About

 

This Is Why Corla Reeves Jackson Will Win Her Case In The United States Supreme Court If Needed, This Is Recorded Facts.  The Supreme Court ruling law suit states that every American would benefit to know about the sheer fact that exposes corruption and hypocrisy we uphold ignorantly and agree to See: Civil Action No. 00-CV-12485-RCL…. CLICK HERE 

STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE RULE OF GOVERNED LAW

A Void Judgment Will Not Support An Appeal No Due Process Prior To Illegal Foreclosure and The New Loan (0835002124) Was Created Prior to, Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama.  The New Fabricated Mortgage Loan Number (0835002124) ) is Null and Void by the Rule Of Govern Law.  

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selevtive Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).

A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).

Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect, Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill 1992).

Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985).

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).  CLICK HERE TO SEE EVIDENCE AND MORE

 

There was never a Recorded Deed or Mortgage Contract Agreement under loan umber (0835002124) between the Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s and the Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson prior to Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) and Bankruptcy Case (10-04820) and Bankruptcy Case (11-01545) or prior to the wrongful foreclosure dated (June 1, 2012) filed (June 13, 2012) on Arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006).  The Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s loan number (0835002124) was created without lack of standing in (2005) and the Assignment of Mortgage dated (June 19, 2008) filed (July 11, 2008) prove that. 

The Illegal Relief came from Judge Shulman under Luther Strange, his law firm-Affiliate Firms and corrupted Judges he covered up.  The illegal Relief is based upon Arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006).  See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 26 of 29.  Judge Shulman was told Corla Jackson didn’t Owe GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC. See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 5.   

 

 The Code of Alabama 1975 Section 35-10-9: Sales contrary to article null and void: All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.  (Code 1923, § 9018; Code 1940, T. 47, §172.

Option One Mortgage Corporation Closed (4/30/2008).   A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.

In addition to the above, the Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s known as GMAC Mortgage Corporation ET, AL., aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t own the property when Judge York and Judges Kristi Dubose issued the illegal orders on the Ejectments and More in (2017) this is recorded. Corla Jackson wasn’t behind in payments in (2005) or prior to Option One Mortgage Corporation closing (April 30, 2008) this is recorded.  The Crime occurred in (2005) and they didn’t pay for the damages to date, violating the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) terms and conditions and more.  

See Case: 1:12-cv-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 13. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.

 

The Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson had a Vendors Lien deed on her property and paid of the Vendors Lien Deed and received a Satisfaction of Mortgage-Release-Cancellation of her Vendors Lien Deed, by obtaining a mortgage in her name under her credit with her lender Option One Mortgage Corporation on,   (May 26, 2004) under loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8). 

There was never a Mortgage Contract Agreement or loan between Corla Jackson and GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC ET, AL., this is recorded.  Please Refer to the Mortgage Contact Agreement between Corla Jackson and Option Mortgage Corporation terms and conditions under loan number (651003367) servicing number (001347464-8) executed (May 26, 2004) this is recorded. 

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 102

See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71-3 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1-13

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion… The declaration also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the Note.

There was no Subscribing Witnesses on the Assignment as required by law, to transfer a mortgage.  There was no Notary Books-Records filed by the Notary (R.A. Salazar) to the State Of California the Identity and ID of a Brian D. McConnell to validate an Assignment of Mortgage as required under Notary Laws Rules Regulations.  Securities Laws, Governed and State Laws were violated here, that cannot be ignored or denied its recorded facts.   

A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (Government Code section 27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)

The Defendant-Appellee-Defendant Appellee’s known as GMAC Mortgage Corporation ET, AL., aka GMAC Mortgage LLC, didn’t own the property when Judge York and Judges Kristi Dubose issued the illegal orders on the Ejectments and More in (2017) this is recorded.  See Case: 1:12-CV-00111-KD-B Document 71 Filed 05/22/17 Page 127-135.   The Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson didn’t default in her payments under the terms and conditions of the Mortgage Contact Agreement executed (May 26, 2004) this is recorded.  

May 14, 2012: GMAC Placed Its Subsidiary’s In Bankruptcy In The United States Bankruptcy Court In New York Under Martin Glenn.

Public Notice Was Issued As Follows: On May 14, 2012, each of the fifty-one Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). The cases are jointly administered under Case No. 12-12020 (collectively, the “Bankruptcy Cases”) before the Honorable Judge Martin Glenn in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code (specifically including, but not limited to, 11 U.S.C. § 362), a debtor is afforded certain protection against its creditors; the Bankruptcy Code prohibits creditors from taking certain actions related to debts that may have been owing prior to the commencement of the Bankruptcy Cases. If you believe that you might be a creditor of the Debtor(s) based upon debts arising prior to May 14, 2012 and you are considering taking action based upon your status as a creditor, you may wish to seek legal advice.

ResCap-GMAC  Subsidiary’s was issued Reliefs to proceed with daily activities from Judge Martin Glenn in New York from the United States Bankruptcy Court For The Southern Division Of New York, based upon the Order Issued Here.

 

May 31, 2012: Judge Dubose Stayed Corla Jackson Complaint on an Fraudulent Relief issued by Judge Shulman with arrears dated back to (March 2006) under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) this is recorded.  Judge Shulman Relief was based upon Arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing in (2006).  In addition to this, the fabricated loan was created prior to the Fabricated Assignments.

June 1, 2012: Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage LLC illegally-wrongfully Foreclosed on Corla Jackson property on arrears dated back to (2006) without lack of standing-applicable by law in (2006) based upon civil bankruptcy fraud, filing proof of claims without lack of standing in (2005) by the rule of governed and state laws.  

Sirote & Permutt P.C., GMAC Mortgage LLC., illegally-wrongfully foreclosed on Corla Reeves Jackson without a Trustee’s Deed Of Sale, Without A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson and GMAC, without the Release-Cancellation of the Original Note Between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation Is Loan Number 651003367-Servicing Number 001347464-8, Mortgage Contract Agreement Dated May 26, 2004.  There was never a recorded deed between Corla Jackson and GMAC as required by law, prior to the illegal Relief From Judges Shulman or Prior to the Illegal Foreclosure dated (June 1, 2012) this is recorded.

Sirote & Permutt P.C., and their client GMAC Initially Foreclosure Action occurred in (2005) under Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) filing multiple Proof Of Claims and Motions For Relief From Automatic Stay under a fabricated loan number (0835002124) that was created in (2005) with attached Arrears dated back to (2005-March 2006) based upon the Order issued (March 1, 2006).

 

There are Judicial and NonJudicial Foreclosure Laws and more that was Violated here.  The Original Note Between Corla Jackson and Option One Mortgage Corporation Is Loan Number 651003367-Servicing Number 001347464-8 The Mortgage Contract Is Dated May 26, 2004.

Sirote & Permutt P.C., and their client GMAC DIDN’T HAVE A VALID ASSIGNMENT OR TRUSTEE’S DEED OF SALE IN (2005) to create their loan number (0535002124) and file fraudulent multiple Proof Of Claims and Motions For Relief From Automatic Stay’s under their Fabricated-Ghost Loan Number (0835002124) that they created in (2005) without owing Corla Reeves Jackson property, with attached Arrears dated back to (2005-March 2006) that (Judge Shulman fraudulent Relief is based upon dated back to March 2006) in Bankruptcy Case (05-13142) without lack of standing.  There was never an Mortgage Contract-Agreement or Recorded Deed between Corla Jackson and GMAC as required by the rule of law, this is recorded.   

 

It Didn’t Take A Rocket Scientist To See GMAC Didn’t Have A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson and GMAC and They Didn’t Own The Property In (2005-2006) Prior To Option One Mortgage Closing (April 30, 2008).   This Complaint Under This New Loan (0835002124) Was Fabricated and Created Prior To The Fabricated Assignment Dated (June 19, 2008) and Prior To Option One Mortgage Closing (April 30, 2008).

This Is Recorded, There Was Never A Recorded Deed Between Corla Reeves Jackson and GMAC Under Any Loan-Mortgage, Prior To The Illegal Reliefs and Wrongful Foreclosure Dated (June 1, 2012) This Is Facts!  How Did Judge Shulman Issue An Relief On Arrears Dated Back To (2005-2006) and Prior To (June 19, 2008) Period, Without A Recorded Deed Between Corla Jackson and GMAC,  Without Corla Reeves Jackson Being Behind In Payments and Without GMAC Owing The Property Prior To Creating Its New Fabricated Loan (0835002124)  Without Lack Of Standing In (2005)…

This Illegal Relief From Judges Shulman Is Based Upon Arrears Dated Back Prior To The Fabricated Assignment.  They Didn’t Own The Property Prior To Created Their New Loan (0835002124) In (2005) This Is Recorded and More Guaranteed.

Sirote & Permutt P.C., and Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Got Illegal Reliefs On An Fabricated Loan (0835002124) With Fabricated Arrears Attached Dated Back To (2005)-(2006) and  Prior To (June 19, 2008).   They Backed Dated An Assignment and Filed It With The State Some Kind Of Way Which Didn’t Help, It Only Proved They Didn’t Own The Note When They Created Their New Loan (0835002124) Period-End Of Quote.

 

KEY FACTS

There is nothing to talk about on the Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC new loan (0835002124) that they illegally created in (2005) without lack of standing, except Massive Damages from (2005) through (2018) without Due Process prior to the illegal foreclosure being carried out on (June 1, 2018) on Arrears dated back to (2006) Court Order (March 1, 2006) that was based upon Fraud. 

Option One Mortgage Corporation Closed (April 30, 2008).  The Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC created a new loan (0835002124) in (2005) and prepared an Assignment of Mortgage (June 19, 2008) for their own loan number (0835002124) for (Sand Canyon Corporation) to Assign over then to file (July 11, 2008). 

Corla Jackson never had a loan with Option One Mortgage Corporation under loan number (0835002124) this is recorded.  This crime was initiated under a new loan number (0835002124) in (2005) without lack of standing in (2005) they went back after Option One Mortgage Corporation Closed and recorded an Assignment of Mortgage based upon fraud using deceptive practices, having Sand Canyon Corporation Assign their own mortgage over to themselves so they could file Instrument 2008050095 at Book 6409 and Page 1483 in the records of the Probate Court in Mobile County, Alabama., after they got busted, with the intent to Defraud the United States Bankruptcy Court-Judge in case (05-13142) without Corla Jackson being in Default on Payments. 

The Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC new loan (0835002124) concealed the payments showing that they had Embezzled Money from the Plaintiff-Appellant Corla Jackson prior to filing their false proof of claim in the initial bankruptcy case (05-13142).  In addition to this, the Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., concealed they didn’t own the note and they didn’t have an assignment of mortgage prior to filing their (2) false proof of claims from the very beginning in case (05-13142).  It is crystal clear and it’s recorded, the Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., didn’t own the note in (2005) and they didn’t have an Assignment of Mortgage prior to Option One Mortgage Closing (April 30, 2008).  In addition to the above, the Foreclosure was carried out illegally using deceptive practices on (June 1, 2012) without Due Process, without a Remand and prior to the United States Bankruptcy Court in New York under Judge Martin Order (July 13, 2013) granting the Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC. A leave to continue their illegal evictions which is Fraud and Fraud Upon The Court, this is recorded.  The Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., illegally proceeded with an Evictions in an (Judicial Foreclosures Action) without a Lift of Automatic Stay to proceed to trial for a Summary Judgment or Remand.  There was No Due Process in case (12-00111) prior to the illegal foreclosure (June 1, 2012) this is recorded.  There was no time on their publications which violated their illegal nonjudicial foreclosure and more, they had to own the property that they created their loan number (0835002124) under in (2005), before they could get an Relief on Arrears dated back to (March 1, 2006) Order which was Fraud anyway, there was no Arrears Owed for (5) payments of ($1,920.64) from (02/2005) through (06/2005) due to the Defendant-Appellee -Defendant Appellee’s GMAC Mortgage Corporation aka GMAC Mortgage LLC., they had Defrauded the United States Bankruptcy Court For The Southern Division Of Alabama in the Initial Bankruptcy Case (05-13142), they didn’t own the property they created their new loan under in (2005) and there was no arrears due to file (2) proof of claims or arrears period prior to (April 30, 2008) this is recorded. This is a Robbery that was concealed, which has been uncovered so the world can see the truth versus lies.

 

Fraud Upon The Court 

FRAUD UPON THE COURT:  In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.  Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication. 

See. Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.  See: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] _ So. 3d  (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). In Sturdivant, BAC Home Loans, LP (“BAC”), initiated foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage encumbering Bessie T. Sturdivant’s house before the mortgage had been assigned to BAC.

Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the “reasonable” time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that clause Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999)

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.

A judgement obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 23; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401. Moreover, due process requires that no other jurisdiction shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a judgement elsewhere acquired without due process.  Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See alsoSteinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).

Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the “reasonable” time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that clause Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999)

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.

A judgement obtained in violation of procedural due process is not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon in another jurisdiction. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 23; Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401. Moreover, due process requires that no other jurisdiction shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a judgement elsewhere acquired without due process.  Void order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any time, In re Estate of Steinfield, 630 N.E.2d 801, certiorari denied, See alsoSteinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (Ill. 1994).

A Party Affected by VOID Judicial Action Need Not APPEAL. State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d at 486. If an appeal is taken, however, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning, and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.” Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.”

 

Corla Reeves Jackson Complaints-Appeals Were Not Frivolous Complaints-Appeals, They Were Non-Frivolous Which Is A Federal Crime  Multiple Ways.  The Complaints Were Being Corrupted Willfully and Illegally Through Corrupted Judges, With The Intent To Keep The Complaints From Being Heard.  This Cannot Be Ignored or Denied Its Recorded Facts!  

The Crutches The State Firms and Their Affiliate Firms Were Using To Cover Up This White Collar Crime Robbery They Committed Was Fraud-Fraud Upon The Court and Corla Reeves Jackson Exposed Them Worldwide and More, This Is Facts.  Corla Reeves Jackson Knocked Down All Their Crutches and More Guaranteed.  The Lies Is Over!

The Lies Is Over!   Read More   1     2      3     4    5     6  7 8