超级军网银行冷血 美国法官忍无可忍将房主债务一笔勾销
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 11:44:35
http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200911/news-gb2312-964838.html
长岛一对夫妇从愤怒至极的法官那里得到了一份令人惊奇的礼物：他们对一家无情的银行的房屋欠债被一笔勾销。这家银行曾威胁要将他们扔到大街上
萨福克的法官Jeffrey Spinner购销了加利福尼亚州银行归还52万5千美元按揭贷款的要求，斥责那是“苛刻，令人厌恶，令人震惊和反感”的行为。
这个离奇的决定让Diane Yano-Horoski和她的丈夫Greg Horoski得到了在East Patchogue的农场房子，并且不再欠一分钱。
Spinner在重击OneWest 的银行时非常坦然。那些银行在得到联邦政府814.2 百万美元援助后，仍在收回房屋抵押品赎回权的上保持有极其冷血的记录。
“银行如此顽固不化，法官决定要惩罚他们。” 55岁的Greg Horoski这样说。
Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt
A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.
The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.
Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.
"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.
It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.
The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.
Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."
OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."
It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."
The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.
In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.
It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.
After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.
He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."
The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200911/news-gb2312-964838.html
长岛一对夫妇从愤怒至极的法官那里得到了一份令人惊奇的礼物：他们对一家无情的银行的房屋欠债被一笔勾销。这家银行曾威胁要将他们扔到大街上
萨福克的法官Jeffrey Spinner购销了加利福尼亚州银行归还52万5千美元按揭贷款的要求，斥责那是“苛刻，令人厌恶，令人震惊和反感”的行为。
这个离奇的决定让Diane Yano-Horoski和她的丈夫Greg Horoski得到了在East Patchogue的农场房子，并且不再欠一分钱。
Spinner在重击OneWest 的银行时非常坦然。那些银行在得到联邦政府814.2 百万美元援助后，仍在收回房屋抵押品赎回权的上保持有极其冷血的记录。
“银行如此顽固不化，法官决定要惩罚他们。” 55岁的Greg Horoski这样说。
Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt
A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.
The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.
Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.
"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.
It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.
The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.
Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."
OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."
It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."
The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.
In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.
It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.
After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.
He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."
The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.
长岛一对夫妇从愤怒至极的法官那里得到了一份令人惊奇的礼物：他们对一家无情的银行的房屋欠债被一笔勾销。这家银行曾威胁要将他们扔到大街上
萨福克的法官Jeffrey Spinner购销了加利福尼亚州银行归还52万5千美元按揭贷款的要求，斥责那是“苛刻，令人厌恶，令人震惊和反感”的行为。
这个离奇的决定让Diane Yano-Horoski和她的丈夫Greg Horoski得到了在East Patchogue的农场房子，并且不再欠一分钱。
Spinner在重击OneWest 的银行时非常坦然。那些银行在得到联邦政府814.2 百万美元援助后，仍在收回房屋抵押品赎回权的上保持有极其冷血的记录。
“银行如此顽固不化，法官决定要惩罚他们。” 55岁的Greg Horoski这样说。
Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt
A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.
The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.
Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.
"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.
It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.
The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.
Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."
OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."
It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."
The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.
In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.
It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.
After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.
He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."
The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.
长岛一对夫妇从愤怒至极的法官那里得到了一份令人惊奇的礼物：他们对一家无情的银行的房屋欠债被一笔勾销。这家银行曾威胁要将他们扔到大街上
萨福克的法官Jeffrey Spinner购销了加利福尼亚州银行归还52万5千美元按揭贷款的要求，斥责那是“苛刻，令人厌恶，令人震惊和反感”的行为。
这个离奇的决定让Diane Yano-Horoski和她的丈夫Greg Horoski得到了在East Patchogue的农场房子，并且不再欠一分钱。
Spinner在重击OneWest 的银行时非常坦然。那些银行在得到联邦政府814.2 百万美元援助后，仍在收回房屋抵押品赎回权的上保持有极其冷血的记录。
“银行如此顽固不化，法官决定要惩罚他们。” 55岁的Greg Horoski这样说。
Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt
A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.
The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.
Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.
"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.
It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.
The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.
Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."
OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."
It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."
The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.
In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.
It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.
After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.
He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."
The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.
银行会上诉而且基本会赢，财产权的官司，基本原则是很难逾越的。
f22 发表于 2009-11-26 23:08 
银行再上诉会不会成为众矢之的？不知道美国文化是否会容忍这种合法但冷血的行为呢？
银行再上诉会不会成为众矢之的？不知道美国文化是否会容忍这种合法但冷血的行为呢？
我只知道今年美国倒闭了很多银行
跟彭宇案子的法官比起来。。。。。
我只知道当年香港金融风暴，房价大跌，破产者不计其数，李嘉诚给所有买他房子的人发律师信，要求他们必须按照原来合同签订的房价按时付款，否则一律法庭上见，极其冷血无情
左翼法官凭个人感情断案，等着上GLENN BECK吧
回复 3# 可乐加冰块
银行的钱是捡来的？都这么赖账不还银行还敢贷款么？
银行的钱是捡来的？都这么赖账不还银行还敢贷款么？
不知道这对夫妻是否属于金融危机前没能力买房，但是被忽悠的搞次贷的买房的………………。
这个有法律依据吗~~~法官说勾就勾了啊......
有可能这个法官自己也正头疼于房贷中....
有可能这个法官自己也正头疼于房贷中....
可乐加冰块 发表于 2009-11-27 01:04 对财产权的法理支持是社会存在和有效运转的根本原则之一.
你可以在道义上谴责银行,但银行在法律上无懈可击.
买者在房价升时不会多付银行一分,当然跌时也不能少付一分.
银行回上诉,而被告的律师费给不给得起都是问题.
对财产权的法理支持是社会存在和有效运转的根本原则之一.你可以在道义上谴责银行,但银行在法律上无懈可击.
买者在房价升时不会多付银行一分,当然跌时也不能少付一分.
银行回上诉,而被告的律师费给不给得起都是问题.
不如中国银行霸气啊，哈哈
某些大喊法律原则的人其实不懂法律 ;P
美国法律有陪审团制度，如果一个银行敢公然挑战公众，陪审团的裁决一准对它不利！当然，普通的民事案件也可能不使用陪审团，象这个案件，就由法官定了。
社会的公序良俗高于刻板的法律条文，这是美法的特点。
美国法律有陪审团制度，如果一个银行敢公然挑战公众，陪审团的裁决一准对它不利！当然，普通的民事案件也可能不使用陪审团，象这个案件，就由法官定了。
社会的公序良俗高于刻板的法律条文，这是美法的特点。
虎魄 发表于 2009-11-27 10:05
英美是判例制，如果这个判决生效的话以后类似的案例都可以这样判，影响过大银行肯定会上诉
英美是判例制，如果这个判决生效的话以后类似的案例都可以这样判，影响过大银行肯定会上诉
回复 13# 虎魄 扯谈也不要是这么扯的，道义上是一码事，这种事情一旦传开了，所有濒临破产欠债者都要向此案例看齐，美国还不完蛋啊？你以为法律是什么？
回复 13# 虎魄 扯谈也不要是这么扯的，道义上是一码事，这种事情一旦传开了，所有濒临破产欠债者都要向此案例看齐，美国还不完蛋啊？你以为法律是什么？
虎魄 发表于 2009-11-27 10:05 这种官司一般不会召集培审团,而且,这个可视为宪法官司打上最高法院,除非贷款者找到资助,这个律师费他根本给不起.财产全官司上到巡回和最高院,考虑的就是立法初衷和原则问题,银行输的可能性近于零.
这种官司一般不会召集培审团,而且,这个可视为宪法官司打上最高法院,除非贷款者找到资助,这个律师费他根本给不起.财产全官司上到巡回和最高院,考虑的就是立法初衷和原则问题,银行输的可能性近于零.zhu250 发表于 2009-11-27 10:34
你以为是“扯淡”，可问题是美国的法律实践就是这样。美国法律中还允许做有罪推定，而这在我们这里正是被批臭了的。
美国司法中的某些作法确实相当的“左”，大家表少见多怪。
你以为是“扯淡”，可问题是美国的法律实践就是这样。美国法律中还允许做有罪推定，而这在我们这里正是被批臭了的。
美国司法中的某些作法确实相当的“左”，大家表少见多怪。
如果法官认为培审团的决定有违明显的事实,他可以撤销的,从字面看,这个官司是法官直接判的,没召集培审团.
f22 发表于 2009-11-27 10:38
民事案件也是可以召集培审团。至于到本案情况我不清楚，回头可以找人问问。
但这个原则（道义可以高于法条）显然是存在的，培审团制度就是一种体现。
民事案件也是可以召集培审团。至于到本案情况我不清楚，回头可以找人问问。
但这个原则（道义可以高于法条）显然是存在的，培审团制度就是一种体现。
对道义的追踪几乎必然杀到立国时先贤们的本意上,这是最高法院大法官们的拿手好戏,而判决贷款者胜将动摇整个社会赖以运转的财产权原则,最高院在这方面历来是极其保守的.
在美国，给出什么判决都不要意外。
但这些让你意外的官司很多上到上诉法院和最高院都会被改正过来,对此,记者未必会写出来.
欠债还钱好象就是最大的道义吧？还不起在英美你可以申请债务重组或者个人破产，但说还不起就赖帐恐怕是不行的
欠债还钱
美国文化是否会容忍这种合法但冷血的行为呢
...美国文化一碰到财产权这种基本权利时是很保守的.
...美国文化一碰到财产权这种基本权利时是很保守的.
银行再上诉会不会成为众矢之的？不知道美国文化是否会容忍这种合法但冷血的行为呢？
===================================================
美国文化基本上就是钱是一切, 这个法官这样判基本上违反了所有法律, 银行不单止上诉会赢, 这个法官也会被打入冷宫. 法官很多时候有酌情权, 但这种白字黑字的法律关系可以行使的酌情权不多, 法官可以做的就是把银行收楼的时间拖, 每次银行收楼都说银行的资料不充份, 要它排期再来..;P
===================================================
美国文化基本上就是钱是一切, 这个法官这样判基本上违反了所有法律, 银行不单止上诉会赢, 这个法官也会被打入冷宫. 法官很多时候有酌情权, 但这种白字黑字的法律关系可以行使的酌情权不多, 法官可以做的就是把银行收楼的时间拖, 每次银行收楼都说银行的资料不充份, 要它排期再来..;P
嗯，受教了，谢谢老右。
李嘉诚给所有买他房子的人发律师信，要求他们必须按照原来合同签订的房价按时付款，否则一律法庭上见，极其冷血无情
=================================================================
如果签合同後楼价狂升时, 发展商有权取销交易把房原价收回, 就同意你这个讲法.;P
=================================================================
如果签合同後楼价狂升时, 发展商有权取销交易把房原价收回, 就同意你这个讲法.;P
除了上诉,银行还有更绝的一招:
信用体系.
把这一家人打入黑名单.这意味着这家人在全美任何一家银行都得不到信贷,买啥都要付现,所有网上和电话服务都无法进行,不能订旅馆不能租车...甚至,他们都没法卖掉这所房子,除非买家全部付现金.
信用体系.
把这一家人打入黑名单.这意味着这家人在全美任何一家银行都得不到信贷,买啥都要付现,所有网上和电话服务都无法进行,不能订旅馆不能租车...甚至,他们都没法卖掉这所房子,除非买家全部付现金.
银行的钱是从哪里来的？还不是储户的，法官保护了欠债人的利益，储户的利益谁来保证？
這個案子是當前金融危機下的特定例外.....
这种官司一般不会召集培审团,
==================
一般无什麽事实争议的都不用陪审团. 有抵押合同在, 有没有还钱是无什麽好争议的事情. 除非说当初签合同是被误导, 就算法庭认为被误导, 抵押合同无效, Non Est Factum (签了合同不认) 是有可能, 但过往案例是除非是文盲老人, 否则机会极微. 但就算合同无效, 原本收到银行的钱也是要还.:L
==================
一般无什麽事实争议的都不用陪审团. 有抵押合同在, 有没有还钱是无什麽好争议的事情. 除非说当初签合同是被误导, 就算法庭认为被误导, 抵押合同无效, Non Est Factum (签了合同不认) 是有可能, 但过往案例是除非是文盲老人, 否则机会极微. 但就算合同无效, 原本收到银行的钱也是要还.:L
法官按照公序良俗来判，只不过是教训一下银行，最后肯定不会全免
人治啊！法制沉沦了啊！
是不是有人会这么说？
是不是有人会这么说？
你以为是“扯淡”，可问题是美国的法律实践就是这样。美国法律中还允许做有罪推定，而这在我们这里正是 ...
虎魄 发表于 2009-11-27 10:40
美国是商业社会，如果连合同都可以因为所谓的同情心赖掉，那么对美国社会秩序的打击是致命的。
还不起可以申请破产保护，美国的破产保护的很完善的，而这对夫妻没有，无非就是想抱住房子而已，一旦申请破产就会进入清算环节，只能保留最基本的生活资料，而且对信用记录损失很大，可能几年内都难找工作。但是绝对不会把你往死里整的。
所以在美国的环境来看…………这对夫妻也不是啥好鸟。
你以为是“扯淡”，可问题是美国的法律实践就是这样。美国法律中还允许做有罪推定，而这在我们这里正是 ...
虎魄 发表于 2009-11-27 10:40
美国是商业社会，如果连合同都可以因为所谓的同情心赖掉，那么对美国社会秩序的打击是致命的。
还不起可以申请破产保护，美国的破产保护的很完善的，而这对夫妻没有，无非就是想抱住房子而已，一旦申请破产就会进入清算环节，只能保留最基本的生活资料，而且对信用记录损失很大，可能几年内都难找工作。但是绝对不会把你往死里整的。
所以在美国的环境来看…………这对夫妻也不是啥好鸟。
f22 发表于 2009-11-27 12:21
这家人如果申请破产，信用也就完蛋了。欧美的破产信用破产的含义还更大一点。自己投资失败就要银行高抬贵手…………拿投资成功呢？？？
按照某些爱心人士的的观点，房价跌了，银行就应该承担损失，那么房价涨了，银行也应该有分享收益的权利，这才公平。
所以以后针对这些爱心人士的购房合同应该注明，房价只要变动就需要重新签合同，玩死他…………{:3_97:}
这家人如果申请破产，信用也就完蛋了。欧美的破产信用破产的含义还更大一点。自己投资失败就要银行高抬贵手…………拿投资成功呢？？？
按照某些爱心人士的的观点，房价跌了，银行就应该承担损失，那么房价涨了，银行也应该有分享收益的权利，这才公平。
所以以后针对这些爱心人士的购房合同应该注明，房价只要变动就需要重新签合同，玩死他…………{:3_97:}
不管怎么样，顶这个法官．．．
虎魄 发表于 2009-11-27 10:05
一个人怎么就成了公众？
要是真为公众想，哪么好，所有人都不用还钱了。
一个人怎么就成了公众？
要是真为公众想，哪么好，所有人都不用还钱了。
怎么锁了？
f22 发表于 2009-11-27 12:21
没错，千万不要以为斗得过银行，在哪个国家和银行斗都会死很惨。这是一个很无奈的简单事实。
没错，千万不要以为斗得过银行，在哪个国家和银行斗都会死很惨。这是一个很无奈的简单事实。