Arizona Republic: “A new [Arizona] law aimed at ending ethnic-studies classes went into effect today. . . . House Bill 2281 bans classes in kindergarten through 12th grade that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of one ethnic group, or advocate ethnic solidarity.”
Arizona Republic: “Fireworks stores have popped up all over the Valley, but it will be easier to buy the pyrotechnics than to find a place to legally shoot them off at New Year’s celebrations. . . . But there’s a catch in Arizona’s new law. Although the sale of fireworks is allowed, the statute lets cities and towns restrict their use. Most cities in the Valley have instituted complete bans on fireworks.”
The following is the text of a press release from the Industrial Commission of Arizona:
“Arizona voters enacted the Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act in 2006. The voter initiative established an Arizona minimum wage and provided for an annual increase based on the increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is based on the federal Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, for all items during the 12 months ending each August 31 (CPI-U). The CPI-U is a national index covering the cost of goods and services. The CPI-U increased 1.1% percent comparing August 2010 to August 2009.
At a public meeting held on October 14, 2010, the Industrial Commission of Arizona determined that Arizona’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would be increased by $0.10 to $7.35 for calendar year 2011. Arizona’s minimum wage of $7.35 per hour will be higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 through 2011.
The Industrial Commission’s website contains information regarding the 2006 initiative, Arizona’s minimum wage, and employers’ obligations at
Inquiries regarding Arizona’s minimum wage can be directed to Randall Maruca, Director of the Industrial Commission’s Labor Department at (602) 542-5119.”
The following is the text of a December 6, 2010, press release from the office of the Arizona Attorney General:
Phoenix, Ariz. – Dec. 6, 2010) Attorney General Terry Goddard today filed complaints against two Arizona companies, alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act in connection with the marketing of purported “principal reduction” services for home mortgages.
One lawsuit was filed against Principal Reduction Group, LLC, of Scottsdale, and its owner, Brian Cutright. It alleges that between July and September of this year the company has charged some 100 Arizona homeowners up to $6,000 to participate in its principal reduction program.
The complaint alleges that Principal Reduction Group mailed hundreds of thousands of mailers to Arizona homeowners that were designed to appear as if they were from the homeowners’ lenders announcing the lenders’ principal reduction program and the possibility that the homeowners might qualify for it. The complaint further alleges that Principal Reduction Group misled consumers by emphasizing its purported relationship with investors who would purchase homeowners’ mortgage notes at a discount and then pass on some of the savings to the homeowner in the form of a lower mortgage payment.
The company allegedly failed to disclose that the company had no binding agreement with any investor to do anything for its clients and misrepresented successful results when, in fact, the company had not achieved principal reductions for any of its clients. The company is also accused of falsely telling consumers that federal programs and funds were a component of its services.
Goddard, together with Superintendent Lauren W. Kingrey of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, filed a second lawsuit today against Queen Creek Mortgage, LLC, of Mesa, a licensed mortgage broker, which has marketed its service to some 180 homeowners this year at fees of up to $5,500. The complaint alleges that the company touted its partnership with investors who would purchase its clients’ mortgage notes at a discount and pass on some of the savings to consumers in the form of lower mortgage payments. In fact, Queen Creek Mortgage had no binding agreement with any investors to do anything on behalf of the company’s clients.
The complaint also alleges that Queen Creek Mortgage misrepresented the relevancy of federal programs and funds to its program. The company is alleged to have misled clients by telling them they could expect significantly lower mortgage payments if they joined the program. The company is further accused of failing to disclose that it would send clients’ files and personal information to an out-of-state third party for work on their files once Queen Creek Mortgage collected the clients’ fees. The out-of-state company was not licensed to engage in mortgage broker or mortgage banker activities in Arizona.
In both cases, the State is requesting that the court prohibit the companies from engaging in unlawful activities and that it order them to provide restitution to consumers who paid for principal reduction services and pay the State civil penalties and fees. Assistant Attorneys General Cherie Howe and Natalia Garrett are handling these cases.
For more information, contact Janey Pearl at (602) 542-8019.
If you believe you have been a victim of consumer fraud, please contact the Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix at 602.542.5763; in Tucson at 520.628.6504; or outside the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas at 1.800.352.8431. To file a complaint in person, the Attorney General’s Office has satellite offices throughout the state with volunteers available to help. Locations and hours of operation are posted on the Attorney General’s Web site, www.azag.gov. Consumers can also file complaints online by visiting http://www.azag.gov/consumer/complaintform.html.
Principal Reduction Group Complaint
Queen Creek Mortgage Complaint
Inside Higher Ed: “Arizona voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 107 to ban the consideration of race, ethnicity or gender by units of state government, including public colleges and universities. . . . California, Michigan, Nebraska and Washington State have already imposed such bans. Only one state — Colorado — has rejected in a statewide vote a proposed ban on the consideration of race and ethnicity. In states such as California and Michigan, the bans led to sharp drops in the admission and enrollment of black and Latino students at flagship universities”