My choice

And who knows, if you read and respond to this before midnight, tonight, Philippine time, it could be yours, too.

My choice for Bloggers’ Choice Award in the Philippine Blog Awards, is the collective known as Filipino Voices.

The variety of voices, the breadth (and depth) of the commentary on the site, and the collective representing the most successful and enduring effort to bring the voices of ordinary citizens to the fore, deserves admiration -and recognition by their peers in the blogosphere.

Avatar
Manuel L. Quezon III.

277 thoughts on “My choice

  1. @rodolfo

    I don’t know what ‘technical extortion’ means. So from my naive non-lawyerly background, all one has to do is prove innocence. I don’t see how calling the SC ‘corrupt’ or that ‘judges are tyrants’ will help matters.

  2. nash,

    i ask myself the SC what that means and unfortunately the SC did not care to answer. Please read my two motions if you are interested in finding out the truth. 🙂

    what makes you think that the SC is infallible? 🙂

  3. jcc,

    ‘if your life has no colorful substance please do not begrudge others having one…. have you tried fighting someone not of your own size in the past? if not i can understand why you agonized over the fight of someone you wish you yourself could have done.’

    You are fighting the Supreme Court from quite a distance and where they don’t have jurisdiction over you. You don’t fight fair. You are too immature for your age.

    My life has nothing to do with you. I will not agonize over your fight.

    What colorful substance are you talking about? Is that the colorful money that you were paid for representing both sides of the case?

    Since you have your own blog, do your unfair fighting in your own blog. You can be both blogger and commenter.

  4. @jcc

    I don’t think ANYONE is infallible and I certainly did not mean to suggest that.

    If you put a 300-word abstract on your blog, I’d probably read it. Reading two wordy motions with lifestory is not my usual way to pass my internet time.

  5. supremo,

    read the facts carefully… do not go to conclusions because those conclusions were not supported by facts.

    before you argue read also my two motions. it is the SC that was not fair…it renders a resolution on my case without my input and even without giving me the courtesy of replying to those recommendation.

    please read the facts … if you are interested in the truth. 🙂

  6. nash,

    i cannot do a synopsis of my case here. you see even a hint about it drew already a violent reaction from supremo. 🙂

  7. The people’s bank of china made the same mistake as almost as the major financial institutions in EU and US.

  8. i did not mean here, i’d happily read it in your blog. but everytime i click a link on your blog the first paragraph alone is a turn off.

    which brings me to my second point, why are pinoy lawyers very wordy?

  9. supremo,

    have you tried figthing mr. marcos? have you been incarcerated during martial law? do you think i will run away from the supreme court on purpose? it is incidental only that its resolution came when we are already in America, and not because i wanted to run. i do not run away from a good fight… i cannot go back to the Philippines just so i can fight the supreme court. my family is here.. how about you? have you done your own fighting? what are your credentials? your choice of handle is indicative enough of your bloated ego, supremo, nek, nek 🙂

  10. anyways jcc if you so insist that the sc is corrupt or that the judges are tyrants, i don’t see the point of even submitting yourself to them. sadly, they regulate your profession so I wish you good luck

  11. I am curious where Gloria invested her fortune… her annuities pay-out. the American truck drivers, waitresses and other tax payers will not pay extra annuities to an almost bankrupt AIG. Annuities are part of AIG’s holdings and they are not FDIC insured. Annuities may appear insure because it promise a minimum monthly payment to begin some time in the future….

    NOT insured by the FDIC

    ” * The contents of safe deposit boxes. Even though the word deposit appears in the name, under federal law a safe deposit box is not a deposit account—it’s strictly a well-secured storage space rented by an institution to a customer. If you are concerned about the safety or replacement of items you put into a safe deposit box, ask your insurance agent whether your homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy covers your safe deposit box against damage or theft.

    * Losses due to theft or fraud at the institution. However, these situations often are covered by special insurance policies that banking institutions buy from private insurance companies.

    * Errors made in your accounts. In these situations, there may be remedies for consumers under state contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and some federal regulations, depending on the type of transaction.

    * Insurance and annuity products, such as life, auto and homeowner’s insurance. Not only are these products not backed by the FDIC, but some insurance products may even lose value.

    * Stocks, bonds and mutual funds.

    * Investments backed by the U.S. government, such as Treasury securities and Savings Bonds.”

  12. HVRDS,

    This has been addressed when banks are subjected to Federal Regulations, Totally stupid comment…

    Lehman Brothers and AIG were not under any Federal regulation. Lehman is an investment banker. Before the so called legal maven responds he has to remember where the evolution of banking has led the globe to. From the money leneders on a bench to the fancy towers today. The commentaries here also dwelt with the repeal of Glass Steagal.

    The whole blow up today caused by the housing bubble explosion is based on the increasing falirue of derivative instiruments starting with credit default swaps. Lehman and AIG got caught with their pants down. These markets are totally unregulated and never has been regulated. Lehman however does not have either a deposit taking institution but AIG is a large insurance company that takes premiums from clients.

    Just recently the last two remaing invesmtnet banks, Glodman and Morgan Stanley have asked permission to change their charter and to become a universal bank. Meaing they will become a regular bank also . The are looking to buy a deposit taking institution. So they will come under the Fed and also the FDIC.

    The entire history of finacial crisis has been precisely the failure of regulation and effective intervention by Federal authorities.

    The utter failure of the Federal Reserve in the 20’s in the face of hundreds and hundreds of banks shutting their doors to pump in liquidity into a credit contraction was the ultimate cause of the Great Depression…

    The same thing is happening today at the level of investment banking and ‘trust banking’ that has bought and sold exotic derivative instruments held up by the price of an underlying asset. One particluar asset -home prices is collapsing and is taking the entire house (derivatives) cards down.

    The entire house of cards based on leverage is deleveraging at the level of these fancy banking instruments and it is finding its way back to the balance sheets of deposit taking institutions. Those deposit taking institutions like WAMU and Indy Mac are now technically bankrupt.

    The falling dominoes are weaving its way through the system.. those that placed the heavier bets on housing are all falling the first.

    That is why the government would like to stem the collapse of housing prices by buying a portion of these toxic housing backed securities to create a market for it when none exists. That is acutally a sneaky way for tax payers to recapitalize banks. Thje argument in Congress today is for the government to take equity postions in these corporations.. Actually you are going to reward those that caused the problems in the first palce.

    How can a supposed legal maven make a singular statement that all banks are under federal regulation when we are witnessing a market that had gone amuck and now is collapsing due to non-regulation and deregulation.

    A perfect example of functional illiteracy and lack of cognition.

  13. There is a saying in the legal profession…

    “Those who try to lawyer for themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer…”

    The clear bias is more than palpable….

  14. U.S. banks are under federal regulation and that is a fact. If banks collapse despite regulation, because the controls were not followed by the banks or there was lax in the regulation.

    there are traffic rules in place. if accident happens, it does not argue for the lack of traffic rules, only that people miserably failed to observe the rules.

    you may be a financial whiz but you lack basic logic.

    🙂

  15. hvrds,

    you said private banks in relation to T Jefferson’s letter to Gallatin. Lehman and AIG are not the banks as contemplated by T. Jefferson.

  16. in 1802, Jefferson has no concept whatsoever of investment houses and other institutions doing some business in the likesof Lehman Brothers and AIG and when he mentioned private banks, these are the regular banks that that take deposits and lends money to the public. these are the institutions he wanted placed under federal regulations. If Lehman and AIG were not subjected to federal regulations could be because they do not fall in the category of private banks that are under federal regulation.

    but i doubt seriously if these investment companies can freely operate themselves without filing up their incorporation papers and be subject to some control from monetary regulators, or in our case, by the PDIC.

  17. @jcc

    isn’t there a difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank?? the ftc has no control over investment banks…no?

  18. ok, it’s pedantic, investment banks fall under the SEC regulations and the SEC is a federal agency? (I dunno, I’m asking), thus IBs are under federal regulations.

  19. ‘drew already a violent reaction from supremo’

    This conclusion came from someone who extorts money from helpless people.

  20. jcc,

    ‘i do not run away from a good fight’

    But you are in the United States fighting the Supreme Court in your blog?

    Whatever dude.

  21. hvrds,

    “Lehman Brothers and AIG were not under any Federal regulation. Lehman is an investment banker”

    I think you are wrong…. AIG, the parent company is Federally regulated but the trouble lies beyond the oversight of State Insurance Regulators.

    Lehman Brothers Bank’s deposits are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

    Investments such as mutual funds, stocks and other products are not federally insured ( see my post previously on not FDIC insured) BUT FEDERALLY REGULATED because no INDIVIDUALS are allowed to sell investment products without a license regulated by the State ( Licensing) and Series 6.7 for SEC- Federal Regulators.

    No one is allowed to package mortgages and sell it to the secondary market unless a bank , entity, organization is a mortgage company. In the case of AIG, it has it’s own branch of doing business as a mortgage companies ( AIG mortgage capital) and the biggest PMI company ( AIG United Guaranty) Both companies are Federally and State Regulated. The liquidity problem of AIG’s subsidiaries ( AIG mortgage and AIG United) hurt the parent company…Actually there’s more specialty subsidiary that AIG provides to the world… As I said, no one is allowed to sell its products without Federal and State Oversight thru licensing of business entity, licensing of the person involved and disclosing quarterly statements. All AIG’s branch subsidiaries have websites with Financial Statements on pdf files…
    An investor is responsible for all the risk involve thus a propectus is required. If a bank from China is investing, then that bank is responsible for the risk of its investment.

    But I will agree with you that Federal Regulators ( SEC) missed its proper regulation on risky operations.

  22. any investment transaction requires an agent.. license in the State or for a company, federally regulated. everybody got greedy including the professionals who represented and sold those products. commission was high and it was easy money.

  23. hvrds,
    “Actually you are going to reward those that caused the problems in the first place.”

    don’t bee too confident in posting. your post is always one sided. I agree with jcc…

    as you said, read read read… have you been reading at all.. sounds like your limbic system is now clouding your higher brain function and you’re not even a woman… lol..
    🙂
    Financial Crisis Winners and Losers
    http://www.nysun.com/business/financial-crisis-winners-and-losers/86401/

    “But there is a long list of losers too. Large institutions and well-off private investors have protected their savings through the activities of hedge funds. Their short-selling attacks on vulnerable banks have sparked mergers that, in normal times, would have been out of bounds for anti-trust reasons – illustrated in particular by the Lloyds-HBOS deal. And these will provoke large job losses that are bound to bring political and social repercussions in the U.S., Britain and other affected countries.”
    http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=80308496

  24. jcc,

    ‘do not go to conclusions because those conclusions were not supported by facts’

    Talk to the Supreme Court not me.

    ‘before you argue read also my two motions’

    I rather read the kilometric post of hvrds.

    ‘have you tried figthing mr. marcos? have you been incarcerated during martial law?’

    Too young to do it but I usually side with the good like Voltes V and Mazinger Z.

    ‘what are your credentials?’

    The technical extortionist asking for credentials? There is something wrong here.

    ‘your choice of handle is indicative enough of your bloated ego’

    My bloated ego was caused by drinking too much Pepsi. Burp!

  25. nash ,

    ‘ok, it’s pedantic, investment banks fall under the SEC regulations and the SEC is a federal agency?’

    Commercial banks under Federal Reserve Bank and investment banks under the SEC. SEC has no money and Federal Reserve has the money. Federal Reserve gets the money from treasury notes issued by the Treasury Department.

  26. Leytenian to hvrds,

    ‘I think you are wrong…. AIG, the parent company is Federally regulated but the trouble lies beyond the oversight of State Insurance Regulators.’

    AIG is a bank holding company that owns a commercial bank AIG Federal Savings Bank or AIG Bank. Bank holding companies are under the Federal Reserve.

  27. supremo,

    to avoid confusion, please visit wikepedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

    you will see how big this company is…it’s not a bank but a COMPLEX company… for discussion purposes, focus on its on subprime mortgage business. “AIG’s share prices fell over 95% to just $1.25 on September 16, 2008, from a 52-week high of $70.13. The company reported over $13.2 billion in losses in the first six months of the year”

    The most recent on TV, FBI is investigating about 22 mortgage company including fannie mae, freddie, countrywide and many more.

    Looking on the bottom of wikepedia, where is Philamlife Philippines belong.. or where is GSIS and SS are being invested…. google search..

  28. leytenian,

    I did not say that AIG is a bank. I said it is a BANK HOLDING COMPANY that owns a bank. There is a difference. Maybe you should look up ‘bank holding company’ in wiki.

  29. ‘I am curious where Gloria invested her fortune’

    Aboitiz family members bought several thousand AIG shares at @ $26 per share.

  30. ‘I think you are wrong…. AIG, the parent company is Federally regulated but the trouble lies beyond the oversight of State Insurance Regulators.’Another illiterate

    Insurance companies are not federally regulated. The same with investment banks… There is a difference between state and federal jurisdiction in the U.S.

    Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are changing over their charter to become a bank holding company which will put them under Federal regulators. They will buy a deposit taking institution..

    AIG the juridical entity can own banks but the juridical entity AIG whose main purpose is insurance is not under the purview of the FED. The bank which would be another juridical entity owned by AIG would be under the FED…

    Previously CITIGROUP was composed of Travelers Life, Smith Barney, Citibank and other divisions. Citigroup is a bank holding company.

    They have already shed Travelers Life.. Citigroup has retail/consumer banking, commercial banking, corporate banking, investment banking, private banking, asset wealth management and other services.

  31. The real problem is with insurance products….

    Buffett’s “time bomb” goes off on Wall Street
    Fri Sep 19 07:29:23 UTC 2008

    By James B. Kelleher

    CHICAGO (Reuters) – On Main Street, insurance protects people from the effects of catastrophes.

    But on Wall Street, specialized insurance known as a credit default swaps are turning a bad situation into a catastrophe.

    When historians write about the current crisis, much of the blame will go to the slump in the housing and mortgage markets, which triggered the losses, layoffs and liquidations sweeping the financial industry.

    But credit default swaps — complex derivatives originally designed to protect banks from deadbeat borrowers — are adding to the turmoil.

    “This was supposedly a way to hedge risk,” says Ellen Brown, the author of the book “Web of Debt.”

    “I’m sure their predictive models were right as far as the risk of the things they were insuring against. But what they didn’t factor in was the risk that the sellers of this protection wouldn’t pay … That’s what we’re seeing now.”

    Brown is hardly alone in her criticism of the derivatives. Five years ago, billionaire investor Warren Buffett called them a “time bomb” and “financial weapons of mass destruction” and directed the insurance arm of his Berkshire Hathaway to exit the business.

    LINKED TO MORTGAGES

    Recent events suggest Buffett was right. The collapse of Bear Stearns. The fire sale of Merrill Lynch. The meltdown at American International Group . In each case, credit default swaps played a role in the fall of these financial giants.

    The latest victim is insurer AIG, which received an emergency $85 billion (47 billion pounds) loan from the U.S. Federal Reserve late on Tuesday to stave off a bankruptcy.

    Over the last three quarters, AIG suffered $18 billion of losses tied to guarantees it wrote on mortgage-linked derivatives.

    Its struggles intensified in recent weeks as losses in its own investments led to cuts in its credit ratings. Those cuts triggered clauses in the policies AIG had written that forced it to put up billions of dollars in extra collateral — billions it did not have and could not raise.

    EASY MONEY

    When the credit default market began back in the mid-1990s, the transactions were simpler, more transparent affairs. Not all the sellers were insurance companies like AIG — most were not. But the protection buyer usually knew the protection seller.

    As it grew — according to the industry’s trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 — all that changed.

    An over-the-counter market grew up and some of the most active players became asset managers, including hedge fund managers, who bought and sold the policies like any other investment.

    And in those deals, they sold protection as often as they bought it — although they rarely set aside the reserves they would need if the obligation ever had to be paid.

    In one notorious case, a small hedge fund agreed to insure UBS, the Swiss banking giant, from losses related to defaults on $1.3 billion of subprime mortgages for an annual premium of about $2 million.

    The trouble was, the hedge fund set up a subsidiary to stand behind the guarantee — and capitalized it with just $4.6 million. As long as the loans performed, the fund made a killing, raking in an annualized return of nearly 44 percent.

    But in the summer of 2007, as home owners began to default, things got ugly. UBS demanded the hedge fund put up additional collateral. The fund balked. UBS sued.

    The dispute is hardly unique. Both Wachovia and Citigroup are involved in similar litigation with firms that promised to step up and act like insurers — but were not actually insurers.

    “Insurance companies have armies of actuaries and deep pools of policyholders and the financial wherewithal to pay claims,” says Mike Barry, a spokesman at the Insurance Information Institute.

    ‘SLOPPY’

    Another problem: As hedge funds and others bought and sold these protection policies, they did not always get prior written consent from the people they were supposed to be insuring. Patrick Parkinson, the deputy director of the Fed’s research and statistic arm, calls the practice “sloppy.”

    As a result, some protection buyers had trouble figuring out who was standing behind the insurance they bought. And it put investors into webs of relationships they did not understand.

    “This is the derivative nightmare that everyone has been warning about,” says Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific Capital at the author of “Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse.”

    “They booked all these derivatives assuming bad things would never happen. It was like writing fire insurance, assuming no one is ever going to have a fire, only now they’re turning around and watching as the whole town burns down.”

  32. Can anyone comprehend the notional value of these instruments (CDS) at $46 trillion?????

    The total GDP of the world is only around $50 trillion……

    Can the limbic twins state which regulator has jurisdiction over these credit default swaps bought by banks who lend money out and buy these insurance products when the insurance companies do not have the capital to pay on these policies?????

    That would mean a lot of loans on the books of banks are now worthless…

    That would mean that a lot of deposit taking institutions are capital impaired………..

    I think the magnitude of this problem is hard to be grasped by people who still cannot define what money is….

  33. McCain is getting into worse trouble —- from Republicans!!! Very apparent the past week is that McCain is impulsive, temperamental, and angry.

    George Will said of McCain:
    . . .the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

    …Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

    . . . . .John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated.

  34. “The $7.5bn boost in equity comes a day after Goldman received an accelerated approval from the Federal Reserve to restructure itself as a bank holding company. The transition from pure investment bank – which could operate outside the regulatory purview of the Fed – to bank holding company was designed to allay investor concerns about the future of Goldman’s business model.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83bf493c-89ba-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html

    Paulson’s plan was not a true solution to the crisis

    By Martin Wolf

    Published: September 23 2008 19:38 | Last updated: September 23 2008 19:38

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html

    “Desperate times call for desperate measures. But remember, no less, that decisions taken in haste may shape the financial system for a generation. Speed is essential. But it is no less essential to get any new regime right.”

    “No doubt, the crisis has long passed the stage when governments could leave the private sector to save itself, with just a little help from central banks. For the US, the rescue of Bear Stearns was the moment when that option evaporated. But the events of the past two and a half weeks – the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the failure of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch, the rescue of AIG, the flight to safety in the markets and the decisions by Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to become regulated bank holding companies – have made a comprehensive solution inevitable. ” Martin Wolf

    Why is it correct to stand on the platform provided by idiots…So many more will become aware…

  35. When unregulated hedge funds and investment banks held large positions in the futures oil market all backed up by leverage credit the government did not allow those positions to collapse thereby benefiting the world with lower oil prices. They instead want to keep the prices high until the positions are unwound and deleveraged.

    Ginigisa ang tao sa sariling mantika.

    Is that fair to billions of consumers?????

    Government Assistance
    Bailing Out The Oil Market
    William Pentland, 09.23.08, 11:35 AM ET

    “While everyone knows the U.S. government is looking to bail Wall Street banks, few people realize that it’s also bailing out speculative oil and commodities traders in the process, fueling a sharp rise in energy prices.”

    “Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH – news – people ) and AIG (nyse: AIG – news – people ) held enormous trading positions in commodities markets. If those positions had been liquidated suddenly, the price of everything from wheat to oil would have collapsed. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the main regulator of U.S. commodity markets, allowed Wall Street’s investment banks and trading companies to take control of massive positions in commodities markets called swaps held by Lehman Brothers and AIG.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/23/energy-oil-washington-biz-cx_wp_0923energy.html?partner=alerts

  36. In China the makers of the toxic milk products will probably be executed.

    In the U.S. the sellers of those toxic instruments will get bailed out and will be able to save their wealth.

    Millions of the victims will not have a clue on what happened or why it happened?

    The buyer beware principle prevails in the U.S.

    Gordon Gecko lives on….

  37. anyways regulated or not, i think most people have little sympathy for these people anyway

    1. lawyers = negative contribution to gdp
    2. investment bankers = schmucks who just shuffle money they don’t have.

    cheers to their demise!

  38. Incidentally is our dear beloved leader GMA in New York for the UN Assembly?

    Is she pursuing greater economic ties with, er, St. Kits and Nevis, to help us weather the storm? Coconut trade perhaps?

    Or is she so toxic like those loans that no other country wants to meet with her?

  39. supremo,

    that’s your problem.. you conclude without reading.. in that case you take the position also that SC is an infallible institution. goo day to you son. 🙂

  40. to jcc: Have you already applied for reinstatement of your license to practice law?

    Your license to practice law has been suspended. Solatan vs Attys Inocentes and Camano: On the basis of acts branded by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as “bordering on technical extortion,” accepting funds and giving unsolicited advice to an adverse party, and casting doubts as to the procedure of levy, the IBP resolved[1] to recommend the suspension of Atty. Camano from the practice of law for one (1) year.

    Pero at the end of the suspension period, hindi automatically ibibigay uli sa iyo ang lisensiya mo. [Malay nila, baka gusto mong maging nurse na lang, o maging seaman.] The Philippine Supreme Court was correct when it told California Bar that your license to practice law remained suspended — hindi ka naman pala nag-apply for re-instatement, eh.

  41. Maybe Rodolfo’s companero needs to hire a competent lawyer? Surely there is at least one, lawyers aren’t exactly endangered species (although we want them to be…diploma mills like UP Law School and The Ateneo keep churning them out faster than the landfills can accommodate)

    😀

  42. rodolfo,

    are you a Supreme Court insider? Why did not the SC tell California Bar that I need to reapply to continue my practice? And why did the IBP gave me a certtificate of good standing already?

    nash,

    if you at least give us where you graduated from, we can telegraph your contempt for UP and Ateneo as diploma mills… But if you read close enough you will see that most advertisement for lawyers in newspapers specifically require that applicants must be from UP and Ateno only.

    if you failed your UPCAT, or Ateneo Admission Test, we can share with your contempt and frustration. 🙂

  43. i say they are diploma mills because despite the market being saturated with lawyers, they still continue to produce them more than we need them.

    as for your ateneo or upcat test. no i do not do multiple choice exams.

  44. rodolfo,

    the recommendation of the IBP was modified by the SC such that it found me not guilty of “giving unsolicited advice”. The recommendation for “technical extortion” was affirmed. I asked the SC through my two motions what is this “legal animal” in the kingdom, “technical extortion”, when what I was doing was to implement a “lawful court order”. Extortion or its dichotomy technical extortion is when without lawful purpose/motive you ask some to pay up with threat. I was armed with the decision of the trial court which has become executory to implement the order of eviction, the tenant was long gone but the brother CPA and his mother occupied the unit without informing the landlord about the tenant having vacated the premises already.

    When served with the Order of the Sheriff to vacate the apartment, mother-son tandem went to our office and promise to pay the arrears. I accepted their offer and CPA brother paid 50% (P5,000, more or less $100) of the attorney’s fee and P1,000 for sheriff’s cost.

    This CPA promised to pay the arrears and the current rent. Later he issued four postdated checks. One check was cashed the second check bounced for account closed. I ejected him and her mother from the apartment when the second check bounced.

    So where can you find extortion in that scenario?

    The SC did not even care to answer my query?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.