Original Story: wsj.com
Banks have hired armies of security experts to combat shadowy hackers from breaking into customer accounts.
Now, a top law-enforcement official says banks should also focus closer to home.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is urging big banks, such as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., to rein in their tellers’ access to some customer data and take other steps to detect potential misbehavior, according to a letter he sent to the banks Friday. A Washington DC criminal lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Mr. Schneiderman’s office continues to investigate numerous instances of tellers accused of stealing customer data and money, a person familiar with the matter said. While teller-fraud cases often get overlooked because of the small dollar amounts involved, Mr. Schneiderman and his investigators believe there are hundreds of examples going on across the country, the person familiar with the investigations said.
“Bank customers are still at risk,” Mr. Schneiderman wrote in the letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Schneiderman also wrote that banks should be more alert to unusual activity by employees and report suspicious conduct to authorities. A Des Moines criminal lawyer is following this story closely.
In addition to Bank of America, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo, the letter was sent to Citigroup Inc., Banco Santander SA, Capital One Financial Corp., HSBC Holdings PLC, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. and TD Bank. Most of the banks declined to comment. HSBC and TD Bank both said they are serious about protecting customer information. HSBC said it has “strict security safeguards” to protect customer privacy and is “committed to continually enhancing those safeguards as needed.” TD Bank said it offers “multiple layers of security protection against fraud and has tools in place to monitor for unusual or suspicious activity.”
While other agencies have carved out niches investigating money laundering or interest-rate rigging, Mr. Schneiderman in recent years has focused among other things on tellers and other low-level employees allegedly stealing customer data.
The initiative, internally named “Operation Pen & Teller,” a play on the magician duo Penn and Teller, underscores that banks’ regulatory risks extend beyond the billion-dollar penalties for mortgage abuse and consumers’ risks go further than sophisticated cyberattacks.
In Mr. Schneiderman’s investigations, tellers often first search a customer database for people with common names and high balances. Then, they use the customers’ Social Security numbers and other personal information to withdraw cash from other branches. They also at times use the stolen information to create fake identification documents. A Birmingham criminal defense attorney provides counsel and strategic advice to individuals, corporations, and other entities facing criminal investigations or charges.
Mr. Schneiderman’s office last year announced the arrest of five people that it accused of running an identity-theft ring focused in Westchester County, N.Y. Three were tellers that had worked at banks including Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, TD Bank and Wells Fargo.
Mr. Schneiderman’s office said the tellers passed customer information to two accomplices. One used the information to create fake identification documents; the other arranged for people to impersonate customers across the New York City area, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The five stole a total of $850,000 by using the personal data of hundreds of customers, said Mr. Schneiderman. All five pleaded guilty; the ringleader faces up to nine years in prison.
The four banks reimbursed affected customers. J.P. Morgan, TD Bank and Wells Fargo notified the affected customers and offered free credit monitoring or similar services. Bank of America declined to comment on the details of its response.
A report last year by Mr. Schneiderman’s office found that “insider wrongdoing” such as the tellers’ crimes was the No. 3 cause of data breaches in New York, behind hacking and lost or stolen equipment. The report analyzed the data-breach notices that the attorney general’s office received from 2006 to 2013.
In the letter, Mr. Schneiderman laid out what he saw as weaknesses in the banks’ protocol for protecting customer data from ill-intentioned employees and his suggestions for improvements.
For example, Mr. Schneiderman said his office had found that in many cases, tellers had “unfettered” access to customers’ account information. He suggested limits, such as allowing a teller access only to customer accounts in the local area, unless a supervisor gives permission.
Mr. Schneiderman said much of the wrongdoing could have been caught if the banks had noticed and shared red flags, for example an employee accessing an unusually large number of accounts or looking up accounts without dealing with those customers.
He added that the tellers or co-conspirators who accessed stolen data would sometimes call the banks to ask about an account. A potential red flag: They would sometimes call about multiple, unrelated accounts from the same phone number.
The state official also complained that, when the banks did question tellers, many of them would resign. The bank would then close its investigation, Mr. Schneiderman said, and the teller would find employment at another bank.
Mr. Schneiderman’s letter asks the banks to implement his suggestions and to contact his Criminal Enforcement and Financial Crimes Bureau for further discussion.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
ENDING THE REPUBLICAN DRAMA ABOUT IMMIGRATION
Original Story: wsj.com
Republican presidential hopefuls always clobber one another over immigration policy. This cycle has been no exception, with Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and others carving out their own territory. The winner is the Democratic nominee, who can use immigration as a powerful weapon against the eventual Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton no doubt sees the potential. While she has commented on little else, she has already promised that if elected she would go beyond President Obama’s questionable executive order.
The GOP needs to end the family drama and resolve the policy dispute, not least because it is the right thing to do in every sense—economically, politically and morally. With a world on fire and economic growth strangled by government regulation, it would be unacceptable for Republicans to lose a critical election over immigration. A Washington DC immigration attorney is following this story closely.
This isn’t a matter of finding the “right” candidate. The question is whether Republicans can unite around a set of rational principles. Here are a few that any serious contender should be able to support.
Gov. Bush said in New Hampshire last month that “we need to control our border first of all.” Sen. Marco Rubio similarly acknowledged that Americans are not going to support immigration reform “until you show them—not tell them, you better show them—that illegal immigration is under control.” A Washington DC immigration lawyer represents clients on a wide range of immigration issues, whether localized or on a global scale.
The best way to protect American workers is to generate economic growth. This is not synonymous with aggressively restricting immigration. Most studies conclude that immigration contributes to economic growth as well as innovation, and research and development. The American Enterprise Institute found in 2011 that “temporary foreign workers—both skilled and less skilled—boost U.S. employment” and that immigrants with advanced degrees working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields “boost employment for U.S. citizens.” Every Republican who aspires to the presidency should acknowledge that immigrants of all skill sets can benefit the economy.
Such consequences could include passing a background check, paying a fine, demonstrating the ability to be independent of welfare, engaging in community or military service, learning English and taking an American civics course. Every option should be on the table, except amnesty, which forgives illegal conduct. It isn’t amnesty if immigrants admit wrongdoing and accept punishment.
Candidates will disagree on the best way to implement these points. This is simply an attempt to set forth unifying principles that are easily articulated and essential if Republicans have a chance at winning the next presidential election. Absent rational immigration principles, the odds of winning aren’t very good.
Republican presidential hopefuls always clobber one another over immigration policy. This cycle has been no exception, with Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and others carving out their own territory. The winner is the Democratic nominee, who can use immigration as a powerful weapon against the eventual Republican candidate. Hillary Clinton no doubt sees the potential. While she has commented on little else, she has already promised that if elected she would go beyond President Obama’s questionable executive order.
The GOP needs to end the family drama and resolve the policy dispute, not least because it is the right thing to do in every sense—economically, politically and morally. With a world on fire and economic growth strangled by government regulation, it would be unacceptable for Republicans to lose a critical election over immigration. A Washington DC immigration attorney is following this story closely.
This isn’t a matter of finding the “right” candidate. The question is whether Republicans can unite around a set of rational principles. Here are a few that any serious contender should be able to support.
- Sovereignty. The U.S. has the right to determine the conditions under which noncitizens can cross its borders. The next president must work with Congress to make that determination, in accordance with the Constitution, which isn’t the path the current administration has chosen.
- Border security. One of government’s primary duties is to protect citizens. Given terrorism and organized crime—drug cartels, weapons and human trafficking—the federal government must secure the borders as a first step to reform. Even candidates perceived as more open on immigration agree.
Gov. Bush said in New Hampshire last month that “we need to control our border first of all.” Sen. Marco Rubio similarly acknowledged that Americans are not going to support immigration reform “until you show them—not tell them, you better show them—that illegal immigration is under control.” A Washington DC immigration lawyer represents clients on a wide range of immigration issues, whether localized or on a global scale.
- Enforcing our laws: The U.S. is a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws. The federal government must enforce our laws internally, penalizing those who overstay their visas, and implementing a universal verification system so employers can be sure they are hiring employees legally.
- Legal immigration policies should support economic growth. If current quotas are bringing in enough talent, let’s keep them. If more immigration or less red tape will boost the economy, let’s try that. Guest-worker visas should ebb and flow with the economy. Legal immigration should focus more on what workers can contribute to the economy, as is the case in most other nations, and less on distant familial relationships.
The best way to protect American workers is to generate economic growth. This is not synonymous with aggressively restricting immigration. Most studies conclude that immigration contributes to economic growth as well as innovation, and research and development. The American Enterprise Institute found in 2011 that “temporary foreign workers—both skilled and less skilled—boost U.S. employment” and that immigrants with advanced degrees working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields “boost employment for U.S. citizens.” Every Republican who aspires to the presidency should acknowledge that immigrants of all skill sets can benefit the economy.
- Addressing the illegal population. The next president will need to work with Congress to establish consequences for violating our laws that are harsh enough to be meaningful but also reasonable. But with some 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally, every candidate should support a path to legal status—short of citizenship—for illegal immigrants willing to accept responsibility for their actions and take the consequences.
Such consequences could include passing a background check, paying a fine, demonstrating the ability to be independent of welfare, engaging in community or military service, learning English and taking an American civics course. Every option should be on the table, except amnesty, which forgives illegal conduct. It isn’t amnesty if immigrants admit wrongdoing and accept punishment.
- Citizenship. American citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Whether candidates support requiring people who are here illegally to return to their home countries to become citizens, or whether they propose allowing immigrants to remain in the U.S. and go through an arduous naturalization process, the privilege of citizenship is something worth protecting. A Washington DC immigration attorney provides comprehensive guidance to business clients with respect to their foreign national workforce, including short and long-term strategy and planning.
Candidates will disagree on the best way to implement these points. This is simply an attempt to set forth unifying principles that are easily articulated and essential if Republicans have a chance at winning the next presidential election. Absent rational immigration principles, the odds of winning aren’t very good.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
JUSTICES BOOST WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS
Original Story: bigstory.ap.org
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court strengthened civil rights protections Monday for employees and job applicants who need special treatment in the workplace because of their religious beliefs.
The justices sided with a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf.
The headscarf, or hijab, violated the company's strict dress code, since changed, for employees who work in its retail stores. A New Hampshire employment attorney has experience litigating employment related lawsuits in defense of business clients.
Employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary, Justice Antonin Scalia said in his opinion for the court.
Job applicant Samantha Elauf did not tell her interviewer she was Muslim. But Scalia said that Abercrombie "at least suspected" that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons. "That is enough," Scalia said in an opinion for seven justices.
Federal civil rights law gives religious practices "favored treatment" that forbids employers from firing or not hiring people based on their observance of religion, Scalia said. The federal civil rights law known as Title VII requires employers to make accommodations for employees' religious beliefs in most instances. Elauf's case turned on how employers are supposed to know when someone has a religious need to be accommodated. A Maine labor lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The decision does not, by itself, resolve her case. Instead, it will return to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which earlier ruled against her.
"While the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms. Elauf. We will determine our next steps in the litigation," company spokeswoman Carlene Benz said in an email.
Some business groups said Monday's ruling will force employers to make assumptions about applicants' religious beliefs.
"Shifting this burden to employers sets an unclear and confusing standard making business owners extremely vulnerable to inevitable discrimination lawsuits," said Karen Harned, a top lawyer at the National Federation of Independent Business. "Whether employers ask an applicant about religious needs or not, there is a good chance they will be sued." A Memphis employment lawyer is following this story closely.
Jenny Yang, chairwoman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, praised the court for "affirming that employers may not make an applicant's religious practice a factor in employment decisions." The EEOC had sued on Elauf's behalf.
Elauf was 17 when she interviewed for a "model" position, as the company calls its sales staff, at an Abercrombie Kids store in a shopping mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008. She impressed the assistant store manager with whom she met. But her application faltered over her headscarf because it conflicted with the company's Look Policy, a code derived from Abercrombie's focus on what it calls East Coast collegiate or preppy style.
Abercrombie has since changed its policy on headscarves and has settled similar lawsuits elsewhere.
After the EEOC filed suit, a jury eventually awarded Elauf $20,000.
But the appeals court threw out the award and concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch could not be held liable because Elauf never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves. A Maine labor and employment lawyer represents business clients in discrimination claims.
At the Supreme Court's argument session in February, several justices suggested that employers tell job applicants what the rules are and give them the chance to raise any objections. Awkward conversations at that point would be better than a lawsuit later on, the justices said.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to agree with the outcome, but not with Scalia's reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would not find that Abercrombie intentionally discriminated against Elauf when it declined to hire her.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court strengthened civil rights protections Monday for employees and job applicants who need special treatment in the workplace because of their religious beliefs.
The justices sided with a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf.
The headscarf, or hijab, violated the company's strict dress code, since changed, for employees who work in its retail stores. A New Hampshire employment attorney has experience litigating employment related lawsuits in defense of business clients.
Employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary, Justice Antonin Scalia said in his opinion for the court.
Job applicant Samantha Elauf did not tell her interviewer she was Muslim. But Scalia said that Abercrombie "at least suspected" that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons. "That is enough," Scalia said in an opinion for seven justices.
Federal civil rights law gives religious practices "favored treatment" that forbids employers from firing or not hiring people based on their observance of religion, Scalia said. The federal civil rights law known as Title VII requires employers to make accommodations for employees' religious beliefs in most instances. Elauf's case turned on how employers are supposed to know when someone has a religious need to be accommodated. A Maine labor lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The decision does not, by itself, resolve her case. Instead, it will return to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which earlier ruled against her.
"While the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit decision, it did not determine that A&F discriminated against Ms. Elauf. We will determine our next steps in the litigation," company spokeswoman Carlene Benz said in an email.
Some business groups said Monday's ruling will force employers to make assumptions about applicants' religious beliefs.
"Shifting this burden to employers sets an unclear and confusing standard making business owners extremely vulnerable to inevitable discrimination lawsuits," said Karen Harned, a top lawyer at the National Federation of Independent Business. "Whether employers ask an applicant about religious needs or not, there is a good chance they will be sued." A Memphis employment lawyer is following this story closely.
Jenny Yang, chairwoman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, praised the court for "affirming that employers may not make an applicant's religious practice a factor in employment decisions." The EEOC had sued on Elauf's behalf.
Elauf was 17 when she interviewed for a "model" position, as the company calls its sales staff, at an Abercrombie Kids store in a shopping mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008. She impressed the assistant store manager with whom she met. But her application faltered over her headscarf because it conflicted with the company's Look Policy, a code derived from Abercrombie's focus on what it calls East Coast collegiate or preppy style.
Abercrombie has since changed its policy on headscarves and has settled similar lawsuits elsewhere.
After the EEOC filed suit, a jury eventually awarded Elauf $20,000.
But the appeals court threw out the award and concluded that Abercrombie & Fitch could not be held liable because Elauf never asked the company to relax its policy against headscarves. A Maine labor and employment lawyer represents business clients in discrimination claims.
At the Supreme Court's argument session in February, several justices suggested that employers tell job applicants what the rules are and give them the chance to raise any objections. Awkward conversations at that point would be better than a lawsuit later on, the justices said.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to agree with the outcome, but not with Scalia's reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would not find that Abercrombie intentionally discriminated against Elauf when it declined to hire her.
DMC, DUGGAN CLASH ON DETROIT AUTO INSURANCE PLAN
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Lansing — Mayor Mike Duggan is at odds with his former employer at the Detroit Medical Center in his legislative battle to let Detroiters buy lower-cost auto insurance coverage with limited medical benefits. A Detroit car accident attorney is following this story closely.
Duggan's "D-Insurance" bill gained approval from the Senate Insurance Committee Wednesday with changes that would let other cities with 35 percent uninsured drivers allow insurers to sell plans capped at $250,000 in car injuries. Claims above that cap would be directed to a driver's health insurance.
But the DMC, where Duggan was CEO from 2004-12, opposes the Detroit mayor's bill because it eliminates unlimited catastrophic coverage for drivers who suffer brain and spinal cord injuries, said Conrad Mallett Jr., chief administration officer of the hospital system. A Detroit car accident lawyer represents clients injured in automobile accidents.
"D-Insurance is not going to be the panacea for the people that live in Detroit … that the mayor believes," said Mallett, a Detroiter who worked under Duggan for eight years.
The DMC treats drivers with severe brain, spinal and neurological injuries from car accidents at its Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan.
"We believe that access back to the catastrophic insurance fund is critical," Mallett told The Detroit News. "We are with the mayor on everything but this."
Duggan, who has met with Detroit hospital leaders in the past week, downplayed the impact to the DMC's bottom line and care to patients.
"It has only a marginal impact on the hospitals," Duggan said Wednesday. "The hospitals will still be able to charge their triple Blue Cross rate."
The years-long battle over reforming Michigan's no-fault auto insurance system rests with the level of long-term care insurers should have to cover for treatments and therapies after hospitalization. A Detroit insurance defense lawyer helps insurance carriers analyze and understand all of the legal and business issues involved in processing insurance claims.
Duggan's insurance plan has been introduced as an alternative to making statewide changes to the insurance system, which passed the Senate last month but has stalled in the House after intense lobbying against the bill by hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
"It's a pilot project ... that maybe someday other areas of the state could follow," said Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
Duggan, a Democrat, is trying to keep the Republican-controlled Legislature focused on his narrowly tailored legislation, which does not include caps on the amounts hospitals can charge for individual procedures like the bill stalled in the House would do.
"This doesn't have nearly as dramatic of an effect on the hospitals as the earlier bill," Duggan said.
Duggan's bill focuses on lowering Detroit's 60 percent rate of motorists illegally driving on city streets and freeways without insurance.
The Detroit mayor argues his plan, which would be voluntary for drivers, could cut insurance premiums by one-third or $1,000 for the typical car owner in the city.
"We think the great majority of the financial abuses are coming post-hospital," Duggan said. "I don't believe the hospital is where the problem is."
Mallett said he remains convinced that Duggan's plan will really drive down the cost of Detroit's highest-in-the-nation auto insurance rates.
"We'd be glad to be part of the conversation, but for the life of me as someone who lives and works in the city of Detroit I have to say I'm unconvinced," he said.
The committee amended the legislation Wednesday to allow any city with an uninsured rate of at least 35 percent to petition the state insurance commissioner to allow insurers to sell lower-cost plans with less benefits. The original version of Duggan's proposal set the threshold at 50 percent. A Grand Rapids insurance defense lawyer is following this story closely.
The committee voted 5-3 to advance the bill to the Senate floor.
Sen. Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park, said the new threshold should allow his hometown, Hamtramck, Ecorse, River Rouge, Inkster, Pontiac, Benton Harbor, Saginaw and, possibly, Flint to participate.
Sen. Margaret O'Brien, R-Portage, voted for the bill but expressed disappointment that it would be limited to drivers in urban cities with high concentrations of poverty.
"Poverty knows no municipal lines," O'Brien said.
Under the bill, drivers who opt to buy a lower-cost, cut-rate auto insurance plan would surrender any right to make a claim to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, a fund all drivers pay into for coverage of life-altering vehicle injuries.
"There's going to be some huge heartburn on the part of medical providers," said Johnson, who supported the bill.
But Johnson argues the DMC and other hospitals will ultimately benefit from having more Detroit drivers with insurance they can afford.
Lansing — Mayor Mike Duggan is at odds with his former employer at the Detroit Medical Center in his legislative battle to let Detroiters buy lower-cost auto insurance coverage with limited medical benefits. A Detroit car accident attorney is following this story closely.
Duggan's "D-Insurance" bill gained approval from the Senate Insurance Committee Wednesday with changes that would let other cities with 35 percent uninsured drivers allow insurers to sell plans capped at $250,000 in car injuries. Claims above that cap would be directed to a driver's health insurance.
But the DMC, where Duggan was CEO from 2004-12, opposes the Detroit mayor's bill because it eliminates unlimited catastrophic coverage for drivers who suffer brain and spinal cord injuries, said Conrad Mallett Jr., chief administration officer of the hospital system. A Detroit car accident lawyer represents clients injured in automobile accidents.
"D-Insurance is not going to be the panacea for the people that live in Detroit … that the mayor believes," said Mallett, a Detroiter who worked under Duggan for eight years.
The DMC treats drivers with severe brain, spinal and neurological injuries from car accidents at its Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan.
"We believe that access back to the catastrophic insurance fund is critical," Mallett told The Detroit News. "We are with the mayor on everything but this."
Duggan, who has met with Detroit hospital leaders in the past week, downplayed the impact to the DMC's bottom line and care to patients.
"It has only a marginal impact on the hospitals," Duggan said Wednesday. "The hospitals will still be able to charge their triple Blue Cross rate."
The years-long battle over reforming Michigan's no-fault auto insurance system rests with the level of long-term care insurers should have to cover for treatments and therapies after hospitalization. A Detroit insurance defense lawyer helps insurance carriers analyze and understand all of the legal and business issues involved in processing insurance claims.
Duggan's insurance plan has been introduced as an alternative to making statewide changes to the insurance system, which passed the Senate last month but has stalled in the House after intense lobbying against the bill by hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
"It's a pilot project ... that maybe someday other areas of the state could follow," said Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.
Duggan, a Democrat, is trying to keep the Republican-controlled Legislature focused on his narrowly tailored legislation, which does not include caps on the amounts hospitals can charge for individual procedures like the bill stalled in the House would do.
"This doesn't have nearly as dramatic of an effect on the hospitals as the earlier bill," Duggan said.
Duggan's bill focuses on lowering Detroit's 60 percent rate of motorists illegally driving on city streets and freeways without insurance.
The Detroit mayor argues his plan, which would be voluntary for drivers, could cut insurance premiums by one-third or $1,000 for the typical car owner in the city.
"We think the great majority of the financial abuses are coming post-hospital," Duggan said. "I don't believe the hospital is where the problem is."
Mallett said he remains convinced that Duggan's plan will really drive down the cost of Detroit's highest-in-the-nation auto insurance rates.
"We'd be glad to be part of the conversation, but for the life of me as someone who lives and works in the city of Detroit I have to say I'm unconvinced," he said.
The committee amended the legislation Wednesday to allow any city with an uninsured rate of at least 35 percent to petition the state insurance commissioner to allow insurers to sell lower-cost plans with less benefits. The original version of Duggan's proposal set the threshold at 50 percent. A Grand Rapids insurance defense lawyer is following this story closely.
The committee voted 5-3 to advance the bill to the Senate floor.
Sen. Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park, said the new threshold should allow his hometown, Hamtramck, Ecorse, River Rouge, Inkster, Pontiac, Benton Harbor, Saginaw and, possibly, Flint to participate.
Sen. Margaret O'Brien, R-Portage, voted for the bill but expressed disappointment that it would be limited to drivers in urban cities with high concentrations of poverty.
"Poverty knows no municipal lines," O'Brien said.
Under the bill, drivers who opt to buy a lower-cost, cut-rate auto insurance plan would surrender any right to make a claim to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, a fund all drivers pay into for coverage of life-altering vehicle injuries.
"There's going to be some huge heartburn on the part of medical providers," said Johnson, who supported the bill.
But Johnson argues the DMC and other hospitals will ultimately benefit from having more Detroit drivers with insurance they can afford.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
MORGAN, WALMART REACH ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT
Original Story: usatoday.com
Tracy Morgan and Walmart have announced a settlement regarding the New Jersey accident which seriously injured Morgan and killed comedian James McNair last year.
The terms of the settlement are being kept confidential, according to a press release first published by Marketwatch. A New Jersey car accident lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
"Walmart did right by me and my family, and for my associates and their families. I am grateful that the case was resolved amicably," Morgan said in a statement. The 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live alum suffered broken leg bones, a broken nose and several broken ribs in the crash last June.
Walmart and Benedict P. Morelli, attorney for Tracy Morgan, comedian Ardley Fuqua, and Jeffrey Millea, announced the settlement agreement. Millea and Ardie Fuqua Jr. also were critically injured. An Islandia car accident attorney represents clients involved in auto accident and injury claims involving a commercial vehicle.
"Our thoughts continue to go out to everyone that was involved in the accident," said Greg Foran, Walmart U.S. president and CEO. "While we know there is nothing that can change what happened, Walmart has been committed to doing what's right to help ensure the well-being of all of those who were impacted by the accident. We worked closely with Mr. Morelli, and we are pleased to have reached an amicable settlement that ends this litigation. We are deeply sorry that one of our trucks was involved." A Detroit auto accident lawyer is following this story closely.
State Police said Walmart truck driver Kevin Roper, 35, failed to see slow-moving traffic while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. His truck slammed into a 2012 Mercedes limousine-bus carrying Morgan, McNair and several others. A Cleveland auto accident attorney represents clients injured in automobile accidents.
"Walmart and I worked diligently to reach this settlement for the plaintiffs and their families," says Morrelli. "Walmart took full responsibility for the accident, which we greatly appreciate."
Tracy Morgan and Walmart have announced a settlement regarding the New Jersey accident which seriously injured Morgan and killed comedian James McNair last year.
The terms of the settlement are being kept confidential, according to a press release first published by Marketwatch. A New Jersey car accident lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
"Walmart did right by me and my family, and for my associates and their families. I am grateful that the case was resolved amicably," Morgan said in a statement. The 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live alum suffered broken leg bones, a broken nose and several broken ribs in the crash last June.
Walmart and Benedict P. Morelli, attorney for Tracy Morgan, comedian Ardley Fuqua, and Jeffrey Millea, announced the settlement agreement. Millea and Ardie Fuqua Jr. also were critically injured. An Islandia car accident attorney represents clients involved in auto accident and injury claims involving a commercial vehicle.
"Our thoughts continue to go out to everyone that was involved in the accident," said Greg Foran, Walmart U.S. president and CEO. "While we know there is nothing that can change what happened, Walmart has been committed to doing what's right to help ensure the well-being of all of those who were impacted by the accident. We worked closely with Mr. Morelli, and we are pleased to have reached an amicable settlement that ends this litigation. We are deeply sorry that one of our trucks was involved." A Detroit auto accident lawyer is following this story closely.
State Police said Walmart truck driver Kevin Roper, 35, failed to see slow-moving traffic while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. His truck slammed into a 2012 Mercedes limousine-bus carrying Morgan, McNair and several others. A Cleveland auto accident attorney represents clients injured in automobile accidents.
"Walmart and I worked diligently to reach this settlement for the plaintiffs and their families," says Morrelli. "Walmart took full responsibility for the accident, which we greatly appreciate."
WAS 85-YEAR-OLD DETROIT-AREA DRIVER SCARED TO DEATH? INSURER TO PAY $300,000 TO SETTLE LAWSUIT
Original Story: clickondetroit.com
DETROIT - An insurance company has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit over the death of an 85-year-old man who may have been scared to death before his car slammed into a tractor-trailer in suburban Detroit. A Detroit car accident lawyer is following this story closely.
The settlement ends a dispute over the opinion of Dr. Werner Spitz, who said Abdulla Kassem's heart attack could have been caused by a "fear of impending doom," just before the 2008 crash in Dearborn. There was no autopsy.
Kassem's family sued the trucking company, Efficient Hauling Services, saying the truck's rear lights weren't visible.
The Michigan appeals court said a jury could consider Spitz' theory, although a cardiologist called it "silly." An appeal of that decision was pending at the state Supreme Court when the lawsuit was settled this month. A Detroit insurance defense lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
DETROIT - An insurance company has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit over the death of an 85-year-old man who may have been scared to death before his car slammed into a tractor-trailer in suburban Detroit. A Detroit car accident lawyer is following this story closely.
The settlement ends a dispute over the opinion of Dr. Werner Spitz, who said Abdulla Kassem's heart attack could have been caused by a "fear of impending doom," just before the 2008 crash in Dearborn. There was no autopsy.
Kassem's family sued the trucking company, Efficient Hauling Services, saying the truck's rear lights weren't visible.
The Michigan appeals court said a jury could consider Spitz' theory, although a cardiologist called it "silly." An appeal of that decision was pending at the state Supreme Court when the lawsuit was settled this month. A Detroit insurance defense lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
DRUNKEN SCOOTER CASE WHEELS BACK TO TRIAL COURT
Original Story: record-eagle.com
TRAVERSE CITY — A stalled drunken driving case against a Traverse City man appears full speed ahead after state court judges ruled that his electric scooter can be considered a motor vehicle. A Westchester County DWI lawyer is following this story closely.
Michigan Court of Appeals judges this week unanimously agreed that Michigan's rules of the road applied to William Shaw Lyon, 52, of Traverse City, when he drunkenly scooted down Garfield Avenue in 2013.
Their opinion reverses 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers' previous dismissal of a third-offense drunken driving charge against Lyon and remands the case to his court for a potential trial. Lyon's attorney David Clark, who uses an electric wheelchair, said he's "extremely disappointed in the opinion."
"In my opinion, the court of appeals has pretty much disregarded handicappers' civil rights in defining a wheelchair as a motor vehicle," he said. A New York drunk driving lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
In September 2013, Lyon was ordered out of a Save-a-Lot grocery store after he caused a drunken disturbance on his scooter. He set off down Garfield Avenue at 4 mph in the curb lane toward Burger King, open beer in hand, when city police officers stopped him for causing a traffic backup.
Police arrested Lyon for disorderly conduct and possession of marijuana, and prosecutors later added charges of possession of an open alcoholic container and third-offense drunken driving, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Lyon's court-appointed attorney -- Clark -- appealed the driving-related charges, arguing Lyon is disabled and his scooter is a substitute for walking and not a motor vehicle. Rodgers agreed and dismissed the charges, prompting an appeal from Grand Traverse County prosecutors.
The appellate judges found because Lyon placed his scooter on a roadway while admittedly intoxicated he "undertook the duties of a vehicle driver, which include refraining from driving while intoxicated or with an open container." A Nyack DWI lawyer represents clients charged with felonies, misdemeanors, violations, and driving while under the influence.
"Accordingly, the circuit court committed clear legal error and abused its discretion in dismissing the charges in this case," the opinion states.
Rodgers didn't return a call for comment.
Clark worries the opinion could have unintended consequences. He said if a rowdy, drunken bachelor party crossed from a sidewalk into a street that a reveler in an electric wheelchair could face different legal penalties than those who traveled on their feet.
"An overzealous police officer could cite them for disorderly (conduct), but arrest the guy in wheelchair for drunken driving," he said.
But county Prosecutor Bob Cooney had worries of his own, specifically that drivers with suspended licenses might take to similar devices to skirt drunken driving laws. He's happy with the opinion, though he said the law should be refined to address concerns.
"I was concerned with the message to other drivers and other persons who might think it's OK to travel along roadways in Grand Traverse County on similar vehicles while intoxicated, or with their licenses suspended," he said. A New York DWI lawyer is dedicated to protecting the driving rights of clients charged with drunk driving.
Lyon didn't return a call for comment. Clark said he's unsure whether Lyon will take the case up with the Michigan Supreme Court, take a plea, or opt for a trial where jurors would decide his guilt.
"They’d be instructed that a wheelchair is a motor vehicle," he said.
TRAVERSE CITY — A stalled drunken driving case against a Traverse City man appears full speed ahead after state court judges ruled that his electric scooter can be considered a motor vehicle. A Westchester County DWI lawyer is following this story closely.
Michigan Court of Appeals judges this week unanimously agreed that Michigan's rules of the road applied to William Shaw Lyon, 52, of Traverse City, when he drunkenly scooted down Garfield Avenue in 2013.
Their opinion reverses 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers' previous dismissal of a third-offense drunken driving charge against Lyon and remands the case to his court for a potential trial. Lyon's attorney David Clark, who uses an electric wheelchair, said he's "extremely disappointed in the opinion."
"In my opinion, the court of appeals has pretty much disregarded handicappers' civil rights in defining a wheelchair as a motor vehicle," he said. A New York drunk driving lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
In September 2013, Lyon was ordered out of a Save-a-Lot grocery store after he caused a drunken disturbance on his scooter. He set off down Garfield Avenue at 4 mph in the curb lane toward Burger King, open beer in hand, when city police officers stopped him for causing a traffic backup.
Police arrested Lyon for disorderly conduct and possession of marijuana, and prosecutors later added charges of possession of an open alcoholic container and third-offense drunken driving, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Lyon's court-appointed attorney -- Clark -- appealed the driving-related charges, arguing Lyon is disabled and his scooter is a substitute for walking and not a motor vehicle. Rodgers agreed and dismissed the charges, prompting an appeal from Grand Traverse County prosecutors.
The appellate judges found because Lyon placed his scooter on a roadway while admittedly intoxicated he "undertook the duties of a vehicle driver, which include refraining from driving while intoxicated or with an open container." A Nyack DWI lawyer represents clients charged with felonies, misdemeanors, violations, and driving while under the influence.
"Accordingly, the circuit court committed clear legal error and abused its discretion in dismissing the charges in this case," the opinion states.
Rodgers didn't return a call for comment.
Clark worries the opinion could have unintended consequences. He said if a rowdy, drunken bachelor party crossed from a sidewalk into a street that a reveler in an electric wheelchair could face different legal penalties than those who traveled on their feet.
"An overzealous police officer could cite them for disorderly (conduct), but arrest the guy in wheelchair for drunken driving," he said.
But county Prosecutor Bob Cooney had worries of his own, specifically that drivers with suspended licenses might take to similar devices to skirt drunken driving laws. He's happy with the opinion, though he said the law should be refined to address concerns.
"I was concerned with the message to other drivers and other persons who might think it's OK to travel along roadways in Grand Traverse County on similar vehicles while intoxicated, or with their licenses suspended," he said. A New York DWI lawyer is dedicated to protecting the driving rights of clients charged with drunk driving.
Lyon didn't return a call for comment. Clark said he's unsure whether Lyon will take the case up with the Michigan Supreme Court, take a plea, or opt for a trial where jurors would decide his guilt.
"They’d be instructed that a wheelchair is a motor vehicle," he said.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
WOMAN, HIT BY CAR, SUES GOOGLE FOR FAULTY DIRECTIONS
Original Story: cnet.com
Why trust the machines when you can trust your own eyes, your own brain, your own basic sense of survival?
This philosophical question comes to mind after reading the tragic tale of a woman, her eyes, her brain, her BlackBerry, and her Google Maps.
According to an exhaustive analysis presented by Search Engine Land, Lauren Rosenberg decided to take a walk in Park City, Utah, on January 19, 2009. A Detroit personal injury lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
I will try and ignore just how fundamentally un-American this act was in order to focus on some of the ensuing action.
Rosenberg fingered her trusted BlackBerry and asked it to tell her just how she might walk between 96 Daly Avenue and 1710 Prospector Avenue. Her BlackBerry turned to the world's great walking resource, Google Maps. Google Maps suggested that she should, as part of her journey, amble along Deer Valley Drive.
For all of you who have not had the pleasure of strolling there, might I quote papers filed by Rosenberg's lawyers with the Utah courts. These papers describe Deer Valley Drive as "a.k.a. State Route 224, a rural highway with no sidewalks, and a roadway that exhibits motor vehicles traveling at high speeds, that is not reasonably safe for pedestrians."
There is perhaps nothing finer than a roadway that bothers to exhibit motor vehicles. Yet this was not quite the exhibition that Rosenberg had in mind. For during her stroll along State Route 224 aka Deer Valley Drive she was allegedly struck by a car driven by Patrick Harwood. A Chicago personal injury lawyer represents clients in personal injury, accident, an negligence cases.
She's suing Harwood. And she is also suing Google.
Perhaps some of you might think of Rosenberg as just a perambulating chaser. Yet she and her lawyers reason that Google's walking directions were "careless, reckless, and negligent providing of unsafe directions."
Now this is the point at which your complex minds become engaged and my rather simpler version becomes divorced. You see, if you ask Google Maps for walking directions on your laptop you get a very clear warning--yes, on one of those lovely beigey-yellow backgrounds--that reads: "Walking Direction are in Beta. Use caution--This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
The question is, does this warning appear when you go to Google Maps on your BlackBerry? Or, even more importantly, on Rosenberg's BlackBerry? It does not appear to appear on the iPhone. Which might suggest the same situation holds with the RIM phone.
What I cannot ascertain from the court papers is why Rosenberg would want to walk this route in Utah. She is, it appears, from Los Angeles, which means that she might not have been used to walking at all.
Equally puzzling is the first part part of the court papers where it is says that Rosenberg suffered mental, physical and emotional injuries that caused her to incur medical expenses "in an amount yet to be determined." And yet when it comes to the part about suing Google, medical expenses are said to exceed $100,000. A Grand Rapids personal injury attorney is following this story closely.
Courts have not always been sympathetic to those who claim that they were merely following the orders of enlightened machines. There was the man in England who ordered his BMW down an unpaved cliffside lane , got stuck, and then claimed that his GPS made him do it. The court decided it was the driver's own brain that made him do so.
Can Rosenberg expect Utah courts to be more sympathetic? In our world of increasingly diminished responsibility, might someone actually be in a position to prove that we are all now subjects of the Googleplex? Those Googlies have filmed our streets, made records of our Wi-Fi data, followed us around the Web until they could offer us ads that are "good" for us. Shouldn't we admit whose the supreme power truly is?
Or might the judge emit a cough and declaim in the finest Latin: "Caveat walker"?
Why trust the machines when you can trust your own eyes, your own brain, your own basic sense of survival?
This philosophical question comes to mind after reading the tragic tale of a woman, her eyes, her brain, her BlackBerry, and her Google Maps.
According to an exhaustive analysis presented by Search Engine Land, Lauren Rosenberg decided to take a walk in Park City, Utah, on January 19, 2009. A Detroit personal injury lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
I will try and ignore just how fundamentally un-American this act was in order to focus on some of the ensuing action.
Rosenberg fingered her trusted BlackBerry and asked it to tell her just how she might walk between 96 Daly Avenue and 1710 Prospector Avenue. Her BlackBerry turned to the world's great walking resource, Google Maps. Google Maps suggested that she should, as part of her journey, amble along Deer Valley Drive.
For all of you who have not had the pleasure of strolling there, might I quote papers filed by Rosenberg's lawyers with the Utah courts. These papers describe Deer Valley Drive as "a.k.a. State Route 224, a rural highway with no sidewalks, and a roadway that exhibits motor vehicles traveling at high speeds, that is not reasonably safe for pedestrians."
There is perhaps nothing finer than a roadway that bothers to exhibit motor vehicles. Yet this was not quite the exhibition that Rosenberg had in mind. For during her stroll along State Route 224 aka Deer Valley Drive she was allegedly struck by a car driven by Patrick Harwood. A Chicago personal injury lawyer represents clients in personal injury, accident, an negligence cases.
She's suing Harwood. And she is also suing Google.
Perhaps some of you might think of Rosenberg as just a perambulating chaser. Yet she and her lawyers reason that Google's walking directions were "careless, reckless, and negligent providing of unsafe directions."
Now this is the point at which your complex minds become engaged and my rather simpler version becomes divorced. You see, if you ask Google Maps for walking directions on your laptop you get a very clear warning--yes, on one of those lovely beigey-yellow backgrounds--that reads: "Walking Direction are in Beta. Use caution--This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths."
The question is, does this warning appear when you go to Google Maps on your BlackBerry? Or, even more importantly, on Rosenberg's BlackBerry? It does not appear to appear on the iPhone. Which might suggest the same situation holds with the RIM phone.
What I cannot ascertain from the court papers is why Rosenberg would want to walk this route in Utah. She is, it appears, from Los Angeles, which means that she might not have been used to walking at all.
Equally puzzling is the first part part of the court papers where it is says that Rosenberg suffered mental, physical and emotional injuries that caused her to incur medical expenses "in an amount yet to be determined." And yet when it comes to the part about suing Google, medical expenses are said to exceed $100,000. A Grand Rapids personal injury attorney is following this story closely.
Courts have not always been sympathetic to those who claim that they were merely following the orders of enlightened machines. There was the man in England who ordered his BMW down an unpaved cliffside lane , got stuck, and then claimed that his GPS made him do it. The court decided it was the driver's own brain that made him do so.
Can Rosenberg expect Utah courts to be more sympathetic? In our world of increasingly diminished responsibility, might someone actually be in a position to prove that we are all now subjects of the Googleplex? Those Googlies have filmed our streets, made records of our Wi-Fi data, followed us around the Web until they could offer us ads that are "good" for us. Shouldn't we admit whose the supreme power truly is?
Or might the judge emit a cough and declaim in the finest Latin: "Caveat walker"?
Thursday, May 7, 2015
QUICKEN LOANS SUES FEDS
Original Story: freep.com
Going on the offensive, Quicken Loans filed a lawsuit against two federal agencies looking into its lending practices, saying their three-year investigation is really a strong-armed attempt to get a big settlement from the Detroit-based company.
Quicken filed its lawsuit late last week against the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, asking a court to find that its lending practices involving FHA-insured loans were proper. An Ohio banking lawyer represents commercial and private banks and lenders in a diverse array of financing transactions.
"Quicken Loans appears to be one of the targets (due to its large size) of a political agenda under which the DOJ is 'investigating' and pressuring large, high-profile lenders into paying nine- and 10-figure sums and publicly 'admitting' wrongdoing, including conceding that the lenders had made 'false claims,' " the lawsuit says.
Although a legal long shot, the lawsuit demonstrates Quicken's penchant for aggressively defending its reputation. It's rare for companies to file preemptive lawsuits against the government, said Matthew Schwartz, a former assistant U.S. attorney who is now a partner at New York-based Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
"Sometimes the targets of investigations go on the offensive, including by filing lawsuits, but nothing like this to my knowledge," he said, adding that the lawsuit could be a good public relations move. "This is obviously an attempt by Quicken to frame what's going on here."
Quicken, founded by billionaire Dan Gilbert, says it's the nation's largest originator of loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. In recent fiscal quarters, Quicken has ranked as the nation's No. 2 lender for direct-to-consumer mortgage lending, although its total volume, like that of all major mortgage lenders, has declined since the refinancing boom started to fade in mid 2013. A Rochester real estate lawyer is following this story closely.
A Quicken Loans spokesman did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
The lawsuit says Justice and HUD started investigating Quicken's handling of FHA-insured loans about three years ago, and "cherry-picked" 55 examples that were problematic out of more than 246,000 Quicken originated in 2007-11.
The lawsuit says Justice is threatening a high-profile lawsuit involving a much larger number of loans unless the company agrees to pay a large settlement and "admit" flawed lending practices and federal Fair Claims Act violations.
Quicken is asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to declare its FHA loans made in 2007-11 were done properly.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on an ongoing investigation.
The Justice Department has reached large settlements over FHA-insured loans in recent years with J.P. Morgan Chase ($614 million in 2014), U.S. Bank ($200 million in 2014) and Bank of America ($1 billion in 2012). The Bank of America settlement was related to loans made by Countrywide, the once-mighty mortgage lender that all but collapsed and was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.
Quicken claims that the Justice Department's ongoing investigation in Detroit is flawed in several ways, particularly in its use of a sampling method that assumes defects in a small subset of loans will exist to the same extent across a large population of loans. Quicken calls the sampling method "biased, unreliable and riddled with error."
"They applied this illegitimate methodology even though the situation of each individual borrower and the mortgaged property are unique, and all FHA lenders are required to keep detailed records of how the FHA loan was underwritten and made," the lawsuit states. An Encino CPA is reviewing the details of this case.
Quicken said the defects found by the Justice Department in the 55 loans are minor, such as miscalculating a loan applicant's monthly income by $2.10, telling a borrower to bring $125 to closing even though it had approved a loan that only needed $48 at closing, and loaning an FHA customer $26 too much on a $99,500 mortgage.
The FHA program provides mortgage default insurance to lenders such as Quicken Loans, which can make a claim on a federal fund within HUD if a loan goes bad. FHA loans are popular among borrowers with lower income or lower credit scores who might have trouble qualifying for a conventional mortgage.
Going on the offensive, Quicken Loans filed a lawsuit against two federal agencies looking into its lending practices, saying their three-year investigation is really a strong-armed attempt to get a big settlement from the Detroit-based company.
Quicken filed its lawsuit late last week against the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, asking a court to find that its lending practices involving FHA-insured loans were proper. An Ohio banking lawyer represents commercial and private banks and lenders in a diverse array of financing transactions.
"Quicken Loans appears to be one of the targets (due to its large size) of a political agenda under which the DOJ is 'investigating' and pressuring large, high-profile lenders into paying nine- and 10-figure sums and publicly 'admitting' wrongdoing, including conceding that the lenders had made 'false claims,' " the lawsuit says.
Although a legal long shot, the lawsuit demonstrates Quicken's penchant for aggressively defending its reputation. It's rare for companies to file preemptive lawsuits against the government, said Matthew Schwartz, a former assistant U.S. attorney who is now a partner at New York-based Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
"Sometimes the targets of investigations go on the offensive, including by filing lawsuits, but nothing like this to my knowledge," he said, adding that the lawsuit could be a good public relations move. "This is obviously an attempt by Quicken to frame what's going on here."
Quicken, founded by billionaire Dan Gilbert, says it's the nation's largest originator of loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. In recent fiscal quarters, Quicken has ranked as the nation's No. 2 lender for direct-to-consumer mortgage lending, although its total volume, like that of all major mortgage lenders, has declined since the refinancing boom started to fade in mid 2013. A Rochester real estate lawyer is following this story closely.
A Quicken Loans spokesman did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
The lawsuit says Justice and HUD started investigating Quicken's handling of FHA-insured loans about three years ago, and "cherry-picked" 55 examples that were problematic out of more than 246,000 Quicken originated in 2007-11.
The lawsuit says Justice is threatening a high-profile lawsuit involving a much larger number of loans unless the company agrees to pay a large settlement and "admit" flawed lending practices and federal Fair Claims Act violations.
Quicken is asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to declare its FHA loans made in 2007-11 were done properly.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on an ongoing investigation.
The Justice Department has reached large settlements over FHA-insured loans in recent years with J.P. Morgan Chase ($614 million in 2014), U.S. Bank ($200 million in 2014) and Bank of America ($1 billion in 2012). The Bank of America settlement was related to loans made by Countrywide, the once-mighty mortgage lender that all but collapsed and was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.
Quicken claims that the Justice Department's ongoing investigation in Detroit is flawed in several ways, particularly in its use of a sampling method that assumes defects in a small subset of loans will exist to the same extent across a large population of loans. Quicken calls the sampling method "biased, unreliable and riddled with error."
"They applied this illegitimate methodology even though the situation of each individual borrower and the mortgaged property are unique, and all FHA lenders are required to keep detailed records of how the FHA loan was underwritten and made," the lawsuit states. An Encino CPA is reviewing the details of this case.
Quicken said the defects found by the Justice Department in the 55 loans are minor, such as miscalculating a loan applicant's monthly income by $2.10, telling a borrower to bring $125 to closing even though it had approved a loan that only needed $48 at closing, and loaning an FHA customer $26 too much on a $99,500 mortgage.
The FHA program provides mortgage default insurance to lenders such as Quicken Loans, which can make a claim on a federal fund within HUD if a loan goes bad. FHA loans are popular among borrowers with lower income or lower credit scores who might have trouble qualifying for a conventional mortgage.
TULSA RESERVE DEPUTY'S LAWYERS RELEASE TRAINING RECORDS
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Tulsa, Okla. – (AP) — Defense attorneys released some of the training records Saturday for a 73-year-old volunteer sheriff's deputy charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed suspect in Oklahoma. A Tulsa criminal defense lawyer is following this story closely.
The records for Robert Bates include certificates showing what training he received, job evaluation reports and weapons training and qualification records dating to 2008.
Bates' attorneys said the 64 pages of records released to The Associated Press and other news organizations include records Bates copied and kept for himself. Although there are time gaps in the documents provided, some of the records seem to indicate Bates was proficient in firearms and dozens of other training courses.
"For the first time today, we feel like someone's starting to look at the other side of this as far as his qualifications," Scott Wood, an attorney for Bates, said after the documents were released.
Bates has said he mistakenly pulled out a handgun rather than a stun gun when he fatally shot Eric Harris on April 2 as he lay on the ground. He has been charged with second-degree manslaughter. A Tulsa criminal defense attorney is experienced in defending clients and helping them form appeals in criminal cases.
The Tulsa County volunteer deputy has disputed a Tulsa World report that sheriff's office supervisors were ordered to falsify his training records.
The World said at least three of Bates' supervisors were transferred for refusing to go along with the requests, and said it consulted multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, but it gave no indication how those sources were familiar with the situation.
Bates told NBC's "Today" show on Friday that he was certified for his position and had the documentation to prove it.
Harris' family attorney — who had questioned Bates' qualifications as a reserve deputy — did not return a message seeking comment Saturday. A call to the district attorney's office rang unanswered, and the sheriff's office referred questions to Wood. An Orlando criminal lawyer has experience representing clients charged with fatal offenses.
"I want to do everything I can to make sure that people know that this allegation of falsified records is not true," Wood said.
Tulsa, Okla. – (AP) — Defense attorneys released some of the training records Saturday for a 73-year-old volunteer sheriff's deputy charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed suspect in Oklahoma. A Tulsa criminal defense lawyer is following this story closely.
The records for Robert Bates include certificates showing what training he received, job evaluation reports and weapons training and qualification records dating to 2008.
Bates' attorneys said the 64 pages of records released to The Associated Press and other news organizations include records Bates copied and kept for himself. Although there are time gaps in the documents provided, some of the records seem to indicate Bates was proficient in firearms and dozens of other training courses.
"For the first time today, we feel like someone's starting to look at the other side of this as far as his qualifications," Scott Wood, an attorney for Bates, said after the documents were released.
Bates has said he mistakenly pulled out a handgun rather than a stun gun when he fatally shot Eric Harris on April 2 as he lay on the ground. He has been charged with second-degree manslaughter. A Tulsa criminal defense attorney is experienced in defending clients and helping them form appeals in criminal cases.
The Tulsa County volunteer deputy has disputed a Tulsa World report that sheriff's office supervisors were ordered to falsify his training records.
The World said at least three of Bates' supervisors were transferred for refusing to go along with the requests, and said it consulted multiple sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, but it gave no indication how those sources were familiar with the situation.
Bates told NBC's "Today" show on Friday that he was certified for his position and had the documentation to prove it.
Harris' family attorney — who had questioned Bates' qualifications as a reserve deputy — did not return a message seeking comment Saturday. A call to the district attorney's office rang unanswered, and the sheriff's office referred questions to Wood. An Orlando criminal lawyer has experience representing clients charged with fatal offenses.
"I want to do everything I can to make sure that people know that this allegation of falsified records is not true," Wood said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
