Goldman Sachs-Litton-Ocwen-HSBC: MERS criminals stealing American's homes

[Amaterasu]

I think even Amy could afford to chip in that much

But...  Though I have just now to My name 38 cents, I have no way to send it anywhere.  A stamp costs more than I have.  I have no electronic means...  Maybe I could give the quarter to Thor.  "Here Thor, make sure this quarter from the money You have given Me is sent in."

LOLOLOLOL!  My heart is in support.  My heart is driven by the Betterment Ethic.  Someday the importance of that will come into focus.  [smile]

Just (yeah, here it comes!) sayin'.

[zorgon]

But... 

You missed the point   

[Amaterasu]

Oh.  Did I? [grin]  I'm sure You're right.  [smile]

[thorfourwinds]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RABUN COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
                                                                         
HSBC BANK USA, NA, as trustee for            CASE # 2014-CV-14S
Freemont Home Loan Trust 2006-D         
c/o Richard B. Maner                  
Plaintiff                                                               
                                                                          
5775 Glenridge Drive                  
Building D. Suite 100                  
Atlanta, Georgia 30328                   
                           
404.252.6385 x235                  

vs.                                    

THOR ANDERSON                              
Defendant                                  
218 MERRYDALE LANE               
CLAYTON, GEORGIA 30525            
                           
706.490.4401                     

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

   COMES NOW the Defendant, Anderson, and files this Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(e) and shows that the Court should deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of this Opposition, Defendant relies upon the following:

1.   That Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner, is not a real party in interest and lacks standing to bring this action against Defendant;

2.   That Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner, is not a legal assignee of a MERS debt allegedly owed by Defendant to prior servicers FREMONT-LITTON-OCWEN.

3. The MERS document presented by Plaintiff is a counterfeit robo-signed document and robo-signing is illegal in all 50 states, including Georgia.

4. Because significant elements of discovery remain as yet incomplete, and the discovery period for this civil action has not yet concluded, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is premature and thus should be denied.

5. The only reason that a timely Response to the Summary Judgement was not entered is that Anderson was performing as a Volunteer Fireman First Responder to the ice storm in Augusta for six weeks at that time and never received the document. Perhaps the Plaintiff has Proof of Service (Certified Mail, etc.)?


   Notice is hereby given that the Defendant, Thor Anderson, hereby appeals a judgment entered in the Superior Court of Rabun County.

   Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procuedure , Defendant Anderson, appearing pro se, submits this opposition to the pending Motion for Summary Judgement (entered on 9 October, 2014) to demonstrate to the Court that there is a genuine issue of material fact in this case that precludes the entry of a judgement as a matter of law.

   This opposition is based upon and supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file, the affidavits and exhibits attached hereto, and any argument that the Court may allow at the time of hearing.

   DATED this 18th day of November, 2014.


   Respectfully submitted by:
   
   ______________________
   Thor Anderson, Defendant, pro se

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

        In response to the facts set forth in the moving party's Motion for Summary Judgement, Defendant Anderson provides the following statement of facts:

We were baited and switched by a misleading and fraudulent home refinance scheme which we feel is predatory lending involving HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-D, MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 200D-6, LITTON LOAN SERVICING, AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING.

As a borrower facing foreclosure, it is critical to me to determine who actually owns my mortgage and whether or not the entity taking action is, in fact, the actual creditor or actual Owner of the Note secured by the Mortgage or Deed of Trust.

Even though we fought the good fight coming from a place of integrity, ethics and honor, we have been confronted with unethical behavior, outright lies and numerous violations of various laws, not in the least RESPA, by Litton, then Ocwen and now HSBC.

Since at the magistrate hearing (17 December 2013), we were not allowed to question the validity of the robo-signed MERS document presented by Ocwen/HSBC Bank Attorney Richard B. Maner as evidence of ownership of the title to my lovely home, we are presenting this package of information in the spirit of enlightenment hopefully to be considered before a final decision is made to go forward with eviction proceedings, as the opposition's documents appear to have certain 'peculiarities,' to say the least.

The assignment of the subject mortgage and note to HSBC, by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), and the Writ of Possession action is without legal authority. MERS never possessed the ANDERSON note it allegedly assigned to plaintiff HSBC. Thus, plaintiff HSBC lacked standing to commence the DEMAND FOR PREMISES and now, SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

FOR THE RECORD:

A prominent economist said about the 2008 financial crisis:

"At the root of the crisis we find the largest financial swindle in world history", where "counterfeit" mortgages were "laundered" by the banks.

The Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems – MERS – was one of the main ways the swindle was done, and the main way in which counterfeit mortgages were laundered by the banks.

MERS is a shell company with no employees, owned by the giant banks.

MERS threw out centuries of well-established law about how real estate is transferred – and cheated governments out of many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in recording fees."

"OCWEN has a specific plan and scheme to take homes that have equity in them," said Robert Hilliard, a partner in Corpus Christi, Texas-based Hilliard & Munoz.

CASE IN POINT:

"... homeowners have certain "Borrower's Rights"... which include your right to validate the debt."

First, the non-response to my legal Validation of Debt Request and the fact that Ocwen claims to have acquired the servicing rights to my loan on March 3, 2013 (copy of March 23, 2013 letter from Ocwen attached) from Litton Servicing and sold to a REO two days later - March 5, 2013.

THIS CANNOT BE TRUE.

Either the Ocwen letter dated 2-11-11 acquiring servicing rights is FALSE or this one is.

Which brings up the question of validity of that statement, as we have defeated Ocwen at every foreclosure attempt since the first of four (4) on July, 2012, and have been dealing with their misrepresentations since 2011.

We served Ocwen and their attorney (Weissman Nowack Curry & Wilco P.C.) by Certified Mail with these documents; all still unanswered:

(1) RESPA Qualified Written Request dated 25 December, 2011;
(2) Dispute of Debt and Notice of Default dated 26 December 2012;
(3) Good Faith Discovery Notice: Verification of Proof of Claim Requested dated 26 December 2012;
(4) Notice of Fraud and Intent to Litigate and Notice to Cease and Desist All Activities Relating to the Ongoing Foreclosure Action dated 18 February 2013;
(5) Request for Admissions regarding Good Faith Discovery Notice: Verification of Proof of Claim Requested (on 26 December 2012) dated 28 February 2013.


In each of the five (5) attempts at wrongful foreclosure - four (4) defeated successfully: Litton - July 5, 2011; Ocwen - July 2, 2012; Ocwen - November 5, 2012; Ocwen - January 2, 2013; and then the non-judicial foreclosure on March 5, 2013, where the note was transferred to HSBC and my loan modification terminated mid-stream and Demand For Premises made, we were assured on the front page (attached) of the NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE SALE from both Ocwen and their attorney (WNCW),

"...you have certain "Borrower's Rights"...which include your right to validate the debt."

However, we were denied that right, and others, at every request.

We continually questioned Ocwen's reticence to answer our many legal requests for information, suspecting fabrication or fraudulently altered mortgage assignment documentation providing compelling evidence that title to the mortgage backing the certificates was never properly or timely transferred and genuine issues of material fact exist.


Ocwen obviously does not have the legal documents, and as we suspect, our loan is caught-up in the mortgage-backed securities debacle and we are victims of Predatory Lending practices.

This action epitomizes Wrongful Attempted Foreclosure, Conspiracy, Fraud, Corruption, and possibly constitutes RICO, Dodd-Frank, TILA and Civil Rights Violations.

We even went so far as to address our concerns in the form of a complaint to David A. Montoya, Inspector General, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), regarding predatory lending and Ocwen's continued misrepresentations and false statements, concealment and/or misrepresentation of material facts in connection with the foregoing Mortgage and/or Note; conduct of the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's predecessor in interest which violated the obligation of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent and deceptive practices in connection with the execution, transfer and/or enforcement of the Mortgage and/or note and Wrongful Attempted Foreclosure and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. against Ocwen, violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), Section 559.55, et seq. Florida Statutes, against Ocwen; and violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. against Ocwen and Loan Owner.



II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

   Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procuedure states in relevant part that "When considering motions for summary judgment, judges view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant's opponent.  As used here, "material issues of fact" refers to any facts that could allow a fact-finder to decide against the movant."

Georgia law has consistently held that summary judgment is an extreme sanction and should be granted in only the clearest and rarest of cases. Grier v. Kanon Service Corp., 217 Ga. App. 110, 456 S.E.2d 690 (1995).

Indeed, to prevail at summary judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.  Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474, 475 (1991).

While evidence of a movant for summary judgment is to be carefully scrutinized, a respondent's evidence is to be treated with indulgence. Layfield v. Department of Transp., 280 Ga. 848, 632 S.E.2d 135 (2006).

The defendant does not need to affirmatively disprove the plaintiff's case, but may prevail simply by pointing to the lack of evidence. If the defendant does so, the plaintiff cannot rest on his pleadings, but must point to specific evidence that gives rise to a triable issue of fact. O'Connell v. Cora Bett Thomas Realty, 254 Ga. App. 311, 563 S.E.2d 167 (2002) citing Traicoff v. Withers, 247 Ga. App. 428, 544 S.E.2d 177 (2000).


III. ARGUMENT

In the present case, there is a genuine issue of material fact, specifically:
Disputed Material Facts Preclude Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs' action is not supported by sufficient evidence of a written assignment to prove that Plaintiff HSBC/Maner, is the real party in interest.

Without such evidence, Plaintiff HSBC/Maner does not have legal standing.

At the very least, the lack of proffered evidence of assignation is a question of fact for a jury.

Defendant ANDERSON contends the following:

1.   Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner is not the original creditor of the alleged debt which is the subject of this litigation;

2.    Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner is an affiliate or subsidiary of Ocwen;

3.    This is a classic shell game by Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner/Ocwen/Litton/Fremont to evade prosecution and illegally foreclose on my home.

4. The MERS document presented by Plaintiff is an illegal robo-signed document and robo-signing is illegal in all 50 states, including Georgia.

For Plaintiffs to prevail on their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact – including Defendant's position that Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner is not the real party in interest. Id. at 489; citing Sawgrass Builders v. Key, 212 Ga. App. 138, 441 S.E.2d 99 (1994).

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." OCGA § 9-11-56 ©.

"On a motion for summary judgment the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party and all doubts are to be resolved against the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden." Ham v. Ham, 230 Ga. 43, 45 (195 SE2d 429) (1973).


Since Discovery Has Not Yet Been Completed, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is Premature and Should Be Denied.

If the disputed issues of material fact are not sufficiently established at this time, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment should nevertheless be denied because it is premature. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment has the right to conduct appropriate and necessary discovery prior to responding to such a motion.

Ericson v. Hodges, 257 Ga. App. 144, 570 S.E.2d 420 (2002); Shipley v. Handicaps Mobility Systems, Inc., 222 Ga. App. 101, 473 S.E.2d 553 (1996); Ross v. Ninety-Two, Ltd., 201 Ga. App. 887, 412 S.E.2d 876 (1991); and Watkins v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 113 Ga. App. 801-802, 149 S.E.2d 749 (1966).

A trial court must abstain from ruling on a motion for summary judgment until the party against whom such a judgment is sought has completed the discovery to which it is entitled. See id. Premature summary judgment deprives a non-moving party of the opportunity to develop proof of triable issues of fact as to his claims. See id.

WHO REALLY HAS THE ORIGINAL WET INK NOTE?

With no proof of ownership of the note, Ocwen cannot 'sell' our home to HSBC BANK USA , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FREMONT HOME LOAN AND TRUST.

As of this date, 10 October 2014, OCWEN, not HSBC BANK, is listed as the true owner of the note and has our house for sale online at hubzu.com.

http://www.hubzu.com/property/0007090697959-218-Merrydale-Lane-Clayton-GA-30525

218 Merrydale Lane Clayton GA 30525 | Hubzu

So I bid on it.

Twice.

Here is part of the contract, showing that OCWEN 'owns' 218 Merrydale Lane, not HSBC:

If HSBC Bank 'owns' our home, how can Ocwen be selling it?

If Ocwen owns our home, how can HSBC claim ownership of our home via a robo-signed MERS document and abrogate an in-process loan modification and issue a DEMAND FOR PREMISES and subsequent eviction attempt?


Ocwen attempted to sidestep all the previous violations to avoid prosecution (and Federal court) by supposedly 'transferring' the title to HSBC.

However, HSBC Bank/Maner continue to refuse to present the original wet ink document as required by law to confirm true and legal title to our home.


As a borrower facing foreclosure, it is critical to me to determine who actually owns my mortgage and whether or not the entity taking action is, in fact, the actual creditor or actual Owner of the Note secured by the Mortgage or Deed of Trust.

"Ocwen is charged with engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act and state laws.

Ocwen's unlawful conduct has resulted in injury to consumers who have had home loans serviced by Ocwen and Litton. The harm includes paying improper fees and charges, unreasonable delays and expenses to obtain loss mitigation relief, and improper denial of loss mitigation relief."

Ocwen's unlawful conduct which applies to our case:

• failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements;

• charging unauthorized fees for default-related services;

• providing false or misleading information to borrowers regarding loans that had been transferred from other servicers;

• failing to provide accurate and timely information to borrowers who sought information about loss mitigation services, including loan modifications;

• misrepresenting to borrowers that loss mitigation programs would provide relief from the initiation of foreclosure or further foreclosure efforts;

• improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers;

• providing false or misleading reasons for denial of loan modifications;

• with respect to transferred loans, failing to honor in-process trial modifications agreed to by prior servicers; and

• robo-signing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings.

source document:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/pdf/ocwen_settlement_faqs.pdfLitton


Perhaps the attached copies of documents will be of interest.

26 December 2012 Dispute of Debt and Notice of Default - To Ocwen

26 December 2012 Good Faith Discovery Notice:
               Verification of Proof of Claim Requested - To Ocwen

28 February 2013 Request For Admissions -To Ocwen

28 February 2013 Demand to Postpone Foreclosure Sale - To WNCW

28 February 2013 Demand to Postpone Foreclosure Sale - To Ocwen

28 February 2013 Notice of Fraud and Intent to Litigate - To WNCW


Ocwen failed to demonstrate its standing on the mortgage and note because it failed to produce either the original note or the actual assignment of the mortgage and engaged in illegal failure to follow the proper paperwork procedures in relation to the original RESPA violation.

Ocwen is the company that cannot prove legal ownership of the title to our lovely home.

With no proof of ownership of the note, Ocwen cannot 'sell' our home to HSBC BANK USA , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FREMONT HOME LOAN AND TRUST - or anyone else, for that matter.


We also question the "possible incestuous relationship" between HSBC Bank, Ocwen Loan Servicing, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems due to the fact that the entities all share the same office space at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida.

We have supporting documents of our robo-signing MERS claims regarding individuals who claim simultaneously to be officers of more than one of these corporations and simultaneously notary publics.

Also, the evidence supports the premise that Ocwen's servicing procedures, as exemplified by the Anderson account, are not organized to assure accuracy and accountability.

Ocwen failed to record the correct information even though Mr. Anderson constantly called and talked to Ocwen's agents and provided written material, failed to follow his written instructions, failed to communicate with Anderson, sent mortgage statements that were incomprehensible and frightening, began collection calls, and engaged in a litany of mismanagement of the Anderson loan.

At issue is a state law that requires lenders to file a "request for judicial intervention" when they sue a homeowner and to notify a county clerk of the legal action. That intervention filing then is supposed to jump-start a settlement conference – within 60 days – to try to resolve the homeowner's financial issue before moving to final foreclosure.

Ocwen totally ignored a state law to move delinquent mortgage holders into settlement talks to avoid foreclosure.

Ocwen never once answered any written communication, delivered by Certified Mail, regarding this mortgage, including totally ignoring the RESPA QWR of December, 2011.

Each and every document was copied to their attorneys, WNCW, by Certified Mail.


A trial court must abstain from ruling on a motion for summary judgment until the party against whom such a judgment is sought has completed the discovery to which it is entitled. See id. Premature summary judgment deprives a non-moving party of the opportunity to develop proof of triable issues of fact as to his claims. See id.

Plaintiffs have not provided key documents that Defendant is entitled to under the Georgia Civil Practice Act and which would conclusively prove not only that Plaintiffs do not have the documentation sufficient to prove the proper chain of assignment, but that Plaintiff HSBC Bank/Maner has been unjustly enriched and thus not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

        For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court DENY Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, as substantial issues exist and material facts are controverted in good faith and should be decided by the jury.

   DATED this 18th day of November, 2014.

   Respectfully submitted by:
   
   ______________________
   Thor Anderson, Defendant, pro se



CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

   I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of November, 2014, I have served the opposing party of the Summary Judgement a true and correct copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT by mailing a copy of this document to the opposing party at the address set forth above.

   DATED this 18th day of November, 2014.

   Thor Anderson
   Defendant

[Shasta56]

Words are not adequate to describe the level of disgust I feel for the foreclosure business.   I understand the stress,  having been through it.   I don't understand how a modification in progress can be arbitrarily upended.   

We were offered a refi deal by HSBC some years ago.   They claimed they could roll our other existing debt into the deal, and leave us with just one monthly payment.   The rate was too high and the deal felt wrong.   We declined.  They closed up all their local offices about six months later and turfed out their outstanding loans to collection agencies.

I pray that this turns out as it should for you Thor.  Blessed be.

Shasta

[Shasta56]

I didn't know until a couple of days ago,  that HSBC had been in trouble for laundering drug money.  It just gets better and better.

Shasta

[thorfourwinds]

As of 5 March 2015, we are awaiting a response to our appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

We were forced to do this because the local Superior court Judge has refused to consider our Opposition to Summary Judgement shown above.   

Here's the appeal:

?

[Shasta56]

Tonight is the full moon.   Tonight I ask the Elements and the deities for peace and healing for Thor and his family.   I ask Loki, whose half brother shares Thor's name,  to act on behalf of ThorFourWinds, to heal the harm that has been done.  I ask Freya to watch over this warrior, though he has not yet crossed to Valhalla.   This I ask.  So mote it be.

Shasta

[thorfourwinds]

Imagine winning your foreclosure case.  Visualize the outcome that you truly want.  Your future awaits.

Shasta

[Glaucon]

Correction: Are you the only one challenging this in Georgia?

[astr0144]

I tried to speed read through your thread Thor to try and simplify it down and to gain some understanding on what seems rather a very complex situation  that takes some studying, especially for anyone not too familiar with housing and legalities in property ownership and changes that may be made by the banks or loans company lenders..

From what I can gather, the basis of it being that your initial lender has either made certain changes or passed the loan or mortgage onto another company who have not as yet legitimately or legally acknowledged to you the relative required documentation.

I am therefore assuming that you have not continued making monthly payments to them and will not until you get things confirmed... and in the mean time they are now asking you to sell your home at a much lower cost than what you paid for or as to what it was worth at the time of purchasing or taking out your initial mortgage..

That its not just a case that you were unable to pay the monthly fees..and therefore they are asking foreclosure.

Then you have took legal procedures, had to go to court, and not been able to put your case and argument over to the courts.. and they were asking that you used an attorney..

You are also indicating that this is a scam from the bankster's..
and in particular Goldman sach's..

You refer to MERS being a part to it for aiding them without having to pay as much Tax and avoid costs...

According to your writings, this was done since the 1990s..

you took out the Mortgage after this in 2005.

Have your problems arised since the economic crash in 2007  ?
I assume so..

This is something else that Jessie Venetura refers to about the corruption of the Goldman Sachs big boys scams..



please delete this post if you think its incorrect or irrelevant to your thread in case I assumed wrong..

It certainly appears to have been a nightmare that you have had to deal with and you seem to have taken hard action against the corruption and aggravation and harassment by what appears an utter corrupt system.

I wish you best of luck in your continued fight for justice..

[Shasta56]

What I really don't understand,  is the judge's refusal to hear the case.  I can't find anything,  anywhere, stating that one must be represented by an attorney.   If that's what he based his refusal on, that sounds like judicial misconduct to me.

Shasta

[thorfourwinds]

Greetings Dear Reader:

UPDATE: Friday the Thirteenth, 2015.

We have contacted the State Bar of Georgia and made them aware of Judge Russell Smith's antics.

We have also contacted THE attorney in Georgia that can put a stop to this nonsense and work out a successful solution to this conundrum.

I am so grateful and thankful for all the good that's coming into my Life.

We envision that Ocwen, et all, will capitulate when confronted by an attorney - instead of merely me - and offer an out-of-court settlement so that they are not in violation of a previous Court Order to Cease & Desist such practices.

"Ocwen is charged with engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act and state laws.

Ocwen's unlawful conduct has resulted in injury to consumers who have had home loans serviced by Ocwen and Litton. The harm includes paying improper fees and charges, unreasonable delays and expenses to obtain loss mitigation relief, and improper denial of loss mitigation relief."

Ocwen's unlawful conduct which applies to our case:

• failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements;

• charging unauthorized fees for default-related services;

• providing false or misleading information to borrowers regarding loans that had been transferred from other servicers;

• failing to provide accurate and timely information to borrowers who sought information about loss mitigation services, including loan modifications;

• misrepresenting to borrowers that loss mitigation programs would provide relief from the initiation of foreclosure or further foreclosure efforts;

• improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers;

• providing false or misleading reasons for denial of loan modifications;

• with respect to transferred loans, failing to honor in-process trial modifications agreed to by prior servicers; and

• robo-signing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings.

Stay tuned...the eviction is scheduled for NEXT FRIDAY - 20 March 2015.

That will not happen, period.



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

[Glaucon]

Good job buddy

[ArMaP]

Fingers crossed.