I've met with Dr. Solberg numerous times when my two kids were attending McNair. She's an incredible human being, and her love of teaching has inspired both my son and daughter to learn French.

Thank you, Dr. Solberg, for your service to Jersey City.

Quote:

LOL Yeah - I actually received this exact email a couple of months ago from my 70 year old aunt who learned how to use the PC and the Web a couple of years ago.

Where is this supposed to be located? Hope it's within walking distance...

my favorites depending on what I'm eating:

Guinness - on tap, of course
Sam Adams Hefeweizen
Dogfish Head IPA - 90 or 120
Sapporo Draft
Yuengling Black & Tan
San Miguel - the one in the P.I.
Chimay
Spaten Doppel Bock

and if it's free, I'll drink pretty much anything

I've always gotten either ribeye or filet mignon(when I splurge) on the glass enclosure and they've always been fresh. Been shopping there for a good 4-5 years. I've never bought anything on the pre-packaged, the ones in the butcher's always looked better.

I think the ground beef is always set to expire the same day - as they grind it every day and supposed to get rid of the ones that did not sell that day.

Yeah the gentlemen in the fish section is great - he's been there for 20+ years. Try the giant sea scallops - it's usually frozen so you'll have to thaw it for a couple of hours, they're fantastic!

I think this is the same guy who used to live next door to me in Manila Avenue, around 1996-1998. There was a dude named "Prince" who drove a white Lexus with gold rims. We could hear women crying out while it sounded they were being beaten. We called the Police several times but ther wasn't anyone else who complained.

For years after he(they) left, there would be guys who would ring my doorbell asking for some woman's name.

The best band in Jersey City:

http://www.myspace.com/beninghoveshangmen

Quote:

You didn't know? He's a Rock Star from Saigon!


I agree with the other posters - get a cut from Ken or Wen(Nguyen) and you won't be disappointed.

Our whole household gets haircuts/coloring there

Quote:

I'm curious - what's "coming" ?

Quote:


I second this recommendation - fair, honest and does an excellent job. I use them for my 8 year-old bimmer and they cost half as much as the dealership

This is how we got here:

Article published in December 2006:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/j ... ge-spending/index/a/19289

Drowning in a Sea of Liquidity
John Succo Oct 02, 2008 11:30 am

US is good at creating credit; bad at paying it back.

Editor's Note: The following originally appeared on December 14, 2006 and, in light of current events, has been reprinted here for the benefit of the Minyanville community.


Everything looks great - and yet you still have that uneasy feeling. When this happens, it's always good to check your premises

I think we can all agree that the markets, from stocks to bonds to art work, are riding on a sea of liquidity, which can come from 2 sources: Income or borrowing.

Real disposable income has actually fallen over the last 5 years. With a negative savings rate and a gigantic trade deficit, it's no secret that Americans are borrowing in order to consume.

Further evidence of this fact can be seen in a total GDP credit of 3.6 times (the next highest was 2.9, in 1929; it's averaged out at approximately 1.5 times over the last decades). We also have the lowest equity levels in homes ever, the highest percentage of disposable income going to service debt ever, government budget deficits of over $300 billion, and a public debt figure approaching $9 trillion (not counting the $500 billion in war costs so far - and not including the $45 trillion in unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security).

Few people really understand the ramifications of this, or the process by which the bureaucrats in Washington compound the harm all this debt will cause by creating ever more of it.

A $1 billion REPO by the Fed doesn?t seem like much - until you check your premises. The Fed just did a $1.3 billion dollar coupon pass, which is like a permanent REPO; it calls up JPMorgan (JPM) and purchases its bonds with credit - credit created from nothing. They just tell JPMorgan: "We owe you money."

JPMorgan now has funds (credit) it can lend out. But because of margin requirements, it can lend out much more than $1.3 billion. In fact, it lends out about 20 times that amount.

So let?s say they call up 20 regional banks and let them borrow $1 billion each. In turn, each regional bank then lends out $5 billion to various mortgage borrowers. These borrowers refinance their houses - and spend the extra cash while the equity in their homes drops.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/j ... ge-spending/index/a/19289

Quote:

I thought you said "there should be a special place for those who rob from old people : CHURCH! at gunpoint!

Quote:

Yes, thank you, it answers some. What it does not answer is what kind of damage will it really inflict, and to whom?

I think a lot of over-leveraged institutions, those that participated in the ramp up to this party where a lot of people made a boatload of money will perish, while good, solid, sensible regional banks and institutions that did not overplay risk will be rewarded.

Is it possible that non-intervention in the markets will result in a financial landscape where the good banks survive and th bad banks go down?

If I understand this correctly: the burst of the housing bubble devalued a whole class of securities which no one can/wants to value, therefore banks balance sheets are so impaired that they won't lend to each other, or to anyone for fear it may not be repaid.

The Plan is to take over those securities in the hopes of the housing market stabilizing and appreciating and at some point, order is restored.

One thing I don't understand is why can't these instruments be destroyed so we can start fresh? I think it's a choice between a car crash or a cancer, that it will ultimately lead to the same conclusion - bailout or otherwise.

In my uninformed view, I think the markets should correct themselves.

Quote:

I saw this discussion today at Minyanville about the Irish guaranteeing all deposits as an alternative solution to the Bailout - liked this explanation among several:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=19258

Professor Kevin Depew:

A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing
I've looked at this proposal all morning to try to understand why some think it's even slightly more helpful than the Paulson Bailout Bill, which itself is simply a disaster waiting to happen. From my perspective, I simply cannot see it.

First, let us be clear: The Irish government has nationalized that country's banking system. Any government backstop on the deposit base is nationalization, pure and simple.

Evaluating the economics of this plan, we can see how it is impossible to add 2 and 2 and arrive at a similarly workable nationalization effort here, even if such a massive nationalization attempt was desirable.

The Irish government is banking, literally, on guaranteeing 10 times their national debt and twice their economic output with this. The numbers for a similar plan here are simply astronomical. Ireland's GDP as of 2007 was about $186 billion USD, which puts their economy at roughly the size of Alabama's.

But let's assume the impossible for a moment - that this plan is workable here from an economic standpoint. The main problem is that guaranteeing deposits does not kickstart credit demand, and may not even kickstart supply, which is the real issue for the US.

No matter what deposit guarantees are put in place, the primary issue that must be accepted is that underlying collateral is declining in value - NOT because there is not enough available credit to purchase it, but because there is too much supply of it and it has been overleveraged.

Finally, and most importantly, there's the notion that guaranteeing deposits protects the saver. It most assuredly does not. A government guarantee of deposits is a con game where the depositors are reassured that their savings are safe, while the very act of guaranteeing the deposits destroys the underlying value of that which is being guaranteed.

The hard truth is that this just another wolf in sheep's clothing, a way to continue the massive transfer of wealth from those who are risk-averse to those who behave (and have long been rewarded for behaving) as if all risk is meaningless.

There are 2 realities that this country must face, and face right now. One, the size, interconnectedness and scope of the financial system puts it beyond fiscal and monetary control. Two, this debt deflation is global, secular and psychological... and unstoppable. It must be allowed to run its course.

I understand the attempts at intervention. Really, I do. But the fights over which Bailout Bill to go with and how to intervene should be seen for what they really are: In the grand scheme, simply squabbles over who gets to keep the most out of what's left over from the inevitable deflationary debt unwind. Judged through the lens of history, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns will be seen as arbitrary victims of these minor squabbles.

For those living in the real world on Main Street, there's a simple and clear prescription for how to manage through this deflationary debt unwind.

First, do not be fooled by political and monetary gibberish about what proposal will save us next. Instead: Get out of debt. Protect your assets. Determine the safest institutions to protect your savings. Continue to live as you always have, while keeping in mind that the people who are now entrusted with "rescuing America's economy" are the very same people who brought us to this breaking point in the economy... even as they either failed to see it coming, or, if they did see it coming, denied its existence in order to take out of it the most they could before the inevitable collapse.

At some point, a reasonable person will be forced to question either the intelligence of these people, or their committment to serving the American people.

This morning on national television, President Bush pleaded for the passage of the Bailout Bill while noting, ominously, that yesterday the stock market lost $1 trillion in value. That number is supposed to move the American people, who remain defiantly against a bailout, by stoking their fear of loss.

The question, then, after all the dire warnings, is why don't Americans care about the consequences of No Bailout? The answer is very simple: Because the vast majority of Americans have already been living with those conditions for more than 5 years now.

I call it a Stealth Depresion because it's been running so far below the radar of economic elites and the mainstream media, who prefer to report on happier things. Now that it's becoming less stealthy, there's suddenly a crisis.

Remember: Get out of debt. Protect your assets. Determine the safest institutions to protect your savings. Continue to live as you always have.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.

- Let's nationalize financial institutions
- Subsidize the Auto Industry and financials in drag, like GE, GMAC
- Own the airlines

Hey what about Exxon and company, why don't we take over the ones that actually make a profit, rather than ones we have to bail? WTF? It doesn't make any sense.

I know, I know, I don't understand how complex it is....no need to tell me how stupid I am

Dave's gone huh?

I've always thought that he was the problem, not the gun store itself. Caso's on Danforth ave been there for decades, never had any issues.

Quote:

Because it's toxic, and I don't believe the value will go back up after the bubble has burst.

If it's really worth something, why aren't Sovereign Wealth Funds and private capital rushing to buy ths "good" stuff?

Experts say it's a crisis of confidence - that says it all.

I guess time is the final arbiter, so we shall see.

an interview with Bloomberg, Gross all but pleaded for a
Bill Gross is a Capitalist?

Federal bailout of Fannie/Freddie

(U.S. Must Buy Assets to Prevent `Tsunami,' Gross Says):

The U.S. government needs to start using more of its money to support markets to stem a burgeoning "financial tsunami,'' according to Bill Gross, manager of the world's biggest bond fund.

Banks, securities firms and hedge funds are dumping assets, driving down prices of bonds, real estate, stocks and commodities, Gross, co-chief investment officer of Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., said in commentary posted on the firm's Web site today.

"Unchecked, it can turn a campfire into a forest fire, a mild asset bear market into a destructive financial tsunami,'' Gross said. "If we are to prevent a continuing asset and debt liquidation of near historic proportions, we will require policies that open up the balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury.''

The government needs to replace private investors who either don't have the money to buy new assets or have been burned by losses, Gross said. Pimco, sovereign wealth funds and central banks are reluctant to fund financial firms after losses on investments they made to support the companies, Gross said. The world's biggest banks and brokers have raised $364.4 billion in new capital after more than $500 billion in writedowns and credit losses since the beginning of last year.

Quote:

I do understand what you are saying, and I didn't mean there are 500T of CDS', that's the total amount of all derivatives of all kinds. This is what's the root of these issues, that's why i think 700B is just the beginning.

I'm afraid we'll be at the same place after all that money is spent, in the way Hank and Ben want it done.

here's an idea I head this morning on WNYC from a former IMF member:

- Lending money (instead of buying those assets) and holding those as collateral, instead of outright buying

- or, as one of the posters wrote : How about buying equity in these companies, so tax dollars would own stock. Wall street won't like it, but tough sh*t.

- better yet let's just confiscate all those assets, as we're on the road to Socialization, anyway. This is what this bailout amounts to.

__________

About Bill Gross and PIMCO - He was the biggest benefactor of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.

The WSJ noted about PIMCO:

The bond-management firm has posted good gains since the credit crunch began last year, in part by betting big on mortgage debt tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- whose implicit government backing and relative safety compared with other securities has helped keep their bond returns in the black.

Now as both entities show continued financial weakness and many parts of the bond market remain pressured, a main challenge for Mr. El-Erian, 50 years old, will be sustaining Pimco's winning returns.

Then came the very strange commentary Bill Gross posted at the PIMCO site -- a weird, quasi-homage to Cramer, which then reiterated the expected pain of a deleveraging and asset liquidation.

Quote:

His projections assume that the market for these instruments will recover. He is using the same models that got us in this mess in the first place : real estate values will go up.

That's a big IF. It may never recover, and the taxpayer will be on the hook. I think the $700B is just the beginning. Lehman alone had $650B of holdings that must be liquidated. There's $500 Trillion (with a T) of derivatives floating out there, a lot of which must be delevered. Debt destruction must proceed.

There must be natural price discovery - who's going to determine the price for this toxic cesspool? We should let the market sort itself out. After (IF) it blows up, we can rebuild, and there will be incredible opportunities on the other side of the equation.

"The writer is chief investment officer and founder of the investment management firm PIMCO."

For those who do not know who Bill Gross is, he's probably the one person who stands the most in losing personal fortune.

If course he'd say that. He's one of the biggest bloodsuckers in the planet.

I don't agree on using taxpayers money to rescue private entities. If we are to do that, the whole financial system should be nationalized. This will mean equity investors will be wiped out, but assets will be in some sort of government trust.

Quote:

Yeah - did anyone see (Treasury Sec) Paulson on TV over the weekend? I found this commentary on Minyanville:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/P ... reasury-TAF/index/a/19114

________

Much of this weird tension today stems directly from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rounds yesterday on the Sunday morning news shows. His behavior was jarringly disturbing and erratic. On "This Week" with George Stephanopolous, Paulson could barely answer a single question without glancing nervously over his shoulder like a man who had just escaped from a medical detention center hurriedly explaining his side of the story to a passing motorist.

And what was his side of the story? Well, that is the awful crux of it. There was no side; there was simply "The Abyss." We have "narrowly avoided it," according to some. We have "stared into it and stepped back," according to others. Some say we have "faced it." Still others, that we "came within hair of plunging into it." But no one anywhere will say with any definitive completeness what, exactly, "The Abyss" is.

Shortly after Paulson disintegrated into a sweaty, jabbering mess under the TV lights on "This Week,' Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Representative John Boehner (R-OH) appeared.

"What is it will happen if we don't have this legislation?" Stephanopolous asked. It's a reasonable question. In fact, it's the only reasonable question.

The answer from Dodd and Boehner? Silence. Pressed, Boehner said, "You can't describe on Sunday morning how ugly this picture would look if we don't act."

"Why not?"

No answer.

Ok, we'll skip that part for now. How about this, will it work? Although unprecedented in magnitude, the solution proposed by the Treasury is hardly unique.

The TARP being proposed falls somewhere on the other side of both the Resolution Trust Corporation that was created to handle the Savings & Loan crisis in 1989 and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation created in 1932 to deal with massive bank failures and the inability to get credit into the economy.

How did markets respond to the Reconstruction Finance Corp. passage in 1932?


Click to enlarge

What about the RTC in 1989?


Click to enlarge

And today?


Click to enlarge

Keep in mind, the RTC came eight years into one of the the largest bull market in history. Know where the Dow and S&P 500 were eight years ago? 11,388 and 1255, respectively.

Quote:

I agree with that.

This seems to be the opinion of those that are not directly invested in what the outcome will be.

Maybe they should let the whole thing happen in a quick car crash, (instead of a log-drawn-out slow motion blowup) then figure out where the money ought to be spent.

Dear Congress

Treasury Secretary Paulson is asking you to rush through a $700 billion package because "we?re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system".

Paulson states that it must be done quickly and that it is better than the alternatives. Fed Chairman Bernanke agrees.

The first question Congress should ask is how would Paulson or Bernanke know?

It was only a month ago Paulson was reiterating to anyone who would listen how sound our banking system is. The fact of the matter is that neither Paulson nor Bernanke saw this coming, yet now Congress is supposed to trust they now "know" the solution.

Problem Defined

Before one can work out a solution, the first step is to identify the problem. The problem is not a lack of liquidity, it is not a lack of trust, it is not lack of consumer confidence, it is not subprime lending, and in fact the problem is not housing at all.

The problem is consumers and corporations are deep in debt with no way to service that debt.

Attempts to bail out banks and brokers at taxpayer expense will do nothing but add to consumer debt, weaken the US dollar, and literally waste $700+ billion dollars that can and should go to more productive uses.

What Caused The Problem?



The Fed
Congress
Fractional Reserve Lending
The Treasury


The root cause of this problem is the Fed micromanaging interest rates, the Treasury cheerleading every step of the way, and Congressional sponsored spending that went wild. The critical issue that ties everything together is fractional reserve lending allows banks to borrow money (credit really) into existence with insane amounts of leverage.

To top it all off, Greenspan slashed rates to 1% fueling the biggest global housing bubble the world has ever seen. Congress needs to figure out a way to eliminate the Fed.

Fed Uncertainty Principle

I kindly ask of you to please read the Fed Uncertainty Principle written April 03, 2008 before any hint of this meltdown occurred. Here is Corollary Number Two.

Uncertainty Principle Corollary Number Two:

The government/quasi-government body most responsible for creating this mess (the Fed), will attempt a big power grab, purportedly to fix whatever problems it creates. The bigger the mess it creates, the more power it will attempt to grab. Over time this leads to dangerously concentrated power into the hands of those who have already proven they do not know what they are doing.

Why The Paulson Solution Fails

The Paulson solution fails because it does not help consumers or businesses service debt, it does not create any jobs, it increases the national debt, and it encourages more reckless lending by banks. Attempting to bail out banks on the back of cash strapped consumers is simply doomed to fail.

If printing money was the solution to all problems, Zimbabwe would be the most prosperous country in the world.

The Barney Frank Non-Solution

"We're going to be buying up a lot of mortgage paper" said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.

Sadly, that will not do a single thing in and of itself to stop foreclosures. All that will do is bail out banks and brokers at taxpayer expense.

Barney Frank also stated ?We should be more willing to write down the mortgages. We?ll become the lender. The government will wind up in a controlling position so that we can reduce the number of foreclosures.?

Congress needs to ask "How much extra will Barney Frank's proposal cost taxpayers?"

Were does the madness end?

As stated earlier the problem is not housing in the first place, and besides taxpayers who pay their mortgages on time should not be subsidizing those who don't!

Banks Need To Recapitalize

Paulson wants to recapitalize banks so they can keep lending. Ironically, one of the problems is lending. The US has been on a credit binge to such an extent that I have to ask what more do we need? More Pizza Huts? More Home Depots? More Houses? More Nail Salons? More Car Dealers? What?

What is the urgent need to lend still more?

We are in this mess because of too much reckless lending. We do not need more lending, we need more saving!

Paulson's idea that more lending is needed is ass backwards. Paulson's proposal cheapens the dollar, and discourages the one thing that is desperately needed: saving.

Alternatives Discussed

In the mad rush to push through this package, Paulson states it is better than the alternatives. That is an interesting statement because no alternative have even been presented to Congress, let alone discussed.

Shouldn't there be a discussion of alternatives before doing a mad dash to sign a $700 billion package?

Paulson is attempting to hoodwink Congress to pass his plan without any discussion of alternatives. I believe the Paulson proposal is the worst of all solutions in that it bails out banks at the expense of the taxpayer and the taxpayer gets virtually nothing out of the deal: no jobs, no tax relief, no health care.

Paulson claims that taxpayer will benefit by the bailout indirectly because one the government owns the debt, servicers will be more willing to negotiate terms. Once again, it will be taxpayers on the hook for any negotiation granted. Paulson conveniently ignores this cost as does Barney Frank.

Taxpayer Gets Nothing From Current Bailout Proposals

The taxpayer gets nothing for this bailout $700 billion. Actually the taxpayer gets a negative benefit because the Paulson and Frank proposals will cheapen the US dollar, increase the deficit, and ultimately cause prices of imported goods to rise for everyone, while saving a relative few.

The solution is to address the recapitalization of banks in a fair way that does not jeopardize the taxpayer but instead puts the onus of responsibility on banks making reckless lending.

Recapitalizing Banks

Banks are undercapitalized. They need funding badly. Here is what I propose.


Reduce the capital gains tax by 50% for any investor willing to cash out stocks and invest in 5 year bank CDs.

Eliminate the difference between long term and short term capital gains.

Eliminate taxable interest on savings accounts, CDs, and US treasuries.

The above would promote saving rather over speculation and provide a big boost in government revenues as well. Stock prices will not be affected over the long haul by these measures.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

I am a libertarian. I do not believe in makeshift government proposals. However, I would rather get something than nothing for $700 Billion. Paulson's proposal scores a big fat zero in term of providing an jobs or any real economic stimulus.

It is no secret that infrastructure in the US is decaying and needs to be fixed. A collapsing bridge in Minnesota is one key example. And what out our aging energy grid? Instead of giving $700 billion to banks that deserve to go under, I would rather give half that for jobs programs.

To create as many jobs as possible at the least cost Congress needs to scrap the Davis-Bacon Act. It would be better to create 3 construction jobs at $12 an hour than 1 job at $36 an hour. The idea here is to get as most bang for the buck and create as many jobs as possible for the money spent.

Waste In Iraq

We need to admit the mistakes in Iraq. The public never supported this war and the public was correct. The war in Iraq easily cost $1 trillion dollars if you count future medical bills. That is $1 trillion dollars that could have been spent right here in the US.

I propose we declare the war won and get out, totally and completely. Offer returning veterans first crack at any infrastructure rebuilding jobs. It is the least we can do to those who are likely going to be emotionally if not physically scarred for the rest of their lives fighting a war that never should have been fought.

Congressional Spending

Congress needs to admit its own role in this mess. Congress passed hundreds of programs to make housing more affordable. They all failed including the biggest failure of all: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It should not be the role of Congress to promote housing vs. renting. The very act of doing so creates an artificial demand for housing. Ownership society madness culminated with many financially unqualified to buy a house buying house anyway because Congress and the White House promoted the idea.

Congress is also directly responsible for deficit spending and that weakened the US dollar. Indeed there was virtually a panic out of dollars for this reason. Adding another $700 billion to the deficit as Paulson is asking you to do is adding insult upon injury. Don't do it.

Instead balance the budget. It can be done.

span style="font-weight: bold;">Who Am I?

Who am I to suggest what Congress should do? I am nobody. However, this nobody and a bunch of fellow nobody bloggers and bunch of nobody fund managers who I respect all saw this all coming 3-4 years ago. Paulson did not, Bernanke did not, and almost everyone in Congress did not.

So the choice Congress needs to make is who to believe. Congress can believe Bernanke and Paulson who have been totally wrong about everything for years, or Congress can listen to people who not only understand what is happening but predicted it.

Desire To Believe

You desperately want to believe that Paulson and Bernanke are telling the truth. You have for years put your faith and trust in them. It is a very difficult thing to do to admit you are wrong.

However, it is critical that you look at the simple facts for what they are.

The fact is Paulson is grasping at straw in a tornado. So is Bernanke. Problems cannot be cured by printing money, and problems cannot be on the backs of already overburdened consumers.

No problem is fixed by madly and blindly rushing into solutions where no alternatives are discussed. You now have alternatives.

I will also offer one more alternative but it is not from me. I kindly ask Congress to consider An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis by John P. Hussman, Ph.D., an economist and investment manager whose opinion I trust.

Hussman too has an opinion as to how to address this issue without impacting the taxpayer. For the record, I have no idea what he might think of my proposal.

However, between the Hussman proposal and mine, I am sure there is fertile ground for further discussion and for doing something other than what I believe to be the worst possible alternative, the proposal submitted by Treasury Secretary Paulson.

No problem is too big that a solution has to be rushed into without considering the alternatives. I ask that you consider these alternative proposals either over an extended session or by letting the next Congress tackle the issue.

Heaven help us if recess is more important than taking the time to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives.

Sincerely

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Men's haircuts start at $40, which is quite pricey. It'd be nice if they drop it to say, $20 for a quick buzz with a clipper.

There's a number of childcare providers that frequent the playground on Hamilton Park most afternoons. They seem to be very popular with families in the area. See if you can chat them up and get an idea.

Quote:
"Everybody was standing there looking at her walking down the street," King said.

really? jeez, what kind of people would just watch a toddler cross a street on her own?

If you really want to fight this, there are several things you can do:

Write the police station and ask them for (this is your right, but give them enough time to honor the request):

1. A photocopy of both sides of the ticket, the cop usually makes notes on the ticket to remind him of that particular stop. You may find something to challenge.

2. Certification that the radar has been tested and calibrated properly.

3. The officer's certification that he was trained/qualified in using the device.

If any of these are not current, the judge has to dismiss the case.

There was this Korean barbecue on West Side ave and Duncan, whcih changed hands a few times and the bulgogi and galbi was never the same. Now I have to drive to Fort Lee or Palisades Park.