Martha Coakley's Mass Division of Banks again refuses to provide Cat Gibbons with documents -- her own responses on 5 Stated Income Deals.

UPDATE: An Affidavit/Polygraph Offer + More video and lies exposed, see comment #9 for an explanation of the newly-uploaded MacBook photo booth video that points to more dishonesty and abuse of our tax dollars, as supported by Martha Coakely.

I don't think Ted Kennedy would have approved.

MCAD: They told MCAD that they were seeking only a comprise and that it was Ms. Gibbons who was insisting on a hearing. If that is the case then what were the terms of the purported compromise? If that is the case then why do I have another video in which the DOB Attorneys resolutely say they fully intend to revoke/take/steal her license? What changed in the interim? Nothing. They lied to the Superior Court as well, and the Court allowed them to violate the 10-day Good Faith estimate rule on Ms. Gibbons' Public Records Request to boot.

Superior Court: DOB Attorneys claim they were just scheduling an informal hearing to meet with Ms. Gibbons. They said that they had documents they were going to immediately produce to Ms. Gibbons, yet they did not but they instead provided them to the Hearing Examiner, who as noted below for some reason is protecting "confidentiality" of documents and who receives documents but who will not tell the DOB to produce her certified responses to the charging documents. That's odd, to put it politely.

Next, Ms. Gibbons also says she wants all six (6) of these people to sign an Affidavit in unison that what was represented to MCAD is actually true, and she then in turn will take a Polygraph test and urge them to do the same because she is sick and tired of these people lying and getting away with it. Then she will go after each and every one of them for going beyond the stated rules of the Division and acting in an Unconstitutional, ultra vires manner. I wonder if 42 U.S.C. 1985 (Conspiracy to violate Ms. Gibbons' Civil Rights) would apply if they are acting ultra vires even though it is the same corporate defendant. Perhaps this would be a terrific test case for such a legal theory.

John Prendergast, Chief Risk Officer
Cynthia Begin, Senior Deputy Commissioner
Gregory Short, Deputy Commissioner
Christopher Pope, Deputy Commissioner
Aimee Desai, Associate Counsel
Erin Berger, Chief Director

As to the video I mentioned, I don’t have that video card with me and I didn’t save it to the MacBook so y’all just have to wait until I get home tomorrow or the next day to post it. Happy New Year!!!
**************
Concerning the ongoing saga of what appears to be patent racism and discrimination by Martha Coakley’s Massachusetts Division of Banks against Cat Gibbons, one of only 3 black female mortgage brokers in Massachusetts:

Mass Division of Banks (DOB) Hearing Officer Neil Tobin actually wrote Cat Gibbons that he would not even ask for -- much less compel the Division to produce her responses to inquiry about the five (5) Stated Income Deals that purportedly provide the basis for the Cease and Desist Order, and for their Declaration at a recent hearing that they intend to fully revoke her Broker’s License.

Mr. Tobin said that he wouldn’t request the documents because he wanted to remain impartial, but that strikes me as patently bogus: Having clerked and lawyered for the AG’s Office I can tell you that Hearing Officers have broad discretion to require production of relevant documents, and if there is one relevant document in this case it surely is that response, and it must be produced in its entirety for chain-of-custody reasons to preserve the integrity of the process to the extent that they care about such matters.

Meanwhile Mr. Tobin has demonstrated that he may be less then impartial anyway by stating that certain of Ms. Gibbons’ request for information about complaints against other brokers are “irrelevant” because such a determination would limit her discovery. But you can’t limit her discovery too much because she is alleging, with substantial force, that the (in)actions of the DOB are both racially discriminatory and Arbitrary and Capricious, such that a wide latitude of Discovery is mandatory on those issues.

Note that Mr. Tobin, in responding to Ms. Gibbons’ request, did however state that these Stated Deals were indeed the reason for the Cease and Desist, and that contradicts what Martha Coakley’s DOB lawyers told the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, whoops. That renders their Position Statement in Ms. Gibbons’ case as suspect as the extra purported legitimate nondiscriminatory rationales are not worthy of credence.

And we know that the main rationale is not worthy of credence either for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the FACT that Ms. Gibbons/Miracle Mortgage Stated Income Deals:

a) did not place anyone in harm’s way
b) were conducted prior to the 2006 DOB revision in guidelines.

Lastly the Division keeps claiming that they don’t have any racial data as requested by Ms. Gibbons, but that’s not likely because brokers and buyers have to submit that information, it’s all part of the CRA and other related legislation designed to eliminate the pernicious effects of discrimination. Ms. Gibbons and I are presenting these facts to local learned counsel and the MCAD is in for a real smack down, they have painted themselves into a corner on this one. I’ve got my popcorn ready and will place a call to AG Martha Coakley’s office today for comment, just as I filed this report with her on the CORI violation in the Boston Herald - Jessica Van Sack – Joanna Marinova – Darrell Jones Defamation issue.

Coakley_Mass_Division_of_Banks_reviewed_for_racism_by_ACLU,_MCAD_