Complaint Review: Faithfinders - Colorado

For all who read these posts Faithfinders is CFE cerified and can testify in court Read all about what a CFE is and can do. Then go ahead and make your own judgement, these people are pissed off becouse faithfinders has a 1.5 million judgement on the chambers and gunther(and it keeps growing) for the budas and guenther it earns intrest...... No matter who they try and how much they try to discredit us the judgement still stands. No matter how many packets how much money they try to pay someone you cant run from they truth. PAY THE JUDGEMENT

To all who read this the postings here they are a bunch of lies faithfinders is legal and certified CFE(certified fraud examiners) this is a certification that is not easy to come by and is used by the FBI. All the other bull on this postin is done by indivduals that have it out for faithfinders(becouse they owe a 1.5 million judgement to faithfinders) faithfinders still has the website and feel free to look it up. So any other lies why dont you all contact them @ [email protected]

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 xxxx

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 xxxx

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 xxxx

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 xxxx

Race has nothing to do with it hate is only for scammers like you they will be caught and you will go to jail for the false postings harrasment and lies that you have told slander , deflamation and just being an all around mental freak. You will reap what you sow guenther, buda, chambers.......

hris and Cathrine Buda are liars they need mental help By all the postings it is all hearsay no one will listen to the lies they post. Faithfinders has a license and a judgement that they(Budas) have tried to help the Chambers, Guenther, get removed from the judgment they work for the Chambers and Tatajana Guenther (she looks like a man). They are evil twins and they have filed a report on thier own sister here! Read they other postings it is case law! This is the only thing they can do. They have been reported to the FBI and local law enforcemnt and if this keep going on they will be jailed for stalking! A Little back ground they have lied on this post they are working with the Chambers Natalie was a dance hooker, Johnny is a muderer, chris and catherine work for the state of az to futher the scams they pull, Tatajana is a sweathart scammer and ripoff. They are violent dangerous people they have a report in the FBI database on them all and a case is open on them. They try to set people up but everyone has been on to what they do. They file false reports to the police and then try to blame others for it. They make false accusation on people with no proof ( they doctor up proof) They claim someone said something that they heard(hearsay).They make false statments about people with no proof. They have done background and research on people with no findings.They claim to have been threatened and no proof. They claim to stand up to people.They side with the guilty. They have tried to get a child molester out of prison. They have dated said child molester. They make false claims about drugs and identity theft. They are into porn, drugs and child molesters. They all go hand in hand. They are into each other and all the postings show how very sick they really are.

Thsi is the only site that will allow thiese lies to be posted chris buda, natalie chambers, tatjana guenther, Johnny Chambers are all in this together they want to get off a federal judgment and cant this is forever and ever. here it is again. By the way looks like pibuzz took down your lying post and banned you like every other web site on the net!!!! 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 '

Thsi is the only site that will allow thiese lies to be posted chris buda, natalie chambers, tatjana guenther, Johnny Chambers are all in this together they want to get off a federal judgment and cant this is forever and ever. here it is again. By the way looks like pibuzz took down your lying post and banned you like every other web site on the net!!!! 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 '

Thsi is the only site that will allow thiese lies to be posted chris buda, natalie chambers, tatjana guenther, Johnny Chambers are all in this together they want to get off a federal judgment and cant this is forever and ever. here it is again. By the way looks like pibuzz took down your lying post and banned you like every other web site on the net!!!! 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 '

Thsi is the only site that will allow thiese lies to be posted chris buda, natalie chambers, tatjana guenther, Johnny Chambers are all in this together they want to get off a federal judgment and cant this is forever and ever. here it is again. By the way looks like pibuzz took down your lying post and banned you like every other web site on the net!!!! 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 '

The Chrisman's are not only abusive to the elderly, but to other much younger family members. Being abusive to each other is considered abuse to children. Posting pictures of underage children in a derogatory manner on their website only proves this is the case with him. Jeff Chrisman hates women so he abuses his own wife. He is a convicted spousal abuser and is considered very violent. The Chrisman's have called Ms. Guenther a n**i because she is of German decent and they dislike Germans even though their background is German. They state their genealogy is the only one acceptable to the world. The Chrisman's are members of a church called Haven Ministries who teach them to make racial/ethnic slurs against people who they choose to hate. This is called hate crimes and no one should do business with this family.

Not only is there abuse at Dubrul's church that has been reported; there is abuse at the Chrisman/Stickel/Brown families that was reported by Natalie. Since Jeff Chrisman is a convicted spousal abuser, he more than likely has abused other elders and there is the potential he has abused his own family members besides Sandy Chrisman. Debra Brown is in big trouble with HIPPA for reporting false information against Tatjana Guenther. Debra Brown has used Tatjana's social security number and made up a story that was printed in other newspapers. SHE NOW IS IN BIG, BIG TROUBLE WITH THE LAW!

C C wrote: PRAISE GOD. The devil is defeated. This will scare the pants off of them. I would love to tell the police/secret service that there was abuse at Dubrul's church and they will be hauled in to be questioned. What they did to Stan, they will get it, too.

C C wrote: PRAISE GOD. The devil is defeated. This will scare the pants off of them. I would love to tell the police/secret service that there was abuse at Dubrul's church and they will be hauled in to be questioned. What they did to Stan, they will get it, too.

C C wrote: PRAISE GOD. The devil is defeated. This will scare the pants off of them. I would love to tell the police/secret service that there was abuse at Dubrul's church and they will be hauled in to be questioned. What they did to Stan, they will get it, too.

C C wrote: PRAISE GOD. The devil is defeated. This will scare the pants off of them. I would love to tell the police/secret service that there was abuse at Dubrul's church and they will be hauled in to be questioned. What they did to Stan, they will get it, too.

According to Mr. DiB, you couldn't get to first base regarding daddy's bones to dig up. He wouldn't give you anything even though you threatened him. By the way, READ THE HEADLINES, READ THE PAPERS. It might even go so far as the TV stations. Your bullying postings don't phase me in the least. I am not afraid of an abuser like you are. I know you admitted your abusive ways to others. The court also has the posting. Another word of advice; rehearse your LIES, because no liar has a good memory. Since Natalie is your sister there will be no love at the end of the rainbow.

"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Lynn Stickel, as personal representative for the estate of Robert 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 "

The budas have no case and are mad at losing the rule 60b. Looks like no one is hidding anything you two think that you can pull anything out and that means anything. why dont you go crawl back under your rock and abuse your own family members Like you have on this site. End of topic YOU LOSE! LETS read it again! "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Lynn Stickel, as personal representative for the estate of Robert 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 "

Since you are an UNLICENSED PI, your testimonies are not valid in court. Licensed PI's do have an empathy for how you are treating and have treated the elderly, and innocent children. You are wannabe's who will never make it, because of your behavior: extortion, identity theft, etc. There are tons of evidence that goes to show you, The Scam Team, are just like the Chamber's who are doing the same thing. You have taken on their personna; if you can't beat them, join them.

Since you are an UNLICENSED PI, your testimonies are not valid in court. Licensed PI's do have an empathy for how you are treating and have treated the elderly, and innocent children. You are wannabe's who will never make it, because of your behavior: extortion, identity theft, etc. There are tons of evidence that goes to show you, The Scam Team, are just like the Chamber's who are doing the same thing. You have taken on their personna; if you can't beat them, join them.

Since you are an UNLICENSED PI, your testimonies are not valid in court. Licensed PI's do have an empathy for how you are treating and have treated the elderly, and innocent children. You are wannabe's who will never make it, because of your behavior: extortion, identity theft, etc. There are tons of evidence that goes to show you, The Scam Team, are just like the Chamber's who are doing the same thing. You have taken on their personna; if you can't beat them, join them.

Seems that this Scam Team is tormented with the possibility that they will have to lie on the witness stand when there is a very high volume of implicating evidence against them, i.e., identity theft, extortion, credit card theft, violence, drugs, porn web sites, slander/libel and posting of underage children on their website to retaliate against the parents. Bullying tactics won't work Sandy & Jeff Chrisman. People are laughing at your stupidity, inmaturity and infantile behavioral postings. Looks like no one really believes you since crying wolf is the game, but trying to cover up the skeletons in the closed. Just remember, when you go to court against someone, the skeletons will come out of your closet only to rattle their bones in your face.

The judgment is not up to $800,000 and if it is it will buy you a lot of tea bags that you can poison.

It would seem that Faithfinders, Inc -- The Scam Team and family members who have a history of drugs, identity theft, etc. would not want to appear in court. It just might get them arrested and they will stay for the night. On the other hand, why don't the Chrisman clan bring the poisoned tea bag you have lied about all these years.

It would seem that Faithfinders, Inc -- The Scam Team and family members who have a history of drugs, identity theft, etc. would not want to appear in court. It just might get them arrested and they will stay for the night. On the other hand, why don't the Chrisman clan bring the poisoned tea bag you have lied about all these years.

It seems that you are in big trouble with your bullying tactics. It just goes to show are the liar. Here is proof: Case Number: 00GS259260 CASE INFORMATION Status:CLOSE Trial Courtroom: Case Type: Violation Date:07/08/2000 Location:4023 W KENYON AVE Domestic Violence: Yes Date Filed: PARTY INFORMATION Party Type Last Name First Name MI Suffix DOB Party Status DEFENDANT CHRISMAN JEFFREY M 07/10/1964 Race Hair Weight Height Eyes Eyeglasses WHITE BLONDE 225 601 GREEN Attorney Number Attorney Name --------------- VIOLATION(S) Violation Description Points Disposition 38-71 DESTRUCTION PRIVATE PROPERTY DISMISSED 38-89 DISTURBING THE PEACE GUILTY 38-93 ASSAULT DISMISSED BOND INFORMATION SENTENCE INFORMATION Date Description Value Units Due Date COSTS Description Imposed Suspended CCWP/CTS Paid Due --------------- Total: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ACTION INFORMATION Date Crtrm Judicial Officer Action Dispo 05/11/2002 00:00 (CNV) PROBATION CONVERSION 09/15/2000 08:30 117M RETURN ON PSI 09/15/2000 00:00 117M CNV FINAL DISPOSITION 09/15/2000 00:00 DEAD JACKET 09/15/2000 00:00 117M FINE/COSTS TOTAL 08/21/2000 08:00 117M JURY TRIAL 07/28/2000 08:22 PROB PROBATION REFERRAL RECEIVED 07/24/2000 00:00 117M CNV DISMISSED W/PREJ 07/24/2000 00:00 117M PROTECTION ORDER CANCELED 07/24/2000 00:00 117M CNV GUILTY PLEA 07/24/2000 00:00 117M CNV CONTINUED 07/24/2000 00:00 117M CNV DISMISSED W/PREJ 07/09/2000 11:00 12T ARRAIGNMENT 07/09/2000 00:00 117M CNV COURTRM REASSIGNED 07/09/2000 00:00 12T CNV NOT GUILTY PLEA 07/08/2000 00:00 DEFENDANT JAILED 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV BOND GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV BOND GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV SENTENCE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV SENTENCE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV SENTENCE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV SENTENCE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV SENTENCE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP 01/01/2000 00:00 CNV FINE GROUP Action Minutes 09-15-00.BOND RELEASED COURTRM/117M. 07-09-00.BOND SET AT $ 750.00 COURTRM/12T. 09-15-00.COURT COSTS IMPOSED $ 18.00 09-15-00.COURT COSTS PAID $ 18.00 09-15-00.DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM ORDERED COURTRM/117M. 07-10-00.JURY FEE PAID $ 25.00 09-15-00.JURY FEE REFUNDED COURTRM/117M. 09-15-00.JAIL IMPOSED 365 DAY(S). COURTRM/117M. 09-15-00.JAIL SUSPENDED 365 DAY(S). 09-15-00.VICTIM ASSISTANCE SURCHARGE $ 11.00 09-15-00.VICTIM ASSISTANCE SURCHARGE PAID $ 11.00 09-15-00.PROBATION GRANTED COURTRM/117M. 09-15-00.SPECIAL CONDITIONS COURTRM/117M. 09-15-00.PROBATION COSTS IMPOSED $ 100.00 COURTRM/117M. 09-15-00.PROBATION COSTS PAID $ 100.00

You are the liars, bullies, and theives. It seems you are on everyone's sob list and it keeps growning. Everyone from New York to California knows what you are up to. Abuse runs in this family and so do the drugs, identity theft, and violence. You are trying to cover up your crimes against the elderly and it won't work. Abuse is abuse; any way you cut it. It remains to be seen who sees who in the courtroom. Will you be the one with the black eyes or broken arm from the abuse in your family? Be sure your skirts are clean because it will all come out in the wash.

Budas did you recieve your letter from Elder Angels you are in big trouble with all the lies you stated. WE HAVE PROOF AND A FEDERAL JUDGMENT IT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 800,000.00 and keeps growing nothing you can do KEEP TRYING TO PLAY ON PEOPLE AND PLAY PI. IT WONT WORK AND NOW EVERY PI IS ON TO YOUR SOB STORY! TELL THE CHAMBERS HI AND WE WILL BE SEEING THEM REAL SOON.

Budas did you recieve your letter from Elder Angels you are in big trouble with all the lies you stated. WE HAVE PROOF AND A FEDERAL JUDGMENT IT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 800,000.00 and keeps growing nothing you can do KEEP TRYING TO PLAY ON PEOPLE AND PLAY PI. IT WONT WORK AND NOW EVERY PI IS ON TO YOUR SOB STORY! TELL THE CHAMBERS HI AND WE WILL BE SEEING THEM REAL SOON.

Budas did you recieve your letter from Elder Angels you are in big trouble with all the lies you stated. WE HAVE PROOF AND A FEDERAL JUDGMENT IT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 800,000.00 and keeps growing nothing you can do KEEP TRYING TO PLAY ON PEOPLE AND PLAY PI. IT WONT WORK AND NOW EVERY PI IS ON TO YOUR SOB STORY! TELL THE CHAMBERS HI AND WE WILL BE SEEING THEM REAL SOON.

Budas did you recieve your letter from Elder Angels you are in big trouble with all the lies you stated. WE HAVE PROOF AND A FEDERAL JUDGMENT IT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 800,000.00 and keeps growing nothing you can do KEEP TRYING TO PLAY ON PEOPLE AND PLAY PI. IT WONT WORK AND NOW EVERY PI IS ON TO YOUR SOB STORY! TELL THE CHAMBERS HI AND WE WILL BE SEEING THEM REAL SOON.

'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 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 '

It looks like this business has no business being in business. They have brought such embarassment upon themselves that they are the laughing stock of Littleton CO. They think that bullying is the only way to go. The Elder Angels also think that they are doing business there for a reason and that reason is FRAUD. One of these days their abusiveness towards the elderly will stop by being caught and maybe they will get the same bullying.

It seems that the Faithfinders, Inc., -- The Scam Team is trying to get out of the 100 pages of evidence filed within the courts. It looks pretty bad for them. In fact, they are in deeper trouble then they think they are. Their continual postings are evidence for the police, FBI, FTC and the law enforcement in four states. All the evidence points to drugs, identity theft, elder abuse, porn, posting of underage children on their website, etc. This frivilous judgment hasn't even been heard in the court and anyone can file a claim for something. It doesn't prove a thing, but the EVIDENCE is a different story. This time the story will come from the one's who know and will be plastered all over the newspapers, radio & tv media. No one is afraid of these cons and scammers and no one will bow to them. The evidence strongly points and reinforces their bullying and threats. Their display and tantrums suggests they can't stand it. Then again, their brains have been fried by years of drugs and abuse. That is the only behavior they all know.

Read it again we will stand up to you that is a legal right! Nothing but the facts. Chambers and Budas are in this together. Religious affinity fraud is on the rise and this Chambers judgment is a classic case. They have been trying to get out of the half million plus dollar judgment since it was exposed on television. The judgment clearly states that it is CIVIL FRAUD. Why didn't they just show up during the time they were suppose to and they could of plead their side. Now they are going around slamming these people that exposed them. The truth is obvious, their is a federal judgment. It looks like the lady (Guenther) who tried to get out of the judgment was denied in both Oklahoma and Arizona after the federal judge as much said her tactices were not fondly looked upon in his court. She tried to manipulate the court like she is used to in scamming people but it was denied.

From what we can see there are no false reports filed; only the truth. The FBI, FTC and Attorney General's in four states have a file on Faithfinders, Inc. -- The Scam Team, Also, there are police reports filed in each state to alert them as to a potential violent situation with the Chrismans/Stickels/Brown families. Faithfinders, Inc is not licensed to do business as a collections and judgments business. They are a rogue company. There are 100 pages of documents filed in the courts (Arizona & Oklahoma) that will reflect the truth as to the scamming that is being done. There is proof as to elder abuse that is being committed and harassment of this elderly woman. There is an endorsement from the Elder Angels to proceed with any and all legal/police action that is necessary. No one will bow to this kind of abuse from you and there is protection. Only fools will keep it up. Your infantile and very sick postings only suggest that this is true. There is very valid evidence to the drugs, violent behavior, porn emails sent, and identity theft from these family members. You are being stood up to, and there will be zero tolerance to your abusive and threatening actions.

You two need serious mental help all the false reports will land you in jail look up the law false reporting is a crime. The great thing about this is the FBI has a case file open on all of you, chambers, guenther and budas. No crying wolf this is the real deal. They know if anything happens guess who is going to jail.

This business does not need to be around the elderly and children or anyone thinking that they might want to do business with them Debra Brown a family member of this Scam Team is in the health care field and has the potential to harm an individual young or old. She has gained confidential information about a person because she works in the field and has access to it. Bullying an individual is their game and they think all will back off to please them. Not so. These cons publish lies to get the attention of law enforcement that that their case is more interesting.

More than likely, Jeff & Sandy Chrisman and all of the Scam Team will be doing the time in jail. You are violent people and like to bully children and elders. You are the LIARS and there are 100 pages of proof. Some of your Scam Team members are into drugs, violence, selling & transporting drugs, extortion and identity theft and sending porn emails to carry out threats. Everything that has been posted is for the well being of the consumer so they don't get hooked into Faithfinders Inc. You are now harassing an elderly lady and this must make you feel good. We will defend ourselves against bullies like The Scam Team. Threats like you are making is harassment. You are the one who has a criminal background and has been reported. Grow up and act like an adult, but on the other hand your brain has been fried.

The budas are stalking faithfinders and this is fact. They have been reported the law enforcement and will be going to jail. Keep posting budas.

It would seem that this company is slinging mud because they are into drugs and there is proof. I found out that they hide behind a church called Haven Ministries, CO. Nuffstuff4 DOES have reportings of fraud to the BBB, FTC and law enforcement agencies. Check it out Scam Team. This only goes to show you are not a legit PI business and haven't thoroughly done your research. Faithfinders, Inc - The Scam Team has notorious criminal activity and are trying to use it to silence the people who know. They are trying to blame murder on an innocent woman, but there is proof that this business will post underage children pictures and try to smear their parents. They need to be investigated by Catch a Predator. They are very dangerous people.

Here is another member of the Scam Team's (Debra Brown) ex-con husband who is into drugs. The Scam Team associates themselves with druggies. Case Information Case Type Criminal Location Southeast Party Information Party Name - Number Rel Sex Attorney Judge Case # State Of Arizona - (1) Plaintiff William Luther Potter - (2) Defendant Male Pro Per Gaylord CR1999-090819-A Clerk Of The Court - (3) In The Matter Of (IMO) Determined To Be Case Documents Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party 1/27/2000 022 - ME: Order Signed - Party () 1/27/2000 1/25/2000 11:41:00 AM CRR - Criminal Restitution Order - Party (A) 1/25/2000 11:41:00 AM NOTE: This docket was added by the conversion for a judgment 1/21/2000 116 - ME: Dispo-Revoke/Terminate - Party () 1/21/2000 1/4/2000 NRR - Notice Of Rights Of Review - Party () 1/13/2000 NOTE: POST CONVICTION RELIEF 12/29/1999 112 - ME: Revocation Arraignment - Party () 12/30/1999 12/21/1999 BWA - Bench Warrant - Party () 12/28/1999 NOTE: 12-10-99 6/28/1999 PVW - Probation Violation Warrant - Party () 6/29/1999 4/1/1999 109 - ME: Sentence - Probation - Party () 4/8/1999 3/26/1999 11:04:00 AM TCP - Terms & Conditions Of Probation/Money Ordered - Party (A) 3/26/1999 11:04:00 AM NOTE: This docket was added by the conversion for a judgment 3/26/1999 PSR - Presentence Report - Party () 3/30/1999 3/26/1999 LET - Letter - Party () 4/6/1999 3/26/1999 NRR - Notice Of Rights Of Review - Party () 4/6/1999 NOTE: TO POST CONVICTION RELIEF 3/9/1999 102 - ME: Waiver Prelim Hrg/Plea - Party () 3/16/1999 2/25/1999 INF - Information - Party () 3/3/1999 Plaintiff(1) NOTE: CNT I POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CNT II POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 2/19/1999 COM - Complaint - Party () 2/23/1999 NOTE: CT 1: MARIJUANA - POSSESS,GROW,PROCESS CL 6 FEL; CT 2: POSSESSING DRUG PARAPHERNALIA CL 6 FEL; DOC: ON 02/07/1999 CR9900201FE 2/19/1999 BIN - Bindover - Party () 2/23/1999 NOTE: RELEASE ORD: BOND $1,200 WPH/ARR: 02-17-1999/03-01-1999-PIA: 02-07-1999 DEF ATTY: CLIFFORD I LEVENSON PD!; TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION-------------------------BEGIN SUPERIOR COURT PLEADINGS-------------------------

to a sick sister trying to ruin a business to whom it may concern: the above so called rip off is not true. christine from phoneix neglected to tell your her last name is buda. this is nothing more than a family dispute. christine is one sick person, always has been, that thinks she is some kind of controller. I cannot believe that a so called sister, would try to ruin a business or notify all the deparments she stated she did. I think christine has a personality disorder. Nuffstuff4 is a very honest business, and has had no shady dealings nor had any promblems with any goverment local or federal. christine needs to get a life and quit being a vengeful person that cannot be in control. she needs to not work for the state arizona with all the time on her hands that she can come up with family garbage,and try to hurt somones business. shame on you sick christine.

Here is a printout of another Stickel/Brown family member who is into drugs, etc. It just validates what this family is all about -- ABUSE & DRUGS. Case Number: S-0700-CR-2005014066 Case Category: Unknown Case Title: St of AZ Vs. Emily Brown Court: Maricopa County Superior Judge: UNKNOWN Filing Date: 10/24/2005 Disposition Date: Party Name: EMILY MAUREEN BROWN Party Type: D 2 - DEFNDT/RESPNDT Date of Birth: 04/24/1985 Count 1: MARIJUANA VIOLATION Disposition Date: Disposition: Count 2: DRUG PARAPHERNALIA VIOLATION Disposition Date: Disposition: Count 3: DANGEROUS DRUG VIOLATION Disposition Date: Disposition: Party Name: UNKNOWN Party Type: P 1 - PLNTIF/PETITNER Date of Birth: Event Date Event Description Party 12/15/2005 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated D 2 12/2/2005 REC - Receipt D 2 11/30/2005 SAS - Summons & Affidavit Of Service D 2 11/29/2005 Initial Appearance P 1 11/29/2005 Initial Appearance D 2 11/28/2005 SUM - Summons D 2 10/24/2005 DCO - Direct Complaint D 2

Sources at PI magazine have indicated the Chrismans/Stickels/Browns are being investigated because of their abuse, threats and extortion maneuvers. YOU ARE THE BUSTED ones on this website. There are rewards for turning in frauds and cons and that was done. PI magazine knows how sick the Chrismans are and how abusive to others including their clients. They did not confess to PI magazine what they have been up to. It is coming out.

Question: Have the Chrisman's lost their job yet? Since Jeff Chrisman works for Hewlett Packard and this is the second case of an employee working there, an unlicensed PI and from Littleton CO who scammed others using and selling social security numbers. He was convicted of identity theft. The Scam Team is none other than Jeff & Sandy Chrisman, Debra S. Brown a/k/a Glick, Potter, Hildebrand-Brown. Has she lost her job yet because she is a respiratory therapist who had motive to do Bob Stickel in and give out HIPPA information. Your genealogy is not impressive at all.

You sir, or shall I address you for whom you really are, Chris and Catherine Budda, i.e., the Chambers gang. You lost AGAIN! Another place for your employers, to see your slanderous remarks. Did you get another job or is this one of your pals at the work place computer. Oh that's right, you get your money from fraudulently finding sweetheart victims. Your rhetoric is too repetitive and full of holes. Find another forum. You're busted here. Please see whom Bob, Sharon, and Jack represent in the links below. http://www.straightshooter.net/TulsaWorldJohnnyChambersService.htm http://scottsdaletimes.com/apr07-feature1.asp The Faithfinders, AKA, Scam Team found the evidence of the Chambers Fraudulent Activity and are advocates and supporters of others who have fallen victim to Religious Affinity Fraud. Read about it in PI Magazine.

You sir, or shall I address you for whom you really are, Chris and Catherine Budda, i.e., the Chambers gang. You lost AGAIN! Another place for your employers, to see your slanderous remarks. Did you get another job or is this one of your pals at the work place computer. Oh that's right, you get your money from fraudulently finding sweetheart victims. Your rhetoric is too repetitive and full of holes. Find another forum. You're busted here. Please see whom Bob, Sharon, and Jack represent in the links below. http://www.straightshooter.net/TulsaWorldJohnnyChambersService.htm http://scottsdaletimes.com/apr07-feature1.asp The Faithfinders, AKA, Scam Team found the evidence of the Chambers Fraudulent Activity and are advocates and supporters of others who have fallen victim to Religious Affinity Fraud. Read about it in PI Magazine.

You sir, or shall I address you for whom you really are, Chris and Catherine Budda, i.e., the Chambers gang. You lost AGAIN! Another place for your employers, to see your slanderous remarks. Did you get another job or is this one of your pals at the work place computer. Oh that's right, you get your money from fraudulently finding sweetheart victims. Your rhetoric is too repetitive and full of holes. Find another forum. You're busted here. Please see whom Bob, Sharon, and Jack represent in the links below. http://www.straightshooter.net/TulsaWorldJohnnyChambersService.htm http://scottsdaletimes.com/apr07-feature1.asp The Faithfinders, AKA, Scam Team found the evidence of the Chambers Fraudulent Activity and are advocates and supporters of others who have fallen victim to Religious Affinity Fraud. Read about it in PI Magazine.

You sir, or shall I address you for whom you really are, Chris and Catherine Budda, i.e., the Chambers gang. You lost AGAIN! Another place for your employers, to see your slanderous remarks. Did you get another job or is this one of your pals at the work place computer. Oh that's right, you get your money from fraudulently finding sweetheart victims. Your rhetoric is too repetitive and full of holes. Find another forum. You're busted here. Please see whom Bob, Sharon, and Jack represent in the links below. http://www.straightshooter.net/TulsaWorldJohnnyChambersService.htm http://scottsdaletimes.com/apr07-feature1.asp The Faithfinders, AKA, Scam Team found the evidence of the Chambers Fraudulent Activity and are advocates and supporters of others who have fallen victim to Religious Affinity Fraud. Read about it in PI Magazine.

There seems to be another Stickel/Chrisman relative that is into drugs, etc. These postings by Faithfinders, Inc. only goes to show that they want the attention off of themselves and the illegal & fraudulent activities that they engage in. A judgment does not prove anything and in this case it shows that these cons have a voracious appetite for money to buy more drugs. There is evidence to show that extortion by the Chrisman's has taken place against an elderly pastor, drugs run rampant in this family, money was legally given by Bob Stickel to various pastors in Arizona and now the Chrisman's have gone so far as to try and extort it back, posting of underage children on their websites in a deragatory manner, porn emails sent to witnesses, court evidence of identity theft by Faithfinders, Inc., evidence that this business does illegal background searches, evidence that this business advertises that they are a collections and judgment business (not so since they are not licensed in Colorado or anywhere else), evidence that they advertise that they do legal and more on their website, court evidence of spousal abuse posted in the Colorado courts, motive and means that the Chrisman/Stickel families had something to do with their father's death and now are trying to accuse innocent people of the crime because they have a judgment and the death certificate clearly states he died of a heart attack, evidence that a tea bag that was contaminated by the Chrisman's was planted to accuse an innocent person and now it can't be found because it was given by the Chrisman's and not to the police but their lawyer. There is evidence that the police have suggested that the Chrisman/Stickel families take a lie detector test to see who is lying. These family and their other members need to be reported to all the states so no one can be scammed.

There seems to be another Stickel/Chrisman relative that is into drugs, etc. These postings by Faithfinders, Inc. only goes to show that they want the attention off of themselves and the illegal & fraudulent activities that they engage in. A judgment does not prove anything and in this case it shows that these cons have a voracious appetite for money to buy more drugs. There is evidence to show that extortion by the Chrisman's has taken place against an elderly pastor, drugs run rampant in this family, money was legally given by Bob Stickel to various pastors in Arizona and now the Chrisman's have gone so far as to try and extort it back, posting of underage children on their websites in a deragatory manner, porn emails sent to witnesses, court evidence of identity theft by Faithfinders, Inc., evidence that this business does illegal background searches, evidence that this business advertises that they are a collections and judgment business (not so since they are not licensed in Colorado or anywhere else), evidence that they advertise that they do legal and more on their website, court evidence of spousal abuse posted in the Colorado courts, motive and means that the Chrisman/Stickel families had something to do with their father's death and now are trying to accuse innocent people of the crime because they have a judgment and the death certificate clearly states he died of a heart attack, evidence that a tea bag that was contaminated by the Chrisman's was planted to accuse an innocent person and now it can't be found because it was given by the Chrisman's and not to the police but their lawyer. There is evidence that the police have suggested that the Chrisman/Stickel families take a lie detector test to see who is lying. These family and their other members need to be reported to all the states so no one can be scammed.

Faithfinders, Inc is the one lying and have posted pictures of underage children on their website to get back at people who they fraudulently file lawsuits. Even their own family members sue each other. Jeff Chrisman sends porn emails to elderly women and this coincides with his conviction of spousal abuse. He also was convicted of identity theft. I can vouch that the Chrisman's do illegal background searches and secure social security numbers. Sandy Chrisman has gone so far as to use this information to extort money from an elderly pastor in Arizona. Faithfinders, Inc crosses state lines to do business. They advertise that they are a collections and judgment business. This is farther from the truth. They are UNLICESED and cannot do business. They are involved with a church called Haven Ministries in Colorado and share all confidential information that they secure with the congreation. They exploit their victims and then accuse them of wrongdoings. There are other family members who join in their illegal activities. They live in Arizona and Washington.

'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 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 '

This posting is from Faithfinders previous website. What they profess to assist in, they are now scamming the public. Home Page Busted People Religious affinity fraud, background checks, field investigations, personal injury Faithfinders Private Investigations was started in response to a heinous crime commited aganist a man who was bilked out of $600,000.00. This was perpetrated by false prophets (profits) and a family who conned everyone and anyone into this ideal . It was a scam against normal people and we have set the record straight. People that don't have the knowledge to complete something of that magnatude, we are here. It took seven years of doing it by the book and now we can impart that knowledge to our clients to stop all the unjust and unfair biggot's that claim the police will help. That's just not true. We can help when they won't or can't! We specialize in all forms of Investigations, Background checks, field investigations, personal injury, expert witness, process service, location reports, intellectual property, due diligence, infidelity and finding hidden assets, lost people, friends, relatives. The internet claims to offer these services but can't complete the investagation. We can complete any search. (video, audio, electronic master on staff) References. Everyone of our customer's are satisified! Lawyer's to Housewife's!

Listed below is a document that shows Faithfinders, with their "new" trade name. This fraudulent company just recently is using "The Scam Team" trade name to post fraudulent information on various websites. Also, their team consists of other family members who are using confidential information secured by the Chrisman's. Summary ID Number: 20071182576 Trade Name: The Scam Team ------ True Name of Registrant: FAITHFINDERS Primary Residence or Usual Place of Business Street Address: Not Applicable Primary Residence or Usual Place of Business Mailing Address: Not Applicable -------------- Status: Effective Form: Corporation Formation Date: 04/13/2007 Expiration Date: Not Applicable Renewal Month: Not Applicable You may: View History and Documents Show Entity File a Document Set Up Email Notification