In today's Oregonian, there's a thoughtful letter to the editor under the heading, "Sizemore should be banned" from Mark Sturbois of Southeast Portland. Mr. Sturbois points out that Mr. Sizemore has been convicted of improprieties relating to the initiative process. But even so he's back again with more bad ballot measures.
Coincidentally, the back page of the same Metro section (Oregonian Jan. 10, 2008) reports on an important ruling by Marion County Circuit Judge Dennis Graves. In that case, a number of professional petitioners challenged new laws that regulate how signatures are gathered for initiative petitions.
The regulations allow the State to enforce existing rules that ban paying signature gatherers by the signature. The professional petitioners--the Sizemores of our lives--challenged the rules and asked the judge to enjoin enforcement. Judge Graves refused to do so.
I'm not privy to the particulars, and you always have to be a little careful about news reports of cases. Still, it seems reasonable to me that the State can enforce rules that regulate signature gathering for initiatives. After all, we want a transparent process that Oregonians can trust, not one that encourages or promotes signature fraud. It seems like Judge Graves' ruling goes the right way on this important issue.
So back to Mr. Sturbois. Seems like he's got a well-founded and well-articulated beef with the Sizemore efforts. Let's hope that the latest round of rules helps cure us of this ill. While the right to petition is an important one, we're all entitled to have the petitioning process remain open and honest. So maybe some fraud-proofing will stop the cascade of lousy ideas?
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Countrywide Makes it Up
Here's a fun one. According to a report in today's New York Times, Countrywide admitted that it fabricated--or in its lawyers words, "recreated"--documents in a bankruptcy case. Countrywide used three letters that it claimed to have sent to the borrower and used them as the basis for claiming that the borrower owed Countrywide $4,700.
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Here's the url for reference. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/business/08lend.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
Countrywide's claim that the borrower owed money is particularly problematic. According to the news report, the borrower had successfully completed her bankruptcy plan, a plan that Countrywide passed on without objection. After completion of the bankruptcy plan, Countrywide sent the borrower a notice of intention to foreclose based on the fabricated documents.
Countrywide sent the borrower's lawyer "copies" of three letters sent previously. Or so Countrywide claimed. Interestingly, the oldest of the three letters was addressed to an office address that the lawyer would move into well after the date of the first letter. Nice work at the documents department.
In the predatory lending crisis, there are those who want to put all of the blame on borrowers for failing to take responsibility. While there will be plenty of blame to go around before the whole story comes out, this story doesn't exactly bathe Countrywide in a righteous light. It will be interesting to see whether this type of conduct was widespread, or whether it was a rare instance of misconduct.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Monday, January 7, 2008
De Beers Class Action Settlement
One of the better class notices I've seen appeared in Parade Magazine on Sunday, January 6, 2008. It announced a $295 million settlement of a diamond market price fixing class action lawsuit against De Beers diamonds.
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The notice provides a nice summary of the class settlement with plenty of information on how class members can learn more about the case. The settlement fund totals some $295 million. It covers diamond purchases from Januay 1, 1994 through March 31, 2006. Additional information can be found at www.diamondclassaction.com.
Paul & Sugerman did not participate in this case and has no connection to the claim.
The size of the settlement fund suggests that class counsel did a great job in putting together what must have been a tough case. But more important, it's an impressive job of providing notice.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
