Mexican Drug Cartel Violence: Mexican Marines arrest presumed leader of Beltran Leyva Cartel – Sergio Villarreal Barragan taken into custody

Sergio Villarreal Barragan captured in Sunday raid officials say

Mexican marines captured Sergio Villarreal Barragan, a presumed leader of the embattled Beltran Leyva cartel who appears on a list of the country’s most-wanted fugitives, in a raid Sunday in the central state of Puebla, officials said.

The presumed capo known as “El Grande” did not put up any resistance when he was arrested along with two alleged accomplices, a Navy official told The Associated Press. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy, said federal officials would announce the capture shortly.

Mr. Villarreal appears on a 2009 Attorney General’s Office list of Mexico’s most-wanted drug traffickers and has a reward of just over $2-million for his capture.

He is listed as one of the remaining leaders of the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose top capo, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed in December in a raid by marines outside Mexico City.

Drug Cratel Violence. Young Woman Murdered & Mutilated By Cartel

Mr. Villarreal’s capture comes about two weeks after the arrest of Edgar Valdez Villarreal, or “The Barbie,” another alleged capo linked to the Beltran Leyvas.

The once-powerful Beltran Leyva cartel split following the death of Arturo — known as the “Boss of Bosses” — which launched a brutal war for control of the gang involving mass execution and beheadings in once-peaceful parts of central Mexico. The fight pitted brother Hector Beltran Leyva and Villarreal against a faction led by Edgar Valdez Villarreal. Hector Beltran Leyva remains at large.

Mr. Villarreal’s capture is the fourth major blow delivered to drug cartels by Mexico’s government in the past year. First came the death of Arturo Beltran Leyva on Dec. 16, 2009, then soldiers killed the Sinaloa cartel’s No. 3 capo, Ignacio “Nacho” Coronel, on July 29. And on Aug. 30 federal police announced the capture of “The Barbie.”

Drug Cartel Victims - Decapitated Bodies Dumped in Plaza

More than 28,000 people have been killed in Mexico since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon launched a military offensive against the cartels soon after taking office.

In the central state of Morelos, police discovered nine bodies in clandestine graves Saturday in the same area where four more were recently found.

The Public Safety Department said in a separate statement that all 13 victims were believed to have been killed on the orders of “The Barbie” in his battle for control of the cartel.

Also Sunday, the military announced that it filed charges against four troops for the Sept. 5 shooting deaths of a man and his 15-year-old son along the highway linking the northern city of Monterrey to Laredo, Texas.

Authorities have said soldiers opened fire on the family vehicle when it failed to stop at a checkpoint, though relatives who were also in the car say they were shot at after they passed a military convoy.

The mother and wife of the two victims was also wounded in the shooting.

Cartel Violence - Decapitated Head Left in Plaza

A captain, a corporal and two infantrymen are in custody in military prison and have been charged with homicide, the Defence Department said in a statement.

Mexico’s military was already under scrutiny for this year’s killings of two brothers, ages 5 and 9, on a highway in Tamaulipas, a state bordering Nuevo Leon.

The National Human Rights Commission has accused soldiers of shooting the children and altering the scene to try to pin the deaths on drug cartel gunmen.

The army denies the allegations and says the boys were killed in the crossfire of a shootout between soldiers and suspected traffickers.

The scandal renewed demands from activists that civilian authorities, not the army, investigate human rights cases involving the military.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/mexican-marines-arrest-presumed-leader-of-beltran-leyva-cartel/article1704715/?cmpid=rss1

SECURE BORDERS: Obama Administration – Fails To Address Home Grown Terrorist Issue, Reports 9-11 Commission Authors

Report: US must deal with domestic radical problem

WASHINGTON – The U.S. was slow to take seriously the threat posed by homegrown radicals and the government has failed to put systems in place to deal with the growing phenomenon, according to a new report compiled by the former heads of the Sept. 11 Commission.

The report says U.S. authorities failed to realize that Somali-American youths traveling from Minnesota to Mogadishu in 2008 to join extremists was not an isolated issue. Instead, the movement was one among several instances of a broader, more diverse threat that has surfaced across the country.

“Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn’t happen here has thus created a situation where we are today stumbling blindly through the legal, operational and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the United States,” said the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

As a result, there is still no federal agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents, said the report, slated to be released Friday by the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group.

The group, headed by former 9-11 commission leaders Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, laid out a detailed description of domestic terror incidents ranging from the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the attempted Christmas Day airliner attack in late 2009 to last May’s botched truck bombing in New York’s Times Square.

Over the past year, terrorism experts and government officials have warned of the threat posed by homegrown radicals, saying terror recruits who go abroad could return to the U.S. to carry out attacks.

But the U.S., the group said, should have learned earlier from Britain’s experience. Prior to the 2005 London suicide bombings, the British believed that Muslims there were better integrated, educated and wealthier than their counterparts elsewhere.

Similarly, the U.S. believed that its melting pot of nationalities and religions would protect it from internal radical strife, the report said.

The terrorists, said the report, may have discovered America’s “Achilles’ heel in that we currently have no strategy to counter the type of threat posed by homegrown terrorists and other radicalized recruits.”

The report also points to an “Americanization” of the leadership of al-Qaida and its allied groups, noting that radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had links with suspects in the failed Times Square bombing and the Fort Hood shootings, grew up in New Mexico. And Chicagoan David Headley played a role in scoping the targets for the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks on Mumbai in late 2008 that killed more than 160.

Abroad, Al-Qaida, its affiliates and other extremist groups have splintered and spread, seeking safe havens in undergoverned areas of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and places in North and East Africa. That diversified threat has intensified as militants reach out to potential recruits through the Internet.

Assessing future threats, the report lists potential future domestic targets, including passenger jets, western or American hotel chains, Jewish or Israeli sites and U.S. soldiers, even at their own bases in America.

And it also warns that it is no longer wise to believe that American extremists will not resort to suicide bombings. As an example they point to Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 in last year’s shootings at Fort Hood, saying he had written about suicide operations in e-mails, and that his attack appeared to be one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700064357/Report-US-must-deal-with-domestic-radical-problem.html?s_cid=rss-5

McAuleys World:

First we must secure our borders … Then Prsident Obama could always schedule a “beer summit” with the Countries enemies …. or maybe he can schedule a “beer sunnit” with America’s original domestic terrorists, those like Bill Ayers who have already participated in random, violent and lethal attacks on American facilities, motivated by hatred and blind rage …. then again, President Obama has had lots of “beer summits” with Ayers … while Ayers helped him plan his early political campaigns ….

“Ayers, born in 1944, was raised in a Chicago suburb. He became active in the anti-war leftist group, Students for a Democratic Society, while he was a student at the University of Michigan in the mid- 1960s. In 1969, Ayers helped lead a group that splintered off from SDS, Weatherman (known as the Weathermen). The group set off a number of bombs against U.S. targets in the early 1970s, earning it the label of “domestic terrorist organization” from the FBI.”

Notable Attacks:

  • 1970: Bombing of New York City Police Headquarters
  • 1971: Bombing of U.S. Capitol Building
  • 1972: Bombing of Pentagon
  •  

    http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Bill_Ayers.htm

    Bill Ayers 1968 Police Photo

    On the SDS, Communism and Anarcho-Communists: An internal battle of SDS ideology. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    “in March 1970 following the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, an incident in which three members of the organization died when an explosive device, intended for a servicemen’s ball, detonated prematurely. Among the dead were Terry Robbins, Diana Oughton, and Ted Gold … and according to some Weatherman members like Bill Ayers, build an underground revolutionary movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    The new organization was intent on overthrowing the government through violent actions. Spreading communism was a priority for the members of Weather, as when Rudd told other members of SDS, “ Don’t be timid about telling people we’re Communist. Don’t deny it, be proud of it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rudd

    Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was founded by Aryeh Neier (Director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy) in 1960. Its principles were elaborated by Tom Hayden in the Port Huron Statement of 1962, which adopted the position of “anti-anti-Communism,” refusing to support the West in the Cold War. What began as a movement to involve the largest possible number of American students in the democratic processes had become by 1969, as a contemporaneous FBI memo summarizes, “an organization totally dedicated to the destruction of American society…In the span of seven years, the SDS had evolved into a hard line Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization dedicated to the destruction of Western democratic traditions and ideals.”

    Several prominent SDS members organized Progressives for Obama in March of 2008. Among the organizers are Carl Davidson, Mark Rudd, and Todd Gitlin; while several Klonsky family members are represented, Mike Klonsky is conspicuously absent from the signers. http://www.conservapedia.com/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society

    SDS was an important subject within the Soviet directed and funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in early 1968.

    By 1974 Maoism had supplanted the Soviet ideological doctrine guiding many New Left groups willing to use violence to achieve socialist revolution. In Prairie Fire, Ayers, Dohrn and Jeff Jones identified the WUO primary strategy on the side of Maoist thought in the following way,

    The Chinese Revolution is a wonderful development in the advance of humanity. Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist Party have made many important breakthroughs in developing revolutionary strategy in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial world. The thought common to Mao and Ho Chi-minh – that the central revolutionary force of our time is the oppressed nations and peoples of the world leading the liberation struggle against imperialism – is the guiding strategic principle of this era.”

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society

     

    Mao Zedong: Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in China as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Conversely, Mao’s social-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for costing millions of lives, causing severe famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949 to 1976 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 to 70 million people. Since Deng Xiaoping assumed power in 1978, many Maoist policies have been abandoned in favour of economic reforms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

    Mao was killing between 40 to 70 million of his own people at precisely the time AYERS and SDS adopted Ma0ist’s ideology …

    Mao as a supporter of human right’s policies … Mao as a supporter of civil rights …. what a crock!   

    Financial Reform: Mortgage Fraud Continues to Boom

    Who paid $300,000 for this "structure".

    Special report: Flipping, flopping and booming mortgage fraud

    (Reuters) – The house on the 53rd block of South Wood Street in Chicago’s Back of the Yards doesn’t look like a $355,000 home. There is no front door and most of the windows are boarded up.

    Public records show it sold in foreclosure for $25,500 in January 2009, then resold for $355,000 in October. In between, a $110,000 mortgage was taken out on the home, supposedly for renovations. This June, the property went back into foreclosure.

    To Emilio Carrasquillo, head of the local office of non-profit lender Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago (NHS), the numbers don’t add up. He believes this is a case of mortgage fraud.

    It may not make the blood boil like murder or rape, but mortgage fraud is a crime that cost an estimated $14 billion in 2009 and could be hampering an already fragile recovery in the housing market. The FBI has been fighting back, assembling its largest ever team to fight it. They have their work cut out for them, though, as a tsunami of foreclosures is making classic scams easier and spawning new ones to boot.

    “There’s no way any property in this neighborhood should sell for that kind of money,” said Carrasquillo, standing outside the house on Wood Street in this poor, predominantly black area of Chicago’s South Side. “Even if it was in great condition.”

    Carrasquillo has identified a number of properties in Back of the Yards that sold for between $5,000 and $30,000 last year and then came back on the market for up to $385,000. He said property prices are being artificially inflated, allowing fraudsters to walk away with vast profits and making it harder for honest local people to buy a home.

    Mortgage fraud takes many forms, but a well-organized scam frequently involves a limited liability company (LLC) or a “straw buyer.” In

    Who paid $355,000 for this structure?

     this scheme, fraudsters use a fake identity or that of someone else who allows them to use their credit status in return for a fee. The seller pockets the money the buyer borrows from a lender to pay for the home. The buyer never makes a mortgage payment and the property goes into foreclosure.

    In other words, the money simply disappears, leaving the lender with a large loss. Since the U.S. government is now backing much of the mortgage market in the absence of private investors, that means “taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for fraud,” said Ann Fulmer, vice president of business relations at fraud-prevention company Interthinx.

    Back of the Yards was hit by fraud during the housing boom and Carrasquillo says the glut of foreclosures is now making it easier for scammers to pick up properties for a song and flip them for phenomenal profits.

    Drug dealers and gang members have taken over abandoned houses, many adorned with spray-painted gang signs. Prior to touring the area, Carrasquillo attached two magnetic signs touting the NHS logos on his minivan’s doors to show he is not a police officer. He said he also prefers touring in the morning, as drug dealers and “gangbangers” tend not to be early risers.

    “These properties are just going to sit there, boarded up, broken into and a magnet for crime,” he said. “And that makes our job of trying to stabilize this neighborhood so much harder.”

    CRACKDOWN NETS MORE REPORTS OF FRAUD

    The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a report released on June 17 that suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to mortgage fraud rose 5 percent in 2009 to around 67,200, up from 63,700 the year before. The number had tripled from 22,000 in 2005 and the number of SARs for the first three months of 2010 hit nearly 38,000.

    “We don’t see the number declining while foreclosures remain so high,” said Sharon Ormsby, section chief of the FBI’s financial crimes section.

    Robb Adkins, executive director of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, is known as U.S. President Barack Obama’s financial fraud czar. He describes mortgage fraud as “pervasive” and fears it is exacerbating the nation’s real estate woes. “That, in turn, could act as an anchor on the economic recovery,” he said.

    For the housing market to recover, potential homeowners need confidence in home prices and investors need confidence to get back into the secondary mortgage market, Adkins explained.

    Since the subprime meltdown, a wide variety of scams have come to the fore. They include big cases like that of Lee Farkas, the former head of now bankrupt mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp, charged in June with fraud that led to billions of dollars of losses. The scheme involved the misappropriation of funds from multiple sources, including a lending facility that had received funding from Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas.

    That appears to be the scam of choice. On July 22, for instance, seven defendants were indicted in Chicago in a $35 million mortgage fraud scheme involving 120 properties from 2004 to 2008 using straw buyers. Of the half dozen properties listed in the indictment, two were in Back of the Yards.

    In the mid-2000s, the availability of easy money, poor due diligence by lenders and low- or no-documentation loans, acted as a magnet for fraudsters, who used identity theft and other scams to bag large sums of cash.

    “During the boom it was almost like people in the real estate market could do no wrong,” said Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. “As ever more money rushed in, it attracted a lot of people who engaged in shady behavior.”

    Instead of leaving them without a market, the crash has instead provided fraudsters with a glut of foreclosures, stricken borrowers and desperate lenders to take advantage of.

    “There were plenty of opportunities for fraud on the way up and there are plenty on the way down,” said Clifford Rossi, a former chief credit officer at Citigroup and now a teaching fellow at the University of Maryland in College Park.

    Alongside familiar scams like property flipping, the crash has added new terms to the lexicon: short sale fraud, builder bailouts and flopping. Rescue scams targeting struggling homeowners with false promises of help are also on the rise.

    If some of the mechanisms are new, a lot of the fraudsters are not: in many cases, they turn out to be mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents or loan officers. “Because they’re insiders, they see exactly what’s happening and they’re able to stay one step ahead of the game,” said Todd Lackner, a fraud investigator in San Diego. “They’re the same people who were committing fraud during the boom and they were never caught or prosecuted.”

    BACK TO THE YARDS

    Just a stone’s throw from downtown Chicago, Back of the Yards is the setting for Upton Sinclair’s classic 1906 novel “The Jungle,” a tale of grueling hardship and worker exploitation at the city’s stockyards. The book includes an act of mortgage fraud against an unsuspecting Lithuanian family.

    “Mortgage fraud is nothing new,” said Christopher Wagner, co-managing attorney of the Ohio Attorney General’s Cincinnati office. “It’s been around for a long time.”

    Saul Alinsky, considered the founder of modern community organizing, started out in Back of the Yards in the 1930s. Decades later, a young community organizer named Obama got his start near here.

    The neighborhood has always been poor, but south of the old railway tracks at W 49th St, the housing crisis’ legacy of empty lots and boarded-up homes is evident on every block. There are few stores and services available — in four separate visits for this story, no police vehicles were sighted.

    “This is what we refer to as a ‘resource desert,'” Carrasquillo said. “When no one pays attention to an area like this, it makes it easier to get away with fraud.”

    Marni Scott, executive vice president for credit at Troy, Michigan-based lender Flagstar Bancorp, says there are virtually no untainted sales in the area. “There are no cases of Mr and Mr Jones selling to Mr and Mrs Smith.”

    “We see cases of mortgage fraud around the country,” she added. “But there’s nothing out there that could match the mass-production, assembly-line fraud that’s going on here.”

    In 2008 Flagstar instituted a rule whereby any loan applications here and in parts of Atlanta — another fraud hot spot — must be approved by Scott and the lender’s chief appraiser. In a Webex presentation, Scott rattles through a number of properties snapped up for pennies on the dollar in 2009 and then sold for around $360,000.

    She provides an underwriter’s-eye-view of one property, on the 51st block of South Marshfield Avenue, sold in foreclosure in July 2009 for $33,000. In January of this year Flagstar received a loan application to buy the house for $355,000.

    The property appraisal — compiled by an appraiser who Scott believes never visited the area — showed four nearby comparable properties of around the same age (100 plus years) sold recently for around $360,000. The trick to this kind of scheme is engineering the sale of the first few fraudulently overvalued properties to get “comps” — comparable values — to fool appraisers and underwriters alike.

    “Miraculously, all of these properties were all within a very narrow price range,” Scott said with weary sarcasm. “This is a perfect appraisal for an underwriter. If you are an underwriter sitting in Kansas or California it all looks fairly straightforward so you can just hit the button and approve it.”

    Using a $5 product called LoanIQ from U.S. title insurer First American Financial Corp called LoanIQ, Flagstar determined the application itself was fraudulent and there was a foreclosure rate in the area of nearly 60 percent. What is more, property prices here spiked 84 percent last year after 44 percent and 26 percent declines in 2008 and 2007.  [How mant times have you heard the MSM report that “Housing prices recovered 1% last month”]

    “No neighborhood should look like this,” said Scott, who declined the application.

    Last April, however, another lender approved a loan application for $335,000 on the same property from the same people.

    FORECLOSURE MAGNET

    Reports this year from Interthinx, CoreLogic Inc and the Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI) — which all provide fraud prevention tools for lenders — show foreclosure hotspots Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada are also big mortgage fraud markets.

    MARI said in its April report that reported mortgage fraud and misrepresentation rose 7 percent in 2009, adding fraud “continues to be a pervasive issue, growing and escalating in complexity.”

    Denise James, director of real estate solutions at LexisNexis Risk Solutions and one of the author’s reports, said reported fraud will continue to rise throughout 2010.

    In its first-quarter report, Interthinx said its Mortgage Fraud Risk Index rose 4 percent to 151, the first time it had passed 150 since 2004. A figure of 100 on the index would indicate virtually no risk of fraud.

    Congressman Barney Frank

    According to various estimates, the 30310 ZIP code in Atlanta is one of the worst in the country. An analysis of that ZIP prepared for Reuters by Interthinx showed a fraud index of 414, making it the eighth worst ZIP code in the country. Back of the Yards — ZIP code 60609 — had an index of 309.

    “In some neighborhoods in Atlanta there hasn’t been a clean transaction in 10 years,” Interthinx’s Fulmer said.

    In 2005 local residents here formed the 30310 Fraud Task Force. Members sniff out potential signs of fraud — such as repeated property flipped — and report them directly to the FBI and local authorities. Information from the task force led to the arrest of a 12-member mortgage fraud ring on September 15, 2008 — better known in the annals of the financial crisis as the day Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    Brent Brewer, a civil engineer and task force member, said the arrests had a noticeable impact on fraud in the area. “It made a statement that if you come here to commit fraud there’s a good chance you’ll get caught,” he said.

    But Brewer harbors no illusions the fraudsters are gone. “There’s no way they can catch everyone who’s involved in fraud. But if you’re dumb, greedy or desperate, you’re going to get caught.”

    FBI GETTING INTERESTED

    Law enforcement has come a long way in combating mortgage fraud, though officials freely admit that’s not saying much.

    Senator Chris Dodd

    Ben Wagner, U.S. attorney for the eastern district of California, said as mortgages are regulated at the state and local level, for years there was little federal interference. Prior to the recent boom, he said, fraud simply “was not identified as a huge problem.”

    “There has been a little bit of a learning curve,” Wagner said. “This was not something federal prosecutors had much familiarity with. Now we’re getting pretty good at it.”

    Half of Wagner’s 50 or so criminal prosecutors focus on white-collar crime including fraud. Two new prosecutors will be dedicated solely to mortgage fraud.

    Now mortgage fraud is a known quantity, Wagner said all U.S. prosecutors tackling it are linked by Internet groups. The May edition of the bi-monthly “United States Attorneys’ Bulletin” (published by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys) was devoted entirely to mortgage fraud.

    The FBI has more than 350 out of its 13,000 agents devoted to mortgage fraud. There are also now 67 regular mortgage fraud working groups and 23 task forces at the federal, state and local level. “This is the broadest coalition of law enforcement ever brought together to fight fraud,” Adkins said. He admitted, however that limited resources to fight fraud still pose a challenge.

    Attorney General Eric Holder

    In June U.S. authorities said 1,215 people had been charged in a joint crackdown on mortgage fraud. Many of the charges were for crimes committed years ago.

    Latour “LT” Lafferty, the head of the white-collar crimes practice at law firm Fowler White Boggs in Tampa, Florida, said fraud in the boom was so pervasive that many crimes will go undetected and unprosecuted. “Everyone had their hands in the cookie jar during the boom,” he said. “Lenders, brokers, Realtors, homeowners … everyone.”

    OLD DOG, NEW TRICKS

    A new mortgage scam born out of the housing crisis is short sale fraud. Short sales are a way for stricken homeowners to get out of their homes, whereby in agreement with their lender they sell their home for less than they paid for it and are forgiven the remainder.

    But they have also proven a tempting target for fraudsters, usually involving the Realtor in the deal. Lackner, the fraud investigator in San Diego, described a typical scheme: “Let’s say you have a property up for short sale that you know as a Realtor you can get $350,000 for,” he said. “But you arrange a low-ball appraisal of $200,000 and have someone make an offer of that amount.”

    Tont Rezko - Convicted Felon - Real Estate "Development"

    “The Realtor says to the bank this is the best offer you’re going to get, take it or leave it,” he added. “Then they turn around and flip it immediately for $350,000. In cases like this, the lender is probably already stuck with a lot of foreclosed properties and doesn’t want more. So they go for it.”

    Where the process of fraudulent appraisals overvaluing a property for sale is “flipping,” deliberately undervaluing them has become known as “flopping.”

    Bob Hertzog, a designated real estate broker at Summit Home Consultants in Scottsdale, Arizona, says he gets emails from unknown firms offering to act as a “third-party negotiator” between the seller and the bank with what turns out to be a grossly undervalued bid.

    Hertzog has tried tracing some of the LLCs, but describes a chain of front companies leading nowhere.

    “The problem is it is so cheap and easy to set up an LLC online that sometimes they are set up for just one transaction,” Flagstar’s Scott said. “And if they’re set up using fake information or a stolen identity, it’s very hard to trace who’s behind them.”

    Many web sites boast they can help you form an LLC online for under $50.

    Another common target for fraud is the reverse mortgage. Designed for seniors to release equity from a property, according to financial fraud czar Adkins, they have been used to commit a “particularly egregious type of fraud.”

    Fraudsters commonly forge their victims’ signatures and, without their knowledge or consent, divert funds to themselves. The scam is worst in Florida, a magnet for American retirees.

    “Unfortunately it is often not until the death of the victim that their heirs realize that all of the equity has been stripped out of the property by fraudsters,” Adkins said.

    But Arthur Prieston, chairman of the Prieston Group, which sells mortgage fraud insurance and has launched a patented system to rate lenders on the quality of their loans, said most mortgage fraud he comes across consists of ordinary people fudging figures to get a loan. “The vast majority of the fraud we see is where people intend to occupy a property, but can’t qualify for a loan,” he said. “They’ll do anything to get that loan approved.”

    He added this is achieved with the active collusion of Realtors, brokers and lenders looking to make a sale and keep the market moving. Before his firm issues fraud insurance it reviews a lender’s loans and between 20 percent and the 30 percent of the loans reviewed so far have had “red flags.”

    The problem with assessing the extent of the damage caused by mortgage fraud is that it’s not just the dollar amount of the fraud itself. It also hits property values, property taxes and often causes crime to rise.

    “Most people interpret white collar crime as a victimless crime, where the bank pays the price and no one else,” said Andrew Carswell, associate professor of housing and consumer economics, University of Georgia. “This is a mistaken perception … neighborhoods and homeowners pay the price.”

    UNCOVERING THE SCAMS

    Companies like Interthinx, CoreLogic and DataVerify all have data-driven fraud prevention tools for lenders. Interthinx’s program, for instance, identifies some 300 “red flags” including a buyer’s identity and recent sales in a neighborhood, while CoreLogic uses pattern recognition technology. CoreLogic also aims to bring a short sale fraud product to the market soon.

    Interthinx’s Fulmer said regardless of the source, on average solid fraud prevention tools can be had for as little as $10 to $15 per loan. “The tools out there enable us to see what’s going on out there right now in real time,” she said.

    Apart from fraud insurance, Prieston Group’s new credit rating system for lenders should have enough data within the next year to start providing valid ratings.

    Prieston said the firm’s insurance product is growing at more than 100 percent per month, while CoreLogic’s Tim Grace said the firm’s fraud prevention tool business was booming.

    Many lenders are also sharing more information about bad loans, though LexisNexis’ James said it is not nearly enough. “If lenders don’t start to share more information then fraudsters will continue to go from bank to bank to bank until they’re caught,” she said.

    The University of Maryland’s Rossi said what the industry needs is a “central data warehouse” to combat fraud. “There has been a failure of collective data warehousing across the industry,” he said.

    Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) spokesman John Mechem said members have no plans for a central database, but added “we view our role as being to facilitate and encourage information sharing in the industry.”

    The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 allows lenders a safe harbor to share information, but does not mandate it. “We always encourage more information sharing,” said Steve Hudak, a press officer at the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen. “As of now, however, this is an entirely voluntary process.”

    But Rossi said the government should step in. “The Federal government is probably going to have to take the initiative because I don’t see the industry doing this one on its own,” he said. “I am personally not a fan of big government, but we need more information sharing.”

    Ultimately, the expectation is lenders will be forced either to improve due diligence, or face being pushed out of business as investors burned by sloppy underwriting during the boom urge them to adopt fraud prevention tools.

    “Investor scrutiny is going to be higher than it ever has been,” Rossi said. “The days of a small amount of due diligence are gone.”

    Many investors are also investigating their losses and forcing lenders to repurchase bad loans. This is resulting in “thousands of repurchases a month,” according to Prieston.

    “When it comes to small lenders with only a few million dollars of loans, ten repurchases will absolutely put some of them out of business,” he said.

    The government now guarantees more than 90 percent of the mortgage market and forms almost the entire secondary mortgage market, as private investors have not returned. The FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are thus seen as playing an instrumental role in pushing improved due diligence to clean up the government’s multi-trillion dollar portfolio.

    FHA commissioner David Stevens was appointed in July 2009. Since then the FHA has shut down 1,100 lenders, after decades in which the government closed an average of 30 lenders annually. He says most lenders he deals with are of a “very high quality,” but that “there are still lenders that either don’t have controls in place or are proactively engaging in practices that pose a risk to the FHA.”

    Stevens does not expect to shut down lenders at the same rate as the past year, but added “the number will be much higher than the historical average.”

    CoreLogic’s Grace said most large lenders have the tools in place to combat mortgage fraud, but admitted he was concerned about some smaller lenders. “The next shakeout of weak lenders will take place over the next 12 to 24 months,” he said.

    The MBA’s Mechem said the U.S. mortgage market must be cleaned up if it is ever to return to normal. “The one thing private investors need to get back into the secondary market is confidence,” he said. “And investors won’t risk buying mortgages if they don’t have confidence in the quality of the loans. Restoring that confidence is going to play a pivotal role in restoring the markets.”

    In the meantime, mortgage fraud is expected to cause more problems in areas like Back of the Yards in Chicago.

    Three doors down from the boarded-up, foreclosed property that has aroused Carrasquillo’s suspicions, father-of-three Oti Cardoso says he and his neighbors try to cut the grass at the abandoned properties on his block and to keep thieves out. But he has heard most empty houses end up occupied by gang members.

    “I want my children to be safe, I don’t want drug dealers here,” he said. “I have tried to find the owner of these houses so I can work with them to help keep their homes clean.”

    “If they only knew what was happening here,” he added, “I’m sure they would want to do what was right.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67G1S620100817

    Investors Row - half million dollar houses in a row ...

    The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 1)

    The purpose of this post is to review the legal opinion recently issued by Judge Bolton in the Lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against the State of Arizona, the so called Arizona Immigration Law Suit.

     I’ve attached various PDFs for your reference.

    I’ve also included “links” to a variety of other sources including the Federal and State Statutes that are involved.

    Before we begin this multi section post, I’d like to briefly some items:

    1). The Judges opinion is in black text, McAuley’s World Comments are in blue.

    2). At the end of the black text sections I’ve referred to the location of the text in the Judge’s opinion. The ‘Page” refers to the page number in the PDF, located at the top of the PDF page – as such page 5 of the opinion is page 6 of the PDF. The line numbers are self explanatory.

    Judge Bolton’s Opinion Here: Judge Bolton’s Ruling SB1070

    3) The Department of Justice Lawsuit can be reviewed here: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usa_v_arizona.pdf

    4) The Arizona Law can be located here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

    5).  In the following pages you read references to the “Federal Government”. The Federal Government has three parts, each with their own jobs under the Constitution. The Executive Branch includes the President and the Executive Agencies. The Executive Agencies include the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security the FBI, and the Post Office, to name a few. The second “part” of the Federal Government is the “Congressional Branch”, and is made up of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate. The third part of the Federal Government is the Federal Courts or Judiciary. In the following pages you will read that the “Federal Government has the “exclusive right” to formulate our Immigration Laws. This is true, however, not all three of the branches of our Federal Government have this “exclusive right” and are authorized to “write” our Immigration Laws. Only the Congressional Branch has this power, the power is exclusive to Congress. For over a century the United States Supreme Court has stated that we must look to the intent of Congress when we attempt to interpret our Immigration Laws. As you read this post remember that when you read the Court or Department of Justice refer to the “Federal Government” this or the Federal Government that … it is the U.S. Congress they are referring to… even if the DOJ authors of the lawsuit try to inflate its own importance … 

    The Judges Opinion is in “black type”. McAuley’s World Comments/Additions in Blue

    Preface: The state of the law prior to the DOJ lawsuit

    The MSM has created a great deal of confusion in an attempt to support the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice. There are many who falsely believe that the State of Arizona was attempting to “fundamentally change” the Immigration Law of the United States when it passed SB 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.

    You will never here the MSM refer to this law by its given name, ““Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,”

    The State of Arizona’s Law, SB 1070, was and is consistent with the existing U.S. Immigration Law at the time of its passage. It is, in fact, consistent with the Congressional intent expressed in our system of Federal Immigration laws.

    The most concise statement of the law concerning the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Governments that I could find is contained in this April 2, 2002 memo from the Department of Justice.

    2002 DOJ Memo

    The DOJ memo of April 2, 2002 reflects the current state of Immigration Law in this land.

    It is the Obama Administration who is, once again, trying to “fundamentally transform” our legal system. The State of Arizona’s intent was clear and straight forward, SB 1070 reflects a constitutionally permissible exercise of State authority to assist the Federal Government in the enforcement of our Immigration Laws;

    On April 2, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that this was the law of the land:

    “We summarize our conclusions:

    1) States have inherent power, subject to Federal preemption, to make arrests for violation of Federal Law.

    2). Because it is ordinarily unreasonable to assume that Congress intended to deprive the Federal Government of whatever assistance States may provide in indentifying and detaining those who may have violated Federal Law, Federal Statutes should be presumed not to have preempted this authority.

    This Office’s 1996 advice that Federal Law precludes State Police from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deportability was mistaken.

    3). Section 1252 C does not preempt state authority to arrest for Federal violation”

    With this clearly in mind we will move on to review the legal opinion of Judge Bolton   

    My Review of Judge Bolton’s Opinion Follows:

    Against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns, the Arizona Legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory amendments in the form of Senate Bill 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” (At Page 2, lines 19-22)

    Footnote 1 – Page 2: In this Order, unless otherwise specified, the Court refers to S.B. 1070 and H.B. 2162 collectively as “S.B. 1070,”

    Among other things, S.B. 1070 requires officers to check a person’s immigration status under certain circumstances (Section 2 – SB 1070) and authorizes officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States (Section 6, of the Law – SB 1070).  (At Page 2, Line 25 / Page 3, lines 1 to 4).

    S.B. 1070 also creates or amends crimes for the failure of an alien to apply for or carry registration papers (Section 3 SB 1070), the smuggling of human beings (Section 4 – SB 1070), the performance of work by unauthorized aliens, and the transport or harboring of unlawfully present aliens (Section 5 – SB 1070). On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint with this Court challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality. The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law. (At Page 3, lines 8-14)

    The United States, by way of the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice  argued that the Obama Executive Branch is vested with the exclusive power to regulate Immigration and that the Obama Executive Branch is empowered to “pick and choose” which elements of the Immigration Laws it will enforce and that the Obama Administration through the Executive Branch can preempt any other Governmental entity, including the Congress, in the creation, implementation and enforcement of our Immigration Laws. Judge Bolton’s shallow legal reasoning failed to grasp the difference between what the allegations and the “supporting proof” presented by the Obama’s Administration Department of Justice. The Court notes that S.B. 1070 is not a freestanding statute; rather, it is an enactment of the Arizona Legislature that adds some new sections to the Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) and amends some preexisting sections. S.B. 1070 also contains a severability clause, providing that, [i]f a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. S.B. 1070 § 12(A). Therefore, the Court cannot and will not enjoin S.B. 1070 in its entirety, as certain parties to lawsuits challenging the enactment have requested. The Court is obligated to consider S.B. 1070 on a section by section and provision by provision basis.  (At Page 3, Lines 14 to 23).

    Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law: (At Page 5, Lines 6 to 9)

    Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person. (At Page 5, lines 9 through 13).

    Section 3 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers. (At Page 5, lines 13 to 15).Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work(At Page 5, lines 15 to 17).

    Section 6 of S.B. 1070 A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. (At Page 5, Lines 17 to 20).

    The Court’s findings will be addressed later in this post, in the section of the opinion where the offers its rationale for these findings. 

    BACKGROUND

    A. Overview of Federal Immigration Law

     Congress has created and refined a complex and detailed statutory framework regulating immigration.  (At Page 6, line 3 & 4).

    This is correct – Congress is empowered to write our Immigration Laws, not the Executive Branch nor the Executive Agencies. Unfortunately, this is the only time this ultra liberal activist Judge calls this to mind in this opinion. The Judge fails to reference “the intent of Congress” even once in this 36 page document. 

    The federal immigration scheme is largely enacted through the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., (At Page 6, lines 4 & 5).

    Yes, the “INA” was passed by Congress. The INA has also amended by Congress on many occasions. Congress amended the INA when Congress passed “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 1996.” Congress amended the law again after the attacks on 911, after the publication of the 911 Commission Report. Absent the 911 Commission Report and Congress’s legislative response, there would be no “Department of Homeland Security” today. The Judge fails to mention any of the Congressional enactments that led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. How does one consider “Congressional intent” without mentioning Congressional activity that abolished the prior Immigration and Nationalization Service and replaced it with the Department of Homeland Security?

    which empowers various federal agencies (including the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of State (“DOS”)) to administer and enforce the immigration laws. See, e.g., id. §§ 1103-1104. (Page 6, lines 5 to 10)

    First, what does the Judge “acknowledge” in the first sentence of this section? That the Executive Branch Agencies, which include the DOJ (Department of Justice), DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and DOS (Department of State) are “empowered” to administer and enforce the “immigration laws”. But empowered by whom? The Executive Agencies are empowered by Congress, not the Executive Branch. These Executive Agencies are empowered by Congress, not the President. The DOJ, DHS and DOS, are totally dependent on the authority granted them by the U.S. Congress. The agencies only have those powers that Congress has delegated to them.

    The States, on the other hand, are independent sovereign governments. The States have rights independent of those rights granted to the Federal Government under our Constitution. Any power not specifically reserved for the Federal Branches of Government are retained by the States. As such the States have their own independent powers. Congress has delegated a shared or concurrent jurisdiction of many Immigration Law enforcement matters to the States.

    Again, the “authority” the Executive agencies wield come from the Congress not the President. All of the Executive Agency’s powers and the Agencies very existence are dependent on Congress. Congress is free to act to abolish the Agencies if and when it so chooses … after all, Congress created each of these Agencies. The Department of Homeland Security didn’t exist before 911 and the INS, the Department of Immigration and Nationalization Services, ceased to exist after the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created by Congress.

    Among its many provisions, the INA sets forth the conditions under which a foreign national may be admitted to and remain in the United States. Id. §§ 1181-1182, 1184. The INA also contains an alien registration system intended to monitor the entry and movement of aliens in the United States. Id. §§ 1201(b), 1301-1306. (Page 6, lines 8 to 11).

    Again, the INA was a law passed by Congress and later amended on several occasions. It is Congress, not the Executive Branch or the States, that is empowered with the exclusive right to set Immigration criteria and the quotas to govern the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. The mechanisms used to enforce the Immigration System created by Congress are shared by the Executive Agencies and the States. The Agencies and the States have “concurrent” enforcement responsibilities. We will discuss the alien registration system(s) later in this post.

    Various actions may subject an alien to being placed in removal proceedings, such as entering the United States without inspection, presenting fraudulent documents at a port of entry, violating the conditions of admission, or engaging in certain other proscribed conduct. Id. §§ 1225, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1229c, 1231. Violations of immigration laws may also subject an alien to civil and criminal sanctions. E.g., id. §§ 1325, 1306, 1324c. Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable. See id. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).3  (Page 6, line 12 to line 18).

    “Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable.” At page 6, lines 16 & 17.

    This is the first outright “falsehood” or “lie” the Judge has tried to pass of as “legal reasoning”.  An alien’s “unlawful presence” can be a “criminal act” under U.S. Immigration Law.  A prior criminal conviction is not required. I’m not surprised that the Judge told this “lie” at all. A good deal of her “legal reasoning” is based upon this “lie” being true … What does the Federal Immigration Law “truthfully state”? This is what the Federal Immigration Law passed by Congress States:

    THE JUDGES’S FIRST FALSE STATEMENT

    Title 8, Chapter 12 § 1326. Reentry of removed aliens:

    (b) Criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens

    Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, in the case of any alien described in such subsection—

    (1) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), such alien shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

    (2) whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony, such alien shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both;

    (3) who has been excluded from the United States pursuant to section 1225 (c) of this title because the alien was excludable under section 1182 (a)(3)(B) of this title or who has been removed from the United States pursuant to the provisions of subchapter V of this chapter, and who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under title 18 and imprisoned for a period of 10 years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.[1] or

    (4) who was removed from the United States pursuant to section 1231 (a)(4)(B) of this title who thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reentry) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

    For the purposes of this subsection, the term “removal” includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.

    (c) Reentry of alien deported prior to completion of term of imprisonment

    Any alien deported pursuant to section 1252 (h)(2)  of this title who enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reentry) shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the time of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised release. Such alien shall be subject to such other penalties relating to the reentry of deported aliens as may be available under this section or any other provision of law.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1326&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001326—-000-.html 

     Three items I’d like you to note before we move on;

    1). The Judge lied. Unlawful presence in the United States is a Federal crime, a Federal felony in fact. A first time immigration offense may or may not be a civil infraction. If an illegal alien gains entrance to the Country using stolen or false identification papers, a criminal offense has taken place. (a misdemeanor). The millions of illegal aliens who improperly and wrongfully “reenter” our Country after removal are, in fact, committing a crime, felonies, punishable with up to 20 years in prison. The fact that our southern border is a “revolving door” of exiting and reentering illegal aliens is a fact known to all.

    2). How, exactly, does a Local or State Police Officer identify the illegal alien “felons” from the 1st time offenders during the course of their daily law enforcement duties?

    3). See Foot Note 3 below.

    Federal alien smuggling laws make it a crime to knowingly bring an unauthorized alien into the country, as well as to harbor such a person or to facilitate unlawful immigration. Id. § 1324. Congress also created sanctions to be implemented against employers who knowingly employ aliens who are not authorized to work when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) in 1986. Id. § 1324a(a)(1)-(2). Federal law contains no criminal sanction for working without authorization, although document fraud is a civil violation under IRCA. Id. § 1324c. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant… (At page 6, lines 19 to 25).

    While “working without authorization” may not carry a criminal sanction, illegally reentering the Country to do so is a felony … Any employer who harbors or has helped to facilitate illegal immigration is guilty of a criminal felony. Once again, how does a State or Local Law Enforcement officer make these determinations during the course of their daily law enforcement duties?

    Foot Note 3:  Unlawful presence is an element of the federal crime of reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and unlawful entry into the United States is also a federal crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325. (At Page 6, line 27 & 28).

    Why did the Judge make a blatantly false statement in the body of her opinion and then admit that the statement was false in foot note 3? Because the Main Stream Media will never mention the foot note, just quote the “false” sound bite in the body of the opinion. How many times have you heard an Obama Administration spokesperson or a Liberal MSM pundit or even one of FOX NEW’s talking heads, (there are several light weights at FOX) state or “parrot” unequivocally, that, “Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime”.

    As you now know, the statement is false. Illegal presence in the United States, when it gained by an unauthorized reentry, is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in jail. 

    Without completing a preliminary investigation there is no way for Law Enforcement Officers to distinguish the felons from the first time offenders, is there?

    The Judge’s decision gives rise to another popular and equally false sound bite, “it isn’t a crime unless they reenter after deportation”. After hearing this sound bite one might believe that “deportation” is a prerequisite for “reentry” to be a crime. Not so.  Another false and misleading statement.

    The term “deportation” has been replaced by the term “removal”. Title 8, Chapter 12. § 1326, b, 4,  states, “the term “removal” includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.”.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1326&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001326—-000-.html 

    Any illegal alien who is removed, either by criminal trial, civil administrative hearing, by legal order or “by voluntary agreement” and who subsequently reenters the United States without legal authorization, is guilty of a felony violation of the U.S. Immigration Statutes.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1326&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001326—-000-.html 

    Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), which, among other things, created various employment eligibility verification programs. See Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano (Chicanos Por La Causa II), 558 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2009). (At Page 7, lines 1 to 3). Federal immigration law also envisions certain areas of cooperation in immigration enforcement among the federal government and state and local governments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1)-(9) (permitting DHS to enter into agreements whereby appropriately trained and supervised state and local officials can perform certain immigration responsibilities); id. §1373 (establishing parameters for information-sharing between state and local officials and federal immigration officials);   (At page 7, lines 4 to 9)

    Our liberal, activist, Judge selected her words very carefully here. First, the Federal Immigration Law “envisions” nothing… the law is blind, the law does not anticipate anything… it cannot see a thing, the law cannot foretell the future. The Federal Immigration law, passed by the Congress, was intended to achieve many desired objectives … objectives set by Congress. The liberal activist uses the term “envisioned” for a reason. The activists will refer to the Immigration laws as “federal” implying that the Immigration Law was created or crafted by the Executive Branch rather than by the Congress. That is simply incorrect; it is not a truthful implication. The Courts are bound by U.S. Supreme Court decision and instruction to look to the “intent of Congress”, not the “vision of the Executive Branch” when interpreting our Immigration laws.

    § 1252c (authorizing state and local law enforcement officials to arrest aliens unlawfully present in the United States who have previously been convicted of a felony and deported). (Page 7, lines 9 to 11).

    THE JUDGE’S SECOND FALSE STATEMENT: Chapter 8, Section §1252c does not supersede  Chapter 8, §1326  

    Title 8, Chapter 12, §1252c, does not supersede the previously discussed Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326, b, 4, above, which states, the term “removal” includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law.”

    So while § 1252c addresses removal of those previously convicted of a felony, the Judge is dishonest in limiting her comments in this manner. States are permitted to arrest illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony and who have not been previously deported. Neither prior conviction nor “deportation” is required to commit an illegal and unauthorized “reentry”, a felonious violation of U.S. Immigration Law. 8 USC § 1326, b, 4,  “the term “removal” includes any agreement in which an alien stipulates to removal during (or not during) a criminal trial under either Federal or State law…”.

    Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326, b, 4, clearly states that the underlying proceeding can take place in either a State or Federal Jurisdiction. An illegal alien apprehended during a burglary or drug sale can agree to a voluntary deportation during his State Court criminal trial, the criminal charges can be dismissed and the illegal alien deported. If that illegal alien reenters the country illegally or without proper authorization, that illegal alien is guilty of felonious conduct.  

    The Judge’s statement acknowledges that § 1252c is one area of “concurrent jurisdiction” in our Immigration Laws; however, the Judge did not go far enough in her acknowledgement.

    Section 1252c also directs the Executive Branch to work at the behest of the States, yes, section 1252c(b) makes the Executive Branch subservient to the States in the enforcement of the Immigration Law;   

    Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, states;

    § 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens

    (a) In general

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—

    (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and

    (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=§1252c&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001252—c000-.html

    Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1252c, (b) Cooperation

    The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials. 

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=§1252c&url=/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001252—c000-.html 

     The Congress instructed that the Attorney General shall cooperate. Congress did not state that the Attorney General could cooperate when the Department of Justice felt like cooperating, that the DOJ could pick and choose when it wanted to cooperate, that the DOJ could selectively follow this “instruction’ as long as it wasn’t burdensome. The word “shall” is an instruction, a directive, an order to cooperate, not a suggestion that the DOJ might want to cooperate. The Congressional intent is clear and unambiguous.

    Read Part 2 here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-2/

    Read Part 3 Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-3/

    Read Part 4 Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/the-immigration-debate-the-arizona-law-judge-boltons-decision-part-4/

    DOJ Stalls Implementation of MOVE – Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. Troops in field may be improperly denied their right to vote

    UPDATE #2: Posted 08/26/2010 – According to Real Clear Politics, 3 of the 10 States requesting “MOVE Act Waivers”, to authorize the State’s non-compliance with the law, have political races that at present are projected as “to close to call”. Those 3 states are Wisconsin, Colorado and Maryland. Remember that past U.S. Senate races in Minnesota and Wisconsin have been decided by a handful of votes … in Minnesota we have the most recent and infamous stolen election to the U.S. Senate … and in Wisoconsin more votes were cast in Milwaukee then there were registered voters … Contact your elected officials and demand action … See if you can question your elected officials about this outrage at their public campaign appearances …  http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml      

    Task Force Finds More Ballots Cast Than Registered Voters  –  

    “MILWAUKEE — A task force that was investigating possible voter fraud in Milwaukee released its findings Tuesday. U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said investigators found more than 4,500 ballots were cast in Milwaukee than registered voters in the Nov. 2 election. But he said they have not found any pattern of conspiracy to commit fraud. Investigators also found more than 100 instances of suspected double-voting and more than 200 felons who voted improperly. No one has been charged, but the investigation continues.”  http://www.wisn.com/politics/4472834/detail.html 

    I’d like to point out that we never have a 100% voter turnout – during the record breaking turnout that elected Barrack Obama only 63% of registered voters cast ballots:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout / http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html#axzz0xkU5FT7Y

    Why is this significant? In Miwaukee 11 people voted for every 10 registered voters. (Roughly 45,000 registered voters with 50,000  ballots cast). The article sited above notes that their was no “evidence of intentional fraud”. This is simply laughable … With 60 years of U.S. voting statistics to work with, it should have been readily apparent that there is no other conclusion to reach but that massive voter fraud took place. There is zero probability that Milwaukee suddenly achieved a 100% voter turnout when no community in the United States has ever been able to do so … not one, ever… not even in the record year of 2008 …. In that record breaking year when Barrack Obama was elected we had a 60% voter turnout, or 6 in 10 registered voters turned out to cast ballots … so lets assume that Milwaukee had a 60 percent turn out … 6 out of 10 voters … Then how do we explain the other 5 votes, remember that for every 10 registered voters 11 votes were cast … a total of 11 votes cast, 6 by registered voters … 5 votes unaccounted for …. for every 6 legal votes in Milwaukee there were 5 illegal votes … that doesn’t happen without an organized and widespread effort … this isn’t a small statistical blimp .. this represents a massive an intentional voter fraud … the statistics say so … not any type of political bias … there was very nearly one illegal vote cast for every legal vote cast in Milwaukee … Contact your elected Representative. Please.    

    UPDATE: Review of Judge Bolton’s Decision begins here: The Immigration Debate: The Arizona Law – Judge Bolton’s Decision (Part 1) 

    DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military

    The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.

    The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.

    “It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.” 

    Adams, a conservative blogger (www.electionlawcenter.com) who gained national attention when he testified against his former employer after it dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, called the DOJ’s handling of the MOVE Act akin to “keystone cops enforcement.”

    “I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”

    The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific “undue hardship” in enforcing it.

    Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law. Click here to read the letter.

    “Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted,” Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.

    “For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.”

    In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.

    According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”

    Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”

    He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements. 

    “If a state is not in compliance with the statute, there is little room for “dialogue” or negotiation, and the Voting Section should take immediate steps to enforce the law and safeguard military and overseas voting rights, including pursuing litigation whenever necessary,” Cornyn wrote. “The comments by the DOJ official, as reported in the NASS minutes, appear to ignore Congress’ clear legislative language and could facilitate the disenfranchisement of our men and women in uniform.” 

    Cornyn, who discussed Eversole’s allegations at a meeting with Defense Department officials last week, called for Holder to immediately provide guidelines to state election officials; to ensure that states are required to abide by the law; and to provide Cornyn himself with a state-by-state breakdown of which states have already applied for waivers and which are expected to be in noncompliance with MOVE in the November midterm election. He also called for full transparency in the waiver process.

    A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Xochitl Hinojosa, declined to comment, other than to say Cornyn’s letter is being reviewed.

    FoxNews.com obtained waiver applications submitted by Washington and Hawaii. 

    Defense Department spokeswoman Major April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn’s co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)

    “All waivers are currently under review. The Defense Department must respond, under the law, after consultation with the Department of Justice, no later than 65 days before the election, which is August 29, 2010,” said Robert Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

    “The voting section has taken this haphazard approach to enforcing military voting law,” said Eversole. “The voting section is asserting itself into statute to make a statute that’s not ambiguous, ambiguous. Can you imagine any other agency giving prospective defendants advice like this?”

    “Everybody in Washington knows it doesn’t matter how good the law is; it comes down to who’s enforcing it,” said Adams. “This stuff should be transparent and online for the citizens of these states to comment on, the fact that it’s being done behind closed doors tells you everything you need to know about how it will affect the voters.”

    Adams and Eversole separately pointed out that the DOJ’s website lacks any mention of the MOVE Act. In fact, the section on military voting includes the outdated and nonbinding 30-day recommendation for sending out ballots. There is no mention of the the current 45-day mandate. 

    But the DOJ’s online voting section includes a detailed section devoted to helping felons learn how get their voting rights back.

    “It is just offensive to most Americans that we can send soldiers to the front lines but they can’t vote,” said Eversole. “This is an issue that tugs at the heartstrings of America and people can’t understand why we can’t get that right. This is something we have to get right.  We should be fighting as hard for their rights as they’re fighting for ours.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/exclusive-doj-stalls-voter-registration-law-military/

    %d bloggers like this: