Ameriquest Mortgage Company People Deserve the Truth ex-employee inside info. Ameriquest, as well as its affiliates ACC and Town and Country Credit, have deep roots in deep pockets to protect them when things arise. company CEO Roland Arnall has decided to begin the confirmaion process of becoming the Dutch ambassador as is appointed by President Bush. South Florida loyalty is only pocket deep Anahiem California

How far we've come from when Long Beach Bank in Belmont Shore, Long Beach was just a little sub-prime lender when they moved to Orange County and the big boys. Goes to show that there are Billions in the bad loan business.

Ameriquest taking on water , ship is sinking FAST

LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY

50 . DEMARIN, MARIANO MR.
8/6/2003 $250.00
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141
AMERIQUEST MORTAGE COMPANY/REGIONAL [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]

PoliticalMoneyLine

52 . DI ANTONIO, WILLIAM C MR.
8/6/2003 $1,000.00
MILFORD, MA 01757
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/AREA MANAGER SA [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]


86 . HALL, JASON MR.
8/6/2003 $500.00
BEVERLY, MA 01915
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/BRANCH MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]


148 . MAHLOWITZ, DAVID J MR.
8/6/2003 $1,000.00
ALLSTON, MA 02134
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/BRANCH MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]


177 . PAIVA, LINDA C MS.
8/6/2003 $1,000.00
SEEKONK, MA 02771
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/BRANCH MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]



178 . PANZA, MICHAEL MR.
8/6/2003 $1,000.00
NEWTON, MA 02458
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY/BRANCH [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]

183 . PHILEMONT, GUITHO G MR.
8/6/2003 $2,000.00
BROOKLYN, NY 11239
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/AREA MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
184 . PINKERTON, DANNY G MR.
8/6/2003 $500.00
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY L.L.C./ACCO [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
198 . ROTHMAN, ADAM MR.
8/6/2003 $2,000.00
TAMPA, FL 33612
AMERI QUEST MORTGAGE/AREA MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
200 . RUSSO, GIOVANNI M MS.
8/6/2003 $2,000.00
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY/AREA MA [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
209 . SHELTON, MARY JO MRS.
8/6/2003 $2,000.00
EAGAN, MN 55123
AMERIQUEST MORTAGE/VICE PRESIDENT R [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
229 . TERRY, C. H MRS.
8/6/2003 $1,000.00
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207
HOMEMAKER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]
251 . WILLIAMS, RICHARD H MR.
8/6/2003 $2,000.00
LAKE MARY, FL 32746
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE/AREA MANAGER [Contribution]
Transaction itemized by: BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
[View Image]



DIANA 1/14/06 at 10:56 PM

--------------

MRS. DIANA DEMARIN
HOMEMAKER
George W. Bush
$250 6301 COLLINS Ave (map)
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 0.78 miles
25.8446076588914
-80.1205710021616

00 Yesterday at 12:20 PM

-------------------------



007 Yesterday at 02:48 PM

--------------------------

double oo ,

we can't click onto your post , you might want to correct your posting, so we can view .

A VIEW TO A KILL , NEVER SAY NEVER , THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN .


your mission Yesterday at 04:22 PM

-----------------------

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE !


Me 2 Yesterday at 06:35 PM

------------------------

Hi Diane Thanks for the info



He is not who he says he is.


...



Diane (LADY DI) Yesterday at 07:45 PM

---------------------

Me 2 you are so welcome. Now go get him!


Me 2 Yesterday at 07:54 PM

----------------------



He is just a little dog




00 not 7 Yesterday at 08:10 PM

-----------------------

Raise your had if you trust Ameriquest

Attachments:


mmmmmm Yesterday at 09:48 PM

----------------------

this is so way cool


INNER CITY Yesterday at 09:51 PM

----------------------

Updated January 17, 2006 - For further information, click here to contact us

Update of January 17, 2006: Lobbying disclosure forms filed January 10 in Utah reveal Ameriquest giving Rolling Stones concert tickets valued (with a dinner) at $200 to nine legislators -- and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Since Ameriquest is on record as negotiating a predatory lending settlement with the state attorneys general, might this not be a conflict? Developing

Update of January 9, 2006: As Ameriquest tries to finalize a too-narrow settlement with state attorneys general, a sample from this week's mailbag:

Subject: Ameriquest refinancing


BONO Today at 09:51 AM

-------------------
ajc.com > Metro > Gwinnett


GWINNETT INSIDER

Another year, another pile of gifts

By stanford@ajc.com" target=_blank target=_blank>DUANE D. STANFORD, BEN SMITH
Published on: 01/15/06

We bet Santa's toy box couldn't match the goodies lobbyists showered on Gwinnett's state legislators last year.

The glad-handers under the Gold Dome shelled out $19,626 in meals, golf outings and other gifts in 2005 for the 16 Gwinnett-based members of the county's legislative delegation, state records show.

MOST POPULAR STORIES
Vick's accuser plans on trial
Colts CB's Wife Held on Battery Charge
One killed, several injured in Cobb hotel fire
OL coaching job may draw big names
Eminem and Ex-Wife Kim Mathers Remarry

EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
MOST POPULAR


Among them: tickets to sporting events and concerts ranging from the Peach Bowl to the Rolling Stones, according to year-end lobbyist disclosures filed with the State Ethics Commission.

The biggest haul, $7,216, went to Snellville Republican Don Balfour. That figures, because the powerful chairman of the lofty Senate Rules Committee is basically that chamber's bouncer. He decides which bills make it to the floor.

In second was GOP House Industrial Relations Chairman Mike Coan of Lawrenceville, who received $3,359.18 in lobbyist largess. Coan was followed by another state representative, Dacula Republican Donna Sheldon, who received $1,817.02.

The skimpiest sum, $29, was spent on Democrat Brian Thomas, a freshman House member from Lilburn. He was treated to a reception and lunch by the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta not exactly a lobbying powerhouse.

In fact, the House and Senate delegation's four under-appreciated Democrats garnered a meager $349.72 in treats in 2005.

We are counting on the lobbyists of Georgia to do better for them this year.


Gimme shelter ... and a couple of tickets

Speaking of those lobbyist reports, we noted with interest that Ameriquest Mortgage Co. gave Rolling Stones tickets worth nearly $3,400 to key GOP officeholders last October.

Among them were Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson; and state Sens. Don Balfour of Snellville, Eric Johnson of Savannah and Chip Rogers of Woodstock.

Karen Handel and Sam Olens, who respectively chair the Fulton and Cobb county commissions, also received tickets from Ameriquest, as did state Reps. Rich Golick of Smyrna and Bob Smith of Watkinsville.

We hope they had a good time, though it's a bit difficult to imagine pin-striped GOPers bopping to "Let's Spend the Night Together" or "Sympathy for the Devil."

"I'm not really into it," said Balfour, who nevertheless attended the concert.

Let's face it, the words "hip" and "Republican" aren't often seen side by side, a point Balfour concedes. That is, unless you think the late Sammy Davis Jr. and the equally late Sonny Bono qualify.

On the other hand, the Repubs do have Jessica Simpson, while the Dems are stuck with Al Gore.


Give 'em the slip?

What's a "slip road?" That's what business leaders on Wednesday told U.S. Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) is needed to revitalize the area surrounding Gwinnett Place mall. Linder seemed willing to help find federal money for the Gwinnett Place CID project.

"I can definitely see the value in having such a road," Linder said. "It could be a tremendous relief to the traffic pressure on 85 and Pleasant Hill Road."

It turns out a "slip road" is a traffic unclogger with just one destination. In this case, it would be a road to move I-85 drivers directly into the mall parking lot.

It is not, as we guessed, a politician's escape route from reporters and rubber chicken dinners.


Climbing that Hill

Is Wayne Hill, the Sultan of ... nevermind ..., fixing to step back into politics?

We hear the former Gwinnett commission chairman has decided to challenge Sugar Hill incumbent Bobby Reese in this summer's GOP primary for the Georgia House District 98 seat.

If Hill runs and wins, joining the lower house of the state Legislature would be a step down for the former three-term Republican chairman, once widely considered one of the most powerful political figures in metro Atlanta.

But it would get Hill back in the game.

Last week, rumors of his return to politics swirled around the Gold Dome. But Hill hasn't taken any formal steps to launch a campaign. He hasn't filed a "notice of intent" with the state, a prerequisite for any Georgia candidate who wants to begin raising money for a political campaign. And qualifying for all Georgia candidates seeking elected office is three months away.

We called Hill for a confirmation, but we caught him at a bad time (he was just getting out of the shower). He told the Insider that he's "considering" a run for public office but didn't specify which one.

Duh ... how can we get to the "Gwinnett is Great" tower?

OK, we looked pretty dopey last week when we wrote about a Norcross plan to preserve a schoolhouse that no longer exists.

One reader wrote, "If you had any familiarity at all with downtown Norcross, you would know there is no schoolhouse to preserve and it's terribly 'un-inside' of you to miss that essential fact."

Ouch! What we described as a "preservation" project is actually a controversial proposal to reconstruct the facade of the town's old schoolhouse to be the entrance of a new arts center.

Those responsible for the mistake us ... well, actually only one of us have been flogged.

By the way, we just beefed up our coverage of Gwinnett cities. So to those with stories to tell, questions they want answered and corruption they want exposed, we say: Keep those cards and letters coming.

Another year, another pile of gifts | ajc.com

lobbyist Today at 10:02 AM


deseretnews.com | Lobbyist spending detailed

By Kirstin Downey

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 6, 2005; Page D01

Five months ago, Ameriquest Mortgage Co., the nation's largest lender to people with bad credit, announced in a securities filing that it had set aside $325 million to settle allegations that it had misled, overcharged and defrauded home-loan borrowers in more than 30 states.

The announcement came on the day the Bush administration announced that billionaire Roland E. Arnall, Ameriquest's founder and principal shareholder and the largest campaign contributor to Bush since 2002, would be nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.



Roland E. Arnall, Ameriquest's founder, is nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands. (Dennis Cook - AP)
The settlement was never reached, and homeowners have not received compensation for their losses.

Arnall's nomination has been tied up in a dispute on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as state attorneys general negotiate with Ameriquest for more than just money. They demand that the company make significant changes in how it does business. They want the politically influential firm, which makes high-interest loans primarily to lower-income people, to agree to halt allegedly deceptive sales techniques that have resulted in some buyers losing their homes to foreclosure.

"The issues have been about full and fair disclosure, transparency, and basic fair dealing, which are all required by our laws," said Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general in Connecticut, where he said hundreds of people have said they were misled and financially injured by the company.

"Ameriquest has it within its power to resolve all the issues if it is willing to commit to change its business practices and deal fairly with its customers," Blumenthal said. "If there are political consequences to these issues, the company can help resolve them, too."

Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the task force is seeking primarily what he called reforms of business practices at Ameriquest, including "practices regarding appraisals, disclosures regarding prepayment penalties and other matters."

"In terms of changing the way they do business, it will be broad in scope," Dresslar said. California law-enforcement officials discovered the problems while investigating 75 to 100 consumer complaints they received from 2001 to 2003, he said. During that investigation, he said, "the extent and egregiousness of the business practices became clear."

The task force has never specified the allegations made against Ameriquest in 33 states, including Maryland, and the District. The most complete list of the complaints under review was contained in written material Arnall himself provided to the Foreign Relations Committee. That material, reported by the Los Angeles Times and confirmed by committee staffers, includes allegations that Ameriquest:

Pressured appraisers to inflate property values so borrowers could get bigger loans.

Charged upfront fees without reducing interest rates as promised.

Told borrowers to ignore written information about interest rates because they would give them lower rates later and actually gave them the higher rates instead.

=================================================

Page 2 of 3


Assured borrowers their loans would have no prepayment penalties, then inserted them into the final loan.

Refused to lend on Indian reservations because of laws preventing foreclosures.




Delayed the time period between the loan closing and the funding.

Misrepresented fees and costs.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, Arnall said that Ameriquest had not handled its dealings with customers "perfectly" and that some employees who had behaved badly have been fired.

"Mistakes have been made," Arnall said. "When mistakes are made, we take care of the problems. We fix the problems."

But for many consumers, the problems have not been fixed because the settlement that would compensate them for their losses has not been finalized. Several sources close to the discussions said recently a settlement might be announced soon. The amount of the settlement -- $325 million -- is no longer in dispute; the major stumbling block has been negotiations over what Ameriquest must do to change its business behavior and how those changes could be externally monitored.

A settlement would probably clear the way for Arnall's confirmation as ambassador to the Netherlands, a post he greatly covets, according to some people involved in the negotiations.

To facilitate his confirmation, Arnall has agreed to step down from control of the company that is the primary source of his vast wealth. In October, he left his position as co-chairman of Ameriquest's holding company, Ameriquest Capital Corp., leaving control of the company solely in the hands of his former co-chairman, his wife, Dawn. He has told the Foreign Relations Committee that if he were confirmed as ambassador, his wife would accompany him to the Netherlands and share his duties representing the United States.

Ameriquest officials said an executive management team is meeting with the state attorneys general to resolve the remaining issues in dispute. "The discussions are ongoing," said Chris Orlando, an Ameriquest spokesman. "From the company's standpoint, we are working hard with the attorneys general to reach a well-thought-out, comprehensive agreement that's good for consumers and fair to the company."

The Ameriquest investigation coincides with increasing criticism of what is called "subprime" lending -- high-cost loans made to people with poor credit histories, unreliable sources of income or low down payments. A decade ago, only 5 percent of home mortgages were subprime. But as housing prices rose and the average consumer's credit-card debt increased, even many middle-class buyers found it hard to qualify for conventional mortgages at low interest rates. By last year, 19 percent of home loans were subprime.

Those loans have made homeownership possible for more people, but in many cases, prosecutors say, unsophisticated buyers have been lured into buying homes they were barely able to afford, and were misled about how much the interest and fees would cost them. Many of the purchasers obtained adjustable-rate loans, which would raise their costs if interest rates rise in the future. Buyers who fall behind in their payments generally lose their homes to foreclosure, with the lender taking ownership of the property.

=================================================

Page 3 of 3

Ameriquest, a California-based company founded by Arnall in the 1970s, is the largest single provider of such subprime loans.

The Foreign Relations Committee deadlocked 9 to 9 on Arnall's nomination last month after several senators expressed concern about the unresolved litigation with the states. But committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the proxy votes of absent members should not count, declared the vote was really 8 to 2 in Arnall's favor and moved the nomination to the Senate floor. Senate Democrats have said they will challenge the move if Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) brings the nomination up for a vote.




Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) voted to confirm Arnall, even though Rhode Island is one of the states participating in the task force investigating Ameriquest. Michael J. Healey, a spokesman for state Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, said Rhode Island was participating in the inquiry because of a sharp increase in predatory lending in that state. But a spokesman for Chafee said the senator voted for Arnall because the California businessman is not an "officer or chief executive officer" of Ameriquest, was not individually charged with wrongdoing, and should not be blamed for what might have happened at the company.

"He was not under investigation personally so to hold up his nomination would be improper," said Stephen Hourahan, Chafee's press secretary.

Similarly, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) also voted for Arnall despite his home state's extensive investigation into Ameriquest's alleged predatory lending practices in that state. In a statement, Coleman praised Arnall as a philanthropist and said he would be a worthy candidate for ambassador.

"Mr. Arnall is not the subject of any investigation," Coleman said. "His personal actions have never been called into question. His credibility and integrity were praised by members from both sides of the aisle during his hearings. For these reasons, it is inappropriate to hold up Mr. Arnall's nomination."

Arnall has been a major financial contributor to the political funds of both Republicans and Democrats, and at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he was warmly greeted by senators from both parties. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) endorsed Arnall's nomination, praising him as a philanthropist and a Holocaust survivor. Ameriquest is Lantos's largest political contributor. And after the hearing, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, who voted against Arnall's nomination, conceded in a report published in the Los Angeles Times that he found it a difficult vote to cast because Arnall had recently hosted a fundraiser for him.

It was a party-line vote except for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who voted against Arnall.

"I do think it's important who represents this country abroad," Hagel said in a statement in November. "I do think we should send people who are not under a cloud of investigation. Mr. Arnall -- fairly or unfairly -- finds himself in that position. I need more answers before I can move forward."

Qui Tam (Whistleblower)/Fraud Against the Government Cases

The Federal Civil False Claims Act allows a private citizen to file a suit in the name of the U.S. Government charging fraud by government contractors and other entities that receive or use government funds. The Act allows the private individual to share in any money recovered. If the government joins the case, the whistleblower (known as "relator") is entitled to 15 percent to 25 percent of what the government recovers. If the government declines to join the case and the relator proceeds against the Defendant, the relator is entitled to 25 percent to 30 percent. The amount of recovery could be a substantial amount of money where the relator would receive a sizable portion.

The False Claims Act is also known as the Qui Tam Statute. The False Claims Act can be a powerful weapon to prevent fraud from being committed against the government and may allow for a monetary award to whistleblowers for their righteous conduct. The False Claims Act has been used to fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud, municipal bond fraud, defense contractor fraud, and other types of fraud committed against the federal government.

If you think you have a potential case, please contact us for a free initial consultation. We incur all the costs of the litigation and do not charge the client for the costs and our services unless we obtain a recovery. There are no guarantees in litigation. Case results will depend on the merits of each case.


10235 West Little York Rd., Suite 470
Houston, TX 77040
(713)937-0223 - Fax (713)937-0220 - Toll Free (877)937-0223

Today's Globe

Union is pressing Patrick to renounce Bush nominee
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | November 17, 2005

A major Massachusetts-based union is calling on Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick to withdraw his support for President Bush's nominee as US ambassador to the Netherlands, Roland Arnall, a controversial Republican fund-raiser and principal owner of a mortgage company that is under investigation in 30 states.


Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for:
Globe Headlines e-mail |
Breaking News Alerts
The National Association of Government Employees has also called on Patrick to resign as a director on the board of Arnall's firm, Ameriquest Capital Corp. The union said his backing of the nominee contradicts Patrick's campaign promise to offer a ''fresh look" for state government.

''We view your backing of Mr. Arnall as just more 'business as usual' and acceptance that important positions such as an ambassadorship should go to the highest bidder," David J. Holway, NAGE national president, said in a letter to Patrick this week.

He noted Arnall's strong political financial support of Bush. Arnall and his wife, Dawn, were described by The Washington Post in January as ''the single biggest source of financial support for Bush since 2002. Over the period, they gave and raised at least $12.25 million."

Patrick rejected the union's demands yesterday, saying he has committed himself to helping Arnall's company settle the investigations into Ameriquest's business practices, which critics say involved predatory lending aimed at low-income people, minorities, and the elderly. The company is in settlement talks with the investigating states.

''My commitment is to provide independent oversight that will help the company in its continuing effort to be the very best in the industry," Patrick wrote to Holway. ''If keeping that commitment costs me the endorsement of NAGE, then I am prepared to live with those political consequences."

Patrick submitted a letter last month to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee praising Arnall, telling the senators, ''This is a good man." He said he disagrees with the nominee's political views but doesn't ''regard political affiliation as the only possible measure of a person."

Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING -- (Senate - November 09, 2005)

[Page: S12602] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters.

The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present.

With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator LUGAR, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Business Meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate November 1, 2005

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. RICHARD G. LUGAR [chairman] presiding.

Present: Senators LUGAR [presiding], Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, and Sarbanes.

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, on the point about filing lawsuits to delay the nomination, there are a number of individual suits that have been brought regarding some of these matters. I don't premise the position I'm taking on that.

I think in effect a screening process has been done by the State attorneys general, and therefore I think it raises the issue to a much higher level, that these State attorney generals are considering bringing charges in this instance.

Mr. Arnall asserts that his motto is to do the right thing. That's what we're trying to get him to do in this instance. He owns this company. It's privately held. We had testimony from people that were at the company telling about how intimately he was in its activities, how much he's essential to the sort of direction and the drive, the vitality of the company.

He does have an impressive life story and I alluded to that in the course of the hearing and said as much.

But you've got a real problem here in terms of these practices, and Mr. Arnall ought to resolve this matter in my opinion before he goes off to the Netherlands in order to assume this ambassadorship.

The Chairman. Well, the committee will now vote on the nomination. I will ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Hagel.

Senator Hagel. No.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Chafee.

Senator Chafee. Aye.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Allen.

Senator CHAFEE. Aye.

[Page: S12603] GPO's PDF
Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Alexander.

Senator ALEXANDER. Aye

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sununu.

Senator SUNUNU. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Ms. Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Martinez.

The CHAIRMAN. Votes aye by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Biden.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. No.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Dodd.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Kerry.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Feingold.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mrs. Boxer.

Senator SARBANES. No by--I'll pass for the moment.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Nelson.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Obama.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Aye.

Senator SARBANES. Boxer, no by proxy.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will please report the vote.

Ms. OURSLER. The vote is nine to nine.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me make certain that the committee knows what the reporting requirement is, because I'll ask the Clerk then to give the report on members physically present. Our rule says ''No nomination can be reported unless a majority of the committee members are physically present. The vote of the committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of those members who are physically present at the time the vote is taken.''

Now, what is the vote among those who are physically present?

Ms. OURSLER. Of those physically present, eight voted in favor of the nomination and two voted against.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the chair believes that Rule 4[c] on reporting would indicate that in this particular instance the nomination be forwarded to the full Senate. But that is--I ask those who may have question about that to refer to Rule 4 on quorums and [c] on reporting.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, as I read this rule, in order to report it out you will need a majority physically present, but that doesn't vitiate the proxies voted against. The rule makes no reference to that and those proxies are valid, and therefore we wouldn't--the vote is not carried. This applies of you to try to use proxies to constitute the majority for reporting it out, but it doesn't apply to the use of proxies to negate reporting it out, I respectfully submit to you, and I think that's a fair reading of the rule. And that's the way we've done it here in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is an important reading, but the chair believes that the reading at least gives credence at least to my interpretation, which is that a majority of those voting and physically present, given the fact a majority was here to create the quorum, would lead to a favorable decision.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think we need to sort this out. I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, a quorum is not present, but the quorum was present at the time of the vote and that is what is required, and the chair declared that the vote was in favor of reporting this nomination to the Senate floor.

Senator SARBANES. On what basis is the chairman reaching that conclusion?

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis that we had a quorum and that a majority of those physically present voted in favor of the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. But the majority of the committee didn't do that. In fact the vote here was a tie vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Counting in the proxies.

Senator SARBANES. It was a tie vote. Yes, it was a tie vote.

You can't bring it out with proxies. The chairman--what this rule is designed to do is the chairman can't come in with a bunch of proxies in his hands and then on the basis of that bring a measure out of the committee. You can be called on that in terms of having a majority.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the point the chair is making--rather, the Senator is making. I believe that my interpretation is correct and I would just indicate that that at least is what is going to occur. Now, the member may think of a means for appealing that in some fashion.

Senator SARBANES. Think what?

The CHAIRMAN. Of a means of appealing my decision. But for the time being, my decision is that we had a vote and we have reported the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think it's an abuse of the rules and I want to state that to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SARBANES. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the members of the committee.

[Whereupon, at 3.07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING -- (Senate - November 09, 2005)

[Page: S12602] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters.

The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present.

With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator LUGAR, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Business Meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate November 1, 2005

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. RICHARD G. LUGAR [chairman] presiding.

Present: Senators LUGAR [presiding], Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, and Sarbanes.

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, on the point about filing lawsuits to delay the nomination, there are a number of individual suits that have been brought regarding some of these matters. I don't premise the position I'm taking on that.

I think in effect a screening process has been done by the State attorneys general, and therefore I think it raises the issue to a much higher level, that these State attorney generals are considering bringing charges in this instance.

Mr. Arnall asserts that his motto is to do the right thing. That's what we're trying to get him to do in this instance. He owns this company. It's privately held. We had testimony from people that were at the company telling about how intimately he was in its activities, how much he's essential to the sort of direction and the drive, the vitality of the company.

He does have an impressive life story and I alluded to that in the course of the hearing and said as much.

But you've got a real problem here in terms of these practices, and Mr. Arnall ought to resolve this matter in my opinion before he goes off to the Netherlands in order to assume this ambassadorship.

The Chairman. Well, the committee will now vote on the nomination. I will ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Hagel.

Senator Hagel. No.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Chafee.

Senator Chafee. Aye.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Allen.

Senator CHAFEE. Aye.

[Page: S12603] GPO's PDF
Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Alexander.

Senator ALEXANDER. Aye

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sununu.

Senator SUNUNU. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Ms. Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Martinez.

The CHAIRMAN. Votes aye by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Biden.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. No.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Dodd.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Kerry.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Feingold.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mrs. Boxer.

Senator SARBANES. No by--I'll pass for the moment.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Nelson.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Obama.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Aye.

Senator SARBANES. Boxer, no by proxy.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will please report the vote.

Ms. OURSLER. The vote is nine to nine.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me make certain that the committee knows what the reporting requirement is, because I'll ask the Clerk then to give the report on members physically present. Our rule says ''No nomination can be reported unless a majority of the committee members are physically present. The vote of the committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of those members who are physically present at the time the vote is taken.''

Now, what is the vote among those who are physically present?

Ms. OURSLER. Of those physically present, eight voted in favor of the nomination and two voted against.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the chair believes that Rule 4[c] on reporting would indicate that in this particular instance the nomination be forwarded to the full Senate. But that is--I ask those who may have question about that to refer to Rule 4 on quorums and [c] on reporting.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, as I read this rule, in order to report it out you will need a majority physically present, but that doesn't vitiate the proxies voted against. The rule makes no reference to that and those proxies are valid, and therefore we wouldn't--the vote is not carried. This applies of you to try to use proxies to constitute the majority for reporting it out, but it doesn't apply to the use of proxies to negate reporting it out, I respectfully submit to you, and I think that's a fair reading of the rule. And that's the way we've done it here in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is an important reading, but the chair believes that the reading at least gives credence at least to my interpretation, which is that a majority of those voting and physically present, given the fact a majority was here to create the quorum, would lead to a favorable decision.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think we need to sort this out. I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, a quorum is not present, but the quorum was present at the time of the vote and that is what is required, and the chair declared that the vote was in favor of reporting this nomination to the Senate floor.

Senator SARBANES. On what basis is the chairman reaching that conclusion?

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis that we had a quorum and that a majority of those physically present voted in favor of the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. But the majority of the committee didn't do that. In fact the vote here was a tie vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Counting in the proxies.

Senator SARBANES. It was a tie vote. Yes, it was a tie vote.

You can't bring it out with proxies. The chairman--what this rule is designed to do is the chairman can't come in with a bunch of proxies in his hands and then on the basis of that bring a measure out of the committee. You can be called on that in terms of having a majority.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the point the chair is making--rather, the Senator is making. I believe that my interpretation is correct and I would just indicate that that at least is what is going to occur. Now, the member may think of a means for appealing that in some fashion.

Senator SARBANES. Think what?

The CHAIRMAN. Of a means of appealing my decision. But for the time being, my decision is that we had a vote and we have reported the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think it's an abuse of the rules and I want to state that to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SARBANES. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the members of the committee.

[Whereupon, at 3.07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING -- (Senate - November 09, 2005)

[Page: S12602] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters.

The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present.

With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator LUGAR, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Business Meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate November 1, 2005

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. RICHARD G. LUGAR [chairman] presiding.

Present: Senators LUGAR [presiding], Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, and Sarbanes.

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, on the point about filing lawsuits to delay the nomination, there are a number of individual suits that have been brought regarding some of these matters. I don't premise the position I'm taking on that.

I think in effect a screening process has been done by the State attorneys general, and therefore I think it raises the issue to a much higher level, that these State attorney generals are considering bringing charges in this instance.

Mr. Arnall asserts that his motto is to do the right thing. That's what we're trying to get him to do in this instance. He owns this company. It's privately held. We had testimony from people that were at the company telling about how intimately he was in its activities, how much he's essential to the sort of direction and the drive, the vitality of the company.

He does have an impressive life story and I alluded to that in the course of the hearing and said as much.

But you've got a real problem here in terms of these practices, and Mr. Arnall ought to resolve this matter in my opinion before he goes off to the Netherlands in order to assume this ambassadorship.

The Chairman. Well, the committee will now vote on the nomination. I will ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Hagel.

Senator Hagel. No.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Chafee.

Senator Chafee. Aye.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Allen.

Senator CHAFEE. Aye.

[Page: S12603] GPO's PDF
Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Alexander.

Senator ALEXANDER. Aye

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sununu.

Senator SUNUNU. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Ms. Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Martinez.

The CHAIRMAN. Votes aye by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Biden.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. No.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Dodd.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Kerry.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Feingold.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mrs. Boxer.

Senator SARBANES. No by--I'll pass for the moment.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Nelson.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Obama.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Aye.

Senator SARBANES. Boxer, no by proxy.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will please report the vote.

Ms. OURSLER. The vote is nine to nine.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me make certain that the committee knows what the reporting requirement is, because I'll ask the Clerk then to give the report on members physically present. Our rule says ''No nomination can be reported unless a majority of the committee members are physically present. The vote of the committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of those members who are physically present at the time the vote is taken.''

Now, what is the vote among those who are physically present?

Ms. OURSLER. Of those physically present, eight voted in favor of the nomination and two voted against.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the chair believes that Rule 4[c] on reporting would indicate that in this particular instance the nomination be forwarded to the full Senate. But that is--I ask those who may have question about that to refer to Rule 4 on quorums and [c] on reporting.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, as I read this rule, in order to report it out you will need a majority physically present, but that doesn't vitiate the proxies voted against. The rule makes no reference to that and those proxies are valid, and therefore we wouldn't--the vote is not carried. This applies of you to try to use proxies to constitute the majority for reporting it out, but it doesn't apply to the use of proxies to negate reporting it out, I respectfully submit to you, and I think that's a fair reading of the rule. And that's the way we've done it here in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is an important reading, but the chair believes that the reading at least gives credence at least to my interpretation, which is that a majority of those voting and physically present, given the fact a majority was here to create the quorum, would lead to a favorable decision.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think we need to sort this out. I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, a quorum is not present, but the quorum was present at the time of the vote and that is what is required, and the chair declared that the vote was in favor of reporting this nomination to the Senate floor.

Senator SARBANES. On what basis is the chairman reaching that conclusion?

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis that we had a quorum and that a majority of those physically present voted in favor of the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. But the majority of the committee didn't do that. In fact the vote here was a tie vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Counting in the proxies.

Senator SARBANES. It was a tie vote. Yes, it was a tie vote.

You can't bring it out with proxies. The chairman--what this rule is designed to do is the chairman can't come in with a bunch of proxies in his hands and then on the basis of that bring a measure out of the committee. You can be called on that in terms of having a majority.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the point the chair is making--rather, the Senator is making. I believe that my interpretation is correct and I would just indicate that that at least is what is going to occur. Now, the member may think of a means for appealing that in some fashion.

Senator SARBANES. Think what?

The CHAIRMAN. Of a means of appealing my decision. But for the time being, my decision is that we had a vote and we have reported the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think it's an abuse of the rules and I want to state that to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SARBANES. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the members of the committee.

[Whereupon, at 3.07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING -- (Senate - November 09, 2005)

[Page: S12602] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters.

The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present.

With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator LUGAR, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Business Meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate November 1, 2005

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in Room S-116, The Capitol, Hon. RICHARD G. LUGAR [chairman] presiding.

Present: Senators LUGAR [presiding], Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, and Sarbanes.

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, on the point about filing lawsuits to delay the nomination, there are a number of individual suits that have been brought regarding some of these matters. I don't premise the position I'm taking on that.

I think in effect a screening process has been done by the State attorneys general, and therefore I think it raises the issue to a much higher level, that these State attorney generals are considering bringing charges in this instance.

Mr. Arnall asserts that his motto is to do the right thing. That's what we're trying to get him to do in this instance. He owns this company. It's privately held. We had testimony from people that were at the company telling about how intimately he was in its activities, how much he's essential to the sort of direction and the drive, the vitality of the company.

He does have an impressive life story and I alluded to that in the course of the hearing and said as much.

But you've got a real problem here in terms of these practices, and Mr. Arnall ought to resolve this matter in my opinion before he goes off to the Netherlands in order to assume this ambassadorship.

The Chairman. Well, the committee will now vote on the nomination. I will ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Hagel.

Senator Hagel. No.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Chafee.

Senator Chafee. Aye.

Ms. Oursler. Mr. Allen.

Senator CHAFEE. Aye.

[Page: S12603] GPO's PDF
Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Coleman.

Senator COLEMAN. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Alexander.

Senator ALEXANDER. Aye

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sununu.

Senator SUNUNU. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Ms. Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Aye.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Martinez.

The CHAIRMAN. Votes aye by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Biden.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. No.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Dodd.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Kerry.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Feingold.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mrs. Boxer.

Senator SARBANES. No by--I'll pass for the moment.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Nelson.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Obama.

Senator SARBANES. No by proxy.

Ms. OURSLER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Aye.

Senator SARBANES. Boxer, no by proxy.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will please report the vote.

Ms. OURSLER. The vote is nine to nine.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me make certain that the committee knows what the reporting requirement is, because I'll ask the Clerk then to give the report on members physically present. Our rule says ''No nomination can be reported unless a majority of the committee members are physically present. The vote of the committee to report a measure or matter shall require the concurrence of a majority of those members who are physically present at the time the vote is taken.''

Now, what is the vote among those who are physically present?

Ms. OURSLER. Of those physically present, eight voted in favor of the nomination and two voted against.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the chair believes that Rule 4[c] on reporting would indicate that in this particular instance the nomination be forwarded to the full Senate. But that is--I ask those who may have question about that to refer to Rule 4 on quorums and [c] on reporting.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, as I read this rule, in order to report it out you will need a majority physically present, but that doesn't vitiate the proxies voted against. The rule makes no reference to that and those proxies are valid, and therefore we wouldn't--the vote is not carried. This applies of you to try to use proxies to constitute the majority for reporting it out, but it doesn't apply to the use of proxies to negate reporting it out, I respectfully submit to you, and I think that's a fair reading of the rule. And that's the way we've done it here in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is an important reading, but the chair believes that the reading at least gives credence at least to my interpretation, which is that a majority of those voting and physically present, given the fact a majority was here to create the quorum, would lead to a favorable decision.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think we need to sort this out. I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, a quorum is not present, but the quorum was present at the time of the vote and that is what is required, and the chair declared that the vote was in favor of reporting this nomination to the Senate floor.

Senator SARBANES. On what basis is the chairman reaching that conclusion?

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis that we had a quorum and that a majority of those physically present voted in favor of the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. But the majority of the committee didn't do that. In fact the vote here was a tie vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Counting in the proxies.

Senator SARBANES. It was a tie vote. Yes, it was a tie vote.

You can't bring it out with proxies. The chairman--what this rule is designed to do is the chairman can't come in with a bunch of proxies in his hands and then on the basis of that bring a measure out of the committee. You can be called on that in terms of having a majority.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the point the chair is making--rather, the Senator is making. I believe that my interpretation is correct and I would just indicate that that at least is what is going to occur. Now, the member may think of a means for appealing that in some fashion.

Senator SARBANES. Think what?

The CHAIRMAN. Of a means of appealing my decision. But for the time being, my decision is that we had a vote and we have reported the nominee.

Senator SARBANES. Well, I think it's an abuse of the rules and I want to state that to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SARBANES. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the members of the committee.

[Whereupon, at 3.07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Nov. 8, 2005, 12:36AM

More reform in Ameriquest case
Settlement over sub-prime loan practices to change landscape
By E. SCOTT RECKARD
Los Angeles Times

Ameriquest Capital Corp.'s pending settlement with a large coalition of states over its mortgage lending practices is expected to provide stronger protections for homeowners, with measures to ensure accurate appraisals and to prevent customers from being pressured into taking out loans, according to records and interviews.

ADVERTISEMENT
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the $325 million deal with Orange, Calif.-based Ameriquest would likely exceed reforms required of lender Household Finance, which settled a 50-state investigation in 2002 by changing its practices and paying $484 million. That deal set new standards for lenders in the higher-cost "sub-prime" market.


Practices targeted
The Ameriquest agreement is likely to address "alleged pressure placed on appraisers to inflate property values" so that loans could be sold to borrowers who might not be qualified, Lockyer said in a statement.

"It also would target other practices," he said, "such as agents telling customers not to worry about formal disclosure upfront about loan prices and making misleading representations about penalties for early payoff of loan balances."

Ameriquest has set aside $325 million to cover penalties and restitution to customers, but the settlement with 33 states and the District of Columbia has been delayed amid wrangling over specific terms.

The lack of an agreement has emerged as a stumbling block to the confirmation of Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall to ambassador to the Netherlands, with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying Arnall should not take the post until the case is settled.

Arnall's nomination was passed out of the committee on a disputed vote last week after its chair, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ruled that absent Democrats could not cast votes by proxy, as is usually allowed. A vote by the full Senate has not been scheduled.

Arnall told the committee that he expected the matter to be resolved by the end of the year. In an Oct. 31 letter to Lugar, Arnall disclosed that he had resigned from "all officer and director positions" he held with Ameriquest and that the company was now being run by its senior management team. Dawn Arnall, the founder's wife and previously co-chairman, now heads the board, a company spokesman said.

One sticking point to reaching a deal has been Ameriquest's efforts to avoid having an independent monitor check its compliance, according to one state official involved in the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Household agreed to have such a monitor for five years.

Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller, whose office spearheaded the states' efforts, said the issue of an independent monitor was under discussion but wouldn't elaborate.

Ameriquest spokesman Christopher Orlando declined to comment on the negotiations.


Bait and switch?
Ameriquest Mortgage, a unit of Arnall's privately held Ameriquest Capital, makes higher-cost sub-prime loans for borrowers with credit problems, lack of steady income or other issues that prevent them from getting lower cost prime loans.

Among other things, the company has been accused of bait-and-switch tactics that inflate costs to borrowers a complaint leveled at other sub-prime lenders in recent years.

In 2002, sub-prime specialist Household International, the parent of Household Finance and Beneficial Finance that is now part of giant London bank HSBC Holdings, agreed to a series of reforms that New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has called "the current standard for the sub-prime lending industry."

Because the issues raised with Ameriquest go well beyond those with Household, its changes are expected to be more sweeping, Miller said.


The details
In written material for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Arnall provided the most detailed accounting yet of the allegations of improper lending practices he said were under review by the states:

Pressuring appraisers to inflate property values.
Charging upfront fees known as discount points without a corresponding decrease in the interest rate.
Telling borrowers at the time of the application to ignore the company's written information regarding the interest rate and dollar value of points because these would be lower for the actual loan.
Assuring borrowers their loans would have no prepayment penalty, then inserting one in the final loan.
Making "stated income" loans loans in which borrowers don't prove their income with documents based on information that was "unreasonable on its face."
Refusing to lend on Indian reservations because of laws preventing foreclosures.
Extended delays in time between loan close and funding.
Misrepresenting fees and costs.

Nov. 8, 2005, 12:36AM

More reform in Ameriquest case
Settlement over sub-prime loan practices to change landscape
By E. SCOTT RECKARD
Los Angeles Times

Ameriquest Capital Corp.'s pending settlement with a large coalition of states over its mortgage lending practices is expected to provide stronger protections for homeowners, with measures to ensure accurate appraisals and to prevent customers from being pressured into taking out loans, according to records and interviews.

ADVERTISEMENT
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the $325 million deal with Orange, Calif.-based Ameriquest would likely exceed reforms required of lender Household Finance, which settled a 50-state investigation in 2002 by changing its practices and paying $484 million. That deal set new standards for lenders in the higher-cost "sub-prime" market.


Practices targeted
The Ameriquest agreement is likely to address "alleged pressure placed on appraisers to inflate property values" so that loans could be sold to borrowers who might not be qualified, Lockyer said in a statement.

"It also would target other practices," he said, "such as agents telling customers not to worry about formal disclosure upfront about loan prices and making misleading representations about penalties for early payoff of loan balances."

Ameriquest has set aside $325 million to cover penalties and restitution to customers, but the settlement with 33 states and the District of Columbia has been delayed amid wrangling over specific terms.

The lack of an agreement has emerged as a stumbling block to the confirmation of Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall to ambassador to the Netherlands, with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying Arnall should not take the post until the case is settled.

Arnall's nomination was passed out of the committee on a disputed vote last week after its chair, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ruled that absent Democrats could not cast votes by proxy, as is usually allowed. A vote by the full Senate has not been scheduled.

Arnall told the committee that he expected the matter to be resolved by the end of the year. In an Oct. 31 letter to Lugar, Arnall disclosed that he had resigned from "all officer and director positions" he held with Ameriquest and that the company was now being run by its senior management team. Dawn Arnall, the founder's wife and previously co-chairman, now heads the board, a company spokesman said.

One sticking point to reaching a deal has been Ameriquest's efforts to avoid having an independent monitor check its compliance, according to one state official involved in the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Household agreed to have such a monitor for five years.

Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller, whose office spearheaded the states' efforts, said the issue of an independent monitor was under discussion but wouldn't elaborate.

Ameriquest spokesman Christopher Orlando declined to comment on the negotiations.


Bait and switch?
Ameriquest Mortgage, a unit of Arnall's privately held Ameriquest Capital, makes higher-cost sub-prime loans for borrowers with credit problems, lack of steady income or other issues that prevent them from getting lower cost prime loans.

Among other things, the company has been accused of bait-and-switch tactics that inflate costs to borrowers a complaint leveled at other sub-prime lenders in recent years.

In 2002, sub-prime specialist Household International, the parent of Household Finance and Beneficial Finance that is now part of giant London bank HSBC Holdings, agreed to a series of reforms that New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has called "the current standard for the sub-prime lending industry."

Because the issues raised with Ameriquest go well beyond those with Household, its changes are expected to be more sweeping, Miller said.


The details
In written material for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Arnall provided the most detailed accounting yet of the allegations of improper lending practices he said were under review by the states:

Pressuring appraisers to inflate property values.
Charging upfront fees known as discount points without a corresponding decrease in the interest rate.
Telling borrowers at the time of the application to ignore the company's written information regarding the interest rate and dollar value of points because these would be lower for the actual loan.
Assuring borrowers their loans would have no prepayment penalty, then inserting one in the final loan.
Making "stated income" loans loans in which borrowers don't prove their income with documents based on information that was "unreasonable on its face."
Refusing to lend on Indian reservations because of laws preventing foreclosures.
Extended delays in time between loan close and funding.
Misrepresenting fees and costs.

Nov. 8, 2005, 12:36AM

More reform in Ameriquest case
Settlement over sub-prime loan practices to change landscape
By E. SCOTT RECKARD
Los Angeles Times

Ameriquest Capital Corp.'s pending settlement with a large coalition of states over its mortgage lending practices is expected to provide stronger protections for homeowners, with measures to ensure accurate appraisals and to prevent customers from being pressured into taking out loans, according to records and interviews.

ADVERTISEMENT
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the $325 million deal with Orange, Calif.-based Ameriquest would likely exceed reforms required of lender Household Finance, which settled a 50-state investigation in 2002 by changing its practices and paying $484 million. That deal set new standards for lenders in the higher-cost "sub-prime" market.


Practices targeted
The Ameriquest agreement is likely to address "alleged pressure placed on appraisers to inflate property values" so that loans could be sold to borrowers who might not be qualified, Lockyer said in a statement.

"It also would target other practices," he said, "such as agents telling customers not to worry about formal disclosure upfront about loan prices and making misleading representations about penalties for early payoff of loan balances."

Ameriquest has set aside $325 million to cover penalties and restitution to customers, but the settlement with 33 states and the District of Columbia has been delayed amid wrangling over specific terms.

The lack of an agreement has emerged as a stumbling block to the confirmation of Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall to ambassador to the Netherlands, with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying Arnall should not take the post until the case is settled.

Arnall's nomination was passed out of the committee on a disputed vote last week after its chair, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ruled that absent Democrats could not cast votes by proxy, as is usually allowed. A vote by the full Senate has not been scheduled.

Arnall told the committee that he expected the matter to be resolved by the end of the year. In an Oct. 31 letter to Lugar, Arnall disclosed that he had resigned from "all officer and director positions" he held with Ameriquest and that the company was now being run by its senior management team. Dawn Arnall, the founder's wife and previously co-chairman, now heads the board, a company spokesman said.

One sticking point to reaching a deal has been Ameriquest's efforts to avoid having an independent monitor check its compliance, according to one state official involved in the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Household agreed to have such a monitor for five years.

Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller, whose office spearheaded the states' efforts, said the issue of an independent monitor was under discussion but wouldn't elaborate.

Ameriquest spokesman Christopher Orlando declined to comment on the negotiations.


Bait and switch?
Ameriquest Mortgage, a unit of Arnall's privately held Ameriquest Capital, makes higher-cost sub-prime loans for borrowers with credit problems, lack of steady income or other issues that prevent them from getting lower cost prime loans.

Among other things, the company has been accused of bait-and-switch tactics that inflate costs to borrowers a complaint leveled at other sub-prime lenders in recent years.

In 2002, sub-prime specialist Household International, the parent of Household Finance and Beneficial Finance that is now part of giant London bank HSBC Holdings, agreed to a series of reforms that New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has called "the current standard for the sub-prime lending industry."

Because the issues raised with Ameriquest go well beyond those with Household, its changes are expected to be more sweeping, Miller said.


The details
In written material for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Arnall provided the most detailed accounting yet of the allegations of improper lending practices he said were under review by the states:

Pressuring appraisers to inflate property values.
Charging upfront fees known as discount points without a corresponding decrease in the interest rate.
Telling borrowers at the time of the application to ignore the company's written information regarding the interest rate and dollar value of points because these would be lower for the actual loan.
Assuring borrowers their loans would have no prepayment penalty, then inserting one in the final loan.
Making "stated income" loans loans in which borrowers don't prove their income with documents based on information that was "unreasonable on its face."
Refusing to lend on Indian reservations because of laws preventing foreclosures.
Extended delays in time between loan close and funding.
Misrepresenting fees and costs.

Nov. 8, 2005, 12:36AM

More reform in Ameriquest case
Settlement over sub-prime loan practices to change landscape
By E. SCOTT RECKARD
Los Angeles Times

Ameriquest Capital Corp.'s pending settlement with a large coalition of states over its mortgage lending practices is expected to provide stronger protections for homeowners, with measures to ensure accurate appraisals and to prevent customers from being pressured into taking out loans, according to records and interviews.

ADVERTISEMENT
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the $325 million deal with Orange, Calif.-based Ameriquest would likely exceed reforms required of lender Household Finance, which settled a 50-state investigation in 2002 by changing its practices and paying $484 million. That deal set new standards for lenders in the higher-cost "sub-prime" market.


Practices targeted
The Ameriquest agreement is likely to address "alleged pressure placed on appraisers to inflate property values" so that loans could be sold to borrowers who might not be qualified, Lockyer said in a statement.

"It also would target other practices," he said, "such as agents telling customers not to worry about formal disclosure upfront about loan prices and making misleading representations about penalties for early payoff of loan balances."

Ameriquest has set aside $325 million to cover penalties and restitution to customers, but the settlement with 33 states and the District of Columbia has been delayed amid wrangling over specific terms.

The lack of an agreement has emerged as a stumbling block to the confirmation of Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall to ambassador to the Netherlands, with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying Arnall should not take the post until the case is settled.

Arnall's nomination was passed out of the committee on a disputed vote last week after its chair, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ruled that absent Democrats could not cast votes by proxy, as is usually allowed. A vote by the full Senate has not been scheduled.

Arnall told the committee that he expected the matter to be resolved by the end of the year. In an Oct. 31 letter to Lugar, Arnall disclosed that he had resigned from "all officer and director positions" he held with Ameriquest and that the company was now being run by its senior management team. Dawn Arnall, the founder's wife and previously co-chairman, now heads the board, a company spokesman said.

One sticking point to reaching a deal has been Ameriquest's efforts to avoid having an independent monitor check its compliance, according to one state official involved in the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Household agreed to have such a monitor for five years.

Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller, whose office spearheaded the states' efforts, said the issue of an independent monitor was under discussion but wouldn't elaborate.

Ameriquest spokesman Christopher Orlando declined to comment on the negotiations.


Bait and switch?
Ameriquest Mortgage, a unit of Arnall's privately held Ameriquest Capital, makes higher-cost sub-prime loans for borrowers with credit problems, lack of steady income or other issues that prevent them from getting lower cost prime loans.

Among other things, the company has been accused of bait-and-switch tactics that inflate costs to borrowers a complaint leveled at other sub-prime lenders in recent years.

In 2002, sub-prime specialist Household International, the parent of Household Finance and Beneficial Finance that is now part of giant London bank HSBC Holdings, agreed to a series of reforms that New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has called "the current standard for the sub-prime lending industry."

Because the issues raised with Ameriquest go well beyond those with Household, its changes are expected to be more sweeping, Miller said.


The details
In written material for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Arnall provided the most detailed accounting yet of the allegations of improper lending practices he said were under review by the states:

Pressuring appraisers to inflate property values.
Charging upfront fees known as discount points without a corresponding decrease in the interest rate.
Telling borrowers at the time of the application to ignore the company's written information regarding the interest rate and dollar value of points because these would be lower for the actual loan.
Assuring borrowers their loans would have no prepayment penalty, then inserting one in the final loan.
Making "stated income" loans loans in which borrowers don't prove their income with documents based on information that was "unreasonable on its face."
Refusing to lend on Indian reservations because of laws preventing foreclosures.
Extended delays in time between loan close and funding.
Misrepresenting fees and costs.

Senator Paul Sarbanes and Senator Byron Dorgan they are working for us trying pass new bills on Predatory lending and Mortgage servicing fraud.

They also have the Roland Arnall/ameriquest vote coming up soon for ambassador to the neverlands lol.

(The justice department is doing an investigation on Roland Arnall and Ameriquest)

Therefore,To let me know about an invitation, constituents with time sensitive issues, or invitations should fax a letter to my Washington, D.C. office at (202)224-1651, or my Baltimore office at (410)962-4156.

With best regards,
Senator Paul S. Sarbanes

Washington, DC
U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-2551
Fax: 202-224-1193

senator@dorgan.senate.gov

>>>~~~~~>Let them HEAR US

Lugar's New Math: 9 to 9 = 8 to 2


By Al Kamen

Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A21

Feeling low because you've missed out on all the good ambassadorships? Cheer up! One exceptionally fine one, the Netherlands, which appeared filled just might be opening up again.

Seems a most unusual snag has developed in the bid of Los Angeles multibillionaire and Ameriquest Mortgage Co. chairman and founder Roland E. Arnall , a longtime major Democratic contributor until recently, to that most excellent posting in the land of tulips and wooden shoes.

Nominee Roland E. Arnall got a vote, but Democrats dispute it. (Dennis Cook - AP)
Arnall and his wife, Dawn Arnall ,were reportedly the single biggest source of financial support for President Bush since 2002, giving or raising at least $12.25 million. More than enough to erase all contributions to Democrats.

But there were other concerns. Arnall's company is the largest mortgage lender to lower-income people and those with iffy credit ratings. Regulators in 30 states have raised concerns about shoddy lending practices, alleged fraud, falsification of documents and bait-and-switch tactics.

Arnall has set aside $325 million to settle the claims. The eight Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats had said they would nonetheless vote against Arnall, though they think he's a good nominee, because the legal cloud over him had not been resolved -- and some states wanted a commitment to change sales practices as part of a deal.

Then Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he, too, still had problems and wanted to think about it, maybe talk it over with Arnall.

"I do think it's important who represents this country abroad," Hagel said at the hearing. "I do think we should send people who are not under a cloud of investigation. Mr. Arnall, fairly or unfairly, finds himself in that position."

Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) nonetheless pushed for a vote. Hagel came down against Arnall, deadlocking the committee 9 to 9.

Some thought the tie, as would usually be the case, blocked the nomination from going the floor for a vote. Not so.

Lugar read the Senate rules to say the tally that counted was of the 10 senators present and they voted 8 to 2 for Arnall. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) protested that the proxies had to be included, but the nomination went to the Senate floor -- at least for now.

Democrats say if the nomination is brought up for a vote, they will challenge Lugar's interpretation of the rules. They say the Senate parliamentarian has indicated the Dems would prevail.

This may yet be worked out -- but keep those r?sum?s at the ready.

Page 2 of 2


A Retreat to Summit Up

----------------------

Bush is to stop in Brazil this weekend after his visit to Argentina for the Summit of the Americas. He's not going to Rio like so many of those congressional delegations. Instead, he's stopping at a presidential retreat outside Brasilia called "Granja do Torto," which is just a name but, if translated very literally, could be taken to mean "Farm of the Crooked or Twisted."

Bush is there to chat about trade and such with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva , whose poll numbers have been tanking of late over a political corruption scandal. Lula's chief of staff, Jose Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva , resigned recently amid allegations that he knew of and encouraged a multimillion-dollar scheme to buy votes in Congress.



Nominee Roland E. Arnall got a vote, but Democrats dispute it. (Dennis Cook - AP)
Lots of notes to compare?

Helms Aide Finds Work
____________________________

Hi Ameriquest!!!! lolllll

Ambassador-Designate Arnall
Statement by Roland Arnall
Ambassador-designate to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
October 20, 2005

Thank you for your kind introduction.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this committee;
I am honored to appear before you today as President Bush's nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I am truly humbled by the trust and confidence the President and Secretary Rice have placed in my ability to serve the United States. It would be a privilege for me to represent our country in the Netherlands, a country with which the United States shares one of our longest continuous diplomatic partnerships.

Please allow me to introduce my wife Dawn. Dawn is not only a wonderful wife, but she is also a talented and capable partner. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, Dawn will be a gracious and dignified representative of our country to the people of the Netherlands.

I would be happy to answer any questions the Senators might have, but first I would like to talk briefly about my background, my beliefs, and the way I will approach this position.

Mr. Chairman, I bring to this post a lifetime of experience building and leading successful enterprises as well as a long history of working with many civic and philanthropic organizations.

I was born in German-occupied France during World War II. My father was a tailor and my mother a nurse. I know firsthand the precious gift of freedom. I lived in Canada as a youth and have traveled around the world over the years. Our family moved to California in the 1950s. I am American by choice; this is my country. The United States of America has been extraordinarily good to me, as it has to millions of other immigrants. And I view this as a unique and humbling opportunity to give back to this great nation.

I believe deeply in American values and in our country's democratic traditions. I also believe that as timeless as these traditions are, we must continually advocate for them, for the ideals of freedom and democracy . Our embassies play a vital role in this effort. If confirmed, I will work closely with the State Department and Embassy officials to promote American principles and policies abroad. Working together, we will continue to pursue public diplomacy and to build trust with the people of the Netherlands.

I bring to this post an unwavering commitment to excellence. I have always been driven by a belief that excellence is achieved through strong and capable leadership. I have made do the right thing my motto, and this will be my guide to running the embassy, and working closely and cooperatively with the Dutch government and people. If confirmed, I will bring these principles and talents to bear as the voice and face of the United States in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands is a country of sixteen million people. It is the third largest investor in the United States, and is our eighth largest trading partner. Trade between our two countries is already a success story, and I intend to focus on continued trade expansion as an area that can bring significant benefits to both countries.

Mr. Chairman, if given the opportunity to serve as Ambassador to the Netherlands, I will use every tool at my disposal to promote individual freedom, justice and human rights. I will work to foster an open and transparent international marketplace and to build on our strong transatlantic relationship. And I will work with the Dutch government to curtail the drug trade and to combat human trafficking.

The Dutch have been great allies in the Global War on Terror. If confirmed, I will continue our work with them to promote cooperation on counterterrorism and to improve security for the United States and for our allies and partners. I will also do everything possible to support and protect Americans living, working and traveling in the Netherlands.

The Dutch were remarkably generous in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In addition to private donations, the Netherlands government dispatched a naval ship to join the assistance efforts and sent high-capacity water pumps. With their unrivalled understanding of levees, Dutch technical experts also provided invaluable advice to the Army Corps of Engineers. This generosity and spirit of friendship reflects the type of relationship I will continue to foster between our two nations in the years to come.

Let me say again that it is an honor to be before you today. If I am fortunate enough to earn your support, I will serve our country with distinction to the best of my abilities.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.



Roland Arnall Hearing

________________________

I would like to see the questions or lol the answers

Thats screwed up!

Wow,

This was a interesting story to follow and found it also entertaining. I also know of employee's (branch managers, loan officers, processors etc...) that have worked or are still working for Ameriquest. I am out in Sacramento and towards the end of August we started to get a high number of loan officers applying with our company. So I called a few of my friends to find out what was going on in the branchs, well it turns out many branchs were undergoing Audits and Failing BIG TIME! Many branchs were fired, I mean the WHOLE TEAM, many talked about drugs being done during work hour. Fraud well if you werent doing it then something was wrong with you. I heard these guys were making upto 500k a year and this was done exactly like the first guy said. I called on borrowers with current mortgages with Ameriquest were the borrowers were upside down in their loan because the value was overstated by ALOT! They were now stuck with high interest rates and no way around it. I also heard that several of the loan officers had access to actually change appraisals before they went for review. Hmm thank you guys for this additional information it makes my job so much easier to take business away from Ameriquest. If you have left then I applaud you if you are still there and the only way you could sell is by fraud then as they continue to clean up some of their branchs and change some of their work ethics you probably will not last much longer. Its funny because we used to tell people wanting to be in the mortgage business and did not know how to sell that the best place to work and make alot of money and the desire to cheat the public was to apply at Ameriquest.

Lugar's New Math: 9 to 9 = 8 to 2

By Al Kamen

Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A21

Feeling low because you've missed out on all the good ambassadorships? Cheer up! One exceptionally fine one, the Netherlands, which appeared filled just might be opening up again.

Seems a most unusual snag has developed in the bid of Los Angeles multibillionaire and Ameriquest Mortgage Co. chairman and founder Roland E. Arnall , a longtime major Democratic contributor until recently, to that most excellent posting in the land of tulips and wooden shoes.



Nominee Roland E. Arnall got a vote, but Democrats dispute it. (Dennis Cook - AP)
Arnall and his wife, Dawn Arnall ,were reportedly the single biggest source of financial support for President Bush since 2002, giving or raising at least $12.25 million. More than enough to erase all contributions to Democrats.

But there were other concerns. Arnall's company is the largest mortgage lender to lower-income people and those with iffy credit ratings. Regulators in 30 states have raised concerns about shoddy lending practices, alleged fraud, falsification of documents and bait-and-switch tactics.

Arnall has set aside $325 million to settle the claims. The eight Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats had said they would nonetheless vote against Arnall, though they think he's a good nominee, because the legal cloud over him had not been resolved -- and some states wanted a commitment to change sales practices as part of a deal.

Then Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he, too, still had problems and wanted to think about it, maybe talk it over with Arnall.

"I do think it's important who represents this country abroad," Hagel said at the hearing. "I do think we should send people who are not under a cloud of investigation. Mr. Arnall, fairly or unfairly, finds himself in that position."

Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) nonetheless pushed for a vote. Hagel came down against Arnall, deadlocking the committee 9 to 9.

Some thought the tie, as would usually be the case, blocked the nomination from going the floor for a vote. Not so.

Lugar read the Senate rules to say the tally that counted was of the 10 senators present and they voted 8 to 2 for Arnall. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) protested that the proxies had to be included, but the nomination went to the Senate floor -- at least for now.

Democrats say if the nomination is brought up for a vote, they will challenge Lugar's interpretation of the rules. They say the Senate parliamentarian has indicated the Dems would prevail.

This may yet be worked out -- but keep those r?sum?s at the ready.

Page 2 of 2

Lugar's New Math: 9 to 9 = 8 to 2
A Retreat to Summit Up



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bush is to stop in Brazil this weekend after his visit to Argentina for the Summit of the Americas. He's not going to Rio like so many of those congressional delegations. Instead, he's stopping at a presidential retreat outside Brasilia called "Granja do Torto," which is just a name but, if translated very literally, could be taken to mean "Farm of the Crooked or Twisted."

Bush is there to chat about trade and such with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva , whose poll numbers have been tanking of late over a political corruption scandal. Lula's chief of staff, Jose Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva , resigned recently amid allegations that he knew of and encouraged a multimillion-dollar scheme to buy votes in Congress.



Nominee Roland E. Arnall got a vote, but Democrats dispute it. (Dennis Cook - AP)
Lots of notes to compare?

:o)

O - Yesterday at 11:32 AM

-------------------------------

October 26, 2005 latimes.com : Business E-mail

Senators Delay Vote on Loan Executive
By Jonathan Peterson, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON Senate Democrats held up a key vote Tuesday on the confirmation of Ameriquest Chairman Roland E. Arnall for ambassador to the Netherlands, saying he should first resolve a 30-state investigation into his mortgage company's lending practices.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reluctantly agreed to stop the panel's vote on Arnall just moments before it approved a handful of other ambassador nominees without dissent.

Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) pushed for the delay, noting that Orange-based Ameriquest Capital Corp. is being scrutinized for "predatory lending" practices, and that the panel has in the past delayed acting on nominees with outstanding legal issues.

"I want to express my concern that this matter finds itself on the agenda," Sarbanes said. "I think this is a very bad development."

Lugar followed the committee's tradition and accepted the Democrats' request to hold off voting on Arnall, but added: "At some point we'll have to make a decision."

"We're taking time out. We're going to see if in fact there is some resolution. If not, the nomination will recur," he said.

Lugar did not set a date for reconsidering the nomination.

Arnall, 66, declined to comment. In a rare public appearance before the Senate committee last week, the Los Angeles billionaire acknowledged that Ameriquest employees had made mistakes but said that the problems had been corrected.

Ameriquest is the nation's largest lender to higher-risk borrowers who don't qualify for traditional mortgage loans. The company has been accused of gouging its customers with bait-and-switch tactics that leave them with hidden fees and unexpectedly high interest rates.

This summer, Ameriquest set aside $325 million toward a settlement with attorneys general and regulators from 30 states, but an agreement has yet to be reached.

"The precise timetable is difficult to predict, but we anticipate a final resolution by the end of this year," Arnall recently wrote to the Senate committee.

The White House and State Department have stood behind Arnall, who was once identified with Democratic political fundraising but in recent years emerged as a leading financier of Republicans including President Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

A State Department official last week urged Lugar to move toward confirmation.

Bush nominated Arnall "after a careful and exhaustive search for a distinguished American" to represent this country in the Netherlands, Matthew A. Reynolds, the State Department's acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in a letter to Lugar.

The Netherlands, Reynolds added, is playing a significant military role in Afghanistan, and leaving the ambassador post vacant "runs counter to our interests."

Groups including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have endorsed the nomination of Arnall, who is known for his philanthropic contributions. But others have called for holding up any action until the 30-state inquiry is settled.

"The delay in the confirmation in the long run will help Roland Arnall's reputation, since he will have an opportunity to correct the harms of the past," said Robert L. Gnaizda, policy director of San Francisco-based Greenlining Institute, an association of community and religious groups concerned with fair-lending issues.

Sarbanes and other Democrats suggested Tuesday that they weren't dead set against Arnall, but rather wanted to make sure his firm had cleaned up the outstanding issues before they granted him confirmation.

"Why can't we defer this until Mr. Arnall has actually been able to deal with these allegations?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the foreign relations committee's senior Democrat, asked Tuesday.

Arnall, who said he would step down as Ameriquest chairman if confirmed, told the panel last week that his company's management team should be allowed to conclude the talks without him because that team would have responsibility for implementing the settlement.

But Biden did not buy it, noting that as ambassador Arnall would retain a personal financial interest in Ameriquest, even if he no longer played a role in running the company.

Sarbanes expressed concern about Lugar's initial decision to move forward with a vote on recommending Arnall for full consideration by the Senate.

"All of this is what we call predatory lending," he said, describing some of the accusations raised against Ameriquest. "Preying on the lack of knowledge and inexperience of borrowers who are often on the low end of the scale."

Sarbanes noted there was precedent for delaying the action. Richard C. Holbrooke's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1990s was delayed until he paid a fine and apologized over conflict-of-interest charges.

Once the Ameriquest legal issues are resolved, Sarbanes said, "Mr. Arnall can go off to be ambassador to the Netherlands with the sense that justice has been served."

*
----------------------

Times staff writer E. Scott Reckard in Orange County contributed to this report.


-----------------------------

Write to Sarbanes........tell him this "distinguished American" is a figment of Bush's twisted sense of Reality.

Yes Mr. Arnall is a big, big contributor to Republican canidates.....but this does not render him in any way an ethical human being.


O - Yesterday at 06:33 PM

----------------------
"The precise timetable is difficult to predict, but we anticipate a final resolution by the end of this year," Arnall recently wrote to the Senate committee.

Lies Lies and more Lies

------------------------------

I would like to see a copy of the letter that Rollie sent to the commitee.
-------------------------------


Stephen Yesterday at 08:38 PM

------------------------------

Hopefully the FTC indictments will be handed down by then.


Dee Yesterday at 11:35 PM

------------------------------

Bush nominated Arnall "after a careful and exhaustive search for a distinguished American" to represent this country in the Netherlands, Matthew A. Reynolds, the State Department's acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in a letter to Lugar.

************************************

Write Sarbanes as he is the chair for senate banking committee.

LOL what a crock, Mr. Reynolds.

Our president seems to want to pay back those high campaign contributors.

Once again, it is apparently not much of a problem to commit fraud against borrowers and still garner white house support for what? Ambassador to the Netherlands...pfffff



Dee


Alvin Today at 09:06 AM

----------------------------
Sarbanes is not the Chairman of the Banking Committee. He is the ranking member, which basically means he is the senior Democrat.

Richard Shelby, R-AL, is the Chairman of the Seante Banking Committee. To date, he has prived completely apathetic about predatory lending.



Me 2 Today at 09:27 AM

-----------------------


HOME Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

Dutch Say Bush Blundered' With New U.S. Ambassador

The company he founded is under investigation by the Justice Department, and the Senate seems unlikely to confirm his as America's Ambassador to The Netherlands. So why did George W. Bush appoint Ameriquest founder Roland Arnall? According to Dutch newspaper NRC Habdelsblad, the President should have seen the writing on the wall.'


=================
EDITORIAL

Translated By Jan de Nijs

October 25, 2005

NRC Handelsblad - The Netherlands - Home Page (Dutch)


Roland Arnall: Persona non Grata?

It was a bad idea for President George W. Bush to appoint entrepreneur, millionaire and Republican fund raiser Roland Arnall to the post of Ambassador to the Netherlands. Arnall comes with significant baggage. His formal appointment has been held up since July because of a U.S. Justice Department probe into mortgage insurance company he founded, Ameriquest.


Ameriquest is under investigation for alleged fraudulent activities during the sale of mortgage insurance policies. It is expected that the U.S. Senate will block confirmation because the candidate for the ambassadorship has not properly resolved his legal issues with the Justice Department. Late last week, he had to answer some very pointed questions from Senators regarding his business dealings. It is one thing that Ameriquest is not highly regarded in the U.S. But what is really held against the candidate is the fact that many of Ameriquest's customers, victimized by the company's fraudulent practices, are now being stonewalled while trying to get their share of the multi-million dollar settlement (apparently agreed upon by both parties). This remains a major blemish on Arnall's record. It also causes the post of Ambassador to The Netherlands to remain unfilled.

Primarily, the blame for this latest blunder lies with Bush himself. There is nothing against awarding a major appointment to a significant election campaign contributor. It may be better that a friend of the president (who has a track record of putting his money where his mouth is) may have far better access to the President and his inner circle than a career diplomat that has a minimal relations with the President and may belong to the other party. Many Ambassadors to The Netherlands have gotten their assignment due of the fact that they were significant campaign contributors.

However, this type of appointment can by very risky politically, as the Arnall case proves. The issue surrounding the company he no longer leads - but still owns - came up immediately after Bush proposed his name. The president should have seen this coming: a long, slow-moving investigation, sharp criticism during Senate hearings, and disruption of the appointment process, leaving the Arnall appointment in permanent limbo.

In light of all this, is it at all possible for him to be appointed to the single highest U.S. diplomatic post in The Netherlands? That would be anybody's guess. What would have happened if Arnall was proposed for the top job in London, Berlin or Moscow? It is highly likely that another candidate would have been quickly found. Bush should have waited to announce Arnall until the Ameriquest issue was resolved. By then, The Netherlands would have gotten another Ambassador and Arnall, when his name was finally cleared, could have started somewhere else with a clean slate.

It was the right move for our Foreign Affairs minister Ben Bot to push his American counterpart Condoleezza Rice for a speedy resolution of the issue. It is in the best interests of both parties that this long-vacant and key position gets filled soon. But it would have been better if the Dutch government had objected earlier to the appointment. When Bush nominated Arnall, we should have objected immediately through political and diplomatic channels. The writing of this disastrous flap was on the wall. It is now clear that our agreement on this appointment was painfully premature.

Dutch Version Below

Wachten op Arnall


Stephen Today at 09:36 AM

-------------------------

It would be an insult to the people of the Netherlands to appoint a person who subverts the American way for personal gain.


Enron Ameriquest Today at 11:54 AM

----------------------------

Ameriquest Enron Ameriquest Enron

it smells like ameriquest

Enron currently faces investigations by the SEC, the Justice Department, the Labor Department and the FBI. Congressional hearings have been held. >>~~>Class-action lawsuits have been filed by thousands of shareholders who lost$$$ millions during the Enron implosion. Enron's auditor, Arthur Anderson, faces allegations that the accounting firm covered up corruption at Enron. On January 15, 2002, Arthur Anderson's lead partner on the Enron account was fired. Both companies have recently been accused of shredding incriminating do

History tells us to stay within our limits. No matter how great a society, or in this case, a corporation, there are limits to growth and expansion. The Roman Empire discovered this thousands of years ago. And, no matter what Hollywood tells us, greed is not good. In this case, greed destroyed the lives of hundreds of innocent employees and investors who trusted the leadership of Enron. The revamping of accounting principles and retirement plan regulations may be the only bright spots to emerge from the Enron scandal. Henry Ford once wrote, "Money doesn't change men,
it merely unmasks them. If a man is naturally selfish or arrogant or greedy, the money brings that out, that's all." Well, Mr. Ford, you're absolutely right.cuments.

Dee Today at 01:12 PM

------------------------

Sorry if my info was wrong, I took it from this paragraph from his web site.

In response to the failure of Enron Corporation in 2001, which, at the time, was the 7th largest corporation in the United States, Sarbanes, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, held a series of comprehensive hearings resulting in the passage of a bi-partisan bill designed to reform the accounting industry and restore the investor confidence that had been eroded following the collapse of Enron.


Alvin Today at 02:03 PM

---------------------------
Dee,

Sarbanes became Chairman briefly a couple of years ago, when the Democrats got control of the Senate via the defection of Jim Jeffords from a Republican to an Independent.

But...when the Dems lost seats in the last election...he lost the chairmanship.

The info on his web site is old.

Stephen Today at 02:05 PM

-----------------------

The CFO usually reports to the CEO. The CFO hires the audit firm. See any conflict of interest here? In my career in corporate finance, it was standard policy that you give the CFO the numbers he/she wants and so does the auditor. If not, you look for another job.

Chris,

I'll say it again. I admire you for sticking up for your wife. If I was married I would do the same.

By the way, I'm not Gerson, but you tell a really interesting story. He was demoted? That's classic.

It's been fun people. See you in the funny papers.

Perhaps you have forgotten all the times you called begging for my referrals.

Perhaps you forgot that you offered to pay me for those referrals, i do hope you realize you were violating the law with your offers, and even offered to take me fishing so that you could monopolize those referrals - as you know I declined any financial or compensatory arrangement because that violates the law

Its funny that you revived your career through the efforts of my marketing and she was demoted for the very same referrals that were deemed acceptable by her superiors - Frank approved of them!, even asked for more!

Maybe you have known him since the fourth grade; its really in material what you think of Frank in my opinion. I don't care about Frank. I don't have a vendetta against Frank, you or anyone else from Ameriquest and neither does my wife

What I don't tolerate though are those that are misinformed but choose to hearken to the
rumor mill which I can only imagine you know holds reality at bay

I dont recall ever having had to come and pick her up from work because she was as you put it having a "psychotic moment" or something to the above mentioned instances!

Nor do I recall any of her emplopyees mentioning that they were threatened to the point of calling 911

Were you that scared of the person you described in your previous response or is this a venting tool you use to save the "good" character of your old school chum?

Your school chum, did in fact, instruct her to display certain behavior; to scare employees into producing more loans. Were you not invited to that training session when you were a manager?

In fact, Frank demonstrated his art of motivation by breaking her phone and rolodex, on top of screaming at her and calling her profane names and belittling her in front of her employees.

Perhaps you and the other Branch Managers were spared his malicious attacks - because you were males and were familiar with his actions.

Either way, Frank learned the art of intimidation, I mean motivation, from Mariano. And passed his gifts of intimidation onto the simple minded male branch managers that found humor in belittling people and destroying company property.

And you come to the defense of the same guy that ,if i remember this correctly, demoted you? And sent you to work for my wife.

Or are these responses a result of some weird loyalty you feel towards him because you shared juices boxes back in grade school?

However, there is the matter of you mentioning what she has done since she left Monterey Park. This is most troubling to me because you are even more misinformed and unguided in your remarks.

She left MP, went to the LBC and was railroaded by those scum bags in HR, Alicia Steele, Lachelle Buford, and Ginger Crawford. I'm sure that members of upper management were in on the activity. In fact I would be willing to bet they drove the machinery that attempted to eliminate her from the company through constructive discharge and retaliation

Anyway, I have neither the time nor the desire to continue responding to your attempts to sound cordigal and respectful

Like i told the other guy, John in Miami, if you like we can discuss this man to man. I don't hide behind fake names or swiss cheese stories

Furthermore, if you have something you need to get off your chest, some gripe with her, be a man, pick up a phone and call.

Better yet my toll free number is the same one you used to call me on. Pick up the phone, dial my number, and we can discuss this problem you seem to have.

Sincerely,

Rosa,

First off, pick a language. I understand Spanish. It's OK if you feel more comfortable in your native tongue. Tu me puedes hablar en cualquier idioma. But, for the benefit of those that don't speak Spanish, yo voy a proceder en Ingles.

You're right, my name is not Sammy. But, I did work in MP. Maybe my name is Terry. Or maybe I'm Gerson. Wait a minute, maybe I'm Raul or Tamer. Maybe I'm Eric Chan. The point is, I worked there, but maybe I don't want to tell you who I am because I'm not an Ex-Employee. Perhaps I don't want to give myself away. Perhaps I would rather continue helping people currently involved in legal proceedings against Ameriquest by staying employed and keeping my ear to the ground, then passing on whatever tidbits I can. Who knows?

Now, I noticed that you didn't really read my post to Chris. I never said that Jen was not a nice person. In fact, I said the exact opposite. She's a nice girl. I know that she did nice things for people, me included. I thought she was a perfectly nice Mormon girl. I'm sure that you're correct that she did things for others without people knowing. Sounds like something she would do. I also didn't say that anyone had actually called 911. What I said was that there were some that felt it might have been the right thing to do. She did act irrational at times, and you know that. And by the way, Frank did some incredible things for others in the branch as well. Being his home office it was difficult for him to not see things that may have been going on and want to fix them. That's how Frank is. Frank was a great guy. Remember when he bleached his hair? That was funny.

Anyway, the point is that Jen did have some really good qualities, but what she's done since leaving the company wipes them away. At least that's what this former MP employee thinks.

you don't even know jen I worked in Monterey park since Omar was the manager and still after jennifer replaced him and still with her i was there after she went to long beach. she never hurt anyone or herself. la huera is not disturbed. she is the best manager i ever had, and very kind worked so hard with us all and tried to do the right thing

no one ever called the cops. 911 that only happened on saturday when a AEs kids came to work and played with the phone. sam you didn't work in mp a pendejo like you couldn't have.
don't talk s**t about someone you don't know. jen was always doing nice stuff that no one really saw, she paid for campa's car repair bills so he could come to work....and she had only been the padrona for a few weeks she let campa work forever even though he only took apps and didn't know how to use a calculator. a processors aunt died and the family could not afford to bury her...no one knew except the other processors....jen paid for it with out even being asked. she cared about everyone and tried to help everyone. your not sammy and you never worked in mp.

you don't even know jen I worked in Monterey park since Omar was the manager and still after jennifer replaced him and still with her i was there after she went to long beach. she never hurt anyone or herself. la huera is not disturbed. she is the best manager i ever had, and very kind worked so hard with us all and tried to do the right thing

no one ever called the cops. 911 that only happened on saturday when a AEs kids came to work and played with the phone. sam you didn't work in mp a pendejo like you couldn't have.
don't talk s**t about someone you don't know. jen was always doing nice stuff that no one really saw, she paid for campa's car repair bills so he could come to work....and she had only been the padrona for a few weeks she let campa work forever even though he only took apps and didn't know how to use a calculator. a processors aunt died and the family could not afford to bury her...no one knew except the other processors....jen paid for it with out even being asked. she cared about everyone and tried to help everyone. your not sammy and you never worked in mp.

you don't even know jen I worked in Monterey park since Omar was the manager and still after jennifer replaced him and still with her i was there after she went to long beach. she never hurt anyone or herself. la huera is not disturbed. she is the best manager i ever had, and very kind worked so hard with us all and tried to do the right thing

no one ever called the cops. 911 that only happened on saturday when a AEs kids came to work and played with the phone. sam you didn't work in mp a pendejo like you couldn't have.
don't talk s**t about someone you don't know. jen was always doing nice stuff that no one really saw, she paid for campa's car repair bills so he could come to work....and she had only been the padrona for a few weeks she let campa work forever even though he only took apps and didn't know how to use a calculator. a processors aunt died and the family could not afford to bury her...no one knew except the other processors....jen paid for it with out even being asked. she cared about everyone and tried to help everyone. your not sammy and you never worked in mp.

you don't even know jen I worked in Monterey park since Omar was the manager and still after jennifer replaced him and still with her i was there after she went to long beach. she never hurt anyone or herself. la huera is not disturbed. she is the best manager i ever had, and very kind worked so hard with us all and tried to do the right thing

no one ever called the cops. 911 that only happened on saturday when a AEs kids came to work and played with the phone. sam you didn't work in mp a pendejo like you couldn't have.
don't talk s**t about someone you don't know. jen was always doing nice stuff that no one really saw, she paid for campa's car repair bills so he could come to work....and she had only been the padrona for a few weeks she let campa work forever even though he only took apps and didn't know how to use a calculator. a processors aunt died and the family could not afford to bury her...no one knew except the other processors....jen paid for it with out even being asked. she cared about everyone and tried to help everyone. your not sammy and you never worked in mp.

I think that this report about Ameriquest is by far the most entertaining one on Ripoffreport.com. It is better than any soap opera or reality show.

Where else can you read about managers having sex with janitors?

Special thanks go out to Ameriquest for hiring sociopaths so Ripoffreport.com fans can read about them everyday - Bravo!

Chris, your wife is certainly not the w***e that she's made out to be in this post. To say so is simply wrong. She's a nice girl, and I never saw her act inappropriate (at least sexually) with any of her male or female employees. It's a shame that you had to read that, and I admire you for getting enraged about it.

But, in all fairness, she's as crazy as a sh-t house rat, and you know it. She did commit fraud while at Ameriquest, and you know that too. She acted irrationally at work to the point where people were close to calling 911 because they were afraid of her hurting herself or others. And don't deny it, because you came to get her on a number of occasions.

A w***e? No way. Deeply troubled? Yes. Blaming the company and Frank for issues she created herself? Absolutely.

But again, I do admire you for sticking up for her.

From: Florida :o) U.S.A.

To: Eric or Former or anyone..

on my AMC billing statement, what does it mean if there is a -100 under the blue line that says Activity since your last statement, its under Principal?

on the line on the left it says adjustment

___________________________________________
Activity since your last stat
____________________________________________

date - description - amount - Principal - intress

7-20 adjustment -100

I hope you can understand what im asking?

Also Why is mary jo and what is her title? does she work out of ca?

Thanks

Eric,
thanks for your response. Mariano New VP of sales, huh? So is Mary Jo just the AMC Mascot now or what? jk
I appreciate your help.

Mariano is now the VP of Sales for the entire company. Frank Cortinas is on his way out soon because Mariano decided to shoot him in the back and not promote him as had been virtually promised by Mary Jo and Mariano. As for funding, I would be lying if I said I knew anyone in area 4 who had been giving gifts. I did hear that Frank was giving lucrative gifts to funders but is is nothing I ever saw in front of me. All of Mariano's previous region was notorious for sending checks to funders monthly and he told his people to be sure to send flowers and gifts in order to keep good relationships with your funders. Mariano is a crook, he shot frank and others in the back, and now is responsible for sales all across the country. Its a shame too, Mariano is a decent guy around his family and outside the office, I just wish he would admit his wrong doings and manipulation, at least then he would have a shot at earning someones respect and not having to buy it.

DEAR JOHN,

THIS IS JENNIFER'S HUSBAND.

YOUR ALLEDGED ACCUSATIONS ARE COMPLETELY BASELESS AND ABSURD.

SHE WOULDN'T WASTE HER TIME SLEEPING WITH A KOOK LIKE YOU NOR JEPORADIZE HER ONCE PROMISING CAREER.

ALSO, JOHN, IF YOUR SUCH A BIG MAN WHY DON'T YOU IDETIFY YOURSELF. MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN.

I'D HATE TO THINK THAT YOUR LIFE IS DEVOID OF ANYTHING WORTHWHILE BESIDES DEFAMING THE CHARACTER OF GOOD PEOPLE YOU ALLEDGEDLY WORKED FOR AT ONE TIME.

ARE YOU FRANK'S TOOL? DO YOU STAND IN FOR LESLIE WHEN SHE IS OUT OF TOWN?

YOU MADE A MISTAKE WITH YOUR POSTING.

A BIG MISTAKE!

MY ADVICE TO YOU JOHNNY BOY IS TO KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT OR IT WILL BE KEPT SHUT FOR YOU.

YOU KNOW WHERE I'M AT IN CALIFORNIA JOHN IF YOU WANT TO SETTLE THIS LIKE A MAN

CHRIS VARGO

JENNIFER PERRON WORKED IN AREA 4 ALSO AND I HAD THE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE OF WORKING FOR HER. SHE SEXUALLY HARRASSED MOST OF HER MALE EMPLOYEES AND GAVE EXTRA LEADS TO THE ONES SHE SLEPT WITH. SHE WAS UNSTABLE WITH A BI-POLAR PERSONALITY.

ONE DAY NICE, THE NEXT DAY CRAZY. I FELT MOST SORRY FOR HER HUSBAND WHO SHE CHEATED ON MULTIPLE TIMES. I HEARD AMC FINALLY DID AWAY WITH HER. JENNIFER WAS NOT ONLY HAD A SEXUAL DISORDERS, BUT EATING AND A LIEING DISORDER TOO. SHE BLAMED ALL OF HER NUTTY BEHAIVORS ON UPPER MANAGEMENT.

AFTER YELLING AND SCREAMING AT US TO BOOK LOANS AT ANY COST, SHE WOULD RUN TO THE BATHROOM AND MAKE HERSELF THROW UP. THIS IS HOW SHE SAID SHE KEPT CONTROL OF THE SITUATION.

ALONG WITH HER EMPLOYEES, SHE HAD SEX WITH THE JANITOR AND THE COURIER. UNFORTUNATELY I WAS ONE OF HER VICTIMS. WHEN I FINALLY TOLD HER I HAD ENOUGH, SHE THREATENED TO TAKE AWAY MY LEADS. THANK GOD I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO LEAVE THIS COMPANY. IT WAS A NIGHTMARE.

I worked under Frank in LA,
I have a sitution going on w/ AMC. (I can't elaborate on it.) I worked for Amc for a long period of time.

It would really help me out if you could give me a few more details you touched on in your report. Your response would help me make tremendous progress in my "situation" with AMC

1. Mariano was promoted from regional to what, CEO? Or another position?

2. You mentioned Frank in your report, is he still at the company? What is the situation with him? Why is in line to be another Former Ameriquest employee? (I have an idea, but I just need a little bit of clarification.)

3. You mentioned payment for funding deals, did you receive $$$ from any of the branches that Frank managed in California Area 4?

4. Did you ever witness...Sosa or any other mgr or supervisor in the funding dept. receive "gifts" from Cortinas?

I hope you can help me out here.

Thanks.