As always, click to enlarge. Public participation is a good thing, many more people should use their powers and rights, that way.
_________UPDATE_________
I apologize for the quality [fine print] of the image when you click to enlarge.
It is the fault of Google Blogger (and possibly my lack of skill) that long, thin images get handled that way, where print is reduced in size. To compensate, below the dotted line is the full text of the email [with working links, attachments omitted].
-----------------------------------------------------------
eric zaetsch
To: market.assurance@state.mn.us
Cc: info@colemanforsenate.com, info@alfranken.com, Lora Pabst
To: Market Assurance Division
Minnesota Dept. of Commerce
market.assurance@state.mn.us
From: Eric Zaetsch
Consumer Inquiry – About a pending Enforcement Action, if any, or how one might be instigated
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is a public participation inquiry (per definition, Minn. Stat. Sect. 554.01, subd. 6) about whether any investigation or inquiry is pending about a particular matter, facts being in attached items and as set out below, and if no pending inquiry exists this is a request for the Department to initiate one.
First, I call your attention to a pdf attachment, downloaded from Dept. pages, re an enforcement action against a "HOMFI MORTGAGE SERVICES INC." characterized in Dept. wording as, "Respondent accepted kickbacks from a sham affiliated business arrangement." I believe the situation I describe below may well be something akin to that.
Briefly, a complaint has been filed in a Texas court suggesting a Minnesota firm and an individual engaged in a kind of "sham affiliated business arrangement," the firm being a "Hays Companies" and the individual being a Ms. Laurie Coleman. See, attached license data re Ms. Coleman downloaded from the Dept. web search function, and the page re your search function failing to return license information on any "Hays Companies" in Minneapolis, however, see their webpage holding themselves out as doing insurance business in Minnesota. A copy of the complaint, with its attached evidentiary items, is attached to this email. It is a verified complaint filed under penalty of perjury, and is independently available online in its entirety, here:
http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Mckim+v+Nasser+-+Petition++2008-64385+(2).pdf?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUU
Pages 8, and 10-13 are the relevant pages of the court filing. They allege an insurance sham transaction between a Houston deepwater oil and gas services company allegedly controlled by a Nasser Kazeminy, in which three $25,000 separate payments of money were allegedly funneled to the Coleman individual, via the Hays firm (i.e., NOT suggesting there was any normal fee-splitting arrangement between master-servant or independent contractor and principal, but a total flow-through, for ostensibly questionable purposes).
Is this matter currently being investigated by the Department, and if not, why not? Also, how might I, a citizen acting as an act of public participation, instigate an investigation if there currently is none? Might this email, in its limited scope, serve to initiate inquiry?
My particular concern is whether there was a legitimate and non-sham insurance and/or insurance-related relationship between the Kazeminy firm in Texas and the Coleman-Hays parties; and most particularly, whether sham dimensions might be suggested by handling between the Coleman-Hays parties of the three $25,000 alleged payments other than in the normal course of business; i.e., other than under some contractual binding fee-splitting manner of doing business between the Hays-Coleman parties, as is common practice within the trade. The court filing's Exhibit A purports a contract existence between Hays and the Kazeminy firm.
Such questions ought to easily be discoverable by a Dept. investigator in less than half a day's looking at Hays and Coleman business records showing the Hays intake of the money the litigation paper alleges, if that happened, and its related disbursement(s) if any, to Coleman.
Invoices for services from Coleman to Hays ought, in the normal course of business for a non-sham situation be clearly in evidence, as preceding any Kazeminy firm disbursements to Hays, and hence also preceding any payments over to Coleman.
If a normal fee splitting situation is discovered, ideally with a pre-existing written contract for fee arrangements, further inquiry might not be needed, and certainly I am not suggesting steps beyond that at present. Hence it is an easy and well-contained situation and set of investigative steps I am suggesting for Department consideration. And by such a narrow concern, the matter might be most expeditiously handled, time being of the essence.
I believe the matter is of interest statewide, see, e.g., the following web links:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/33643124.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/02/senate_candidates_meet_for_last_debate/
http://www.mnblue.com/norms+new+ad+lies+to+distract
I use those links to disclose to the Department that public political dimensions unavoidably attach to my quite narrowed inquiry. I do that to assure the Department is aware that its response, which I hope is prompt, might itself attain public attention and scrutiny. Please acknowledge receiving my email ASAP, even if action and evaluation might take a day or two before responding.
Also, please note this email is cc'd to two individuals, Ms. Pabst being a Star Tribune reporter, and Mr. Orrick being a Pioneer Press reporter. Were you to do a "reply all" in responding to this inquiry, it would save me significant effort in forwarding things, and would hence be appreciated.
Thank you.
Eric Zaetsch
Cc:
info@colemanforsenate.com
info@alfranken.com
"Lora Pabst" LPabst@startribune.com
"Orrick, Dave" dorrick@pioneerpress.com
Attachments
Note: Inquiry email – omitted attachments
The attachments were omitted in the original email transmission. They
are attached to this email retransmission.
5 attachments
McKim+v+Nasser+-+Petition++2008-64385+(2).pdf
1564K
DeptCommerceRecentInsEnforcementActions.pdf
56K
LaurieColeman.pdf
69K
HaysCompaniesCommerceDeptSearch.pdf
88K
HaysCompaniesWebHomepage.pdf
101K