For a good update and analysis of the lead-in to the Copenhagen conference, and with respect to the work done by the World Bank, see www.ft.com/green-technology-2009  especially November 24, 2009.

With more and more people changing their minds about ‘global warming’ as a consequence of the increase in alarmist propaganda on behalf of the warmists, Al Gore’s lies are increasingly being confronted in the public arena. He is shamelessly profiteering off this global warming hoax and will make billions more when new, pointless, very expensive and wide ranging ‘carbon taxes’ are soon to be forced on everyone.



Alex Jones, the renowned filmmaker and radio host, dubs the ‘global warming’ scandal as one of the biggest hoaxes and financial frauds in the history of mankind. He says that it appears to be a global ‘Ponzi scheme’ which allowed bankers to profit from bogus carbon taxes for years.

http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?Channel=News_Home&ArticleId=1518-25_2562555&IsColumnistStory=False

The thing is I am not comfortable with this situation, of course Eskom is of HUGE importance to the South African people but if it were run properly and not interfered with in the first place by ANC cronyism we would not this loan, we would not need the President of our country “begging” for this loan.

We have to read between the lines, we ALWAYS have to read between the lines.

This loan will still have to be repaid, by the South African taxpayer. The reason the money is required from them in the first place is because the government can’t afford to give it to them.

What we really have to watch out for is massive hikes and this loan going through, becuase if Eskom does not turn itself around dramatically this debt will swallow Eskom and we as the public will suffer through hikes and not enought electricity production.

I suggest everyone does their bit to reduce consumption now – VISIT US AT URBAN SOLAR

Climate change and reduction of emissions is the buzzword these days. With the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference slated to be held during December 6-18, 2009, there is an urgent need to ratify a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which runs out in 2012. At the conference, it is hoped that world leaders would meet for the last time at government level before the climate agreement is renewed.

Barack Obama and other leaders have confirmed what has been likely for some time – that there won’t be a legally binding deal at the end of the conference. The longer the world dallies on putting in place the aggressive emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change , the more risk we are placing before our next generation. Global warming does far more damage to poor countries than it does to the climate. In a report in 2006, Lord Nicholas Stern calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP. But the World Bank in its new World Development Report says the cost to Africa will be like 4% of GDP and to India around 5%. Even if environmental costs were distributed equally to every person on earth, developing countries would still bear 80% of the burden because they account for 80% of world population.

Emissions From Developing Nations

The Pew Research Center released its latest poll of public attitudes on global warming which shows that popular belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 56 percent in October — an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is caused by human activities declined from 47 percent to 36 percent. This proves that three years after it seemed that An Inconvenient Truth had changed everything, it turns out that it hasn’t. The current Pew survey is the latest in a series of studies suggesting that Al Gore probably had a good deal more effect upon elite opinion than public opinion.

However with the need for use of cleaner and greener energy, the problem for more than half of the world’s population remains access to basic sanitation and safe drinking water. The biggest vulnerability is that the weather gravely affects developing countries’ main economic activities such as farming and tourism. In India the gains from the Green Revolution are already shrinking because of local pollution, global warming and waning resistance to pests and disease. A study for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also suggests that the yields of the main Indian crops would decline by a further 4.5-9% over the next 30 years because of climate change. A recent assessment based on a large number of studies of what might happen in the long run if carbon continues to be pumped into the atmosphere found that world farm production could fall by 16% by the 2080s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries. There is not much doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing countries at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing diets of a richer population.

Poor countries want around $140 billion to keep global warming down to an increase of 2°C dwarfing the $8 billion a year now flowing to them for climate-change mitigation. Also, poor countries see a climate-change deal in fundamentally different terms as they believe that rich countries are responsible for two-thirds of the carbon put into the atmosphere since 1850. Therefore they think emissions per head and not absolute emissions should be the standard. Moreover, targets set at national level have little effect in poor countries where public administration works badly. So rich and poor also disagree about the conditions attached to any money for mitigating or adapting to climate change. The rich see this as a sort of aid designed for specific projects with measurable targets requiring strict conditions. Therefore there remains to be seen what kind of solution comes out of the meeting in Copenhagen. But whatever be the shape of the final agreement, it is time for developing countries to develop as keen an interest in mitigating the impact of climate change as rich ones. Climate-change policy is no longer a simple choice between growth and ecological well-being.

World Bank Affirms Support to Indigenous Peoples in Designing Climate Change Responses
World Bank press release, 18 November 2009

WASHINGTON, USA: A roundtable discussion on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change was organized by the World Bank and First Peoples Worldwide at World Bank headquarters in Washington. Opening the roundtable, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said the indigenous peoples carry a “disproportionate share of the burden of climate change effects.” He said that indigenous communities have long experience in managing natural resources and adapting to climate change, further noting that “learning from indigenous peoples will make our discussions richer and our actions more productive.” The event aimed at mapping the way forward for an Indigenous Peoples Climate Action Fund (IPCAF). The IPCAF, to be implemented by First Peoples Worldwide with the World Bank playing an advisory role, aims to provide funds to: document indigenous peoples’ responses to climate change; integrate local indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation and mitigation into project designs and implementation; and strengthen the capacity of indigenous peoples’ communities to influence decision-making and engage in dialogue on climate change at the national and international levels. Read the press release …

by Ian Bremmer, for QFINANCE.

Introduction

Over the past several years, and across a broad range of companies, corporate decision-makers seeking opportunities overseas have learned that it is not enough to have a knowledge of a foreign country’s economic fundamentals. They also have to understand the forces and dynamics that shape these countries’ politics. This is especially true for emerging markets, where politics matters at least as much as economic factors for market outcomes. Of course, understanding that political risk matters is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another.

Stability

Starting with the basics, when committing a company to risk exposure in an emerging market country, it’s essential to understand how political risk impacts the underlying strength of its government. There are two key elements to consider: stability and shock. Shocks are especially tough to forecast, because there are so many different kinds and because shocks are, by definition, unpredictable. We can’t know when an earthquake will strike Pakistan, an elected leader will fall gravely ill in Nigeria, or a previously unknown group will carry out a successful terrorist attack in Indonesia.

But we can take the measure of a state’s stability, which is defined as a government’s ability to implement policy and enforce laws despite a shock to the system. The global financial crisis, a potent shock, has inflicted heavy losses on Russia’s stock market. But Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has amassed plenty of political capital over the past several years, and President Dmitry Medvedev, his handpicked successor, basks in Putin’s reflected glow. Neither need fear that large numbers of Russian citizens will turn on them anytime soon. In addition, a half-decade of windfall energy profits has generated more than $500 billion in reserves, ready cash that can be used to bail out stock markets, banks, and, if necessary, an unpopular government. That’s why, for the near-term, Russia will remain stable…

To read the complete article click here.

Aggressive and exclusive military alliances like NATO should be disbanded

by Alan Mackinnon
First Published: Nov. 17, 2009 – Scottish Left Review

The world of war is today dominated by a single superpower. In military terms the United States sits astride the world like a giant Colossus. As a country with only five per cent of the world’s population it accounts for almost 50 per cent of global arms spending. Its 11 naval carrier fleets patrol every ocean and its 909 military bases are scattered strategically across every continent. No other country has reciprocal bases on US territory – it would be unthinkable and unconstitutional. It is 20 years since the end of the Cold War and the United States and its allies face no significant military threat today. Why then have we not had the hoped-for peace dividend? Why does the world’s most powerful nation continue to increase its military budget, now over $1.2 trillion a year in real terms? What threat is all this supposed to counter?

Britain’s armed forces are different only in scale. For generations our defence posture has emphasised the projection of power to other parts of the world. And today our armed forces have the third highest military spending in the world (after the United States and China) and the second highest power projection capability behind the United States. The Royal Navy is the world’s second largest navy and our large air force is in the process of procuring hundreds of the most advanced aircraft in the world. And then there is Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear ‘deterrent’ – the ultimate weapon for projecting power across the world. None of this is designed to match any threat to our nation. It is designed to meet the ‘expeditionary’ role of our armed forces in support of the policy of our senior ally, the United States.

This military overkill cannot be justified by ‘defence’ unless we extend its meaning to the ‘defence of its interests’ across the world. And this gets us closer to the real explanation for this military build up. US and UK companies comprise many of the biggest transnational companies. Twenty-nine of the top 100 global companies by turnover are US and seven are UK-based. And the top five global companies are all US or UK based. Both economies share many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Both have seen major erosion of their manufacturing base as compared with economies like Germany and Japan. Both have become increasingly dependent on banking, privatised utilities and financial services, hence their vulnerability in the recent banking collapse. But both retain dominance in certain key areas such as oil and gas and arms manufacturing. In the case of the UK we can add mining. Of the top 10 global companies, all but three are in oil and gas, with British companies Royal Dutch Shell and BP coming first and fourth on the list. The world’s three biggest mining companies – Anglo-American, Rio Tinto and BHP Billington – are UK-based.

Today Britain continues to export capital on a scale unmatched by any other country apart from the United States. By 2006 British capital assets overseas were worth the equivalent of 410 per cent of Britain’s GDP. This is the highest of any major capitalist economy. Much of this investment is in the United States and Europe, but a significant amount continues to be invested in extractive industries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. An even greater amount of money from abroad (mainly US) is invested in British financial and industrial companies, many of them now under external ownership. It is this interlocking of capital between the UK and the much stronger US economy which helps to bind UK and US foreign policy together. Britain’s oil and gas giants, its mining companies and its arms manufacturers have a powerful and ongoing relationship with government and an effective lobbying influence in the office of successive Prime Ministers.

All of these strands come together with the drive for ‘energy security’ by the US and UK governments. It is the desire to protect overseas investments and control the strategic materials such as oil, gas and minerals that drive the foreign and defence policy of both countries. Britain no longer has the global military reach to defend its overseas investments. Increasingly it depends on the United States for this. The unwritten agreement is that, in return, the British government supports US policy around the world. The same is true for Britain’s biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. It has grown rapidly in recent years to become the second biggest arms manufacturer in the world, mainly through the acquisition of other US companies. It now gets more business from the Pentagon than the MoD. UK support for America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly helps to oil the wheels of the UK arms business.

That becomes a greater imperative in a rapidly changing world where US power is being challenged by banking collapse and growing indebtedness at home, the rise of the economies of the east, a political challenge to its hegemony in Latin America, and unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady increase in demand for oil across the world, especially from the rapidly growing economy of China, the emergence of Russia as an oil and gas giant to rival Saudi Arabia, the creation of an Asian Energy Security Grid placing up to half the world’s oil and gas reserves outside US control in a network of pipelines linking Russia, Iran, China and the countries of Central Asia, that US strategy to control the arterial network of oil is now in crisis. The Gulf area still accounts for up to 70 per cent of known oil reserves where the costs of production are lowest. So it is no surprise that US policy continues to focus on Iran which has the world’s second largest combined oil and gas reserves.

The US response has been largely military – the expansion of NATO and the encirclement of Russia and China in a ring of hostile bases and alliances. And continuing pressure to isolate and weaken Iran by a campaign of sanctions orchestrated through the IAEA and the United Nations with the threat of military action lurking in the background. The danger is that, even under the presidency of Obama, an economically weakened United States will tend to use the one massive advantage it has over its rivals – its global war machine.

Of course the battle to secure control over strategic materials does not explain everything that happens in the world today. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not *purely* about oil. In the Middle East the US strategy is about changing the balance of forces against the Palestinians, establishing US client states in Iraq and Iran and leaving an expansionist Israel as the only surviving military power (although even that is ultimately connected with control over Middle East oil). The wars in central Africa (especially the Democratic Republic of Congo) are not *purely* about strategic minerals. But behind the rival guerrilla groups vying for control of these assets and the rival African neighbouring states who support them, stand the mining companies and their nation states.

And what is not directly connected to the battle for strategic resources is the wider agenda of free trade, open economies, deregulation and privatisation which the US and its allies are trying to impose on every country in the world through the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and NAFTA. Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed on countries as the price for ‘forgiving’ or rescheduling debt allow US and UK transnationals to prize open and penetrate the economies of the poorest countries with catastrophic consequences for the people.

In short, to understand the world of war, we need to understand the nature of modern imperialism, and how nation states act internationally to help maximise the profits of their biggest companies. Directly and indirectly these policies generate conflict and war on a daily basis. Moreover, the problem is compounded by arms manufacturing firms, generously supported by state funds, who sell lethal weapons around the world to allow wars to be fought. In 2007 the world’s leading 100 defence manufacturers sold arms worth $347 billion, an increase of 45 per cent in the past 10 years. Britain’s ‘champion’, BAE Systems, is currently under investigation for corrupt practices in several countries and has sold all kinds of weapons across the world, including to countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel who have a record of human rights abuses.

As we have seen, British defence policy is geared to fighting wars overseas in support of the United States. Our four nuclear submarines and their payload of 160 warheads, are really an extension of America’s strategic ‘deterrent’ and could not be used independently. But there is an alternative. The overwhelming majority of countries, including some who have the technology and wealth to do differently, do not have nuclear weapons and do not seek them. They do not invest in power projection or the expensive platforms or transport systems which will allow them to fight wars thousands of miles from their own borders.

If our concern is really the defence of the nation’s land and coastal waters we could make deep cuts in our ‘defence’ spending without compromising our security one iota. Indeed, withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany would dramatically reduce the threat of terrorism and reduce tensions in Europe. It would also save us a lot of money. So would cancelling the two new aircraft carriers, and the F-35 aircraft which are designed to fly from them, the Type 45 Destroyers and the Astute-class attack submarines. Our Trident submarine force is useless, dangerous and expensive and should be scrapped. None of these are required for real defence. Instead we could invest in coastal patrol vessels, early warning aircraft and relatively cheap sophisticated anti-tank, anti-ship and anti-aircraft radar guided missile launchers. Dispersal of these mobile but effective weapons would ensure that a heavy toll can be taken of any potential attacker. A fraction of the money saved could be used to tackle climate change by harnessing wind, wave and tidal energy and insulating millions of homes. We could radically cut the size of the navy, slim down the airforce and army and still have plenty of forces left over to help in any genuine humanitarian intervention led by the United Nations.

In today’s multi-polar and ‘asymmetrical’ world the only threats are from terrorism and unstable states (none of whom could remotely pose a military threat to Britain or the United States). Real security comes from strengthening and democratising the United Nations and developing collective security arrangements in all parts of the world that involve all countries in the region. Aggressive and exclusive military alliances like NATO should be disbanded. Mediation and diplomacy should be used to settle international disputes. A global ban on nuclear weapons as proposed by Obama and the UN Security Council would be an excellent place to start.

Alan Mackinnon is Chair of Scottish CND

Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16210

Related:

US Military Spending vs. The World, 2008

The Pentagon Budget: Largest Ever and Growing

Global Warfare USA: The World is the Pentagon’s Oyster

The IMF: Raping The World, One Poor Nation at a Time

US-NATO Using Military Might To Control World Energy Resources

DOCUMENTAY– New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger

DOCUMENTARY– War by Other Means by John Pilger

DOCUMENTARY – Arsenal of Hypocrisy (59 mins.)

I had heard about these two new energy projects in Brazil, which were funded by the Inter-American Development Bank before, but when John Kerry came for a speech to the World Bank last week and mentioned them again, I decided to take a closer look. Apparently they are coal-fired thermal generation plants recently approved by IDB to be financed. It is indeed an irony to fund such out-dated projects in one of the richest countries in the world….

While talking about the need to increase the development banks’ capital, John Kerry also emphasized the 21^st century approach to development. Kerry stressed that the world did benefit from the development banks of the 20^th century, but now there is a need for new thinking and creative leadership to create a proper vision for the development bank of the 21st century.  And of course, his underlying purpose was to highlight the need for better energy projects funded by these banks.

While on this subject, Kerry said, “Several months ago, the Inter-American Development Bank chose to fund two subcritical coal fired plants in Brazil, a country among the richest in Latin America, and a world leader in its use of renewable and clean energy.   There is no excuse for this.  We need to be far more involved, far earlier, to ensure that alternatives are found for projects like this, and to avoid allocating limited funds toward projects that risk undermining our long-term development goals.

Let me remind you:  These decisions don’t take place in a vacuum.  All of you here—the World Bank—constitute the gold standard for all other development banks, and that’s one more reason why you have an obligation to exercise leadership.

Second, we need to assess energy projects and the costs and benefits of various energy technologies more accurately.   No matter how efficient the plant, no matter what it replaces, and no matter how important it may be to the energy future of a given country, a coal plant without technology to capture and sequester the carbon it emits is not a clean energy project– and it shouldn’t be funded as one. “

In comparison, Kerry mentioned the solar house systems project, implemented by the World Bank in Bangladesh as a good example of a 21^stcentury approach to development. While reading about this project in Bangladesh, I noticed that it is an interesting one aiming to increase access to electricity in remote rural areas of Bangladesh and to reduce carbon emissions by overcoming market barriers for renewable energy development. This project also has a nice private sector development section, which requires the project to be implemented through sixteen NGOs. These Participating NGOs select project areas and potential customers, extend loans, install the systems, and provide maintenance support for these solar homes.

The moral of this post is to highlight how projects can be so different in terms of their environmental footprint. I sometimes have a feeling that the smaller the development project, the more socially and environmentally sustainable it is. Just a thought.

How do labor regulations effect a dual labor market economy? Rita Almeida and Pedro Carneiro from the World Bank study this question in their new working paper, ‘Mandated benefits, employment, and inequality in a dual economy.’

This paper studies the effect of enforcing labor regulation in an economy with a dual labor market. The analysis uses data from Brazil, a country with a large informal sector and strict labor law, where enforcement affects mainly the degree of compliance with mandated benefits (severance pay and health and safety conditions) in the formal sector, and the registration of informal workers. The authors find that stricter enforcement leads to higher unemployment but lower income inequality. They also show that, at the top of the formal wage distribution, workers bear the cost of mandated benefits by receiving lower wages. Wage rigidity (due, say, to the minimum wage) prevents this downward adjustment at the bottom of the income distribution. As a result, formal sector jobs at the bottom of the wage distribution become more attractive, inducing the low-skilled self-employed to search for formal jobs.

“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/

Senator John Kerry delivered a noteworthy speech on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at the World Bank in Washington D.C.

“A strong internationalist” according to World Bank Group President Robert Zoelick, John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the rich countries to take the lead in reducing their carbon footprints and providing the funds for low-carbon technologies to be deploying in developing countries.

John Kerry Image Credit: Ralph Alswang

He urged the World Bank to use its funds to support what he called “21^st century priorities”, adapting to and mitigating climate change, enhancing food security, and empowering women.

Kerry referred to “energy poverty”, the lack of access to electricity faced by millions in the developing world, as a challenge interlocked with climate change.

“Reducing energy poverty and combating climate change cannot be mutually exclusive challenges,” he said. “We won’t solve climate change unless we also seriously tackle energy poverty, and we haven’t really solved energy poverty if we ravage our planet in the process.”

He called upon the institution to improve programs that support low-emissions energy projects to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and expand energy access.

“When even my Senate colleagues from coal-producing states talk about implementing clean coal technologies, the Bank shouldn’t be in the business of funding yesterday’s coal technology.” said Kerry.

An Environmental Defense Fund report on April 2009 has found that the World Bank and other international public financial institutions are continuing a 15-year trend of supporting coal-fired power plant construction.  Since 1994, they have financed the new construction or expansion of 88 coal-fired power plants. These plants will generate roughly 791 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year, or more than 75% of the current emissions for coal-fired power in the entire European Union.

Kerry cited examples of the kind of technologies that could become “game changers”. One such technology is the non-geological sequestration of coal flue gas by its transformation into calcium carbonate for use in construction is one such technology. He recognised that there were exceptions, such as Africa, which he noted had that same amount of installed electricity as Spain – with twenty three times more people.

“I recognise that there will be some exceptions for the poorest countries whose small fraction of global emissions will not make the crucial difference. But increasingly, there must be the exceptions and not the rule.” he said.

He said the World Bank could act as one of the “principal catalysts” for technology, as it was already doing in Bangladesh, where by 2012 over a million households will have solar home systems to provide hot water.

The 2009 edition of The State of World Population shows that women—particularly those in poor countries— are among the most vulnerable to climate change, partly because in many countries they make up the larger share of the agricultural work force and partly because they tend to have access to fewer income-earning opportunities. Empowering women, by ensuring access to the resources and information they need in order to make sound decisions about resource management and by placing them at the centre of any meaningful effort to implement solutions is crucial to sustainable development.

Sources: World Bank

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/

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

v

WARREN E. AGIN, TRUSTEE,

A Massachusetts federal judge has upheld a bankruptcy court ruling allowing a trustee to treat a mortgage as an unsecured claim, which strips the mortgage holder of foreclosure rights, because of defective mortgage paperwork.

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

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13519

- – - – - – -

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to strengthen the efforts of the Department of Justice, in conjunction with Federal, State, tribal, territorial, and local agencies, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes and other violations relating to the current financial crisis and economic recovery efforts, recover the proceeds of such crimes and violations, and ensure just and effective punishment of those who perpetrate financial crimes and violations, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. There is hereby established an interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (Task Force) led by the Department of Justice.

Sec. 2. Membership and Operation. The Task Force shall be chaired by the Attorney General and consist of senior-level officials from the following departments, agencies, and offices, selected by the heads of the respective departments, agencies, and offices in consultation with the Attorney General:

(a) the Department of Justice;

(b) the Department of the Treasury;

(c) the Department of Commerce;

(d) the Department of Labor;

(e) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(f) the Department of Education;

(g) the Department of Homeland Security;

(h) the Securities and Exchange Commission;

(i) the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;

(j) the Federal Trade Commission;

(k) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

(l) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;

(m) the Federal Housing Finance Agency;

(n) the Office of Thrift Supervision;

(o) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;

(p) the Small Business Administration;

(q) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(r) the Social Security Administration;

(s) the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations;

(t) the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;

(u) the United States Postal Inspection Service;

(v) the United States Secret Service;

(w) the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(x) relevant Offices of Inspectors General and related Federal entities, including without limitation the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program; and

(y) such other executive branch departments, agencies, or offices as the President may, from time to time, designate or that the Attorney General may invite.

The Attorney General shall convene and, through the Deputy Attorney General, direct the work of the Task Force in fulfilling all its functions under this order. The Attorney General shall convene the first meeting of the Task Force within 30 days of the date of this order and shall thereafter convene the Task Force at such times as he deems appropriate. At the direction of the Attorney General, the Task Force may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Task Force members or their designees under this section, including but not limited to a Steering Committee chaired by the Deputy Attorney General, and subcommittees addressing enforcement efforts, training and information sharing, and victims’ rights, as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

Sec. 3. Mission and Functions. Consistent with the authorities assigned to the Attorney General by law, and other applicable law, the Task Force shall:

(a) provide advice to the Attorney General for the investigation and prosecution of cases of bank, mortgage, loan, and lending fraud; securities and commodities fraud; retirement plan fraud; mail and wire fraud; tax crimes; money laundering; False Claims Act violations; unfair competition; discrimination; and other financial crimes and violations (hereinafter financial crimes and violations), when such cases are determined by the Attorney General, for purposes of this order, to be significant;

(b) make recommendations to the Attorney General, from time to time, for action to enhance cooperation among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial authorities responsible for the investigation and prosecution of significant financial crimes and violations; and

(c) coordinate law enforcement operations with representatives of State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement.

Sec. 4. Coordination with State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement. Consistent with the objectives set out in this order, and to the extent permitted by law, the Attorney General is encouraged to invite the following representatives of State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement to participate in the Task Force’s subcommittee addressing enforcement efforts in the subcommittee’s performance of the functions set forth in section 3(c) of this order relating to the coordination of Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement operations involving financial crimes and violations:

(a) the National Association of Attorneys General;

(b) the National District Attorneys Association; and

(c) such other representatives of State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement as the Attorney General deems appropriate.

Sec. 5. Outreach. Consistent with the law enforcement objectives set out in this order, the Task Force, in accordance with applicable law, in addition to regular meetings, shall conduct outreach with representatives of financial institutions, corporate entities, nonprofit organizations, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments and agencies, and other interested persons to foster greater coordination and participation in the detection and prosecution of financial fraud and financial crimes, and in the enforcement of antitrust and antidiscrimination laws.

Sec. 6. Administration. The Department of Justice, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, shall provide administrative support and funding for the Task Force.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Task Force shall replace, and continue the work of, the Corporate Fraud Task Force created by Executive Order 13271 of July 9, 2002. Executive Order 13271 is hereby terminated pursuant to section 6 of that order.

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 8. Termination. The Task Force shall terminate when directed by the President or, with the approval of the President, by the Attorney General.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 17, 2009.

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

A recent post (11 November 2009) on the World Bank’s blog brings into play another “e” word! This time its E-Parliament. Paul Mitchell, who recently spoke at the World e-Parliament 2009 Conference in Washington D.C., USA,  is the author and is very confident of the value ICT might have, although he does state that it’s about providing better service delivery.

As I’ve stated before, having read numerous papers and books on e-government, e-governance and similar phenomena, I struggle to see how, apart from a little increasing transparency, anything will change when the representatives of representative democracy are going to be unwilling to hand over some of their decision making powers to the electorate.

Two recent posts on the E-government Bulletin reinforce this from different angles: “ The Future of Politics: A Gathering Storm” and “Political Parties Could Be ‘Swept Away’ By Social Networks“. I suspect both are a storm in a tea-cup, since the main result of this lack of transparency appears to be citizen apathy.

ILFE

Developed Training manuals for UNESCO, UNICEF, WORLD BANK and Esuela Nueva Foundation. including the two training manuals for UNESCO’s ‘Embracing Diversity ‘ collection of Inclusive,Learning Friendly

Creating the Inclusive Learning Friendly Classroom

Managing the Inclusive Learning Friendly Classroom

By Horand Knaup and Christian Schwägerl

Achim Steiner heads up the UN Environment Program, a traditionally weak agency with an annual budget of just 200 million dollars. But Steiner is doing his best to transform the position into a soapbox for the environment — and is having some success.

Read more…

Related earlier posts:

->>>>><<<<<-

How much blood has been spilled in Afghanistan? It is very difficult to say; official estimates speak of an improbable 12,000 to a more probable, but still conservative, 32,000 casualties. Of these deaths, the “insurgents” of various affiliations (so not only the Taliban) would have been responsible, according to very conservative statistics, for almost a sixth. Certainly, as repugnant as they may be, the suicide bombers and road-side bombs as well as the Taliban’s punitive and revenge killings cannot be compared to the 30000lb air-bombs dropped by NATO.  

Despite all the calculations to avoid “collateral damage” behind the decision to air-strike an Afghan village in order to kill a supposed Taliban leader, the result may be disastrous, with the cost being, even from an arid military perspective, counterproductive. The Nobel Laureate President Obama is pondering whether to give in or not to the request of some US Generals to increase the US military presence and increase the use of force to achieve the aim of a democratic, secure — or at least less deadly–Afghanistan which might in turn secure the US and international community from another 9/11.

Leave aside that a “safe” Afghanistan does not equate to a safe world, it appears that operation Enduring Freedom, which has come at a high price (also for American and British families), is surely enduring but sadly unsuccessful in providing any real freedom to the Afghan people.

Indeed, the Afghan population has not even enjoyed the minimal right that any democracy, as young as it may be, should guarantee: a fair election of its leaders. The Afghan elections have been a total farce in which western democracies have legitimated a massive undemocratic fraud.  No democratic state, and certainly not the ones which today affirm that the election result  in Afghanistan is fully legitimate, would accept for itself what currently exists in Afghanistan.  But is the Afghan “democracy’ really the prize at stake for the sea of blood and suffering that Enduring Freedom has become? Is it really for fear of the Taliban returning? And are the Taliban really interested today in controlling Kabul and entering back onto the international political stage?

Afghanistan has many resources (leaving aside the strategic value of the country) and surely the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s would not have spent so much money and blood to merely export their political beliefs. You do not need to search very far to discover (and the mass media have been quite silent about this) that entire pieces of the country, together with resource potential, are now ready for auction: from iron deposits to import investment.

How much of these resources will remain in the hands of the Afghan people? Local businesses and entrepreneurs will face an impossible level of competition from international companies and stock holders. Recently, even the telecommunications company, Afghan Telecom, has been privatized - and I tend to guess that the investors will not be Afghans. It is also clear that the main interest is aimed at building the economy first and the civil society later, so that a fake democracy is acceptable and the economic parameters for growing foreign investment are respected. Yet corruption is surely less acceptable.

Unsurprisingly, instead of clear calls for new and fair elections, the UN and the US have asked the questionable Karzai to stand firm against endemic corruption. Of course, here we are not speaking of the village system of gift exchange, so often studied by anthropologists, but rather the politicians’ interest in those above economic activities; in other words, traditional western-style political bribery. Indeed, the World Bank and the IMF are a very distant reality for the great majority of Afghans today.

Afghanistan is a rural country with a high level of unemployment. How many Afghan citizens have access and the possibility to partake in economic games orchestrated by international players? Likely, the answer is very few and quite probably those same individuals who control Afghan political life.

The few Afghans who are able to enjoy the wealth directed towards the devastated country are those whom either engage in bribery, thanks to their being of Karzai’s entourage, or have the right connections with western companies. The reality is a divided country with few rich and a mass of desperate people whom, expecting democracy, have seen only the decadence of corruption.

Not surprisingly, an increasing number of young people turned to the “Islamic Emirate” (the name the Taliban use for their regime in Afghanistan) not only to express their frustration but also for their livelihood. Fighting, often, is just a matter of choice between risking a bullet or slowly decaying in humiliating poverty.  Meanwhile, in stately homes, Kabul parasites from the failed operation Enduring Freedom are shielded, through electoral fraud and tribal kinship, from the real consequences of a democratic and proper juridical system.

Let us observe where the “Western money” is going in Afghanistan:

1. $57 The foreign aid per capita to Afghanistan
2. $250,000 Typical salary of foreign consultants in Afghanistan, including 35 percent hardship allowance and 35 percent danger money. Afghan civil servants typically receive less than $1,000 a year.
3. $22bn The shortfall in donations compared to the international community’s estimate of Afghanistan’s need – around 48 per cent.
4. 40 percent Share of international aid budget returned to aid countries in corporate profit and consultant salaries – more than $6bn since 2001.
5. $7m Daily aid spend in Afghanistan. The daily military spend by the US government is around $100m.

You do not need to have a great sense of intuition to understand what the war in Afghanistan is all about. It is about plutocracy covered up as democracy. I am not surprised that the so-called Taliban have, despite some atrocities committed, the support of a considerable part of the countryside population, and consequently can resist and even keep in check the almighty NATO.

Corruption and nepotism were endemic in Afghanistan long before the Russians or the Americans entered the country in an attempt to impose their social political and economic systems. Yet those acts of corruption, nepotism and even oppression where performed within the framework of a cultural context that was acknowledged and known to the majority. Not that this made it less painful and frustrating, but it made it familiar. The degeneration of the western model of democracy today, as it was at the time of Athens, is a mix of unplanned imperialism, fear of the ‘other’, a search for the ‘enemy within’, and an increasing oligarchic plutocracy.

This model is something that the Afghan people have been, without real consultation, asked to test, accept and live with. Eight years of suffering have offered the great majority nothing tangibly better than the poverty they were used to, the violence, killing and rape they suffered before, as well as both a lack of security and real future.

Yet the model has added an element of irony to this depressing reality: after witnessing the movement of wealth on their land, the likes of which has been unknown in centuries, which only a choice few (and this time without the mediation of the tribe, the clan and the village structure) can grasp through the mysterious system of global “democratic” neoliberalism,  poverty and suffering in long beards, burqu’ and thobe may seem both more familiar and even illusorily just .

by Mercedes B. Suleik, for Manila Bulletin, November 18, 2009.

“In the next century, a company will stand or fall on its values,” Robert Hass, CEO of Levi Strauss was quoted to have said. I have sometimes used this quote to begin one of my lectures on corporate governance, saying that this statement has been validated by the humongous scandals and failures in the West – Enron, the mother of all f…k-ups, Worldcom, Tyco, even one of the big 5 accounting firms, Andersen, etc. in 2000, and repeated in 2008 with Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, US housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not the mention the big banks…all of whom had to bailed out (with the exception of Lehman) with taxpayers money. What indeed were the values espoused by these companies?

In discussing what corporate governance is about, I usually short-cut it by taking each of the elements in a definition I found very useful, that given by former World Bank President, James D. Wolfensohn: “Corporate governance is about promoting fairness, transparency, and accountability.” Transposing the letters to make an easy acronym, FAT, I have also added another letter to make FATE, with E representing Ethics.

Of course it could be said that observing FAT really means that underlying it all is the observance of E. If a company observes fairness, accountability, and transparency, then underlying it all, it must be ethical. FAT after all means that a good company assures that its shareholders are treated equitably, promotes long term value, and balances its profit motive with prudentially protecting its investments. FAT also means that in the relationships among the three important groups in a company – the shareholders, directors and management – each is accountable to the other, with the Board being accountable to the shareholders who own the company, and the Board being responsible for the actions of management which it appoints to implement its strategic and policy decisions. FAT also means that the Board ensures timely and accurate disclosure of all material matters, including material foreseeable risks, and requires a system of monitoring and reporting based on accepted standards of adequate disclosure…(continue reading)

The Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars Mexico site picked up an article from El Universal that has captured what I think is one of Mexico’s greatest challenges… facing north when it should be looking south:

Mexico was once boasted as a leader in Latin America, but is now an observer of the development of other nations. Academics and specialists confirm that the country has found itself stuck in several areas stymieing its competitiveness.

The majority agree: the country wasted its potential, never looked south to reassert itself as a leader, and squandered the advantage of oil resources and neglected science.

(Original article in El Universal 16-November 2009)

I’ve talked before about the disadvantages of Mexico’s too-close ties to the United States economy, which has worked to discourage trade with the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world.  At the same time, despite my continual carping on the lack of attention the United States pays to Latin America, Mexico does receive attention… just not the kind that allows for creative and independent policy-making.

Narrow concerns with “stability”, coupled with the unfortunate co-incidence of the timing of the last presidential campaign during the United State’s own bout with extremist political and economic attitudes probably did have more to do with with the questionable outcome of that election than it should.  Not that a López Obradór administration would have necessarily have been more successful than the Calderón administration, but AMLO was more interested in pan-Latin initiatives, and his program was more focused on the basics — like educational and agricultural reform — than the incumbent is.

Secondly, Mexico’s willingness to fight the United State’s “war on drugs” — or rather, the Calderón administration’s willingness to use the “mano duro” against “instability” (which includes not just the narcotics exporters, but political and social dissent as well).  Basic judicial reforms, as well as social programs which would have ameliorated the need for so much dissent (as well as the need to make a living working in the narcotics industry) have been put on the back burner.

Third, while the PAN people are not incompetent per se, they are ideologically bound to the wrong issues.  This wouldn’t have been a problem had the U.S. economic house of cards stood up a few more years, but it didn’t.  While the United States could make some mild reforms thanks to an election at the right time, Mexico is stuck with the same mindset when it comes to economic responses as the Bush Administration in the U.S.  I thought it a good sign when Augustín Carstens was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, although — today — an orthodox World Bank type is exactly wrong.

And, of course, shit happens.  Mexico isn’t “exotic” — or exciting enough to rate the pres that Brazil does right now.  And, our stability may be working against us.  People like Felipe Calderón are kind of dull… even AMLO, or Beatriz Parades just don’t have the star appeal of other Latin American politicos like Bolivia’s Evo Morales or Ecuador’s Rafael Correa,  And, outside the “drug war” and quasi-crises like the flu epidemic, there hasn’t been any “change to believe in” that really captures one’s attention since the Oaxaca protests.

While it looks, on the surface, that nothing is going on… there are signs that something will give.  The cynical dismemberment of Luz y Fuero del Centro (and the union) hasn’t quite sunk in yet, nor has the Calderón administration’s coddling of the corrupt union boss, Esther Elba Gordilla… nor the seeming lack of ideas from the administration on how to respond to the economic situation.  There will be national elections in 2012… and although it appears for now that the likely winner is a Carlos Salinas protege, nothing is ever for certain in Mexico.  As Porfirio Dias said, just before everything changed, “Nothing changes in Mexico… until it changes.”