type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 13.2.2017
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 46/22
 Rikors ippreżentat fid-9 ta’ Diċembru 2016 – RA vs Il-Qorti tal-Awdituri
 (Kawża T-874/16)
 (2017/C 046/25)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: il-Franċiż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrent: RA (il-Lussemburgu, il-Lussemburgu) (rappreżentanti: S. Orlandi u T. Martin, avukati)
 Konvenuta: Il-Qorti tal-Awdituri tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 Talbiet
 —
 tannulla d-deċiżjoni tal-4 ta’ Marzu 2016 li r-rikorrent ma jiġix promoss għall-grad AD 11;
 —
 tikkundanna lill-Qorti tal-Awdituri għall-ispejjeż.
 Motivi u argumenti prinċipali
 Insostenn tar-rikors tiegħu, ir-rikorrent jinvoka tliet motivi.
 1.
 Permezz tal-ewwel motiv ir-rikorrent iqajjem eċċezzjoni ta’ illegalità tas-sistema ta’ promozzjoni applikata fi ħdan il-Qorti tal-Awdituri tal-Unjoni Ewropea, implementata permezz tad-Deċiżjoni 53-2014 dwar il-promozzjonijiet, sa fejn taffettwa l-kapaċità tal-Awtorità tal-Ħatra li tidentifika b’mod metodiku d-differenzi fil-mod kif jiġu evalwati l-uffiċjali mid-diversi evalwaturi tal-istituzzjoni skont is-suġġettività partikolari tagħhom.
 2.
 It-tieni motiv huwa bbażat fuq l-argument li d-deċiżjoni tal-4 ta’ Marzu 2016 li r-rikorrent ma jiġix promoss għall-grad AD 11 tmur kontra l-Artikolu 45 tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal tal-uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea sa fejn l-Awtorità tal-Ħatra ma wettqitx eżami komparattiv tal-merti tiegħu fuq bażi ugwali u oġġettiva, minn sorsi ta’ informazzjoni u ta’ indikazzjonijiet komparabbli.
 3.
 It-tielet motiv huwa bbażat fuq l-argument li l-motivazzjoni mogħtija fit-tweġiba li ċaħdet l-ilment turi li d-deċiżjoni kkontestata hija vvizzjata b’diversi żbalji manifesti ta’ evalwazzjoni.


type: other

text:
Creative Live! Cam Video IM (VF) | paydayshortcut.co
 Cam Chat HD för att få HD p-video i dina onlinechatt* - inga program Tillverkare Logitech; Maximal digital videoupplösning x , x Jämför priser på Creative Live! Cam Chat HD Webbkamera. Hitta bästa pris och läs omdömen - vi hjälper dig hitta rätt. Kamera. Typ, Färg. Maximal digital videoupplösning, x Videotagning, x @ 30 fps x @ 5 fps. Upplösning för stillbildstagning, Erbjudanden från 22 butiker, inkluderat 14 betalande butiker. Våra andra leveransalternativ Hemleverans. Företag och privatpersoner Kontor, städ, skola, vård. Android-app iPhone-app m. Användarrecensioner 0 Expertrecensioner 0 Skriv en recension. Våra andra leveransalternativ Hemleverans. Central 3-programserien med avancerade video- och ljudeffekter, avatarer samt funktioner för att dela skrivbord, skapa film och övervaka. Kort -Klarna faktura - Paypal Fri frakt över kr dagar leveranstid. Erbjudanden från 22 butiker, inkluderat 14 betalande butiker. Kameran new yorker personals bra exponering MEN autojusteringen med ljuset är ganska dåligt. Kristallklar röstkommunikation med double blowjob teens mikrofoner victoria lawson xxx avancerad bullereliminering och lobformningsteknik. Cam Chat HD x Cam Chat HD, Black. Över butiker i Norden Delbetalning med Klarna Fri frakt över kr. Fri frakt över kr 60 dagars öppet köp Årets Onlinevaruhus Cookies hjälper oss förbättra din upplevelse hos oss. Just nu på Prisjakt: Den enklaste uppgraderingen till HD-videosamtal - det är bara att koppla in och börja chatta Jämn HD p-videoinspelning och -uppspelning med upp till 30 bilder per sekund Den inbyggda bullereliminerande mikrofonen eliminerar bakgrundsljud för tydligare röstchatt. Lägg till i favoritlista. Köp billigt Creative Live! Cam Sync HD Webbkamera, färg, ljud, Hi-Speed USB från till specialpris Webbkamera, färg, 2 MP, x , ljud, USB Cam Chat HD för att få HD p-video i dina onlinechatt* - inga program Tillverkare Logitech; Maximal digital videoupplösning x , x 1 kr. Maskinvaruaccelererad HD-video för högkvalitativ videochatt. Live! Cam inPerson HD levererar Skype-certifierad HD p-videokonferenser* för widescreenskärmar med inbyggd H. Technology. Videoupplösning. x
 AIDRA FOX BLOWJOB Cam Chat HD x Cam Chat HD - svart. Produktinformation Specifikationer Passande tillbehör. Tänk på detta innan du handlar Hur ofta uppdateras uppgifterna? Just nu casual flings ett bluffmail som ser ut att komma från Casual male fredericksburg va. Cam InPerson HD har utgått och kan ej beställas dallas hook ups. Användarrecensioner 0 Expertrecensioner 0 Skriv en recension. Compare prices on Creative Live! Liknande produkter 1 Android-app iPhone-app m.
 X cam live Läs mer om våra olika leveransalternativ ». Den enklaste uppgraderingen rosette porn HD-videosamtal - det är bara att koppla in adult web cam site börja chatta Jämn HD p-videoinspelning och -uppspelning med upp till 30 bilder per sekund Den inbyggda bullereliminerande mikrofonen eliminerar bakgrundsljud för tydligare röstchatt. Fri frakt asian teen on cam kr 60 dagars öppet köp Hornymatch com Onlinevaruhus Android-app iPhone-app m. Kort canada dating faktura - Paypal Fri frakt över kr dagar leveranstid. Fri frakt över 2 kr Ej hempaket, budbil eller pall. Baserad på analys av användar- och expertrecensioner sovereign syre hela världen. Cam Chat HD - Webbkamera färg x lju. Tänk på detta innan du handlar Hur ofta uppdateras uppgifterna? Just nu på Prisjakt:
 Local married woman Securedating com review
 X cam live Nyckelfunktioner Den enklaste uppgraderingen till HD-videosamtal - det är bara att koppla in och börja chatta Den inbyggda bullereliminerande mikrofonen eliminerar bakgrundsljud för tuva novotny hot röstchatt. Så för att kunna analysera trafiken, erbjuda dig personlig information och för att grundläggande funktionalitet ska fungera på webbplatsen behöver vi använda oss av lite cookies. Komplett kontorssortiment Fokus på design och kvalitet Omsorgsfull service. I xxn porno står det asian porn star escorts du har möjlighet att vinna en ny Samsung Galaxy. Beräknat till vårt lager: Vänligen välj företag eller privat. Erbjudanden från 22 butiker, inkluderat 14 betalande butiker. Den enklaste uppgraderingen till HD-videosamtal - det är bara att koppla in porn videos of girls börja chatta Jämn HD p-videoinspelning och -uppspelning med pro porn pics till 30 bilder per sekund Den inbyggda bullereliminerande mikrofonen eliminerar bakgrundsljud för tydligare röstchatt.
 Airport Live - Online HD Streaming Webcam from Lanzarote (Canary Islands, Spain) Våra andra leveransalternativ Hemleverans. Kort -Klarna faktura - Paypal Fri frakt över kr dagar leveranstid. Vi har uppdaterat vår cookiepolicy! Liknande produkter 1 Fri frakt över kr Brett sortiment av Data Prylar Mer än 10 år i branschen. Du kan välja vilka du vill se på din inställningssida. Avisering skickas via e-post, sms eller brev när paketet finns att hämta. Just nu cirkulerar ett bluffmail som ser ut att komma från Dustin. Central 3 Lite gratis för att spela in HD p-videor och ta foton med 5,7 MP och lägg upp med ett enkelt klick på populära sociala webbplatser som t. Läs om den utgångna produkten. Jämför pris på alla Creative Webbkameror 6. Vårt mål är att lista alla erbjudanden som finns på marknaden. Ytterligare en leveransdag tillkommer för postnummer Nyckelfunktioner Den enklaste uppgraderingen till HD-videosamtal - det är bara att koppla in och börja chatta Den inbyggda bullereliminerande mikrofonen eliminerar bakgrundsljud för tydligare röstchatt.


type: contracts

text:
 18.1.2021
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 L 15/48
 ODLUKA br. 3/2020 ODBORA ZAJEDNICE/ŠVICARSKE ZA UNUTARNJI PROMET
 оd 16. prosinca 2020.
 o sustavu naknada na vozila koji se u Švicarskoj primjenjuje od 1. srpnja 2021. [2021/36]
 ODBOR ZAJEDNICE/ŠVICARSKE ZA UNUTARNJI PROMET,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum između Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o željezničkom i cestovnom prijevozu robe i putnika (1) (dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”), a posebno njegov članak 40. stavak 6. i njegov članak 52. stavak 4.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 U skladu s člankom 40. Sporazuma Švicarska od 1. siječnja 2001. naplaćuje nediskriminacijske naknade na vozila za troškove koji zbog njih nastaju („naknade za promet teških teretnih vozila povezan s pružanjem usluga prijevoza”). Te su naknade podijeljene u tri kategorije s obzirom na emisijske norme (razredi EURO).
 (2)
 U tu je svrhu u članku 40. stavcima 2. i 4. Sporazuma utvrđen ponderirani prosjek naknada, najveća naknada za kategoriju vozila s najvećim onečišćenjem te najveća razlika u naknadi između kategorija.
 (3)
 U skladu s člankom 40. stavkom 6. Sporazuma Odbor Zajednice/Švicarske za unutarnji promet utvrđuje pondere svake dvije godine radi uzimanja u obzir promjena voznog parka koji prometuje u Švicarskoj i razvoja normi EURO. Uzimajući u obzir modernizaciju voznog parka koji prometuje u Švicarskoj, koja podrazumijeva da sve više vozila ispunjava kriterije najnovijih normi EURO, trebalo bi prilagoditi raspodjelu kategorija normi EURO tako da se za emisijski razred koji najmanje onečišćuje, EURO VI, naplaćuju najniže naknade i da emisijski razredi EURO IV i V uđu u kategoriju najviših naknada.
 (4)
 Iz istog razloga trebalo bi ukinuti sniženje od 10 % propisano Odlukom br. 1/2011 Zajedničkog odbora Zajednice/Švicarske za unutarnji promet (2) za vozila emisijskih razreda EURO II i EURO III u koja je naknadno ugrađen homologirani sustav odvajača čestica,
 ODLUČIO JE:
 Članak 1.
 Naknada na promet teških teretnih vozila povezana s pružanjem usluga prijevoza za vozila ukupne stvarne težine u opterećenom stanju od 40 tona koja prelaze udaljenost od 300 km iznosi:
 —
 372,00 CHF za kategoriju naknade 1,
 —
 322,80 CHF za kategoriju naknade 2,
 —
 273,60 CHF za kategoriju naknade 3.
 Članak 2.
 Kategorija naknade 1 primjenjuje se na sva vozila stavljena u uporabu prije stupanja na snagu norme EURO VI.
 Kategorija naknade 3 primjenjuje se na vozila emisijskog razreda EURO VI.
 Članak 3.
 Odluka br. 1/2011 stavlja se izvan snage.
 Članak 4.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 1. srpnja 2021.
 Sastavljeno u Bernu 16. prosinca 2020.
 Za Švicarsku Konfederaciju
 Predsjednik
 Peter FÜGLISTALER
 Za Europsku uniju
 Voditeljica Delegacije Europske unije
 Elisabeth WERNER
 (1) SL L 114, 30.4.2002., str. 91.
 (2) SL L 193, 23.7.2011., str. 52.


text:
N. L 81 /8 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 23 . 3 . 85
 DECISIONE N. 3/84 DEL CONSIGLIO DI COOPERAZIONE
 CEE-GIORDANIA
 del 23 ottobre 1984
 che sostituisce l'unità di conto con l'ECU nel protocollo relativo alla definizione
 della nozione di « prodotti originari » e ai metodi di cooperazione amministrativa
 dell'accordo di cooperazione tra la Comunità economica europea e il Regno
 hascemita di Giordania
 IL CONSIGLIO DI COOPERAZIONE, 2) il testo dell articolo 6, paragrafo 1 , terzo comma, è
 sostituito dal testo seguente :
 visto l'accordo di cooperazione tra la Comunità econo
 mica europea e il Regno hascemita di Giordania, in « Fino al 30 aprile 1983 incluso, l'ECU da utilizzare
 in moneta nazionale di uno Stato membro della
 particolare il titolo I,
 Comunità è il controvalore, in moneta nazionale di
 visto il protocollo relativo alla definizione della tale Stato, dell'ECU in vigore al 1° ottobre 1980 . Per
 nozione di « prodotti originari » e ai metodi di coope ogni periodo successivo di due anni, essa è il
 razione amministrativa, in appresso denominato controvalore, in moneta nazionale di tale Stato,
 « protocollo », in particolare l'articolo 6, paragrafo 1 , e dell'ECU in vigore il primo giorno lavorativo del
 l'articolo 25, mese di ottobre dell'anno precedente il periodo di
 due anni .
 considerando che l'unità di conto non corrisponde Importi riveduti in sostituzione degli importi
 all'attuale situazione monetaria internazionale e che è
 espressi in ECU nel presente articolo e nell'articolo
 quindi necessario adottare una nuova base comune di 17, paragrafo 2, possono essere introdotti dalla
 valore allo scopo di determinare i casi in cui possono Comunità all'inizio di ciascun periodo successivo di
 essere utilizzati i formulari EUR 2 al posto dei certifi due anni, se necessario, e sono notificati dalla
 cati di circolazione EUR 1 e i casi in cui non è neces
 Comunità al comitato di cooperazione doganale al
 sario produrre una prova dell'origine ; più tardi un mese prima della loro entrata in vigore.
 Questi importi devono comunque essere tali da
 considerando che a decorrere dal 1° gennaio 1981 le non far diminuire il valore dei limiti espressi nella
 Comunità europee hanno introdotto l'ECU ; moneta nazionale di uno Stato.
 considerando che è opportuno utilizzare l'ECU come Se la merce è fatturata nella moneta di un altro
 base comune di valore ; Stato membro della Comunità, lo Stato di importa
 zione riconosce l'importo notificato dallo Stato
 considerando che, per motivi amministrativi ed econo considerato. » ;
 mici, tale base comune di valore deve rimanere inva
 riata per un periodo di almeno due anni e che, di 3) all'articolo 1 7, paragrafo 2, gli importi « 60 unità di
 conto » e « 200 unità di conto » sono sostituiti
 conseguenza, l'ECU da utilizzarsi deve eccezional
 mente essere fissata ad una data di riferimento che sarà rispettivamente da « 105 ECU » e « 325 ECU ».
 aggiornata ogni due anni,
 Articolo 2
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 23 ottobre
 DECIDE : 1984 .
 Articolo 1
 Fatto a Lussemburgo, addi 23 ottobre 1984.
 Il protocollo è modificato come segue :
 Per il Consiglio di cooperazione
 1 ) all'articolo 6, paragrafo 1 , secondo comma, Il Presidente
 l'importo « 1 000 unità di conto » è sostituito da
 « 1 620 ECU » : P. BARRY


type: wikipedia

text:
(3713) Pieters – planetoida z pasa głównego okrążająca Słońce w ciągu 5 lat i 93 dni w średniej odległości 3,02 j.a. Została odkryta 22 marca 1985 roku w Lowell Observatory (Anderson Mesa Station) przez Edwarda Bowella. Nazwa planetoidy pochodzi od Carle’a M. Pietersa, geologa Brown University w Providence. Została zasugerowana przez L.A. McFaddena. Przed nadaniem nazwy planetoida nosiła oznaczenie tymczasowe (3713) 1985 FA2.
 Zobacz też
 lista planetoid 3001–4000
 lista ponumerowanych planetoid
 Bibliografia
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Planetoidy pasa głównego
 Nazwane planetoidy
 Obiekty astronomiczne odkryte w 1985


jurisdiction: US

text: b" Issue Date\n June 24, 2011\n Audit Report Number\n 2011-AT-1010\n\n\n\n\nTO: Vicki B. Bott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, HU\n\n //signed//\n FROM: James D. McKay, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Atlanta Region, 4AGA\n\nSUBJECT: Crossfire Financial Network, Miami, FL, Did Not Follow HUD Requirements in\n Approving FHA Loans and Implementing Its Quality Control Program\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited Crossfire Financial Network, Inc., d/b/a CFN Mortgage Capital\n (Crossfire), a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-approved direct\n endorsement lender located in Miami, FL. The audit objectives were to determine\n whether the lender followed U.S. Department of Housing and Urban\n Development (HUD) requirements when (1) originating and underwriting loans\n and (2) implementing its quality control program. We selected this lender\n because it underwrote more than 600 loans for a 2-year period in the HUD Miami\n area and its default rate of 6 percent was higher than the Miami HUD office area\n average default rate of 4 percent.\n\n What We Found\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when it underwrote 10 loans for FHA\n insurance based on inaccurate and unsupported information. This condition\n occurred because the lender did not act with due care when originating and\n underwriting these loans. As a result, Crossfire approved loans that were not\n eligible for FHA insurance and increased the risk to the FHA insurance fund of\n more than $1.3 million.\n\x0c In addition, Crossfire did not implement a quality control program that complied\n with HUD requirements. It did not conduct quality control reviews in compliance\n with requirements, and its written quality control plan did not contain the required\n provisions. These conditions occurred because Crossfire disregarded HUD\n requirements. As a result, the effectiveness of Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s quality control program\n to guard against errors, omissions, and fraud and to protect HUD from\n unacceptable risk was diminished. Specifically, Crossfire increased the risk to the\n FHA insurance fund because it did not have assurance regarding the accuracy,\n validity, and completeness of its loan origination and underwriting operations.\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n require Crossfire to indemnify HUD for the 9 ineligible FHA loans with an\n estimated potential loss of more than $1.1 million and reimburse HUD for the\n $210,453 in claims paid on 3 of the 10 loans. In addition, we recommend that\n HUD refer Crossfire to the Mortgagee Review Board for consideration of\n administrative actions against the lender for not having a compliant quality\n control program in place. We also recommend that HUD require Crossfire to\n develop, implement, and enforce a quality control program that complies with\n HUD requirements.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n We discussed our review results with Crossfire and HUD officials during the\n audit. We provided a copy of the draft report to Crossfire on May 20, 2011 for its\n comment. Crossfire provided its comments on May 31, 2011. The auditee\n generally did not agree with finding 1 and its recommendations, and agreed with\n the finding 2.\n\n The complete text of Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our evaluation of the\n response, can be found in appendix B of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objectives 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: Crossfire Did Not Follow HUD Requirements When Original and 5\n Underwriting FHA Loans\n Finding 2: Crossfire Did Not Follow HUD Requirements When Implementing 10\n Its Quality Control Program\n\nScope and Methodology 15\n\nInternal Controls 17\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use 19\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 20\n C. Schedule of Indemnification and Repayment Amounts for the 10 Loans 27\n D. Loan Details for the Seven Cash-Out Refinance Loans 28\n E. Loan Details for the Three Purchase Loans 29\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nCrossfire Financial Network, Inc., d/b/a CFN Mortgage Capital (Crossfire) is a Federal Housing\nAdministration (FHA)-approved nonsupervised direct endorsement lender based in Miami, FL.\nUnder the direct endorsement program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n(HUD) authorizes approved lenders to underwrite FHA loans without HUD\xe2\x80\x99s prior review and\napproval. A nonsupervised lender is an institution which has as its principal activity the lending or\ninvesting of funds in real estate mortgages. It may submit applications for mortgage insurance and\nmay originate, underwrite, purchase, hold, and service insured loans or sell mortgages.\n\nCrossfire became an FHA-approved lender in June 1997 and currently has four active branch offices\nlocated in California, Colorado, and Florida. The lender has sponsored 27 loan correspondents,\nserved as the principal for 7 authorized agents, and acted as an authorized agent for 7 other principal\nlenders. A loan correspondent may process an application and submit it to one of its sponsors for\nunderwriting. The loan correspondent must close the loan in its own name or in the name of the\nsponsor that underwrote the loan. The principal-authorized agent relationship provides the lender\nthe flexibility to collaborate with another FHA lender to originate FHA loans. An authorized agent\nmay perform any part of the loan origination process, including underwriting, on behalf of its\nprincipal; however, the loan must be closed in the name of the principal lender. As of May 2011,\nCrossfire no longer sponsors any loan correspondents, serves as the principal for six authorized\nagents, and acts as an authorized agent for one other principal lender.\n\nAccording to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system1, from December 2008 through November\n2010, Crossfire underwrote 657 loans in the HUD Miami office jurisdiction. As of November 30,\n2010, 40 of the 657 loans (6 percent) with mortgage amounts totaling more than $7.4 million were\nin default.\n\nOur audit objectives were to determine whether the lender followed HUD requirements when (1)\noriginating and underwriting loans and (2) implementing its quality control program.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The HUD Neighborhood Watch is intended to aid HUD in monitoring lenders. The system is designed to highlight\nexceptions, so that potential problems are readily identifiable. In particular, the system gives the ability to identify\nand analyze patterns, by geographic area or originating lender, in loans which became 90 days delinquent during the\nfirst 2 years.\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: Crossfire Did Not Follow HUD Requirements When\nOriginating and Underwriting Loans\nCrossfire did not follow HUD requirements when originating and underwriting loans for FHA\ninsurance. It used inaccurate and unsupported information to qualify borrowers for 10 FHA\nloans. This condition occurred because the lender did not exercise due care when originating and\nunderwriting these loans for FHA insurance. As a result, Crossfire approved loans that did not\nqualify for FHA insurance and placed the FHA insurance at risk for more than $1.3 million.\n\n\n Loans Had Significant Originating\n and Underwriting Deficiencies\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when originating and underwriting 10\n loans. Specifically, it used inaccurate employment information, did not support\n the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s asset information, and relied on an invalid appraisal report to\n qualify borrowers for three of the six purchase loans reviewed. In addition,\n Crossfire approved 7 of the 32 cash-out refinance loans reviewed with previous\n mortgage delinquencies occurring less than 12 months before the refinancing.\n\n All FHA lenders must follow all applicable statutes, regulations, and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n written instructions, including program handbooks and mortgagee letters.\n Specifically, lenders must follow HUD Handbook 4155.1, REV-5, \xe2\x80\x9cMortgage\n Credit Analysis for Mortgage Insurance on One- to Four-Unit Mortgage Loans,\xe2\x80\x9d\n when underwriting FHA loans. The lender is responsible for eliciting a complete\n picture of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s financial situation, source of funds for the transaction,\n and intended use of the property. Its decision to approve the loan must be\n documented, supported, and verifiable.\n\n The table below shows the summary of deficiencies identified for the 10 loans.\n Inaccurate Unsupported Invalid Cash-out refinance with\n FHA employment source of appraisal previous mortgage\n No. case no. income funds report delinquencies\n 1 095-1353467 X\n 2 095-1135143 X\n 3 095-0770109 X X\n 4 095-0932148 X\n 5 095-0911262 X\n 6 095-0937700 X\n 7 095-0970905 X\n 8 095-1002059 X\n 9 095-0942848 X\n 10 095-0973194 X\n Total 2 1 1 7\n\n 5\n\x0c The following two sections discuss some examples of the originating and\n underwriting deficiencies.\n\nLoans Contained Inaccurate\nEmployment Income Information\n\n The lender did not accurately verify or support borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 employment\n information for two loans. HUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.D.1.a, states that\n income may not be used in calculating the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s qualifying ratios if it comes\n from any source that cannot be verified, is not stable, or will not continue.\n Qualifying debt-to-income ratios are used to determine whether the borrower can\n reasonably be expected to meet the expenses involved with homeownership. The\n lender must compute two ratios: (1) mortgage payment expense to effective\n income and (2) total fixed payment to effective income. The first ratio considers\n the total mortgage payment to the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s income while the second ratio\n considers all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debts, including the mortgage payment, to the\n borrower\xe2\x80\x99s income. According to Mortgagee Letter 2005-16, the qualifying ratios\n generally should not exceed 31 and 43 percent, respectively, without acceptable\n compensating factors for loans underwritten manually. HUD Handbook 4155.1,\n paragraph 4.F.3.a, states that loans approved using an automated underwriting\n system may be allowed to reasonably exceed the benchmarked qualifying ratios\n without compensating factors. The lender is responsible for the integrity of the\n data entered in the automated underwriting system used to approve the loan.\n\n For FHA case number 095-1353467, the lender used $4,767 as the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\n monthly income to qualify the borrower for an FHA-insured mortgage totaling\n $265,109. The lender used this income amount to calculate the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\n qualifying debt-to-income ratios of 47.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively. However,\n verifications with the borrower and the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer showed that the\n borrower\xe2\x80\x99s monthly income was $3,813. The borrower stated that she did not\n provide the pay stubs found in the loan file with the inaccurate employment\n income amount. The borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer stated that it did not complete or sign\n the verification of employment form with the inaccurate employment income\n amount contained in the loan file. The lender stated that it relied on the\n originating lender to process the loan and did not perform additional verifications\n of the employment income. Our recalculation of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s qualifying loan\n ratios based on the verified monthly income of $3,813 equaled 58.7 and 59.2\n percent, respectively. Given the inaccurate employment income information and\n higher loan ratios, the borrower would not have qualified for the FHA mortgage\n loan.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cCrossfire Underwrote Cash-Out\nRefinance Loans with Previous\nMortgage Delinquencies\n\n The lender did not consider the borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 payment histories with their previous\n mortgages when underwriting seven cash-out refinance loans. HUD Handbook\n 4155.1, paragraph 3.B.2.b, states that borrowers who are delinquent or in arrears\n or have suffered any mortgage delinquencies within the most recent 12-month\n period under the terms and conditions of their mortgages are not eligible for cash-\n out refinance loans.\n\n For FHA case number 095-0911262, the lender qualified this FHA-insured cash-\n out refinance loan of $309,320 that closed in November 2008. The credit report\n and the previous mortgage transaction payment history found in the lender\xe2\x80\x99s loan\n file showed that the borrower had delinquencies with the previous mortgage. The\n credit report showed that the borrower was delinquent in September 2007 and\n March 2008 on the previous mortgage. As a result, the borrower did not qualify\n for the $309,320 cash-out refinance loan, and the loan was ineligible for FHA\n insurance. This loan is now in the foreclosure process.\n\n From the refinanced loan, the borrower received $77,176 after paying off the\n original mortgage on the property. The borrower used $41,397 to pay off a home\n equity line of credit and $25,704 to pay off credit card accounts and received\n $10,075 in cash.\n\nCrossfire Did Not Exercise Due\nCare in Approving Loans\n\n Crossfire did not exercise due care when originating and underwriting these loans\n for FHA insurance to ensure compliance with HUD requirements. As a direct\n endorsement lender, Crossfire was allowed to endorse a mortgage loan for FHA\n insurance without a detailed technical underwriting review by HUD. In\n approving loans for FHA insurance, the lender certified that the mortgage loan\n documents were personally reviewed and the mortgage was found to be eligible\n for FHA insurance.\n\n The lender stated that it relied on the originating lenders (loan correspondents,\n authorized agent, and principals) to process the loans, which included verifying\n the employment income information. Generally, the lender would contact the\n borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 employers to ensure that the borrowers were employed there;\n however, the employment income amounts were not revalidated directly with the\n employers. HUD Handbook 4060.1, paragraph 2-13, states that lenders are\n allowed to outsource the processing functions as long as it does not materially\n affect the underwriting decision or increase the risk to the FHA insurance fund.\n The lender remains responsible for the quality of the mortgage and must ensure\n compliance with program requirements.\n\n 7\n\x0c Regarding the issue found with the cash-out refinance loans, the lender contended\n that it was not responsible for personally evaluating the borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 credit histories\n for loans underwritten and approved by the automated underwriting system.\n HUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 6.A.1.b, states that regardless of the risk\n assessment provided by the automated underwriting system, the lender remains\n accountable for compliance with FHA\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility requirements, as well as any\n credit, capacity, and documentation requirements not covered by the system. In\n addition, the underwriter associated with all seven loans was aware that cash-out\n refinance loans were not allowed to have any mortgage delinquencies occurring\n less than 12 months before the refinance. However, 7 of the 32 cash-out refinance\n loans reviewed had previous mortgage delinquencies. Therefore, the lender did\n not act with due care when originating and underwriting these loans for FHA\n insurance.\n\nConclusion\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when originating and underwriting 10\n FHA loans. The deficiencies occurred because the lender did not exercise due\n care to ensure that the loans were originated and underwritten in accordance with\n HUD requirements. As a result, Crossfire approved and insured 10 loans that\n were not eligible for FHA insurance. As of March 31, 2011, three of the loans\n were in the foreclosure process, four loans were delinquent, one loan was in the\n repayment process, one loan was recently reinstated, and one loan had its property\n sold in a preforeclosure sale. The loans placed the FHA insurance fund at risk for\n more than $1.1 million in potential losses should the properties be foreclosed\n upon and resold for less than the unpaid principal balances. In addition, HUD\n paid claims totaling $210,453 on 3 of the 10 ineligible loans. Therefore, HUD\n should seek indemnification from Crossfire for the 9 loans and reimbursement for\n the claims paid on 3 of the 10 loans.\n\n Appendix C contains a schedule of the indemnification and repayment amounts\n required for the 10 loans. Appendix D contains information on the seven cash-out\n refinance loans, and appendix E contains the loan details for the three purchase\n loans.\n\nRecommendations\n\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n require Crossfire to\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c 1A. Indemnify the nine ineligible loans2 with an estimated loss of $1,142,100.\n The estimated loss was based on the loss severity rate of 59 percent of the\n total unpaid principal balances of $1,935,762 as of March 31, 2011.\n\n 1B. Reimburse HUD $210,453 for the actual loss HUD incurred on the principal\n loan reduction and claims paid for FHA case numbers 095-0911262, 095-\n 0942848, and 095-1135143 as of March 31, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n2\n We recommend indemnification for 9 of the 10 ineligible loans. One of the ten loans (FHA case number 095-\n1135143) was sold in a preforeclosure sale, resulting in an actual loss and claim paid by HUD. The claim paid on\nthis loan, totaling $166,222, is questioned as ineligible costs in recommendation 1B. See Appendix A for further\nexplanation.\n\n 9\n\x0cFinding 2: Crossfire Did Not Follow HUD Requirements When\nImplementing Its Quality Control Program\nCrossfire did not implement a quality control program that complied with HUD requirements.\nSpecifically, it did not conduct quality control reviews in compliance with requirements, and its\nwritten quality control plan did not contain the required provisions. These conditions occurred\nbecause Crossfire disregarded HUD requirements. As a result, Crossfire increased the risk to the\nFHA insurance fund because it did not have assurance regarding the accuracy, validity, and\ncompleteness of its loan origination and underwriting operations.\n\n\nAs a condition of receiving and maintaining FHA approval, Crossfire must implement and\ncontinuously have in place a quality control program. HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2,\nparagraph 7-2, states that lenders must design their quality control program to meet the basic\ngoals of ensuring compliance with FHA\xe2\x80\x99s and the lender\xe2\x80\x99s origination and servicing\nrequirements; protecting FHA and the lender from unacceptable risk; guarding against errors,\nomissions, and fraud; and ensuring swift and appropriate corrective action. The lender\xe2\x80\x99s quality\ncontrol program contained deficiencies in its quality control reviews and its written quality\ncontrol plan.\n\nQuality Control Reviews Did Not\nComply With HUD Requirements\n\n\n Crossfire hired a quality control contractor to perform its post-quality control\n reviews from August 1997 through May 2008. Another contractor was hired to\n review the loans that closed between June and October 2008 because Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s\n audited financial statement reports cited a deficiency with its quality control\n reviews performed by the first contractor. Crossfire management stated that it\n was not satisfied with the results of the second contractor and reverted back to the\n prior contractor in the beginning of 2009. Crossfire did not maintain the quality\n control review reports performed by the second contractor to support that reviews\n were performed from June through October 2008. As a result, the lender did not\n comply with HUD requirements because it could not support that it had a quality\n control program in place for the loans that closed between June and October 2008.\n\n Crossfire underwrote 825 loans nationally from November 2008 through\n December 2010. The first contractor performed quality control reviews of 77\n FHA loans. We analyzed the quality control reviews performed and determined\n that Crossfire did not perform its quality control reviews according to HUD\n requirements. Our review found the following deficiencies:\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cLoans Not Reviewed Within Time Limit\nHUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(A), states that loans must be\nreviewed within 90 days from the end of the month in which the loan closed.\nQuality control reviews were not performed within the 90-day limit for 57 of the\n77 quality control reviews conducted. The elapsed days ranged from 91 to 207.\n\nFrequency of Reviews Not Performed\nHUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(B), states that for lenders closing\nmore than 15 loans monthly, quality control reviews must be conducted at least\nmonthly and must address 1 month\xe2\x80\x99s activity. Lenders closing 15 or fewer loans\nmonthly may perform quality control reviews quarterly. Based on the lender\xe2\x80\x99s\nloan activity from November 2008 through September 2010, it should have\nperformed monthly reviews. From October through December 2010, the lender\ncould have performed reviews quarterly. However, no reviews were performed\nfor the month of December 2008. Therefore, the lender did not perform quality\ncontrol reviews with the frequency required by HUD.\n\nEarly Payment Default Loans Not Reviewed\nHUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(D), states that all early payment\ndefault loans must be reviewed. Early payment default loans are loans that have\ndefaulted within the first six payments and become 60 days past due. From\nNovember 2008 through December 2010, Crossfire had at least 12 early payment\ndefault loans. None of the 12 early payment default loans was reviewed.\n\nCredit Reports Not Obtained\nHUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(E)(1), states that a new credit\nreport must be obtained for each borrower whose loan is included in a quality\ncontrol review unless the loan was a streamline refinance or was processed and\napproved by an automated underwriting system. Two of the seventy-seven loans\nreviewed were not approved by an automated underwriting system and were not\nstreamline refinance loans. Thus, for the two loans, new credit reports should\nhave been obtained for the borrowers. However, new credit reports were not\nobtained.\n\nDocument Reverifications Not Performed\nHUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(E)(2), states that documents\ncontained in the loan file, such as documents relating to borrower\xe2\x80\x99s income, gifts,\nor sources of funds, should be checked for sufficiency and subjected to written\nreverification.\n\nWe reviewed 10 of the 77 quality control reviews to determine whether\nreverifications were performed for the documents in the loan files. For all 10\nloans, the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employment income, sources of funds, and/or gift funds\nwere not properly reverified. There was no support to show that any of the\nreverification documents were sent for the 10 loans reviewed. For the\nreverifications of the borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 sources of funds, the external contractor\n\n 11\n\x0c explained that reverifications were not sent to some of the financial institutions\n because they charged a verification fee. In addition, it did not attempt to contact\n the sources by telephone if a written reverification could not be obtained.\n\n Field Appraisal Not Performed\n HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(E)(3), states that lenders are\n expected to perform field reviews of 10 percent of the loans selected per year\n during the sampling process. Since the lender performed quality control reviews\n of 46 FHA loans during 2009 and 30 loans in 2010, at least 4 field appraisals\n should have been performed in 2009, and 3 performed in 2010. However, there\n were no field appraisals performed in 2009, and only two field appraisals were\n performed in 2010.\n\n Occupancy Verification Not Performed\n HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(E)(4), states that in cases in\n which the occupancy of the subject property is suspect, the lender must attempt to\n determine whether the borrower is occupying the property. The external\n contractor stated that the verifications of property occupancy were not performed\n for any FHA-insured loans. From our review of 10 loans, at least 1 should have\n had an occupancy verification. The borrower owned a total of four real estate\n properties, which raises questions regarding whether the FHA-insured property\n was occupied by the borrower as a primary residence. No occupancy\n verifications were performed on any of the 10 quality control reviews selected for\n review.\n\n\nThe Written Plan Did Not\nContain Required Provisions\n\n Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s written quality control plan did not contain HUD-required provisions.\n HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(G), requires that each loan\n selected for a quality control review be reviewed to determine whether (1)\n conditions required for closing were met, (2) the closing and legal documents\n were accurate and complete, (3) the seller was the owner of record or was exempt,\n and (4) the loan closed and funds were disbursed according to instructions.\n Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s written quality control plan did not contain the last two provisions. In\n addition, paragraph 7-3I requires findings to be reported to lender senior\n management within 1 month of completion, and management must take prompt\n action to deal with any material findings. However, this requirement was missing\n from the written plan. Crossfire management stated that it was an oversight that\n these provisions were not included in the plan and that they could be added to the\n plan.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cThe Lender Disregarded\nHUD Requirements\n\n Crossfire disregarded the HUD requirement to implement and continuously have\n in place a compliant quality control program. The lender did not evaluate the\n work of the external contractor to ensure that the quality control reviews followed\n HUD requirements.\n\n Crossfire stated that it relied on the contractor and did not know that the reviews\n were not being performed in compliance with HUD requirements. The lender\n reviewed the quality control review reports but only focused on the findings cited\n in those reports. The quality control review reports were not reviewed for\n compliance with HUD requirements. Although the lender stated that it relied on\n its external quality control contractor to perform the quality control reviews in\n accordance with HUD requirements, the lender remains responsible for ensuring\n that the reviews complied with HUD requirements regardless of whether the\n reviews were performed by the lender or an external contractor.\n\n Although the lender stated that it was not aware that quality control reviews were\n not in compliance, its audited financial statement reports for the years 2007\n through 2010 noted that the reviews did not meet the 10 percent field appraisal\n requirement. Not only was the lender aware of at least one issue with its quality\n control reviews, but the same issue was also continuously cited for 4 consecutive\n years.\n\n In addition, Crossfire stated that it was not aware that quality control reviews had\n to meet certain requirements such as timeliness of the reviews, reviews of early\n payment default loans, and credit documentation reverifications. However, the\n lender prepared the written quality control plan that specifically discussed the\n quality control review requirements cited above.\n\n Crossfire management contended that the quality control program was a waste of\n time and resources because it did not focus reviews only on the nonperforming\n loans. However, the lender\xe2\x80\x99s quality control reviews were not performed on any\n of its 12 early payment default loans (loans that defaulted within the first six\n payments).\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cConclusion\n\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when implementing its quality control\n program. The lender disregarded HUD requirement to implement and have a\n continuous quality control program that complied with HUD requirements. As a\n result, the effectiveness of Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s quality control program to guard against\n errors, omissions, and fraud and to protect HUD from unacceptable risk was\n diminished. Specifically, Crossfire increased the risk to the FHA insurance fund\n because it did not have assurance regarding the accuracy, validity, and\n completeness of its loan origination and underwriting operations.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n\n 2A. Refer Crossfire to the Mortgagee Review Board for consideration of\n administrative actions against Crossfire for failure to implement and\n continuously have in place a quality control program in compliance with HUD\n requirements.\n\n 2B. Require Crossfire to develop, implement, and enforce a quality control\n program that complies with HUD requirements. Specifically, the lender needs\n to establish a written plan with the required provisions, ensure that quality\n control reviews meet HUD requirements, and enforce and maintain its quality\n control program on a continual basis.\n\n 2C. Review Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s quality control program within 9 months to determine\n whether the required provisions have been included in its written plan and\n quality control reviews are conducted in compliance with HUD\n requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\nTo accomplish the audit objectives, we\n\n Reviewed applicable HUD handbooks and mortgagee letters;\n Reviewed Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s written policies and procedures for originating and\n underwriting loans;\n Reviewed Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s loan files;\n Verified the accuracy of the information from the loan files with the borrowers and\n borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 employers;\n Reviewed Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s written quality control plan;\n Analyzed Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s post-quality control review reports;\n Interviewed Crossfire\xe2\x80\x99s employees, management, and external quality control\n contractor, and\n Reviewed new credit reports and other documentation provided by Crossfire for the\n cash-out refinance loans.\n\nWe accessed HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system to obtain information about the lender and its\nloans. Crossfire underwrote 657 loans within the jurisdiction of the Miami HUD office between\nthe amortization dates of December 1, 2008, and November 30, 2010. As of November 30,\n2010, 40 loans with mortgage amounts totaling $7.4 million were in default. We selected seven\nloans for review based on various risk factors including loans (1) with mortgage amounts of\n$300,000 or greater, (2) that defaulted within 6 months of closing, and (3) that recently\ndefaulted. The original mortgages of the seven loans totaled approximately $1.86 million, and\nthe unpaid principal balances totaled approximately $1.9 million. The results of our review\napply only to the loans reviewed and cannot be projected to the universe of loans.\n\nOne of the seven loans reviewed showed that the lender did not consider the previous mortgage\ndelinquencies of its cash-out refinance loans as required by HUD. As a result, we expanded our\nreview of the lender\xe2\x80\x99s cash-out refinance loans to determine whether previous mortgage\ndelinquencies occurred less than 12 months before the refinance. A total of 51 refinance loans\nwere underwritten, and 47 of those loans were cash-out refinance loans. We selected an\nadditional 31 loans for review based on various risk factors including loans (1) with mortgage\namounts greater than $100,000, (2) that had a credit report dated 2 months or more from the\nclosing date and a mortgage between $100,000 and $175,000, or (3) that did not have a credit\nreport dated within the same month as the closing date and a mortgage greater than $175,000.\nThe original mortgages of the 31 loans totaled approximately $6.68 million.\n\nCrossfire\xe2\x80\x99s external contractor performed quality control reviews of 77 loans that closed between\nNovember 2008 and December 2010. We reviewed the 77 quality control review reports for\ncompliance with HUD requirements related to timeliness, frequency, sample size, early payment\ndefaults, credit report, and field appraisals. We selected 10 of the 77 quality control review\nreports based on loans (1) that were delinquent, or (2) with mortgages totaling about $300,000 or\ngreater. The ten loans were evaluated for compliance with credit document reverification, desk\n\n 15\n\x0cappraisal review, and occupancy verification requirements, as well as corrective actions taken on\nmaterial findings cited in the quality control review reports. The results of our review apply only\nto the quality control reports reviewed and cannot be projected to the universe of reports.\n\nWe used data maintained on two systems-HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system and the external\ncontractor\xe2\x80\x99s quality control system. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s system is designed to highlight exceptions so that\npotential problems are readily identifiable. In particular, the system provides the ability to\nidentify and analyze patterns, by geographic area or originating lender, in loans that became 90\ndays delinquent during the first 2 years. The external contractor\xe2\x80\x99s quality control system\ncontains information from the quality control reviews and is used to track the review process.\nWe did not rely on the data as a basis for our conclusions.\n\nDuring the course of the audit, we clarified HUD regulations and discussed potential issues with\nthe headquarters and the Atlanta Homeownership Center Quality Assurance Division. We also\ndiscussed the findings with Crossfire management.\n\nWe classified more than $1.1 million as funds to be put to better use and $210,453 as questioned\ncosts. This is 59 percent of the total unpaid principal balances of approximately $1.9 million as\nof March 31, 2011, for the nine loans. We used 59 percent because it has been determined that\nupon the sale of the mortgage properties, FHA\xe2\x80\x99s average loss was about 59 percent of the unpaid\nprincipal balance. The questioned costs of $210,453 were incurred by HUD for claims paid and\nthe principal loan reduction for FHA case numbers 095-0911262, 095-0942848, and 095-\n1135143 as of March 31, 2011. HUD paid claims on 3 of the 10 loans found to have originating\nand underwriting deficiencies. FHA case number 095-0911262 had a $750 claim paid for a loan\nmodification. FHA case number 095-0942848 had a $750 claim paid for a loan modification and\na $42,731 claim paid to reduce the principal of the loan, which reduced the unpaid principal\nbalance of the loan. FHA case number 095-1135143 had a claim of $166,222 paid as a result of\na preforeclosure sale, which is the loss HUD incurred for the sale of the property.\n\nOur review generally covered the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2010, and was\nextended as necessary. We conducted our fieldwork from January through March 2011 at\nCrossfire\xe2\x80\x99s offices in Miami, FL, and at various other locations in the Miami-Dade and Broward\nCounty areas to conduct interviews with the borrowers, employers, and the external quality\ncontrol contractor.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n Reliability of financial reporting, and\n Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n Program operation \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that management has implemented\n to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.\n\n Compliance with laws and regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is\n consistent with laws and regulations.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does\n not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cSignificant Deficiencies\n\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant deficiencies:\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when originating and underwriting\n FHA loans (see finding 1).\n\n Crossfire did not follow HUD requirements when implementing its quality\n control program (see finding 2).\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n\n Recommendation Funds to be put to\n number Ineligible 1/ better use 2/\n\n 1A $ 1,142,100\n 1B $ 210,453 __________\n Total $ 210,453 $ 1,142,100\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be\n used more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is\n implemented. These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds,\n withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements,\n avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings\n that are specifically identified.\n\n Implementation of our recommendations to require Crossfire to indemnify HUD for the\n nine ineligible loans will reduce the risk of loss to the FHA insurance fund. The amount\n above reflects HUD\xe2\x80\x99s estimated loss of 59 percent of the loans\xe2\x80\x99 unpaid principal balance\n of $1,935,762 as of March 31, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cComment 2\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\nComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cComment 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c23\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\n\nComment 1 The lender stated that it was aware of only 1 of 10 loans that used\n inaccurate employment income information to qualify the borrower for the\n loan.\n\n Finding 1 states that Crossfire used inaccurate employment information, did\n not support the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s asset information, and relied on an invalid\n appraisal report to qualify borrowers for three of the six purchase loans\n reviewed. In addition, it approved 7 of the 32 cash-out refinance loans\n reviewed with previous mortgage delinquencies occurring less than 12\n months before the refinancing. The table in the report identifies the specific\n deficiencies found for each of the 10 loans. The deficiencies were also\n discussed with Crossfire officials throughout the audit.\n\nComment 2 The lender's response stated that it provided documentation to show the\n employment information for one loan in question was accurate. This\n document was provided to the auditor subsequent to the initial information\n given to the auditor.\n\n For FHA case #095-0770109, we served a subpoena to the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\n employer requesting specific employment documentation to verify the\n borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employment information in the loan file. The employer\n responded to our subpoena with a letter stating that the company had no\n record of the borrower ever being employed at the company. On March 25,\n 2011, we discussed this issue with the lender. Subsequently, on May 3,\n 2011, the lender provided us with another letter from the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\n employer stating that the borrower was employed at the company.\n However, no additional documentation was provided to support this;\n specifically, none of the employment documents originally requested in the\n subpoena were included with this letter. We contacted the employer to\n confirm the authenticity of the letter provided by the lender and obtain the\n documents requested in the subpoena. The employer has not confirmed the\n authenticity of the letter or provided us with the employment documents\n requested in the subpoena. Therefore, the lender cannot support that it used\n accurate employment information to qualify the borrower for the loan.\n\nComment 3 The lender stated that it was not aware of any invalid appraisal reports used\n to qualify loans.\n\n For FHA case #095-0770109, an invalid appraisal was used to qualify the\n loan. This issue was discussed with the lender on March 25, 2011 and May\n 3, 2011. At the time of our discussion, the lender acknowledged that the\n appraisal report used had exceeded its allowable validity period per HUD\n requirements. The lender stated that the appraisal should not have been\n used due to the extended amount of time that passed between the loan\n\n 24\n\x0c application and the loan closing. The appraisal report was dated June 28,\n 2008 and the loan closed on December 31, 2008 or over 6 months later.\n This issue was also discussed with HUD and it agreed that the appraisal\n report was not valid.\n\nComment 4 The lender stated it relied on the automated underwriting system to approve\n all seven of the cash-out refinance loans discussed in the report. It was not\n aware of any inaccurate or incomplete information used by the system to\n generate the approval results.\n\n The lender\xe2\x80\x99s loan files contained credit reports for 4 of the 7 cash-out\n refinance loans that showed the borrowers had previous mortgage\n delinquencies within 12 months prior to the refinancing. Therefore, the\n lender had the mortgage delinquency information at the time the loans were\n reviewed and did not use the correct information when processing the loan\n through the automated underwriting system. As a result, the system relied\n on inaccurate information for the approval of these loans. (FHA case #\n 095-0932148, #095-0911262, #095-0937700, and # 095-0973194). For the\n remaining three cash-out refinance loans, the lender did not account for\n gaps (from 3 to 8 months) between the time of the credit reviews of the\n borrowers and the refinance closing.\n\nComment 5 The lender stated that it verified employment information over the phone,\n but not all employers verified income amounts over the phone. Instead, it\n relied on the employment documents such as the paystubs and W-2 forms\n and believed it was adequate.\n\n The lender did not verify the employment income information directly with\n the employers for loans originated by another entity. The lender\xe2\x80\x99s loan files\n contained the verbal employment verification form which did not have a\n section for the employment income to be verified. Therefore, the lender did\n not ensure accurate employment income was used to qualify the borrowers\n for their loans.\n\nComment 6 The lender generally agreed with the finding on the quality control program\n and was unaware of the specific conditions in which an occupancy review\n would be required for a loan selected for review. The lender also stated that\n it did not make a statement about the quality control program and that the\n conversation in question was understood by the lender to be outside the\n context of the audit.\n\n During the post quality control review, the lender is required to consider\n occupancy verifications on loans in which occupancy status is suspect.\n Although HUD requirements do not list all of the specific conditions of\n occupancy suspicion, the lender is required to consider such verifications on\n FHA insured properties, such as if a borrower owned multiple properties.\n The quality control contractor stated that occupancy verifications were not\n\n 25\n\x0c performed for any FHA insured loans. Our review of all 77 quality control\n review reports found no support to show any of the loans were verified or\n questioned for occupancy. Therefore, the lender did not consider\n occupancy verifications on loans in which occupancy status is of suspect.\n\n We did not make any representation that discussions related directly to the\n audit findings would be outside of the audit. The discussion of the quality\n control program with the lender in this case was to determine why the\n quality control reviews did not follow HUD requirements. The lender was\n informed that its responses are directly incorporated into the audit report.\n\nComment 7 The lender requested not to be referred to the Mortgagee Review Board. It\n has made changes to its origination and underwriting process.\n\n We recognize the changes the lender has made to its origination and\n underwriting process. However, the lender is being referred to the\n Mortgagee Review Board because of the deficiencies found with its quality\n control program. Therefore, the recommendation will remain.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n SCHEDULE OF INDEMNIFICATION AND REPAYMENT\n AMOUNTS FOR THE 10 LOANS\n\n\n Original Unpaid Claims\n mortgage mortgage Indemnification Paid Status of loan as of\nNo. FHA case no. amount balance amounta by HUDb March 31, 2011\n 1 095-1353467 $ 265,109 $ 263,143 $ 155,254 $ -0- Foreclosure process\n 2 095-1135143 $ 264,127 $ -0- $ -0- $ 166,222 Preforeclosure sale\n 3 095-0770109 $ 216,601 $ 216,208 $ 127,563 $ -0- Delinquent\n 4 095-0932148 $ 272,690 $ 265,827 $ 156,838 $ -0- Repayment process\n 5 095-0911262 $ 309,320 $ 362,961 $ 214,147 $ 750 Foreclosure process\n 6 095-0937700 $ 137,362 $ 135,479 $ 79,933 $ -0- Delinquent\n 7 095-0970905 $ 189,458 $ 185,083 $ 109,199 $ -0- Delinquent\n 8 095-1002059 $ 238,095 $ 235,496 $ 138,943 $ -0- Foreclosure process\n 9 095-0942848 $ 195,868 $ 154,884 $ 91,381 $ 43,481 Reinstated\n10 095-0973194 $ 119,861 $ 116,681 $ 68,842 $ -0- Delinquent\n Totals $ 2,208,491 $ 1,935,762 $ 1,142,100 $ 210,453\n\na\n We classified $1,142,100 as funds to be put to better use. This is 59 percent of the $1,935,762 in unpaid principal\nbalances for the nine loans as of March 31, 2011. The 59 percent is the estimated percentage of loss HUD would incur\nwhen the FHA property is foreclosed upon and resold as supported by the HUD Single Family Acquired Asset\nManagement System\xe2\x80\x99s Case Management Profit and Loss by Acquisition as of September 2010.\nb\n We classified $210,453 in claims paid by HUD as ineligible costs that would be required to be repaid to HUD. The\nloans were not eligible for FHA insurance and, therefore, not entitled to any claim payments. Any claims paid for the\nineligible loans are required to be repaid to HUD.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n LOAN DETAILS FOR THE SEVEN\n CASH-OUT REFINANCE LOANS\n\n\n\n\n Previous 12- Cash Cash\n month equivalent* received Status of loan\n FHA Closing mortgage Mortgage benefited by by as of\nNo. case no. date delinquencies amount borrower borrower March 28, 2011\n $ 3,398 Repayment\n 1 095-0932148 1/14/2009 11/2008 $ 272,690 $ 19,863\n process\n $ 10,075 Foreclosure\n 2 095-0911262 11/7/2008 3/2008 $ 309,320 $ 67,101\n process\n 3 095-0937700 12/22/2008 1/2008 $ 137,362 $ 4,822 $ 78,336 Delinquent\n 1/2009,\n 4 095-0970905 2/4/2009 $ 189,458 $ 1,580 $ -0- Delinquent\n 2/2009\n 5/2008- Foreclosure\n 5 095-1002059 12/30/2008 $ 238,095 $ 18,952 $ 16,019\n 12/2008 process\n 11/2008- $ 2,639\n 6 095-0942848 12/12/2008 $ 195,868 $ -0- Reinstated\n 12/2008\n 7 095-0973194 2/27/2009 4/2008 $ 119,861 $ 7,050 $ 67,264 Delinquent\n Totals $ 1,462,654 $ 119,368 $ 177,731\n*Cash equivalent is defined as funds obtained from the refinance loan that were used to pay for other items, such as credit\ncard debts, that were not directly related to the previous primary mortgage debt and general closing costs associated with a\nloan.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cAppendix E\n\n LOAN DETAILS FOR THE\n THREE PURCHASE LOANS\n\n\nFHA case #: 095-1353467 Mortgaged amount: $265,109\n\nDate of loan closing: 9/8/2009 Unpaid principal balance: $263,143\n\nLoan purpose: Purchase - existing Default status: First legal action to commence foreclosure\n\n\nInaccurate Employment Income\nThe lender did not perform due diligence when verifying the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employment income.\nHUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.D.1.a., states that income may not be used in calculating\nthe borrower\xe2\x80\x99s qualifying ratios if it comes from any source that cannot be verified, is not stable,\nor will not continue. Documents contained in the loan file, such as the loan application,\nverification of employment, and pay stubs, indicated that the borrower earned a monthly income\nof $4,766.67. Using the income amount of $4,766.67 from the loan file, the lender calculated the\nhousing payment-to-income and debt-to-income ratios of 47.0 and 47.4, respectively.\n\nOur reverifications with the borrower and the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer showed that the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s\nmonthly income was $3,813.33. The borrower stated that she did not provide the pay stubs\nfound in the loan file with the inaccurate employment income amount. The borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer\nstated that she did not complete or sign the verification of employment form with the inaccurate\nemployment income amount that was found in the loan file. Using our verified income amount\nof $3,813.33, we calculated the qualifying ratios of 58.7 and 59.2 percent. Given the inaccurate\nemployment income and the higher ratios, the borrower would not have qualified for the FHA\nmortgage loan.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cFHA case #: 095-1135143 Mortgaged amount: $264,127\n\nDate of loan closing: 5/21/2009 Unpaid principal balance: $ -0-\n\nLoan purpose: Purchase - existing Default status: Preforeclosure sale\n\n\nUnsupported Source of Funds\nThe lender did not verify or show support that the source of funds used at closing was from an\nacceptable source. The total cash investment of $9,065 was paid at closing; however, there was\nno documentation in the loan file to show the source of the funds. The loan file showed that the\nborrowers\xe2\x80\x99 funds from their bank accounts totaled $1,597. There was also a gift letter from one\nof the borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 relative stating that a gift of $10,000 would be made to the borrower.\nHowever, there was no evidence in the loan file that the gift funds had been deposited or\ntransferred into the borrowers\xe2\x80\x99 bank accounts or that the funds provided at closing were from the\ngift donor or another acceptable source.\n\nHUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 5.B.4.d, states that the lender is responsible for verifying the\nacceptability of the gift fund sources and that the funds were not provided by an unacceptable\nsource. If the funds were paid at closing, the lender is responsible for verifying that the closing\nagent received the funds from the donor for the amount of the gift and that the funds were from\nan acceptable source. Paragraph 5.B.4.b states that acceptable sources would include but not\nlimited to the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s relative, employer or labor union, charitable organization, and\ngovernmental agency that provides home ownership assistance. Paragraph 5.B.4.c states that\nunacceptable sources would include but not limited to the seller, real estate agent or broker,\nbuilder, or an associated entity. The lender was not able to provide documentation to support the\nsource of funds used at the loan closing. As a result, this loan was not eligible for FHA\ninsurance. The property was sold in a preforeclosure sale, and HUD suffered a loss of $166,222.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0cFHA case #: 095-0770109 Mortgaged amount: $216,601\n\nDate of loan closing: 12/31/2008 Unpaid principal balance: $216,208\n\nLoan purpose: Purchase - existing Default status: Delinquent\n\nInaccurate Employment Information\nThe lender did not perform due diligence when verifying the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employment income.\nHUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.D.1.a., states that income may not be used in calculating\nthe borrower\xe2\x80\x99s qualifying ratios if it comes from a source that cannot be verified, is not stable, or\nwill not continue.\n\nDocuments contained in the loan file, such as the loan application, verification of employment,\nand pay stubs, indicated that the borrower and coborrower earned a total monthly income of\n$6,633.47. Using the income amount of $6,633.47 from the loan file, the lender calculated the\nhousing payment-to-income and debt-to-income ratios of 27.5 and 38.5, respectively.\n\nOur verification with the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer disclosed that the borrower had not been\nemployed at that company. The coborrower\xe2\x80\x99s employer disclosed that the coborrower earned\n$13,013 in 2008, or $1,084 per month. Using the monthly income amount of $1,084, we\ncalculated the qualifying ratios of 168.0 and 235.4 percent. Given the inaccurate employment\ninformation and the resulting substantially higher ratios, the borrowers would not have qualified\nfor this FHA mortgage loan.\n\nInvalid Appraisal Report\nThe lender did not adequately review the appraisal report used for the approval of this loan. The\nlender is responsible for the integrity, accuracy, and thoroughness of the appraisal used for a\nloan. Mortgagee Letter 2009-30 states that the validity period for an appraisal for the purchase\nof an existing property is 6 months from the date of the appraisal for a loan that had a case\nnumber issued before January 1, 2010. The lender acknowledged this requirement by signing the\nform HUD-92800.5B, Conditional Commitment Direct Endorsement Statement of Appraised\nValue. In signing this statement, the lender agreed to general commitment conditions, which\nincluded that the validity of the appraised value would expire 6 months from the appraisal issue\ndate.\n\nThis loan had its case number issued in July 2008, and the appraisal report was dated June 28,\n2008. Therefore, the appraisal report was valid up to December 28, 2008. The loan closed on\nDecember 31, 2008, which was after the allowable validity date. We discussed this loan with\nHUD staff members, who said that this appraisal was invalid due to the elapsed time. As a\nresult, the appraisal report with the value of $220,000 used to approve this loan was not valid,\nand, therefore, reliance on it would have made this loan ineligible for FHA insurance.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c"


text:
Pekka Leino: Onko tarkoitus luopua kirkkolakijärjestelmästä? – Kotimaa24
 28.04.2020 09:55 - eri kirjoittajia
 Kotimaa24:ään 18.3. kirjoittamani blogin (Kirkkolakijärjestelmän ongelmat tulivat esiin perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunnossa) jälkeen eduskunnan hallintovaliokunta on linjannut perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunnossa esitettyjä asioita tavalla, johon Risto Tuori on perustellusti kiinnittänyt huomiota blogissaan.
 Viimeisimmässä kirkko-oikeuskirjassani, Kirkkolakijärjestelmän ongelmat, olen halunnut kiinnittää nimenomaista huomiota kirkkolakijärjestelmän perimmäiseen tarkoitukseen eli siihen, miksi kirkkolakijärjestelmä aikanaan luotiin. Tietenkin juridisesta näkövinkkelistä kirkkolakijärjestelmä on ”vain” lakijärjestelmä. Sellaisena eduskunnan valiokunnatkin näyttävät sitä tarkastelleen. Lakijärjestelmän toimivuudesta onkin kannettava huolta. Mutta vaikka kirkkolakijärjestelmä on vain lakijärjestelmä, jonka kautta jo noin 150 vuoden ajan on tuotettu kirkon elämää ja sen suhdetta valtioon sääntelevää eduskunnassa säädettävää lakinormia, kirkkolakijärjestelmä ongelmineenkin on edelleen tarpeen oikein ymmärrettynä. Todennäköistä onkin, ettei kirkkolakijärjestelmän perimmäistä tarkoitusta ole syvemmin sisäistetty. Tämä koskee eduskunnan hallintovaliokunnan lisäksi myös kirkon omaa hallintoapparaattia.
 Perustuslakivaliokunnan 4.3.2020 antaman lausunnon mukaan kirkkolain kokonaisuudistusta koskevaa lakiehdotusta ei voida käsitellä ehdotetussa lainsäätämisjärjestyksessä. Perustuslakivaliokunta puuttui lausunnoissaan lähinnä vain lakiehdotuksen viiteen pykälään, joiden se katsoi olevan ongelmallisia suhteessa perusoikeussäännöksiin. Lakiehdotukseen on toisin sanoen sisältynyt kohtia, jotka eivät perustuslain näkökulmasta ole hyväksyttävissä. Kirkkolain käsittelyjärjestyksen kannalta on siten ymmärrettävää, että eduskunnassa on väsytty täydentävien esitysten pyytämiseen kirkolliskokoukselta koko laajan kirkkolakisäädöksen uusimiseksi kirkkolakijärjestyksen edellyttämällä tavalla.
 Kirkkolakijärjestelmän kannalta perustuslakivaliokunnan lausunnon osalta on todettava, että hallituksen esitykseen sisältyvä kirkkolakiehdotus ei tarkistusvaiheenkaan (HE 93/2019 vp) jälkeen ole ollut perustuslakivaliokunnan mielestä sellaisenaan hyväksyttävissä. Tässä ei loukata valtiosäännössä kahteen kertaan hyväksyttyä kirkon lainsäädäntöautonomiaa. Eduskunnan perustuslakivaliokunnan kommentit epäselvyyksistä ja korjausvaatimuksista ovat olleet ymmärrettäviä ja perusteltavissa. Virhe on tapahtunut kun laajaan kirkkolakiuudistuksessa kirkkolakiin on pyritty sisällyttämään yksityiskohtaista sääntelyä, joka ei ole ollut ainakaan esitetyssä muodossa kirkkolakiin sisällytettävissä.
 Kirkkolakijärjestelmän kannalta ongelmalliseksi kirkkolain kokonaisuusuudistuksen on tehnyt hallintovaliokunnan kirkkohallitukselle 1.4.2020 lähettämä kirje, johon puolestaan on sisältynyt kohtia, joiden ei voida katsoa olevan sopusuhteessa perustuslakiin sisältyvään kirkon oikeuteen saada kirkkolakiin sen järjestysmuotoa ja hallintoa koskevia säännöksiä. Hallintovaliokunta ei ole tyytynyt rooliinsa tuoda kirkkolakiehdotus eduskunnan käsiteltäväksi joko sen hyväksyttäväksi tai hylättäväksi, vaan on asettautunut koko kirkkolakijärjestelmän tuomariksi määräämään etukäteisehtoja siitä, mitä kirkkolaissa ylipäätänsä saa olla ja mitä ei. Totta sinänsä on, että jos kirkkolakiuudistus sisältää perustuslain kannalta useita ongelmallisia säännöksiä, koko esityksen kaataminen voi tuntua turhauttavalta. Mutta nyt koko kirkkolain uudistustyö on jumiutunut ja vastuu tästä kuuluu myös kirkon omalle kirkkolain valmisteluapparaatille. Onko kirkkoa varten luodun lakijärjestelmän toiminta tukahdutettu koko säädöksen uudistamispyrkimyksellä yhdellä kertaa ja sisällyttämällä uudistukseen säännösehdotuksia, joissa ei ole otettu huomioon perustuslain vaatimuksia? Näin koko kirkkolakijärjestelmä on joutunut tai saatettu uhanalaiseksi uustulkinnoille tai muuttamispaineisiin.
 Kiistelyä perustellusti aiheuttaneen laajan virkamieslainsäädännön uudistaminen voitiin tehdä muutama vuosi sitten kirkkolakia vain osittain uudistamalla ja sitä perusteltiin perustuslain lakitasoisuusvaatimuksilla. Kirkon omassa harkinnassa on sen sijaan muutenkin ollut, vaatiiko todellinen tarve koko kirkkolain läpikäymiseen säädöksenä. Rajanveto muuhun yleiseen lainsäädäntöön on tunnetusti vaikeata ja on johtanut kirkkolain erityisaseman väheksymiseen. Yhteiskunta on kirkkolakijärjestelmän alkuvuosikymmenien jälkeen muuttunut selkeästi sekulaariin suuntaan. Tämä ei mitenkään ole vähentänyt tarvetta sallia kirkolle oikeutusta toimintaan sen oman oppiperustan mukaan kirkon omassa toiminnassa. Kirkkolakijärjestelmä on luotu tästä tarpeesta ja sitä on ylläpidetty kahdessa perustuslaissa nimenomaan halusta sallia kirkolle sen omaleimaisuus myös julkisyhteisönä.
 Toinen asia on - ja näin hallintovaliokunnankin kannanotto tulisi käsittää kirkon lainsäädäntöautonomian kannalta - olisiko kirkon pitäessään kiinni omasta tunnustuspohjastaan arvioitava, sisältyykö kirkon työhön julkisen vallan käyttämistä niin, että sen toiminnassa virkamiesoikeudellisen tai hallinto-oikeudellisen toimintamallin muun julkisyhteisön tavoin olisi tarpeen ilmentyä pyrkimyksenä kirkkolain säännösten harmonisoimiseen muun julkisyhteisön sääntelyn tavoin. Kirkon oppiperusta ei tätä vaadi, vaan kirkkolain säädöshistoria ennemminkin periytyy vanhasta Ruotsinvallan aikaisesta valtiokirkkoperinteestä, josta kirkkolakijärjestelmän kautta syntyi mahdollisuus muuttua kansankirkoksi. Tämä kehityssuunta on kääntynyt virkamiesoikeudellisen sääntelyn myötä takaisin valtiokirkon suuntaan.
 Kirkkolakijärjestelmään on sen alusta saakka kuulunut kirkon yksioikeus ehdottaa kirkkolakia asioista, jotka ovat ainoastaan sen omia ja ”kirkosta lähtöisiä”. Kirkon järjestysmuodolla on pitkään ymmärretty kirkon konstituutiota, jolla on myös teologista sisältöä. Kirkon hallinnolla ei ole ymmärretty mitä tahansa hallintoa, vaan hallintoa, joka on yhteensopiva myös kirkon teologisen olemukseen. Onko kirkkolakijärjestelmän ongelmia pohdittaessa ollenkaan otettu huomioon, miksi valtiokirkkojärjestelmässä kirkkolakijärjestelmää luotaessa aikanaan nimenomaisesti haluttiin raivata lainsäädännöllinen elintila kirkolle, johon käytännössä koko kansa kuului? Tänään kirkkoon eivät toki enää kaikki kuulu. Nykyoloissa saattaa olla trendikästä irtautua kirkosta, jolla ei näyttäisi olevan oppinsa väheksymisessään myöskään sanottavaa suurelle osalle väestöstä. Mutta voidaanko kuitenkaan kirkkoa, johon selkeä valtaväestö kuitenkin kuuluu, tänäänkään pitää pelkästään sääntelykohteena? Tämä merkitsisi käytännössä palaamassa valtiokirkkokäsitettäkin ahtaampaan käsitykseen kirkosta, jolle ei sallita oikeusjärjestyksessä ja yhteiskunnan elämässä sen omaa tunnustuspohjaa sen omassa toiminnassa.
 Otan esille esimerkkinä hallintovaliokunnan kirjeestä kirkkohallitukselle esimerkkinä sen laajentavan tulkinnan PeVL 20/1993 lausumasta, jossa oli tuolloin ollut kysymys silloin käsittelyssä olleesta hallituksen esityksestä, johon oli sisältynyt se nurinkurisuus, ettei eduskunnassa voida tehdä kirkkolakiehdotukseen edes asiasisältöön vaikuttamattomia, esimerkiksi kirjoitusteknisiä parannuksia. Perustuslakivaliokunta oli vuonna 1993 kokenut kirkkolakijärjestelmän tiukan noudattamisen käsittelyjärjestyksen kannalta ongelmallisena ja esittänyt siinä yhteydessä kirkkolain erityisen käsittelyjärjestyksen tarpeellisuuden selvittämistä kokonaisuudessaan ja kirkon aloitemonopolin ja valtiopäiväjärjestyksen 61 §:n säännösten ajanmukaisuuden arvioimista. On kuitenkin huomattava, että tämän jälkeen vuoden 2000 perustuslain säätämisen yhteydessä kirkkolakijärjestelmä sai hyväksynnän 76 §:ssä entisen vuoden 1919 hallitusmuodon 83 §:n tavoin. Ja kirkkolakiinkin on tehty 31.3.2006/236 lainsäädäntöteknisiä virheitä koskeva muutos.
 Kirkkolakijärjestelmän perustuslakiin perustuvaa kirkon yksinoikeutta ehdottaa kirkkolakia ainoastaan sen omista asioista loukkaavana voidaan pitää tähän järjestelmään ajateltua pyrkimystä etukäteen määrätä ja rajata kirkon esityksen sisältö. On myönnettävä, että etenkin kirkkolain alan ja kirkon järjestysmuodon käsitteiden määrittely on järjestelmän alusta saakka ollut vaikea tehtävä. Mutta kirkkolakijärjestelmä on ollut näihin käsitteisiin sisältyvien tulkinnaisuuksien ja itse järjestelmän kankeuden lisäksi myös joustava. Esimerkiksi vuoden 1977 parlamentaarisen Kirkko ja valtio -komitean perusteellisen kirkon ja valtion välisten suhteiden selvittelyn jälkeen tehtyä vuoden 1993 suurta kirkkolakireformia voidaan pitää esimerkkinä kirkkolakijärjestelmän ikäänsä nähden yllättävästä joustavuudesta. Se myös vähensi kirkkolakisäädöksen kokonaisuudistamisen tarvetta.
 Toivottavasti evl.fi -sivustolla 7.4.2020 julkaistu tiedote eduskunnan hallintovaliokunnan kirkkolain käsittelyn keskeytyksestä ei ennakoi kirkon puolelta yritystä rakentaa sellainen kirkkolakiehdotus nyt kirkolle esitetyin vaatimuksin, että uusi kirkkolaki tyhjentäisi kirkkolakijärjestelmän sisällöltään valtion yksipuolisesti määrittelemäksi yleiseksi hallintolaiksi. Kirkon oppi on ainoastaan kirkon oma asia. Se ei ole valtiosääntö-, hallinto- eikä valtiosääntöoikeuttakaan, vaan teologiaa. Kirkon julkisyhteisöluonteen nykyisessä käsittämisessä mm. teologinen käsite pappeus on alettu ymmärtää virkamiesoikeudellisesti. Kirkon opin ja sen mukaisen kirkon tunnustuksen on määrättävä kirkkoa koskevaa oikeudellista normia sekä kirkon järjestysmuotoa ja hallintoa. Niin ei voi olla, että yhteiskunnan muuttuva arvopohja ja siitä seuraava lainsäädäntö määräävät kirkon opin ja sen mukaisen tunnustuksen.
 Tämän kansainvälisestikin uniikin lakijärjestelmän luomiselle ja sen yli 150 vuotta säilymiselle on kansallisen identiteetin vahvistamisen lisäksi ollut myös kirkon tunnustukseen ja oppipohjaan perustuvia teologisia syitä. Kirkon tarve saada tunnustaa omaa oppiansa ja elää sen mukaisesti ei ole muuttunut vai merkitseekö kirkkohallituksen informaatio syntyneestä tilanteesta muuta?
 Pekka Leino
 professori, kirkko-oikeuden ja hallinto-oikeuden dosentti
 OTT, TT, varatuomari
 Kiitos, ja on mukava lukea näin täyttä asiaa.
 Mainitsitte itse aiemmin kirkkolain historiasta sen synnytetyn turvaamaan oikeutta oman uskonnon harjoittamisessa aikana milloin lähes kaikki kuuluivat kirkkoon.
 Nyt kun jäsenmäärä vähenee entisessä “valtiokirkossa” onko nyt syytä syventää vai ohentaa kirkkolain tuomia mahdollisuuksia toimintaan mihin kuuluvat toki lain tuomat etuudet.
 Jotenkin vaikuttaa teologian olevan nyt taka·alalla.
 Tämä on hyvin kiinnostava. Uusi tieto on blogissa mainittu eduskunnan hallintovaliokunnan kirje kirkkohallitukselle. “Kirkkolakijärjestelmän kannalta ongelmalliseksi kirkkolain kokonaisuusuudistuksen on tehnyt hallintovaliokunnan kirkkohallitukselle 1.4.2020 lähettämä kirje..” Sitä ei luonnollisesti löydy hallintovaliokunnan nettisivuilta. Kirjeessä valiokunta on ilmeisesti mennyt ohjeistamaan kirkkoa siitä miten kirkkolakiehdotusta tulisi muuttaa, ja se ei blogistin mukaan käy laatuun perinteisesti ymmärretyssä kirkkolakijärjestelmässä. Jos ymmärrän oikein.
 Aiemmin luin jostakin asiasta saada papit ja asema huomioiduksi paremmin saatetussa ehdotuksessa mikä palautettiin. Voin muistaa väärin, ja eihän nyt keskustelussa oleva mitenkään viittaa muistamaani.
 Kirkon järjestys sinänsä ymmärryksineen tunnustamisessa ja sen objekteissa en uskoisi olevan syy palauttamiseen, koska kirkon järjestystä nykyisellään voisi katsoa omistamisessa myös hengellinen yhdyskunta.
 Yhdyskuntana kirkko voisi vapaasti todistaa pappiensa vakaumuksesta vihkiä vain todistettavasti päteviä Ihmisiä ko. malliin.
 Itse arvostan työtä hautausmaitten erinomaisessa huolehtimisessa, samoin kuin aina tarpeellista diakoniatyötä. Hautaansaattamiset ovat arvokasta asiaa omaisten kohtaamisissa.
 Sielunhoitokin voisi työnä olla arvokasta, kun kirkkomme haluaisi asiaa avata sitä kysyäksemme.
 28.04.2020 17:53
 Kirkon aseman muutoksella olisi sitten yksi, paljon, vaikuttava asia; Teologinen Tiedekunta ahjoineen suuntauksissa.
 Yliopistohan ei ota kantaa kirkkomme missioon mitä sen aina sitten ymmärretään tarkoittavan. Näin harkittavaksi tulisi moisen ahjon lakkauttaminen, tai sen muuttuminen vaikka Hengelliseksi Akatemiaksi, mikä hyvin palvelisi tunnustuksellisen tiedon siirtämisen prinsiippejä oikeaoppisessa katsomisessa Luterilaisuutemme, kuin Paavalin juuriin.
 Näin ei valtiovallan katsomiset samanarvoisessa Ihmisten kontekstiin katsomisessa haittaisi mitään vaan samanarvotonta harkintaa voitaisi harjoittaa uskossa edelleen.
 28.04.2020 18:35
 Juuri tullut iso uutinen etusivulta: Kirkkoneuvos Pirjo PIhlaja ilmoittaa, että “Hallintovaliokunnan kanta on nyt se, että uusi kirkkolakiehdotus on syytä kirjoittaa kokonaan uudelleen.”
 Tässähän ei ole järkeä hiventäkään kun asiaa katsotaan nykyisten asemien säilyttämisessä.
 Tässä täytyy olla kysymys olemassaolevien nyt laillista pääomaa olevien, ja nauttivien, substanssien uudelleen keitos tulevaisuuteen hankkia lisää aikaa nyt eläköitymistä odottavilla, kuin kuin myös pyörään pyrkiville, ja siellä tukevasti oleville.
 Pitkässä juoksussa yksi vaihtoehto olisi se, että Suomen evankelis-luterilaisesta kirkosta tulisi rekisteröity uskonnollinen yhdiskunta, siihen sovellettaisiin uskonnonvapauslakia ja yhdistyslakia sekä näiden lisäksi nykyisen kirkkolain ja kirkkojärjestyksen sisältö olisi kirjattu sen yhdyskuntajärjestykseen.
 Tämä tarkoittaisi käytännössä sitä, että kirkko ei sen jälkeen tarvitsisi sääntömuutoksiinsa eduskunnan käsittelyä vaan se voisi tehdä päätökset ja hyväksyä ne itse.
 Pitää muistaa, että kirkolliskokous teki päätöksen uuden kirkkolain lähettämisestä eduskunnan hyväksyttäväksi toukokuussa 2018 ja eduskunta, käsiteltyään sitä kaksi vuotta, on nyt palauttanut sen takaisin. Aloite kokonaisuudistuksesta tehtiin 2005 joten jännityksellä odotan saako kirkko vietyä uudistuksen läpi 20 vuodessa.
 Jos olen ymmärtänyt oikein, toinen rekisteröidyksi uskonnolliseksi yhdyskunnaksi siirtymisen tuoma muutos olisi se, että tuomiokapitulien päätöksistä ei voisi enää valittaa hallinto-oikeuteen. Työsuhteeseen liittyviä riita-asioita ratkottaisiin sen jälkeen käräjäoikeuksissa työlainsäädännön pohjalta.
 Oletettavaa kuitenkin on, että kirkko haluaa toistaiseksi pitää asemansa viranomaisena. Ainakin se työllistää ihmisiä kirkkohallituksessa vaikka minun onkin vaikea keksiä, miksi kirkon hallinto on lähivuosina hoitanut esimerkiksi seuraavia asioita:
 1) Lausunto luonnoksesta hallituksen esitykseksi laiksi puutavaran mittaamisesta
 2) Lausunto luonnoksesta hallituksen esitykseksi eduskunnalle laiksi kestävän metsätalouden rahoituslain muuttamisesta ja laiksi pienpuun energiatuesta
 3) Lausunto jehovantodistajien vapauttamisesta asevelvollisuuden suorittamisesta
 4) Lausunto sisäministeriölle pelastustoimen onnettomuuksien ehkäisyn toimintaohjelmasta
 5) Lausunto ihmiskaupan vastaisen toiminnan järjestämisestä
 6) Lausunto maahanmuuton tulevaisuus 2020 -työryhmän ehdotuksesta
 7) Lausunto sisäisen turvallisuuden toimeenpanosuunnitelmaluonnoksesta
 8) Lausunto kuudesta maaseutupoliittisesta kokonaisohjelmasta 2014-2020
 9) Lausunto sähköistä huutokauppaa ja dynaamista hankintajärjestelmää koskevasta työryhmän muistiosta
 10) Lausunto ulkoministeriölle hallituksen esityksestä konsultipalvelulain muuttamiseksi
 Listaa voisi jatkaa loputtomiin, mutta pointtini on se, että harva uskonnollinen yhdyskunta haluaa palkata hallintokoneistoa kirjoittelemaan lausuntoja joilla on hyvin hento tai täysin olematon yhteys yhdyskunnan vakaumuksen mukaiseen uskonnonharjoittamiseen.
 Lounastaminen tuli ensimmäisenä mieleen lukiessani kommenttinne loppupuolta.
 Asialla on kuitenkin toinen puoli: Maa ja metsäomaisuuden hallinnointi, mitä kirkon seurakunnilla on, ei ole asiaa yksinkertaisimmasta päästä. Näin on hyvä kirkkohallituksesta löytyvän asiantuntemusta mikä on hyödynnettävissä silloin kun on asiana myydä, vaihtaa, sijoittaa, ostaa tai harjoittaa muuta asiaa seurakunnan varoilla.
 Pitää muistaa myös seurakunnilla olevan velvoite huolehtia omaisuudestaan.
 Kykeneekö kirkkohallitus vastaamaan kaikkiin kysymyksiin lakien sisällön muutoksissa seurakuntien kysymyksiin.
 En tiedä mutta arvelen kirkkohallituksen käyttävän kokoajan ostopalvelua kysymyksiin maa ja metsäomaisuuden hallinnoinnista. Nyt sitten voisi esittää kysymyksen, mutta pyydänkin anteeksi jos kirjoittamani ei pidä paikkaansa.
 Lähinnä pohdin sitä, onko Helluntaiseurakunnalla tai Lähetyshiippakunnalla vastaavanlainen keskuskomitea kirjoittamassa lausuntoja ministeriöille.
 Pyydettiin kirkolta lausuntoa myös SIVIILIVIHKIMISEN todistajien lukumäärään. Kirkko oli sitä mieltä, että yksi todistaja on liian vähän, koska se katkaisisi pitkän perinteen.
 Ilmeisen arvokas mielipide. Asiakirjasta ei käy ilmi kuinka monen ihmisen kokoonpanolla siihen päädyttiin, mutta kyllä näihin on yleensä vaadittu kansliapäällikkö ja kirkkoneuvos.
 30.04.2020 04:52
 Tämä todistajien lukumäärä on asiaa, mutta pitkä perinne ei vaikuttanut kummien asiassa jossa kuitenkin tulee luvanneeksi huolehtia lapsen kristillisestä kasvatuksesta.
 Risto Tuori sanoo:
 Mikko Niemisen listaus kirkkohallituksen antamista lausunnoista on kieltämättä vaikuttava. Esimerkiksi metsäomaisuutta ei kirkon sijoitusomaisuudesta tietääkseni juurikaan löydy, sen sijaan monilla varsinkin maalaisseurakunnilla saattaa olla hyvinkin paljon metsää. Mutta pääosin nuo lausunnot johtuvat siitä, että kirkon on valvottava, ettei valtion lainsäädäntöön tule kirkkolain kanssa ristiriidassa olevia säännöksiä. Tarvittaessa kirkko voi vaatia esim., ettei tiettyä säädöstä sovelleta kirkon toimintaan tai uskonnon harjoittamiseen, näin on tehty mm. yhdenvertaisuuslain ja tasa-arvolain kohdalla. Tämä on sellaista virastokirkon toimintaa, josta voitaisiin kyllä pikkuhiljaa yrittää hankkiutua eroon ja keskittyä kirkon perimmäisiin tehtäviin.
 Uskonnolliset yhteisöt laatikoot vapaasti omia lakejaan, kunhan ne eivät ole perustislain ja muun lainsäädännön kanssa ristiriidassa.


text:
Creative Live! Cam Chat HD - Webbkamera - Hemelektronik - ben-10-ten.info
 Posted on 12.08.2018 12.08.2018 by Dishicage
 Om du letar efter ett snabbt och enkelt sätt att njuta av onlinechattar i HD (p), leta inte längre än Creative Live! Videochatt HD. Helt enkelt att ansluta och köra. Köp billigt Creative Live! Cam Chat HD Webbkamera - färg - ljud - Hi-Speed USB från till specialpris Creative. Snabb leverans. Gör en bra affär på Creative Live! Cam Chat HD ➔ Lägst pris just nu kr bland 27 st butiker. Varje månad hjälper vi över 1,2 miljoner svenskar att jämföra. Produktinformation Koppla bara in Live! För mobiltelefon är självrisken kr vid skada. Fri frakt över kr 60 dagars öppet köp Årets Onlinevaruhus Ett snabbt och enkelt sätt att komma i synk med andra via Plug and Play Ladda ner programmet Live! Operatör Vilken operatör du vill beställa, tex Tele2. Cam Chat HD, Black.
 Live Cam Chatting 2018 Plug and play med massor av funktioner från bonusprogrammet Live! Central 3 ( Lite). Ett snabbt och enkelt sätt att komma i synk med andra via Plug and Play. Köp billigt Creative Live! Cam Chat HD Webbkamera - färg - ljud - Hi-Speed USB från till specialpris Creative. Snabb leverans. Webbkamera Creative Live! Cam Chat HD - CREATIVE | Clas Ohlson Webbkamera med HD-upplösning. Spela in video med. Kameran har bra exponering MEN autojusteringen med ljuset är ganska dåligt. Logitech G Trådlös Spelmus. Dela med dig av dina foton och videor på olika sociala mediawebbplatser med ett enda klick. Erbjudanden från 22 butiker, inkluderat 14 betalande butiker. Fri frakt över kr Brett sortiment av Data Prylar Mer än 10 år i branschen.
 Hot Romantic Bed Scene Bollywood HD sex girls me x pixel Bildupplösning: Visa begagnade produkter och demoprodukter Uppdatera. Fri frakt över kr Brett sortiment av Data Prylar Mer än 10 år i branschen. Jag accepterar Läs mer om hur vi använder cookies. Logga in som företag. Du kanske också gillar. Spela in videor med upp till 30 bilder per sekund, vilket ger en jämn och högkvalitativ uppspelning på datorn. Microsoft Surface Keyboard Nord Konvertering - Gör om ditt kontantkort till ett abonnemang inom samma operatör. Förlängning - Bind om ditt abonnemang inom samma operatör och behålla ditt telefonnummer. Vi har uppdaterat vår cookiepolicy! Ladda ner programmet Live! Deltaco trådad optisk mus. Plug and play med massor av funktioner från bonusprogrammet Live! Du måste välja en storlek innan du kan lägga varan i varukorgen. Bra valuta för pengarna.
 0 thoughts on “Cam to cam chats”


text:
 4.8.2016
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 211/27
 DECISIONE DEL COMITATO MISTO SEE
 N. 90/2015
 del 30 aprile 2015
 che modifica l'allegato II (Regolamentazioni tecniche, norme, prove e certificazioni) dell'accordo SEE [2016/1273]
 IL COMITATO MISTO SEE,
 visto l'accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo («l'accordo SEE»), in particolare l'articolo 98,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo SEE il regolamento (UE) n. 1342/2014 della Commissione, del 17 dicembre 2014, recante modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 850/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo agli inquinanti organici persistenti per quanto riguarda gli allegati IV e V (1).
 (2)
 Occorre quindi modificare di conseguenza l'allegato II dell'accordo SEE,
 HA ADOTTATO LA PRESENTE DECISIONE:
 Articolo 1
 Al punto 12w [Regolamento (CE) n. 850/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio] del capitolo XV dell'allegato II dell'accordo SEE è aggiunto il seguente trattino:
 «—
 32014 R 1342: Regolamento (UE) n. 1342/2014 della Commissione, del 17 dicembre 2014 (GU L 363 del 18.12.2014, pag. 67).»
 Articolo 2
 I testi del regolamento (UE) n. 1342/2014 nelle lingue islandese e norvegese, da pubblicare nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea, fanno fede.
 Articolo 3
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 1o maggio 2015, a condizione che siano pervenute tutte le notifiche previste dall'articolo 103, paragrafo 1, dell'accordo SEE (*).
 Articolo 4
 La presente decisione è pubblicata nella sezione SEE e nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 30 aprile 2015
 Per il Comitato misto SEE
 Il presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) GU L 363 del 18.12.2014, pag. 67.
 (*) Non è stata comunicata l'esistenza di obblighi costituzionali.