Coming in third with just over $700,000, Lewis Fidler, assistant majority leader and chair of the youth services committee, said he is proud to be considered the third "biggest pig" in the council.
And it's not just his leadership position that locked in his funding either, Fidler said. Although the council speaker can have ultimate veto power, Fidler said other people scrutinize the member items.
"Some of it gets decided by the member," Fidler explained. "Some of it gets decided by the borough delegation. Some of it gets decided by the speaker and some of it gets decided by the budget negotiating team." The process, he said, is multi-faceted.
Who is the team?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Kiss Ass Press
Chicken Little Was Right
Councilman Lew Fidler gets his mortgage catastrophe
by Katharine Jose | April 15, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsLew Fidler
This article was published in the April 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
Councilman Lew Fidler spends a lot of time dealing with other people’s misfortune.
He makes his living as the general counsel for LawCash, a company that advances money to people who are expected to win personal-injury settlement suits.
More publicly, in his capacity as an elected official, Mr. Fidler is the self-appointed Chicken Little of the mortgage crisis.
He first started talking about the potentially calamitous subprime housing situation to anyone who would listen three and a half years ago, when he began lobbying for a City Council grant to begin educating homeowners about a crisis that hadn’t happened yet. (In 2006, he got the grant—$750,000 to a nonprofit group dedicated to the issue.)
Last November, concerned by what he considered to be the alarming indifference of his constituents, he circulated a flier that showed his head imposed on the body of Disney’s Chicken Little character.
“You have to get their attention somehow,” Mr. Fidler explained.
Asking him how he knew what would happen elicits a five-minute monologue. “I continued to see closings,” he said. “One hundred percent loan-to-value.”
“It doesn’t take you very long, if you’re really thinking about it, to say: ‘What’s going to happen if real estate values stop going up—forget about going down—just stop going up?”
Mr. Fidler was elected in 2001. Before that he was, at various times, a Democratic district leader, an attorney, the campaign manager for several of Charles Hynes’ bids for Brooklyn district attorney and the chairman of a community board.
Despite some health problems—he is an overweight diabetic with bad eyesight, and he sometimes walks with a cane—he is a vigorous campaigner, and was reelected by a landslide in 2005.
More unexpectedly, as chair of the Council’s Youth Services Committee, he has led a quiet, politically unprofitable campaign to direct resources and money toward helping homeless youth in the city, many of whom are gay.
His office, down the hallway off the waiting room, looks like a place where an accountant in Brooklyn in the 1970s might have worked. Fidler, who is 51, would not have been out of place there. Wearing a short-sleeved collared shirt, a narrow tie and large geometric glasses, he leaned back in his chair and occasionally paused to take a phone call.
“You’re one of my favorite people,” he said to one caller, “if not one of my favorite agencies.”
Mr. Fidler grew up in East Flatbush, not far from where he lives now, in Sheepshead Bay. He represents a section of the borough that also includes Bergen Beach, Canarsie and Flatlands, and he is eager to talk about how the mortgage crisis affects his district.
“I know that Canarsie and Flatbush in Brooklyn is really hard,” he said. “So, for me, that’s a third of my district—and I call it ground zero.”
There’s a loud catcall whistle. “Sorry, that was the computer,” he said.
“If I was willing to live in Podunksville, I could buy myself 12 acres. So, I think people are going to start making decisions like that if we don’t pull out of the recession.
“It’s very circular,” he added. “Very cyclical and circular, both, and I mean those in different ways. The economy is cyclical, but the process here is somewhat circular.”
There’s nothing the city can do to help people who are facing foreclosure, other than on a one-by-one basis, Mr. Fidler says.
This approach is reflected in legislation sponsored by Mr. Fidler that created the Center for NYC Neighborhoods, a public-private partnership that will provide legal and other aid on an individual basis to New Yorkers with foreclosure issues.
When the subject of Mr. Fidler and the subprime collapse comes up on local political blogs—which it fairly often does—almost inevitably an anonymous commenter accuses him of being in a position to profit from frequent foreclosures. Mr. Fidler says this is “utter drivel” and based on a misunderstanding of what LawCash does. In other words, LawCash lends “expensive” money, in his words, but not for mortgages.
“It’s even in our contract,” he said. “‘Make sure you’ve exhausted every other source of money before you come here.’”
“Does the business make money?” Mr. Fidler asked himself. “Yes, the business makes money. But, I mean, God bless America.”
More often than not, Mr. Fidler responds to the attacks in the comments section of the same blog posts, usually under the name “Lew from Brooklyn.” He does this, he explained, partly because of the Google factor—when people search for him, he doesn’t want them to see the attacks without also seeing his response—and partly because blogs have become “a very legitimate manner of public discourse.” And also because, he says, “I have also discovered that the way to hear from reporters is, they check the blogs and see who’s talking about stuff.”
So there we were, with him telling me how we can get out of the recession.
Good old-fashioned capital projects are the answer, Fidler thinks, and he has some ideas. “Building the cross-harbor freight tunnel, building a tunnel to Staten Island,” he began, “sinking the Gowanus Expressway, opening the West Brooklyn waterfront.”
The computer made the catcall whistle again. This time we both ignored it.
“If we do that, and do it now, instead of cocking around for 12 years while we plan it, those are real jobs. And that’s the way F.D.R. did it.” He paused. “Well, cynics will say he did it by getting us into World War II.
“But we’ve already got the war. Now it’s time to do the economic stuff. And that—that—is sound economic policy and good planning, rolled into one. To me, it’s a no-brainer.”
Chicken Little doesn’t see anything new on the horizon that New Yorkers should worry about, other than the continuing foreclosure crisis.
“I’d like to say I see a recession coming—because I saw that, too. But now it’s too late to say I see it coming, because it’s here.” He thought for a few seconds and said, “I see the Mets winning the pennant.”
Councilman Lew Fidler gets his mortgage catastrophe
by Katharine Jose | April 15, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsLew Fidler
This article was published in the April 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
Councilman Lew Fidler spends a lot of time dealing with other people’s misfortune.
He makes his living as the general counsel for LawCash, a company that advances money to people who are expected to win personal-injury settlement suits.
More publicly, in his capacity as an elected official, Mr. Fidler is the self-appointed Chicken Little of the mortgage crisis.
He first started talking about the potentially calamitous subprime housing situation to anyone who would listen three and a half years ago, when he began lobbying for a City Council grant to begin educating homeowners about a crisis that hadn’t happened yet. (In 2006, he got the grant—$750,000 to a nonprofit group dedicated to the issue.)
Last November, concerned by what he considered to be the alarming indifference of his constituents, he circulated a flier that showed his head imposed on the body of Disney’s Chicken Little character.
“You have to get their attention somehow,” Mr. Fidler explained.
Asking him how he knew what would happen elicits a five-minute monologue. “I continued to see closings,” he said. “One hundred percent loan-to-value.”
“It doesn’t take you very long, if you’re really thinking about it, to say: ‘What’s going to happen if real estate values stop going up—forget about going down—just stop going up?”
Mr. Fidler was elected in 2001. Before that he was, at various times, a Democratic district leader, an attorney, the campaign manager for several of Charles Hynes’ bids for Brooklyn district attorney and the chairman of a community board.
Despite some health problems—he is an overweight diabetic with bad eyesight, and he sometimes walks with a cane—he is a vigorous campaigner, and was reelected by a landslide in 2005.
More unexpectedly, as chair of the Council’s Youth Services Committee, he has led a quiet, politically unprofitable campaign to direct resources and money toward helping homeless youth in the city, many of whom are gay.
His office, down the hallway off the waiting room, looks like a place where an accountant in Brooklyn in the 1970s might have worked. Fidler, who is 51, would not have been out of place there. Wearing a short-sleeved collared shirt, a narrow tie and large geometric glasses, he leaned back in his chair and occasionally paused to take a phone call.
“You’re one of my favorite people,” he said to one caller, “if not one of my favorite agencies.”
Mr. Fidler grew up in East Flatbush, not far from where he lives now, in Sheepshead Bay. He represents a section of the borough that also includes Bergen Beach, Canarsie and Flatlands, and he is eager to talk about how the mortgage crisis affects his district.
“I know that Canarsie and Flatbush in Brooklyn is really hard,” he said. “So, for me, that’s a third of my district—and I call it ground zero.”
There’s a loud catcall whistle. “Sorry, that was the computer,” he said.
“If I was willing to live in Podunksville, I could buy myself 12 acres. So, I think people are going to start making decisions like that if we don’t pull out of the recession.
“It’s very circular,” he added. “Very cyclical and circular, both, and I mean those in different ways. The economy is cyclical, but the process here is somewhat circular.”
There’s nothing the city can do to help people who are facing foreclosure, other than on a one-by-one basis, Mr. Fidler says.
This approach is reflected in legislation sponsored by Mr. Fidler that created the Center for NYC Neighborhoods, a public-private partnership that will provide legal and other aid on an individual basis to New Yorkers with foreclosure issues.
When the subject of Mr. Fidler and the subprime collapse comes up on local political blogs—which it fairly often does—almost inevitably an anonymous commenter accuses him of being in a position to profit from frequent foreclosures. Mr. Fidler says this is “utter drivel” and based on a misunderstanding of what LawCash does. In other words, LawCash lends “expensive” money, in his words, but not for mortgages.
“It’s even in our contract,” he said. “‘Make sure you’ve exhausted every other source of money before you come here.’”
“Does the business make money?” Mr. Fidler asked himself. “Yes, the business makes money. But, I mean, God bless America.”
More often than not, Mr. Fidler responds to the attacks in the comments section of the same blog posts, usually under the name “Lew from Brooklyn.” He does this, he explained, partly because of the Google factor—when people search for him, he doesn’t want them to see the attacks without also seeing his response—and partly because blogs have become “a very legitimate manner of public discourse.” And also because, he says, “I have also discovered that the way to hear from reporters is, they check the blogs and see who’s talking about stuff.”
So there we were, with him telling me how we can get out of the recession.
Good old-fashioned capital projects are the answer, Fidler thinks, and he has some ideas. “Building the cross-harbor freight tunnel, building a tunnel to Staten Island,” he began, “sinking the Gowanus Expressway, opening the West Brooklyn waterfront.”
The computer made the catcall whistle again. This time we both ignored it.
“If we do that, and do it now, instead of cocking around for 12 years while we plan it, those are real jobs. And that’s the way F.D.R. did it.” He paused. “Well, cynics will say he did it by getting us into World War II.
“But we’ve already got the war. Now it’s time to do the economic stuff. And that—that—is sound economic policy and good planning, rolled into one. To me, it’s a no-brainer.”
Chicken Little doesn’t see anything new on the horizon that New Yorkers should worry about, other than the continuing foreclosure crisis.
“I’d like to say I see a recession coming—because I saw that, too. But now it’s too late to say I see it coming, because it’s here.” He thought for a few seconds and said, “I see the Mets winning the pennant.”
Monday, January 14, 2008
Why Does Feddler Support Sub Prime Frank Seddio
Home to Roost
As other politicians respond to sub-prime crisis, Lew Fidler explains why he saw it first
Elie Mystal
January 14th, 2008
Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), the Council member who is also the general counsel for 1-800-LAW CASH, sees two reasons to keep the Council officially part-time.
The first is practicality.
“The idea that people are going to come into a term-limited office, give up their vocation for eight years, give it their all, still pay college tuition and all that stuff, and then go back to the farm? It is just not realistic,” he said.
But just as important, Fidler says, is avoiding isolation in what he calls the ivory tower of the government world to better serve constituents. Fidler credits his private legal practice in Brooklyn as the reason he predicted the collapse in the sub-prime lending market two years ago, long before market analysts and government officials from Wall Street to Washington caught on to the problem themselves.
Fidler estimates that 85 percent of the real estate closings he participated in before he got to the City Council involved some type of sub-prime or balloon rate loan.
“We were encouraging people to do it,” he said.
Later, Fidler represented some of those same clients at foreclosure proceedings.
“I saw the beginning, I saw the process, I saw the end, and I think I saw reality setting in,” he said.
In 2005, Fidler joined with Council Member Leroy Comrie (D-Queens) in an attempt to get publicity for what he was already calling a looming crisis, but they could not obtain government funding to help affected homeowners.
As the foreclosure crisis deepened—especially in his home turf of Canarsie, which Fidler called “ground zero” for the mortgage foreclosure crisis—he started passing out fliers to other Council members with a block of text explaining the problem and his head superimposed on a movie poster from the Disney film Chicken Little. That caught his colleagues’ attention.
Fidler was able to secure $1 million for the Mortgage Foreclosure Emergency Prevention Program, which matches at-risk homeowners with legal and financial counseling services. That program and others were precursors to the Center for New York City Neighborhoods, the $5.3-million program recently announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Unaffil.), Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Fidler. The center is geared toward enhancing the city’s financial educational and counseling services.
Many proposed remedies, such as stiffer penalties for predatory lenders or an adjustable rate freeze, are beyond the purview of city government. But Fidler is not content to simply wait for a market correction.
“I’m a Democrat, I believe this is a government problem,” he said.
Fidler hopes that the national politicians now paying attention to the sub-prime market remember that local communities have been suffering from the foreclosure crisis for years.
And he also would not mind if his colleagues in government remembered his long-standing advocacy on the issue.
“It is funny to watch when Rev. [Jesse] Jackson comes to New York. I see my colleagues crowding around him as he gives the same speech I gave two years ago,” Fidler said. “It’s like they all found religion.”
Fidler will be term limited out of his Council seat in 2009. But though he is interested in continuing in politics, he says he has made no decisions about what he might run for next. “I’m not running for anything in particular, and I am not retiring,” he said.
But even if he had already been in higher office, Fidler pointed out, he would not necessarily have been able to do more to stop sub-prime lending and avert the current crisis. Just trying to convince his fellow Council members was trouble enough, he said.
“I don’t think I would have been able to get that accomplished,” Fidler said. “If I had to sell 150 colleagues in Albany, or 435 colleagues in Washington on passing legislation to end sub-prime lending, I think they would have taken me out to the loony bin.”
As other politicians respond to sub-prime crisis, Lew Fidler explains why he saw it first
Elie Mystal
January 14th, 2008
Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), the Council member who is also the general counsel for 1-800-LAW CASH, sees two reasons to keep the Council officially part-time.
The first is practicality.
“The idea that people are going to come into a term-limited office, give up their vocation for eight years, give it their all, still pay college tuition and all that stuff, and then go back to the farm? It is just not realistic,” he said.
But just as important, Fidler says, is avoiding isolation in what he calls the ivory tower of the government world to better serve constituents. Fidler credits his private legal practice in Brooklyn as the reason he predicted the collapse in the sub-prime lending market two years ago, long before market analysts and government officials from Wall Street to Washington caught on to the problem themselves.
Fidler estimates that 85 percent of the real estate closings he participated in before he got to the City Council involved some type of sub-prime or balloon rate loan.
“We were encouraging people to do it,” he said.
Later, Fidler represented some of those same clients at foreclosure proceedings.
“I saw the beginning, I saw the process, I saw the end, and I think I saw reality setting in,” he said.
In 2005, Fidler joined with Council Member Leroy Comrie (D-Queens) in an attempt to get publicity for what he was already calling a looming crisis, but they could not obtain government funding to help affected homeowners.
As the foreclosure crisis deepened—especially in his home turf of Canarsie, which Fidler called “ground zero” for the mortgage foreclosure crisis—he started passing out fliers to other Council members with a block of text explaining the problem and his head superimposed on a movie poster from the Disney film Chicken Little. That caught his colleagues’ attention.
Fidler was able to secure $1 million for the Mortgage Foreclosure Emergency Prevention Program, which matches at-risk homeowners with legal and financial counseling services. That program and others were precursors to the Center for New York City Neighborhoods, the $5.3-million program recently announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Unaffil.), Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Fidler. The center is geared toward enhancing the city’s financial educational and counseling services.
Many proposed remedies, such as stiffer penalties for predatory lenders or an adjustable rate freeze, are beyond the purview of city government. But Fidler is not content to simply wait for a market correction.
“I’m a Democrat, I believe this is a government problem,” he said.
Fidler hopes that the national politicians now paying attention to the sub-prime market remember that local communities have been suffering from the foreclosure crisis for years.
And he also would not mind if his colleagues in government remembered his long-standing advocacy on the issue.
“It is funny to watch when Rev. [Jesse] Jackson comes to New York. I see my colleagues crowding around him as he gives the same speech I gave two years ago,” Fidler said. “It’s like they all found religion.”
Fidler will be term limited out of his Council seat in 2009. But though he is interested in continuing in politics, he says he has made no decisions about what he might run for next. “I’m not running for anything in particular, and I am not retiring,” he said.
But even if he had already been in higher office, Fidler pointed out, he would not necessarily have been able to do more to stop sub-prime lending and avert the current crisis. Just trying to convince his fellow Council members was trouble enough, he said.
“I don’t think I would have been able to get that accomplished,” Fidler said. “If I had to sell 150 colleagues in Albany, or 435 colleagues in Washington on passing legislation to end sub-prime lending, I think they would have taken me out to the loony bin.”
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Councilman Lewis Fidler's Crude Response Adds to his Disingenuousness: Unanswered Questions, Unsatisfying Jusitifications
After doing a bit of research on Mr. Fidler’s relationship with the lending company that he claims only to represent in the same way he represents other clients, it is a curious fact that the Councilman’s “law office” has been in the same building, and same suite as the lending company, for a period of time that for all intents and purposes, mirrors his time on the City Council. The shared offices are at 26 Court Street, suite 1104. In light of Mr. Fidler's claim, this distubing fact would lead one to believe that this connection is quite different from other attorney-client associations, contrary to what Mr. Fidler states in his response.
It is also curious that Lew Fidler says that his company has had no relationship with the City. This does not seem factual, since the woman who complained about the extraordinary interest rates (she said approximately 50% per year), stated that she had gotten injured on City property (no further details to protect her identity). And as she seemingly had no apparent reason to lie, I take her at her word. According to her, Mr. Fidler’s company loaned the money against a suit she had with the City.
Mr. Fidler, as the attorney for this lending company, would be responsible for collection of the money owed it, were a borrower to default on the loan/lien. This would amount to the borrowed principal, plus the extraordinary interest fees. Collections attorneys are notorious for sending letters that threaten some sort of action if the loan/lien is not paid in a timely fashion. Of course Mr. Fidler must advocate on the part of his company/client, or else he would be useless to them. And when, in his attorney capacity, he sues debtors who have collected money from the City, the company would then be receiving City money, contributed to the coffers by the taxpayers.
So exactly what is Mr. Fidler’s value to this company? It would seem to be much more than he has indicated. Dare I wonder what political benefit the Councilman might bring to the table? According to research, Mr. Fidler was an immigration attorney with a meager practice before being elected to the city council. With no banking background, his association with this company is indeed curious.
It also seems that the Councilman’s company probably does profit from City tax dollars. If the company loans money/takes a lien against future earnings from a lawsuit against the City, then City tax dollars must eventually flow into the company's accounts.
When Mr. Fidler claims that his company “levels the playing field” for the poor, he sounds disingenuous. First of all, the interest rates are too high to help anyone, and as I first posted, no one who owns a home, and who could therefore borrow against it at a 6% rate would opt to borrow from a company who makes loans, or takes liens against potential future proceeds, at a 50% per annum rate. The people who borrow from Mr. Fidler’s company/client, do not own homes, nor have access to credit cards, or a relative who can be of help.
Mr. Fidler’s claim that his company helps borrowers keep their homes is difficult to believe. And if there is a rare borrower who does own a home, and if that borrower should default on the lien taken by Mr. Fidler’s company against future proceeds of the injured party’s lawsuit, does Mr. Fidler turn the other cheek, and say, “Oh, well, we’ll let this one go. If we insist upon suing for enforcement of the lien, the poor fellow might lose his home. After all, I am a public official, and the dire circumstances of some poverty-stricken individual should not be used to feather my personal nest.”? I doubt it.
It is obvious, that when a borrower defaults, it is the attorney’s job to collect, or sue. That is what Mr. Fidler does for his company/client, hardly a job for someone who claims to advocate for the poor. Rather than advocating for those in dire need, Mr. Fidler's function seems emblematic of corporate America oppressing the indigent. This is unconscionable for a public official.
It is unseemly for a public official to be “feeding at the public trough” so to speak, especially one who owns an “infinitesimal” percentage of a bank. No doubt, this bank probably is affiliated with Mr. Fidler’s lending company/client? And what does 0.01 percent of an unknown dollar amount mean? Is it several hundred, several thousand, several hundred thousand dollars? What is the relationship between this bank ownership and Councilman Fidler's client? Is there ownership involved here, or is there not?
As an aside, I would urge Mr. Fidler to contain his nasty language. Although I am but a retired school teacher, I am an adult voter, and active community participant for the past many years. I am above all, a human being and constituent who deserves to be addressed civilly by anyone, let alone a public official who relies upon the goodwill of the voters to remain in office. A potty -mouth and haughty attitude do not deter me. In fact, that kind of unbecoming behavior only encourages further questions.
The suggestion by the poster who posed an investigation by the Conflicts of Interest Board, is probably a worthy one. That would be a good place to start—That, and a big bar of soap to wash out Mr. Fidler's dirty and condescending mouth.
email this blog|| delicious|| digg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For history alone
Submitted by Lew from Brooklyn (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:48am.
Obviously, the ever anonymous "bigapplecharm" didn't quite get a rise out of anyone with this personal and unsubstantiatable attack on my character. Nonethless, as google has made history a different kind of medium, I will address the further drivel that was posted above.
An amazing coincidence that my law office address is at the company office. After all, I am in house counsel. This work represents 90% of my non council legal work anyway.
Whaqt is my value as an a "former immigration attorney of meager practice"? Sister, that is such a tell as to your identity that I have to laugh out loud. I guess during our non-communicative years, you were unware of my role as counsel to a health care financing company. some of this comapny's principals are the same as those at my present comopany. In fact, while we worked in the financing business, I helped to develop the documents and systems that are used to operate this current business.
And for the record, I have a fairly significant cv. I have been practicing law now for 29 years havng been admitted to practice shortly after my 22nd birthday. I am a graduate of a top law school (NYU)-- inthe top third of my class---and sister, you do know how important that is, right? I have been in the general practice of law (not "just" immigration work, where I did hearings, trials and argued before the Second Circuit Appeals), but in a full civil practice for that entire period, save for two years when I was law clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. and during that time, I have not had a single grievance found against me whatsoever. Jealous?
Now, the nonsense about the City. The company I work for does business in 48 states of this country. Within that massive portfolio, I am sure that there are a few cases in which we have advanced money to persons who may be suing the City of New York. No doubt. So what? I refer you to the other entry for an explanatin of how this business works. Once money is advanced to a litigant, the company has absolutely NO role whatsoever---as specified in the contract---in the conduct of the case. The company does not advise, does not appear in Court. Nothing. If the case is lost, nobody pays the company back. Period. If you win, when the defendant pays, the company's lien is satisfied from the proceeds through the litigant's personal attorney. If the company is defrauded, and not paid, it is the personal attorney and/or the litigant who are liable. So the defendant is not an issue. Ever. In 7-8 years of doing over 100 million dollars in business, a defendant has not been sued ONCE.
So much for taxpayer's coffers and conflict of interest. Got it?
Another tell as to your identity is your elitist view that when I noted that 80% of the money advanced by the industry goes to keep the litigant in their home, and you ASSSUMED it meant HOUSE. Dear, people pay rent to live as well and when you can't pay the next month's rent, the pressure on you to succumb to the economic duress of the insurer's lowball offer is even more intense thn if you had a home. At least if you had a home you have a CHANCE of getting an equity loan. Sorry to burst your ivory tower bubble there.
Finally, this retired school teacher nonsense is laugh out loud funny. Sorry if I call "bullshit" for what it is. If it truly offends you as you hide behind your anonymity, make up a fictional "friend" (do you still have any? Wanna wear a wire on them?) and attempt to assasinate my character. I guess I call it the way I see it....and if it walks like BS, smells like BS.....
So I have this suggestion for you, since getting a life appears to be out of the question. The next time you want to post about this stupidity, use your real name, and offer up the name of this real person. Otherwise, people will continue to see your posts as nasty personal invective all predicated upon your personal agenda.
Sorry if that sounds "haughty" to you. It's just the truth.
Lew from Brooklyn
It is also curious that Lew Fidler says that his company has had no relationship with the City. This does not seem factual, since the woman who complained about the extraordinary interest rates (she said approximately 50% per year), stated that she had gotten injured on City property (no further details to protect her identity). And as she seemingly had no apparent reason to lie, I take her at her word. According to her, Mr. Fidler’s company loaned the money against a suit she had with the City.
Mr. Fidler, as the attorney for this lending company, would be responsible for collection of the money owed it, were a borrower to default on the loan/lien. This would amount to the borrowed principal, plus the extraordinary interest fees. Collections attorneys are notorious for sending letters that threaten some sort of action if the loan/lien is not paid in a timely fashion. Of course Mr. Fidler must advocate on the part of his company/client, or else he would be useless to them. And when, in his attorney capacity, he sues debtors who have collected money from the City, the company would then be receiving City money, contributed to the coffers by the taxpayers.
So exactly what is Mr. Fidler’s value to this company? It would seem to be much more than he has indicated. Dare I wonder what political benefit the Councilman might bring to the table? According to research, Mr. Fidler was an immigration attorney with a meager practice before being elected to the city council. With no banking background, his association with this company is indeed curious.
It also seems that the Councilman’s company probably does profit from City tax dollars. If the company loans money/takes a lien against future earnings from a lawsuit against the City, then City tax dollars must eventually flow into the company's accounts.
When Mr. Fidler claims that his company “levels the playing field” for the poor, he sounds disingenuous. First of all, the interest rates are too high to help anyone, and as I first posted, no one who owns a home, and who could therefore borrow against it at a 6% rate would opt to borrow from a company who makes loans, or takes liens against potential future proceeds, at a 50% per annum rate. The people who borrow from Mr. Fidler’s company/client, do not own homes, nor have access to credit cards, or a relative who can be of help.
Mr. Fidler’s claim that his company helps borrowers keep their homes is difficult to believe. And if there is a rare borrower who does own a home, and if that borrower should default on the lien taken by Mr. Fidler’s company against future proceeds of the injured party’s lawsuit, does Mr. Fidler turn the other cheek, and say, “Oh, well, we’ll let this one go. If we insist upon suing for enforcement of the lien, the poor fellow might lose his home. After all, I am a public official, and the dire circumstances of some poverty-stricken individual should not be used to feather my personal nest.”? I doubt it.
It is obvious, that when a borrower defaults, it is the attorney’s job to collect, or sue. That is what Mr. Fidler does for his company/client, hardly a job for someone who claims to advocate for the poor. Rather than advocating for those in dire need, Mr. Fidler's function seems emblematic of corporate America oppressing the indigent. This is unconscionable for a public official.
It is unseemly for a public official to be “feeding at the public trough” so to speak, especially one who owns an “infinitesimal” percentage of a bank. No doubt, this bank probably is affiliated with Mr. Fidler’s lending company/client? And what does 0.01 percent of an unknown dollar amount mean? Is it several hundred, several thousand, several hundred thousand dollars? What is the relationship between this bank ownership and Councilman Fidler's client? Is there ownership involved here, or is there not?
As an aside, I would urge Mr. Fidler to contain his nasty language. Although I am but a retired school teacher, I am an adult voter, and active community participant for the past many years. I am above all, a human being and constituent who deserves to be addressed civilly by anyone, let alone a public official who relies upon the goodwill of the voters to remain in office. A potty -mouth and haughty attitude do not deter me. In fact, that kind of unbecoming behavior only encourages further questions.
The suggestion by the poster who posed an investigation by the Conflicts of Interest Board, is probably a worthy one. That would be a good place to start—That, and a big bar of soap to wash out Mr. Fidler's dirty and condescending mouth.
email this blog|| delicious|| digg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For history alone
Submitted by Lew from Brooklyn (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:48am.
Obviously, the ever anonymous "bigapplecharm" didn't quite get a rise out of anyone with this personal and unsubstantiatable attack on my character. Nonethless, as google has made history a different kind of medium, I will address the further drivel that was posted above.
An amazing coincidence that my law office address is at the company office. After all, I am in house counsel. This work represents 90% of my non council legal work anyway.
Whaqt is my value as an a "former immigration attorney of meager practice"? Sister, that is such a tell as to your identity that I have to laugh out loud. I guess during our non-communicative years, you were unware of my role as counsel to a health care financing company. some of this comapny's principals are the same as those at my present comopany. In fact, while we worked in the financing business, I helped to develop the documents and systems that are used to operate this current business.
And for the record, I have a fairly significant cv. I have been practicing law now for 29 years havng been admitted to practice shortly after my 22nd birthday. I am a graduate of a top law school (NYU)-- inthe top third of my class---and sister, you do know how important that is, right? I have been in the general practice of law (not "just" immigration work, where I did hearings, trials and argued before the Second Circuit Appeals), but in a full civil practice for that entire period, save for two years when I was law clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. and during that time, I have not had a single grievance found against me whatsoever. Jealous?
Now, the nonsense about the City. The company I work for does business in 48 states of this country. Within that massive portfolio, I am sure that there are a few cases in which we have advanced money to persons who may be suing the City of New York. No doubt. So what? I refer you to the other entry for an explanatin of how this business works. Once money is advanced to a litigant, the company has absolutely NO role whatsoever---as specified in the contract---in the conduct of the case. The company does not advise, does not appear in Court. Nothing. If the case is lost, nobody pays the company back. Period. If you win, when the defendant pays, the company's lien is satisfied from the proceeds through the litigant's personal attorney. If the company is defrauded, and not paid, it is the personal attorney and/or the litigant who are liable. So the defendant is not an issue. Ever. In 7-8 years of doing over 100 million dollars in business, a defendant has not been sued ONCE.
So much for taxpayer's coffers and conflict of interest. Got it?
Another tell as to your identity is your elitist view that when I noted that 80% of the money advanced by the industry goes to keep the litigant in their home, and you ASSSUMED it meant HOUSE. Dear, people pay rent to live as well and when you can't pay the next month's rent, the pressure on you to succumb to the economic duress of the insurer's lowball offer is even more intense thn if you had a home. At least if you had a home you have a CHANCE of getting an equity loan. Sorry to burst your ivory tower bubble there.
Finally, this retired school teacher nonsense is laugh out loud funny. Sorry if I call "bullshit" for what it is. If it truly offends you as you hide behind your anonymity, make up a fictional "friend" (do you still have any? Wanna wear a wire on them?) and attempt to assasinate my character. I guess I call it the way I see it....and if it walks like BS, smells like BS.....
So I have this suggestion for you, since getting a life appears to be out of the question. The next time you want to post about this stupidity, use your real name, and offer up the name of this real person. Otherwise, people will continue to see your posts as nasty personal invective all predicated upon your personal agenda.
Sorry if that sounds "haughty" to you. It's just the truth.
Lew from Brooklyn
Saturday, December 29, 2007
What Gives Councilman Lew Fidler the Nerve to talk about Predatory Lending?
posted by bigapplecharm
Sat, 12/29/2007 - 10:43pm
A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting sponsored by Lew Fidler that had to do with the current sub-prime mortgage mess. He referred to this tragic circumstance as "predatory lending." This really surprised and annoyed me, since I recently spoke with someone who is in a terrible financial situation and made the mistake of borrowing money against a pending lawsuit, which should have netted her a good deal of money to help pay for medical bills due to a severe injury caused by the people she was suing. This person will probably be nursing her injuries for the rest of her life.
Instead of collecting the large sum awarded her, which would have helped pay for the medical care she desperately needs, she wound up owing Lew Fidler's company (a lending institution that loans money at rates often higher than 50% to people in financial trouble), the entire amount of the final settlement.
It seems that Fidler's company seeks out people in financial trouble, who have a lawsuit pending in the courthouse. Then Fidler sends a letter to these people, asking if they need money while they wait for their settlement. Only the poorest of the poor would take this opportunity, since the interest rates are so usurious. My acquaintance claims that she paid interest of over 60%!
Most people who need money would ask a family member, or take out a second mortgage, or use credit cards. Only someone who does not have any other option would borrow at such a thieving rate. This usually means people who are so tight for money that they cannot obtain a credit card, or afford to own a home. So the offer of what looks like easy cash is very tempting, even at such enormous interest rates. Lots of time people who are in dire striats do not look at the end game. In this case that would be winding up with much, much less, if any money at all. The high interest rates certainly do add up, eating up all of the money a person would have gotten, if they had only been able to wait rather than borrow against the future proceeds. This is out and out robbery, in my opinion.
This acquaintance said that she was drawn in because she was told that if she lost her case, she would owe Fidler's company nothing. But first Fidler's company determines the value of the case, before offering the loan. The company claims that technically what it is doing is not loaning money, because if the borrower looses the case, they would not owe anything. But, as I said, first Fidler decides the monetary value of the case before offering the loan. The trouble is, the poverty-stricken person, who is put in the position to borrow money against the proceeds of their case, usually winds up with NO MONEY BECAUSE IT HAS ALL GONE TO FIDLER'S COMPANY IN INTEREST.
So, really. Who is the predator? We have a New York City councilman preying on the poor, taking their money as if it was his own. And not even caring. He is using his position to trade on the misery of others. I wonder if his company has any dealings with the city? Are any of the people that he loans money to in the process of suing the city of New York? Is he getting New York City's money too? Taxpayers money too?
This is all very upsetting. I am wondering if anyone else has heard about this?
Sat, 12/29/2007 - 10:43pm
A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting sponsored by Lew Fidler that had to do with the current sub-prime mortgage mess. He referred to this tragic circumstance as "predatory lending." This really surprised and annoyed me, since I recently spoke with someone who is in a terrible financial situation and made the mistake of borrowing money against a pending lawsuit, which should have netted her a good deal of money to help pay for medical bills due to a severe injury caused by the people she was suing. This person will probably be nursing her injuries for the rest of her life.
Instead of collecting the large sum awarded her, which would have helped pay for the medical care she desperately needs, she wound up owing Lew Fidler's company (a lending institution that loans money at rates often higher than 50% to people in financial trouble), the entire amount of the final settlement.
It seems that Fidler's company seeks out people in financial trouble, who have a lawsuit pending in the courthouse. Then Fidler sends a letter to these people, asking if they need money while they wait for their settlement. Only the poorest of the poor would take this opportunity, since the interest rates are so usurious. My acquaintance claims that she paid interest of over 60%!
Most people who need money would ask a family member, or take out a second mortgage, or use credit cards. Only someone who does not have any other option would borrow at such a thieving rate. This usually means people who are so tight for money that they cannot obtain a credit card, or afford to own a home. So the offer of what looks like easy cash is very tempting, even at such enormous interest rates. Lots of time people who are in dire striats do not look at the end game. In this case that would be winding up with much, much less, if any money at all. The high interest rates certainly do add up, eating up all of the money a person would have gotten, if they had only been able to wait rather than borrow against the future proceeds. This is out and out robbery, in my opinion.
This acquaintance said that she was drawn in because she was told that if she lost her case, she would owe Fidler's company nothing. But first Fidler's company determines the value of the case, before offering the loan. The company claims that technically what it is doing is not loaning money, because if the borrower looses the case, they would not owe anything. But, as I said, first Fidler decides the monetary value of the case before offering the loan. The trouble is, the poverty-stricken person, who is put in the position to borrow money against the proceeds of their case, usually winds up with NO MONEY BECAUSE IT HAS ALL GONE TO FIDLER'S COMPANY IN INTEREST.
So, really. Who is the predator? We have a New York City councilman preying on the poor, taking their money as if it was his own. And not even caring. He is using his position to trade on the misery of others. I wonder if his company has any dealings with the city? Are any of the people that he loans money to in the process of suing the city of New York? Is he getting New York City's money too? Taxpayers money too?
This is all very upsetting. I am wondering if anyone else has heard about this?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Fidler Protects Lopez's Ass
Brooklyn Judicial Screening Chairman Speaks
September 27, 2007
Martin Edelman, chair of the Judicial Screening Committee for Kings and Suffolk counties, said today he believes it’s a violation of the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s own rules for party leaders to support candidates who either don’t come before the committee for a review or are deemed unqualified.
“Based on my understanding of the rule, the chairman and members of the executive committee should not be endorsing judicial candidates who are not on the list of approved candidates,” Edelman told the DN. “It? unfortunate if the chair or the executive committee would endorse a candidate not on the list. As for other district leaders, in my opinion the rules should be clarified on whether or not is appropriate for an individual district leader to endorses a judicial candidate not approved by the screening committee.”
Edelman noted that this question became an issue this fall in the Civil Court primary that pitted former Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen against former Councilman Noach Dear after the candidate who was screened and recommended by the committee, Charles Finkelstein, dropped out.
Neither Yellen nor Dear asked to be considered by the committee, Edelman said, and thus neither the party nor any of its leaders, according to his interpretation of its rules, should not have endorsed them.
The executive committee did not formally back Dear, but Party Chairman Vito Lopez did, as did a number of other elected leaders including, most surprisingly, Dear’s longtime nemesis, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Lopez is, of course, both a DL and chairman, but Edelmen said he didn’t think a distinction should be made.
Edelman, who is an enrolled Democrat but not a member of the Brooklyn Democratic Party (he has an office in the borough but lives in Manhattan), stressed that he has no control over what the party does and noted its leaders are the final arbiters of how the rules are interpreted.
Noting that it takes approximately six months to complete the screening process, Edelman also said he would support a “clarification” that would require the party to support candidates screened by the committee and not ignore its recommendations. He also insisted that the committee doesn’t have the authority to screen Surrogate Court candidates, and suggested a party rule change would be in order here as well.
Councilman Lew Fidler said he doesn’t believe it’s possible to bar individual members of any organization from supporting any candidate they see fit, calling this “a First Amendment issue.”
“I know that I personally take that position and I think it’s the right thing to do,” Fidler said. “But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members.”
Fidler noted that the changes adopted by the party Monday as recommended by the blue ribbon panel (but not yet formally codified in its rules) call for all candidates for elected judicial office to be screened going forward. The panel’s tenth recommendation also states:
“In order for the screening panel to have any respect, it is essential that the executive committee respects the determination and role of the panel. It would be wholly counter-productive for the executive committee to act in contravention of the penel’s fundings.”
Mark
September 27, 2007
5:33 PM
Filder talks reform and always supports the county chooice regardless of what happens in the screening panel.
Can anyone with an IQ over 50 explain what Fidler quote means: "But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members."
Double speak to protect Vito's ASS
I know Fidler and Fidler is machine bought and sold.
Fidler is an expert at getting his name in the paper talking reform. He told several reporters 2 years ago ( after Judge Lopez Torres won the Surrogate seat) that the Blue Ribon committee would clean up the process at that time.
And Edelman was on the screening committee in 2005 that interview Lopez-Torres, Knipel and Johnson for Surrogate Judge. Where is there a statutory law that says a screening panel can or cannot interview a judicial candidate, it is all made up, like everything else Vito and company does
Vito told several reporters during the summer that the Surrogate opening occured 2 late to go before the screening panel.
All Vito and the machine which includes the screening panel have left is there pathetic lying spin.
September 27, 2007
Martin Edelman, chair of the Judicial Screening Committee for Kings and Suffolk counties, said today he believes it’s a violation of the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s own rules for party leaders to support candidates who either don’t come before the committee for a review or are deemed unqualified.
“Based on my understanding of the rule, the chairman and members of the executive committee should not be endorsing judicial candidates who are not on the list of approved candidates,” Edelman told the DN. “It? unfortunate if the chair or the executive committee would endorse a candidate not on the list. As for other district leaders, in my opinion the rules should be clarified on whether or not is appropriate for an individual district leader to endorses a judicial candidate not approved by the screening committee.”
Edelman noted that this question became an issue this fall in the Civil Court primary that pitted former Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen against former Councilman Noach Dear after the candidate who was screened and recommended by the committee, Charles Finkelstein, dropped out.
Neither Yellen nor Dear asked to be considered by the committee, Edelman said, and thus neither the party nor any of its leaders, according to his interpretation of its rules, should not have endorsed them.
The executive committee did not formally back Dear, but Party Chairman Vito Lopez did, as did a number of other elected leaders including, most surprisingly, Dear’s longtime nemesis, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Lopez is, of course, both a DL and chairman, but Edelmen said he didn’t think a distinction should be made.
Edelman, who is an enrolled Democrat but not a member of the Brooklyn Democratic Party (he has an office in the borough but lives in Manhattan), stressed that he has no control over what the party does and noted its leaders are the final arbiters of how the rules are interpreted.
Noting that it takes approximately six months to complete the screening process, Edelman also said he would support a “clarification” that would require the party to support candidates screened by the committee and not ignore its recommendations. He also insisted that the committee doesn’t have the authority to screen Surrogate Court candidates, and suggested a party rule change would be in order here as well.
Councilman Lew Fidler said he doesn’t believe it’s possible to bar individual members of any organization from supporting any candidate they see fit, calling this “a First Amendment issue.”
“I know that I personally take that position and I think it’s the right thing to do,” Fidler said. “But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members.”
Fidler noted that the changes adopted by the party Monday as recommended by the blue ribbon panel (but not yet formally codified in its rules) call for all candidates for elected judicial office to be screened going forward. The panel’s tenth recommendation also states:
“In order for the screening panel to have any respect, it is essential that the executive committee respects the determination and role of the panel. It would be wholly counter-productive for the executive committee to act in contravention of the penel’s fundings.”
Mark
September 27, 2007
5:33 PM
Filder talks reform and always supports the county chooice regardless of what happens in the screening panel.
Can anyone with an IQ over 50 explain what Fidler quote means: "But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members."
Double speak to protect Vito's ASS
I know Fidler and Fidler is machine bought and sold.
Fidler is an expert at getting his name in the paper talking reform. He told several reporters 2 years ago ( after Judge Lopez Torres won the Surrogate seat) that the Blue Ribon committee would clean up the process at that time.
And Edelman was on the screening committee in 2005 that interview Lopez-Torres, Knipel and Johnson for Surrogate Judge. Where is there a statutory law that says a screening panel can or cannot interview a judicial candidate, it is all made up, like everything else Vito and company does
Vito told several reporters during the summer that the Surrogate opening occured 2 late to go before the screening panel.
All Vito and the machine which includes the screening panel have left is there pathetic lying spin.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Lew Fidler Laments Impending Loss of Parking Permit
by Aaron Naparstek on August 24, 2007 Streetblog
The Daily Politics' Liz Benjamin captured this little off-the-cuff gem in her interview yesterday with Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler. Fidler, who called the 17-member congestion pricing commission "a sham," is emerging as one of City Council's most outspoken congestion pricing critics:
"I am not retiring, but I have not decided what I'm going to do," Fidler said. "I'm not running for mayor, comptroller, public advocate of borough president. There are lots of ways to serve in government, and they're not always elected positions...I enjoy being a councilman more than I could tell you. I wish I wasn't term-limited, but I'm not going to run for an office I'm not likely to win, trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, just to keep the parking permit."
Tell it like it is, Lewis!
4 CommentsLast comment by MF
nobodyAnd this guy calls himself an environmentalist? Looks like he could use some time out of the car.
Lose the permit, Lew.
August 24, 2007 at 9:03 am Link # 1 EricMaybe it's time for Lew to put together a resumé and try life in the private sector.
August 24, 2007 at 9:54 am Link # 2 Charles SiegelHe looks like a fairly round peg to me. As one of my High School teachers used to say: "How can someone so round be so square?"
August 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm Link # 3
The Daily Politics' Liz Benjamin captured this little off-the-cuff gem in her interview yesterday with Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler. Fidler, who called the 17-member congestion pricing commission "a sham," is emerging as one of City Council's most outspoken congestion pricing critics:
"I am not retiring, but I have not decided what I'm going to do," Fidler said. "I'm not running for mayor, comptroller, public advocate of borough president. There are lots of ways to serve in government, and they're not always elected positions...I enjoy being a councilman more than I could tell you. I wish I wasn't term-limited, but I'm not going to run for an office I'm not likely to win, trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, just to keep the parking permit."
Tell it like it is, Lewis!
4 CommentsLast comment by MF
nobodyAnd this guy calls himself an environmentalist? Looks like he could use some time out of the car.
Lose the permit, Lew.
August 24, 2007 at 9:03 am Link # 1 EricMaybe it's time for Lew to put together a resumé and try life in the private sector.
August 24, 2007 at 9:54 am Link # 2 Charles SiegelHe looks like a fairly round peg to me. As one of my High School teachers used to say: "How can someone so round be so square?"
August 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm Link # 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)