Lack of Civil law regarding Financial Crisis

NOTE: NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DOC. HOWEVER I HAVE EVERY SINGLE POINT REFLECTED IN EVIDENCE.

  • Lack of Civil legal support aid for person under distress in Sydney Australia
  • Failure of ACCC, ACMA, FOS, ASIC, LEGAL AID, BEYOND BLUE, POLICE, COMMUNITY LAW CENTER, PRO BONO.
  • Submission to Legal assist NSW BAR has been given
  • Failure to address major growing Australian catastrophe
  • 1 day or more suicide in Australia, that’s of 2009 statistics could be more
  • Failure to recognize ADHD,  Addiction, Depression Mental Disorder by the NSW state
  • Failure to enforce IGA act to stop this mess from happening
  • Failure of legislation to amend the act to ban financial institutions from profiting from a $10.7 Billion dollar illegal business
  • How easy is it for a child, teenager to grab mum or dads credit card and gamble on a unregulated casino online, if you “google” Casino online they will target you with Australian Casino’s titling that they are reputable.
  • Lack of Telstra to address the IP’s and ban them like what they do in America.
  • Failure from every angle and high doubt that a solicitor would be able to answer these questions.
  • What I have had to do whilst in recovery
  • What someone with a disease would have to do if they had the same issue below and had no family home to go to?
  • The “plaintiff mentioned below is me, I have been studying the areas of tort law and civil cases to present my case whilst in recovery to the Supreme Court. 
  • And the “Defendants” are NAB and CBA Bank.

 

 

Thank you in advance for reading. 

 

 

  • The Interactive Gaming Amendment Bill proposed on the 10th November 2016 established to strengthen consumer protection. The applicant appeals sections 15 and 15AA as does not accommodate a contravention on transactions processed by Australian financial institutions.

 

  • The Plaintiff born on August 1981 has a family history of depression, mental illness, addiction and anxiety related conditions.

 

  • The Plaintiff had been misdiagnosed as a 3 year old child and recently diagnosed with ADHD, caused from numerous amounts of childhood trauma & hospitalization.

 

  • The plaintiff suffering immensely and within the early periods of 2015 a compulsive cross-addiction had progressed unable at the time to make judgement or rational decisions.
  • The plaintiff’s reference to lack of civil legal aid as section 6 is no longer actively in reach. Refused legal aid

 

  • The plaintiff’s action pursuant 10.1 as a common law right to a fair trial. Financial incapacity weighs pursuant section 88 of the National Credit Code received by Commonwealth Bank Australia.
  • The plaintiff’s position is typical of a David & Goliath situation and pleas the justice committee to refute any motion for security of costs made by the defendants in an inconspicuous attempt to swiftly silence the matter.

 

  • The plaintiff raises concerns of life threatening stature and on the 12th May 2016 the residence of the plaintiff in Matraville was broken into.

 

  • On the 11th of July the plaintiff had been admitted to Rehabilitation in LA Betty Ford renowned clinic for addiction. Post treatment the plaintiff was placed into a sober house in Santa Monica LA California State of America.

 

  • The Financial Ombudsman was advised on the 10th May 2016 and as far back as the 28th August 2015 NAB had been advised of unauthorised transactions.

 

  • The plaintiff’s mother had made contact with NAB in 2012 and the plaintiff’s previous business partner had made contact with NAB in 2012 concerning the plaintiff’s mental health around drug use and then gambling.

 

  • The plaintiff sort counselling and a mental health plan during 2012 and had included a harm prevention plan to limit harm implications for the plaintiff as an entrepreneur in Real Estate.

 

  • The plaintiff sort treatment and mutually agreed on an institution Macquarie Bank, the plaintiff and then business partner sort the remaining business period although dissatisfied with NAB at the time.

 

  • Following the plaintiffs plans to exist the Real Estate industry, the plaintiff had sold the business and in hopes to pursue his passion within IT and food industries.

 

  • In May 2016, the extent of damage, the plaintiff endured had affected memory loss due to extant of drug use. Despite the plaintiff advising FOS about what had transpired, they pursued and wrangled the plaintiff.
  • Dates are indicative within the statement that NAB neither sort to address the issue on a commercial business basis or personal basis whilst the client was combating a mental illness, knowingly.

 

  • Post 10th of May despite the plaintiff’s irrational complexities and illness NAB continued to allow transactions to occur.

 

  • Frustratingly, the plaintiff makes mention to a period within August 2015 in and out of consciousness at that time he had in fact contacted the unregulated illegal casino to self-ban the plaintiff.

 

  • Records were denied to be released to FOS, though NAB clearly were coordinating with the plaintiff and the casino in August 2015.

 

CANONISATION OF BEAUTUS

 

  • The plaintiff acknowledges that the casinos had been unregulated and certain emails as to the authenticity of the casino had exchanged with the VIP host.

 

  • NAB nor the Casino restricted the plaintiffs account ignoring early warning signs of a dispute raised with NAB questioning unauthorised transactions only of late to comprehend NAB’s ulterior motives behind distracting the plaintiffs ability at the time that was clearly evident, attached NAB fraud team statement August 2015.

 

  • A CBA account was opened in 2015 as the plaintiff had been so frustrated with NAB during this period decided to use CBA in its place.

 

  • The plaintiff although drug fuelled entirely on all occasions when gambling found that comfort and ease with access to money and drugs was although andaddicts dream world, was absolutely a devastating roller coaster ride to a complete and utter self-destruction.

 

  • The plaintiff as you can see on binges spent anywhere between $17,800 per night to over $500,000 in a (3) day straight period. Both with CBA and NAB accounts.

 

  • The Plaintiff sold two motorbikes and a car to also fuel the addiction in the months of August 2016.

 

  • Post rehab, the plaintiff returned to Sydney with a changed attitude though tensions at home were still adrift and FOS claim loomed the plaintiff in order to escape relapsed on multiple occasions then bound for Melbourne to start a new life chapter away from chaos.

 

  • Aimlessly trying to stay sober, the plaintiff relapsed heavily on the 13th of September 2016 in Melbourne as suffering on all avenues were too much to handle for the disease.

 

  • CBA bank was used to transact with Vegas Paradise an online casino also unregulated at the time of relapse as the plaintiff consumed drugs for numbing pain whilst gambling on acts of self-sabotage and affliction.

 

  • Mortified and suicidal at this stage the plaintiff contacted Melbourne police on the 13th of September 2016, the plaintiff was then ordered to attend a local Police station to check mental health status.

 

  • The plaintiff in total distress with an entire truck of furniture and a small pet pleaded to CBA to reverse charges on the 14th September 2016. CBA recorded discussion attached.

 

  • The plaintiff’s plea over the phone with CBA to allow the account to overdraw funds for food and petrol were not made available after losing over $40,000 in one night on a CBA account. All monies were now completely lost.

 

  • The plaintiff recalls suicide was at an all-time high at this stage, not only did the plaintiff want to kill himself, the plaintiff could not leave an infant pet dog astray, that the plaintiff calls now his soul mate.

 

  • The plaintiff nurtured his pet before attending care of any other needs, so dark and hollow within the plaintiff had finally been struck down as news to family would have completely shattered the plaintiff of shame and guilt, the plaintiff was lost.

 

  • The plaintiff had limited energy to weep and the trail of damage and destruction had finally taken its toll, the plaintiff able to call upon a friend in Newcastle for assistance was able to pay over the counter by mobile to the petrol station attendant around the 14th of September 2016.
  • The plaintiff further faced family confrontation when acceptance at the family home was granted, the plaintiff although let down on numerous occasions from post support from family and friends out of anger over consumed the sleeping pill Xanax in an attempt of suicide, second attempt.

 

  • The plaintiff then admitted to acute mental unit at Kogarah hospital by family members. Letter enclosed.

 

 

PARTICULARS SIGHTED

 

The defendant’s knowledge and lack thereof to implement VISA and MasterCard schemes pursuant Reserve Bank Australia and Payment Systems Regulation Act 1998 in conjunction with the Corporations Act 2001 and authority of the Australian Securities and Commission Act 2001.

 

  • No consumer protection
  • Undermine consumer’s personal situation
  • Excessive surcharging on all transactions
  • Encouraging the weakness of powerless consumers in financial disarray
  • Permitting prohibited payments via credit cards
  • Permitting prohibited payments via debit cards
  • Exceeding prohibited payments via debit cards
  • Exceeding prohibited payments via credit cards
  • Failure to disclose non-regulated payments
  • Failure to restrict non-regulated payments

 

 

The defendants in breach pursuant Part 2, 2, s12CC (1) Unconscionable Conduct under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 – Schedule 2, Australian Consumer Law, adhered statue Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. 

 

  • Permitting with intent of goods and services
  • Prohibited permitted supply of service knowingly
  • Avoidance of doubt
  • Avoidance to customers delinquency
  • Failure to adhere to customers family concerns
  • Failure to respond to consumer mental health distress
  • Aiding to consumers mental illness and suicidal tendencies
  • Misleading and deceptive conduct

 

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd V Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; Muschinski v Dodds (1980) 160 CLR 383; Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 and the Commonwealth v Verwagen (1990) 170 CLR 394.

 

 

The defendants are in breach pursuant sections 4B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth) section 59 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Relates to bodies corporate as well as individuals in this case being a civil matter.

  • Aiding and abetting in an act for monetary gain
  • Motion to use inappropriate power of corporate authority in secret
  • Motion to avoid subsequent exposure
  • Advantage taken on those person/s whom sort

 

Hogan v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Fricot

 

The plaintiff pursuant section 3.2 part 2 of the Interactive Gaming Act points out the ISP provider Telstra under a Foxtel network bundle pursuant section 5.6 of the Criminal Code injunctions thereof 7A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 in cohesion with the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 Act knowingly

 

  • ISP’s and financial institutions are known of non-regulators
  • Non-regulators and commissions attainable
  • Black List not incorporated as plaintiff argues fact
  • The plaintiffs conflict and strenuous indicators enclosed

 

 

The defendants breach of fiduciary duties pursuant Ch 7 sections 912A (1) (a), 180 to 184, s191-to 195, s208 to 210, s285 to 318 of the Corporations Act (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions Act 2001 (Cth) Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Act 1998 (Cth) Pt2, Div 2 pursuant ASIC Act sections 12DA and 12DB and sections 18 second schedule Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

 

  • Statutory provisions of the defendants
  • Disclaimers pointed out by the defendants
  • Remedies of the defendants
  • Deceive through silence
  • Plaintiff led by in error
  • Conflict of interest arising from monetary gains by the defendants
  • Dispute resolution internal and external processes of the defendants
  • Financial Ombudsman Service accountability in silence
  • Exemplary damages in tort
  • The defendants financial motive
  • The Financial Ombudsman Service potential financial motive

 

See Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178 at 196 per Deane J; News Limited at 539 per Lockhart, von Doussa and Sackville JJ; Noranda Australia Limited v Lachlan Resources NL (1988) 14 NSWLR 1 at 17 per Bryson J; Woolworths Limited v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189 at 225 per Mahoney JA; Kelly v Cooper [1993] AC 205 at 213-214 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson. See also Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Limited [1995] 2 AC 145 at 206 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s. 1350, Fox and Freiberg 1999:317, O’Connor [1987] VR 501;

Young18/5/1990, Supreme Court of Victoria, section 178BA of the crimes act. Newman v Financial Wisdom Ltd. Ali v Hartley Poynton Ltd

 

The defendants and FOS adversity to divert concerns pursuant sections 12BB – 12DE, 12BG 12BF (1) of the Australian Securities Investments Commissions powers. 

 

  • The plaintiffs Misrepresentation
  • Misleading conduct as to purpose or quantity
  • Harassment and coercion
  • Lack of transparency
  • Lack of contractual arrangement enacted

 

FOS, NAB and CBA and corresponding government and non-government bodies contacted by the plaintiff in breach pursuant Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission  (HREOC) classed as disability pursuant Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

  • Lack of government assistance
  • Disability of the plaintiff
  • Refused legal assistance in its entirely
  • Refused any assistance
  • Refused assistance in act of silence
  • Divert the plaintiff in distress and misperception

 

Marsden v HREOC and Coffs Harbour RSL [2000] FCA 1619

 

 

Compassionate requests by the plaintiff for the Honourable Chief Justice of the court to deny a ‘security of payment motion’ by the defendants in an attempt to strike out pursuant sections 72 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Act 1999

 

  • Undeniable evidence by the plaintiff
  • Financial bankruptcy evident in due course
  • Section 88 notice received from CBA
  • Lack of assistance offered to the plaintiff

 

 

Health and public safety concerns conveyed by the plaintiff for the Honourable Chief Justice of the court to enforce section 69A of the IGA without further delay.

 

  • Taxable supply on regulation to the Australian government
  • Contribute to further saving of Australian lives
  • Will regulate the gaming industry on-line
  • Further restricting possible criminal corporate behaviours
  • Acting in the best interest of the public

 

 

The plaintiff requiring representation pursuant section 3 of the Civil Procedures Act 2005 NSW.

  • Loss suffered from Mental illness inability to manage finances
  • Cognitive difficulties
  • Suffered severe financial losses as a result
  • Supports financial planner for monetary management

 

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 per Dixon J.

 

 

The plaintiff makes mention to the Corporations Act as of the 1st July 2013 pursuant the following;

 

  • Sections 963E, which prohibits a licensee from accepting conflicted remuneration
  • Sections 963F, which requires that a licensee must take reasonable steps to ensure that its representatives do not accept conflicted remuneration
  • Sections 963G, which prohibits an authorised representative from accepting conflicted remuneration
  • Sections 963H, which prohibits other representatives from accepting conflicted remuneration
  • Sections 963J, which prohibits employers from giving employees conflicted remuneration
  • Sections 963K, which prohibits a product issuer or seller from giving conflicted remuneration (Ex. The defendants monetary obligation to the Financial Ombudsman Service to handle dispute)
  • Sections 963L, which provides that volume-based benefits are presumed to be conflicted remuneration.

 

Clause 22 of the Code of Banking Practice include silence. s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) TPA.

  • Failure to disclose
  • Statutory duties of bankers
  • Prohibits corporations from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

 

 

Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) there is a right for a party to be legally represented by an Australian Legal Practitioner, or with the leave of the Chairperson, by an advisor. Under the Guardianship Act 1997 (NSW) where a party may only be legally represented by an Australian Legal Practitioner if leave is granted to do so the plaintiff wishes to request a McKenzie Friend

 

  • Civil complexity and nervousness in court
  • Defendants will ultimately pursue with full force if they decide
  • Unfair advantage of the defendants
  • Carelessness by the defendants have caused the position in which the plaintiff seeks to assist.

Sections 3.3 under the Interactive Gaming Act states it illegal for prohibited Internet gambling services to be provided for customers physically located in Australia (and sets penalties for non-compliance)

 

  • In the beginning the plaintiff was unaware that the casinos were in fact unregulated they clearly display Australian Casino marketing
  • Unregulated casinos continue to target Australians despite prohibitions
  • The Interactive Gaming Act is complex requires immediate review
  • Previous amendments by committee members favours the corporate powers
  • Previous amendments continue to provide no assistance
  • Previous amendments despite public concern were avoided and lack of controls is evident
  • ACMA and ASIC have neglected to enforce the IGA Act upon the financial sector

 

 

The plaintiff notes that if federal laws of the Commonwealth cannot be adhered to then the laws of the state must apply for Casino’s across the board. Pursuant the Casino Control Regulation 2009. Section 16. And every code within the Casino regulation is breached.

 

  • Represented person
  • Confirms authority to the gambler
  • The plaintiff argues fact that if requirements are on the plaintiff to take the Casino directly to court, then the issue of the problem falls in the state of NSW and MELB and the Commonwealth.

 

The plaintiff notes that if the law had been enforced by the banks as told. The issue would not have manifested into a disaster and complete financial loss to the plaintiff.  

 

  • At no stage did the FOS confirm the casinos were in fact illegal
  • At no stage did CBA or NAB send a letter or contact the plaintiff noting the casinos were in fact illegal.
  • At no stage did the defendants restrict, cancel or attempt to cancel the credit cards MasterCard and VISA.

 

In Kelly v Solari, Parke B criticised the dictum of Bayley J in Milnes V Duncan High Court Australia. And said that if money is paid under the impression of the truth of a fact which is untrue, it may, generally speaking, be recovered back, however careless the party paying may have been. 

The unjust factor – Right to a Restitution payment
Article enclosed;

 

Dawson J P in his article ‘Restitution without Enrichment ‘said that the general idea of unjust enrichment ‘has the peculiar facility of inducing sober citizens to jump right off the dock’. The ideal of preventing unjust enrichment has a strong appeal to justice but it also has the ‘delusive appearance of simplicity’. Those who are sceptical to the principle of unjust enrichment might say that the principle is vague and allows ‘palm tree’ justice. However, one must bear in mind that,in order to establish a successful claim in restitution, the plaintiff must prove not only an enrichment (which is easy in the case of money) but also an unjust factor on which the right to restitution is based, that is, the benefit must have been conferred by mistake, under compulsion, duress, undue influence or out of necessity and other legal grounds before a right of recovery can be established

 

  1. Plaintiff conferred by mistake online by ISP provider
  2. The plaintiff under compulsion conduct due to disease.
  3. The plaintiff had no control over damage under the influence of drug meth-amphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, MDMA. Affidavit of witness accounts available to the court
  4. Undue influence, in the plaintiffs case drugs
  5. As an addict it becomes the necessity
  6. Prohibition on legal grounds

 

 

FACTS SUMMARY WITH ATTACHMENT VALIDATION:

 

  1. The plaintiff under the influence of drugs accessed an unregulated prohibited Casinos without knowing it wasn’t Australian. And not consciously aware of regulations and authenticity.

 

  1. Access is easily available by anyone, a child, a teenager and adult, clearly attached as Australian Gambling sites. Banks, ACMA, ASIC and parliament are all aware of the issues and ramifications of this issue pursuant 2010 parliamentary reviews into interactive gaming.

 

  1. The plaintiff continues to be a target by these Casinos even though emails have been sent to stop sending advertising spam emails, they continue to do so.

 

  1. The plaintiffs past mental health and gambling splurges were called upon by the Mother and the business partner in 2012. NAB had been advised by the pair and by the plaintiff in 2012.

 

  1. The plaintiff’s mental health plan at the time was admitted to see a psychiatrist and undergo a series of counselling sessions for pokie machine addiction whilst on drugs.

 

  1. Despite contraventions in place and financial institutions fully aware of the ICA Act, the plaintiff succumb to his addiction. Called a cross-addiction (Two drugs) Gambling and actual drugs, deemed the same in rehab.
  2. The plaintiff in small periods of soberness was provoked encouraged and haggled by the FOS claim division for event periods and descriptions even though the plaintiff could not function correctly.

 

  1. FOS aware at the time of the plaintiff being submitted to rehab by family intervention continued to avoid questions by the plaintiff to throw off the question of prohibition.

 

  1. No harm preventions as such, the tenant able to spend large sums of money in excess of credit limit. Ex. Limit = $2,000.00 Expenditure over $200,000 in one of the plaintiffs cases.

 

  1. The defendants acted on enrichment despite the plaintiffs mental health status, continued the plaintiff to allow transactions to be processed for monetary gain despite health condition of consumer.
  2. The plaintiff’s transfer of payments are a key indicator of undeniable problematic gambling.

 

  1. Further responses to such issues, the defendants have a harm prevention plan and risk management assessment attached.

 

  1. NAB Fraud team response to the plaintiffs distress call in August 2015 of unauthorised transactions.

 

  1. NAB wilfully changed and confused the plaintiff at the time knowingly evident that the customer was gambling heavy on an unregulated casino.

 

  1. As to the addiction the plaintiff continued to play and at no stage did NAB at the time advise the transactions were of unregulated Casino payments, in breach of IGA Act and general duty of care.

 

  1. On the 11th of May 2016, the plaintiffs home was suspiciously robbed, the police failed to thoroughly investigate and certain items stolen such as a hard drive computer that contained evidence important to the plaintiff.

 

  1. From the 4th Nov to 6th Dec 2015, the plaintiff’s statement reflects an entire month of gambling transactions.

 

  1. The transaction amounts for gambling are in fact spread out oddly to revert the issue of erratic behavioural patterns of payments.

 

  1. ADI’s cannot be used for prohibited purposes enclosed report.

 

  1. MasterCard and VISA cannot be used to accept payments from prohibited ADI’s

 

  1. Post FOS claim for CBA and NAB to reverse all payments made to Casinos aided and abetted by the bank, had been cancelled by the plaintiff.

 

  1. The plaintiff took to the paper work for clues and had noticed discrepancies in amounts however has not sighted every transaction as this places the entire financial system untrustworthy.

 

  1. More than $150,000 dollars is unaccounted for and non-reflective of payments statement 4th Nov to 6th Dec 2015.

 

  1. NAB and CBA charges hidden as “transfer amounts” to hide interest & INTL charges.

 

  1. Furthermore, lack of response to the plaintiffs request to send ALL transaction “time of payment” for cross referencing have been denied.

 

  1. The plaintiff locked out of both bank accounts online to access information.

 

  1. Cross referenced to NAB fraud statement raised in August 2015, the statements clearly indicate tampering with “transaction details column” different to that of the same statements from NAB submitted by the FOS.

 

  1. In July 2015 whilst in rehab NAB refused to answer the plaintiff’s emails and without authority by the plaintiff spoke directly to the plaintiff’s mother. The mother of the plaintiff targeted as NAB focused on weaknesses to side track atrocities.

 

  1. The NAB and CBA are overdrawing on internal limits. If, a cash advance is limited on a credit card. And a Casino payment online is therefore a cash advance, why did the bank fail?

 

  1. According to (1) statement of the plaintiff being NAB 6th November 2015. The total cost profited from NAB is $6,935.38 is interest and charges. What charges? And what interest?

 

  1. According to 30. NAB statement for the month shows over $150,000.00 of missing money? The plaintiff would like to know where it went?

 

  1. The plaintiff also raises the issues around victims of suicide, and the coroner’s reports of Gambling via online and how unregulated Casinos are targeting Australians.

 

  1. However, the plaintiff argues fact to Q29. Australia in total have interactive and general Casinos that are regulated as a whole. Total of 18 licenses Australian wide.

 

  • 18 Licences that are surveyed nationally
  • 18 licenses that are regulated
  • 18 interactive and or locations set
  • The plaintiff would like to offer the services of an automated system that verifies the Casino licenses within Australia all 18 of them versus any other intrusion casino foreign or national that it raises an alert. Then the Financial institution can intervene and send the consumer by text or call that FACT the payment just processed is prohibited and will be automatically returned to the purchaser.
  • This problem doesn’t even exist overseas in LA California, being in Rehab, we conducted a test to go online and gamble. Well, the IP address was automated in that you could not get onto the network, period.
  • FACT: The financial burden on the banks to enforce the software is very minor, so far minor it’s plausibly hilarious versus the current state of no system, and an Australian life a day is dying due to suicide?

 

  1. In September 2016, CBA upon the final relapse by the plaintiff avoided the crying concerns of an addict whom had surrendered every last dollar to the addiction, in order for the plaintiff to get back to Sydney from Melbourne safely, knowingly.

 

David Securities Pty Ltd V Commonwealth Bank of Australia, ANZ Banking Group Ltd V Westpac Banking, Bilbie V Lumley, Australian Coldstores Ltd V Electricity Trust of South Australia,
Kwai-Lian Liew Assistant Professor of Law, Bond University

Overseas Case law:

Providian National Bank V. Haines. In 1998, Supreme Court of California, Providian Bank sued Cynthia Haines, who had lost more than $70,000.00 gambling online with her credit cards. Haines responded to the lawsuit by countersuing the bank. She argued that the bank had engaged in unfair business practise practises and, in addition, had aided and abetted a crime gambling online was and is illegal in Haines home state of California.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Noob Asked on 24 February 2017 in Miscellaneous Legal Questions.
Add Comment
  • Advertisement:

  • 0 Answer(s)

    Your Answer

    By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.