http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/defense-of-corrupt-freddiefannie-execs-200-mil-and-growing/ Because no one is above the law! Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:27:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/defense-of-corrupt-freddiefannie-execs-200-mil-and-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-245 hmaue@smmj.com Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:33:42 +0000 http://www.judicialwatch.org/?p=12806#comment-245 The resolution of this entire matter can easily be resolved with another legitimate legal audit from a professional legal auditing company that can stand behind the audit findings. The legal auditing company these agencies retained I do not believe could withstand a challenge by the law firms. All anyone would have had to do is perform a simple public record check and the findings would have eliminated do to the significant amount of negative information sometimes by judges who chastised the company. But whenever a government agency chooses a low bidder based upon that and a slick website then the rest is history and you get what you pay for which in this case is essentially worthless. The company that founded this industry 26 years ago is based in Saint Louis and was never even contacted even though we made both agencies aware of the problems with the vendor they choose. My only reason for even making comments is that all this hand ringing and finger pointing could and still can be resolved should both agencies decide to retain the services of a professional legal auditing company. All the fees and expenses aleardy paid need to be audited and simultaneously a proactive cost management program needs to be implemented to insure that all law firms are adhering to the agencies billing guidelines and are providing receipts for all expenses. This is the only way that all interested parties can be assured that law firms are billing in accordance to the agencies billing guidelines and if any firm wants to challenge those audit findings the selected auditing company can withstand the challenge. This entire process should be looked upon as a win win situation because if the audit findings show that law firm(s) and found to be in compliance with those billing guidelines then it proves their is good oversight but if some firms are found not to be in compliance then depending upon the degree of non compliance can be trained in proper billing practices. All this boils down to it is simply the right thing to do both the agency executives and th taxpayers who are footing the bill and as a former government executive I always looked at spending money from a taxpayers point of view. The resolution of this entire matter can easily be resolved with another legitimate legal audit from a professional legal auditing company that can stand behind the audit findings. The legal auditing company these agencies retained I do not believe could withstand a challenge by the law firms. All anyone would have had to do is perform a simple public record check and the findings would have eliminated do to the significant amount of negative information sometimes by judges who chastised the company. But whenever a government agency chooses a low bidder based upon that and a slick website then the rest is history and you get what you pay for which in this case is essentially worthless. The company that founded this industry 26 years ago is based in Saint Louis and was never even contacted even though we made both agencies aware of the problems with the vendor they choose. My only reason for even making comments is that all this hand ringing and finger pointing could and still can be resolved should both agencies decide to retain the services of a professional legal auditing company. All the fees and expenses aleardy paid need to be audited and simultaneously a proactive cost management program needs to be implemented to insure that all law firms are adhering to the agencies billing guidelines and are providing receipts for all expenses. This is the only way that all interested parties can be assured that law firms are billing in accordance to the agencies billing guidelines and if any firm wants to challenge those audit findings the selected auditing company can withstand the challenge. This entire process should be looked upon as a win win situation because if the audit findings show that law firm(s) and found to be in compliance with those billing guidelines then it proves their is good oversight but if some firms are found not to be in compliance then depending upon the degree of non compliance can be trained in proper billing practices. All this boils down to it is simply the right thing to do both the agency executives and th taxpayers who are footing the bill and as a former government executive I always looked at spending money from a taxpayers point of view.

]]> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/defense-of-corrupt-freddiefannie-execs-200-mil-and-growing/comment-page-1/#comment-237 kjs420@verizon.net Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:20:45 +0000 http://www.judicialwatch.org/?p=12806#comment-237 Maybe if it was part of their job description to commit fraud, I could see the government paying for legal defense, but these people acted individually to commit fraud, so why are taxpayers paying to defend crooks? If I committed fraud at my work, my boss's wouldn't pay for my lawyer. Maybe if it was part of their job description to commit fraud, I could see the government paying for legal defense, but these people acted individually to commit fraud, so why are taxpayers paying to defend crooks? If I committed fraud at my work, my boss’s wouldn’t pay for my lawyer.

]]>