Temporary Order to Cease and Desist  Jonathan Jason Vizard II

Date:	11/13/2013
Organization:	Division of Banks
Docket Number:	2013-030

The Temporary Order became permanent and final on December 4, 2013

Jonathan Jason Vizard II - Finding of fact, Temp. Order to Cease and Desist

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Suffolk, SS.

COMMISSIONER OF BANKS
MORTGAGE LOAN
ORIGIONATOR LICENSING
Docket No. 2013-030

FINDINGS OF FACT AND
TEMPORARY ORDER TO
CEASE AND DESIST& ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

In the Matter of
JONATHAN JASON VIZARD II

Mortgage Loan Originator License No. MLO30490

 

The Commissioner of Banks (Commissioner) having determined that JONATHAN JASON VIZARD II,(Jonathan Vizard or the Licensee) has engaged in, or is engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices constituting violations of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, 209 CMR 41.00 et seq., and other applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, hereby issues the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE DESIST as well as an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO A HEARING (collectively referred to as the Order) pursuant to General Laws chapter 255F section 11(a). 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

A. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

 

1. The Division of Banks (Division) has jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of persons and entities engaged in the business of a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 2 and its implementing regulation at 209 CMR 41.00 et seq.
 

2. Jonathan Vizard is licensed by the Commissioner as a mortgage loan originator under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 2. According to records maintained on file with the Division, and the Nationwide Multi State Licensing System & Registry (NMLS), the Commissioner initially issued a mortgage loan originator license, license number MLO30490, to Jonathan Vizard to engage in the business of a mortgage loan originator on or about May 14, 2009. 
 

3. Jonathan Vizard’s Massachusetts mortgage loan originator license was in an inactive status from November 3, 2010 through January 1, 2011 because he was not sponsored by an employing entity through the NMLS.
 

4. Jonathan Vizard’s Massachusetts mortgage loan originator license expired as of January 1, 2011 because he failed to file a license renewal application for calendar year 2011.
 

5. On October 17, 2011, Jonathan Vizard re-applied for a Massachusetts mortgage loan originator license and such license was placed in an approved-conditional status on November 16, 2011 through April 9, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Jonathan Vizard’s Massachusetts mortgage loan originator license status was approved. 
 

6. The Division’s records indicate that from July 3, 2012 to July 30, 2013, Jonathan Vizard was sponsored by Norwich Commercial Group, Inc. d/b/a Norcom Mortgage (Norcom).  
 

7. The Division’s regulation 209 CMR 41.06 states in part:
Upon the termination of the relationship between an Employing Entity and the Mortgage Loan Originator, the Employing Entity shall notify the Division within five (5) business days after the termination. The Employing Entity shall fully set forth the reason(s) for termination and shall submit such statement through the NMLS.

 

8. On July 30, 2013, Norcom updated Jonathan Vizard’s sponsorship information on the NMLS to disclose Mr. Vizard’s termination on July 30, 2013.
 

9. By letter dated August 13, 2013, Norcom notified the Division of Mr. Vizard’s termination.
 

10. By letter dated August 26, 2013, Norcom submitted a “Report of Former Employee Misconduct” (Report) detailing the reasons for the termination of Jonathan Vizard and the investigation that Norcom had completed as a result of the concerns related to Jonathan’s Vizard’s activities while employed at Norcom. 
 

11. The Report submitted by Norcom stated that the Corporation commenced its investigation after receiving information alleging that Jonathan Vizard had “requested an undisclosed sum of money in the form of a personal loan from a consumer, based upon both the consumer’s husband and Jonathan Vizard’s mutual military service.” Norcom’s report noted that the consumer emphasized that the manner of the request was “distasteful and offensive.”
 

12. The Report submitted by Norcom alleged that, subsequent to receiving information regarding Mr. Vizard’s actions which prompted the investigation, the Corporation attempted to discuss the matter with Jonathan Vizard who thereupon became “hostile, defensive and non-cooperative and refused to offer any substantive explanation or response to the allegations.” Based upon Jonathan Vizard’s demeanor, Norcom stated that they were forced to terminate him immediately. Following Mr. Vizard’s termination, Norcom continued its internal investigation by conducting a full customer service satisfaction survey and outlining the findings of such survey in the Corporation’s Report submitted to the Division.
 

13. Based upon a review of the information submitted in the Report, the Division commenced an investigation of Jonathan Vizard which continues to this date. 
 

14. The Division’s investigation, as further detailed in this Order, revealed that Jonathan Vizard failed to comply with applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations governing the conduct of those engaged in the business of a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts.
 

I. Failure to Demonstrate the Financial Responsibility, Character, Reputation, Integrity, and General Fitness to Maintain a Mortgage Loan Originator License.

 

15. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 4(a)(iii) states:
The commissioner shall issue a mortgage loan originator license to an applicant therefore unless the applicant: (iii) has failed to demonstrate financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness such as to command the confidence of the community and to warrant a determination that such applicant will operate honestly, fairly, soundly and efficiently in the public interest, consistent with the purposes of this chapter...

 

16. The Report referenced in paragraph 10 of this Order and the Division’s subsequent investigation raised serious concerns about Jonathan Vizard’s conduct as a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts.
 

17. According to information reflected in the Report and gathered during the Division’s investigation, Jonathan Vizard attempted to solicit money in the form of a personal loan from at least four Massachusetts consumers who were either prospective applicants or past customers of Mr. Vizard during his employment with Norcom. (Consumer A, Consumer B, Consumer C, and Consumer D).
 

i. Consumer A
 

a) On or about July 25, 2013, Jonathan Vizard contacted Consumer A via telephone and requested a personal loan of $3,000.00, based upon Consumer A’s husband’s mutual military service with Mr. Vizard. 
 

b) The Division became aware that during the telephone conversation with Consumer A, Mr. Vizard also requested monetary assistance from anyone that Consumer A knew that “could help [Jonathan Vizard] with his bills.”
 

c) Consumer A thereafter contacted her real estate agent, who notified Norcom of Mr. Vizard’s inappropriate conduct.
 

d) On or about July 26, 2013, Consumer A emailed Mr. Vizard and expressed her discomfort and concern over Mr. Vizard’s unprofessionalism and requested that Mr. Vizard cease any further contact with Consumer A. 
 

e) According to information received from Consumer A, Mr. Vizard, after receiving Consumer A’s email, phoned a representative at Norcom and notified Norcom that Consumer A and her husband would be pursuing legal action against Norcom. Mr. Vizard also left two voicemails on Consumer A’s cell phone stating she was mistaken in her interpretation of the matter and “thank[ed] Consumer A for getting him fired.” The Division’s investigation revealed that Consumer A had no intention of suing Norcom. (Consumer A’s affidavit). 
 

ii. Consumer B and Consumer C
 

a) According to information obtained through customer interviews conducted during the Division’s investigation, and information outlined in the Report, Consumer B and Consumer C, a married couple, ages 82 and 84 applied for a mortgage loan through Jonathan Vizard. On or about May 16, 2013, Mr. Vizard solicited and obtained from Consumer B and Consumer C $3,000 in the form of a personal loan.
 

b) Jonathan Vizard signed a document that was purportedly a loan document in which he agreed to make three payments in the amount of $1,033.52 over the course of three months with the first payment being due on June 15, 2013. (Loan Document).
 

c) Jonathan Vizard made his first payment of $1,033.52, and this payment was 14 days late. 
 

d) Jonathan Vizard failed to make any additional payments and, to date, has not made additional payments to Consumers B and C.
 

e) According to the Report submitted by Norcom, on July 31, 2013, Jonathan Vizard contacted Consumers B and C to inform them of his termination from Norcom and repeated a warning that he had made on previous occasions, “that if the consumers reported Mr. Vizard’s conduct to Norcom he would sue them in civil court.” According to the information reflected in the Report, the consumers were “sufficiently restrained and did not notify Norcom of Mr. Vizard’s actions throughout their dealings with him.” The information regarding Mr. Vizard’s contact with Consumers B and C was obtained by Norcom subsequent to his termination and as a part of the customer satisfaction survey conducted by the Corporation.
 

iii. Consumer D
 

a) According to information provided in the Report and information obtained during customer interviews conducted through the Division’s investigation, Consumer D purchased a home in September 2012 and obtained financing through Norcom while Mr. Vizard was employed at Norcom.
 

b) Consumer D was contacted by Mr. Vizard on at least two occasions after the purchase of her home and each time Mr. Vizard attempted to solicit funds for his personal use from Consumer D.
 

c) On or about September 2012, Jonathan Vizard contacted Consumer D and requested a loan in the amount of $12,000.00 to pay for private school fees for his children. 
 

d) Consumer D refused to lend Jonathan Vizard the money, and Mr. Vizard thereafter requested monetary assistance from any friends or family members of Consumer D.
 

e) On or about January 2013, Jonathan Vizard contacted Consumer D by telephone claiming he had lost his license and needed a personal loan to get his license back. 
 

f) Consumer D did not offer monetary assistance to Jonathan Vizard on either occasion. (Consumer D’s affidavit).

II. Prohibited Practices

i. Failure to Truthfully Account for Consumer Funds

 

18. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(c) states:
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to obtain property by fraud or misrepresentation.

 

19. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(n) states:
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to fail to truthfully account for monies belonging to a party to a residential mortgage loan transaction.

 

20. A review of the information provided in the Report and obtained from Consumer B and Consumer C, revealed that on or about May 8, 2013 Jonathan Vizard notified Consumer B and Consumer C that Norcom was requesting a reimbursement of $200 because Mr. Vizard had obtained several credit reports on behalf of Consumers B and C. Mr. Vizard notified the consumers that the $200.00 would need to be paid for Norcom to continue processing Consumers B and C’s loan application.
 

21. Jonathan Vizard gave specific instructions to Consumers B and C regarding the payment as follows: the check needed to be payable to cash; Consumer B had to negotiate the check; and Consumer B had to deliver $200.00 in cash to Jonathan Vizard in the Consumers’ Credit Union parking lot. 
 

22. Upon further investigation, and information received from Norcom, the Division determined that Norcom never required Consumers B and C to reimburse the Corporation for excessive credit report fees and the collection of $200.00 by Jonathan Vizard was not authorized.
 

ii. Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices
 

23. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(b) states:
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to engage in any unfair or deceptive practice toward any person.

 

24. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(d) states:
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to solicit or enter into a contract with a borrower that provides in substance that the person or individual subject to this chapter may earn a fee or commission through best efforts to obtain a loan even though no loan is actually obtained for the borrower.

 

25. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(i) states:
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to make, in any manner, any false or deceptive statement or representation including, with regard to the rates, points or other financing terms or conditions for a residential mortgage loan, or engage in bait and switch advertising.

 

26. The Division’s investigation revealed, that at least four consumers including Consumers A, B and C referenced in paragraph 17 of this Order, applied for a purchase money loan through Jonathan Vizard. During the loan origination process, after the consumers relied on representations made by Mr. Vizard including statements indicating that the consumers had qualified for a loan program, each consumer became aware that they had not qualified for the loan program that they had applied for and were required to either delay the closing of their loan or attempt to rescind a previously executed purchase and sale agreement. In each instance, the consumer was harmed by Mr. Vizard’s misleading representations regarding the status of their loan as further detailed in this Order.
 

1) Consumer A
 

a) In April 2013, Consumer A and her husband contacted Jonathan Vizard to obtain a prequalification for the purchase of a home. The Division’s review of the prequalification indicated that the consumers had been prequalified for a VA loan up to $161,000. The prequalification was issued by Mr. Vizard on behalf of Norcom.
 

b) According to information obtained through consumer interviews, Consumer A was unable to find a property within an acceptable price range and thereafter contacted Mr. Vizard and inquired if she and her husband could qualify for a larger loan. Records obtained and reviewed by the Division indicate that the consumers had been prequalified for a VA loan up to $259,000. The prequalification was issued by Mr. Vizard on behalf of Norcom. 
 

c) Based upon the Division’s review of records and information obtained through consumer interviews, the consumers thereafter executed an offer for the purchase of a home in Charlton, Massachusetts in April 2013. The offer for the purchase of the home identified the purchase amount as $259,900.
 

d) Between June and July 2013, Consumer A and her husband continued to work with Jonathan Vizard and at some point, Mr. Vizard inquired if Consumer A and her husband “could borrow money from someone to be approved for a FHA loan, as Mr. Vizard could not get Consumer A and her husband approved for a VA or USDA loan.”  
 

e) Based upon information received during the Division’s investigation, during this time Mr. Vizard ran Consumer A’s husband’s credit at least seven (7) times between April and mid-July.
 

f) In July of 2013, Consumer A was notified that she and her husband were unable to get a loan for the purchase of Charlton, Massachusetts property as the prequalification amount provided by Mr. Vizard was not accurate, and the consumers would not qualify for a $280,000 loan. (Consumer A’s affidavit).
 

2) Consumers B and C
 

a) The Division’s review of the Report submitted by Norcom and consumer interviews conducted during the Division’s investigation revealed that Mr. Vizard failed to adequately explain the loan programs available to Consumers B and C and based upon representations made by Mr. Vizard, Consumers B and C entered into a purchase and sale agreement for a condominium.
 

b) Mr. Vizard made representations to the consumers that their mortgage loan for the purchase of the condominium would close by March 15, 2013 and based upon their reliance of that date the consumers executed a purchase and sale agreement.
 

c) Between March 2013 and May 2013 Mr. Vizard continued to assure Consumers B and C that they would be able to obtain a loan. During this period, Consumers B and C also received documents from Norcom’s main office in Avon, Connecticut on at least two occasions detailing what it would cost them to complete the loan process. Mr. Vizard advised Consumers B and C to ignore the paperwork sent from Norcom. 
 

d) Based upon information received from Consumers B and C, during the course of consumer interviews, it was revealed that Mr. Vizard subsequently notified the consumers that they failed to qualify for a mortgage loan and that the condominium that they desired was “unqualified for the loan program requested as the condominium failed to meet the bond coverage requirements.”
 

e) On May 16, 2013, the seller of the Condominium withdrew their offer to sell, and Consumers B and C were unable to close on the Condominium.
 

3) Consumer E
 

a) The Division’s review of the Report submitted by Norcom and information obtained by the Division through consumer interviews revealed that on or about November 30, 2012, Consumer E applied for a mortgage loan through Norcom. 
 

b) The mortgage loan application was placed on hold as Consumer E had lost his employment. When Consumer E became employed, he re-activated his loan application with Mr. Vizard.
 

c) Consumer E was told by Jonathan Vizard that after thirty (30) days of verifiable employment, he would qualify for a loan for the purchase of a home.
 

d) According to information provided to the Division during consumer interviews, Consumer E then proceeded with the loan application and provided all required documentation to Mr. Vizard. 
 

e) Based upon representations made by Mr. Vizard regarding his eligibility for a mortgage loan, Consumer E placed an offer to purchase a home and the offer was accepted.
 

f) Jonathan Vizard notified Consumer E that the loan would close on or around May 2013. Mr. Vizard communicated this date knowing that the loan program for which Consumer E qualified for required the borrower be employed for six months. Based on this information Consumer E would not qualify for the loan until November 2013. 
 

g) As a result of Jonathan Vizard’s misrepresentations to Consumer E regarding the conditions regarding his eligibility for a loan, Consumer E was unable to complete the purchase of his home. (Consumer E’s affidavit).

 

B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

27. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, Jonathan Vizard has failed to demonstrate and maintain the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity, and general fitness such as to command the confidence of the community and to warrant a determination that he will operate honestly, fairly, soundly and efficiently in the public interest, as a mortgage loan originator in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 4 and the Division's regulation 209 CMR 41.04(2)(d).
 

28. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by soliciting funds from consumers with whom he had a business relationship with, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 4(a)(iii).

29. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by entering into loan agreements with consumers whom he had a business relationship with and thereafter failing to repay the amounts owed, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 4(a)(iii).
 

30. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by obtaining funds from Massachusetts consumers by fraud and misrepresentation Jonathan Vizard has violatedMassachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(c). 

31. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by soliciting funds from Massachusetts consumers and failing to truthfully account for those funds, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(n). 
 

32. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by misleading consumers regarding the status of their loan program and their eligibility of a particular loan program, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(b). 
 

33. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by providing inaccurate information regarding consumers’ eligibility for a particular loan program or product during the origination of a mortgage loan, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(d). 

34. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, by misleading consumers regarding their eligibility of a particular loan program, Jonathan Vizard has violated Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 15(j). 
 

35. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, the public interest will be harmed by delay in issuing an Order under General Laws chapter 255F, section 11(a) because, it is unknown how many other consumers have been affected or will be affected by Jonathan Vizard’s prohibited practices. The Division continues to investigate the extent of consumer harm inflicted by Mr. Vizard’s actions during his employment at Norcom but given the severity of consumer harm incurred the Division has cause to believe that the public interest will be harmed by a delay in issuing this Order pending the completion of the Division’s investigation.
 

36. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, the Commissioner has determined that:
 

(a) Jonathan Vizard has engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices which warrant the belief that Jonathan Vizard is not operating honestly, fairly, soundly and efficiently in the public interest in violation of standards governing the licensing and conduct of a mortgage loan originator including, but not limited to, the provisions of M.G.L. chapter 255F and the Division’s regulations at 209 CMR 41.00 et seq.; and
 

(b) The public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing an ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST to Jonathan Vizard, pending the Division’s ongoing investigation.
 

37. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 26, had the foregoing been known to the Division at the time of Jonathan Vizard’s May 11, 2009 and October 17, 2011, mortgage loan originator license applications, the Commissioner would have been warranted in refusing to issue such licenses. Further, the facts and conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 26 present sufficient grounds for the revocation of Jonathan Vizard’s loan originator license pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 11(a) and the Division’s regulation at 209 CMR 41.10(21) and the issuance of an order prohibition pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255F, section 11(d).

 

C. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

 

After taking into consideration the FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW stated herein, it is hereby:
 

38. ORDERED that Jonathan Vizard shall immediately cease from negotiating, soliciting, arranging, providing or accepting any Massachusetts residential mortgage loan application, or assisting any consumer in completing such application, or otherwise operating as a mortgage loan originator, as that term is defined under General Laws chapter 255F.
 

39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Temporary Order shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless set aside, limited, or suspended by the Commissioner or upon court order after review under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 30A.
 

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Temporary Order shall not be construed as approving any act, practice, or conduct not specifically set forth herein which was, is, or may be in violation of relevant state or federal laws and regulations. 

II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO A HEARING
 

A. VIOLATIONS
 

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the Findings of Fact set forth above, the Division hereby sets forth the following Charges against Jonathan Vizard:

41. The Division hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact presented in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of the Order as though fully set forth.
 

42. The Division hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the Conclusions of Law presented in Paragraphs 27 through 37 of the Order as though individually set forth as separate Charges providing the basis of this Order to Show Cause.
 

B. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
 

43. WHEREAS, finding it necessary and appropriate and in the public interest, and consistent with the purposes of the laws governing licensed mortgage loan originators in the Commonwealth;
 

44. WHEREAS, Pursuant to General Laws chapter 255F, section 11(d), the Commissioner may issue a written notice of intention to prohibit a person from any further actions, in any manner, as a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts or to prohibit that person from being employed by, as agent of, or operating on behalf of a mortgage loan originator or any other business which requires a license from the Commissioner; and
 

45. WHEREAS, finding that the Charges set forth above, if found to be true and correct, form the legal basis for the action sought to be taken under General Laws chapter 255F, section 11(d).
 

46. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jonathan Vizard shall show cause why his mortgage loan originator license, MLO30490 should not be revoked pursuant to General Laws chapter 255F, section 11.
 

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jonathan Vizard shall show cause why he should not be prohibited from any further actions, in any manner, as a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts or from being employed by, as agent of, or operating on behalf of a mortgage loan originator or any other business which requires a license under chapter 255E or 255F or any other business which requires a license from the Commissioner.
 

C. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 

48. WHEREFORE, the Division, by and through the Commissioner, prays for a final decision as follows:
 

1) For a final Agency decision in favor of the Division and against Jonathan Vizard for each Charge set forth in this Order;

2) For a final Agency decision revoking Jonathan Vizard’s mortgage loan originator license, number MLO30490 to conduct business as a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts;

3) For a final Agency decision prohibiting Jonathan Vizard from any further actions, in any manner, as a mortgage loan originator in Massachusetts or from being employed by, as agent of, or operating on behalf of a mortgage loan originator or any other business which requires a license under chapter 255E or 255F or any other business which requires a license from the Commissioner;

4) For costs and fees of the Division’s investigation of this matter; and for such additional equitable relief as the Presiding Officer may deem just and proper.
 

D. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO A HEARING 
 

49. Jonathan Vizard or his authorized representative may file a written request for a hearing as to the Temporary Order to Cease and Desist within twenty-one (21) days. If no hearing is requested within this twenty-one (21) day period, the Temporary Order shall become permanent and final until it is modified or vacated by the Commissioner.
 

50. Jonathan Vizard or his authorized representative is required to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Charges contained in this Order within twenty-one (21) days of its effective date, pursuant to the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 (6)(e). Failure to file an Answer may also result in a default judgment against Jonathan Vizard in the matter of the revocation of his mortgage loan originator license and the issuance of an Order of Prohibition. The Answer, and any subsequent filings that are made in conjunction with this proceeding, shall be directed to the Division, with a copy to Prosecuting Counsel.

 

All papers filed with the Division shall be addressed to the attention of:

Administrative Hearings Officer

Division of Banks

1000 Washington Street, 10th Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02118

 

Prosecuting Counsel for this matter is:

Nicole Palumbo, Esq. 

Division of Banks

1000 Washington Street, 10th Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02118

 

51. You are further advised that Jonathan Vizard has the right to be represented by counsel or other representative, to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses who testify against Jonathan Vizard, and to present oral argument. The hearing will be held at a date and time to be determined and will be conducted according to Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 30A, sections 10 and 11, and the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 and 1.03.

 

Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 13^th day of November, 2013.

 

By:

Cynthia A. Begin,

Chief Risk Officer