JOEBIALEK

Today, the FBI and mortgage industry professionals believe 10-15% of all loan applications contain material misrepresentations, i.e. fraud. Many times these fraudulent loans end up in foreclosure resulting in financial losses to mortgage lenders. Unfortunately, many lenders recoup these financial losses from the public by increasing the cost of loans. Fraud hurts everyone. Fraudulent loans only exacerbated the lenders problems. Many times fraudulent foreclosed loans resulted in substantial losses. An example could have been a loan officer who fabricated pay stubs to help a borrower qualify for the loan -- insuring the loan officer collected his commission. Another example could have involved a borrower who submitted falsified tax returns. GAPS investigators researched files for misrepresentation and provided lenders the evidence needed to proceed with civil and/or criminal filings against the perpetrators. So the next time you or a friend applies for a loan, be forewarned: misrepresenting information on a mortgage loan application is illegal. Your information may well be reviewed by AEGIS . If a lender detects misrepresentation, federal law provides for those convicted of loan fraud to receive a possible 30-year sentence and up to $1 million in fines! SOURCE: Robert J. Sadler, GAPS/AEGIS . Last time, I wrote about the false sexual harassment allegations made against my friend "John". Well, it turns out there is a lot more to the story. John works as an underwriter for a lender in the non-conforming loan business. This lender receives its loan applications (via company sales personnel) from licensed brokers across the country. His job is to review all credit, income and collateral documents that are used to qualify a borrower for a mortgage loan. In the first few months of his new job, John was given extensive training by his supervisor much like an apprentice gets feedback as he hones his knowledge, skills and abilities. Ocassionally, John would discover fraudulent income documents and immediately report this to his supervisor. Surprisingly, the supervisor would handle it in a somewhat cavalier manner. He would simply instruct John to hand the file back to the salesperson. John never saw the file again. At the time, this did not appear odd to John as he was new at the company and was not educated yet about the company culture. All that changed the day John received the sexual harassment email from his supervisor. After recovering from the sting of such a false allegation, John began to wonder why and who would make such a libelous and slanderous charge. What was their modus operandi? Well, it didn't take long for John to put "two and two together" or shall I say "one and one together". A few weeks after receiving the email, John was informed by a trusted contact that his accuser had accidently blabbed over drinks of what she had done. His accuser was not the woman his supervisor had hinted at but rather someone who had much to gain by seeing John removed. After all, it was mostly her loans that contained fraud. This woman contributes well over a quarter of the entire sales team's loans each month bringing her very large commissions The supervisor for her and John receives a very large commission each month as well. John earns a straight salary. Who has the competitive political advantage? Or better yet, who has the most to lose? What are John's options? Should he continue to work for this company? Should he report any further fraud from his accuser? Can John trust his supervisor? How far up the corporate ladder does the corruption go? Should John contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Homeland Security? If John does nothing, can he be considered an accessory after the fact? What should John do?

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated? The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution.

With all the debate recently for amending the United States Constitution in favor of recognizing marriage as a union between a man and woman, perhaps a more appropriate amendment should guarantee each citizen of the United States the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Poverty is defined as the condition of being poor or lacking the necessary means of support to live or meet needs. Today we read of enormous corporate tax breaks, outsourcing of jobs overseas and outrageous salaries "earned" by athletes/entertainers. More recently came the revelation of the $200 billion dollars spent by the U.S. on the war in Iraq. In the meantime, the number of those in poverty continues to increase. The Old Testament of the Bible often makes references to the promised land flowing with milk and honey. All one has to do in this country is take a trip to the grocery story or department store and bear witness to the fact that if anywhere was close to exhibiting the characteristics of "the promised land", this country is it. Yet somehow we are still unable to meet the four basic needs every citizen has. Some would argue that this proposal is an extension of Socialism/Communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism/Communism is a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods. No one is suggesting the replacement of Capitalism; an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned, and prices are chiefly determined by open competition in a free market. What is being suggested is that in this land of surplus "milk and honey", there is absolutely no reason why the four basic needs of every U.S. citizen cannot be met. Some would argue that food stamps, thrift stores, public housing and medicaid already meet these needs but in the words of President John F. Kennedy, "this country is divided between those who have never had it so good and those who know we can do better". I think we can do better. Resolved, it shall be the right of every United States citizen (in order to further guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to receive food, clothing, shelter and medical care that is adequate to meet their basic needs.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, torture, or physical intimidation by a group or organization as a means of forcing others to satisfy its demands. The war on terrorism between the United States and the terrorists is a conflict never experienced before in American history. Some would argue that the guerrilla tactic used by both sides in the Vietnam war is the same kind of tactic employed by the United States and the terrorists. The difference, however, is that the military tactic employed by the terrorists is a corrupt evolution from guerrilla to terror (from non-conventional to non-ethical). However the U.S. is not willing to take the war on terrorism to the appropriate level. In the movie "Untouchables", Jim Malone advises Elliot Ness that "when dealing with the Mafia, if they send one of your's to the hospital, you send one of their's to the morgue" and then asks "what are you prepared to do?" Perhaps a more appropriate question should be what would Machiavelli do? The U.S. military needs to withdraw all conventional forces immediately from Iraq. The whole premise for going to war with that country was to disarm it of its' weapons of mass destruction (which the U.S. sold them). I supported the war effort because I believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth. Unfortuneatly, it appears the American people were deceived into fighting a war for oil and almost 750 crack U.S. troops have been killed helping to promote greed rather than defend the homeland. Once the military withdraws, it can regroup and reformulate better combat tactics to be used in the war on terrorism. Accordingly, the U.S. needs to begin training anti-terrorist cells (with Arabic code names that translate into al-gabang, al-gaboom etc). These cells will be sent into countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya for the express purpose of covert operations to find, kill and terrorize all pro-terrorist cells. As for prisoners, they should be drugged with sodium pentathol until they provide information and then be executed. At the end of the day when the terrorist comes home to find his family and house blown to smithereens, he may begin to re-consider the consequences of his actions. Unfortuneatly, innocent family members of these terrorists will have to face the same fate many U.S. citizens did on September 11, 2001. The question that remains before the American people however is what are YOU prepared to do?

According to the Social Security Act, "the purpose of Social Security is to provide insured persons with payments by way of a retirement benefit, survivors benefit, sickness benefit, and to substitute for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, a system of insurance against injury or death caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment." In order to finance social security, a Social Security Fund was established, financed by contributions made by the workers and their employers. All benefits, administrative expenses, and capital expenditures are paid out from the Fund. But according to government figures, "while Social Security takes in more than it spends right now, the situation reverses when the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) begins to retire in 2010. Unless the system is overhauled, Social Security by 2013 will be spending more than it collects in taxes and will be broke by 2032." I will be 69 years old in 2032. I will have paid a very large percentage of my income into a government plan and will have nothing to show for it. Accordingly, Social Security payroll deductions should end for anyone born in 1965 or later and be shifted to a 401(K) plan so they will reap the rewards of their investment when they retire. Those born in 1964 and before should continue some Social Security payroll deduction along with some government subsidy to cover the difference. With all this talk of tax refunds fueled by a government surplus coupled with the enormous corporate tax breaks given out by our government, I am sure we could find enough money to subsidize a transition plan to save our retirement money.

A political primary is a preliminary election in which the registered voters of a political party nominate candidates for office. The key word here is preliminary. The current system allows small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire {assisted by the media} to award front-runner status to the victorious candidate. From there the candidates travel a path determined by which states wants to "leap frog" the other by moving up their primary dates. Candidates are whisked across the country without any real ability to distinguish regional issues from national issues. Consequently, party platforms are determined by a make-it-up-as-you-go approach. If the primary process were organized on a regional basis, candidates would be able to study the regional issues, campaign to confirm those issues and then receive votes based on the solutions they propose. A regional approach would also prevent a premature selection of a front runner because success in one region certainly would not guarantee success in the next region. This would also further validate the process because each state would still have a say all the way down to the end. Finally, the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate. Accordingly, the political primaries should occur between January and June of each presidential election year. Each of the six regions would be assigned a particular month. A lottery held in June of the previous year would determine which month each region holds its primaries. An example illustrates the format: January Middle West (9): Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin February Southern (8): Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia March Atlantic (8): Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, April New England (8): Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, May Northwestern (9): Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming June Southwestern (9): Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah

Referred to as the world's oldest "profession," prostitution is defined as the act or practice of selling oneself for sexual purposes. It is also defined as an unworthy use of a talent, quality, or the like, especially for personal gain. What's interesting is that the former is illegal in all states except Nevada while the latter has been morally and culturally accepted since the beginning of time. This begs the question: is there any difference between a street walker/escort and a person who uses their physical beauty to attain a lifestyle that others labor very hard to attain? Too often in our society we see evidence of the "trophy spouse"; a reward received by those who achieve success in business or entertainment. The marriage consists of a person who sees a beautiful spouse as something to obtain and a person who deliberately shops lifestyle by any sexual means necessary. Some would argue that prostitution should be made legal so that (just as with drugs) it can be regulated by the state and become a source of revenue enhancement. Furthermore, sex between strangers would be safer since the government (as in Nevada) would require regular medical examinations to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The problem facing this country is that we haven't reconciled these two definitions thus creating the existence of a double standard. We are quick to arrest and condemn the street walker/escort but would never think to shun a sexual opportunist. In many ways, prostitution already is legal in our society. People pay to watch two people have sex with each other but yet cannot pay each other for sex. I recall two people comparing their lifestyles while waiting in line at the airport. One person told the other "the difference between you and me is that you pay for your sex with cash and I pay for it with dinners, clothing and jewelry". The problem with this country today is not that we are a nation of laws but rather a nation that continually contradicts itself when it comes to morality.