CAT GIBBONS/MIRACLE MORTGAGE FACTS
1. I was one of three (3) black female mortgage brokers in the State of Massachusetts.
2. I filed ethics complaints against Fidelity Guarantee Mortgage, a white-owned firm.
3. In recent history the Attorney General of Maine had issued a Cease and Desist Order against Fidelity and some 30 complaints were filed against it. Appendix A.
4. Further, a Federal Court of Appeals reviewed the situation and affirmed sanctions for a lawsuit that counsel for Fidelity had brought frivolously against the Vermont governing authorities. See generally Fidelity Guarantee Mortgage Corporation v. T Reben, 809 F2d 931 (1987).
5. However, in Massachusetts the Defendant took no legal action against Defendant whatsoever, instead telling me that it was a better benefit “for the many as opposed to the few.”
6. Subsequently the Defendant has engaged in a serious of retaliatory, discriminatory and otherwise unlawful acts, including but not limited to unfairly accusing me of being a criminal, downrating my ranking from a 1 to a 2 and then to a 3, and issuing a Cease and Desist Letter to me because I conducted a handful of stated income deals. The standards I used for my stated income deals fell well within any reasonable range, and were accepted by the Caucasian owned, run and operated banks with whom I had been dealing for years.
7. That is ridiculous. I am aware that DOB received complaints from homebuyers who were scammed by LO’s and Mortgage Houses when they inflated income or did stated deals and the people received higher interest rates (full document deals typically get lower interest rates) or were put into homes they couldn’t really afford. In my case, nobody complained and I got the buyers good interest rates so why are the coming after me??? When did Stated Deals all of a sudden become “Fraud” and what made my deals fraudulent?
8. They also scheduled and conducted a conference for me in late summer at which people were present but their titles and roles were not identified for me despite my initial inquiry and my repeated inquiry six (6) weeks ago. Attachment 1.
9. The Defendant is required by law to keep most of these documents on file, yet they have failed to provide me any Good Faith Cost Estimate despite the fact that I gave them more than ten (10) days as required by Law. G.L.c. 66, sec. 10 (b).
I didn’t receive any documents until after I filed an Open Records Complaint in Superior Court.
10. Superior Court threw my case out because of Rule 30, but that was wrong because the Court did have Jurisdiction to hear my complaint because there was a violation of the Open Records Law. I filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Court tersely wrote: “The Motion does not have merit” and provided no analysis whatsoever into the 10 day violation. We talked about it on our TOUCH 106.1 FM radio show and the consensus was that the Government just doesn’t care and it will label the infraction de minimis or just ignore it totally as the Court did here.
My Motion read:
**************
Basically I am saying that as in the case of Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., 407 Mass. 23 (1990) I have no adequate or meaningful administrative remedy because:
a) The Division of Banks does not have Constitutional Authority to rule on this issue
where a violation has already occurred, only a Superior Court can hear this claim,
thus my complaint is not premature and;
b) The violation of Law has already occurred.
To compound matters the Defendant did not provide the documents at the Status Conference 3 days after the Motion Hearing in this Court, even though their lawyer stood right before the Court and said they had documents ready for me. Yet they didn’t even produce copies of their own regulations or of my own file. They continue to make mockery of the legal system and this Court must not allow it.
Furthermore, on the record at the hearing of November 23, 2009 the Department let it be known that they intend to make my Cease and Desist permanent, so they have their minds made up anyway and the whole process is a sham and merely a formality and I will be reopening the case in short order so it wouldn’t be appropriate to assess Attorney Fees in this situation.
11. Meanwhile DOB has provided piecemeal documents to me and I want to ORDER them to provide every document they intend to produce at one time for me to review so I can see which documents they are claiming are privileged and/or confidential.
12. At this point I believe they are even trying to say my own investigative files are privileged and confidential so I can’t share them on the Internet or what have you.
13. At present they have already stated they intend to revoke my license in open court.
14. Please look for the video and relevant links at
http://touchfmboston.blogspot.com
http://touchfmboston.blogspot.com/2009/11/martha-coakleys-mass-division-of-banks.html
http://touchfmboston.blogspot.com/2009/11/martha-coakleys-mass-division-of-banks_23.html
I NEED HELP FROM TOP NOTCH LICENSED COUNSEL:
Sincerely,
Catherine Gibbons
This is the fallout from a case in which Citibank refused to cash a check drawn on its own bank for a black man who was a holder in due course. Citibank then allowed my Caucasian girlfriend to open a bank account if she wanted to cash the check for him, but then denied me, as a black man, that same opportunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981. Then their lawyers tried to threaten us with video that they now refuse to provide because they are lying. They called the police and threatened to arrest me and said I was dangerous, all kinds of hater material going on here. http://Citibankisracist.blogspot.com They accuse me of being a dangerous black man but I give criminal justice presentations: http://samshaulson.blogspot.com/2009/11/kingcast-asks-sam-shaulson-esq-exactly.html They also claim they couldn't determine the identity of my girlfriend to see whether they opened an account for her but her name "JRT" is on the back of their own Exhibit C (the canceled check that was eventually cashed) before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
******
30 November 2009
KingCast draws First Blood against Sam Shaulson and Citibank with Motion to Compel in racial discrimination case.
After weeks of Sam Shaulson, Morgan Lewis and Citibank playing games with video that they tried to "threaten" my lawyer with, I wrote a Motion to Compel and they said they would forward the video to MCAD "immediately." They don't want me to post any parts of it on YouTube because it will show they were lying about my behavior at the bank. I will not show any customers or any Citibank personnel excepting Carlo Caramanna, and if necessary I will hire a lip reader if we can see him talking, that will firmly establish they lied when they said the Decision Maker was black. That's ridiculous because the purported Decision Maker was only a teller, I know her personally. She would have opened an account for me and that's why there's no written statement from her.
Sam Shaulson, Morgan Lewis and Citibank will now face a Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence based on clearly applicable Law. From the Motion I hand delivered to MCAD and FEDEX'd to Sam Shaulson, Morgan Lewis and Citibank.
From the Motion:
Despite clear and repeated warnings, Citibank has allowed for the spoliation of crucial video that would show my behavior at the bank to be exemplary and would show that they knew exactly who JRT is: In those videos one can see her get the paperwork and sit in the offices in order to open an account!
See MacLellan v. Shaw's Supermarket, Inc., 24 Mass. L. Rep. 317 (2008)
Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against the supermarket for spoliation of evidence, alleging a failure to preserve a scissor lift, destruction of a surveillance video, improper documentation of the incident, and inadequate maintenance records……..
The same was true of the video tape. The court noted that the video which might have shown the sequence of events that resulted in the alleged injury was material and relevant evidence.
