Thad Westbrook, Campaign Manager, MR. SCRIVENER DID IT!
Posted in the Charleston Forum
#1 Mar 28, 2013
ALAN WILSON TO FACE FORMAL ETHICS COMPLAINT
S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson Failed to Report $134,000 in Campaign Funds
South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, failed to report $134,000 in campaign donations and payments two years ago, something that’s just now come to light. He amended his ethics disclosure reports to correct the missing contributions last week.
Because he self-reported what his Campaign Manager Thad Westbrook characterizes as “simple clerical or scrivener’s errors,” Alan Wilson will face no late-filing penalties, according to the S.C. Ethics Commission. Officials there will run a report to make sure there aren’t any further discrepancies. But they will not request bank records from Alan Wilson’s campaign, and cannot investigate what happened without a formal complaint.
Wilson’s is the largest campaign reporting lapse the SC Ethics Commission has seen in more than a dozen years.
Alan Wilson’s own campaign finances came into question after a campaign donation he’d received from Harrell, but failed to report.
Wilson immediately said he’d return the money to neutralize the appearance of any conflict of interest in the Harrell matter.
Alan Wilson’s campaign then found more than a dozen more unreported donations and hired an accountant to review all of Alan Wilson’s campaign filings.
The accountant found much more missing money:
68 donations totaling $66,890, and
payments to 16 vendors totaling $66,797.
The accountant is still looking.
“He could easily have asked the campaign to correct the handful of errors that were initially found and stopped with that,” said his campaign manager Thad Westbrook.
The initial missing campaign filings stemmed from how Wilson paid for his inaugural ball in January 2011, after his election in 2010.
Typically, campaigns set up an independent committee to fund their inaugural parties. That way, donors don’t have to worry about exceeding campaign finance limits.
But Alan Wilson’s and Thad Westbrook decided to fund the gala through his campaign account, Westbrook said.
Dick Harpootlian said he wants the SC Ethics Commission to investigate whether Wilson’s campaign broke any laws.
“Who investigates the investigator?” Harpootlian said.
“It’s troubling to have the guy who is supposed to enforce the ethics law violating the ethics law.”
Dick Harpootlian says his party is calling on Alan Wilson to voluntarily request that the ethics agency investigate beyond what Wilson self-reported to make sure his campaign didn’t violate the law.
If Wilson declines, Harpootlian said the party would file an ethics complaint.
#2 Oct 4, 2013
South Carolina Court Dismisses Foreclosure Based Upon U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Bill Sloan, Esq., in the 9th Judicial Circuit of Common Pleas in Charleston, South Carolina successfully turned the head of at least one judge, citing the United States Supreme Court case of Carpenter v Longen, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L. ed. 313 (1872).“Absent a loss , a claimant has suffered no injury. Unless a claimant can colorably assert a loss, it lacks standing. The point is that in the cloud of overlapping and duplicitous transactions that characterizes the claims of securitization and retreat from allegations of securitization, there remains a series of questions about who lost what, when and why — and that inevitably leads to questions of who owes what, when and why. The banks would have the courts treat these transactions as simple singling out one single event from dozens of related events — namely the point at which the borrower stopped making payments. They seek to misdirect the court away from an inquiry of whether the payment was due, or due to the claimant, or whether there was any loan at the base of the transaction chain.
Attorneys came into court saying they represented Deutsch Bank in the foreclosure — despite a very clear memorandum from Deutsch stating that nobody had authority to bring a foreclosure action in its name. The question of whether Deutsch even knew about the action was apparently never brought up. Instead the case turned on familiar arguments that the Trial Judge dispatched in a 4 page opinion and order.
#3 Oct 4, 2013
Merely having paperwork doesn’t mean you have a legitimate claim. The Court found that the Carpenter case from 130 years ago stated the requirements quite plainly. The Supreme Court decision “clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must own the Note and Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed.” The Court was also obviously disturbed by the fact that MERS was the mortgagee but never mentioned in the note.
Translation: as close as I can get in lay terms the Court is merely stating the obvious. At least it was obvious before the Courts lost their way in the maze of legal arguments and procedures attempted by players in the cloud of false securitization claims.
If your lawsuit is based upon a loan you must allege that the loan was made. If your action is based upon acquisition of the loan you still must allege that the loan was made and that you actually paid for acquisition of the loan. Otherwise the claim is speculative and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Without that the second requirement is impossible to meet — that you have suffered damages as a result of the making the loan and the borrower not repaying it. These are not mere empty recitals. Without them, no lawsuit can continue.
#4 Oct 4, 2013
The Wall Street cloud has argued that they can correct this during litigation. But this Court correctly said that is impossible. The basis for a trial in which the evidence would be presented would be the Complaint. If the Complaint requires that ownership of a real loan be present at the time the Complaint is filed then the Court’s jurisdiction has never been invoked. The Court has no choice. And the reason for this is that it is very well-settled that you bring a matter to court that must be an actual controversy and a plea for relief that can be legally granted. The fabrication of instruments after the filing of the lawsuit for the express purpose of the lawsuit is not only lacking in credibility it is clothed in impossibility.
The fact that the trial court cited a specific U.S. Supreme Court case from which the Supreme Court has apparently never retreated, means that the trial court was saying that this issue was decided 130 years ago, it is the law of the land and it overrides any state court that would rule otherwise.
This also lends support to those proactive homeowners who are “current” in making payments to a bank other than the originator who purports to be the servicer or the new owner of the loan. If they cannot answer the basic questions above as their response to a qualified written request or debt validation letter, then it is reasonable to assume that they are neither the lender nor the acquirer of the loan despite their representations to the contrary. Saying it doesn’t make it so.
#5 Oct 4, 2013
Thus payments received should be allocated to all the loan accounts in that tranche. To say otherwise would require a homeowner to default on a loan in order to get the allocation — obviously a result that any sane person would want to avoid. The sole assets of the tranche are the loans according to the Wall Street players and their paperwork. Hence the account receivable for each loan would be allocable to each loan in the pool based upon some reasonable formula and not necessarily pro rata. The bankers take advantage of this complexity and serve themselves a full cup of fees in the “breakage” that results from the allocation of those payments. Then they serve themselves again by not informing the investor that money has been received because the bankers say that the money received was a proprietary trade of the bank.
In short they keep money that should have been allocated to the account receivable of the investor. By not doing that they cheated the investor. But the fact they were so obviously the agent of the investor means that wherever the money landed, it must, from the perspective of the borrower or other outsiders to the cloud, be allocated for purposes of computation of the real unpaid balance of the creditor, after taking into account amounts held by the agent for the investor regardless of whether the agent willingly gives it up.
It’s difficult but not impossible to follow. The bottom line is that most of the money from many of the loans ended up in the pocket of the bankers who were supposed to act merely as intermediaries. And by the sheer power of their influence to declare the insurance and the derivative securities and hedges to be neither insurance nor securities, they are allowed to insure the same asset over and over again, without ever reporting to the investor that the account receivable has been paid down. That is why bank profits are high while investors are reporting losses.
This results in the account payable of the borrower remaining as though no payment had been received. Since the payments received were explicitly not purchases, they can only be accounted for as loss mitigation payments not merely bets by underwriters who were betting against the same securities they were selling to pension funds and other investors like credit unions and other vulnerable institutions.
Thus we find ourselves in a rabbit hole where the courts are largely refusing to see what is front of them even when it is well presented. All we ask is that the Court require compliance with requirements of pleading and proof. The complex facts will be revealed as one layer after another is unveiled through discovery.
Add your comments below
|Why are white women so insecure (Dec '11)||14 hr||yeah yeah||28|
|Lauren Lewis||15 hr||Seen It||1|
|Jim Christman||16 hr||HTB||32|
|Moving to the area soon....||Tue||brandi||5|
|South Carolina Police Arrest 'Frozen's' Elsa Fo...||Feb 24||Spotted Girl||2|
|James Christman||Feb 21||curious||7|
|TV show looking for families for backyard makeo... (Sep '09)||Feb 21||Miss Michelle Pierce||67|
Find what you want!
Search Charleston Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC