Alan Wilson - Thad Westbrook - 68 MIS...

Alan Wilson - Thad Westbrook - 68 MISSING Contributions in Campaign

Posted in the Columbia Forum

YouLIE

Louisburg, NC

#1 Mar 26, 2013
68 MISSING Contributions

16 Missing payments

SC attorney general discovers $134,000 in unreported contributions, expenses

Published: March 22, 2013

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson filed amended campaign disclosures Friday after an independent accountant found his campaign had failed to report 68 donations worth nearly $66,890.

The campaign also said it discovered unreported payments totaling $66,797 to 16 vendors

The unreported donations were discovered after Alan Wilson said he had returned $7,000 in contributions tied to House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston.

Half of the contributions came from Harrell’s campaign for Wilson’s inaugural ball. That $3,500 was listed on Harrell’s disclosure form but not on Alan Wilson’s.

Alan Wilson returned the $7,000, including another $3,500 contribution from a political-action committee tied to the speaker

The newly reported contributions include a $1,750 donation to Wilson’s campaign from the Charleston law firm of Harrell’s brother, John David Harrell.

Harrell’s appointment of his brother to the S.C. Judicial Merit Commission, which screens candidates for judges, was among the conflict-of-interest complaints against the speaker submitted to Wilson by the S.C. Policy Council

S.C. Policy Council President Ashley Landess said Friday that if Wilson thought he needed to return the earlier contributions tied to Bobby Harrell, he should return those tied to John Davis Harrell as well.

When Bobby Harrell’s unreported contribution was discovered, Wilson’s campaign investigated and found other contributions to his inaugural gala also were not included in disclosure forms. The campaign then asked an accountant to examine the quarters before and after the event – a period that covered September 2010 to April 2011.

Campaign chairman Thad Westbrook, a Nelson Mullins attorney, said in a statement.“He could easily have asked the campaign to correct the handful of errors that were initially found and stopped with that."

Most of the missing donations – 53 of 68 – were given for Wilson’s inaugural gala. The other 15 contributions included nine that were made online.
YouLIE

Louisburg, NC

#2 Mar 26, 2013
COLUMBIA — The campaign of State Attorney General Alan Wilson left off dozens of contributions and expenses totaling more than $134,000 from campaign disclosure reports

68 donations received after Wilson was elected totaling $66,890 and 16 expenses totaling $66,797 that were left out of disclosures. Most of the donations related to two days of deposits that went unrecorded, according to the campaign. Almost all of the donations were made in December 2010 or January 2011.

Many of the discovered donations came from lawyers or their firms.

Thad Westbrook was Alan Wilson’s campaign chairman.

Thad Westbrook first said there might be 10 to 15 undisclosed donations.
YouLIE

Louisburg, NC

#4 Mar 28, 2013
ALAN WILSON TO FACE FORMAL ETHICS COMPLAINT

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson Failed to Report $134K in Campaign Funds

South Carolina’s Republican 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 errors last week.

Because he self-reported what his Campaign Manager Tha 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 Wilson’s campaign, and cannot investigate what happened without a formal complaint.

Wilson’s is the largest campaign reporting error the ethics agency has seen in more than a dozen years.

As attorney general, Wilson is the state’s top prosecutor and is in charge of enforcing the state’s ethics laws. Last year he toured the state with Gov. Nikki Haley touting an ethics reform plan, and he’s been asking lawmakers to create a Public Integrity Unit to help streamline ethics investigations. He recently asked the State Law Enforcement Division to investigate the campaign finances of GOP House Speaker Bobby Harrell; and last year, he prosecuted ex-GOP Lt. Gov. Ken Ard for orchestrating an illegal campaign finance scheme.

Wilson’s own campaign finances came into question after Free Times reported on 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. Wilson’s campaign then found more than a dozen more unreported donations and hired an accountant to review all of 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 chairman Thad Westbrook in a statement.

The initial unreported 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 Wilson’s team decided to fund the gala through his campaign account, Westbrook said. He said no one gave a donation that exceeded the $3,500 maximum contribution limit a campaign can accept. It would take a detailed look at the campaign’s bank statements to be sure.

Outgoing South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian said he wants the 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.”

Harpootlian says his party is calling on 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 he declines, Harpootlian said the party would file an ethics complaint.
Gala

Louisburg, NC

#5 Mar 29, 2013
On February 21st, 2013

Thad Westbrook, campaign manager said:

..."He and others had looked back into old campaign records and found roughly a dozen other contributions related to the gala that Wilson had failed to disclose"

Alan Wilson and Campaign Manager Thad Westbrook now face scrutiny about campaign finances.

Wilson will have to amend some two-year-old campaign finance reports because at least a dozen contributions he should have disclosed were never reported, his campaign manager Thad Westbrook said

At issue is how Wilson funded a Jan. 14, 2011 inauguration party to celebrate his win. The event, for which Wilson solicited money from donors to attend, took place at The Hall at Senate, and cost ticket holders $100 or $150 per couple. The black-tie affair, which featured a live band, food, dancing and drinks, also had tiered sponsorships for $10,000 and $5,000, according to someone asked to donate.

"It was a campaign event," Thad Westbrook says, and was paid for by Wilson's Alan Wilson for Attorney General campaign account.

A campaign for statewide office in South Carolina can only take in a maximum of $3,500 from an individual donor. Thad Westbrook says high-dollar sponsorships were split among individual donors and bundled to make a Platinum or Gold sponsorship.

But many of the donations that went to pay for the inaugural gala were never reported on Alan Wilson's campaign disclosure reports.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell had given $3,500 from his campaign account to “Alan Wilson for Attorney General.” Dated Jan. 6, 2011, the donation was itemized as going to pay for “Sponsorship of inaugural gala.”

Interestingly, no campaign contribution from Harrell ever showed up in Wilson’s campaign finance reports, according to State Ethics Commission general counsel Cathy Hazelwood. Candidates must report political contributions to the State Ethics Commission. They become public documents and can be viewed online.

It is against state law for one candidate to give money from his or her campaign to another candidate’s campaign, Hazelwood says.

When the improper campaign-to-campaign contribution from Harrell as uncovered, Alan Wilson announced he would refund the money.

Wilson’s spokesman, Mark Powell, said a check for the refunded donation was mailed the afternoon of Feb. 19. That raised a question: How could Alan Wilson direct his campaign to refund money it never reported receiving?

Responding to that question, Wilson's campaign manager Thad Westbrook said he and others had looked back into old campaign records and found roughly a dozen other contributions related to the gala that Wilson had failed to disclose.

Thad Westbrook says he considered setting up a separate committee to handle the event, but decided against it. Therefore, Wilson's inaugural party was a campaign event, Westbrook says.

So, how could Speaker Bobby Harrell have given $3,500 from his own campaign account to Wilson's campaign, which would have been improper?

Regardless, it still never showed up in Wilson's financial reports like it should have.
Foreclosure Fraud

Fayetteville, NC

#6 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.

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

Fayetteville, NC

#9 Oct 4, 2013
In view of the homeowner’s concern that he know the identity of the creditor, whether his payments are being forwarded to the the actual creditor, and whether there has been an accounting for all receipts and disbursements FROM THE CREDITOR, not the servicer, are all valid questions. in nearly all loans originated since 2001, the note was signed by the homeowner under the mistaken notion that the Payee had loaned him the money. In fact, this was not the case and the Wall Street players are attempting to dance around this with legal arguments instead of plain facts showing who made the loan. They want the facts to be disregarded and in its place a theory to be used to guide the Court’s decision regardless of the facts.
Such proactive homeowners are also questioning the logic and money trail created by the cloud of false securitization claims. On the one hand Wall Street banks want the cloud of players in the securitization chain to be treated as one entity for purposes of enforcement against the borrower; on the other hand, they want the cloud to be treated as merely a collection of individual transactions for which the the borrower has no interest or claims.
But in that cloud there were payments received from third parties outside the cloud. Those are payments that arose in part because of the mere existence of the loan to the homeowner, whether properly documented or not. Those payments were made either as a result of sale to the Federal Reserve, which includes virtually all loans declared in default and many others or because the Master Servicer made the call in its sole discretion to devalue the “tranche” that the loan was declared to be assigned. The declaration of devaluation created insurance and credit default swap payments. The devaluation was of the entire tranche.

FULL STORY:
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/so...
StunningRuling

Fayetteville, NC

#11 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

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.

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/
FRAUDSTERS

Fayetteville, NC

#12 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

#13 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
Auto Money Title Loans Violating SC State Law (Sep '12) 17 hr brittanytophat 41
News Truck's 'racist' Confederate flag offends woman... Thu Stainless Banner 5
Nickey Haley and the roads of South Carolina, w... Jul 29 isaac 2
News In new White House bid, Clinton embraces race a... Jul 28 Le Jimbo 101
News Hillary Clinton praises response to church shoo... Jul 28 MBKornblatt 1
Read about the 3 Hebrew Boys and CCG (Jun '07) Jul 27 Masters 2,533
News Two Men Arrested in Lake Wateree Murder (Apr '07) Jul 27 my brotherskeeper 71
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbia Mortgages