Campaign Chairman Thad Westbrook NOW says 68 contibutions NOT REPORTED

Posted in the Columbia Forum

YouLie

Louisburg, NC

#1 Mar 24, 2013
Alan Wilson's campaign left $134,000 off previous filings.

By SEANNA ADCOX
Associated Press
Posted: Friday, Mar. 22, 2013

COLUMBIA, S.C. South Carolina's top prosecutor amended his campaign filings Friday to account for $134,000 in donations and expenses previously unreported on disclosures surrounding his 2010 election win.

Attorney General Alan Wilson's campaign chairman Thad Westbrook attributed the 68 donations and 16 payments to human error.

The 59 checks and nine online donations that came in after Wilson won the office totaled $66,890, ranging from $5 to the $3,500-per-campaign-cycle limit for statewide candidates. The payments totaled $66,797 - more than 80 percent of them to two vendors for television production and consulting, according to the information provided by the campaign.

The first-term Republican attorney general, Alan Wilson responding to a report in the Free Times, said he would return money that House Speaker Bobby Harrell gave for Alan Wilson's Jan. 11 gala. However, while Harrell's online filings listed his $3,500 sponsorship, Wilson's did not.

Campaign Chairman Thad Westbrook initially estimated that 10 to 15 donations were mistakenly unreported. That number represented other sponsors for Alan Wilson's inaugural gala that were unaccounted for in his online filings.

But an independent accountant Alan Wilson's campaign hired to review his account found many more mistakes. The campaign asked for the review to cover a nine-month span.

But 80 percent of the unreported donations were deposited in the bank on two days, Jan. 6 and Jan. 14. Five donations totaling $7,600 were deposited in late 2010.

The eight donations of $3,500 include Harrell's.

"When human beings are involved, mistakes are inevitable," Thad Westbrook said.

Alan Wilson also last month returned $3,500 donated in October 2010 from a political action committee affiliated with Harrell. The decision to return $7,000 came days after Alan Wilson forwarded an ethics complaint against Harrell to the State Law Enforcement Division for investigation, largely over questions about Harrell's campaign filings. Harrell has denied wrongdoing.
Disturbing

Louisburg, NC

#3 May 15, 2013
Columbia, SC — Attorney General Alan Wilson withheld information from the public when he failed to list nearly $70,000 worth of donations and expenditures in his 2010 campaign to become the state’s top prosecutor.

That doesn’t mean the situation isn’t disturbing. It’s deeply disturbing, particularly when you put it in context: Those 68 unreported donations represented the money Mr. Wilson spent in his election.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/07/2759196/ed...
Foreclosure Fraud

Fayetteville, NC

#4 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.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/so...
Foreclosure Fraud

Fayetteville, NC

#5 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.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/so...
Foreclosure Fraud

Fayetteville, NC

#6 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.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/so...
FRAUDSTERS

Fayetteville, NC

#10 Oct 4, 2013
SOUTH CAROLINA COURT HOLDS THAT FORECLOSURE LAW OF U.S. SUPREME COURT TRUMPS EVERYTHING: FORECLOSING PARTY MUST OWN BOTH THE NOTE AND THE MORTGAGE TO FORECLOSE

In a stunning ruling from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Charleston, South Carolina, a Judge has issued a detailed, 4-page written opinion dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as the claimed trustee of an IndyMac securitization, holding that DB failed to show that it was the owner and holder of the original Note and Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed. FDN South Carolina network counsel Bill Sloan, Esq. represents the homeowner and prepared and argued the homeowner’s Motion to Dismiss.

Counsel for DB made the familiar argument that it had possession of the original Note endorsed in blank, that the Note was a negotiable instrument under the UCC, that the Mortgage follows the Note, and that thus DB had established its right to foreclose. The Court disagreed, citing precedent from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) which the Court found “clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must own the Note and the Mortgage to foreclose on the property (emphasis in the opinion).” The Court determined that “Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed”, and also noted that the Mortgage shows MERS to be the mortgagee but that “MERS is never mentioned in the Note.”

The Court stated:“It is clear that to have standing in this foreclosure case, Plaintiff must not only be the holder and owner of the original Note, but also the Mortgage as well. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case fails to meet this criteria. Plaintiff lacks standing to initiate and prosecute the foreclosure, and dismissal pursuant to Rule 17(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) SCRCP is appropriate.”

This ruling is based on foreclosure law from the United States Supreme Court, which trumps any contrary state law which does not require the foreclosing Plaintiff to own both the Note and the Mortgage at the time that the foreclosure Complaint is filed. This ruling demonstrates the essential fallacy in the “UCC, I have the Note, mortgage follows the Note” theory espoused by every attorney for the banks and servicers.

http://s355160796.onlinehome.us/category/lack...
BigBlow

Fayetteville, NC

#11 Oct 4, 2013
Big Blow To USA Banks On Foreclosures

SOUTH CAROLINA COURT HOLDS THAT FORECLOSURE LAW OF U.S. SUPREME COURT TRUMPS EVERYTHING:

FORECLOSING PARTY MUST OWN BOTH THE NOTE AND THE MORTGAGE TO FORECLOSE

Use this information to protect yourself if you have to face the banks in court.

Article - September 20, 2013

In a stunning ruling from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas of Charleston, South Carolina, a Judge has issued a detailed, 4-page written opinion dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as the claimed trustee of an IndyMac securitization, holding that DB failed to show that it was the owner and holder of the original Note and Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed. FDN South Carolina network counsel Bill Sloan, Esq. represents the homeowner and prepared and argued the homeowner’s Motion to Dismiss.

Counsel for DB made the familiar argument that it had possession of the original Note endorsed in blank, that the Note was a negotiable instrument under the UCC, that the Mortgage follows the Note, and that thus DB had established its right to foreclose. The Court disagreed, citing precedent from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872) which the Court found “clearly supports the notion that the Plaintiff must own the Note and the Mortgage to foreclose on the property (emphasis in the opinion).” The Court determined that “Plaintiff failed to show that it owned the Mortgage at the time the Complaint was filed”, and also noted that the Mortgage shows MERS to be the mortgagee but that “MERS is never mentioned in the Note.”

The Court stated:“It is clear that to have standing in this foreclosure case, Plaintiff must not only be the holder and owner of the original Note, but also the Mortgage as well. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case fails to meet this criteria. Plaintiff lacks standing to initiate and prosecute the foreclosure, and dismissal pursuant to Rule 17(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) SCRCP is appropriate.”

This ruling is based on foreclosure law from the United States Supreme Court, which trumps any contrary state law which does not require the foreclosing Plaintiff to own both the Note and the Mortgage at the time that the foreclosure Complaint is filed. This ruling demonstrates the essential fallacy in the “UCC, I have the Note, mortgage follows the Note” theory espoused by every attorney for the banks and servicers. What remains to be seen is whether the judiciary handling foreclosure cases will follow the law of the U.S. Supreme Court or not.

A copy of the Order is available upon e-mail request.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Allow the Mosque or Not at Ground Zero (Aug '10) Tue Oakley 5,670
Kershaw's Matthews selected 2014 `Sheriff of th... (May '14) Tue Warden of Kershaw 2
Auto Money Title Loans Violating SC State Law (Sep '12) Dec 20 People Search 31
Lexington Poker Ring: Where "The Tape" Came From (Aug '12) Dec 16 juegoskizi 86
READ about Jeb Bush & family before voting Dec 15 voter b aware 1
Sharing My Girlfriend Dec 14 kikguy024 3
Naked Couple Fall Off Building in South Carolina (Jun '07) Dec 10 Dr Rocky 28
Columbia Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbia News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbia

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:22 am PST

NBC Sports 8:22AM
Falcons cut LB James Anderson on Christmas Eve
NBC Sports 8:22 AM
Falcons cut LB James Anderson on Christmas Eve
NBC Sports12:22 PM
Gano eager for another chance vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
NBC Sports12:22 PM
Gano eager for another chance vs. Falcons - NBC Sports
Yahoo! Sports 2:59 PM
Falcons QB Matt Ryan pushing to win for coach Mike Smith