Www.disleague.com



Faith Brashear erroneously

sued as Donna Beltz

1095 Lowry Ranch Road

Corona, California 92881

Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

RIVERSIDE/ MORENO VALLEY COURTHOUSE

|HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF THE |NO.: MVC 1603595 |

|DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH | |

|CERTIFICATIES SERIES 2007-OA4, |DECLARATION OF FAITH BRASHEAR IN OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS NOTICE |

| |OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT |

|Defendant, | |

| |REQUEST TO STRIKE |

|v. |DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS |

| | |

|DONNA BELTZ and DOES 1-5, |PLEADING IS CHALLANGED |

| |UNDER THE DOCTORINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS |

|Defendants. | |

| |Hearing Date: June 22, 2017 |

| |Place : Dept. 3 |

| |Time : 8:30 am |

| | |

| | |

DECLARATION OF FAITH BRASHEAR IN OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I Faith Lynn Brashear am the declarant whom attest under penalty of perjury the following is true and correct.

Defendant has had to shift her Attorney Search and has only partially retain new council. A report to these courts as to the Case Management Status was filed by Defendant. Defendant has now been forced to seek out Criminal Attorneys due to the questionable activities that have been witnessed and documented at these courts. Declaration Reports have been filed with the DOJ, DRE and FBI in regards to recent discoveries and events.

Defendant requests judicial notice of the Letter from Kimberly A Rector – Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors responding to Defendants request under the Publics Records Act outlining the following:

A)Identity the entity filed electronic documents for recording as Service Link Irvine.

B) Referral to their Human research department for whom the TDUS was electronically submitted to TERESA #134

(C) Identity of Notary indicated that R. Manlulu is an employee of The Mortgage Law Firm in Temecula.

(D) On where to obtain a verified Judicial Form 700 pursuant to the Political Practices Act of 1974.

Defendants discoveries found that there is no company registered with the Secretary of State as Service Link Irvine. The only company registered with the Secretary of State Filed a Certificate of Surrender of Right to Transact Intrastate Business is ServiceLink, Inc.

Defendants discoveries led her to an already ongoing FBI investigation of Service Link holding several shelf corporations whom have been electronically submitting documents to title via roaming IP addresses.

Defendants discoveries led her to an already ongoing FBI investigation of Service Link holding several shelf corporations whom have been electronically submitting documents to title via roaming IP addresses.

Defendant can see that the TDUS hold no document transfer tax to suggest HSBC purchased the asset at auction. Plaintiff will have to show the funds used for the purchase. Plaintiff cannot presume a purchase if it is just a transfer of intellectual property held in a freehold use from one REMIC to the other REMIC under a Master Trust. The Duetsche Alt-A Certificate Series OA4 named on the complaint, in and of itself appears to be a tax exempt special purpose vehicle. Plaintiff would need to verify that the Deutsch REMIC was designed to hold both the note and the deed under a Pass-through Grantor Trust.

Defendant was physically present at that auction and can verify there were no representative on site bidding on behalf of HSBC upon this property. Plaintiff cannot do this without a 51% Majority Action Affidavit under 2924.9 (d) giving HSBC as trustee to act on the Certificate holder’s behalf. Plaintiffs lack Standing.

Further Defendant can see that there are variances in Signature for Andriana Riveras whom signed the TDUS under authority. Plaintiff will need to verify that the signature for Andriana Riveras is actually from Andriana Riveras and that Andriana Riveras held authority to record such a document. Plaintiff is asked to verify the true signature Under Exhibit 1 to Federal Complaints.

OBJECTION TO WITNESS #3 Hand written Witness Jeff Allen Farr - In re: Cannon 3 –

Rule 3.11 (B)(2)(B)(4) – Rule 3.5 use of non-public information for Rule 3.13.

These courts are aware that Plaintiff confronted the head Justice Daniel Ottolia in 2015 via case NO: RIC 1508101 to where Plaintiff provided documentation that the head justice reported upon his CA FORM 700 a 10% vested ownership interest in the franchise real estate company First Team under which his wife Liz Ottolia hangs her real estate license. Documented in Defendants Exhibit 1. It is against the law to taint evidence.

1. DEFENDANT HAS DOCUMENTED THROUGH PLAINTIFFS UNCLEAN HANDS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF DEFENDANTS CASE under the Judicial Notice of the Federal Motion for reconsideration Exhibits 2-6 under DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT 1. Defendant holds direct access to the MLS through Board membership. Defendant holds direct access to title through First American Title company. The courts have public access, and Defendant has access to PACER.

2. Defendant has documented that Witness Joe Quinteros has co-listed the following properties with Witness Jeff Allen Farr transacted with the head justices reported 10% vested ownership interest upon his CA 700 form -FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE:

A) 29831 Machado St, Lake Elsinore 92530.- Missing case numbers in public access RIC462128 RIC462138 FAM162669 RIC325938- Found in BK courts 09-12027 – LE31888JC Title research confirming past owner. DEUTSCHE BANK

B) 7 Cartagena, Aliso Viejo CA 92656 - BK 2:11-BK-26865 – DEUTSCHE BANK

C) 1043 Via Canada, San Dimas 91773 - Missing case numbers in public access RIC325938. Found in BK courts 3:00-bk-05405- DEUTSCHE BANK

D) 10 Willowood, Aliso Viejo 92656 – Title History Blocked

E) 3939 Ellis St, Corona 92879 – Case 285217CM Case 70900RJCM- Missing case numbers in public access COC010827 - BK 6:09-bk-37932

This would suggest the Witness awareness and involvement of REO activities at the court. The DRE has moved this to an investigator.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE COURTS

This information has now been turned over to the DRE, FBI and DOJ by Plaintiffs ADA advocate for further investigations of wire frauds upon title.

This information has been submitted to the Federal Court of California For the Los Angeles Central District MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT for case Number 2:16-cv-02360-TJH-(KKX) which also shows surveillance footage of Amy Alvarez – and agent for First Team – approaching Defendants home after an denied injunction hearing at these courts in December, 2016.

Defendant Objects to problematic nature of collaborative influence over these proceedings.

Defendant is doing her best to expedite this matter for record in the event Opposing council attempts to engage defendant in double jeopardy and unclean hands though artful pleading and advantaging the civil codes to succeed in depriving Defendant of her due process rights.

Defendant incorporates her arguments within Defendants Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgement in Objection to Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgement. Defendant filed her motion first after confrontation with these courts intake- whom were refusing to take Defendants motion by claiming Defendants attorney was never removed from the case. Objection attempted Obstruction.

Defendant Objects to this case moving forward and requests dismissal with prejudice.

Under the American with Disabilities Act – if a party is deprived equal access to due process of law, the following causes of actions applies. 42 U.S. Code § 12202 - State immunity

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (See Public Laws for the current Congress.

A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in [1] Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.(Pub. L. 101–336, title V, § 502, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 370 )

Defendant is a volunteer Federal Witness of ongoing crimes in the Inland Empire to which she notated as such in her Federal Question. Defendant worked for Wells Fargo – the master servicer of the THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATIES SERIES 2007-OA4.

Defendant worked for Countrywide during their acquisitions to BAC Financial then to Bank of America. At this point Plaintiff would need to verify that Countrywide is NOT listed as the Originator of the THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATIES SERIES 2007-OA4 to avoid claims in retaliation. Plaintiff would need to verify that Bank of America was the previous servicer to HSCB to avoid claims in retaliation.

42 U.S. Code § 12203 - Prohibition against retaliation and coercion (a) Retaliation

No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.

(c) Remedies and proceduresThe remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III, respectively.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title V, § 503, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 370.)

Defendants 1st Amendment Answers - in and of themselves, were in furtherance of justice and would not prejudice Plaintiff. This Court, therefore, should have granted leave to amend as the amendment Defendants answers, as they were provided concurrently as to not waste court time in these proceedings. The unheard motion in hereby incorporated in these objections.

DEFENDANT HOLDS A 2009 ACKNOWLEDGE TILLA RECISSION BY NON-BANK SERVICER AND PAST SERVICER/ EMPLOYER- THOUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DANIAL DELEON IN 2015, WHICH NOTATES AWARENESS OF THE EXISTACE OF A PREVIOUS RECISSION AND FURTHER EVEDENCES HERESAY BEING ACCEPTED AS “MATERIAL FACTS” .

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

Defendant FAITH BRASHEAR states that she:

1. Denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the complaint.

2. Admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint.

3. Admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint.

4. Denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint.

5. Denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint.

6. Denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint.

7. Denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint.

8. Admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint.

9. Denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint.

10. Admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the complaint.

11. Admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #1

NON-APPEARANCE

Defendant alleges that, with regards to the prosecution of this particular case and action, the Plaintiff named in the caption will not make an appearance in this court and subject his/her/ or itself to cross examination and as a result plaintiff will deprive this court of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #2

INABILITY TO MEET BURDEN

Defendant rebuts the presumption that the plaintiff will meet its burden of producing evidence as to the existence of certain foundational and other preliminary facts that are disputed by defendant, the relevancy and admissibility of which plaintiff's proffered evidence depends on, such as;

1. In the act of execution and notarization of the document titled TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE dated 08/26/2016and recorded on 08/29/2016 as instrument number 2016-0371978[1] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County,bears the authentic signature of ADRIANA RIVAS

a. THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC. was actually a licensed entity in good standing with authority to do business in this state;

b. ADRIANA RIVAS was actually employed by THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC.;

c. THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC. actually gave ADRIANA RIVAS authority to execute such TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE ;

d. R. MANLULU notary public was actually a person authorized to do business in this state;

e. Before R. MANLULU notary public, ADRIANA RIVAS was in fact a duly authorized person, who actually acknowledged that he/she/ executed such TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC., executed the instrument.

2. In the act of execution and notarization of the document titled SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE dated 10/02/2014, and recorded on 12/22/2014 as instrument number 2014-0488543 [2] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County,

a. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS FOR THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-OA4 was actually a licensed entity in good standing with authority to do business in this state;

b. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS FOR THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-OA4 was actually the beneficiary under that certain DEED OF TRUST dated 05/02/2007, and recorded on 05/14/2007 as instrument number 2007-0319880[3] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County;

c. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION was actually trustee for THE HOLDERS FOR THE DEUTSCHE ALT-A SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-OA4;

d. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC was actually servicing agent for HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;

e. AMI MCKERNAN was actually second vice president for SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC;

f. AMI MCKERNAN was actually employed by SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC;

g. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC gave AMI MCKERNAN authority to execute such SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE ;

h. DEDRA KAY DEE notary public was actually a person authorized to do business in this state;

i. Before DEDRA KAY DEE notary public, AMI MCKERNAN was in fact a duly authorized person, who actually acknowledged that he/she/ executed the SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC executed the instrument.

3. Whether in the act of execution of the document titled NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE dated 03/24/2015, and recorded on 04/01/2015 as instrument number 2015-0131372[4] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County,

a. ADRIANA RIVAS was actually employed by THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC. or its authorized agent;

b. ADRIANA RIVAS was in fact authorized to execute the NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE ;

4. Whether in the act of execution of the document titled NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL dated 12/20/2014, and recorded on 12/22/2014 as instrument number 2014-0488544[5] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County;

a. RYAN REMINGTON was actually employed by THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM PLC.;

b. RYAN REMINGTON was in fact authorized to execute such NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL;

c. AMY MCKERNAN was actually employed by SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC;

d. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVOCING LLC gave AMY MCKERNAN authority to execute the DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE attachment to the NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL .

5. In the act of execution and notarization of the document titled ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST dated 09/07/2011 and recorded on 09/16/2011 as instrument number 2011-0411709[6] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County,

a. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. was actually a licensed entity in good standing with authority to do business in this state;

b. MIGUEL ROMERO was actually employed by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

c. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. actually gave MIGUEL ROMERO authority to execute such ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST;

d. VICTORIA COOK notary public was actually a person authorized to do business in this state;

e. Before VICTORIA COOK, notary public, MIGUEL ROMERO was in fact a duly authorized person, who actually acknowledged that he/she/ executed such ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. executed the instrument.

6. In the act of execution and notarization of the document titled CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST dated 03/19/2012 and recorded on 03/20/2012 as instrument number 2012-0129567[7] of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County,

a. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING LP was actually a licensed entity in good standing with authority to do business in this state;

b. LORYN STONE was actually employed by BANK OF AMERICA N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING LP;

c. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING LP actually gave LORYN STONE authority to execute such CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST;

d. KENNY VILLAVICENCIO notary public was actually a person authorized to do business in this state;

e. Before KENNY VILLAVICENCIO, notary public, LORYN STONE was in fact a duly authorized person, who actually acknowledged that he/she/ executed such CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument BANK OF AMERICA N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING LP, FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING LP executed the instrument.

• “[W]here the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee’s sale, he or she ‘need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title.’ ” (Old Nat’l Fin. Servs. v. Seibert (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 460, 465.)

• “The statute” with which a post foreclosure plaintiff must prove compliance is Civil Code section 2924. (Seidell v. Anglo- California Trust Co. (1942) 55 Cal. App. 2d 913, 920.)

• The trial court erred when it found that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was sufficient proof that Bank acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter “duly perfected” its title. “[T]itle is duly perfected when all steps have been taken to make it perfect, i.e., to convey to the purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt, which includes good record title, but is not limited to good record title, as between the parties to the transaction. The term ‘duly’ implies that all of those elements necessary to a valid sale exist, else there would not be a sale at all.  (Kessler v. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 837, 841.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #3

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

• Defendant alleges that certain documents that plaintiff may mark for identification and either (1) request the court to take judicial notice of or (2) offer witness testimony on behalf of, are insufficient to support plaintiff’s claim that (1) the sale was conducted in compliance with Civil Code § 2924, (2) title was duly perfected in Plaintiff, and (3) that Defendant holds over and continues in possession of real property, which is the subject of this dispute, after proper notice to quit such property was served upon Defendant as prescribed by CCP § 1162, because secondary evidence of certain content of such documents is inadmissible in that such content (1) is hearsay (2) does not qualify under any exception to the hearsay rule (3) will not be supported by foundational preliminary facts, and (4) is irrelevant. Furthermore, as held in StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 499, 457, fn. 9 “When judicial notice is taken of a document… the truthfulness, and proper interpretation of the document, are disputable.”

• Except for the deed of trust, Defendant disputes the authenticity, truthfulness, relevancy, personal knowledge and proper interpretation of each document referenced herein and further alleges that, (a) The proponent of the proffered evidence has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact, when: (1) The relevance of the proffered evidence depends on the existence of the preliminary fact; (2) The preliminary fact is the personal knowledge of a witness concerning the subject matter of his testimony; (3) The preliminary fact is the authenticity of a writing; or (4) The proffered evidence is of a statement or other conduct of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement or so conducted himself.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE #4

IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

Defendant alleges that she is a party to that certain Deed of Trust dated 05/02/2007, and recorded on 05/14/2007 as instrument number 2007-0319880 of the Official Records of RIVERSIDE County.

• The facts recited therein, are conclusively presumed to be true between the parties thereto.

• According to paragraph 22 of such deed of trust, the recitals in that certain the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale dated 08/26/2016 and recorded on 08/29/2016 as instrument number 2016-0371978 of the Official Records RIVERSIDE County, shall be prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements made therein.

• Defendant disputes the presumption of truthfulness of the facts recited in such trustee’s deed, because such facts are irrelevant and impossible of being conclusive evidence in favor of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer without notice.

• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. ( Article 1, Section 10, United States Constitution.)

Wherefore, having fully answered plaintiff’s complaint, defendant prays for relief as follows,

A. That plaintiff takes nothing by this complaint;

B. That the complaint be dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice;

C. That judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor and against plaintiff;

D. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit;

E. That if applicable, Defendant be awarded its attorneys’ fees; and

F. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Respectfully RE-Asserted

Dated: JUNE 20, 2017 ______________________________

FAITH BRASHEAR- Defendant

VERIFICATION

I, FAITH BRASHEAR, am the defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the above answer and know the contents thereof. The same is true by my knowledge, except if applicable, as to those matters that are therein stated on information and belief, concerning those matters; I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct as executed this _20TH_ day of JUNE, in the City of CORONA, County of RIVERSIDE.

______________________________

FAITH BRASHEAR- Defendant

-----------------------

[1] First chain of authority document necessary to support plaintiff’s claim that the sale was conducted in compliance with Civil Code Section 2924 and as a result, title was duly perfected in plaintiff.

[2] Second chain of authority document necessary to support plaintiff’s claim that the sale was conducted in compliance with Civil Code Section 2924 and as a result, title was duly perfected in plaintiff.

[3] Third chain of authority document necessary to support plaintiff’s claim that the sale was conducted in compliance with Civil Code Section 2924 and as a result, title was duly perfected in plaintiff.

[4] Fourth chain of authority document necessary to support[pic]_`ijk‘š›¦¿Áq u ~ † ’ ž   ¡ º Å Ç è '9:øðèàèØèÐàĸį¸ØðØèؤš?„ØðØyncnXh[5]O5?OJQJ\?ho;ü5?OJQJ\?h ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download