var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
April 5, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Oh boy. Stupidity all around, by both Zecco and their customers.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
1SQ
April 5, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: Agreed. It seems that the saying \"You can't cheat an honest person\" applies here as well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thezone
April 5, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1SQ: I'm sure some of the people thought they were cheating the system. But others thought it was an elaborate April's Fools joke. They may have thought they would receive a funny message when attempting to use the imaginary funds. The SEC needs to investigate exactly what happened.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
April 5, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: Agreed. If the people who purchased beyond their (real) balances had gotten an extra paycheck in their checking accounts, would they have spent that money too?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Yokai Monsters Spook Warfare
April 6, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t: Um...yes, they would have...


I work in HR and, from time to time, we make a mistake and double pay someone. Everyone of them refuses to give it back (usually because they've already spent it) and get upset if we have to dock their next paycheck.


People just see free money and start spending it thinking if its not there they don't have to pay it back.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnva
April 5, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's absolutely insane to me that a brokerage would ACTUALLY execute trades based on that money! What kind of idiot at Zecco thought that was a good idea?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
kbrook
April 5, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: If it was a joke, they should have set up some kind of 'fooled ya' screen (possibly with a rickroll?) instead of executing the trades.

And joking around like that with peoples money in the middle of a recession is MEAN.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 5, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: You're making the enormous assumption that Zecco actually planned this and that it wasn't some sort of glitch or malicious attack. The fact that they actually executed trades strongly implies that this was not their intention doing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
triscuitbiscuit
April 5, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lawsuit potentially? I can't imagine what Zecco's lawyers had to say.

Reply
2 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Dancin' Hooooomeeeeeer!
April 5, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is there anything more unprofessional??? If I were a Zecco customer I'd high-tail it out of there. You don't fool around with peoples money.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 5, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dancin' Hooooomeeeeeer!: For real. There's a reason people prefer their banks and other financial institutions to project an image of \"boring.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
April 5, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): It's like those \"talk to Chuck\" ads. I told my husband I bet those people wished they talked to old conservative Charles Schwab instead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
April 5, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): Isn't knowingly presenting false account balances and executing trades on those false balances just all kinds of securities fraud? This seems really illegal, and you're a lawyer so, what do you think?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 6, 2009 1:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: I'd think so, but I've honestly never seen a company do it on purpose. There might be all kinds of special laws nobody ever gets prosecuted under (because nobody's dumb enough to do it!) reserved for just this sort of situation. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
April 6, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@huadpe: At the moment there's only speculation that this was an intentional Joke. Zecco has only acknowledged there was an error.

[www.zecco.com]

Although they are being suspiciously coy about it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hyman Decent
April 5, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): Hey, I dig those TD Bank commercials with Regis & Kelly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
April 5, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dancin' Hooooomeeeeeer!: No kidding. This kind of thing would cause me to lose all confidence in them as a brokerage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shmianco
April 5, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is awful! zecco's clearly more at fault than the customers. some people just want to see how far they can go with things like that. shit, i'd have made it all the way to the \"accept\" button.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Ichiro51
April 5, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shmianco: Exactly. Woot's April Fool's Day Bag o' Crap was offered with a shipping charge of $1,000,000. I was ready to submit my order, but refrained \"just in case.\" And of course, it was sold out within minutes, presumably not only to millionaires or those with future overdrafts.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ninjatoddler
April 5, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

OMG that's hilarious. Being a former customer of Zecco, wish I'd stayed around longer to have seen this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
outoftheblew
April 5, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What is the evidence that Zecco did it as an April Fools joke? From the information here, it looks like someone messed with their system and caused it to happen without their knowledge. So the problem would be not that they're malicious jokesters, but that they allow malicious jokesters to creep into their system.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
PollyQ
April 5, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outoftheblew: Absolutely. Worst Consumerist Headline Ever!

I worked in IT for a financial services company for 10 years, and I find it nearly impossible that a company would do something like this as any kind of officially sanctioned action. Much more likely to be one of the following:

* Internal hacker / disgruntled employee
* External hacker / malicious competitor
* System glitch (things go wrong the other 364 days of the year, why not April 1?)

Obviously Zecco screwed up majorly somewhere along the line, but it's irresponsible, if not outright slanderous, for Consumerist to say that they did it on purpose without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 5, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PollyQ: Yet you have as many unsupported hypotheses as any comments here.
And, I get the strong feeling that Consumerist columnists know the difference between libel and slander, which is something you can't claim...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outoftheblew
April 5, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: PollyQ's comments ARE completely hypothetical, which is the point. Consumerist stated a fact that Zecco did this themselves as a prank, yet there is no indication that is the case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
icruise
April 6, 2009 4:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outoftheblew: Yes. If this was an April Fool's joke on the part of the company (as opposed to a disgruntled employee, for example), it would demonstrate such unimaginably poor judgment that I can't imagine the company surviving the backlash. I certainly wouldn't want to trust my money to a company that plays around with my balances for fun. If it's just a glitch or something similar it's still very serious, but it's not such a cataclysmic lapse in judgement. The Consumerist has declared categorically that this was a joke, and in doing so I think they've made a big mistake.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PollyQ
April 5, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: You miss the point -- I presented my hypotheses as being hypothetical. The Consumerist's headline stated outright that Zecco deliberately pulled a prank on its customers, with no hypothetical in sight.

And, yes, slander is spoken & libel is written, but I was using \"slanderous\" in its general dictionary definition rather than its strict legal sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 5, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PollyQ: Sure. But \"computer error\" isn't an excuse. Not when the company's responsible for the programming. Bad code doesn't write itself, you know.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
April 5, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outoftheblew: Even worse in that case. Not Poor Judgement, but Poor Security....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 5, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: In reality, no online system is totally secure. Give a dedicated wrong-doer a couple of days and pretty much anything can be exploited.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
April 5, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outoftheblew: That's surely going to be their story in any event, I'll wager!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sir_eccles
April 5, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outoftheblew: I'm inclined to agree, someone seems to have jumped to the conclusion it was a deliberate prank on Zecco's part.

Even if it was, just as with bank errors, ATMs spitting out the wrong amount and cashing fraudulent checks from Nigeria, spending money that isn't yours will get you in trouble.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
icruise
April 5, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aside from some speculation, there's nothing to indicate that this was anything other than a system glitch.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Verucalise (Est.February2008)
April 5, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not completely convinced the company was behind the balances- but I don't believe their responsibility ends there. Their duty is to protect the customers money while online trading. Of course, the customers who fell for these ridiculous balances instead of informing the company aren't out of the woods yet either. It was APRIL FOOLS DAY.


What's worse- a trading company thats susceptible to hackers that ADDED money, or just susceptible to hackers period?


Lucy, you got sum 'splainin to do.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
April 5, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, the April 1 timing does seem odd.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
April 5, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is weird. If customers made a profit, are they allowing them to keep the money?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
dddoistutter
April 5, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@twophrasebark: If they charge customers for losing money, the implication would be that customers keep ill-gotten gains. One would hope the company doesn't try to have its cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 5, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. Wow. Wow.
It's a shame JP Morgan - the guy, not the brand - wasn't still alive. Think he would have looked forward to a tasty meal of their innards, customer and company alike. While alive, of course. For insulting Capitalism so gravely.

Uhh, Zecco's going to eat the transaction fees, right? Considering that it was their \"joke\"?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Justin Harper
April 5, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Forget the transaction fees- the need to cover the loss too. Sure, the customers were stupid to try to go through with it, but isn't that one of the rules of good programming- assume the user will do the stupidest things possible?


But I am still wondering what evidence Consumerist has that this was an April Fool's Joke, other than it happened on April 1. From what I read here, seems like none.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 5, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Q: Does \"April Fools!\" count as an excuse during an IRS audit?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 5, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lawyer up, kids.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
quizmasterchris
April 5, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I expect we're headed for a Zecco taxpayer bailout & bonuses all round for the execs...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
metaled
April 5, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it was a mistake, it's not ZECCO's problem? BS! If it were your account and it went the other way because of a glitch, negative balance for the customer, making it impossible to make any trades or access their money. Everyone here would say the company is responsible!
The company is responsible! They should run a backup of the day before, subtract any fees that occurred during this time and give free trading for a day.
It was a joke, either on the company's part or a rouge employee, still their fault. They traded all the stock back to make themselves whole, so they need to drop the service/trading fees and refund any loses to make the customer whole as well.
CLASS ACTION!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ealexand
April 5, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled: I think they should charge anyone that made a trade that they obviously afford. If someone went over by a few hundred bucks that's one thing. Anyone that tried to profit should be charged a fee and pay back some of the losses if there were any.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Justin Harper
April 5, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ealexand: There you go. And while we're at it, when people go to the hospital, you should also pay only what you can afford. Lung cancer from smoking, no insurance? No problem. But Mr. John Q. Responsible in the next room- that will be a $10,000 band-aid, pleasure doing business with you.


Really? You f-ing retard.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
EbenezerNobdobber
April 5, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am a zecco user, I logged in to find my buying power at 6 million and some change. I assumed that something in the system was messed up and continued trading based on the money I knew I had in the account, not the insane number. Am I strange? it seems to me the reasonable thing to do is not spend what you know you do not have, it's like if the bank accidentally put money in your account... you know eventually the will catch it, so you might as well come clean and get it fixed.

Now if this was an april fools joke... that is pretty stupid ont he part of zecco, but foolish on customers to spend it as well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kaisum
April 5, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think the dumbest part was that the money was actually IN their accounts. And they could actually use it for spending. Sounds more like a scam than an April fools joke.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
SabreDC
April 5, 2009 9:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kaisum: Buying power doesn't not mean that you have the money. Many trading firms provide buying power that isn't actually backed by your account. If you deposit 30 grand into your account, sometimes they let you buy up to 250 grand, and so on. That doesn't mean that there is actually that much money in the account though.

Many people who trade regularly may not have noticed anything was wrong because they know that the firm will back them up to a certain amount.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jon-Claw
April 5, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SabreDC: Good ol' Leverage. The double-edged sword.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
EdnaLegume
April 5, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dream of waking up and having Charles Schwab magically deposit millions in my accounts.... Just because it's magic money, it's still my magic money.

Maybe they thought Ed McMahon was working for Zecco..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
menty666
April 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are these the same folks that find a million dollar bank error on their accounts and promptly go buy a Porsche?

Between zero day for that Conficker mess and April fools, frankly I'd be more freaked out and annoyed to find my balance was so far out of whack.

Isn't buying and selling without actual money or stock the way naked short selling works?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
disillusioned
April 5, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's clearly NOT an April Fool's joke, but a serious system glitch. It's definitely not responsible to imply that, while Zecco was stupid enough to let this glitch flow through, that they'd be idiotic enough to intentionally play a joke like this.

So let's kick down the hyperbole a notch, because some people forget that The Consumerist isn't real news reporting or journalism, and thinking that Zecco really did play a monster April Fools joke intentionally. Clearly, that's not what happened.

Now, I would never, ever trade with Zecco after seeing something like this happen--this is BAD POOL. But that being said, the slant of the article, and especially the last sentence, is ridiculous.

Disclosure: Never traded with Zecco. Trade with Thinkorswim, who have a great sense of humor and would still never actually fuck with their customers' account balances.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
krispykrink
April 5, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh boy, what does the SEC have to say about this?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Zwoda
April 5, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone is missing a very important part of the puzzle: no money was entered these people's accounts. Instead, the amount of margin/loans the traders could borrow was erroneously increased, and these people treated it like it was real money instead a loan.

This isn't like a bank accidentally depositing money into your checking account, but more like your credit card doubling your credit limit.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
xsmasher
April 5, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zwoda: If that's the case, why did Zecco start selling the stocks instead of doing a margin call? Why did the start reversing all transactions including those that were in the black? It sounds like they screwed up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GTI2.0
April 5, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher:

Is that a legit question? Really?

Do you think the average trader with $2K in his acocunt has any clue what a margin call is? Or that they'd be on the hook for that cash once the trade is cleared?

The average joe schmoe trader doesn't trade on margin, they trade on cash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kbrook
April 5, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GTI2.0: I learned what a margin call is in junior high history class (not even Honors, that was in HS). You're right that many small time traders work only with their cash on hand, but going into something like the stock market without a basic working knowledge of the terminology strikes me as stoopid in the extreme.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
glater
April 5, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sounds blatantly fraudulent on many, many levels. Zecco is gonna have some biiiig questions to answer pretty soon, and I don't think that the customers should be held culpable. Telling them that they have money they don't, then actually making market trades with that money? Hello?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Katherine Carroll
April 5, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't figure out who's stupider, Zecco or the idiots who purchased lots \"assuming\" it wouldn't go through!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
INsano
April 5, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What gomer green-lighted this?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
latkadog
April 5, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It would have been funny if they started offering stock in dead companies like TWA, Pan Am, or Pets.com.... but hand over a couple million in fake money and expect someone to get its a joke... stupid Zecco...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JoshRogan
April 5, 2009 8:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Zecco's Twitter feed doesn't help to clarify if this was an April Fool's joke or something gone terribly wrong.

At 6:17 AM, paul_irish wrote:

# @michieldeboer @tonyleachsf Love the $6.8 million I have now. As do my friends. :) Thx @zecco !!

At 8:16 A.M, Zecco replied:

@paul_irish Your temporary millionaire status has come to an end. We hope you did not spend the $6.8M in the meantime.

At 10:29 A.M., Zecco wrote:

@c_mpt_n @traderjon We're glad you are taking it as an April Fool's joke.

If this was some type of error or attack, Zecco was aware of it for several hours before they stopped it. It almost seems like some kind of Art Carlson Thanksgiving Day scenario.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Paul Irish
April 6, 2009 5:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JoshRogan: Iunno. I kinda thought it was obvious. Regardless of the fact that zecco shouldn't do this if their systems can't handle the \"fake\" orders (which is unknown), it's totally absurd for zecco users to start toying with the money. Most of us knew better. :/

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ealexand
April 5, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have my Roth IRA with Zecco. I had $63m of buying power and of course the though of buying a million shares of RIMM crossed my mind. But then I realized that I was an ADULT and that if it tried to play off an attempt to flip a few mill out of an illegal trade someone would probably catch it. Idiots. April fools joke with your trading account? I hope these people are responsible for at least some of any incurred losses. I don't want my brokerage going out of business because some idiot thought he'd play a \"joke\" and buy shares he couldn't afford. This is painful

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
April 5, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Right, because spending money we don't actually have never got us into trouble before.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
April 5, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh and the speedometer said 200, so I thought I could just go that fast Ociffer.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ColoradoShark
April 5, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a starter list of types of companies that should not try an April Fool's joke:
-Banks
-Brokers
-Funeral Homes

Oh hell, companies shouldn't play April Fool's jokes at all. Usually they are stupid and not funny.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
djmichaelangelo
April 6, 2009 5:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ColoradoShark:

Except for Taco Bell....that whole Liberty Bell thing = the most brilliant classic example of goodwill/PR/free publicity over an April Fools Day stunt EVAH

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JeromeMabawza
April 5, 2009 11:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Zecco is horrible for many reasons. Why do people even use it? And what's with all these people with only 2k in their accounts? Why would anyone invest with that little money?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Katherine Carroll
April 5, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't figure out who's more stupid, Zecco or the idiots who purchased lots \"assuming\" the computers wouldn't execute the trades.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 5, 2009 11:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

since the trading company was responsible for the misrepresentation of the customers balances, they should eat the loss incurred by their clients, who rely on the company for accuracy, and the $20 fee for all the trades which they sold short without asking the client. That is who a good name remains a good name after a really stupid error. Anything less, and every client who lost a dime to the stupidity should simply move on to another trading firm, one with better sense. I would have pulled out my money when I spotted the huge overage, based soley on the fact that someone in charge of my money cant keep track of what is my money. I'll keep my $500 cash in my pocket, thanks.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 6, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VasilisElectra: I agree with you. While it was STUPID for these people to spend the money. Zecco should have never allowed the balances to appear in the first place. Wether by joke or failed security, Zecco compromised their own business.

It stands to reason that there were at least a couple of new traders for whom it never occurred to them that they might be committing \"securities fraud\" or incur losses by playing with money in their accounts. They are paying Zecco to manage their accounts, so its well within reason that \"Zecco has got everything under control\". Zecco messed up, I think they should eat the loss.

That being said, me and my money would be gone either way.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
drdom
April 6, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This group deserves one another. What a stupid stupid stupid lot.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bargaineering.com
April 6, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is ridiculous... if it's a joke, don't execute the orders. Sure you should know you don't have 13 million but then again, if it's a joke, you don't expect the order to actually go through.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 7, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm currently building a case against my online broker in Canada (Courtage Direct Banque Nationale) because I had a similar problem with them last October. I had been trading with money I thought was in my account, not validating the individual amount of each positions I owned against the margin, only to find later that I actually had not enough money to cover even the slightest loss, the buying power was all fictitious. I had no marginable position. In the end, they force-sold all my positions and I ended with an account in negative of a few thousands, instead of a real positive balance of a couple of thousands prior to the glitch. They said they tried to contact me, but I have no trace of those calls. Anyway, that week I was sick, and spent most of the time in bed... They decided to sell everything. All there was in the account. But If they had waited just the end of the day to start selling I would have owed them nothing. And if they had waited the next day I would have made a lot of money. Now I have to build a case against them, because they say I was responsible for all the actions in my account. I'm responsible for what I buy, but I'm also responsible for the losses resulting from the actions they took, without my consent, without my knowledge. The only time I knew something was wrong was when they sold everything, starting with the position that incurred the losses, then everything I owned. Now I have nothing left and I need to take legal actions against a bank. They took everything like if it was theirs. I'm like David against Goliath!!! I have fun!!!

Reply
");