202035780 –
THOMAS, ELIZABETH vs. PCF PROPERTIES IN TX LLC
REMAND FROM JUDGE BENNETT, FEB 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 18, 2022
NOTICE OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FOR REGISTRY AS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND PASSED
Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. v. Thomas
(4:22-cv-00335)
District Court, S.D. Texas
FEB 1, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 3, 2022
Incorrectly Filed (4:22-cv-00335)
District Court, S.D. Texas
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Elizabeth Thomas, a debtor in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York: White Plains Division under case No. 18-23676″ files this Notice of Removal as follows:
I. Background .
1. On October 29, 2018, (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor Elizabeth Thomas, filed her voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York commencing the above referenced bankruptcy case which bears Case No. 18-23676.
2. On January 3, 2019, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., filed a proof of claim alleging to be a secured creditor and that debtor Thomas was in defaulted on her money purchase loan from Flagstone Lending Group a Utah Corporation and owned the outstanding amount of $489,069.96, in mortgage payments that is a secured claim encumbering the property located at 8202 Terra Valley Lane, Tomball Tx 77375.
3. On January 24, 2019, Debtor Elizabeth Thomas, pro, se filed Notice of Removal [Doc.28], invoking 28 U.S.C.§ 1452(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, and removed the case styled as Miramar Lake Homeowners Association et al vs. Elizabeth Thomas et al, (the “851 Cases”) from the 333rd Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas, to the United States Southern District Court of New York: White Plains Division into case number 18-23676, for the purpose of litigation with among others CHASE.
4. On January 13, 2020, debtor Thomas filed a “Motion to Expunge, Reduce or Reclassify J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Proof of Claim No. 5.” Thomas pleaded that the “Debtor borrowed approximately $235, 262. 37 from her lender MTH Lending Group on October 19, 2007, bearing an interest rate of 6.375% (the “Loan and Mortgage”) for the refinance of the residential property located at 8202 Terra Valley Lane, Tomball Tx., (the Property).
5. Debtor Thomas pled that she had subsequently sold the Property to a third party and no longer owns the property. Accordingly, the Loan and Mortgage are no longer secured as to the Debtor, as the Debtor does not own the property. Accordingly, the claim should be reclassified as unsecured. As an unsecured debt, this claim should be expunged as the Debtor received a discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011 and listed the debt to this mortgage.
6. The Debtor Thomas Motion Requested Relief: that the Court issue an Order reclassifying CHASE claim as unsecured and expunging it as the mortgage debt was previously discharged in a prior bankruptcy in the year of 2011.
7. In other words more simply Debtor Thomas challenged that she never applied for or received a money purchase loan on October 19, 2007, from a Utah Corporation lender Flagstone Lending Group who is in fact non-existent; and instead on October 19, 2007, she attended a closing on October 19, 2007, with family members at MTH Title Company L.C., and closed on a Texas Home Equity Loan from MTH Lending Group L.P, at f/k/a MTH Title Company L.C.
8. Before the Honorable Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York White Plains Division, was the task of determining whether debtor Thomas, on October 19, 2007, obtained a money purchase loan in the amount of $239,400.00, from a Utah Corporation lender Flagstone Lending Group or a Texas Home Equity Loan from MTH Lending Group L.P.
9. Stewart Title Company whom owned a controlling 51% interest in f/k/a MTH Title Company L.C., where Debtor Thomas closed on October 19, 2007, Texas Home Equity Loan responses to “First Set of Admissions” confirmed that on October 19, 2007, Debtor Thomas, closed on a Texas Home Equity Loan from her lender MTH Lending Group L.P., and DENY (i) receiving any cash funds for a Utah Corporation lender named Flagstone Lending Group on October 19, 2007, to fund Thomas with a loan(ii) deny executing any closing loan documents between Debtor Thomas and Flagstone Lending Group; and (iii) deny recording any “deed of trust” in the Harris County Real Property Records securing said non-funded loan.
10. On February 5, 2020, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., filed an “Objection” to Debtor Thomas “Motion to Expunge, Reduce or Reclassify its Proof of Clam.” Instead of CHASE coming forward with evidence to “prove” (i) the existence of Utah Corporation lender Flagstone Lending Group, (ii) evidence the existence of a funded money purchase transaction transpired between Flagstone and Debtor Thomas, on October 19, 2007, and (iii) if so at what title company did this closing of this alleged loan take place.
Instead submitting said proof JP Morgan Chase goes on a charade of arguments that Debtor Thomas, her son Robert Thomas and James Allen are all part of a scheme to defraud Chase of payment for this phantom advance cash purchase was (i) fraudulently release by Andersen and; (ii) deeds transferring the interest in the property are fraudulent these issues are reference and reproduces below:
“In addition, the Debtor has filed a false satisfaction of Chase’s Loan (the “Purported Satisfaction”), in which James M. Andersen (“Andersen”), an attorney who had represented the Debtor in numerous actions, purported to act as a “substitute trustee” for Chase.” And the deeds transferring an interest property were also fraudulent and without consideration.
11. On or about June 17, 2020, Judge Sean H. Lane U.S.B.J., signed order granting debtor Thomas Motion to “Reclassify Chase claim as unsecured and Expunge” J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A Claim No. 5, as it was discharged in a 2011 bankruptcy. Debtor Thomas 2011 discharge injunction order automatically voids any judgment obtained on a discharged debt. 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(1).
12. On December 29, 2020, Judge Sean H. Lane U.S.B.J., signed a confirmation order confirming Debtor Thomas Chapter 13 plan.
We’re tracking the many cases currently before Judge Chapman, post financial crisis.
How is Lehman Bros allowed to obtain monetary relief for predatory loans from the same banks and non-banks, et al, who are stealin’ citizens homes?https://t.co/Jc9n6hqPWn#Bankruptcy
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) February 2, 2022
13. On January 31, 2022, debtor Thomas discovered through social media and a Fox News Reporter that entity named Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., has filed an appeal in the 133rd Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas, in the case entitled Robert L. Thomas and James Allen vs. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, on behalf of Non-Existent Flagstone Lending Group and its Successor J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and Elizabeth Thomas under cause No. 2018-14171, challenging and appealing Judge Sean H. Lane U.S.B.J., order granting debtor Thomas Motion to “Reclassify Chase claim as unsecured and Expunge” J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A Claim No. 5, as it was discharged in a 2011 bankruptcy, although they have no interest in this case.
14. On January 31, 2022, debtor Thomas discovered that although she was dismissed from this case on February 14, 2019, and prohibited from making filings into said court the 133rd Judicial District Court held a hearing without notice or service of summons and complaint on debtor Thomas. Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., seeks to re-litigate CHASE same causes of action/claims that have already litigated and disposed of in the bankruptcy court and is protected by the bankruptcy automatic stay.
II. Removal under 28 U.S.C. §14
15. The 133rd Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas case may be removed to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452, which provides in pertinent part:
A party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action other than a proceeding before the United States Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power, to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1452(a).
16. Based on the language of § 1452, a party may remove any civil action over which a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, this Court has original jurisdiction over all civil proceedings “arising under title, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
17. The 133rd Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas, case entitled Robert L. Thomas and James Allen vs. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, on behalf of Non-Existent Flagstone Lending Group and its Successor J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and Elizabeth Thomas under cause No. 2018-14171. is directly related to the Debtor’s Thomas Bankruptcy Case within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1334 because the claims for relief asserted by the Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., are the same exact claims asserted and litigated against the debtor in the bankruptcy court (the Contested Matter”), More importantly litigating the same claims again outside of the bankruptcy court would interfere with the Debtor fresh start under the Bankruptcy Code.
18. Additionally a bankruptcy court’s confirmation order that is final and no longer subject to appeal [is] ‘res judicata to the parties and those in privity with them.’”
See: Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 152, 129 S. Ct. 2195, 2205 (2009)).
It become “res judicata to the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.”
I.d.,557 U.S. 137, 152, 129 S. Ct. 2195, 2205 (2009).
19. A “confirmation order has a preclusive effect, foreclosing relitigation of any issue litigated by the parties and or any issue necessarily determined by the confirmation order.'”
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, at 1692 (quoting 8 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1327.02[1]
The orders confirming a plan precludes re-litigation of confirmation “objections” raised “or those that could have been raised before confirmation.”
The application of res judicata produces finality for the parties and promotes judicial economy.
Parties know that when final judgment is entered and all appeals are exhausted, the case is over and the decision will be binding on all issues determined in the lawsuit or proceeding. Id.
20. The 133rd Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas, case entitled Robert L. Thomas and James Allen vs. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, on behalf of Non-Existent Flagstone Lending Group and its Successor J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and Elizabeth Thomas under cause No. 2018-14171 , is not an action before the Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power.
21. Based on the foregoing, the 133rd Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas, case entitled Robert L. Thomas and James Allen vs. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, on behalf of Non-Existent Flagstone Lending Group and its Successor J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and Elizabeth Thomas under cause No. 2018-14171 may be removed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28U.S.C.§1452.
22. Upon removal, of the case entitled the Robert L. Thomas and James Allen vs. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, on behalf of Non-Existent Flagstone Lending Group and its Successor J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and Elizabeth Thomas under cause No. 2018-14171, the proceeding is a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B) and (0), and a contested matter.
23. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York White Plains Division is the proper court in which to remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and FRBP 9027, and the bankruptcy court has nationwide jurisdiction over parties within the United States.
24. Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., are located within the United States.
25. Moreover Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., and Debtor Thomas are diverse.
26. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal and a copy of this Notice of Removal i s being served upon Primary Residential Mortgage Inc and will be filed with the 133rd Harris County District Clerk copies of the petition shall be filed within fourteen (14) days.
Banditville Showdown: Ali Choudri sues Christopher “Chris” Wyatt
Choudri avers that Wyatt has multiple arrests and convictions for high misdemeanors and felonies, even using the alias Jonathan Sanders.
Residential Mortgage Consultant Christopher Wyatt Defends HOA Foreclosure Action
Chris Wyatt’s removed federal foreclosure with PHH Mortgage was continued when he filed a now dismissed bankruptcy. It’s dismissed.
Residential Mortgage Consultant and Expert Witness Christopher Wyatt Faces His Own PHH Foreclosure
Apparently, Chris Wyatt was fired by Goldman Sachs while employed as VP for Litton Loan Servicing in Houston. Ocwen would acquire Litton.
Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff
PCF Properties of Texas LLC
Plaintiff, Counter Defendant
Allan Haye
James Allen
Robert Thomas
Third Party Defendant
Elizabeth Thomas
JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00335
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. v. Thomas Assigned to:
Cause: 11:101 Bankruptcy |
Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 150 Contract: Recovery/Enforcement Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Defendant |
| Elizabeth Thomas |
| Intervenor Plaintiff |
| Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 133rdJudicial District Court Harris County Texas, case number 2018-14171 () filed by Elizabeth Thomas.(Andersen, James) (Entered: 02/01/2022) |
201814171 – THOMAS, ROBERT L vs. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (ON BEHALF OF FLAGSTONE LEN (Court 133)
Consent Order Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc.
| DATE: | 04/07/2010 |
|---|---|
| ORGANIZATION: | Division of Banks |
| DOCKET NUMBER: | 2010-196 |
| LOCATION: | Salt Lake City, UT |
Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT – Consent Order
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Suffolk, SS.
COMMISSIONER OF BANKS
MORTGAGE LENDER AND
MORTGAGE BROKER
LICENSING
Docket No. 2010-196
CONSENT ORDER
In the Matter of
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, INC.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mortgage Company License Nos. MC1996 et al.
WHEREAS, PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, INC., Salt Lake City, Utah (“Primary Residential” or the “Corporation”), a licensed mortgage lender and mortgage broker under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 255E, section 2, has been advised of its right to Notice and Hearing pursuant to General Laws chapter 255E, section 7(a), and having waived those rights, entered into a STIPULATION AND CONSENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CONSENT ORDER (“Consent Agreement”) with representatives of the Division of Banks (“Division”) dated April 7, 2010, whereby, solely for the purpose of settling this matter, and without admitting any allegations or implications of fact or the existence of any violation of state or federal laws and regulations governing the conduct and operation of a mortgage lender and mortgage broker, Primary Residential agrees to the issuance of this CONSENT ORDER by the Commissioner of Banks (“Commissioner”);
WHEREAS, a Mortgage Lender Community Investment examination of Primary Residential was conducted pursuant to General Laws chapter 255E, section 8, as of October 16, 2009, to assess the Corporation’s level of compliance with applicable Massachusetts statutes and the Division’s regulations governing the conduct of those engaged in the business of a mortgage lender in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Report of Examination (the “Report”) issued pursuant to the Division’s examination of Primary Residential as of October 16, 2009 alleged substantial non-compliance with applicable state and federal statutes, rules, and regulations governing the conduct of those engaged in the business of a mortgage lender in Massachusetts.
ORDER
NOW COME the parties in the above-captioned matter, the Division and Primary Residential, and stipulate and agree as follows:
- Primary Residential shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to ensure compliance with the loan reporting requirements set forth in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), 12 U.S.C. section 2801 et seq., as implemented by Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 12 C.F.R. Part 203 (“Regulation C”). Such procedures shall necessarily require that the Corporation implement internal controls to ensure that, for all HMDA reportable loan applications, Primary Residential accurately compiles and records all required data in the Corporation’s HMDA Loan Application Register (“LAR”).
- Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the effective date of this CONSENT ORDER, Primary Residential shall review for accuracy the HMDA data collected for all residential mortgage loans originated during calendar year 2008, and shall re-file with the Federal Reserve Board corrected information of all erroneous and/or incomplete data previously submitted on the LAR.
- Primary Residential shall establish, implement, and maintain operating policies and training procedures to ensure all applicable personnel possess a comprehensive understanding of the HMDA reporting requirements under Regulation C. Such training shall necessarily ensure the proper implementation and execution of the revised practices and procedures adopted by Primary Residential pursuant to this Section of the CONSENT ORDER.
- Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the effective date of this CONSENT ORDER, Primary Residential shall prepare and submit to the Division a written report detailing the HMDA data that was re-filed by the Corporation pursuant to Section 1(a) of this CONSENT ORDER.
Primary Residential agrees to submit a payment in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in satisfaction of an administrative penalty collected in consideration of the findings alleged in the Report issued to Primary Residential. Primary Residential shall remit payment in full of the amount indicated above, payable to the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” with the executed copy of the Consent Agreement, to the Office of the Commissioner of Banks, 1000 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02118. The Division shall remit the payment for deposit into the General Fund of the Commonwealth.
- Primary Residential shall establish, implement and maintain procedures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the requirements set forth in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. section 1601 et seq., as implemented by Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 12 C.F.R. Part 202 (“Regulation B”). Such procedures shall necessarily require that the Corporation implement internal controls to ensure that Primary Residential collects and records the proper Government Monitoring information on all applications or properly records that the information was not provided by the applicant.
- Primary Residential shall establish, implement and maintain procedures to ensure that, when the Corporation is acting in the capacity of a mortgage lender, all applicants whose residential mortgage loan applications are denied receive a Mortgage Review Board Disclosure Form notifying them that they may appeal such denial to the review board in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws chapter 167, section 14A. For each consumer loan file, a completed copy of the Mortgage Review Board Disclosure Form shall be retained in the Corporation’s books and records as evidence of compliance.
- Primary Residential shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to conducting the business of a mortgage lender and mortgage broker, including, but not limited to, Massachusetts General Laws chapters 255E and 255F, and the Division’s regulations 209 CMR 41.00 et seq. and 209 CMR 42.00 et seq. Such obligations shall necessarily include the duty to address and correct, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Report, all violations and areas of concern addressed in the Report.
- Within thirty (30) days of Primary Residential’s receipt of the Report, the Corporation shall submit to the Commissioner a written response that addresses each of the violations and areas of concern specified in the Report. The written response shall describe the revised policies and procedures adopted by Primary Residential to implement all corrective actions set forth in:
- the “Significant Violations” section of the Report and
- the provisions of this CONSENT ORDER.
- Within sixty (60) days from the effective date of this CONSENT ORDER, Primary Residential shall establish, implement, and maintain quality control standards which provide for a loan review process to assess the Corporation’s compliance with:
- the statutes, rules, regulations, regulatory bulletins, and other relevant provisions of law applicable to those engaged in the business of a mortgage lender and mortgage broker in Massachusetts and
- the provisions of this CONSENT ORDER. Such quality control standards shall be designed to prevent the recurrence of any alleged violations addressed in the Report.
- Within thirty (30) days of Primary Residential’s receipt of the Report, the Corporation shall submit to the Commissioner a written response that addresses each of the violations and areas of concern specified in the Report. The written response shall describe the revised policies and procedures adopted by Primary Residential to implement all corrective actions set forth in:
- Primary Residential shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures and policies to ensure all applicable staff persons receive adequate instruction and ongoing, periodic training to ensure proper implementation and execution of the revised practices and procedures implemented pursuant to this CONSENT ORDER.
- By the thirtieth (30 th) day after the end of each calendar quarter following the date of this CONSENT ORDER, beginning with the calendar quarter ending June 30, 2010, Primary Residential shall furnish written progress reports to the Division, which shall address and include the following:
- A description of the form, content, and manner of any actions taken to address each Section of this CONSENT ORDER and the results thereof; and
- Written findings prepared by Primary Residential detailing a review of management’s and staff persons’ adherence to the policies, programs, and procedures adopted pursuant to this CONSENT ORDER and to applicable statutes, regulations, and rules, as well as a description of any operational changes implemented during such quarter which are intended to improve Primary Residential’s compliance condition in Massachusetts and the results thereof.
- The reporting requirement to the Division referenced in Section 6 of this CONSENT ORDER shall remain in effect and shall not be amended or rescinded without the prior written modification, termination, or suspension of the applicable provision of this CONSENT ORDER from the Commissioner.
- Nothing in this CONSENT ORDER shall be construed as permitting Primary Residential to violate any law, rule, regulation, or regulatory bulletin to which Primary Residential is subject.
- In consideration of the foregoing CONSENT ORDER, the Division agrees not to pursue formal measures, relative to this matter, to suspend or revoke Primary Residential’s mortgage lender and mortgage broker licenses under General Laws chapter 255E, section 6, while this CONSENT ORDER is in effect.
- Failure to comply with the terms of this CONSENT ORDER shall constitute grounds for license suspension and/or revocation, or other formal regulatory action pursuant to applicable provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
- This CONSENT ORDER shall become effective immediately upon the date of its issuance.
- The provisions of this CONSENT ORDER shall remain effective and enforceable except to the extent that, and until such time as, any provisions of this CONSENT ORDER shall have been modified, terminated, suspended, or set aside by the Commissioner or upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
- This CONSENT ORDER and the Consent Agreement are the complete documents representing the resolution of this matter. There are no other agreements between the Division and Primary Residential.
BY ORDER AND DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BANKS.
Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 7th day of April, 2010
By: Steven L. Antonakes
Commissioner of Banks
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiff vs. Michael Wayne Campbell, et al Defendant
Elizabeth Thomas (18-23676)
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-00335
| Incorrectly Filed Assigned to: Judge Unassigned Cause: No cause code entered |
Date Filed: 02/01/2022 Date Terminated: 02/01/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 133rdJudicial District Court Harris County Texas, case number 2018-14171 () filed by Elizabeth Thomas.(Andersen, James) (Entered: 02/01/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 02/14/2022 16:13:48 | |||
Nancy Buell
March 8, 2022 at 7:32 am
Elizabeth Thomas owes me USD 7,800, plus mailing post.
She sent me a check that would have caused fraud for me.
I need help, this woman is a thief.
Lorri
October 25, 2022 at 11:35 pm
Yes Nancy I’ll be happy to help you the guy living with her now is the person I dated here he borrowed money from me for her to represent him she’s a colorist they both need to be put in prison her boyfriend Greg children want nothing to do with him because he say Stocker and a bad father ex NFL player not an NFL player an ex NFL player I will work with you on this case whatever it takes I want my money back to Liz had him borrow money from me to pay her and now I see the tax board is going after her Azhagu you’ll get paid first and then you and I will work on United States text wife I’m both her and Mr. Gregory Spires I am I would like to get my money back that they both owe me let’s work together on this girl call me or please give me a number to cup ratio I prefer not putting my name out I’ll be happy to Receive your phone number if you’re serious about going after both these criminals in so many ways you and I both have a lot of information to share my email address llcs707@gmail.com