Malala invites Nawaz, Modi to attend Nobel ceremony

from dailytiimes.com.uk

BIRMINGHAM: Education rights campaigner Malala Yousafzai dedicated her Nobel peace prize on Friday to “voiceless” children around the world, and called on the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers to attend the award ceremony for the sake of peace.
The 17-year-old, who heard the news while she was in a chemistry lesson at school in Birmingham, central England, said she was honoured to be the youngest person and the first Pakistani to receive the accolade.
“The award is for all the children who are voiceless, whose voices need to be heard,” Malala told a press conference, held at the end of the school day so she wouldn’t miss class.
Malala arrived in Britain from Pakistan for medical treatment after being shot in the head by a Taliban fighter in October 2012, an attempt to silence her vocal advocacy of the right of girls to go to school.
Standing on a box so she could reach the podium at Birmingham’s main library, the teenager joked that winning the Nobel would not help her upcoming school exams.
But she told an audience that included her parents and two younger brothers:
“I felt more powerful and more courageous because this award is not just a piece of metal or a medal you wear or an award you keep in your room. This is encouragement for me to go forward.” 
The Norwegian Nobel Committee gave the award to Malala and Indian activist Kailash Satyarthi for their struggle against the repression of children and young people and “for the right of all children to education”.
Malala said she had already spoken to Satyarthi – she joked that she could not pronounce his name – to discuss how they could work together, and also try to reduce tensions between their two countries. 
To that end, she urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend the Nobel award ceremony in December.
‘Courage, determination and vision’
Former British prime minister Gordon Brown, the United Nations special envoy for global education, voiced delight at the Nobel victory for Malala and Satyarthi. 
“They are two of my best friends and two of the greatest global campaigners who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for their courage, determination and for their vision that no child should ever be left behind,” Brown said in a statement. 
After visiting her in hospital, Brown took up Malala’s cause with a petition for universal primary education handed to the Pakistani government on a day he named Malala Day, and later arranging for her to speak at the United Nations. 
Britain’s International Development Secretary Justine Greening also congratulated the joint winners saying the prize was “richly deserved”.
The reaction in the streets of Birmingham, which has a large minority population of Pakistani origin, was also overwhelmingly positive.
“I like her. She’s confident, speaking up for herself, for women,” said 30-year-old Zara Hussain as she waited at a bus stop in Birmingham holding a baby.
“She could be president (of Pakistan) if she carries on.”
Imam Usman Mahmood of Birmingham central mosque, which with 6,000 followers is one of the biggest in the city and was visited by Malala and her family, also expressed his delight. 
“It means that any person who puts their mind to something, they can achieve their goals. We wish her the best when she carries on with her life and that she keeps on going the way she is,” he said. 
But local estate agent Basharat Hussain, 30, said: “I personally think she shouldn’t have got it.”
“She’s inspiring but I think they’re using her for political motives, she’s been used by different organisations and governments.”
The global spotlight has provoked a backlash in parts of Pakistani society, with some accusing Malala of acting as a puppet of the West, while the Taliban have renewed the threat to her life. 
There have also been concerns about exposing a child to such a level of public exposure. 
“I used to say that I think I do not deserve the Nobel peace prize. I still believe that,” Malala said.
“But I believe it is not only an award for what I’ve done but an encouragement for giving me hope, for giving me the courage to go and continue this.” 

MORE IN NATIONAL

View all

Nawaz tells army to pay back India in same coin

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Friday asked the army to employ a “tit for ...

Stampede at Imran’s public rally in Multan kills eight

MULTAN: At least eight people were killed in a stampede at the Hussain Agahi Gate of the Qasim Bagh ...

Malala, Indian activist jointly win Nobel Peace Prize

OSLO: Teenager Malala Yousafzai and Indian campaigner against child trafficking and labour Kailash ...

State's gay marriage ban's days appear numbered

from  clarionledger.com

Geoff Pender, The Clarion-Ledger10:39 a.m. CDT October 9, 2014

Gov. Phil Bryant statement:

"In 2004, over 86 percent of Mississippi voters supported a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in Mississippi is valid only between a man and a woman. I will continue to uphold the constitution of the state of Mississippi."

ORIGINAL STORY:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Mississippi, could provide the catalyst for the Supreme Court to decide the gay marriage issue once and for all, nationwide.

And it's likely, many legal experts believe, bans on gay marriage such as Mississippi's will fall.

"I am opposed to same-sex marriage, but I believe the time has come for people of faith in Mississippi to prepare for the overturning of our constitutional ban on it," said state Rep. Andy Gipson, House judiciary chairman.

Here's why:

• The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear appeals from five states where federal appeals courts declared same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. This will essentially expand same-sex marriage to 11 states covered by these districts, bringing the total to 30.

• The cases the high court let slide were all federal rulings against gay marriage bans. A ruling from another district appeals court upholding a state's ban would essentially force the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and deal with conflicting rulings. The conservative Fifth Circuit or Sixth Circuit are the most likely to uphold a same-sex marriage ban.

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday agreed to expedite hearing cases challenging Texas' and Louisiana's bans on gay marriage. Early this year, a Texas federal judge ruled the ban was unconstitutional, but issued a stay pending the state's appeal. A Louisiana federal judge recently upheld that state's ban.

• With the Supreme Court this week allowing the decisions against the state bans to stand, legal experts say it's unlikely the court would then rule in favor of any state bans.

"It's really hard to imagine the Supreme Court would have allowed thousands of same-sex couples to get married, including in some very conservative areas like Utah, and then turn around and say, 'Just kidding, there's nothing wrong with state bans,'" said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign.

Mississippi attorney Wesley Hisaw said, "If the federal government can't discriminate on same sex marriage, logically, how could the state discriminate?" Hisaw is representing Lauren Czekala-Chatham, who is suing to have Mississippi recognize her California same-sex marriage so it can grant her a divorce.

A DeSoto County Chancery judge in 2013 ruled Mississippi's Constitution and laws prevent granting a divorce. The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear Czekala-Chatham's appeal. Gov. Phil Bryant, represented by a Christian legal group, is intervening in the case, opposing the appeal.

Hisaw said he doesn't know when the state high court might hear the case or rule, but it's possible Czekala-Chatham's case "could be the one that goes up there" to the U.S. Supreme Court if it were decided and appealed before other federal cases.

In Mississippi and other Bible Belt states, the gay marriage issue remains contentious.

"I do think the bans are in jeopardy because of out-of-control, rogue renegade judges at every level of our federal judiciary," said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis at the Tupelo-based American Family Association. "The federal judiciary has become the place where the Constitution and democracy go to die."

Fischer said federal government and courts should have no jurisdiction over state marriage laws.

"There is no mention of the word marriage or homosexuality in the federal Constitution, so it should be left exclusively to the states," Fischer said.

Brian Little of Crystal Springs, who recently married his longtime partner in an out-of-state ceremony, said the courts are needed to establish fairness.

"Had the South voted on ending slavery or segregation, I'm not sure when those would have ended," Little said. "The courts are here to make educated and fair decisions that are blind, noble and above the level of the general population …. I wish the Supreme Court would go on and strike (same-sex marriage bans) down nationwide."

Gipson, who is also a Baptist minister, said he believes his opposition to same-sex marriage is consistent with the views of most Mississippians. He points to the 2004 vote on a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages being conducted or recognized in Mississippi. It passed with 86 percent of the vote.

But Gipson said that legally, the writing appears to be on the wall for such bans with federal courts.

"I've said that preaching at my church," Gipson said. "It's coming. People of religious conviction need to be processing what this means for the culture, and how we will respond to these issues in coming years – how we will maintain our religious convictions in this environment."

Contact Geoff Pender at (601) 961-7266 or gpender@jackson.gannett.com. Follow @GeoffPender on Twitter.

 2475CONNECT 65TWEET 4LINKEDIN 86COMMENTEMAIL

from azcentral.com

Supreme Court stays 9th Circuit ruling on gay-marriage ban

Arizona Republic columnist Ed Montini and reporter Richard Ruelas discuss the same sex marriage ruling.

Alia Beard Rau and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com12:11 p.m. MST October 8, 2014

The push toward allowing same-sex couples to marry in Arizona may be delayed, at least a few days.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Wednesday morning issued a temporary halt to Tuesday's ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declaring marriage restrictions unconstitutional. Idaho sought the stay after indicating it will appeal the ruling before an expanded 11-member 9th Circuit panel and then likely to the Supreme Court.

The halt could be very temporary. Kennedy gave the plaintiffs until Thursday night to file a response, and then either he or the full Supreme Court could re-evaluate the situation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday ruled the Idaho and Nevada bans violate couples' rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Arizona is part of the San Francisco-based circuit, so the court's ruling will apply to this state as well.

"This makes a huge difference for our family," said Melanie Puskar- Blakely, 32, of Glendale. "It means our home — our native state where we were born and raised — respects us as individuals. Finally."

She and her partner, Tonya Blakely, are parents of four children. The couple married in California in 2008, but the union isn't recognized in Arizona. They had considered moving to California.

"The only reason we would have left eventually would be for same-sex rights," she said. "But if Arizona's going to join in, then there's no reason to go."

As news from the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, along with an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday, reshaped the legal landscape, Holly Mitchell and Suzanne Cummins were preparing to exchange vows of commitment at a ceremony on Saturday. The Chandler women, together seven years, set the date months ago and hoped for the best.

Mitchell and Cummins are among the seven couples who challenged Arizona's marriage laws in January as part of the first of two lawsuits still pending in court. They have waited anxiously for a ruling and hope the actions of the last two days portend the outcome they want.

"This is so exciting," Mitchell said Tuesday. "Depending on how fast this moves, we are ready to go."

They will apply for a license before Saturday's ceremony if the process is in place; if it isn't, they will count Saturday as their wedding day and attend to the legal details when they are able.

---

Map: Gay marriage by state
Hover over the map below to get information on each state. Click and drag to move the map, and select the + and - buttons to zoom in and out.

Open a full-window version of this map

---

"We are so excited for the marriage movement," Cummins said.

Before Arizona county clerks begin issuing licenses, there are some legal hoops to jump through.

Attorney General Tom Horne has the authority to declare that the 9th Circuit ruling applies to Arizona and issue a letter to county clerks instructing them to start issuing licenses.

"It would be appropriate for Tom Horne to bring this to closure quickly," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for the gay-rights advocacy organization Lambda Legal and an attorney representing same-sex couples in one of two Arizona lawsuits. "It doesn't serve the people of Arizona well to prolong litigation."

That's not expected to happen, at least not immediately.

Horne's spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, said it is "premature" for Horne to direct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, ruling they violated couples' federal equal protection rights. Arizona is part of the same circuit, so its ruling would apply to this state as well.

"It's not a done deal," Grisham said, adding that Nevada and Idaho can still appeal to an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. "Today's 9th Circuit decision should not be treated as final."

She said the Attorney General's Office is reviewing the opinion "to accurately determine its implications for the pending Arizona cases."

Arizona's definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman was established in statute in 1996. The Arizona Court of Appeals in 2003 upheld that definition. Voters amended the Arizona Constitution to include the definition of marriage in 2008.

Two cases challenging Arizona's law are pending in federal court. U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick had been expected to rule at any time on Connolly vs. Roche. The second Arizona case, Majors vs. Horne, is also before Sedwick.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in both cases said they will immediately file motions asking Sedwick to declare Arizona's law unconstitutional based on the 9th Circuit ruling.

"Obviously the 9th Circuit's opinion will be binding in Arizona, but we still need an order from our court for marriage licenses to be issued," said Heather Macre, an attorney representing same-sex couples in the Connolly case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has overturned marriage bans for same-sex couples in Nevada and Idaho. Its ruling applies to Arizona, but there are some procedural steps before the state begins issuing licenses. (Photo: Photo by Associated Press)

Fullscreen

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Next Slide

It's unknown how long it may take for Sedwick to issue his ruling.

"The judge's timeline is his own," Macre said. "We have to be respectful of that. I don't think we'll see licenses issued today or tomorrow."

Pizer agreed, speculating it could be done in a matter of weeks.

"Residents of Arizona can start planning their weddings and they probably can leave the date a bit flexible to give us a chance to tidy up the litigation, put a bow on it, put a cake topper on it," she said. "But it's wonderful news for Arizona residents who have been waiting an awfully long time."

The Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom is overseeing the defense of Arizona's definition of marriage in the two cases. It deferred comments to Horne's office.

Gov. Jan Brewer declined to comment on the ruling.

Social issues, including marriage, have become a point of debate in the governor's race.

When asked for a comment, Republican Doug Ducey, who has said he supports "traditional marriage," said only "I'll follow the law."

Democrat Fred DuVal, who has supported same-sex couples marrying, said the change is "inevitable."

"This is the way the civil-rights story always goes," he said. "It is a struggle, then there becomes critical mass, then there is a movement … and things happen really fast and we're watching that play out."

Asked to speculate how the Republican-controlled state Legislature and conservative lobbying groups might react, DuVal said, "I know they will be resistant, but … the force of history will simply wash over them in time."

The conservative advocacy group the Center for Arizona policy has been an influential proponent of the state's current definition of marriage. Organization President Cathi Herrod admitted that the 9th Circuit ruling will have a "significant impact" on Arizona's law, but she has no intention of being washed over.

"It's doubtable we have much legal recourse, but the effort to restore marriage to its meaning as a timeless institution that's best for men, women and children will continue," she said.

She said the U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling 40 years ago legalizing abortion was only the beginning of that fight, and predicted it would be the same for marriage.

"The Center for Arizona Policy will redouble our efforts to promote and defend marriage as between one man and one woman," she said, declining to comment on any legislation they may introduce next session. "The battle's far from over."

Arizona clerks say they are awaiting word from Horne.

RELATED: Las Vegas courts same-sex weddings

The Maricopa County Clerk of the Superior Court, which issues marriage licenses, was reviewing the ruling Tuesday afternoon. The office had been researching how other states handled same-sex marriage applications and printed marriage licenses, said Chris Kelly, chief deputy clerk of the Superior Court.

"We have been preparing for the prospect that this would potentially to come down," Kelly said. "As soon as we get the word, we're prepared to adhere to the judge's ruling."

Aaron Nash, special counsel for the Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk's Office, has said issuing such applications and licenses could start with relatively little notice. The office's information-technology department would just need to change some language, such as including "spouse" as an option in addition to "bride" and "groom" or "husband" and "wife."

"Our procedure for issuing licenses would likely be the same or very similar as for opposite-sex couples," Nash has said.

The 9th Circuit is the fourth to rule on the issue of same-sex couples marrying. All have deemed laws banning such marriages unconstitutional.

The cases, including Arizona's two, have charged that Arizona's definition of marriage violates equal-protection and due-process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Defendants have argued that marriage between only a man and a woman protects the stability of society and assures children are raised by both biological parents.

"Arizona should concede at this point that all the arguments they have raised have been considered by the 9th Circuit and rejected," Pizer said. "The state has nothing more or different to say and they should save Judge Sedwick and everybody else time and trouble and just acknowledge that."

Elizabeth Gill, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project called Tuesday an amazing day for Arizona and other states, particularly coming on the heels of Monday's Supreme Court announcement that it would not take cases challenging five other state laws, opening the door for same-sex couples to immediately begin marrying in those states.

"There is an unstoppable legal momentum toward full marriage equality," she said.

Republic reporters Shaun McKinnon, Mary Jo Pitzl, Mariana Dale and Michelle Ye Hee Lee contributed to this article.

What's next?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has overturned marriage bans for same-sex couples in Nevada and Idaho. Its ruling applies to Arizona, but there are some procedural steps before the state begins issuing licenses.

Attorney General Tom Horne could acknowledge the 9th Circuit opinion applies to Arizona, drop the legal defense of Arizona's law and immediately send letters requiring county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The attorneys in the two federal cases challenging the Arizona definition of marriage are immediately filing motions asking Arizona U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick to quickly rule the state's law unconstitutional based on the 9th Circuit opinion.

Sedwick could give the state time to file an argument against overturning the law based on the 9th Circuit opinion, or he could just issue an opinion overturning the law. This could happen within a matter of days or weeks.

The defendants in the Nevada and Idaho cases could ask the courts to keep their marriage laws in effect while they appeal to either an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. Arizona could argue that its law be kept in place while this happens.

Once Horne deems the Arizona cases have concluded, he would issue letters notifying clerks of when they should begin issuing licenses.

The judges who ruled

All three 9th Circuit judges on the panel that knocked down the bans on same-sex marriage were appointed by presidents who were Democrats. A look at each judge:

Stephen Reinhardt: The 83-year-old authored the opinion. He was nominated for the 9th Circuit bench in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. A native New Yorker and an Air Force veteran, he attended Pomona College and graduated from Yale Law School, and was practicing law in Los Angeles when he was appointed to the bench. Earlier this year, he served on a 9th Circuit panel with Judge Marsha Berzon that ruled that attorneys could not keep people off juries because of sexual orientation.

Marsha Berzon: Berzon, 69, originally from Cincinnati, was appointed to the 9th Circuit in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. She attended Radcliffe College and the school of law at the University of California-Berkeley, and was an attorney in private practice before becoming a law educator at Berkeley and Cornell University. In recent years, she has heard Arizona cases regarding lethal-injection drugs, abortion and Tucson shooter Jared Loughner.

Ronald Gould: Gould, 67, a native of St. Louis, was also appointed by President Clinton in 1999. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan School of Law, and had a private law practice in Seattle, where he also taught at the University of Washington.

— Michael Kiefer

 7765CONNECT 334TWEET 2LINKEDIN 78COMMENTEMAILMORE

Man Tased by Cop Comments on 'Aggressive' Traffic Stop

from nbc






 

An Indiana man whose car window was smashed and who was Tasered by police after a traffic stop said Tuesday that "it felt like my civil rights were just thrown out the window, along with my body."

Lisa Mahone and her boyfriend Jamal Jones were driving on Sept. 25 in Hammond, Indiana, with Mahone's two kids in the back seat when Mahone was stopped and ticketed for driving without wearing a seat belt. The stop was caught on cellphone camera by Mahone's 14-year-old son.

"Thank goodness Joseph took the video, because the video stands for itself that these officers engaged in excessive force," attorney Dana Kurtz said in a news conference with the couple Tuesday.

In the video, officers ask Jones, who was in the passenger seat, to show his ID. However, he did not have his license on him. Officers then appear to draw guns and order him out of the car, prompting Mahone to call 911. The video shows police shattering the passenger window and using a stun-gun on Jones. Lawyers say the two children suffered minor cuts from flying glass. The lawsuit alleges excessive force, false arrest and battery.

In a statement earlier Tuesday, Hammond police said, "Police officers who make legal traffic stops are allowed to ask passengers inside of a stopped vehicle for identification and to request that they exit a stopped vehicle for the officer's safety without a requirement of reasonable suspicion. When the passenger displayed movements inside of the stopped vehicle that included placing his hand in places where the officer could not see, officers' concerns for their safety were heightened."

Mahone said since being pulled over, "I'm really in a state of shock."

Man Tased by Cop Comments on 'Agressive' Traffic Stop

NBC NEWS

 
 
 

SOCIAL

— Alastair Jamieson, Deb Huberman and Elizabeth Chuck

First published October 7th 2014, 4:12 am

Feds order Flagstar to pay $37.5M in foreclosures case

from detroitnews.com



Brian J. O’Connor, Detroit News Finance Editor1:11 p.m. EDT September 29, 2014

The bank closed files without reason, misinformed borrowers, miscalculated incomes and mishandled requests for mortgage modifications designed to prevent foreclosures, a federal agency found.

Troy-based Flagstar Bank was ordered to pay $37.5 million in damages to mortgage customers and in fines Monday for mishandling requests for loan modifications and, in some cases, illegally foreclosing on homes.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined the bank $10 million and ordered it to pay $27.5 million to victims for illegally blocking borrowers’ attempts to save their homes. Flagstar agreed to the settlement without admitting guilt.

“Because of Flagstar’s illegal actions and unacceptable delays, struggling homeowners lost the opportunity to save their homes,” Richard Cordray, director of the bureau, said in a statement. “Today’s action signals a new era of enforcement to protect consumers against the cost of servicer runarounds.”

In its own statement, Flagstar called it a settlement of “alleged violations of federal consumer financial laws” and noted it has modified “thousands” of mortgages. “This resolution is in the bank’s best interest and allows us to continue building a great company,” CEO Alessandro DiNello said in the news release. Flagstar has 106 branches in Michigan; and runs mortgage lending centers in 18 states and services loans nationwide.

Flagstar also is facing a potential class-action lawsuit filed Sept. 5 in New York by Pomerantz LLP, charging the bank misled investors by failing to disclose the defective mortgage servicing practices.

The bureau’s investigation found that even though Flagstar faced a backlog of 13,000 applications asking for a mortgage modification or other relief on a home loan during 2011, the bank assigned just 25 workers and one vendor based in India to review the files. At times, the bureau said, it took nine months to review just one application, and that callers averaged 25 minutes on hold, with half of them hanging up.

After new mortgage rules issued by the bureau went into effect at the beginning of the year, Flagstar violated them on several counts, the bureau said. That included closing files because the bank took too long to review them, miscalculating borrower incomes, misinforming borrowers, not warning borrowers about incomplete applications, missing deadlines, denying loan modifications without giving a reason, misinforming borrowers about their rights and dragging out modification trial periods so long that it increased the outstanding loan amount and jeopardized the borrower’s ability to get a permanent modification to the mortgage.

A spokesman for the bureau said 2,000 of the 6,500 loans reviewed by Flagstar lost their homes to foreclosure.

It all sounds familiar to Phil Lyman, an auto salesman in Rockford, not far from Grand Rapids. When auto sales tanked during the recession, Lyman contacted Flagstar about refinancing his home or modifying the loan in 2010. After many excuses and delays, he said he was assured his loan modification would be issued only to find that the bank had allowed Farmington Hills attorneys Schneiderman & Sherman P.C., to foreclose.

“They’d say, ‘We’re almost there, we just need this, this and this,’ and then they’d say it didn’t go through,” he recalls.

Lyman scrambled to raise the money to get his home back before the six-month redemption period expired and he would be evicted, eventually raiding his 401(k) retirement fund, which resulted in a $59,000 tax bill.

Lyman said he did eventually receive a final answer on his loan modification. It came after the deadline, when it would have been too late to save his home.

“I didn’t get the notification that I was completely shot down until after the redemption deadline,” he said.

The payment of $27.5 million to 6,500 homeowners will be handled directly by the Consumer Finance Bureau, not Flagstar, and applies only to cases of modification requests handled this year. With the added $10 million fine, the settlement totals $37.5 million. In July, Flagstar reported net income for the second quarter of $25.5 million.

At an average of $4,154 per homeowner, the settlement covers not much more than closing costs and fees on a mortgage those homeowners would have paid.

But that’s high for these kinds of settlements, noted Steve Dibert, a mortgage expert who helps homeowners dispute foreclosures.

“The average is between $1,500 and $2,000 and most homeowners get $500 or $750,” Dibert said. “When you compare it to what people have gotten in other settlements like this, that’s extremely high.”

In addition to the payments and fines, the bureau ordered Flagstar to fix its mitigation process, and contact borrowers who weren’t foreclosed on and offer them modifications. The bureau also barred Flagstar from contracting to service any more loans in default until the problems are repaired.

During the past several years, several government bodies have forged settlements with big home-lenders over the mishandling of mortgages and foreclosures during and after the recession. In 2012, 49 state attorneys general and the federal government wrested an estimated $25 billion settlement over servicing, including forged and backdated documents with five of the country’s five largest mortgage servicers: Ally/GMAC; Bank of America; Citi; JPMorgan Chase; and Wells Fargo.

In December, attorneys general and the Consumer Finance Bureau reached another $125 million settlement with Homeward Residential Holdings (previously known as American Home Mortgage Servicing), Litton Loan Servicing and Ocwen. In addition, Ocwen agreed to forgive $2 billion in mortgage debt.

Only one person has been sentenced to jail for servicing fraud. In 2012, Lorraine Brown, the former president of DocX, a Georgia firm that processed foreclosure documents for banks. After Brown pleaded guilty in a Florida federal court for her role in authorizing forged signatures under the name “Linda Green,” Michigan immediately indicted Brown over similar “robo-signed” documents filed in the state.

In May 2013, a Michigan court sentenced Brown to 40 months to 20 years for racketeering. She was later sentenced to five years on the federal charges.

“This has been a long time coming,” added Dibert, the mortgage expert. “For 10 years, Flagstar has had servicing issues. So this is great for homeowners with Flagstar mortgages, because they’re going to get a better level of customer service than they were getting before.”

boconnor@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2145

Getting restitution

If your mortgage was one of the 6,500 found to have been improperly handled, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau will contact you directly about your share of the settlement. Flagstar Bank won’t issue the payments. The settlement applies only to mortgage modification requests handled this year.

You can contact the bureau at (855) 411-2372 or on the Web at www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint

 131CONNECT 32TWEETLINKEDIN 6COMMENTEMAILMORE