Luke: Photo of you with him from beginning of game that says he’s glad you found true strength
Guile: American flag jumpsuit costume
Ryu: Oro sash costume
Ken: The boat in the harbor (let’s you change cloths in it and play mini games)
DJ: Maximum pants cosmetic
Dhalsim: Ridable elephant mount
Honda: Sumo “fat suit” cosmetic
Blanka: Blanka Chan hat and Blanka Chan suit cosmetics
JP: Cane cosmetic and cat companion animal
Jaime: Unlocks herbal beverage buffing consumable at food/drink stands
Chun: texts you a video of her in a thong crushing a watermelon between her legs
Marissa: Gives you a huge hug and the flexing from squeezing causes her top to rip off and you see her bare, muscled tatties
Manon: Video of her making a baguette disappear (hint: she doesn’t eat it)
Cammy: a picture of her most recent colonoscopy so you can see all the way up her butthole
Kimberly: Level 3 supers you wearing nothing but headphones. Spray paint pattern is a heart instead.
Juri: feeds you spaghetti with her feet
Lily: varies depending on your countries laws
Gief: picture of him from Grindr completely oiled up Hakan style
The game is awesome by the way!
The engine blew in our 09 Vauxhall Astra - ding dong the witch is dead. I've hated this car since we got it 6 years ago. It always seemed to be in and out of the shop, had an ongoing oil leak that even after getting it fixed, seemed to come back, it caused me to fail my roadtest at one point because of a tail-light that was out (literally just after having been replaced). Not to mention, it was pretty ugly.
For the record, we live in Ireland (and don't want to import from the north) and our budget for a new-to-us car is €5 - €7.000 preferably from 2012+.
His uncle that sold us the Astra before is lending us yet another Opel product until we can get a car (or "buy this one!" which he wants €7k for). I believe he said it's a 2015 Opel Insignia.
I'd really, really like to avoid anything Opel and anything Vauxhall because it seems like this car has caused nothing but issues and has been pretty unreliable (which my husband seems to have conveniently forgotten somehow...).
How can I convince my husband that we should get something that doesn't suck so bad and what would a good recommendation be? I've seen plenty of 2012 Mazda 6s and 2013 Mazda 3s for sale. Are these any good? I'm pushing for a Mazda, Toyota or Honda.
Am I crazy in thinking Opel and Vauxhall are shite cars or is that just because of the experience I've had with the Astra?
If you decide to read this long post, please note that this is a very sensitive subject and that I am heart-broken, ashamed, and lost. I have been considering behavioral euthanasia for my 3-year-old Malinois for the past 6 months. I took in a puppy for foster back in March 2020 because shelter space was at capacity, and I had free time since I was remote. After a few weeks I decided to keep the puppy, whose name is now Tito. I had no idea what a Belgian Malinois was, but I quickly realized that he wasn't an ordinary pup. I sought out a working dog trainer local to me and we started doing daily boarding and 1-1 training sessions. My trainer has five Malinois (all in various sports such as Schutzhund/IPO and PSA) and she quickly noted that he was VERY nervy and was showing signs of fear-based aggression. Granted, he was a puppy, so I didn't think much of it at the time. I began learning about obedience, and the world of dog sport via LEERBURG, and took several classes on their website for conditioning, reactivity, and competitive heeling. I went headfirst into the world of dog training and sport, and quite honestly fell in love with it. My trainer said that although Tito was a nervous wreck, he didn't have enough drive for sport, but he had too much drive for a pet home. Nonetheless, I stayed consistent with training each day. I noticed a drastic change in behavior at around the 14 month mark. When I would get together with friends, Tito was OK (for the most part) when around their dogs. He would be slightly nippy, trying to herd them but no aggression or fear present. He became explosively reactive when around the same dogs so I took him to the Vet to get checked and rule out any health/medical issues. NO medical issues - so what's next? I told my trainer and she recommended that although it MAY not make a difference, we could try neutering. All of her dogs are intact and she usually advises against it but it was worth a shot. I was back and forth on the idea, until one day he got hold of one of our two cats and drew a little bit of blood (failed to mention that we have two cats in the home that he would chase). I have to manage him both outside of the home, and inside the home at all times. If he isn't in a place command, on the dogpacer treadmill getting his physical needs met, or eating, he is crated. After he attacked one of our cats, I decided to move forward with the neuter. No change. We began a behavior modification program with trazadone and Clomipramine. The trazadone was sedating but it didn't really help much else, while after about 6 months we did see a slight change with the Clomipramine ($250/month I might add). Tito's reactivity got so bad at one point, that he redirected on both my leg, and my fiancé's several times to where he punctured, drew blood, and eventually scarred our legs. Shame on us for not muzzling him from the get-go but you live, and you learn... Aside from being dog reactive, and redirecting on us during walks, he never showed aggression towards people UNTIL the 2-year mark.
INCIDENT #1: My fiancé and I were walking the dogs and had one of our friends who we were expecting waiting outside of our house. We greeted her, the dogs were neutral, and we all walked into the home together. I started prepping the dog's dinner while our friend was taking her shoes off at the entry way. Tito darted from the kitchen, straight to the entryway, and bit our friend's wrist. Thankfully he bit her watch, but it still punctured her wrist and scarred.
INCIDENT #2: A few months went by, and we had my fiancé's cousin and her friend staying with us for the weekend. We made it a point to keep Tito on our second floor, crated if they were around to avoid any potential events. I had him on a leash, muzzled, ready to take him outside for a walk when I said hi to the two girls staying with us. Tito didn't flinch and was neutral which was an unexpected surprise. While muzzled, we walked through the kitchen, and I decided to reward his neutrality with some treats. I then gave my fiancé's cousin and friend some freeze dried, and they fed him through the muzzle. At this point, I felt comfortable (shame on me) and I sat down on the couch and removed Tito's muzzle. The friend still had some treats and fed him - no issue. All was fine up until she stood up, to which he bit her wrist, drawing blood. Not severe by any means, but yet again I put another person in danger because of my naivety.
INCIDENT #3: This next attack was our tipping point as his bites have progressively gotten worse with each event. I was working in my office and had my golden doodle, and Tito next to me with the door closed. My fiance let me know that our friend (same friend was incident #1) was coming over WITH her 8 year old son. I told her that I would crate both the dogs upstairs while they were over to avoid any issues. I walked out of the office and closed the door so the dogs couldn't see our guests. I was chatting with our friend, and hanging out with her son while we waited for dinner to be done. I fell asleep on the couch (it was a 10 hour work day), and napped for about an hour with the dogs still inside the office. My fiancé didn't want to wake me since she knew I was exhausted, so she leashed both dogs and took them outside to go potty. The 8 year old was on his iPad in the living room while his mom was in the bathroom. My fiancé took the boys to the top of the stairs to get back into our house and had them in a sit-stay command to re-attach their leashes before entering our house through the kitchen. Tito broke command and my fiancé could not get his leash attached in time. Before you know it he pushes the door into the kitchen open and is running full speed to get to me (also has separation anxiety and needs to be near me at all times). In order to get to me on the couch however, he needs to pass the kitchen. As he is running through the kitchen, our friend's son is holding his iPad. Now, he knows that Tito had previously bit his mother, so he was TERRIFIED when he saw him running towards us. The son started screaming, with his hands in the air which at this point I woke up, jumping off the couch. Tito turned back around, and as he did the son threw his iPad at Tito. Tito latched onto the boy's thigh, biting him. Thankfully, as soon as he made contact, he immediately let go but the damage was already done. I picked up our friend's son, took him to the tub to clean/disinfect the bite which had two puncture marks (worse than any previous bite). We took him to the ER and thankfully the doctor said that it wasn't too bad and that it should heal in about a week or so. My fiancé and I were devasted. This poor boy was now traumatized due to our recklessness and inability to manage our reactive dog. My fiancé came into this relationship with (1) dog, while I had Tito and our golden doodle. She didn't sign up to live on eggshells and I commend her for all of her support BUT I feel TERRIBLE that now none of her friends feel safe coming to our home. I spent about two weeks researching behavioral euthanasia and we were committed to moving forward with it in February of this year - until the guilt set in. A few months past, no incidents, until about Mid-March. INCIDENT #4: I already mentioned that I had Tito and our golden doodle (name is Archie) before I met my fiance. She already had a 7 year old Lab/Pit Mix named Jasmine so thankfully we were able to get all three dogs to peacefully co-exist (for the most part). Jasmine is an "old soul" and doesn't like any sudden movements or play while she's around - she has her quirks. I was letting all three dogs out in the backyard one afternoon (this was late March of this year), and decided to play fetch with Archie (golden doodle). Jasmine was waiting by the door to get back into the house as I threw the ball for Archie. In order to get to the ball, he had to run past Jasmine. Archie knows exactly how she would react, so he slowed down, and tip toed past her to safely get to the ball. In that moment, Jasmine turned around and attacked Archie, pinning him to the ground. As I am trying to remove Jasmine off of Archie, Tito comes in from left field and attacks Jasmine. All of this happened within a second and I didn't realize that there was any serious damage until we were in the house much later. Jasmine had a three-inch laceration on her under belly, exposing the muscle with the skin/fur nowhere in sight. We immediately rushed her to the ER to which she ended up having to get 14 stitches. For the record, she is fine now but still a terrifying sight. Yet another tipping point, but we still held off on BE.
INCIDENT #5: On Friday night (two days ago), I was letting the dogs out. Now let me preface by saying that the house we live in is a multi-family home where we live on the 2nd/3rd floor, while the first floor is its own apartment/unit. My fiancé's brother, his girlfriend, and their dog actually occupy this space, so we typically text each other when one of us needs to let the dogs out. We always make sure that the backyard is cleared before letting our dogs out to avoid any potential conflict/injury. I shot over a text and let them know that I would be in the backyard (it is about 10:30 pm, and it's DARK). Her brother acknowledged, and I even made a joke about how Tito was crazy because he spotted a rat in our backyard and chased it to the garage. All of a sudden, I hear their backdoor open and their dog Bronny comes towards us in a full sprint. The brother's girlfriend didn't know we were in the yard, as he told her right when she was opening the door. At this point it was too late. Bronnie and Tito have NEVER met aside from smelling each other's markings in the yard when the other isn't present. Before I could even visually spot Bronny (dark, brindle coat), Tito had his teeth around Bronny's neck. I was able to pry Tito's mouth off him, to which Bronny ran inside their apartment, however Tito followed suit. He got a hold of him AGAIN and I had to pry his teeth off, and sort of nudge Bronny away while I got a good grip on Tito (had no collar on so I had to get a good grip on his scruff). Bronny had peed all over himself, scared shitless. I took the boys upstairs to their crates, and came back down to check on him. The punctures weren't too deep and they said they would take him to the vet. I FEEL AWFUL. Although I gave them a warning that we were in the yard, it is my responsibility to keep everyone safe from our dog. Bronny, who is typically a very rambunctious, silly dog, turned on me earlier today when I said hi in the backyard by myself. He tried to bite me, and the brother had to pull him off. I am responsible for this dog's pain, fear, and trauma. Turns out Bronny's neck had swelled up, creating an abyss. They just got back from the vet, and he needed to be sedated so that they could drain the fluid. I feel so much shame and guilt and don't know if I could live with this happening AGAIN.
What more can I do? - Training, training, training, every single day (making sure his physical needs are met along with adequate mental stimulation) - Worked with several trainers, all of which concluded that this is just who he is - Lots of LOVE, PLAY, and more LOVE - Prong collar (no longer using as it makes his reactivity worse) - E-Collar (no longer using as it only amplifies his redirection) - Behavior modification in conjunction with medication - Has a daily routine and is given jobs
I don't know what else I can do - how can I continue to justify keeping him alive? He is my soul-dog, my best friend, my boy. He has so much love for us and can be the most amazing dog - until he isn't. He would be the greatest dog if it wasn't for his reactivity but what can you do? These were the cards we were dealt. I quite honestly believe that it all comes down to genetics and it is a uphill battle every day. Whoever decided to breed and produce Tito and his litter mates is a backyard breeding POS.
It kills me that I took in this sweet puppy, did everything I possibly could to give him a great life, and it still wasn't enough. It kills me that I am so irresponsible and selfish, that I decided to keep him alive after each and every bite incident. I feel so bad for my fiancé as she knows how hard this decision is for me and yet after everything that has happened, continues to support my decision to keep him alive despite all the pain he has caused us. I can't continue to make excuses for my dog. I can't keep walking on eggshells in my own home, putting the safety of our cats, other dogs, and neighbors at risk because I LOVE MY DOG. My love can't make him a stable, neutral dog.
The thought of taking him to the vet, watching him lay on a metal table breaks my heart. Having him look me in the eyes as he takes his last breath, thinking that we'll leave to go home any minute, brings me to tears. How could I fail this loving boy who would do ANYTHING for me? How can I walk out of the vet clinic with only a leash and no dog looking up at me like I am their whole entire world? This isn't fair. We will be booking an appointment for next Sunday. I plan on taking PTO from work next Friday and Monday so that we can have one last incredible weekend together.
If you have any ideas of how we can make the most of our time, please share. This is going to be the hardest decision of my life and I am not ready to lose my best friend. Thank you for listening.
Whatsup people. Barely getting into Honda groms. I see in socal that msrp ranges from 3,499 to 3,799 but idk how much the markup would be. Has anyone bought one in socal and if so would you mind saying how much you payed? Is there a big difference from standard models and abs?
Also are there substantial differences between the 2023 and 2022 models?
Any info is appreciated thanks🙏.
Hi, I'm 20M in Canada, 167cm/5'6, 59kg/130lbs fit, caucasian, no medical issues, healthy. Potentially around mold or dampness? (I already know the potential effects and issues, please stay relavent to the topic though thank you!) No drugs prescribed or otherwise. Very occasional and scattered vitamins like zinc, B12(?), collagen, cod liver oil and multi vitamins.
So probably around 2020 I noticed a groove in my right big toe nail (photo in comments). 2 or 3 mm wide spanning the full length of the nail. No damage or issue was present, it just showed up one day and has not gone away since. Probably 7 or so years ago the nail was ingrown on this same side of the nail but I hardly see that as relavent now. When it first came up it seemed like what I would guess was longitudinal melanonychia. It was a faint brownish line but that's since disappeared as the groove came in. It almost seems at the very base of the groove that it is still a bit darker in colour under the nail though, but I'm not sure. It seems benign and hasn't spread, but some very minor lines of roughness have showed up at times on some of the smaller nails. I haven't worries about that too too much though. No pain or sign of infection ever.
Nothing so far has worked to remedy it including hydrogen peroxide or mineral bath soaks, charcoal+caster oil and also caster oil on its own, even blue/red light therapy for a stint. The caster oil has been the longest treatment attempt going on for months, applying every few days, nothing has changed. I've looked at anti fungal topical treatments but never picked any up in fear of making something worse and they didn't seem like they would assist for this issue.
I've heard things like athlete's foot uses antibiotics or something to remedy? I have no idea, and I'm not saying this is the same but really I'm not sure at all. But I'd be willing to take something seemingly that drastic (at least to me) if it means avoiding surgery.
extra info/feelings:
2 doctors have seen me for literal seconds and turned me away saying I was fine... My local health line has been no help either. Extremely annoying as this is something I'm very self conscious about and it visibly IS a problem. I was referred to a podiatrist about it but it's $80 just to SEE one so I don't want to waste that money to be told I'm fine or worse that I need surgery. I'd rather find a solution or something to prepare before seeing a podiatrist. I'd rather pay for an otc treatment or something else to try at least before I go see one.
Anyways, over the months and years this has been worrying because it looks unsightly and gross, and occasionally the nail to the right of the groove with break off a bit, splitting down the groove, and become sharper or just having a higher chance to completely split down the groove. Not to mention the nail is weaker in that area and seems to have separated a bit more from the nail bed.
Also, sorry if this was posted twice? Seemed glitchy when I was uploading...
I am considering filing a lawsuit I wrote. Do you think this has merit?
The Plaintiff is the proprietor of two businesses, namely [*
], which is an electronic repair service, and [], an online retail business. Both of these businesses have a physical presence in [***].
In early 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented economic disruptions globally. Both of Plaintiff’s businesses, [*
] and [*], were heavily impacted by these disruptions and faced severe financial setbacks.
Given the distressing circumstances, the Plaintiff, in his capacity as a small business owner, applied for two separate EIDL loans under the provisions of the CARES Act in order to offset the economic hardships caused by the pandemic. It is important to note that the Small Business Administration (SBA) is responsible for the implementation and administration of these provisions.
On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff received a notification from the SBA, stating that the EIDL application for [****] had been approved. This approval entailed an Advance Grant amounting to $1,000.00 and an EIDL loan amounting to $1,500.00.
On June 16, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the SBA by signing the Loan Authorization and Agreement (LA&A) contract. Subsequently, on June 18, 2020, the SBA transferred the EIDL loan amount of $1,500 into the Plaintiff's personal bank account.
On June 25, 2020, the SBA initiated the transfer of the Advance Grant of $1,000.00 to the Plaintiff's personal bank account. However, this transfer was not successful and was returned to the SBA by the bank.
On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff was informed via an email from his bank that the deposit of $1,000.00 made by the SBA had been returned to the depositor. The bank attributed this reversal to a discrepancy between the name on the deposit and the name registered on the bank account. This happened despite the successful deposit of the EIDL loan amount on June 18, 2020, indicating an error from the SBA's end as no changes were made to the account details by the Plaintiff. Over the course of the two years, the Plaintiff repeatedly reached out to the SBA for a resolution to this problem, but his pleas fell on deaf ears.
Contrary to the treatment of the application of [*
], the EIDL application for [*] was denied by the SBA. Plaintiff received the denial notification on July 6, 2020, Plaintiff received an email From the SBA which contained a decline letter which stated, "Unfortunately, although we have made every effort to approve your loan request, we are unable to offer you a Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) for the reason(s) described below. Not Eligible: The SBA has been unable to verify the existence of an eligible business as reflected in the application. The SBA has been unsuccessful in our attempts to obtain documentation from multiple sources (public records) and we attempted to obtain documentation from you that would validate the existence of your business." Plaintiff disputes the SBA's claim to have "attempted to obtain documentation" from the plaintiff. The only time the SBA had reached out prior to the decline letter was On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff received a voicemail from the SBA asking Plaintiff to select a loan amount and submit for final approval.
On July 21, 2020, the plaintiff initiated contact with the SBA regarding the returned grant and the declined EIDL appliction. In a conversation with SBA Disaster Customer Service Representative Rossana M. Nuno, she explained her inability to provide case-specific advice or information. Instead, she could only offer general information about the program. The Plaintiff was informed that due to the depletion of funds, the Advance program had been terminated on July 13, 2020. The money that had initially been allocated to the Plaintiff for the Advanced Grant was no longer available. Plaintiff contended that this was a failure on the part of the SBA, that they had made a mistake sending the deposit and that it was their fiduciary duty to correct it. Nuno promise to make a note of it and notify her supervisors of the issue. The plaintiff managed to update their bank account details during this conversation in hopes that further errors would be avoided, and Nuno instructed the plaintiff to reach out to the Reconsideration Department for inquiries about the declined application and potential adjustments to the existing loan agreement At this stage, the plaintiff emphasized to Nuno that the applications were for separate business entities. Further she emailed the reconsideration instructions to both business entities.
On October 6, 2020, the plaintiff sent the first request for reconsideration letter to the SBA, attaching the documents as instructed by Nuno. The letter detailed the plaintiff's newness to business operations, the mistakes they'd made in financial and bookkeeping aspects, and the rectification of these errors. It also declared the filing of an Amended Tax Return for the years 2018 & 2019, which was still being processed by the IRS. The plaintiff included various supporting documents, including Business Bank information, State Identification, Driver's license, Social Security Card, Business registration with the Oregon Secretary of State, and IRS Form SS-4 assigning the business an EIN.
The SBA began a cycle of communication with the plaintiff from October 13, 2020, often requesting documents already submitted or requiring additional ones. Despite providing the necessary paperwork such as tax returns, Form 4506-T, and proof of identity, the SBA seemed to overlook the prior submissions and requested them repeatedly. This pattern continued until late December 2020, leading to significant frustration on the plaintiff's part.
On November 8, 2020, and several subsequent dates, the plaintiff sought to inquire about the status of their applications. However, these efforts yielded no responses from the SBA.
On January 7, 2021, the SBA responded with concerns about perceived discrepancies between the two applications, including different financials, number of employees, and Employer Identification Numbers (EINs), and the reported revenue. The plaintiff clarified that the applications were for two separate business entities with distinct financials, employees, and EINs. The plaintiff speculated that the SBA might have been misled by the similarity in trade names of the two businesses.
The plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the SBA's treatment escalated by March 2021. They composed a detailed letter of appeal on March 25, 2021, where they voiced their struggles, highlighted the separateness of the two businesses, and expressed their irritation with the SBA's repetitive requests for already provided documents. This letter also contained a plea for the SBA to take their case more seriously and to expedite the application process.
In a disappointing development on March 28, 2021, the SBA sent another email requesting more documentation. Many of the requested items were documents that the plaintiff had submitted multiple times in the past. Feeling helpless and dissatisfied with the SBA's handling of their case, the plaintiff turned to the office of U.S. Congress Member Kurt Schrader. They submitted a comprehensive summary of their ordeal, detailing the SBA's apparent disregard of their explanations, the repeated requests for documents, and their overall grievances with the SBA's treatment of their businesses.
On March 29, 2021, the plaintiff received an email from Alvin Klausen, a Field Representative from the Office of Congressman Kurt Schrader. In his email, Klausen requested further clarification on the issues at hand and asked for supporting documents to bolster the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff also received a somewhat reassuring email from Vanessa R., an SBA Customer Service Center Representative, acknowledging receipt of the plaintiff's documentation. She stated, "We have notated the file with the information provided. We forwarded your email and attachment(s) to our Processing and Disbursement Center for review and file association." Even so, the SBA continued to ask for documentation that they had already received.
Two days later, on March 31, 2021, the plaintiff sent another email to Alvin Klausen, this time detailing their grievances against the SBA. The email was a passionate plea for recognition and change, highlighting several key issues. These included perceived discrimination by the SBA against the smallest businesses, a 'delay and deny' tactic used by the SBA, and repeated requests for duplicate information that were both tiresome and confusing. The plaintiff also questioned the SBA's ability to manage information and records effectively, attributing their struggles to the organization's mismanagement. They expressed a desire for accountability and reform, making it clear that while they wanted their personal issues addressed, they also hoped for broader changes within the SBA to benefit all small businesses.
On April 3, 2021, the plaintiff was taken aback by an email from the SBA, which stated, "We have received multiple applications from your business for economic injury as a result of Coronavirus (COVID-19). Your earliest application will continue to be processed, and we have withdrawn application number *****1116 from active consideration." The plaintiff felt this statement was fundamentally incorrect, as they had applied for two distinct businesses, each with separate financials, employees, and EINs. They reiterated that both businesses were in operation before January 1st, 2020, and both had suffered economic injury due to Covid-19. The plaintiff insisted that according to the CARES Act, both applications were valid and deserving of consideration.
A promising development occurred on April 7, 2021, when the plaintiff received an email from Alvin Klausen, stating that a Congressional inquiry had been submitted on their behalf. This offered a glimmer of hope, indicating that their struggle was gaining attention at higher levels and might lead to some resolution.
On April 13, 2021, a communication came from the Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan Officer, Ayesha Babar. She requested additional supporting documents for the plaintiff's application, explicitly mentioning the application number *****0742. The language in the email underscored the urgent necessity for the plaintiff to complete a particular form, with a clear warning: failure to provide the requested Form 4506-T within a week could lead to denial of the plaintiff's aid request. This gave rise to questions about the SBA's policies, especially whether this time-constrained requirement was a standard SBA policy or the discretion of an individual loan officer.
Just a day later, on April 14, 2021, another email from Babar arrived. It sought further information to move forward with the loan modification process and, importantly, put forth a request for immediate communication, either via a phone call or an email response. The email contained an explicit timeline: a response was needed within two days, or else the plaintiff's request could be labeled as 'not interested'.
These interactions highlight the SBA's conduct, characterized by an exigency that seemed to border on the arbitrary, as per the plaintiff's perspective. From a seven-day deadline for document submission to a two-day ultimatum for a call-back, the SBA's approach was perceived as a high-pressure tactic. This conduct raised serious questions about the equitable treatment of loan applicants and the management of relief funds intended to support small businesses during the pandemic.
On April 15, 2021, the plaintiff was contacted via email by Anna Rose, an SBA Loan Specialist, who was appointed as an advocate for the plaintiff's case. Rose expressed her intention to address the plaintiff's increase request and suggested a direct phone conversation for further clarification on the outstanding issues.
A telephonic conversation between the plaintiff and Rose took place the same day, during which the plaintiff articulated the hurdles encountered in the reconsideration process. Rose admitted she hadn't previously reviewed the plaintiff's provided documentation or any prior emails related to the case, though she was aware of the congressional inquiry initiated on the plaintiff's behalf.
Throughout the discussion, the plaintiff reiterated multiple points, clarified the nature of their "Qualified Joint Venture" tax status as opposed to a 1065 Partnership, highlighted the separation of business entities, and raised several issues previously discussed with the SBA. The issue of the missing Advance Grant portion was frequently brought up by the plaintiff. Although Rose acknowledged this concern, she clarified her lack of involvement in the advance program and asked the plaintiff to be patient.
Rose, in her capacity as advocate, took on an advisory role, guiding the plaintiff through the process, and requesting various supporting documents, including the original 2019 Federal Tax Return, SBA Form 2202 Schedule of Liabilities, IRS Tax Form 4506-T, and a Partnership Agreement. The SBA appeared to be in a thorough review phase, trying to ensure that all the necessary documentation was in order.
A significant aspect of these interactions was the decision to request an updated 2019 Tax Transcript from the IRS. Rose, on April 20, 2021, indicated that the utilization of the amended tax return figures (as opposed to the original ones) could lead to a larger loan amount for the plaintiff. However, this move, framed by Rose as the goal, was made without explicitly providing the plaintiff an opportunity to make an informed decision or explaining the implications of such a request. It was clear that the objective of leveraging the amended tax return for a higher loan amount was initiated by the SBA, specifically Rose, and not the plaintiff. This suggests an attempt by the SBA to maximize the available support for the plaintiff, albeit with a lack of transparency in communicating the possible consequences and constraints.
As the discussions between the plaintiff and SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose progressed in April and May 2021, the focus remained on the plaintiff's amended tax return and the corresponding IRS transcripts, pivotal elements in the loan reconsideration process. In these communications, Anna Rose called for the submission of multiple forms, including IRS Form 4506-T.
A crucial point arose on May 6th, 2021 when Rose falsely reported to the Plaintiff that the IRS hadn't processed the plaintiff's amended tax return. This assertion was in direct contradiction to the plaintiff's records showing the return's adjustment, finalization, and subsequent payment.
Furthermore, when the SBA received Plaintiffs tax transcripts on April 23, 2021, and May 3, 2021, they both showed that the tax return had been processed. This fact was withheld by the SBA and kept from the Plaintiff. It would only be revealed in the Freedom of Information Act Request that Plaintiff acquired in 2022.
Rose then suggested that the plaintiff wait for the processing of the amended tax return before incorporating the amended gross revenue numbers. Plaintiff is told by Rose, "you can wait a couple of months until the amended tax return has been processed. This is the only way we will be able to go off of the AMENDED gross revenue." Plaintiff is told this despite having satisfied the requirements as stated by Rose on April 20, 2021, "This transcript should show that an AMENDED RETURN was filed. That's all the information that I need in order to use your AMENDED Tax Return figures."
Most notably, Rose informed the plaintiff of a policy that limits the resubmission of Form 4506-T to every 60 days or a couple of months. However, neither the SBA nor the IRS has an established policy restricting the submission of Form 4506-T to every 60 days. This alleged policy seems inconsistent with the Covid Relief Acts' guidelines and raises questions about its applicability and fairness. As a result, the invocation of this policy by Rose marks a significant point of contention in the loan modification process with the SBA.
On May 7, 2021, the plaintiff forwarded a screenshot from the IRS website confirming the completion of their tax amendment and questioned whether this would influence the decision.
Ten days later, on May 17th, 2021, despite the plaintiff's evidence, Rose indicated that the agency lacked confirmation that the plaintiff's amended tax return had been processed. The transcript's absence resulted in a significant discrepancy in potential loan amounts based on the reported gross revenue. Rose restated the need to wait 60 days from May 6, 2021, before reordering the tax transcripts.
The next day, the plaintiff was informed by Rose that their file had been forwarded to another department for assistance with the requested increase. This abrupt transition was given without detailed explanation, leaving the plaintiff uncertain about the next steps in the process. In response, the plaintiff voiced their frustration and confusion over the lack of clarity, and the perceived lack of assistance from the SBA.
Finally, Rose clarified that the plaintiff's file had been forwarded to the funding department to handle the increase request, citing that she had no control over this change. For any queries related to the advance funds, she directed the plaintiff to the customer service department.
On May 25, 2021, SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross communicated with the plaintiff via email, requesting further details about the partnership filing status on the recently amended Federal Tax Return. Ross specifically states that the loan modification could not be processed until there was clarification of his business's 1065 partnership tax status. This was despite the plaintiff having shared this information multiple times in prior communications with various SBA representatives.
In response, the plaintiff reiterated the pertinent details to Ross and sought a definitive list of remaining requirements to finalize the aid request. A phone conversation between the two provided an opportunity for the plaintiff to clarify multiple points around the amended tax return, the nature of the “Qualified Joint Venture” tax status as opposed to a 1065 partnership, separation of business entities and ownership, the completion of the tax return, among other issues.
Following this conversation, Ross sent a summary email presenting two courses of action: waiting for the IRS to process the updated tax transcripts or proceeding based on the existing application details. However, discrepancies arose in Ross' recounting of the conversation, primarily concerning the waiting period for tax transcripts, the establishment of a loan modification, and the plaintiff's interest in the Targeted Advance program. Contrary to the plaintiff's stated intent to proceed correctly with the loan process and accept a loan amount commensurate to their qualifications, Ross miscommunicated this as the plaintiff preferring to wait for the updated tax transcripts due to potential differences in loan amounts.
Additionally, Ross indicated that the SBA could create a loan modification based on the existing application data, while the SBA subsequently sent a decline letter for the loan modification on June 12, 2021. Moreover, Ross's assertion that the plaintiff showed interest in applying for the Targeted Advance program misconstrued the plaintiff's wish to address the issue of the returned EIDL grant.
In closing his email, Ross expressed enthusiasm to continue working with the plaintiff, but his actions did not align with these words. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to reach Ross through phone calls, messages, and emails went unanswered. Over a period of the next three months plaintiff would call and email Ross multiple times only to be completely ignored by Ross. This pattern of discrepancies between Ross's written statements and the actual actions of the SBA amplified the plaintiff's frustration and perceived mismanagement of their case by the SBA.
On May 28, 2021,the plaintiff received a communication from SBA Loan Specialist Dave Dubois, demanding additional documentation that didn't pertain to the nature of the plaintiff's business. These included requests for proof of an active insurance policy and board resolution providing authorization for the loan. These requests were glaringly irrelevant, considering the plaintiff operated without a board of directors and did not require an insurance policy to conduct his business. This demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding or consideration of the plaintiff's business model by the SBA.
A significant development occurred on June 12, 2021, when the plaintiff received an email from the SBA, attached with a letter dated April 3, 2021, stating that his request for a loan modification had been declined due to "Unverifiable Information." The letter claimed that during the loan underwriting process, the SBA encountered issues with the validity of some of the information the plaintiff submitted. The plaintiff was particularly perplexed because the decision to decline the loan modification was apparently made on April 3, 2021, but was only communicated to the plaintiff over two months later, exposing an egregious delay of more than two months in the SBA's communication. This decision predates the assignment of SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose as the plaintiff's case advocate.
Seeking clarification, on June 24, 2021, the plaintiff emailed SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross, attaching the SBA decline letter and the letter from Dave Dubois, and asked for an update on his loan modification status. However, this attempt to gain insights into his application status was also met with silence; Ross never responded to the plaintiff's inquiry. This further highlights the communication inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the handling of the plaintiff's case by the SBA.
These events draw a critical spotlight on the SBA's handling of the plaintiff's case, particularly emphasizing the disconnect in communication, a failure to comprehend the business's nature, the delayed disclosure of vital decisions, and a persistent lack of response from SBA representative Austin Ross.
On June 24, 2021, the plantiff made an attempt to resolve the ongoing loan modification issues by reaching out to multiple SBA representatives, including SBA Loan Specialist Anna Rose. Rose's response, however, was perplexing. Despite her role, she expressed unawareness of the decline letter and shifted responsibility, putting the onus on the plaintiff for not accepting a purported loan increase — an offer that, to the plaintiff's knowledge, had never been formally made.
Most importantly, Rose laid down stringent requirements, instructing the plaintiff to provide a fully processed and IRS-stamped amended tax return along with an updated and signed 4506-T form, underscoring the red tape marring the SBA's process. Furthermore, Rose highlighted that 60 days had passed since the last transcript was received, implying that the plaintiff needed to hasten his interaction with the IRS — another burden imposed on the plaintiff.
The SBA on July 1, 2021 reiterated the loan decline decision — a decision made three months prior on April 3, 2021, but uncommunicated until June 12.
In response to the array of impediments, the plaintiff kept pushing forward, providing the requested IRS transcript to Rose on July 21 and formally objecting to the decline on July 22. This well-articulated objection included necessary documentation, a fresh IRS Form 4506-T, and a specific request to move forward with the loan modification.
Throughout this convoluted process, the SBA, particularly through the actions of Rose and Ross, demonstrated an alarming level of inefficiency, bureaucratic entanglement, and unresponsiveness. The persistent silence, stringent requirements, lack of clear communication, and the controversial 60-day waiting policy before resubmitting a 4506-T form, critically marred the plaintiff's journey with the SBA, ultimately reflecting poorly on the agency's commitment to aiding small businesses.
On July 26, 2021, a detailed account of the ongoing issues was provided to Alvin Klausen, a liaison from Congressman Kurt Schrader's office, and copies were sent to SBA Loan Specialists, Anna Rose and Austin Ross. However, it seemed this attempt at gaining resolution bore no fruitful response.
In further compliance with SBA's requirements, the plaintiff sent to Anna Rose on July 31, 2021, a range of documents including an IRS-stamped Form 1040X, an IRS-printed Account Transcript, and a completed IRS Form 4506-T. This move was in response to Rose's instruction from June 24, 2021, yet there was no acknowledgement or meaningful reply.
Persisting with the process, the plaintiff dispatched exhaustive document packages to the SBA via fax on July 30 and July 31. Despite containing all necessary material to overcome the loan decline, these emails seemed to fall into a void, receiving no response.
The plaintiff took a crucial step on July 31, 2021. A detailed complaint was submitted to the Small Business Administration Office of the National Ombudsman. This report illuminated the interactions between the plaintiff, Ross, and Rose, and presented an extensive analysis of the challenges the plaintiff was encountering. Yet, in the ongoing pattern of silence, the plaintiff received no follow-up or response to this complaint.
The communication gap continued as on August 3rd, 2021, the SBA reiterated the decline reason, citing a lack of verifiable information, while ignoring the submitted IRS-stamped documents. The plaintiff tried to overcome this by sending an objection email with additional IRS documentation on August 6th, 2021, yet there was no indication of SBA's receipt or review of this new information.
On September 9th, 2021 the SBA requested 2019 business bank statements. This was curious as the SBA bypassed the essential step of ordering the IRS transcripts using the 4506-T. Moreover, it neglected to consider that the plaintiff didn't have a business bank account in 2019 and relied on online payment processors like PayPal and Amazon Pay for business transactions.
The plaintiff expressed their frustrations and disappointment in a response on September 14th, 2021. This correspondence conveyed the sentiment of being systematically ignored, manipulated, and deceived by the SBA. The plaintiff's concerns about the agency's lack of intent to provide assistance and the perceived injustices were made clear. Despite their efforts, the plaintiff was left in a seemingly endless loop of unmet requirements and unanswered queries.
In the subsequent months, the plaintiff did not receive any further information or correspondence from the SBA concerning their loan modification request, causing additional distress. The plaintiff expressed their frustration and disappointment with the entire process in an email to the SBA, stating that the constant silence and lack of feedback from the SBA were indicative of gross negligence and a breach of the SBA's fiduciary duties.
On July 31, 2021, initiated a fresh application for their sole proprietorship, [*
], heeding the guidance of SBA Loan Specialist Austin Ross. It is essential to underscore here that Ross, in his advisory role, inadvertently mischaracterized [] as a cellphone repair business. However, [***] is an online retail business. Another example of Ross's blaintaint inaccuracies.
This effort was met with a contradictory response. The plaintiff was informed that their reapplication had been withdrawn due to it being a duplicate application. Then in an abrupt about-face, the SBA invited the plaintiff to proceed with the withdrawn application, issuing successive reminders about completing the application process.
Despite reservations about the sincerity of the offer, the plaintiff accepted the proposed loan amount. True to their suspicion, a decline letter arrived on October 22nd, 2021, citing the inability to verify the existence of an eligible business.
On January 3, 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email to the SBA asking to address the $1,000 advance grant that was returned June 25, 2020. The SBA responded with these instructions, "To assist in processing your request please reply to this email with: A copy of your photo identification (front and back), A copy of a check with the word "VOID" written on it (please do not redact the routing or account number) and, If you need to submit an updated 4506-T, the completed and signed corrected 4506-T form may then be sent as a reply to this email or may be emailed to
[email protected]."
On January 10, 2022, the Plaintiff sent another email to the SBA with all the requested documents and expressing his frustration over the lack of resolution to his issue and the impacts it had on his eligibility for the targeted advance and the supplemental advance.
The SBA remained unresponsive and the status of the Advance on the SBA Disaster Portal was changed from "error" to "declined" without any explanation. This exclusion from the Advance Grant portion of the EIDL program, along with the Targeted Advance Grant and Supplemental Grant programs, was conducted without any legal justification.
For the record, it's important to note that the applicants must receive an official email invitation from the SBA to apply for both the Targeted EIDL Advance and Supplemental Targeted Advance. Due to the aforementioned error, the Plaintiff was deprived of this opportunity and thus, was unable to apply for these programs.
The SBA's failure to adequately process the deposit for the Advance Grant, coupled with their refusal to rectify the problem despite the Plaintiff's repeated attempts to seek a resolution, is a clear violation of their obligations. The repercussions of this error not only prevented the Plaintiff from receiving the Advance Grant but also from applying for the Targeted EIDL Advance and Supplemental Targeted Advance.
It is pertinent to highlight that these grants were crucial for the Plaintiff's businesses to mitigate the devastating financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the failure of the SBA to fulfill its duties has caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff and his businesses.
Moreover, the lack of communication from the SBA and the subsequent change in the status of the Advance from "error" to "declined" without any given explanation is unacceptable. This behavior demonstrates a blatant disregard for the dire financial circumstances the Plaintiff found himself in due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Not to be deterred, the plaintiff initiated a reconsideration request on March 1, 2022. In response, they were given a list of documents to submit, which they promptly did. Unfortunately, another decline letter soon followed, reiterating the inability to verify the business's existence.
The plaintiff sought a final reconsideration on April 2, 2022, asking for a comprehensive list of all requirements needed to overcome the stated reasons for decline. In a repetitive cycle, the SBA updated the application status on April 6, 2022, asking for a series of documents which, as per the plaintiff's account, had already been submitted numerous times.
Again the plaintiff submitted the required documents as per the updated request on the SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan Portal account. Despite this, it's important to highlight the plaintiff's firm belief that the SBA was employing tactics of constant delay or denial regardless of the file status, even when all necessary documents were submitted, and all discrepancies were addressed legally. The plaintiff contends that such an approach seems to be a systemic internal policy, serving to deter applicants until the SBA could close the program. Unfortunately, the plaintiff's diligent efforts were met with an insurmountable roadblock when the SBA announced the exhaustion of all funds under the EIDL program. This, sadly, left the plaintiff's persistent attempts to secure the loan unfulfilled.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The Plaintiff entered into a contractual relationship with the SBA when it accepted the terms of the EIDL program, which was manifested by the approval of the EIDL advance grant and signing the Loan Authorization and Agreement (LA&A) contract.
The SBA had a contractual obligation to provide the approved advance grant to the Plaintiff as well as process the Plaintiff's requests in accordance with its established procedures and guidelines.
The SBA breached this contractual obligation by failing to deposit the approved advance grant, changing the status of the advance grant from "error" to "declined" without due justification, and failing to rectify this situation despite the Plaintiff's attempts to seek resolution.
As a direct result of the SBA's breach of contract, the Plaintiff suffered significant financial harm.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA owed Plaintiff a duty of care to diligently review and process EIDL applications, provide clear and consistent communication, provide adequate customer support, and demonstrate transparency in decision-making.
The SBA breached this duty by their actions as outlined above.
As a direct and proximate result of the SBA's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including but not limited to lost opportunities for financial relief and detrimental effects on the business, in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: MISREPRESENTATION
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA made representations to the Plaintiff regarding the processing of the Plaintiff's application and the subsequent steps needed to rectify the situation.
These representations were false, as evidenced by the SBA's subsequent actions, which included changing the status of the Plaintiff's application without due justification and requesting documents that had already been submitted multiple times.
The Plaintiff, relying on these misrepresentations, suffered substantial financial harm.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA violated the Plaintiff's right to due process under the Fifth Amendment by declining the Plaintiff's application without providing any legal justification or opportunity to rectify the issue.
The SBA's actions, including unresponsiveness and failure to provide a fair reconsideration process, deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to adequately address the issues affecting his eligibility for the grant and loan.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (APA)
The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ** as if fully set forth herein.
The SBA, as an agency of the U.S. government, is subject to the APA, which requires federal agencies to follow certain procedures when making or changing rules.
The SBA violated the APA by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in its handling of the Plaintiff's application and its subsequent actions. This includes changing the status of the Plaintiff's grant without providing a reasoned explanation, unresponsiveness to the Plaintiff's attempts to seek resolution, and the failure to offer a fair reconsideration process in accordance with established rules and procedures.
Specifically, the SBA's refusal to rectify the erroneous deposit, even after being repeatedly informed by the Plaintiff, constitutes an arbitrary and capricious action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This statute allows courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Furthermore, the SBA's failure to communicate effectively with the Plaintiff about the issue, followed by the unexplained change in the status of the Advance from "error" to "declined", are against the agency's obligation of providing 'reasoned explanation' for its decisions, a principle well established in the case law, see, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
As a direct result of these violations, the Plaintiff suffered significant financial harm and a loss of opportunity to benefit from the EIDL program, the Targeted EIDL Advance, and the Supplemental Targeted Advance.
As such, the SBA's actions were in violation of the APA, and the Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the APA.
I currently have a 2020 SI on lease, and the lease will be ending next month. I have the option to buy it out for $17,000. I'm considering purchasing the SI outright with cash and gifting it to my mom. She can then trade it in for a new Honda HRV, which would likely fetch a higher trade-in value compared to if I were to simply turn it in and get a new car myself. In return, my mom would gift me her older HRV so that I can avoid having a car payment.
I'm wondering if there might be a better way to approach this situation, as it seems to involve quite a few moving parts.
Bought me a 1992 Honda 750 Nighthawk and changed the spark plugs, air filter and even fixed a stripped oil pan drain plug issue. It's nice to bring a lil life back into a forgotten bike.
Is there anything special that I need to do to my turbo during an oil change? Somebody said something about priming it. While we're on the subject, is there any care and maintenance "must-knows" when pertaining to the turbo? I know about letting it chill for a minute or two before you shut it off. Anything else for a 1St time turbo owner? 2020 fk8 by the way
Went ahead and test drove an entry level 2020 mazda3 this weekend and it was phenominal. The looks, the feel and the responsiveness were all up there. I'm 95% sure its my next car in my mind - although the MX5 was a lot of fun to test drive as well ha ha. Needed to hear some thoughts about a used model that I've seen and whether its a good deal?
Specs:
Mazda3 2020
Skyactive X engine (not e-Skyactive X unfortunately)
2.0L Petrol, Manual
GT Sport Tech - Leather seats & Bose sound system
Mileage: 55000
Quoted MPG 47 - although i suspect it will be much lower
Price 18K
Would you say thats a fair price for that old of a car with that amount of mileage? Whilst Mazda isn't as well established as Toyota/Honda, I believe its a reliable brand and I routinely see people on the mazda3 subreddit discuss their cars working fine into the 200k mileage mark. I've spoken about my concerns about the 2030 ICE new car sales ban and the effect it would have but I suspect there will still be a reliatively good market for 2nd hand petrol cars as not everyone will be able to afford hybrid/electric (the infrastructure in this country really needs to improve for that as well).
I'm holding off on buying anything right now as my job is currently facing potential strike action and I need to ensure that I have a decent amount of buffer money.
My only grip is that the car in question isnt in the stunning soul red that mazdas can come in ha ha. If it was I would have bought it already.
Many thanks,