naked capitalism

Eric says:

I wonder what the committee chair got?

CaitlinG says:

The other piece of this story is that the bill’s original author, Michele Reagan, had been involved in a lawsuit with her servicer, Colonial Savings – a lawsuit that was settled with prejudice on, as reported at 4closurefraud, the same day that SB 1259 was “disappeared.”

AS best I can tell, below is the sequence of events which I presented to Elizabeth Erwin, a reporter at KHPO – CBS 5 Phoenix – who covered some of the story but missed the essential links that seem to indicate bribery. Her response was, essentially, that she had asked the relevant questions and that there didn’t seem to be a problem.

Are the servicers really smart and coordinated enough to go after multiple legislators to kill bills that are detrimental to the banking industry? Given how they run their businesses I can’t believe they have their acts that together. Is someone helping to coordinate efforts? Weird.

E-mail sent to Elizabeth Erwin on 4/26:

Dear Ms. Erwin -

Kudos to you for covering the sleight of hand involved in wiping out the foreclosure transparency provisions initially included in Bill SB 1259 and their replacement by a fire districting measure.

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the big story here. Michele Reagan initialy introduced the bill in early 2010 when she was involved in a conflict with her mortgage lender. According to Michele, she had simply asked Colonial Savings to produce the note on her home, i.e., to provide proof that Colonial was, indeed, the organization to whom she owed the mortgage. In seeming punishment for this inquiry, she was immediately sued by Colonial Savings, even though she was current on her payments, as reported by your co-worker, Sarah Buduson:

http://www.kpho.com/money/23008529/detail.html

Around that time, Ms. Reagan filed SB 1259, not just in response to her own conflict, of course, but to protect the good people of Arizona from also being treated so badly by out of control mortgage lenders and servicers:

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/michele-reagan-senate-candidate-gets-it-and-gets-sued-for-her-troubles-without-default/

The bill was passed by an overwhelming majority in the State Senate then went to the House for approval. Just before the bill was to be voted on, it was disappeared and replaced with a completely different bill, under the same filing number:

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/04/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-az-house-of-representatives%E2%80%A6-after-passing-the-senate-28-2%E2%80%A6-s-b-1259-completely-disappeared/

Up to now it looks like just another in a long series of sad cases of the banksters manipulating legislation to support their fraud. But, as reported at 4closurefraud.org, it’s more interesting than that. Ms. Reagan’s lawsuit was settled the VERY SAME DAY that the bill was ‘amended’ and Colonial’s suit against her was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE just three days later:

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/04/25/4closurefraud-bombshell-arizona-sb-1259-settlement-sellout-conference-with-colonial-bank-and-michelle-reagan/

There are just a few questions enquiring minds might have for Ms. Reagan:

1. Did she have any communication with Rep. McLain expressing her desire to amend the bill?

2. Did Colonial, its representatives or other entities associated with the banking/financial industry have communication with Ms. Reagan concerning the bill? Concerning her lawsuit? What were the contents of those communications?

3. What does the settlement with Colonial entail?

4. Did she receive a modification of terms or principle from Colonial? Were there amounts past due owed on her mortgage? What happened to past due amounts owed on the mortgage, if any?

5. What is her explanation for the timing of the bill amendment and her settlement?

6. How did she obtain a dismissal with prejudice which is very rare in these instances?

7. Given the overwhelming passage of this bill in the Senate, how did Ms. Reagan determine that “the bill didn’t have a shot” in the House?

8. Does Ms. Reagan understand that the timing of these actions might cause voters to believe that this was this a quid pro quo?

Thank you for your good work, Ms. Erwin. I look forward to more reporting on this important subject.

Patrick says:

As a long term AZ resident nothing surprises me when it comes to our legislature.

My take on this affair is that Seel probably never intended to do anything. He was merely using the threat to get the loan modified. They used to call this ploy a “fetcher bill”, as it aimed at fetching the lobbyist to your office to “resolve” your issue.

What is unusual is that he was dumb enough to have both a paper trail and a witness. But intelligence has never been a prerequisite for being elected in AZ; most of our voters view it with suspicion.