AL HARVEY ALQUAN, QUOENE HARVEY, YOU GOT FUNDING, CORPORATE EQUITY LLC, FUNDING SOURCE, FRAUD, GOING TO JAIL, ATHEIST, NAPERVILLE Illinois

Legal Notification is Hereby Given To: the formentioned parties above, 24 hours has come and gone and as of this date 11/05/2013   the defaming, slanderous statements contained herein have not been removed and or amended. as stated in earlier public notice  we have identified the above mentioned  perpetraitors by there IP addresses and a email correspondence indicating there intended action. please see there obtained information below:

(1) Charlie Z Zayid (aka) Khalil Z Zayid (Aka) Faiza F. Zayid (IP Address Location) 7716 Greenway Blvd. Tinley park Illinois 60487 7025 Heritage Circle. apt 3A Orland park Illinois 60462 

 (2)  Mike Caraga (aka) khalil Z Zayid (aka) Esmeralda S. Ahmad (IP Address Location) 12872 S Parkside Dr.palos park Illinois 60464 , 5033 N Kennison Ave. Chicago illinois 60630 NMLS # 357852 EXPIRED NOT RENEW,

(3) Peoples Home Equity, Inc 5205 Marylandway suite 100 Brentwood TN 37027 (IP Address Location) 9501 West 144th Place orland park Illinois 60462

                                                                         (DBA)

(4) Vista Financial Bancorp, Inc. 16123 S. La Grange Road Orland Park Illinois 60467 (Attention Joeseph Messina)

 Please be advised this is the only notice that will be renderd for public view, all other notices will be served upon the defendents mentioned above.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2] Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[3][not verified in body]. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4] In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[5] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6] A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer". This notice is for the party mentioned above. please note that you have 24 hours to correct this report by removing all false statements that have not been proven,

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2] Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[3][not verified in body]. False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.[4] In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[5] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6] A person who defames another may be called a "defamer", "famacide", "libeler" or "slanderer". Please note: these are example's of the laws definition, as you can see your statements about a person have to be proven. this however will be an interesting case, the perpetrators have all but admitted this action in emails that are in our possession, so there is no need to subpoena rip off report. in other words the plaintiff did there homework.

How to prove libel[edit] There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[12] which is usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".[13] Defamation Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander. The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false. 

Defamation: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander. The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false. At. this point we have initiated an investigation into reveling who the true identity of the person that has made these false damaging defamatory statements, We have thus far obtained the ip address names and home addresses of the individuals involved as well. NOTICE TO ALL IF YOU CAN NOT PROVE IT DONT SAY IT IN PUBLIC. 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Slander[edit] The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action. "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[7] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.How to prove libel[edit] There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[12] which is usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".[13]