Thursday, December 01, 2005

Trouble in Jail

A couple of weeks ago I got in trouble with a deputy. I had given my dinner to another inmate. When he questioned me he got innate when I thought it none of his business. Then I challenged him to put up the law I broke or shut up. He locked me down and harassed me for the evening. Then he wrote me up which requires a hearing officer to determine your punishment. She came the next day. She has a reputation of being nice and lenient. She had a report I violated two of their rules. I began to challenge some of her presumptions immediately. She got frustrated and went to the next level of a recorded hearing. She began with her opening statement which stated facts not proven so I objected. She became more frustrated and finally came apart at the seams. Within a minute she turned the recorder off, declared the hearing over and sent me to my room like a mother who doesn’t know what to do with a child. You see this is but a small example of the big picture. They need us to submit to their presumed power but none of them know how they got it. They have just been told. When you demand they prove it a few things happen. They are no longer self-deceived which severs their ability to move to their moral tranquility. They become uncertain in their identity and become irate and frustrated. If you are resolute they will self-explode. It matters not if deputy, judge, or president, they need you to sanction them by submission. This is not obstinate for obstinate's sake, but know who you are what is laws, justice, truth and standing on it. Learn from this example and test it on bill collectors and government frauds. Watch what happens.

37 comments:

Justice7777777 said...

Finally a victory!!!!!!!!!!

We frustrated the lunch lady in prison.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew if we waited things would pay off!!!

Yes!!!!!!

Stick it to 'em Kurt!

All those "two more weeks" delays were worth the wait!

(Ah,--I hate to ask, but . . . did she mention when my mortgage would be cancelled?)

Nevermind.

Huge news! Yes!!!

Justice7777777 said...

Kurt Said, "Learn from this example and test it on bill collectors and government frauds. Watch what happens."

But just in case this fails, make sure you milk the innocent people of millions before they put you in jail.

tcob247 said...

What kind of food was it?

This is all so riviting

We are in good hands with you as our leader

Thank you

Peanut Gallery said...

Hey tinkerbell,

Didja call Dr.Fred yet?
No? Whys that? Oh, thats right you're a gutless wonder.

tcob247 said...

hey peanutless
I have no use for Dr Fred
He is as big of a scammer as his son.
So why the F*%# do you want me to call him?
You are an idiot

son of a prophet said...

PONT-IUS PILATE: (aka Pope; Pontiff/'Ponti'fex Maximus/Pope to the Max)...

"....dont you know that I have the authority over you of life and death!?...."

YESHUA HAMASHIACH:

"YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER OVER ME, EXCEPT THAT GIVEN TO YOU, BY MY FATHER IN HEAVEN..."

E.O.S.

(END OF STORY)

Seeker said...

I need some advice. I just had a forecluse hearing where I presented the Trust Note Rider and ask for the original note and neither help prevent the foreclosure sale. I also sent them a Notice of Disputed Claim and an order to Cease and Desist foreclosure. They ignored all of that. The clerk said that he could nor hear any claims of equity and that would have to be heard in another court so I did appeal. I need them to validate the debt. However this does not prevent them from gaining an Order for Foreclosure sale. What is left for me to do? And what is my best course of action to protect my property?

keepnthefth said...

As a retired naval aviator, carrier fighter pilot,I served with many who were recognized for their focus in combat, Senator John McCain amongst them.

Our training and exploits against the enemy of the day pale in comparison to your dogged determination, born of an unjust imprisonment, to right the corrupt banking system that has denied us and our future generations economic freedom. I'm happy you showed up in my life time. At your expense, many will experience freedom from these thieves in 3 piece suits enjoying temporary joy.

I pray that you and Scott continue to have the courage and tenacity to see this strugle to the end.

Thanks!

Peanut Gallery said...

taco said,

hey peanutless
I have no use for Dr Fred
He is as big of a scammer as his son.
So why the F*%# do you want me to call him?
You are an idiot

Oh? Is that why you have been calling for him to come on the blog an address YOUR questions?

Several people have stated(myself included) that Dr.Fred is accessable to anyone who has the initiative to call and ask questions.Something you seem to lack the courage to do.

All you can do is name call and accuse. Loser

you will know them by their fruit said...

Perhaps Kurt, instead of being super confrontational, you could use humility to fight those same battles.

Elmer Fudd said...

Peanut Gallery said...
taco said,

hey peanutless
I have no use for Dr Fred
He is as big of a scammer as his son.
So why the F*%# do you want me to call him?
You are an idiot

Oh? Is that why you have been calling for him to come on the blog an address YOUR questions?

Several people have stated(myself included) that Dr.Fred is accessable to anyone who has the initiative to call and ask questions.Something you seem to lack the courage to do.

All you can do is name call and accuse. Loser

Hey Tcob maybe he's closer than you think ^.........

KYHOOYA said...

Starfish Prime said...
My apology for not getting back to you sooner regarding your July email; all of my firm's members were fully occupied with trial commitments and existing client business.

In any event, you mentioned the Dorean Group and Kurt Johnson in your previous email: I understand that Mr. Johnson was either convicted or pled guilty to federal felony charges in Utah, and in either event awaits sentencing.

Did you have a personal situation you wished to discuss? If so, please telephone Patti, my legal secretary, and she will be pleased to set up a mutually agreeable date/time certain for a teleconference.

Until then, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Robert

9:55 AM

Hey Starfish P..
Did I miss something from a earlier post or somthing in referance to this post? I'm lost on this one I need closer, Plz help. LOL

YACKY

p.s I will most certanly agree with your post on (Tcob247) his
"Thoughs Causes Others to Blackout 24-7" being A BITCH.... That just can't be said to many time, nice! and realy let me know what that other thing was about, Its bugging the sh$%^& out of me. you know just the little thing that do sometimes.

L8R

KYHOOYA said...

To Tcob247

I see your making alot of business contacts here with all that good will you like to pass out. get a clue DIPSHIT!!...

nOT A DAY GO'S BY YOU DON'T HAVE CRAP THAT SPILL'S OUT OF YOUR MOUTH. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A MOMENT TO CLEAN and or SHUT UP! I'll bet you canceled the family vacation just so you could be here to right all the wrongs you think you see. By the way where is all this $$$ you keep talking about, in regards to Kurt b/c I don't see it? Plz don't give me a math-ology example in responce if fact you know what NEVER MIND. What I was thinking asking you a ?/? is beyond me, must of had one of those "BLACK OUTS" YOUR so used to. Now I understand what is causing allof your DUMB ASS POST its the fog of the blackouts of thought, you should get some help. What a maroonn... you are twitt!

l8r

son of a prophet said...

hehehehehehehehe......lol!

I have now seen it all!

Take your mortgage elimination money and invest it with the ILLUMINATI!!! hehehehehehe......

Just go to www.secretsocietyscheme.com and MAKE UP TO 80% PER WEEK ON YOUR INVESTMENT!!!

YES, YOU READ RIGHT! 80% A WEEK!

lol! hehehehehehehe........

...lets see here...at 80% per week money doubles every...

... 1.8^52 per year...WOW!

1.8 to the 52nd power is 1.8 x1.8 x 1.8 52 times....

my calculator doesnt go that high!

I could buy a federal reserve bank....so thats how they make thier money!?

down but not out said...

This for you son of a prophet,

Hiney ma tov ooma na eem, shevet acheem gam yachad.

Shalom

son of a prophet said...

DBNO-

I would assume that your message is in Hebrew. As I refer to my Messiah as Yeshua HaMashiach,(His real name, not the Romanized one most call Him- Jesus) some may think that I know Hebrew, but as I do not...please translate what you have wrote..

Shalom

down but not out said...

son of a profit,

Translation.

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together.

tcob247 said...

kahooey

I would really like to respond to you but I need a translation of what you said.
What dialect are you speaking?
What grade did you complete (if any)?
I'll make sure they replenish the Sears catalogue for your outhouse.

I'll be thinking about you while I'm in Cancun next month.

Bye

son of a prophet said...

DBNO-

I do not know you, but I come in peace.

But I am still considering whether to throw $20 in the 80% scheme listed above. As I went back to the site, and read more, it seems thAt they prospect for...get this...
URANIUM! Now, at least thats what they SAY they do to make their money. I still think it must be a Federal Reserve Bank in disguise!
LOL!

partysecured said...

Do you think they take credit card?

BetUdidn'tno said...

I have now seen it all!

Take your mortgage elimination money and invest it with the ILLUMINATI!!! hehehehehehe......

Just go to www.secretsocietyscheme.com and MAKE UP TO 80% PER WEEK ON YOUR INVESTMENT!!!

I hope you guys are kidding Right ??

WillToFight said...

why do you call yourself JUSTICE!

You Just don't get it, do you!

Really ask yourself if you got any idea what is going on!

sounds to me like your JUSTINGNORANT!

Tony Tuba said...

Give them hell John!!!!!!!!!!


The People vs. The Banks
From: "John-Ruiz Dempsey"


December 1, 2005


To Mr. Dan Ferguson
Reporter, Surrey/North Delta Leader:

This is in rebuttal to your biased article titled: "Non-lawyer banned from court by
judge" published Sunday, November 13, 2005. I say biased because you have not
reported the whole truth and nothing but the truth in spite of the fact that you
have received the whole truth directly from me. You prefer hearsay rather than the
truth, well that is no surprise, your newspaper does it all the time. Your newspaper
prints nothing but garbage.
You made such a big deal about the immigrant sponsor class action suit I filed
against the province, yet you deliberately decided not to mention anything about the
biggest class action suits ever filed in the history of Canada, namely The People
vs. The Banks, the class action suits I filed on your (the people of Canada) behalf
against all the major banks for unlawful creation of money and my class action suit
against the federal government regarding the truth that the Income Tax Act does not
lawfully exist. What are you some kind of paid agents for the governments and the
banks? I know for a fact the banks owns you and you cannot deny that.
I direct this letter not only to you but also to your editor who has asked me not to
send him any more information regarding my litigation against the powers that be. Is
the truth too hurtful for you to see? Don't you think your readers would want to
hear the truth from you?
This email will be published to show the whole world that you are part of the
corruption and disinformation being perpetrated in this nation through all the
useless garbage being published by you.
Among the truths you failed to publish is the fact that I am demanding a $10 million
payment from judge James Williams who willfully violated his Oath of Office by
participating in a fraudulent act of perverting justice by conspiring with the law
society to prevent me from representing people and exposing the truth in court. You
also know that I am demanding payment from the law society in the amount of $30
million for their unlawful interference with my contractual relationships with
various men and women plus another $40,000 for my fees which they tacitly agreed to
pay me - $5,000 per hour for a minimum of eight hours. You also know that neither
the court nor the law society did not have proper jurisdiction against me and they
have violated their own laws when these corporate fictions conspired to ban me
from their admiralty jursidiction. These monetary demands have been served to the
said judge and law society and such will be pursued in the international courts
where your corrupt justice system does not have any legal authority to manipulate.
You have received an article from me titled: "Rubber Stamp Inc. strikes again." This
refers to the questions I intended to ask your judge James Williams on November 21
where said judge fled the courtroom after 10 minutes. What a joke that was. The
questions are attached here again for your perusal. Publish the darn thing Mr.
Ferguson.
Whatever you do with the truth is up to you. Every reasonable man or woman knows the
truth that everything you publish in your newspaper are tainted with perjury. I
simply want to rebut some of your reports; one is the part where it says: "The
proceedings... have been decided against him (Dempsey), discontinued or left
dormant." The part where the proceedings have been decided against me were decided
by corrupt judges such as James Williams who cares not about real verifiable
evidence. I dare these judges to prove to me otherwise. Come on Mr. Ferguson, I dare
you too, I dare everyone to publish this challenge - I will have no problem proving
myself before a jury that they are all corrupt.
The part where it says that: "Dempsey filed an affidavit seeking child of God
status" is also a perversion of the truth. I never sought child of God status, I
don't need to seek declaration from the court for that, I filed a Constructive
Notice of a Child of God Status as a right. I do not need the approval of your
courts Mr. Ferguson, they do not have the power over me unless it was given to them
from above. I am a soverien man, a free man, not a plantation slave.
Sure they can ban me, I expected that from your corrupt courts, they are afraid of
me because I am not afraid of them and their perceived powers which are all derived
from their de facto laws created by their de facto corporations.
By the way, you also failed to mention that judge Williams failed to prove that he
had jurisdiction over me. He had more than a fair opportunity to prove his
jurisdiction, yet he chose to run away, to hide behind his de facto authority. I
proved that in the August 4th hearing; I proved it again during the November 21st
hearing. Does it make any difference? Not to these corrupt individuals. They do not
care about the law, they do not care about their so-called constitution, the law to
them is a joke, they create their own law to benefit their rotten cause which is to
enrich and aggrandize themselves. Truth and and law to them are irrelevant. For 10
solid minutes I had that judge in my frying pan, before a courtroom full of people,
I proved to the world how dishonest and how unlawful the law society and
judge Williams are, beyond reasonable doubt. As you already know, I returned their
court order void as soon as I received it.
Now do your work Mr. Ferguson, publish some truth for a change, I dare you before
God and man.

Sincerely,

John-Ruiz: Dempsey

ricco7777 said...

I've been involved in other mtg elim programs and the founders bailed on the program and never been heard of again. Thats the typical outcome. I've NEVER seen a program where the founders continue the program even while they are incarserated. NEVER! So whats up with that? Why would Kurt just not bail on the program when that would be so easy to do? Does his agenda include character, honesty, commitment and courage? If so, and he does come out successful, what will the naysayers do then? What's the point of attacking him when the possiblity still exists he knows what he's doing?

mogel said...

To: Person in Foreclosure:

This case below implies that if I request the court to show Subject Matter Jurisdiction and this court is not one of the two that the National Bank has citizenship in, then the court has no jurisdiction.


On October 5, 2004 the US Court of Appeals
heard Horton vs Bank One, N.A. case#: 03-50865.
This is the finding:

"We construe section 1348 in light of Congress's intent to maintain
jurisdictional parity between national banks on the one hand and
state banks and corporations on the other. We hold that the
definition of "located" is limited to the national bank's principal
place of business and the state listed in its organization
certificate and its articles of association. This results in a
national bank's having access to federal courts by diversity
jurisdiction to the same extent as a similarly situated state bank
or corporation. It follows that, under section 1348, A NATIONAL BANK IS NOT NECESSARILY "LOCATED" IN EACH AND EVERY STATE in which it has a branch, and the district court did not err in so holding."


In a nutshell I believe this means that National banks only have citizenship in 2 states at most.

Possibly a silver bullet to get a foreclosure action dismissed if your lender is a national bank? It's worth a try.

son of a prophet said...

hehehehehehehehe...............

who needs mortgage elimination??

just put $20 in www.secretsocietyscheme.com and in 1 year at 80% per week, guess how much you got??

clue: $3.76 x 10^14

that enuf $$$$ for ya???

son of a prophet said...

LOL!

FOR THE CLUELESS, THATS

$376,000,000,000,000.00

YOU CAN BUY THE FEDERAL RESRVE BANK OF YOUR CHOICE.

how many are there, 13 brances?

mogel said...

Tucker said: "and such will be pursued in the international courts
where your corrupt justice system does not have any legal authority to manipulate."

Possibly a rememdy for Kurt if ever needed?

mogel said...

Seeker: It does state in Horton vs. BancOne that National Banks can ONLY sue and BE SUED in federal
court....I believe if you read the whole case you will see that..I believe it is stated in that case..

Was your foreclosure started in another Court? Maybe any decision in another Court can be voided due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Seeker said...

Thank you Mogel,

The company is Homecoming finanical. They are not a bank. ON appeal I will demand verification of the debt as required by the Fair debt credit and collection act but I know that I am dealing with the lawless.

getmeoffthisride said...

What??? I'm with Homecoming Financial!!

mogel said...

Seeker: It appears to me at least, when a lender forecloses & takes property of yours through a non-judicial process, this is a violation of your constitutional rights to due process & violates your rights to property you own. Course this is done all the time by lenders & they continually get a way with this.

As I pointed out earlier, I believe the argument is that the only two jurisdictions the lender can sue in is:

(1) Principal place of business of Lender

(2) State of Incorporation of Lender

The argument is the lender must sue in one of those 2 jurisdictions. The other places or States where the lender may have subsidiary offices, the lender has no standing in Court is the argument. I don't really know how strong that argument is, but maybe, stating this argument in a brief will at least buy you necessary time that you need for Dorean to come through, or the time to figure out a better stategy, or better plan of defense or attack.

At least claiming some defense is better than doing nothing at all which inaction just brings the eventual result sooner. When one is in foreclosure, time is not his friend.

I just received a brief which looks to me like there is an appeal on this case filed by the OCC to clear up the cloudiness of the jurisdictional issues which will be heard. I just did a cursory glance over it & haven't studied it yet.

I can send you that brief filed by the OCC in an attachment. Just email me at the below & I can send you the brief so you can know what to expect:

mogel007@yahoo.com

This stuff is probably over my head & if I have erred on anything I've said on this subject of jurisdiction, I apologize in advance.

Richard Conforth seems to be the expert on jursidiction issues & voidance of judgments & maybe his tapes can help you in your curent situation on your defense of foreclosure. I understand he has a seminar in New Jersey very soon.

mogel said...

John Ruis Dempsey said: "I am demanding a $10 million
payment from judge James Williams who willfully violated his Oath of Office by participating in a fraudulent act of perverting justice by conspiring with the law
society to PREVENT ME from representing people and exposing the truth in court."

Does this mean that Mr. Dempsey is done unless he goes to an international Court? Does this show the propensity of the Courts to not hear the real matters? Will Kurt's case be any different & the Utah or CA Court won't want to hear anything & it will become the Case that never was heard?

mogel said...

Where in the U.S. can national banks sue or be sued? This may be confusing.

A jurisdictional flip flop.
By Karen L. Giffen and Steven R. Malynn
Earlier this year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued final rules which attempt to clarify the applicability of state law to national bank' operations.1 The new rule identify the types of state laws
that are or are not preempted by federal law. While we await the long process of review of the application of the new rules by the courts, the answer to a much older but related question appears to be ready for a more conclusive resolution. Where in the U.S. can national banks sue or be sued? Are national banks on the same footing as corporations when it comes to federal diversity jurisdiction? The answer to that question appears to be, yes.
The Historical Context of Federal Jurisdiction Over National Banks.
National banks were created by the National Bank Act of 1863. Initially, because national banks were creatures of federal law, any suit involving a national bank could be brought in or removed to federal court.2 In the
1880's, Congress acted to put national banks on the same footing as the banks of the state where they were located for all jurisdictional purposes. The Act of March 3, 1887 declared that all national 'banking associations', for the purposes of all actions by or against them, real, personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.
The language of the 1887 Act was consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court and the various courts of appeal to maintain jurisdictional parity
between national banks and state banks or other corporations.4

In the 1940's Congress, by enacting 28 USC §1348, created a new jurisdictional statute for national banks:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by the United States, or by direction of any officer thereof, against any national banking association, any civil action to wind up the
affairs of any such association, and any action by a banking association established in the district for which the court is held, under chapter 2
of Title 12, to enjoin the Comptroller of the Currency, or any receiver acting under his direction, as provided by such chapter.
All national banking associations shall,for the purposes of all other actions by or against them, be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.
The question became where is a national bank located for purposes of §1348. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was the first appeals court to address the issue in American Surety5 in 1943. The American Surety court held that national banks are "located" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in the state where they maintain their principal place of business. For the next fifty years, the federal courts applied the rule of American Surety.
The Flip.
Then, in 1992, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island in the Iacono case held that a national bank is located in every state where a national bank has a branch.6 Of course, because so many national banks had branches in many different states, the ability of national banks
to file suit in federal court or to remove state cases to federal court was severely limited by this ruling.
The Iacono Court used as support for its decision Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Bougas7. In Bougas, while deciding venue, the Supreme Court held that a bank was "located" wherever it had a branch. The Iacono
Court also argued that the first paragraph of §1348 used the word
established to refer to a single district. Thus, a bank should be considered to be "established" in the single state where its principal of business is found. In order to give "located" a different meaning than
established, the Court determined that located must refer to any state in which the national bank has a branch.
For the next decade, most district courts that weighed in on the question, favored the rule of Iacono and held that a bank is located wherever it has a branch.8
The Flop.
In 2001, the pendulum swung again and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Firstar Bank, N.A. v. Faul.9. In Firstar, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a national bank appeared to be analogous in most respects to a corporation rather than any other kind of business organization.
Therefore, "located" in the jurisdictional context should have the same meaning for a bank as it does for a corporation. The Seventh Circuit also
concluded that the statutory history evidenced Congress's intention to treat national banks in the same manner as state banks and other corporations. Moreover, the Court pointed out that various versions of §1348 were enacted between the decisions in American Surety and Iacono and
Congress continued to use the same phrase, which indicated that Congress did not intend to alter the then prevalent judicial construction.
The traditional justification for diversity jurisdiction was to minimize potential bias against out-of-state parties. It has been argued over the years that national banks are not subjected to local bias in states where
they maintain branch banks, and so diversity jurisdiction is not necessary in such cases. The court in Firstar noted that Congress had rejected an analogous argument with regard to corporations, which have access to diversity jurisdiction if sued in any state other than where they are
incorporated or have their principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, even if they have a significant and visible presence in the state in question.10 The Firstar Court reasoned that whatever justification
Congress had for retaining diversity jurisdiction for corporations supported an equal degree of access to diversity jurisdiction for national
banks.
The Seventh Circuit in Firstar concluded by holding that for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1348 a national bank is "located" in, and thus a citizen of, the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its
organization certificate. No other appellate court has yet spoken to the conclusion reached in Firstar. However, every district court since 2001, save one11, that has construed § 1348 has adopted the Firstar analysis.12
We anticipate another decision by a different Circuit soon. In Bank One, N.A. v. Horton, et al, Case No. 03-CV-150, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the defendant's motion to remand on the
basis that the plaintiff was not located in Texas for purposes of determining diversity
jurisdiction.13 The parties are awaiting a review of
that decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Karen L. Giffen and Steven R. Malynn are attorneys with Giffen & Kaminski, LLC where they focus their practice on business litigation. Giffen & Kaminski has significant experience representing financia institutions and brokerages in litigation involving the UCC, contract claims, trust and
probate issues, the relationship between financial institutions and their customers, and securities claims. They can be reached at (216)621-5161 or
kgiffen@thinkgk.com or smalynn@thinkgk.com.
Note: On November 1, 2004, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 2004 US App. LEXIS 22638, wherein the court determined that a national bank is located for diversity purposes in any
state in which the national bank operates a branch office.

mogel said...

Jurisdictional issues might be the best or the quickest way to stop the bad behaviour of the lenders.


[A]ll national banking associations established under the laws of the |
| United States shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them, |
| real, personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed citizens of |
| the States in which they are respectively located ; AND IN SUCH CASES THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION other than such |
| as they would have in cases between individual citizens of the same |
| State.*fn19 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| The Supreme Court has concluded that the objective of the 1882 and 1887 |
| Acts was to create jurisdictional parity between national banks on the one|
| hand and state banks and corporations on the other. Interpreting the 1882 |
| Act, the Supreme Court observed that it "was evidently intended to put |
| national banks on the same footing as the banks of the state where they |
| were located for all the purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of the|
| United States."*fn20

For jurisdictional purposes, a national bank was |
| placed "before the law . . . the same as a bank NOT ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE United States."*fn21

James Baker said...

Hi Blogger!I like your blog! Keep up the
good work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
If you have a moment, please take a look at my site:
loans center
It pretty much covers loans center related issues.
Best regards!

Paul Adams said...

Hi Friend! You have a great blog over here!
Please accept my compliments and wishes for your happiness and success!
If you have a moment, please take a look at my site:
loans center
It covers loans center related subjects.
Have a great day!