore’s campaign manager Carolyn Cavaness, and campaign consultant D.A. Jones, to pay Moore off, so he would drop out of the primary election. They have all pleaded guilty in this case, except Brady. Brady was being investigated as of November 2017, announced in January he would not run for reelection, and as of November 2018, despite testimony from all involved stating that Brady was complicit, litigators seemed to have run out the clock on the statute of limitations. Carolyn Cavaness is a former Hillary Clinton staffer.

    Thus far, the Arkansas swamp arrests, indictments, and guilty pleas, travel across several state lines, including Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Oklahoma. These are bundles of corrupt political webs, directly impacting legislation, elections, and taxpayer dollars, that form a much bigger network.

    Critical Testimony on The Clinton Foundation

    December 13, 2018 was a day of anticipation for many that were waiting to hear from US Attorney John Huber about his findings on the Clinton Foundation. However, US Representative Mark Meadows, and financial analysts John Moynihan, and Larry Doyle all suggested he was not present at the hearing due to ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. Interestingly, Moynihan and Doyle stated they sent documents to Huber’s office three times because his office stated they “misplaced” the documents. Meanwhile, they are confident that the FBI in Little Rock is in fact investigating the Clintons, and even have photos of the IRS and FBI loading a 757 plane with boxes of Clinton Foundation documents. When taking all of this information into consideration, it suggests that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation may have always resided with the FBI in Little Rock, and Huber may not even be involved in those specific investigations. It’s difficult to say at this point. One thing is for certain, it has been kept very quiet and without leaks.

    On the same day as the hearing, It was later reported that Huber had been attending a media round table in Utah with FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric Barnhart, to alert the public to victims of child exploitation, and discussed other topics on gangs, drug activity, and violent crimes. Both Barnhart and Huber reported that offenders are likely to commit the same crimes after being released from even lengthy prison terms and the best treatment efforts. Huber stated that his office takes on some of the worst cases you can imagine, and one particular case involved 600 images of child pornography. He had this to say about it:

    600 images of child pornography translate to 600 victims who have been raped, sodomized, and otherwise exploited for sexual gratification. That’s why these crimes are serious… this isn’t looking at a dirty magazine… this is harming children, exploiting them and passing on those images and videos.

    It’s supply and demand, and there’s a great demand. I don’t know what we do as a society to cure that problem, to lessen that problem, but it is a growing demand and it’s ever present, and our children are, unfortunately, the fodder and the currency in that world.

    The House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on the Clinton Foundation proceeded without Huber. Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch, Associate Professor of Law Phillip Hackney, and outside whistleblowers and financial analysts Larry Doyle and John Moynihan, were all in attendance to testify. Doyle and Moynihan had been meticulously working on the Clinton Foundation financials and taxes for three years, and had submitted documents to the FBI in Little Rock, as well as several jurisdictions on both local and state levels. Their testimony provided some key information. As of December 20th, the transcript and video currently remain on c-span, but may one day be scrubbed. Corey’s Digs has preserved the video, should it ever need to be resurrected.

    Key takeaways from the testimony of Moynihan and Doyle, per c-span transcript (type errors included):

    • “We sent our appeal in with a FOE COE – photo copy of the FBI and IRS removing boxes from the Clinton Foundation after they brought a 757 down and taken the materials out of the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas. We sent that to demonstrate that your letter coming from Atlanta doesn’t reconcile with what’s going on in Little Rock.”

    • “It was an open and ongoing investigation he couldn’t comment on. That would indeed indicate there’s an investigation.”

    • “He stated (Clinton Foundation CFO Andrew Kessel) very specifically, and it took us both off guard, I’ve been doing this a long time, but when someone says, I know where all the bodies are buried.”

    • “Overall it might have been 40% by our calculations, ended up going to programs, and 60% was administrative.” (This refers to the amount of CF funds that went to administrative, which is generally 15% for non-profits.)

    • “Mr. Doyle, you said from $400 million to $2.5 billion might be subject to taxation. So you’re saying, worst case is in your opinion $400 million were improperly used in a charitable foundation named the ‘Clinton Foundation’, is that correct?” Doyle: “Yes.”

    • “They were brokering money and brokering pharmaceuticals. They were an agent of money through these donors. They would take a fee, and broker the money and broker relationships with pharmaceutical companies. By the same token, they were brokering the pharmaceuticals and taking some.”

    • “Our conclusions, in the interest of time, are this – foreign agent. The Foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments throughout its life and continues to do so. As such, they should have registered under FARWA. The auditors acknowledged this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did not operate as an agent.”

    • Meadows: All right, so who approved the 501-C-3 status for the Foundation? Moynihan: Would have been the IRS. Meadows: Do you have the document? Moynihan: We have it. We’ve got the determination letters. Meadows: It was approved for what? Building a library or? Moynihan: The initial approval was simply for library. Meadows: Who modified it? Moynihan: We saw no modifications to the articles of incorporation. …. In order to go forward the application has a schedule G that asks you if CHAI is a successor organization to a previous one, so you have the library, then you have this CHAI running unapproved. You gotta get approved….. They go and make an application, and on the form schedule G, when it’s asked, is this a successor operation, they specifically and affirmatively answered no. That is a misrepresentation because it’s the same people doing the same thing.

    Clinton Health Matters Initiative Operating in Arkansas During Ongoing Investigations

    In November 2012 the Clintons launched ‘Clinton Health Matters Initiative’ in partnership with GE, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and Verizon, to focus on health issues in underserved communities. According to their 5-year plan, they state, “the Clinton Foundation announced that Central Arkansas (Pulaski County) would be the site of the second Community Health Transformation community. From its inception, CHMI designed this work with both a national and regional focus in Central Arkansas, with the support of core strategic partners and the Clinton Presidential Center. CHMI will serve as a convener of key local stakeholders, across sectors to implement a locally developed blueprint for action, based on each community’s unique health indicators.” Verizon was to address the health gaps by providing remote and home patient monitoring technologies as a key component to CHMI.

    Other regions within CHMI’s Community Health Transformation (CHT) portfolio include Adams County, Mississippi; Northeast Florida (Jacksonville); Greater Houston, Texas; Knox County, Illinois; and San Diego County, California. In 2018, CHMI completed its five-year engagement in the Coachella Valley, California.

    GE, Clinton Foundation, Tenet Healthcare Corporation

    This partnership may raise eyebrows, considering the decades-long investigations and corruption within these organizations. Tenet Healthcare Corporation has been under numerous investigations dating back to 2000, resulting in almost $2 billion in fines and settlements over kickbacks, Medicaid and Medicare fraud, and likely more with the recent charges on October 3, 2016 for defrauding the US while making illegal payments in exchange for patient referrals, with a fine of $513 million. Then again, on February 1, 2017, a former executive was charged for alleged role in $400 million scheme to defraud Medicaid programs and patients of Tenet hospitals.

    Meanwhile, GE was just hit with new investigations from SEC and the Justice Department in October, adding to the SEC investigation from January over GE’s accounting tactics as well as a $6.2 billion insurance loss. In 2009, the SEC charged GE with accounting fraud which resulted in a $50 million settlement charge. There are also multiple lawsuits against GE in the courts, including shareholders against GE.

    Over on the Verizon front, there’s been a lot of heat on them for throttling firefighters’ data connections during the wildfire crisis in California. The fire department had purchased an unlimited data plan from Verizon, but once they hit 25GB usage, Verizon began throttling their speed to 1/200 or less. Even after Verizon was alerted that it was affecting their ability to provide emergency service, they continued to slow data speeds until the fire department purchased a more expensive plan to speed up the service.

    The Clinton Foundation has been under scrutiny for over a decade and is allegedly under investigation in Little Rock right now, according to multiple source, which was first reported by John Solomon at The Hill in January 2018. This partnership consists of four organizations, three of which have been under investigations spanning well over a decade, and some of whom have already been charged for fraud multiple times.

    Clinton Health Matters Initiative is another “initiative” operating as a fictitious name under the Clinton Foundation, and was never filed correctly with the IRS. Therefore, from 2012-2017 it was operating illegally, working in health areas that was far outside the scope of what the Clinton Foundation was approved for by the IRS. The CEO, Alex Chan, of Clinton Health Matters Initiative, is also the CEO of the Clinton Foundation. The regional director Tionna Jenkins, previously served a three-year appointment to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Regional Equity Council.

    Their five-year plan goes on to state: Arkansas’s rate of total uninsured residents declined by 50 percent between 2013 and 2016 and the rate of uninsured children in Arkansas dropped in 2016 to four percent. This is due in part to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion – also known as the private option and now rebranded as “Arkansas Works” – which was approved by the state legislature in 2013.

    Medicaid is a key component in their work, and also happens to be a key component with the investigations and indictments rolling out in the Arkansas Swamp, all of which is separate from ongoing Federal investigations that have a lid on them. There are 35 states that have implemented the “Medicaid expansion,” which allows for Americans earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to qualify for Medicaid under Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    States were given this option to expand Medicaid, but what makes Arkansas unique, is that they accept the federal money provided through the ACA to buy private insurance for about 250,000 eligible low-income residents, through the marketplace. This was an approved plan by the federal government in September 2013. They were the first state to work with the Obama administration on creating this unique plan, and then-Gov. Beebe was pleased to get it passed, despite the fact that it would be much costlier for the federal government who was willing to pay 100 percent of the costs for the Medicaid expansion up until 2017.

    In December, Iowa followed suit with utilizing the funds for residents to purchase private insurance, and in March of 2015, New Hampshire did the same. In 2014, under Governor Corbett, Pennsylvania obtained a waiver to expand Medicaid for buying private insurance as well, but Governor Wolf transitioned it back to traditional Medicaid expansion in 2015.

    That said, there are a few states, including Arkansas, that are now instituting work requirements for Medicaid adults, which is creating a lot of issues in the courts. A federal judge in Kentucky temporarily blocked the requirement from taking effect, and two of the groups that challenged Kentucky’s work requirement are now trying to put a halt to Arkansas’ requirement.

    The timeline of this Medicaid expansion is rather interesting, when comparing it to both the Clinton’s new initiative, as well as the investigations, especially taking into consideration the amount of Medicaid fraud charges that seem to be exploding over the past several years. The Medicaid timeline is broken down below.

    To put CHMI’s reach in perspective, they partner with more than 200 stakeholders from the public, private, and philanthropic sectors and strategic partners from the health and wellness community. Together, they created a five-year strategy to improve health and wellness in Central Arkansas, known as a “Blueprint for Action.” Here is a very short list of those partnering with the Clinton Foundation, GE, and Verizon in this initiative:

    • Pulaski County Youth Services
    • Arkansas Department of Human Services (DCFS), Department of Youth Services
    • New Futures for Youth
    • Planned Parenthood
    • Winthrop Rockefeller Institute
    • Loop Capital Markets
    • Ben Noble, Noble Strategies, LLC (Tyson foods, Riceland Foods, Inc.)
    • American Red Cross
    • Governor’s Office, Governor Mike Beebe
    • Little Rock Mayor’s Office and Mayor Riley McKinzie of Wrightsville, AR
    • Little Rock Police Department
    • Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office
    • Alliance for a Healthier Generation
    • Mexican Consulate, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
    • Arkansas Department of Health and Department of Education
    • Little Rock School District
    • University of Arkansas at Little Rock
    • AT & T, Verizon Wireless and Comcast
    • Numerous hospitals, schools, churches, commissions and foundations

    This begs the question, how is it CPAs, attorneys, financial analysts, and a seemingly large number of the American people are fully aware that this “initiative” is operating illegally, yet these folks continue to do work with them?

    In 2013, they held a roundtable breakfast, and had this to say about it: “In addition to the key stakeholder interviews and engagement strategy, a corporate roundtable breakfast was held in 2013 in parallel with our efforts to collect information through the interviews and health outcomes data. CHMI, in partnership with then-Governor Mike Beebe; Dr. Joe Thompson, Arkansas Surgeon General; Dr. Joe Bates, senior public health advisor; and Grant Tennille, executive director, of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission hosted this breakfast to introduce CHMI to the Arkansas corporate and business community to support the work of existing public private partnerships and garner both national and local connections that address immediate needs in the region.”

    One such partner is ‘Arkansas Impact Philanthropy’ (AIP)
    In December 2015, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, Clinton Foundation, and the Council on Foundations co-hosted a meeting at the Clinton Presidential Center on the local relevance of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, in alignment with the Blueprint’s goal for Central Arkansas. In October 2016, they joined again, along with the Arkansas Community Foundation, to host the Bold Ideas Gathering (BIG), bringing together 50 leaders from 26 philanthropic organizations to form Arkansas Impact Philanthropy. Their focus is to work together to address access to health care, quality education, and family-supporting jobs.

    Since their inception, foundations such as Tyson Foundation, Mary Reynold Babcock Foundation, Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, Walmart Foundation, Carl and Florence King Foundation, Arkansas Community Foundation, and Delta Dental are just a handful of the foundations working together on this joint project. The Arkansas Community Foundation is a statewide foundation that was founded in 1976 with an initial investment of $258,000 from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, which they continue to give grants to today. Just this October, the Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust gifted $100 million to the University of Arkansas, who is also working with CHMI. Winthrop Rockefeller moved to Arkansas in 1953, served as the 37th governor from 1967-1971, and passed away in 1973 at the age of 60.

    Another Partner is The Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI)
    In addition to the University and state departments, they are partnered with the Clinton Foundation as listed under ‘partner organizations’ document from 2013. ACHI refers to themselves as a “nonpartisan, independent, health policy center that serves as a catalyst to improve the health of Arkansas.” They implement local, state, and federal programs to improve health in Arkansas communities and schools. They work in partnership with many initiatives, including Alliance for a Healthier Generation founded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, numerous health clinics, Walmart, food programs and other initiatives.

    Timeline on Medicaid Program in Arkansas

    The Arkansas Medicaid expansion program has operated under federal government waivers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Democratic President Barack Obama signed the federal law in 2010.

    November 2012 The Clintons created Clinton Health Matters Initiative in Arkansas. Just as with CHAI, it is a fictitious name that was never filed properly under the Clinton Foundation.

    December 2012 The Obama administration suggested that states could use premium support in their Medicaid expansions. Health and Human Services stated, “Under Medicaid and CHIP statutory options, states can use federal and state Medicaid and CHIP funds to deliver Medicaid and CHIP coverage through the purchase of private health insurance.” The federal government would pay 100% of the Medicaid expansion through 2017.

    April 23, 2013 then-Gov. Beebe worked with Arkansas legislatures to craft an alternative private option. Rather than expanding Medicaid, they would use the federal Medicaid expansion fund to help those eligible to buy private insurance coverage. Arkansas lead this plan, and a few other states later followed suit.

    September 25, 2013 Obama and Clinton took the stage to promote ‘Obamacare.’

    September 27, 2013 The federal government approved the Medicaid expansion plan in Arkansas to allow them to use the funding for over 230,000 residents to utilize the marketplace to seek private insurance plans.

    December 31, 2014 Over 213,000 had already enrolled in the private option.

    January 14, 2015 Attorney General Leslie Rutledge’s administration’s first full day at the Little Rock attorney general’s office, which included a mass firing of 32 staff from Dustin McDaniel’s last day on the 12th. Rutledge hired seven new staff members, with additional vacancies to be filled, including Lloyd Warford who was made deputy attorney general in charge of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The same Warford overseeing the investigations itemized in Arkansas Swamp part 1.

    February 5, 2015 Gov. Asa Hutchinson recommends extending it, while creating a task force to look for alternative actions beyond 2016.

    December 29, 2015, They rebrand the plan to be called ‘Arkansas Works’.

    February 18, 2016 Former Deputy Director of Arkansas Department of Human Services Steven B. Jones was sentenced to 30 months in prison for engaging in a bribery scheme involving two mental health companies that provided inpatient and outpatient services to juveniles, owned by Theodore Suhl. Jones and former probation officer, Phillip Carter accepted multiple cash payments and “other things of value” from Suhl. Numerous other cases involving legislative fraud, wire fraud, and Medicaid fraud followed with senators, lobbyists, legislatures, clinics, and non-profits.

    April 2017 Bill Clinton praised Arkansas Medicaid expansion, at the CHMI summit in Little Rock.

    In Early 2018 Arkansas became the third state to receive approval from HHS to implement a work requirement for Medicaid adults.

    March 2018, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported: After months of uncertainty, the Arkansas House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a measure giving spending authority of $8.2 billion to the state Division of Medical Services and clearing the way for the continuance of the state’s Medicaid expansion in the coming fiscal year.

    September 2018 Arkansas Times published an article revealing some of the unsealed text messages from the Preferred Family Healthcare case involving numerous now-former-senators, lobbyists and legislators, that indicate:

    References to vote trading that seemed to indicate votes for the Arkansas Works Medicaid expansion were won by trading for votes in favor of behavioral health spending advocated by Rusty Cranford, who’s pleaded guilty to multiple kickback and illegal contribution schemes to build the Preferred Family Healthcare behavioral health colossus. It was fueled by millions in state Medicaid money.

    Clinton Connections to Investigations That Raise Questions
    Former Gov. Mike Beebe

    Then-Gov. Mike Beebe received $26,000 in campaign funds from executives with Preferred Family Healthcare, their family members, or related subsidiaries between 2010 and 2016. He is on the list of 12 politicians whom received campaign contributions over $4k from them. It is not known as to whether or not he was aware of the corruption at that time. Beebe served as Arkansas’s 45th Gov. from 2007 – 2015.

    In 2013, the Clinton Foundation stated that they were working in partner with Gov. Beebe with their CHMI program.

    One of Beebe’s most notable successes in his administration was passing the state’s Medicaid expansion program, then called the private option, in a Republican-controlled legislature. Beebe told the crowd his White House go-to was Vice President Joe Biden.

    Henry Wilkins IV

    Former state senator, state representative, and Jefferson County Judge Henry Wilkins IV pleaded guilty on April 30, 2018 to accepting over $80,000 in bribes in exchange for influencing Arkansas state legislation and transactions, including steering approximately $245,000 in Arkansas General Improvement funds to his co-conspirators, and to devising a scheme to conceal the bribe payments as donations to St. James United Methodist Church in Pine Bluff, where Wilkins also served as a pastor. While serving the Arkansas General Assembly from 2010-2014, Wilkins admits to accepting a series of bribes from lobbyists and non-profit organizations, in exchange for filing shell bills, sponsoring full bills, and voting in favor of specific legislation.

    One of the non-profits was Preferred Family Healthcare (PFH), which entailed Wilkins working with PFH executives, former AR state senator Jonathan Woods, lobbyists Rusty Cranford and Eddie Cooper, and consultant Donald Andrew Jones, all of whom have pleaded guilty.

    Wilkins was also involved with the Former Executive Director of Non-Profit, Jerry Walsh who pleaded guilty on July 19, 2018 to conspiring to divert over $380,000 from South Arkansas Youth Services (SAYS). The scheme involved steering the non-profit’s funds to Henry Wilkins and the lobbying firm of convicted lobbyist Rusty Cranford, in exchange for the senator agreeing to influence Arkansas officials regarding state contracts with DHS and DYS.

    Henry Wilkins IV comes from a family that has been in politics for three generations. Henry Wilkins son Wesley worked as an administrative assistant at the attorney general’s office until January 2015, when the Rutledge administration moved in and dismissed 32 staff, including 15 lawyers and 7 new hires, in a mass firing. Wesley Wilkins was one of the employees let go. His father, the late Henry “Hank” Wilkins III was a state legislator who was friendly with Bill Clinton, and introduced his daughter Cassandra’s husband, Rodney Slater, to Bill Clinton decades ago. In 1982 Slater began campaigning for Bill Clinton to regain the governor’s seat, and the following year, became the assistant to governor Clinton from 1983-1987. From 1987-1993 he was a member of the Arkansas State Highway Commission, as well as director of governmental affairs for Arkansas State University.

    Both Cassandra Wilkins, Henry Wilkins IV’s sister, and her husband Rodney Slater followed Bill Clinton straight to the White House. In 1993 Clinton appointed Slater to the director of the federal highway administration, and in 1994 appointed Cassandra to senior advisor to the social security commissioner. In 1997 Clinton appointed Slater to be the secretary of transportation, and in 1998 Slater passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), making a record $200 billion investment in surface transportation. The Clintons threw a big party at the White House that year, with a guest list that included British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Sir Elton John, Barbra Streisand, John Kennedy Jr. and his wife Carolyn, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffet, other celebrities and big names, and a host of politicians including Linda Chesterfield, Cassandra Wilkins and Rodney Slater.

    Cemex, the largest cement company in the world (according to Cemex), benefited greatly from the Transportation Equity Act that was passed. In Cemex’s 1999 annual report, they stated that this Act could increase government outlays for highways and bridges by more than 40% over the next six years, and that the major impact should be seen during the first half of 2000.

    In 2000, Cemex reported that their net sales in the US were $769 million, up 30% in cement sales and 21% in ready-mix sales, from 1999, and that the cement demand is expected to continue, stemming from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The largest demand was seen in Arizona and California. In November, Cemex completed its acquisition of Southdown, Inc., the second-largest cement producer in the United States.

    On Christmas Eve in 2000, Gov. Bill Janklow announced a deal to sell the state-owned South Dakota cement plant in Rapid City to GCC, which is partly owned by Cemex, to the tune of $252.3 million. Janklow called a special session of the state legislature for December 28th to approve the deal and stated it must be completed by the end of the calendar year because GCC made the deal conditional upon acceptance by December 31st.

    Since Slater’s time at the White House, he has served on the board for Africare, a nonprofit providing development aid to countries in Africa, United Way, Delta Air Lines, and Verizon. He became a partner at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs LLP in 2001. Bill Clinton is very familiar with the Boggs family, and may or may not have been instrumental in Slater moving over to Squire Patton Boggs LLP upon leaving the White House. In 1997, then president Bill Clinton appointed 81-year-old Lindy Boggs as US Ambassador to the Vatican, where she served until 2001. David Dunn, from Squire Patton Boggs LLP is also a good friend of Hillary’s according to an email between herself, David Dunn and Cheryl Mills.

    Rusty Cranford

    Former executive and board member of Preferred Family Healthcare (PFH) and Arkansas Lobbyist, Rusty Cranford, operated three lobbying firms; The Cranford Coalition, The Capital Hill Coalition, Outcomes of Arkansas. Cranford was Indicted and pleaded guilty to one count of federal program bribery detailed in this plea agreement. Cranford bribed Arkansas elected officials in a multi-million-dollar scheme, plus embezzled millions of dollars from PFH, working with PFH executives, Jonathan Woods, Henry Wilkins IV, Eddie Wayne Cooper, and Donald Andrew Jones. He also worked with APPOINTED officials on legislation to help the charity, as well as steering grants and other sources of funding to the charity.

    SECOND CASE: Cranford is also accused of giving kickbacks to Jonathan Woods and Micah Neal, in which they funneled $400,000 in state grants to AmeriWorks, a company of Cranford’s.

    THIRD CASE: Murder-for-Hire – Cranford tried to arrange the murder of Donald Andrew Jones to prevent him from testifying about the kickbacks Cranford was receiving. Jones has pleaded guilty for his role in the bribery schemes, and his sentence is pending.

    FOURTH CASE: Cranford was also involved with Jerry Walsh, the former executive director of South Arkansas Youth Services (SAYS), and Henry Wilkins former Arkansas state senator, to steer the funds from SAYS to Wilkins and Cranford in exchange for Wilkins agreeing to influence Arkansas officials regarding state contracts with DHS and DYS.

    Linda Chesterfield

    Rusty Cranford has direct ties to Arkansas state senator Linda Chesterfield, who was on Hillary’s 2016 campaign “Leadership Council” in Arkansas. The Arkansas Times reported that Chesterfield received an income of $12,500 from Preferred Family Healthcare (PFH), as “diversity outreach consultant” in 2016, and her response to that was, “I did an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, and no one has questioned me about this matter but you.” They state that she helped PFH receive state money on top of millions it received through Medicaid. Between 2010-2016 she also received $5,600 in campaign funds from either PFH executives, their family members, or their subsidiaries.

    Carolyn Cavaness

    Cavaness, who pleaded guilty for campaign fraud in Case #4 above, worked as a deputy finance director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before she went to work for Moore.

    Harold “H.L.” Moody

    As listed above under Case #2, Harold worked for Pulaski County Youth Services, where he was arrested on pornography charges involving live streaming chat rooms where infants were being raped. CHMI works with several youth services, including Pulaski County Youth Services. In addition, he was a communications director for the Democratic Party of Arkansas for a year-and-a-half, and prior to that, he was chairman of the Pulaski Democratic Party for two years. Some of Moody’s friends and associates include Chad Griffin who is head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and Jason Wiest co-host of The Big Gay Radio Show and former deputy director of communications at the office of Gov. Mike Beebe, as shown in a video clip Harold Moody posted to his facebook page, along with hundreds of photos with politicians at political events.

    In February 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign in Arkansas, announced its “Leadership Council” which included Gov. Mike Beebe and wife Ginger, three spouses of regular columnists of the Arkansas Times, Rodney Slater, Linda Chesterfield, and Cassandra Wilkins Slater, just to name a few.

    What does all of this mean for the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation?

    To summarize, the Bill and Hillary Clinton are operating an illegal fictitious company under the Clinton Foundation, in partnership with GE and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, both of whom have been charged for fraud in the past and are currently under investigation again, together with Verizon, all with a focus on healthcare and Medicaid in Little Rock. They ran this program throughout Pulaski County for five years, from 2012-2017, during a time where investigations into Medicaid fraud and looking into behavioral health care facilities, with a strong focus on legislators (past and present), were taking place, and future arrests are eminent. There are also ongoing Federal investigations taking place simultaneously, in which it would appear as though the Clinton Foundation is one of those investigations.

    They have connections to the Pulaski County Youth Services, where the former DNC consultant was recently arrested on pornography charges of streaming live chat rooms where infants were being raped. They also have connections to Henry Wilkins, Casandra Wilkins Slater, and many arms that extend from the Wilkins family. They have connections with Linda Chesterfield and Governor Beebe, both of whom accepted campaign money from Preferred Family Healthcare. Linda Chesterfield, on was on Hillary Clinton’s leadership council for her 2016 presidential campaign, and has connections with Rusty Cranford, the key central figure in Warford’s investigation. And finally, Linda Cavaness, who pleaded guilty to campaign fraud, used to be a deputy finance director for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign.

    The Clinton Foundation, through Clinton Health Matters Initiative, had over 200 supporters working with them, from the police departments to the governor’s office, the department of human services where the deputy director pleaded guilty in February 2016 to bribery schemes and is serving a 30-month prison sentence, to the department of health and education, the university and school district, as well as the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute, Planned Parenthood, and Loop Capital Markets – just to name a few. All of these businesses and institutions are complicit in working with an illegally operating entity, Clinton Health Matters Initiative.

    Add to this, the Wilkins case sentencing being pushed back several times in joint motions between his attorneys and government, all raises one very important question – are these investigations heading down a track that can only end at Clinton station, or perhaps the library?

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' No Legal Costs Monopoly Law Changes' in the forum.
    Coalition's majority faces test as Nationals MP backs Labor on competition laws

    John Williams’ support for Labor changes to help small businesses taking on ‘the big end of town’ could spell danger for the government

    Paul Karp

    Fri 4 Jan 2019 21.01 GMT
    Last modified on Sat 5 Jan 2019 06.54 GMT

    Nationals senator John Williams backs Labor measures that would help protect small businesses taking on ‘the big end of town’ in competition law cases
    The Nationals’ John Williams backs Labor measures that would help protect small businesses taking on ‘the big end of town’ in competition law cases. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

    The Nationals senator John Williams has backed Labor amendments to improve small businesses’ access to justice, in a move that may test Scott Morrison’s hold of the lower house.

    The amendments to a Coalition bill are designed to help in competition law cases such as farmers and suppliers taking on Coles and Woolworths in court for misuse of market power.

    Williams said the changes, which would allow small businesses to apply upfront to escape paying legal costs even if they lose a case, are “basically a good idea” and predicted they will “pass the Senate without much opposition” – even though they are not official government policy.

    The comments spell danger for the government as Labor is intent on weaponising otherwise uncontroversial legislation when parliament resumes in February, passing Senate bills over Liberal opposition in a bid to test the Coalition’s majority in the House of Representatives.
    Kerryn Phelps wins Labor support for refugee transfers but negotiations continue
    Read more

    In December Labor and the crossbench combined to add provisions for medical transfers out of offshore detention into a government migration bill, setting a booby trap for Morrison in the lower house in the new year.

    The tactic is set to be repeated with the obscure Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No5) bill.

    The Labor senator Doug Cameron has tabled amendments which state that people or organisations suing for damages for alleged restrictive trade practices – including misuse of market power, the new “effects test” designed to protect small business – can apply at any time to be exempted from paying their opposition’s costs.

    The court can agree the party will not be liable for costs if the case is reasonable, raises a significant issue that affects others and “the disparity between the financial position” of the parties might deter the smaller party from taking action.

    Williams told Guardian Australia the changes were “basically a good idea that bring a balance and greater fairness” in court actions.

    “[The changes mean] if I was going to sue Woolworths for trying to screw me down and if I lose then I don’t have to pay costs,” he said.

    “If you’re getting put out of business by the big end of town, the last thing you can afford to do is go to court, to lose, and then be hit by costs for your and the defendants’ legal costs.”

    Under the changes, small and family businesses can also ask the ombudsman for help in preparing a case for a no-costs order.

    Williams predicted the amendments “will pass the Senate without much opposition”, but acknowledged that was his personal view, not government policy.

    “When it comes to access to justice, if [Labor’s amendment] is what’s put up it would be supported by most in the chamber … [They support changes] to make it easier and fairer for small business to have the courage to go to court without the fear of losing everything if a costs order is made against them.”
    Coalition asks regulator to intervene on electricity prices
    Read more

    Williams said the effects test – which passed in August 2017 – gave small businesses a remedy “if big businesses are using their market share to undersell, sell cheap and squash their opponents”.

    He said it was “ironic” that Labor had opposed the effects test but was now trying to help small business with its access to justice changes.

    A spokesman for the assistant treasurer, Stuart Robert, said the bill “remains a priority for the government in the context of its broader legislative agenda” but made no comment on whether Labor’s tactics could delay or impede it.

    “Specific programming of legislation is a matter for the leader of the house and Senate leadership team in coordination with cabinet’s parliamentary business committee,” he said.

    Malcolm Turnbull agreed to introduce the effects test as part of the Coalition deal with the Nationals.

    In late 2017 an insurrection within the Coalition by the Nationals – many of whom threatened to support a Labor and Greens push for a parliamentary inquiry – forced the Turnbull government to call a banking royal commission.

    Since then demands have shifted to tackling the market power of big energy companies and Australia’s grocery duopoly.

    In December the Tasmanian Nationals senator Steve Martin called for a royal commission into petrol prices and supermarkets.

    1 week ago
  • 3 Bruce Highway Bowen QLD 4805


    The Victorian Ombudsman

    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Dear Mr Mitchell

    Claim for compensation from the Legal Services Board and Commission of Victoria for using its public office to obtain information about political campaigns and tv shows in Queensland.

    I wish to complain about the LSBC in Victoria and get compensation.

    I have had Pauline Hansen and George Christiansen personally come to my property to discuss things like getting a Royal Commission into the banks.

    I have been published in mainstream news as far away as the BBC’s International News Service.

    I have attended Parliament House where people like Wayne Swan, Bob Katter, and Pauline Hansen walked across the lawn to catch up with bank victims who wanted the Royal Commission to extend into bank law firms, bank receivers, bank estate agents, bank boards and the regulatory authorities like APRA (whose Ms Bennett sits on the Victorian LSBC and might have good reason for trying to find out what her own clientele were assisting US law enforcement’s International Corruption investigators with).

    I have had banking officials from around the world stay here, and I was dealing with people including politicians regarding the scandalous ANZ/Landmark affair which featured on 60 Minutes and also ended up at the Royal Commission.

    I notice that one of the customers of the LSBC, Mr Elliot Sgargetta, informed Treasury that he was dumbfounded when the 60 Minutes program all came true and had the CEO of the ANZ, Mr Mike Smith, travel all the way to Queensland to apologise to the bank victim Charlie Phillot. Not only did the bank act appallingly as shown on 60 Minutes, but the Royal Commission also questioned the bank’s Mr Steinberg about the same 60 Minutes series on Charlie Phillot . I believe the LSBC was spying on the show by trying to find out about its clientele like Mr Sgargetta noted. As me, and many others, worked hard to get shows up on places like 60 Minutes, I think I should be compensated by the LSBC’s attempts to, I feel, spy on people and shoot the show down.

    I would like a thorough investigation of the LSBC and I note that Mr Sgargetta’s complaint says that he objected to the LSBC using its position to investigate what was known to Whistleblowers who went to the SEC and FBI to report things like the LSBC’s attempts to obtain information about politicians and investigative reporters and advocates like myself who wanted tv shows to get up on the air around the world, like the BBC I was on.

    I also seek compensation from the LSBC. Apparently in the past your officials directed victims to go to the very same LSBC to seek compensation from it first, but Mr Sgargetta says that the LSBC told him to leave them alone even after “It All Came True” and US law enforcement arrested bank executives. Please ask the LSBC for compensation. I do not want to deal directly with them especially as they probably have a conflict of interest if they use their government office in Victoria to spy on political groups in Queensland and politicians and reporters’ investigations.

    I’ve cc’d Pauline Hanson, George Christensen and Fraser Anning and the Sgargettas because I believe that Victorian officials have no business trying to get information about elections in Queensland.

    I’ve also cc’d Spencer Murray’s Whistleblowers in Rockhampton and 4 Corner’s Nick McKenzie and 60 Minutes reporters of the ANZ/Landmark and CBA Townsville Stories.

    Yours faithfully

    Brett Fallon

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Brett Fallon seeks compensation' in the forum.
    3 Bruce Highway Bowen QLD 4805


    The Victorian Ombudsman

    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Dear Mr Mitchell

    Claim for compensation from the Legal Services Board and Commission of Victoria for using its public office to obtain information about political campaigns and tv shows in Queensland.

    I wish to complain about the LSBC in Victoria and get compensation.

    I have had Pauline Hansen and George Christiansen personally come to my property to discuss things like getting a Royal Commission into the banks.

    I have been published in mainstream news as far away as the BBC’s International News Service.

    I have attended Parliament House where people like Wayne Swan, Bob Katter, and Pauline Hansen walked across the lawn to catch up with bank victims who wanted the Royal Commission to extend into bank law firms, bank receivers, bank estate agents, bank boards and the regulatory authorities like APRA (whose Ms Bennett sits on the Victorian LSBC and might have good reason for trying to find out what her own clientele were assisting US law enforcement’s International Corruption investigators with).

    I have had banking officials from around the world stay here, and I was dealing with people including politicians regarding the scandalous ANZ/Landmark affair which featured on 60 Minutes and also ended up at the Royal Commission.

    I notice that one of the customers of the LSBC, Mr Elliot Sgargetta, informed Treasury that he was dumbfounded when the 60 Minutes program all came true and had the CEO of the ANZ, Mr Mike Smith, travel all the way to Queensland to apologise to the bank victim Charlie Phillot. Not only did the bank act appallingly as shown on 60 Minutes, but the Royal Commission also questioned the bank’s Mr Steinberg about the same 60 Minutes series on Charlie Phillot . I believe the LSBC was spying on the show by trying to find out about its clientele like Mr Sgargetta noted. As me, and many others, worked hard to get shows up on places like 60 Minutes, I think I should be compensated by the LSBC’s attempts to, I feel, spy on people and shoot the show down.

    I would like a thorough investigation of the LSBC and I note that Mr Sgargetta’s complaint says that he objected to the LSBC using its position to investigate what was known to Whistleblowers who went to the SEC and FBI to report things like the LSBC’s attempts to obtain information about politicians and investigative reporters and advocates like myself who wanted tv shows to get up on the air around the world, like the BBC I was on.

    I also seek compensation from the LSBC. Apparently in the past your officials directed victims to go to the very same LSBC to seek compensation from it first, but Mr Sgargetta says that the LSBC told him to leave them alone even after “It All Came True” and US law enforcement arrested bank executives. Please ask the LSBC for compensation. I do not want to deal directly with them especially as they probably have a conflict of interest if they use their government office in Victoria to spy on political groups in Queensland and politicians and reporters’ investigations.

    I’ve cc’d Pauline Hanson, George Christensen and Fraser Anning and the Sgargettas because I believe that Victorian officials have no business trying to get information about elections in Queensland.

    I’ve also cc’d Spencer Murray’s Whistleblowers in Rockhampton and 4 Corner’s Nick McKenzie and 60 Minutes reporters of the ANZ/Landmark and CBA Townsville Stories.

    Yours faithfully

    Brett Fallon

    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' ASIC finally gains upper hand' in the forum.
    ASIC finally gains the upper hand against big banks, AMP
    Karen Maley
    By Karen Maley
    07 Jan 2019 — 7:26 PM

    Whatever Commissioner Kenneth Hayne recommends in his final report, one thing is certain: the days when the corporate regulator grovelled before the country's financial elite are mercifully over.

    For years, the major banks and AMP felt they had absolute liberty to interpret corporate laws as they wished because they knew there was little chance they would be held to account by the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

    Indeed, AMP insiders recall that in late 2017, Greg Medcraft, who at that time was the chairman of ASIC, expressed his gratitude to AMP's then chair, Catherine Brenner, after the wealth-management giant presented the corporate regulator with a supposedly independent report that law firm Clayton Utz had prepared on AMP's practice of charging customers for financial advice that wasn't delivered.

    Commissioner Mr Kenneth Hayne AC QC at the Royal Commission into Banking. Thursday 22nd November 2018 . supplied

    Even though AMP had repeatedly misled the corporate watchdog about its practice of deliberately charging fees for no service, Brenner told senior AMP executives that after the Clayton Utz report was presented to the corporate regulator, she had received a message from ASIC's Medcraft that thanked AMP for its openness and transparency in confessing its past misbehaviour. Brenner declined to comment on Monday.
    NAB's flagrant example

    Of course, AMP wasn't the only financial giant to take advantage of the pathetically low bar ASIC set for acceptable corporate conduct: the National Australia Bank provided an even more flagrant example.

    By September 2016, and after a protracted internal debate, the NAB executive had finally conceded it had wrongly charged plan-service fees to customers, even though no service had been provided.

    The following month, ASIC sent out a draft report on fees for no service, which indicated that some 120,000 of NAB's clients had been charged these fees for no service, and that the bank's compensation bill was likely to amount to about $16.2 million.

    The problem was that senior management in NAB's wealth division already knew that the compensation was more likely to be about $35 million and that about 220,000 clients had been charged plan-service fees even though there was no financial adviser to provide this service.

    But in a catastrophic coincidence of timing, the release of the ASIC report was likely to coincide with the most important date on the bank's calendar: the release of NAB's full-year results.

    NAB senior executive Andrew Hagger called ASIC and, in an extremely cryptic and vague fashion, let it know that bank's fee-for-no-service problem was somewhat larger than suggested by the ASIC draft report. Darrian Traynor

    This left NAB's senior management contemplating the dire possibility that the excitement over the bank's strong profit performance would be ruined by criticisms of the bank's behaviour in gouging fees from unsuspecting clients. Alternatively, if NAB failed to disclose the full extent of its fee-for-no-service issue, there was an awkward risk that ASIC would be annoyed when it discovered the bank's behaviour.

    To resolve this dilemma, it was decided that a senior NAB executive, Andrew Hagger, would call the corporate regulator and, in an extremely cryptic and vague fashion, would let it know that bank's fee-for-no-service problem was somewhat larger than suggested by the ASIC draft report.

    In other words, NAB decided that ensuring its profit announcement went off without a hitch was of vastly more importance than maintaining good relations with the corporate regulator.

    There's no doubt senior NAB executives had very good reasons for their decision. After all, they stood to benefit handsomely from a strongly rising share price, while they had little to fear from a piqued regulator.

    As Commissioner Hayne said in his interim report, "when banks have disclosed, or ASIC has otherwise learned of, misconduct, ASIC has almost always sought to negotiate what will be done in response."

    In these protracted negotiations, he noted, "too often, I suspect, ASIC has sought to accommodate the expressed wishes of the entity rather than determine what ASIC wants from the negotiation, tell the entity what it wants and insist upon it provided promptly."

    Commissioner Hayne also rightly noted that "too often, entities have been treated in ways that would allow them to think that they, not ASIC, not Parliament, not the courts, will decide when and how the law will be obeyed or the consequences of breach remedied."
    ASIC's funding problem

    Of course, it's all too easy to conclude that this timidity on the part of ASIC reflects an ingrained cultural problem, and to excoriate the corporate regulator for its reluctance to do legal battle with the country's most powerful financial institutions.

    But that ignores the fact there have always been plenty of senior executives within ASIC ready and raring to take on the major financial institutions. What the regulator lacked were the financial resources that were essential if it was to do battle with deep-pocketed banks and wealth managers.

    Instead, ASIC has watched with dismay as its budget has been progressively whittled back, at the same time that its range of responsibilities has widened.

    This dismal lack of funding no doubt explains why ASIC felt it needed to adopt a conciliatory approach with major financial institutions. Rather than adopting a permanently aggressive demeanour, ASIC clearly felt it was better to encourage the big banks and AMP when they spent money on hiring external legal firms to write independent reports. At least by doing so they demonstrated some acknowledgement of past wrong-doing and some desire to make amends.

    But the days of the humble and amenable regulator are coming to an end. The federal government has already moved to remedy the corporate regulator's chronic lack of resources, by giving ASIC a $70 million funding boost.

    Part of this money will be used to embed teams of up to 20 ASIC staff in major financial institutions, which should give the corporate regulator much greater insight into the attitudes and behaviour of the financial institutions it is responsible for overseeing. As a result, ASIC will no longer be reduced to expressing its gratitude whenever a financial firm deigns to provide it with an independent report of its misdeeds.

    But the regulator is flexing its muscles even further by setting up a corporate governance taskforce that will take a close look at an issue dear to bankers' hearts: how the payment of large bonuses leads to misbehaviour in the financial sector.

    As they watch the balance of power tilt inexorably against them, the country's financial giants will no doubt have occasion to rue the disdainful peremptory attitude they displayed towards ASIC in the past.

    2 weeks ago


Major Topics

Helpful Resources


About Us