Complaint Review: Faithfinders Inc. - Littleton Nationwide

You are so wrong this company is CFE certified if you had half a brain these reports are false look it up call the cfe they are certified you are lucky they dont sue you and this site. Ed why dont you look it up and make a statment that the are certified. you wont becouse you are a crook also.

Dear Ms. Wooten: We are highly recommending Ms. Sandra Chrisman as a reliable, competent and skillfull private investigator whose background is impeccable. We have associated ourselves with Ms. Chrisman because of The Trinity Foundation's recommendation regarding some personal investigative work for us. If it wasn't for Ms. Chrisman and her expertise in this field, we never would have accomplished all of what she had produced for us. The quality and professionalism that Ms. Chrissman exhibits in her work will always give you 100 percent satisfaction. Ms. Chrisman does put in that extra effort to accomplish what is set out by her to do; even though more time may be involved than initially planned. In our opinion you will be very fortunate to have Ms. Chrisman assist you in whatever you employ her to do. Sincerely, Catherine and Christine Buda

Biblical Accountability Read the facts. Biblical Accountability The Bible clearly states that Christian leaders should be accountable both to the Word of God and also to God's people, whom the leader serves. Among the requirements Paul describes for a Christian leader are that he be 'blameless,' and 'of good behavior' (1 Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader must 'have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil' (1 Tim. 3:7). This does not mean that the Christian leader is simply good at covering up his sin. Christian leaders must display integrity and honesty -- they must prove themselves worthy of Christians' trust. The objections cited above against revealing a Christian leader's sin seem to imply that it is possible for one to have a valid Christian ministry or profession, and yet have a private life of corruption. However, the Bible explains that it is not possible for one's sinful conduct to have no negative effect on one's profession of godliness. Titus 1:6-8 summarizes the same qualifications for a Christian leader Paul gave in 1 Timothy 3, but goes on to condemn one whose says he believes, and yet whose works deny his profession of faith: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. The profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work (1:15-16). To attempt to combine immorality with godliness to produce spiritual fruit is completely contrary to scriptural teaching. In fact, Paul ranks it with 'profane and vain babblings' and warns Timothy to avoid 'contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge' (1 Tim. 6:20). In addition, Jesus openly rebuked Peter when Peter argued against Jesus going to the cross (Matt. 16:22, 23). Paul writes Titus that it is the responsibility of the church to hold the leader accountable for his sin: 'Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith' (Titus 1:13). Paul also commands Christians to rebuke sinning leaders publicly, 'Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear' (1 Tim. 5:20). Paul took his own advice, as recorded in Galatians 2, and publicly rebuked Peter 'before them all' (Gal. 2:14). If we neglect to uncover sin within the Church, we rob the Church of the integrity it should expect from its members. The Church becomes weak through compromise, and the leader becomes weak because of his or her immorality. Fallen leaders betray the trust of those they lead. Maturity in the Lord, which is an essential part of qualifying one for spiritual leadership, can be confirmed only by an established pattern of resisting sin and walking faithfully with God, family, and others. Second Thessalonians 5:21-22 commands us to 'test all things,' and Paul commended the Bereans for 'searching the scriptures' to test what he himself had taught them (Acts 17:11). The Christian whose life is characterized by truth telling must support spiritual leaders whose lives exemplify Christian maturity, and must hold those leaders accountable. If a Christian leader is chosen whose life is bound by immorality, the Christian has the obligation then to expose that sin publicly since the leader is public and his actions impact the church he leads. Fallen leaders damage the trust relationship established between them and their followers, a relationship mirroring the trusting relationship we are to have with the Lord. In addition, they break the trust relationship Peter tells us to have with the world; that is, we are to live so that even the world will note our trustworthiness and be unable to speak against us, but will, instead, glorify God (1 Peter 2:12). It is unethical for Christians to cover up for leaders who have achieved their position through false qualifications or stories, or who are living immorally. Can the Church claim a higher ethical standard than the world when we adopt a 'code of silence' worthy of the most pernicious organized crime conspiracy or even some suspected invisible satanic ring? Some people in society have a greater responsibility for honesty and integrity than others. This does not mean that it's less wrong for one person to lie than another, but a public leader has a greater responsibility because the consequences of his failure have greater ramifications. A lay person who has a mistaken medical opinion will not affect the lives and health of as many people as a doctor with a misunderstanding of medicine. An individual in a position of public trust surrenders his privacy regarding his suitability and trustworthiness. He has asked the public to trust him for specific reasons or qualifications. Those reasons and qualifications are open to public scrutiny. If the leader is trustworthy, they will withstand examination. If he is not, close examination will reveal their inadequacies. Christians who are committed to truth must preserve this fundamental right and obligation to know in whom they are asked to trust. The examples of Jesus and his disciples' commitment to truthfulness and integrity gives us our model for investigative Christian journalism and for holding our Christian leaders accountable. If we do not expose false testimonies and revisionist histories, especially when they are propagated by Christians, then all truth claims and all historical knowledge comes into doubt. We can have no certainty of the truth of Christianity or the objective reality of the resurrection. In the first century, the apostle Paul could claim that the resurrection 'was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26). Should Christians be so careless with the truth that we need to hide our corrupt leaders 'in a corner' to preserve the faith rather than speak the truth and call those corrupt leaders to repentance and reconciliation? God forbid!

Natalie sorry but your childeren are not underage and you need to pay the judgement we will not stop until you are in jail or have paid the judgement. You cant threaten us like the budas we will not stop and you will be stopped. Say hi to Eva lately?

This fraudulent business is now harassing the elderly in states that they do business; Oklahoma, Arizona & Colorado. It doesn't stop there; they have posted pictures of underage children only to get back at the parents on their website. They need to stop their sickness. This stems from not being able to get their father's body exhumed to blame an elderly person. They have tried four times and it only frustrates them all the more. It won't be granted because there is nothing to charge anyone with; he died of a heart attack caused by this family who deals into drugs, etc.

'IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Lynn, as personal representative for the estate of Stickel, Plaintiff, vs. Johnny L. Chambers; Natalie A. Chambers; Tatjana Guenther, Defendant. No. CV 99-2189-PHX-MHM ORDER Presently pending before the Court are two letters from Defendant Tatjana Guenther. The first letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Vacate the Judgment (Doc. 40). The second letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Remove the Case (Doc. 42), however this letter looks like a continuation of Defendant's request to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff has filed a Response. The Court considers the papers submitted and issues the following Order. BACKGROUND This lawsuit was filed on December 14, 1999. Defendant Tatjana Guenther was personally served with a summons and complaint on May 14, 2001. Judgment was entered against all Defendants, including Ms. Guenther on April 5, 2002. Defendant Guenther's now requests to vacate the judgment based on the following: (1) it is unfair that she has been subject to post-judgment collection efforts in Oklahoma, and - 2 - (2) Jeff and Sandy Chrisman, who are not parties to this action, are persons whose character Ms. Guenther questions. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. DISCUSSION Initially, the Court notes that Defendant Guenther did not serve the instant Motions on the Plaintiff. This is in direct violation of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant is directed to serve on the Plaintiff any further documents that she files in this case. Defendant also is warned that failure to serve documents on the Plaintiff will not be looked upon kindly by this Court. Over five years have passed since entry of judgment in this case. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 60(b), any request to vacate the judgment for reasons (1), (2) or (3) of Rule 60(b) is untimely. Ms. Guenther has not suggested a basis under reason (5) that the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged. Thus, Defendant's Motion must be considered under reason (4) that the judgment is void or under reason (6) that other reasons justify relief from the operation of the judgment. A judgment is void only if the court that rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction over either the subject matter or the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due - 3 - process of law. In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Ms. Guenther has made no showing of any facts to suggest that the judgment here is void. To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which prevent or render him unable to prosecute [the case]. Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971). The party must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from proceeding with the defense of the action in a proper fashion. United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Ms. Guenther's primary issue with the judgment seems to be that the judgment from this Court was registered with the United States District Court in Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1963. Ms. Guenther also takes issue with the alleged post judgment conduct by persons who are not parties to this lawsuit. Ms. Guenther states that the reason she did not file any sort of responsive pleading in this case was because she had just moved out of Tulsa, Oklahoma and was going on a missionary trip out of the country and firmly believe that [she] was innocent. . .Def.'s March 26, 2007 Letter to the Court. These assertions are not grounds for vacating the Court's judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Defendant has not demonstrated injury and circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from proceeding with the defense of this action. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Judgment is denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's letter construed as a Motion to Vacate the Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's letter construed as a Motion to Remove the Case (Doc. 42) is denied. DATED this 10th day of July, 2007. Case 2:99-cv-02189-MHM Document 44 Filed 07/11/2007 '