$40,000 is a hefty chunk of change, and roughly the amount stolen by 70 year old Leah M. Wonyetye over her few years playing treasurer for her church. Her deception and felonies went unnoticed until church leaders got word that bills were behind.

Richland investigators brought in an outside auditor to go over the records back to 2006, when Wonyetye took over as treasurer.

The audit detailed a history of missing deposits and double paychecks totaling $40,104.39.

Confronted with the auditor’s report, Wonyetye admitted to the thefts, court papers said.

She remains free on her own recognizance, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for Jan. 12.

“She is not a young woman,” Keirn said. “We did not incarcerate her, but she is going to have to figure out how she’s going to come up with this money. There is a chunk there.”

Churches, social clubs and other organizations should have multiple sets of eyes on all financial business, Keirn advised, and two employees should count and check deposits.

I’m glad she got caught and I’m glad she faces some charges. Stealing is a crime and anyone caught doing it is guilty of criminal behaviour. Call theft a sin if you want, but it’s also illegal and punishable by law. Asking God’s forgiveness is not going to get her out of this.

I wonder why she needed the money. I wonder why she thought it’d be okay to take it from the church. God wouldn’t mind? All for a good godly cause? God wanted her to have the money? Who knows what way she would have justified giving herself the money. Why she thought she’d get away with it..

A spate of thefts of drain grates and manhole covers from rural roads are putting people at serious risk of injury, it is warned…. From BBC News. Full story

This site may contain information about: quezon city. The blog is also related to: city-journal.

Via Kapitik at Flickr

Once again, someone’s stolen from our friends at Inkslingers, Newcastle. Without going into details, this isn’t the first time this has happened, not at all. Every day, someone new goes to a tattoo artist, or even a scratcher, and shows them someone else’s tattoo to copy. Why would anyone want someone else’s tattoo on their body?

Right now the tattoo industry is under more attack from people stealing designs than ever bef0re- mainly due to the Internet. “Tattoo designs” is one of the most popular serch terms Google has ever seen. There are websites such as BME and Rate My Tattoo that encourage people to post up pictures of their tattoos- pictures that can easily be stolen for someone else’s use.

The Internet has made it easier than ever to take a picture of someone else’s tattoo to a tattooist to copy- and for some strange reason, some tattooists have no problem with copying the design. Is it because they have limited artistic ability? Do they see the picture as an easy £50 to make? Do they have no respect for tattoo art? Whatever the reason, they’re just as guilty, if not sometimes more.

Take the above image, for example- the picture on the left being the original. The tattoo’s actual owner probably left their tattoo studio on their final sitting for that tattoo feeling pretty good about themselves. They probably thought that forever no one else in the world would have their beautiful tattoo, custom done to his body and preferences. I can imagine how angry I’d be if I saw someone else with my tattoo afterwards.

So, how can we stop it? Well, sometimes we just can’t, I’m afraid. However, there are some ways to try:

• Angle your photos- sure, you can still go to a site like tattoo.tv and put up as many photos of your tattoos as you like- but I’d take pictures that make it hard to copy your tattoo. The harder you make it for them to see the full piece, the harder it’ll be to copy. Of course, for some of you that’s just not an option, I know you like showing off, and so you should!
• Watermark your images- watermarking won’t stop people from taking the picture to a studio, however it may deter the tattooist, knowing this is someone’s work that they definitely don’t have permission to use. A watermark is one of those “I mean business” statements, more than anything- a fantastic idea for those who draw flash designs.
• Be careful where your images are being uploaded to- One application review for iPhone app TatTap is a guy thanking them for pictures to take to a studio- do you want your pictures there?
• Make sure to go to a custom tattoo studio- I’ve said this a million times and can’t stress it enough, but there it is again, folks. A custom tattoo studio should never even think about taking work from someone else.

Okay, another quite long article there, so congratulations if you’re still here! Remember: if you steal someone else’s design, you’ve stolen from a tattoo artist that could have spent hours of their free time painstakingly drawing the perfect tattoo design for their customer- time that now seems poorly spent, since their tattoo design is no longer original, forever.

For more information on tattoo designs and copywright, I hear there’s an article in the latest issue of Skin Deep Magazine (November 2009)

My daughter’s car was stolen during the wee-hours of the morning. She tells me that swearing has been a good coping tool today. Tears and humor are pretty helpful too, but swearing is hard to beat.

Author: Darlene Berkel
Source: isnare.com

Now that internet shopping is a very common pass time, there has been a rapid increase in instances of online identity theft. Thieves are moving off the high street and, with a little knowledge of web programming, have broadened their horizons to include a much larger amount of targets.

One of the most common, and thankfully easily avoided forms of online identity theft is a technique known to the industry, hrsaccount, as ‘phishing’. A phishing attack involves sending out huge numbers of emails which pretend, hrsaccount, to be from a popular online retailer, an auction site such as eBay, or a bank or online wallet site.

The email will, hrsaccount, usually say that the customers account has been suspended, or that they need to update their details. When the user clicks a link in the email they will be taken to a fake page that looks just like the login page of that company. When the user logs in, they will be giving away their personal details to the identity thief.

Some of the emails give themselves away instantly through spelling mistakes and poor grammar, others are very convincing on first glance, and it is easy to understand how these attacks manage to fool a huge number of people.

Do Not Trust, hrsaccount, Emails Asking For Personal Information

When you click a link in a ‘phishing’ email, the page you are taken to will ask you to enter account information, password and other personal information such as a credit card number, checking account information and social security number along with other items. Entering this information and submitting it will give the person committing online identity theft all the resources needed to access your accounts, or open new ones in your name or even change your mailing address.

Most online companies tell their customers that to prevent online identity theft always log on to their website by typing the address in yourself, not by clicking a link in the email to see if the requested information is really needed. Chances are it isn’t, and you should then forward them the email so appropriate action can be taken.

Failure to take even the simplest of precautions can open the door for online identity theft which will attempt to cheat you out of your money by establishing transfers from your checking or savings account put charges on your credit card or simply add a new address and, hrsaccount, have all merchandise of cash advances sent to the new address.

Most banks will work with victims of online identity theft to help them get their money back, however it can take a lot of time for them to trace transactions and verify the things you tell them. Make sure you check your credit report and your bank statements frequently, and query any unusual transactions with your bank. If you suspect that something is wrong, act immediately, and contact the Federal Trade Commission to make the first steps in regaining your financial identity.

• A theft occurred between Sept. 28 at 8 a.m. and Nov. 6 at 9:30 a.m. from the first floor of the Woodruff Memorial Building. Someone stole two Dell Latitude laptops that had been placed in an unsecured drawer. The laboratory where the laptops were located is unsecured after hours. There are no suspects at this time.

• The Parking Office placed an immobilization boot on a two-door red Acura Integra on Nov. 4 at approximately 7 a.m. The vehicle and the boot were missing later that day. The boot is valued at $500.

• The Emory University Hospital food court took in two counterfeit $20 bills on Nov. 5 sometime between 6:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. The two bills were given to a cashier at the location and the information has been turned over to a detective.

• EPD officers responded to a fire alarm at Clairmont Tower on Nov. 5 at 11:24 a.m. A 19-year-old female student on the 19th floor was asleep at the time of the incident, and officers found smoke from the stove had filled the apartment at the location and set off the fire alarm. Facilities Management also arrived at the scene and assisted clearing out the apartment and reset the alarm. The Division of Campus Life was notified.

• EPD received a call from a complainant at Presidential Park Apartments on Nov. 6 at midnight, who stated that they thought they heard gun shots and tires squealing outside. EPD checked the area but did not find any suspicious activity.

• EPD received a report of simple assault that occurred on Nov. 6 between midnight and 1:15 a.m. The caller stated that several males were attacking a taxi cab driver outside of 10 Eagle Row. The witness further stated that several students exited a white bus on Eagle Row and started kicking and jumping on the cab. One subject spit on the driver and punched him in the face. EPD officers made contact with that subject, who stated that he had seen the incident but was not a part of it. The driver then identified the subject as the person who spit on him. The taxi driver did not want to press charges at the time of the incident and the information has been turned over to Campus Life.

• EPD received a report of property damage at the Kappa Sigma house on Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. The complainant, a 19-year-old Emory student, stated that he was at football practice and found the greek Kappa Sigma letters spray painted on the basement door. A resident of the house told EPD that four male students were seen leaving the Beta house and walked to the area earlier in the day. The student further stated that he heard one of those male subjects say “do it on the door.” EPD also observed spray paint on several signs outside. The cost of damages is unknown at this time. Campus Life was notified.

At Wal mart yesterday to print off a whackload of photos so I can send off photo albums to my family far away. I’m at the kiosk, USB drive plugged in searching for pix and I see a note on the kiosk saying it has Bluetooth and accepts images from your phone….neat!

….thinking, thinking….OMG! The fear and panic that set in as I realized I had left my phone in the washroom of Wal-mart almost 10 minutes ago during the holiday season on a Sunday!

Yank the USB from the drive (no sense losing that too!) and run, and I mean RUN to the other end of the store to see if the phone is still there…yeah right!

Phone is gone but my faith in humanity is not. Run to customer service, and rush the front of the line (sorry!) “Did anyone turn in a cell phone” and imagine my relief when one customer service rep who was on the telephone nods “Yes”.

PHEW! She gets off her phone call and reaches in to the lost & found box and lo and behold – my Palm….Thank you, thank you, thank you!

So – I don’t know who the good Samaritan was but I thank you so deeply not just for returning a phone but more importantly for reinstating the fact that there ARE some good people out there still who do the right thing. Too often we see the negative – now for a bit of positive!

Thank you again, Karma is true and knowing what kind of person you must be turn in a phone I know you felt good about doing the right thing. Thanks again and may the same acts be returned to you in the future should you ever need them.

Mr. Zafar says ” Safety First”.

Managing transmission inventory for a utility is not an easy task; find out how Mr. Sikandar is managing it at KESC.

Fabolous With Some Lofty Jewlery On

Well kind of. The news this weekend is that Fabolous and/or his crew were possibly involved with the theft of a unique Lamborghini. The theft was alleged happened in January of this year at the InterContinental Buckhead in Atlanta Georgia. At first there was little evidence to muster up any suspects, but now surveillance tape video has surfaced showing Loso leaving the hotel with his crew and members of the crew receiving keys to the luxury car.

Thanks to information provided by Fabolous, the car was located. And since to a deal with the police the Brooklyn will see not legal trouble. Below is a video of a news report on the issue with some of the surveillance video.

Look Fabolous dodged a bullet on that one. It also looks like he isn’t having much luck with cars. I wrote awhile back about how was suspected to have been in a car accident, but instead got sick while driving his vehicle.

Story Source hiphopdx.com

Photo of Fabolous by Gary He/AP Images

Warwickshire Police are carrying out a Smart Water initiative in Barpool ward at the moment.  Literally they are going around the streets door to door and giving the stuff away.

This is a fabulous opportunity for the community to gain for itself first class protection against burgling scum.

In case you are not aware Smart Water contains chemical markers which do not come off skin until it re-grows which for the average person takes twenty eight days.  In the mean time anyone who is taken into the custody sweet at the Justice Centre has to walk under an ultra violet light and the stuff shines like a light.

The police are literally catching people for crimes that have not been reported yet!

The Smart Water carries a unique code that is registered to your address.  You simply put a little on your property at points where you think someone might pick it up.  That is all that you have to do.

If you were out and missed the knock then contact Warwickshire Police and ask them about the Smart Water initiative in Barpool ward.  They will be pleased to give you the information.

Police are investigating rapper Fabolous and his connection to a luxury car stolen from an upscale hotel in Atlanta.

According to Channel 2 Action News, Atlanta police claim men in Fabolous’ entourage stole a rare 2008 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder.

The vehicle, which was one of only two brought into the United States, was taken on January 31 and was recently located by the Atlanta Police Department..

Surveillance video shows two men in Fabolous’ entourage approach a bellman at the Intercontinental, received the keys to the Lamborghini and left as if it was their property.

Fabolous and the rest of the group allegedly followed behind the Lamborghini in a minivan.

Police investigated the theft and have confirmed that Fabolous knew the men, but no charges will be filed, since the vehicle was located.

“We were informed by the Atlanta Police Department that detectives gained information regarding the location of this vehicle by promising counsel for Fabolous that if he told them where the vehicle could be found, the State would not pursue charges,” Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said in a statement. “The District Attorney was not a party to this agreement. We have never spoken with this individual [Fabolous] or anyone connected with him, including his counsel. We were only made aware of this agreement by APD after they located the vehicle.”

Howard cited investigators attempts to violate the agreement they reached with the party who provided information that led to the recovery of the Lamborghini, by pursuing criminal charges in regards to the theft.

“After discovering the vehicle, the police, in direct contradiction to the promise that was made, asked our office to assist them with this criminal investigation by obtaining certain Grand Jury testimony,” Howard said. “To ask my office to participate after the promise was made, in my opinion, directly violates the agreement made to the party who provided the information. I believe the integrity of the promise was more important than pursuing suspects, particularly since the vehicle was located. Integrity demonstrated by prosecutors and law enforcement, is not only of utmost importance— and what the community demands— to our office it is everything.”

Meanwhile the vehicle’s owner, Eric Vargosko, is suing the Intercontinental over the loss of the Lamborghini.

“The InterContinental Buckhead Atlanta has accepted responsibility for this unfortunate incident from its inception and has always been willing to provide fair and reasonable compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle by the incident,” said Caroline Counihan in a statement to Channel 2 Action News. “We hold the safety, comfort and well-being of our guests and employees as our top priority and concern. We have taken several measures, including heightening security, so that a repeat of this incident does not happen.”

"They've been naughty boys haven't they Mr Flibble?" T-Mobile employee's sell personal information. I wonder what filesharers and their ethos of "free data" make of that? Anyone believe they would tackle that question?

Is £5000 a deterrent?

 

Its been well reported in the last week about the personal data that T-Mobile has alleged to have lost control over and subsequently it appears that some unscrupulous employee’s have sold that data on. The worth of that data being that rival companies could use it to sell new subscriptions when a customer is coming to the end of their contract.  It is now rumoured that in fact this is not current news as its been going on for over a year.  It does seem to ring true.  I have been a customer of T-Mobile and I have had many individuals ringing me up to offer me a new contract using many different tactics (as my current contract comes to an end)  You may be wondering why I am going with this article, but I think it makes an interesting point about copyright and IP.

A couple of important points to note here though.  Firstly the fine for an offense under the Data Protection Act will be around £5000, pretty small fry compared to the potential worth of the information.  Secondly, T-Mobile does not know how many of their customers have left because of this leaked information and finally (and maybe most important of all) whilst the information of the customer has been sold to rivals, who else has it been sold to and whats their purpose?

One member of staff at T-Mobile has already been sacked, but it does ask the question how many other companies are yet to discover that an unscrupulous employee has sold their data?

The information commissioner (Christopher Grahame)  said:

Many people will have wondered why and how they are being contacted by someone they do not know just before their existing phone contract is about to expire. We are considering the evidence with a view to prosecuting those responsible and I am keen to go much further and close down the entire unlawful industry in personal data. But, we will only be able to do this if blaggers and others who trade in personal data face the threat of a prison sentence.

One wonders where the deterrent is for this type of action.  It was reported on a local radio feature, that a recent raid on a business that engaged in this type of practice, had officials posed with the question (by the owner) “Would you like me to write the check out now?”

P2P copyright infringement – “Do as I say, not as I do”?

So now we come to the main point of my article.  Ive made many references to the site Torrentfreak, I asked the question of copyright infringement to be justified by any of its users and to date have received no responses.  I know that they visit as I see the referrals coming into the site.

Have a look at some of the comments on Torrentfreak.  It seems that file sharers believe that there is no problem with sharing data because, its just data (please correct me if I’m wrong) They see no problem with the sharing of movies, videos or other media, but they seem mysteriously silent on the T-mobile issue.  If file sharers believe that all data should be shared, then surely they should have no problems with the personal data being shared with other companies?  Please, if you are a file sharer put your opinion on that one.

Let me quote “The Hacker Ethic” found here.

….A free exchange of information, particularly when the information was in the form of a computer program, allows for greater overall creativity.

I’ll let you decide what the average file sharer believes.

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

So last night I’m at my moms house in Midway in St. Paul and a strange car is hanging out in the alley. Three black dudes in Pontiac Grand Am. It’s dark green and I cant read the plates. My brother and I find that one of these guys is checking out peoples houses. So we scare them away.

5 minutes later, they’re on the other side of the block hanging out. Yes we were watching for them. They take off again when they see us.

10 minutes later they’re in front of my moms house and one of them is in a neighbors yard. What the fuck?!?!!? Of course they see us and take off. They don’t want any part of what weapons we have. They didn’t come back but we warned all the neighbors that we had seen them scope out.

This morning I hear that another neighbor was burglarized between 3-8am. Fucking lame sauce. I can’t wait for Karma to catch up to these clowns. Times are hard enough for most folks that they don’t need you to come in their house to feel like they’re losing.

I passed along what info I had to the St. Paul Police. This particular neighbor is a saint who doesn’t deserve this kind wake up. Fuck that shit.

The feral slumdogs from the shithole subcontinent have gained a reputation for being dangerous, uncontrollable criminals. In the latest incident of their subhuman behaviour, 12000 slumdogs descended on their capital slum city and went on a spree of violence, vandalism, theft and sexual harassment.

Farmers run riot, hold capital to ransom

NEW DELHI: No less than 12,000 farmers descended on the capital on Thursday to protest against the Centre’s freeze on the base sugarcane price. But many of them did a lot more. For three hours, they ran riot in the heart of the city, Connaught Place — damaging public property, looting shops and teasing women, with cops watching…

…Hundreds of protesters allegedly vandalized public property, looted shops at Janpath and attacked vehicles. Shopkeepers said some of them sat down on the footpaths to drink liquor and teased girls on the arterial stretches of CP…

IndiaTimes

Subhuman beastly slumdogs! Dangerously unstable Hindu hoodlums! Violent uncivilized scumbags! Untouchability practising perverts! Female fetus killing, eve teasing, cowpiss drinking pieces of stinking subcontinental shit! Squalid sons and dotheaded daughters of slumdogs and slumbitches!

Do you know this man?

The newspaper industry is struggling on its own without the help of idiots like this man.

After staff at a petrol station on the corner of Dalby Road and Leicester Road, in Melton, refused to hand over cigarettes, this criminal genius panicked, and grabbed a handful of newspapers before scuttling off with his tail between his legs.

I’m appealing to anyone who might recognise him so the Leicester Mercury can ask him to pay for the papers he stole. In today’s climate every penny counts.

Whatever happens to him after that is inconsequential – with wits as sharp as his he won’t last long.

The police are investigating the matter and have given the heinous crime the attention it deserves by placing pictures and video footage of the incident on their website.

Sergeant Lee Morris, from Melton local policing unit, said: “We would like to ask members of the public to take a good look at the picture and the clothes he is wearing and call us if you know him or recognise him.

“We believe there was a man on a motorbike at the petrol station at the time of the incident. If you are this man, or know him, then please get in touch.”

Leicestershire Constabulary must be serious about tracking him down as they posted two pictures on their website.

So if there’s any decent law-abiding citizens who don’t recognise him from the first image, then maybe this will help…

Crap criminal

Earlier this week, my entire load of darks was nicked from the laundromat I frequent. The following is an open letter to the person (or persons) who decided they had the right to take what is not theirs. I will be posting this on the bulletin board of the laundry, in hopes that they return and are able to read.

Dear Thieving Bastard(s),

For a moment I felt sorry for you. Someone who would abscond with an entire load of someone else’s clothes still warm from the dryer has to be desperate, right?

I even gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you were in a hurry and opened the wrong machine and took the wrong clothes. That’s why I gave my cell # to the owner of the laundromat and told her to contact me if you returned them all red-faced and apologetic. But that was three days ago, and no one has called. So I am writing this without guilt.

I bet you think I deserve this. I didn’t want to wait around, burning up in my coat and scarf and making eye contact with strangers, for my stuff to dry. It’s my fault for choosing to run a few errands and return half an hour later. Or maybe it was closer to 40 minutes. So it’s my fault that you loaded up your sack (perhaps with a tell-tale $ on it) with my jeans, socks and several animal rights T-shirts (a good chunk of my wardrobe) and ran. You wouldn’t even grant me the dignity of leaving my underwear.

There are a number of conclusions I could draw:

You are so clothing-deprived that you have to skulk around laudromats and pilfer from unguarded machines. Did you at least check to see that you and I are the same size?

There is some sort of stolen clothing ring you are a part of and you are making money off my modest threads. If that’s the case, people are giving away mountains of clothes every day on Craigslist and Freecycle. You can just pretend you stole them.

You are a pathetic, disgusting pervert and are doing things with my unmentionables that are best not mentioned. Euugh!

Or simply, you are a scumbag who thinks such acts of pettiness make you a badass and you’re bragging to your friends as I write this.

Regardless, you stole from me.

I am not a rich person. Some months I barely make enough money to put a roof over my head and food in my cat’s bowl. Thanks to you I have a single pair of jeans left in my closet and they don’t fit me nearly as well as the ones you made off with. And thanks to you, I have to dig into the underwear reserve at the back of my bottom drawer and wear uncomfortable thongs and old pairs with barely enough elasticity left to stay on my butt because they’re clean.

No, I do not hope you’re proud of yourself. But no doubt, you are.

Because of you I now have to waste my valuable time watching my clothes tumble around (and watched clothes never dry) for fear that I’ll never see them again.

All I can do is hope that you’re allergic to my laundry detergent and develop a horrible, itchy rash that never lets up no matter how hard of often you scratch and you bleed. See how badass that feels.

Thanks for nothing,

Lesly

“These cases encourage debtors and other parties to defensively use the mortgage securitization servicing system to prohibit servicers and other non-lending parties from enforcing rights under a mortgage. This trend, if it continues, may have significant impacts for consumer-debtor lawyers, as well as law firms that enforce mortgages and participated in mortgage loan securitization.”

“A note and mortgage may go through multiple transfers. Documentation of these transfers is imperfect, and many assignments were not recorded at the local real estate filing offices.”

“The creation of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) further complicated matters.”

“For instance, if a debtor raises these or similar defenses, it may only be necessary for the servicers and the mortgagees to complete and file the proper assignment documents.“

The fabricated fraudulant assignment.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

Throughout the world, where car runs, where our wheel locks(tire lock), www.cn-std.com

Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano-Horoski

“Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number on January 12, 2009 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on January 23, 2009 shall be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on July 27, 2005 under sequence no. 172456, which was extended by Order dated September 2, 2008 shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 29, 2008 under sequence no. 199616, shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Suffolk County shall cause a copy of this Order & Judgment to be filed in the Land Records so as to effectuate of record each and every one of the provisions hereinabove set forth with respect to cancellation of the instruments and items of record; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of Suffolk County, within ten (10) days from the date of entry hereof, any and all fees and costs required to effect cancellation of record of the Mortgage, Notices of Pendency and any other fees so levied; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry hereof, Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Clerk of Suffolk County and the Defendant.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.”

2009 NY Slip Op 52333(U)
Decided on November 19, 2009
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Spinner, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 19, 2009

Supreme Court, Suffolk County

Indymac Bank F.S.B., Plaintiff

against

Diana Yano-Horoski, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Equity Loan Trust 2001-1 and Kimberly Horoski, Defendants.

2005-17926

Steven J. Baum P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240

Diana Yano-Horoski

Defendant Pro Se

8 Oakland Street

East Patchogue, New York 11772-5767

Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

This is an action wherein the Plaintiff claims foreclosure of a mortgage dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County, New York in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285. The mortgage secures an adjustable rate note of the same amount with an initial interest rate of 10.375%. The mortgage encumbers real property commonly known as 8 Oakland Street, East Patchogue, Town of Brookhaven, New York and described as District 0200 Section 979.50 Block 05.00 Lot 001.000 on the Tax Map of Suffolk County. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Summons, Verified Complaint and Notice of Pendency on July 27, 2005. The Notice of Pendency was extended by Order dated April 28, 2008 and a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale was granted on January 12, 2009.

Thereafter and in accordance with the Laws of 2008, Ch. 472, Sec. 3-a and in view of the fact that the loan at issue was deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature, Defendant seasonably requested that the Court convene a settlement conference. That request was granted and a conference was commenced on February 24, 2009 which was continued five times in a series of unsuccessful attempts by the Court to obtain meaningful cooperation from Plaintiff. In view of Plaintiff’s intransigence in its continuing failure and refusal to cooperate, both with the Court and with Defendant’s multiple and reasonable requests, the Court directed that Plaintiff produce an officer of the bank at the adjourned conference scheduled for September 22, 2009.

At the conference held on September 22, 2009, Karen Dickinson, Regional Manager of [*2]Loss Mitigation for IndyMac Mortgage Services, division of OneWest Bank F.S.B. (“IndyMac”) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. IndyMac purports to be the servicer of the loan for the benefit of Deutsche Bank who, it is claimed, is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage (though the record holder is IndyMac Bank F.S.B., an entity which no longer is in existence). At that conference, it was celeritously made clear to the Court that Plaintiff had no good faith intention whatsoever of resolving this matter in any manner other than a complete and forcible devolution of title from Defendant. Although IndyMac had prepared a two page document entitled “Mediation Yano-Horoski” which contained what purported to be a financial analysis, Ms. Dickinson’s affirmative statements made it abundantly clear that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable to Plaintiff. IndyMac asserts the total amount due it to be in excess of $ 525,000.00 and freely concedes that the property securing the loan is worth no more than $ 275,000.00. Although Ms. Dickinson insisted that Ms. Yano-Horoski had been offered a “Forbearance Agreement” in the recent past upon which she quickly defaulted, it was only after substantial prodding by the Court that Ms. Dickinson conceded, with great reluctance, that it had not been sent to Defendant until after its stated first payment due date and hence, Defendant could not have consummated it under any circumstances (Defendant, through Plaintiff’s duplicity, found herself to be in the unique and uncomfortable position of being placed in default of the “agreement” even before she had received it). Plaintiff flatly rejected an offer by Plaintiff’s daughter to purchase the house for its fair market value (a so-called “short sale”) with third party financing. Plaintiff refused to consider a loan modification utilizing any more than 25% of the income of Plaintiff’s husband and daughter (both of whom reside in the premises with her), the excuse being that “We can’t control what non-obligors do with their money” (the logical follow up to this statement is how does the bank control what the obligor does with her money?). The Court found IndyMac’s position to be deeply troubling, especially since a plethora of sub-prime loans in this County’s Foreclosure Conference Part have been successfully modified with the lender’s reliance upon the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure. The Plaintiff also summarily rejected an offer by both Plaintiff’s husband and daughter to voluntarily obligate themselves for payment upon the full indebtedness, thus committing their individual incomes expressly to the purpose of a loan modification. It should be noted here that Defendant did not even request any waiver or “forgiveness” of the indebtedness aside from some tinkering with the interest rate, just a modification of terms so as to enable her to repay the same. It was evident from Ms. Dickinson’s opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude that no proffer by Defendant (short of consent to foreclosure and ejectment of Defendant and her family) would be acceptable to Plaintiff. Even a final and desperate offer of a deed in lieu of foreclosure was met with bland equivocation. In short, each and every proposal by Defendant, no matter how reasonable, was soundly rebuffed by Plaintiff. Viewed objectively, it is apparent that Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter falls within the definitions set forth in 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1( c)(2), which might well warrant the imposition of monetary sanctions.

On the Court’s own motion, a hearing was held on November 18, 2009 in order to explore the issues herein. At the hearing, Ms. Dickinson appeared as well as Mr. Horoski. IndyMac claimed a balance due, as of September 22, 2009 of $ 527,437.73 which included an escrow overdraft of $ 46,627.88 for taxes advanced since the date of default but did not include attorney’s fees and costs.. Plaintiff was unable to tell the Court the amount of the principal [*3]balance owed. Mr. Horoski advised the Court that according to two letters received from Plaintiff, the principal balance was said to be $ 285,381.70 as of February 9, 2009 and $ 283,992.48 as of August 10, 2009. Plaintiff stated was that Defendant must have made payments though it was conceded that in fact no payment had been made.Plaintiff insisted that it had remained in regular contact with Defendant in an effort to reach an amicable resolution, that it had extended two modification offers to Defendant which she did not accept and further, that due to her financial status she was not qualified for any modification, even under the Federal HAMP guidelines. Plaintiff denied that it had “singled out” Defendants, simply stating that her status was such that she fell outside applicable guidelines. All of these assertions were disputed by Defendant.

That having been said, the Court is greatly disturbed by Plaintiff’s assertions of the amount claimed to be due from Defendant. The Referee’s Report dated June 30, 2008, which has its genesis in a sworn affidavit by a representative of Plaintiff (presumably one with knowledge of the account), reflects a total amount due and owing of $ 392,983.42. The principal balance is reported to be $ 290,687.85 with interest computed at the rates of 10.375% from November 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006 ($ 25,118.62), 12.50% from September 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007 ($ 18,018.66), 12.375% from March 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 ($ 39,126.39) and 11.375% from April 1, 2008 to June 24, 2008 ($ 7,700.24) totalling $ 89,963.91. Plaintiff also claims $ 20.00 in non-sufficient funds charges, $ 295.00 in property inspection fees and $ 12,016.66 for tax and insurance advances. The Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale dated January 12, 2009 was granted in the amount of $ 392,983.42 with interest at the contract rate from June 24, 2008 through January 12, 2009 and at the statutory rate thereafter plus attorney’s fees of $ 2,300.00 and a bill of costs in the amount of $ 1,705.00. Even computing the accrual of pre-judgment interest of $ 18,299.18 (using Plaintiff’s per diem rate in the Referee’s Report) together with post-judgment interest at a statutory 9% through November 19, 2009 (an additional $ 31,740.90), the application of simple addition yields a total amount due of $ 447,028.50. This figure is $ 80,409.23 less than the $ 527,437.73 asserted by Plaintiff to be due and owing from Defendant. The Court is astounded that Plaintiff now claims to be owed an escrow advance amount of $ 46,627.88 when, under oath, its officer swore that as of June 24, 2008 that amount was actually $ 34,611.22 less. Moreover, it now appears that the elusive principal balance is either $ 290,687.85, $ 285,381.70 or $ 283,992.48.

It is the province and indeed the obligation of the trial court to assess and to determine issues regarding credibility, Morgan v. McCaffrey 14 AD3d 670 (2nd Dept. 2005). In the matter before the Court, the pendulum of credibility swings heavily in favor of Defendant. When the conduct of Plaintiff in this proceeding is viewed in its entirety, it compels the Court to invoke the ancient and venerable principle of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni” (Latin; “false in one, false in all”) upon Defendant which, after review, is wholly appropriate in the context presented, Deering v. Metcalf 74 NY 501 (1878). Regrettably, the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of Plaintiff. Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the insufferable temerity to demand equitable relief against Defendant.

The Court, over the course of some six substantive appearances in seven months, has been afforded more than ample opportunity to assess the demeanor, credibility and general state [*4]of relevant affairs of Defendant and Plaintiff. Although not actually relevant to the disposition of this matter, the Court is constrained to note that Defendant is afflicted with multiple health problems which outwardly manifest in her experiencing great difficulty in ambulation, necessitating the use of mechanical supports. Moreover, Defendant’s husband, Mr. Gregory Horoski, suffers from a myriad of serious medical conditions which greatly impede most aspects of his daily existence. Nonetheless, both of these persons, together with their adult daughter who resides with them and who is substantially and gainfully employed, receive income which they are more than willing to commit, in good faith, toward repayment of the debt to Plaintiff and indeed, despite their physical challenges, they have appeared at each and every scheduled conference before this Court. At each appearance, they have assiduously attempted to resolve this controversy in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff. This has been so even in spite of the Court’s continuing albeit futile endeavors at brokering a settlement.

As a relevant aside, the scenario presented here raises the specter of a much greater social problem, that of housing those persons whose homes are foreclosed and who are thereafter dispossessed. It is certainly no secret that Suffolk County is in the yawning abyss of a deep mortgage and housing crisis with foreclosure filings at a record high rate and a corresponding paucity of emergency housing. While foreclosure and its attendant eviction are clearly the inevitable (and in some cases, proper) result in a number of these situations, the Court is persuaded that this need not be the case here. In this matter, Defendant is plainly willing to make arrangements for repayment and both her husband and daughter are likewise willing to allocate their respective incomes in order to reach the same end. Were Plaintiff amenable, she would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. Plaintiff would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win-win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.

Since an action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage is one sounding in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investing Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), the very commencement of the action by Plaintiff invokes the Court’s equity jurisdiction. While it must be noted that the formal distinctions between an action at law and a suit in equity have long since been abolished in New York (see CPLR 103, Field Code Of 1848 §§ 2, 3, 4, 69), the Supreme Court nevertheless has equity jurisdiction and distinct rules regarding equity are still extant, Carroll v. Bullock 207 NY 567, 101 NE 438 (1913). Speaking generally and broadly, it is settled law that “Stability of contract obligations must not be undermined by judicial sympathy…” Graf v. Hope Building Corporation 254 NY 1 (1930). However, it is true with equal force and effect that equity must not and cannot slavishly and blindly follow the law, Hedges v. Dixon County 150 US 182, 192 (1893). Moreover, as succinctly decreed by our Court of Appeals in the matter of Noyes v. [*5]Anderson 124 NY 175 (1890) “A party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…” 124 NY at 179.

In the matter of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), Special Term stated that “The maxim of “clean hands” fundamentally was conceived in equity jurisprudence to refuse to lend its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of unlawful, unconscionable or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief.” 133 NYS2d at 925, citing First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. 98 F 2d 416 (8th Cir. 1938), cert. denied 305 US 650, 59 S. Ct. 243, 83 L. Ed. 240 (1938), reh. denied 305 US 676, 59 S Ct. 356 83 L. Ed. 437 (1939); General Excavator Co. v. Keystone Driller Co. 65 F 2d 39 (6th Cir. 1933), cert. granted 289 US 721, 53 S. Ct. 791, 77 L. Ed. 1472 (1933), aff’d 290 US 240, 54 S. Ct. 146, 78 L. Ed. 793 (1934).

In attempting to arrive at a determination as to whether or not equity should properly intervene in this matter so as to permit foreclosure of the mortgage, the Court is required to look at the situattion in toto, giving due and careful consideration as to whether the remedy sought by Plaintiff would be repugnant to the public interest when seen from the point of view of public morality, see, for example, 55 NY Jur. Equity § 113, Molinas v. Podloff 133 NYS2d 743 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954). Equitable relief will not lie in favor of one who acts in a manner which is shocking to the conscience, Duggan v. Platz 238 AD 197, 264 NYS 403 (3rd Dept. 1933), mod. on other grounds 263 NY 505, 189 NE 566 (1934), neither will equity be available to one who acts in a manner that is oppressive or unjust or whose conduct is sufficiently egregious so as to prohibit the party from asserting its legal rights against a defaulting adversary, In Re Foreclosure Of Tax Liens 117 NYS2d 725 (Sup. Ct. Kings County, 1952), aff’d on other grounds 286 AD 1027, 145 NYS2d 97 (2nd Dept. 1955), mod. on other grounds on reargument 1 AD2d 95, 148 NYS2d 173 (2nd Dept. 1955), appeal granted 7 AD2d 784, 149 NYS2d 227 (2nd Dept. 1956). The compass by which the questioned conduct must be measured is a moral one and the acts complained of (those that are sufficient so as to prevent equity’s intervention) need not be criminal nor actionable at law but must merely be willful and unconscionable or be of such a nature that honest and fair minded folk would roundly denounce such actions as being morally and ethically wrong, Pecorella v. Greater Buffalo Press Inc. 107 AD2d 1064, 468 NYS2d 562 (4th Dept. 1985). Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Schwartz 133 NYS2d 908 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1954), York v. Searles 97 AD 331, 90 NYS 37 (2nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573, 82 NE 1134 (1907).

An objective and painstaking examination of the totality of the facts and circumstances herein leads this Court to the inescapable conclusion that the affirmative conduct exhibited by Plaintiff at least since since February 24, 2009 (and perhaps earlier) has been and is inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious. The Court is constrained, solely as a result of Plaintiff’s affirmative acts, to conclude that Plaintiff’s conduct is wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of good faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff’s actions toward Defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately [*6]sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against Defendant. The Court cannot be assured that Plaintiff will not repeat this course of conduct if this action is merely dismissed and hence, dismissal standing alone is not a reasonable option. Likewise, the imposition of monetary sanctions under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 et. seq. is not likely to have a salubrious or remedial effect on these proceedings and certainly would not inure to Defendant’s benefit. This Court is of the opinion that cancellation of the indebtedness and discharge of the mortgage, when taken together, constitute the appropriate equitable disposition under the unique facts and circumstances presented herein.

After careful consideration, it is the determination of this Court that the indebtedness evidenced by the Adjustable Rate Note dated August 4, 2004 in the original principal amount of $ 292,500.00 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. should be cancelled, voided and set aside. In addition, the Mortgage which secures the Adjustable Rate Note, given to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages at Page 285, as assigned by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 should be cancelled and discharged of record. Further, Plaintiff, its successors and assigns should be forever barred and prohibited from any action to collect upon the Adjustable Rate Note. In addition, the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted on January 12, 2009 and entered on January 23, 2009 should be vacated and set aside and the Notice of Pendency should be cancelled and discharged of record. For this Court to decree anything less than the foregoing would be for the Court to be wholly derelict in the performance of its obligations.

Upon the Court’s own motion, it is

ORDERED that the Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $ 292,500.00 dated August 4, 2004 made by Diana J. Yano-Horoski in favor of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, voided, avoided, nullified, set aside and is of no further force and effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the Mortgage in the amount of $ 292,500.00 which secures said Adjustable Rate Note given by Diana J. Yano-Horoski to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. As Nominee For IndyMac Bank F.S.B. dated August 4, 2004 and recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 16, 2004 in Liber 20826 of Mortgages as Page 285, as assigned to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. by Assignment recorded with the Clerk of Suffolk County in Liber 21273 of Mortgages at Page 808 shall be and the same is hereby vacated, cancelled, released and discharged of record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff, its successors and assigns are hereby barred, prohibited and foreclosed from attempting, in any manner, directly or indirectly, to enforce any provision of the [*7]aforesaid Adjustable Rate Note and Mortgage or any portion thereof as against Defendant, her heirs or successors; and it is further

ORDERED that the Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale granted under this index number on January 12, 2009 and entered in the Office of the Clerk of Suffolk County on January 23, 2009 shall be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on July 27, 2005 under sequence no. 172456, which was extended by Order dated September 2, 2008 shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Clerk of Suffolk County on August 29, 2008 under sequence no. 199616, shall be and the same is hereby cancelled, vacated and set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Suffolk County shall cause a copy of this Order & Judgment to be filed in the Land Records so as to effectuate of record each and every one of the provisions hereinabove set forth with respect to cancellation of the instruments and items of record; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of Suffolk County, within ten (10) days from the date of entry hereof, any and all fees and costs required to effect cancellation of record of the Mortgage, Notices of Pendency and any other fees so levied; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry hereof, Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this Order upon the Clerk of Suffolk County and the Defendant.

This shall constitute the Decision, Judgment and Order of this Court.

Dated: November 19, 2009

Riverhead, New York

E N T E R:

______________________________________

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.S.C.

4closureFraud
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/