Men avoid jail for graffiti on trains, bridges
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
By Jim McKinnon, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Four graffiti painters pleaded guilty yesterday to reduced charges in connection with several incidents throughout the area, including the vandalism of Port Authority light rail vehicles, two bridges and Pittsburgh's anti-graffiti truck.

Entering the pleas yesterday before Common Pleas Judge Robert E. Colville were Michael "Mook" Monack, 19, Jason "Seos" Kress, 22, Eric Majetich, 25, and Thomas Cameron Clayton, 21, whose tag name was "Jane," a reference to the South Side street where he lived.

All except Majetich, who lives in Oakland, are from the South Side. They are members of a group of graffiti painters that calls itself the "Value Krew."

The four pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and defiant trespass charges, none of which will require jail time. They also agreed to pay restitution in small installments.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Pratt reached agreements with the men's defense attorneys to reduce felony charges of criminal trespass to misdemeanor counts of defiant trespass.

A year ago, between September and December, the four vandalized some 35 light rail vehicles, causing $62,000 in damage.
The men also were accused of painting the Liberty Bridge and 10th Street Bridge, which have been cleaned up since their arrests and defaced again with new graffiti.

Monack also was charged with defacing a city vehicle used for graffiti removal as it was parked.

Monack was sentenced to four years of probation and ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution.

Kress and Clayton, who admitted to defacing a private building in the Strip District, already have paid $1,395 in restitution. The two also were sentenced to pay $300 each for restoration of the two bridges. That, too, already has been paid, their lawyers said. Kress, Clayton and Majetich were each sentenced to three years' probation.

All four were also sentenced to 180 hours of community service. Colville said that he hoped the men would perform their community service obligations by painting homes of senior citizens or using their talents to beautify public properties like playgrounds.

" You've shown no respect for the talent that God gave you," Colville scolded Monack. "You're not a criminal. But there's some portion of you that may be brain-dead."
Five other suspected members of the Value Krew are scheduled for trial in December.

Jim McKinnon can be reached at jmckinnon@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1939.
Free-lance writer Sarah Lolley contributed to this article.

Unconscionable, abusive, but not illegal:
The predatory practices of Conseco Finance
By Not With Our Money

Meet Sylvia Barron, a 67 year-old woman who works at a knitting factory in St. Paul, MN. In April 2000, Ms. Barron, a homeowner, received a call from Conseco Finance Corporation, which had obtained her information from a hardware-store charge card that Conseco services. The company convinced Ms. Barron that she should take out second and third mortgages on her house, suggesting that she could get rates of 11% or 12%. But the papers Ms. Barron actually signed not only had her refinancing at higher interest rates (13.95% and 19.9% respectively) but also included $3,000 in extra fees. Ms. Barron, who earns $9.95 an hour, suddenly found herself unable to make monthly payments of over $1,000 on the two mortgages. After missing a few payments, Ms. Barron was informed by Conseco that her house would be put up for a sheriff’s sale. Ron Ellwood, a local Legal Services Advocates, describes Barron as a typical victim of predatory lending, "the combination of unscrupulous people taking advantage of unsophisticated people"
http://news.mpr.org/features/200206/12_schmitzr_predators/index.shtml. (MPR & ACORN) Minnesota isn’t the only place where Conseco does its dirty business. Others include:

Iowa: Last summer, Iowans got so fed up with Conseco’s predatory practices that 104 members of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement took over the company’s offices in Des Moines. The organization also took its concerns to the State’s Attorney General and the Legislature, demanding an investigation and laws to protect residents from predatory lending http://www.disclosure-us.org/disc-feb2002/sharks-iowa-cci-takes-issue.htm.

Kansas: In Kansas, meanwhile, state officials are already on the case. On January 18, 2002, Deputy Bank Commissioner Kevin Glendening explained to angry homeowners that his office had filed notice of its intent to revoke Conseco’s license and has been investigating the possible use of illegal interest rates, debt collection practices and credit evaluations. Conseco was eventually forced into a nearly $7 million settlement with homeowners http://www.disclosure-us.org/disc-may2002/shark-sunflower-wins-7-million.htm.

While many other subprime lenders have agreed to change their practices under pressure from angry homeowners and public officials, Conseco has been sticking to its predatory guns. For example:

• Single Premium Credit Insurance: According to the Coalition for Responsible Lending, Conseco Finance was the last of the major lenders (including Bank of America, Chase, First Union, Wachovia, Ameriquest, Option One, Citigroup, Household and American General) to drop SPCI, which strips equity and forces borrowers to pay excessive interest by packing insurance payments in with a loan, from subprime loans http://www.acorn.org/acorn10/predatorylending/plclips/conseco.htm.
• Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: When Philadelphia passed strong predatory lending legislation, Conseco indicated that the company, which did $6 million worth of subprime business there in 2000, would no longer lend in the city http://www.mbaa.org/reft/stories/0125phil.htm. Apparently, the company would rather leave than lend responsibly.

Who provides Conseco Finance with the capital required to make predatory loans? Lehman Brothers.

In its September/October 2000 issue, The Consumer Advocate reported that Lehman Brothers provided warehouse funding and underwriting services to Conseco Finance–meaning that Lehman gave Conseco Finance the money to make the loans, converted those loans into securities and sold the securities to investors, thereby raising more money for more loans. In exchange, Lehman received warrants to purchase 5% of the company’s stock (worth about $50 million), not to mention hefty underwriting fees.
According to Conseco Finance’s 10-K, filed on April 1, 2002, Lehman is still the company’s main financial backer http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890175/000089017502000002/ 0000890175-02-000002-index.htm.

The 10-K indicates that, among other things, that Lehman:

• Received $25 million in fees for a 2000 deal involving the exchange of $1.3 billion in loans;
• Extended the terms of Conseco Finance’s’s warehouse line of credit, "miscellaneous borrowings" and "residual line" for an additional year;
• Relaxed the liquidity requirements on Conseco Finance’s debt;
• Received a modification in its stock warrants allowing them to be converted to stock in either Conseco Finance or parent company Conseco; and
• Received an additional $5.3 million in advisory fees related to the business and debt restructuring

Not With Our Money
Copyright 2002
Feedback -Info@NotWithOurMoney.org