Less than half of the crew assembled by Caryn Canfield of Restore Rock Creek (website of the same name www.restorerockcreek.org). Great job. . . .AND, this was at just one site that had 22 people there were 40 at Bar Harbor, just down the road!

Yup, snow. . . . . not too bad shoveling, though.

Sure glad we solved this problem forever. . . . . hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

Florida law firm to pay $2 million to settle foreclosure fraud charges

By Ariana Eunjung Cha, Friday, March 25, 8:33 PM

A Florida law firm agreed Friday to pay the state $2 million in penalties for allegedly mishandling foreclosures — the first deal of its kind since the uproar over the issue began last fall.

40

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Gallery

Gallery: Thousands of foreclosures are put on hold: During the housing boom, millions of homeowners got easy access to mortgages. Now, some mortgage lenders and government officials have taken action after discovering that many mortgage documents were mishandled.

The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson was among the prominent law firms investigated by state authorities after major lenders, including Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase, admitted last fall that their employees had “robo-signed” foreclosure cases without reading them and improperly notarized some documents.

Investigations into these practices are being conducted on several parallel tracks. Besides investigations by various states, federal regulators are conducting a review of national banks. Attorneys general from 50 states have joined with the Obama administration to try to negotiate a broader settlement with the mortgage industry.

Many of the parties involved disagree about the deal’s provisions, including the size of the cash penalty the banks should pay.

In the Marshall C. Watson case, homeowners complained about robo-signing and notary issues as well as whether documents had been forged, according to the Florida attorney general’s office.

They added that their foreclosure notices were not served properly. In some cases, relatives with no stake in the process were served notices and the homeowners were billed to cover the cost of those actions.

The settlement does not include any admission of guilt by the law firm.

Marshall C. Watson, president and chief executive of firm, said in a statement that he was “pleased” with the settlement. “With our firm’s tight controls now in place we are setting a high bar for the mortgage law provider industry, and our clients recognize and value the positive steps we are taking.”

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said the settlement will help ensure that “homeowners, lending institutions and the courts deserve to know that the law is being followed and all documentation is true and accurate.”

Bondi is among the Republican attorneys general who have expressed doubts about the deal being crafted by the Obama administration and the other state attorneys general.Half of the fees paid by Marshall Watson will go to the Florida attorney general’s office to fund investigations; the rest will go to a state nonprofit group that provides legal assistance to Florida homeowners facing foreclosure. The settlement also requires the firm to prepare foreclosure paperwork beyond what is required by Florida law.

Thomas Ice, whose Florida law firm was the first to depose Jeffrey Stephan, the now famous “robo-signer” whose testimony forced banks to impose a mass freeze on foreclosures last fall, said the settlement is “a step in the right direction” but does not go far enough because it does not help those who have lost their homes to possibly fraudulent practices.

“I think there are going to be a lot of people upset about this,” Ice said.

One of the other firms under investigation, DJSP Enterprises, a foreclosure business run by lawyer David Stern, has stopped processing home seizures, according to a March filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which were once among Stern’s top clients, barred the firm from handling their foreclosure cases last year after the firm came under scrutiny from Florida law enforcement.

Stern is suing Freddie Mac for $1.3 million in legal service fees he says he is owed.

chaa@washpost.com

> ———- Forwarded message from “OpentheGovernment.ORG ———-
> From: “Amy Fuller”
> Date: Mar 24, 2011 10:49 AM
> Subject: [openhouseproject] Free Access to CRS Reports – 2 new sign-on
> letters – sign-on by April 4
> To:
>
> Hi everyone (apologies for cross listing),
>
> We are circulating two new letters promoting free, online access to > CRS
> reports. The letters were drafted in cooperation with Steve > Aftergood of the
> Federation of American Scientists and Daniel Schuman of the Sunlight
> Foundation. One is to members of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
> Subcommittee requesting they no longer use language from past > appropriations
> bills that prohibit CRS from expending funds to make its products > publicly
> available; the second is to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the > Senate
> Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House
> Oversight and Government Reform Committee asking that they introduce
> legislation to authorize and promote the public distribution of CRS > reports.
> Text of the letters is below.
>
> Sign-ons for all the letters should be sent to me (
> afuller@openthegovernment.org) by *noon on Monday, April 4*. Please > help us
> spread the word!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Amy Bennett
> OpenTheGovernment.org
>
>
> ****
>
> *Leg Branch letter*
>
> Dear [Legislative Branch Subcommittee member]:
>
> We are writing to ask you untie the hands of the Congressional > Research
> Service so that the agency has the option of allocating funds to > make its
> reports publicly available.
>
> Prior legislative branch appropriations language prohibits CRS from
> expending funds to make its products publicly available. This archaic
> provision no longer makes practical sense. It runs counter to the > principles
> of government openness and transparency. And its original purpose is
> undercut by the fact that many CRS products are already available to > the
> public from the Constitution Annotated to bill summaries to a > significant
> subset of CRS reports.
>
> Removing this language would eliminate a legislative stumbling block > that
> currently frustrates efforts to promote the authorized publication > of these
> reports. Its elimination would not necessarily result in more CRS > reports
> becoming publicly available. Rather, it would clear the way so that a
> decision made on the merits of the question could readily be > implemented. We
> are not asking for any new authorization or appropriation for this > purpose.
>
> In support of the requested action, we would note the following:
>
> * CRS products are a valuable, non-partisan resource for informing
> discussion of nearly every topic of legislative activity, from > agricultural
> subsidies to the space program. Improving public access to CRS > reports would
> help to enrich public discourse and to promote informed citizen > engagement
> in the political process.
>
> * We respect the confidentiality of CRS support to Members of > Congress, and
> we have no wish to infringe upon it. We are seeking public access > only to
> those “published” reports that are broadly available to any Member > or staff
> person through the CRS intranet, and not to any private communications
> between CRS and an individual Member or office.
>
> * These reports play a critical role in our legislative process, > and, when
> made available, inform the public debate about our nations policies. > In the
> last two years alone, major newspapers cited the Congressional > Research
> Service 779 times, with 70 mentions in the *Washington Post* and 65 > in the *New
> York Times*. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited CRS 34 times and the > circuit
> court made 112 citations, with 130 judicial citations in the last > decade
> alone.
>
> * More than ten thousand CRS reports have already been made publicly
> available by commercial vendors and by public interest groups, with no
> adverse effect on CRS performance.
>
> * We are not asking you to make the decision regarding whether CRS > reports
> should be publicly available. Instead, we are asking you to smooth > the way
> should such a decision be reached.
>
> We therefore urge you to remove the statutory obstacle to authorized
> distribution of non-confidential CRS reports, and to help promote > their
> distribution in an effective manner.
>
> Representatives from the undersigned organizations would be happy to > meet
> with you or your staff at any time to discuss this important issue. > Please
> contact Amy Bennett, Program Associate, OpenTheGovernment.org (
> afuller@openthegovernment.org or 202-332-6736), at your convenience.
>
> ********
>
> *Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs > letter*
>
> Dear Senators Lieberman and Collins:
>
> We are writing to ask you to quickly reintroduce legislation to > authorize
> and promote the public distribution of reports that are published by > the
> Congressional Research Service (CRS).
>
> As you know, CRS products are a valuable, non-partisan resource for
> informing discussion of nearly every topic of legislative activity, > from
> agricultural subsidies to the space program. These reports play a > critical
> role in our legislative process, and, when made available, inform > the public
> debate about our nations policies. In the last two years alone, major
> newspapers cited the Congressional Research Service 779 times, with 70
> mentions in the *Washington Post* and 65 in the *New York Times*. > The U.S.
> Supreme Court has cited CRS 34 times and the circuit court made 112
> citations, with 130 judicial citations in the last decade. We strongly
> believe, as we know you do from your past leadership on this issue, > that
> improving public access to CRS reports would help to enrich public > discourse
> and to promote informed citizen engagement in the political process.
>
> We respect the confidentiality of CRS support to Members of > Congress, and we
> have no wish to infringe upon it. We are seeking public access only > to
> those “published” reports that are broadly available to any Member > or staff
> person through the CRS intranet, and not to any private communications
> between CRS and an individual Member or office.
>
> American taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the CRS, yet
> current distribution of these reports is haphazard and often > expensive.
> Several private companies now sell copies of these reports for a > price,
> meaning these reports are readily available to lobbyists, executives > and
> others who can afford to pay. Meanwhile, the vast majority of > people lack
> the information necessary to even request reports from their Members > of
> Congress. And the reports that are publicly available are often out-> of-date.
> The public deserves a consistent and official way to access the
> non-classified, non-biased information CRS provides.
>
> We urge you to act soon to help lead a formal revision of CRS > publication
> policy in favor of public distribution of non-confidential reports. > We will
> strongly support your efforts.
>
> Representatives from the undersigned organizations would be happy to > meet
> with you or your staff at any time to discuss this important issue. > Please
> contact Daniel Schuman, Policy Counsel, Sunlight Foundation (
> dschuman@sunlightfoundation.com or 202-742-1520 x 273), at your
> convenience.
>
> *******
>
> *House Oversight and Gov Reform letter*
>
> Dear Representatives Issa and Cummings:
>
> We are writing to ask you to quickly reintroduce legislation to > authorize
> and promote the public distribution of reports that are published by > the
> Congressional Research Service (CRS).
>
> As you know, CRS products are a valuable, non-partisan resource for
> informing discussion of nearly every topic of legislative activity, > from
> agricultural subsidies to the space program. These reports play a > critical
> role in our legislative process, and, when made available, inform > the public
> debate about our nations policies. In the last two years alone, major
> newspapers cited the Congressional Research Service 779 times, with 70
> mentions in the *Washington Post* and 65 in the *New York Times*. > The U.S.
> Supreme Court has cited CRS 34 times and the circuit court made 112
> citations, with 130 judicial citations in the last decade. We strongly
> believe, as we think you do, that improving public access to CRS > reports
> would help to enrich public discourse and to promote informed citizen
> engagement in the political process.
>
> We respect the confidentiality of CRS support to Members of > Congress, and we
> have no wish to infringe upon it. We are seeking public access only > to
> those “published” reports that are broadly available to any Member > or staff
> person through the CRS intranet, and not to any private communications
> between CRS and an individual Member or office.
>
> American taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the CRS, yet
> current distribution of these reports is haphazard and often > expensive.
> Several private companies now sell copies of these reports for a > price,
> meaning these reports are readily available to lobbyists, executives > and
> others who can afford to pay. Meanwhile, the vast majority of > people lack
> the information necessary to even request reports from their Members > of
> Congress. And the reports that are publicly available are often out-> of-date.
> The public deserves a consistent and official way to access the
> non-classified, non-biased information CRS provides.
>
> We urge you to act soon to help lead a formal revision of CRS > publication
> policy in favor of public distribution of non-confidential reports. > We will
> strongly support your efforts.
>
> Representatives from the undersigned organizations would be happy to > meet
> with you or your staff at any time to discuss this important issue. > Please
> contact Daniel Schuman, Policy Counsel, Sunlight Foundation (
> dschuman@sunlightfoundation.com or 202-742-1520 x 273), at your
> convenience.
>
> * *

People in central Anne Arundel seem to take more pictures of “blown out” stream beds, but north county has nice ones too. . . these two gulches are north of Pasadena. . . .

Keep in mind that all of the soil that is cut out of these gullies becomes sediment that colors and pollutes the downstream creeks and rivers, smothering grasses and oyster beds.

The Broadneck School gully below. . . maybe 12 to 15 feet cut into the usual grade. . .

The graphs below were assembled by Paula Jasinski of Chesapeake Environmental Communications, and published on their Facebook page at: