telecom, Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

by **n-line** » Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:13:16 GMT

Well if all is true then Norvergence is out of business. One thing
hasn't been addressed though ... what are the existing customers
supposed to do now? We have signed lease agreements with banks for
equipment that won't work when Quest turns off the lines again. How
do we get out of those? Anyone have any ideas??

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest simply ignoring those fraud-
ulent contracts the banks are holding. FREEZE ALL TELECOM PAYMENTS
IMMEDIATLY. If the bank wants to sue, that's okay. They *should* be
suing the remains of Norvergence, since Norvergence got the money
illegally, through trickery and fraud. Of course the bank will choose
to pick on the weaker party (yourself) because they assume they can
twist your arm easier. You'll hear threats about how you will get
sued, how your company credit will be ruined, etc, but pay no attention.
The bank knows it will be almost futile to try and sue Novergence,
so they will work on you instead if you let them, and sadly, many telecom
managers, company executives will be bullied into compliance with the
bank's demands for payment, etc.

If the bank *does* choose to sue you (not at all certain, IMO) then
your response should be to countersue the bank for harassment and
for being a party to the same fraud as Norvergence. The bank after all
*did* facilitate the fraud by paying Norvergence money, and they knew
or should have known that Norvergence had a worthless scheme going
on. The bank is equally (or more so) able to investigate the collateral
being put up for the money the bank advanced to Norvergence, the
'collateral' in this case being the promises of satisfied customers
able and willing to pay. If you recall, we had that one message in the
Digest several months ago from the lady who said she worked for the
bank (which had been approached by Norvergence to handle their paper)
and she was investigating if the bank should get involved or not.

Now myself, being sort of weary about lawsuits and Norvergence's
eagnerness to file same, I just printed her message here and said
nothing, or maybe just some generic, bland response, I do not remember.
In any event, the bank could have chosen to investigate if they
wished, prior to advancing money to Norvergence, or handing the
company's credit paper. That's not your problem. You were deceived
by a smooth talking salesman. Just ignore those invoices and let the
bank deal with it as they must. PAT]

by **Steven J Sobol** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:34:13 GMT

XXXX@XXXXX.COM < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

How are they fraudulent? It's not the bank's fault that Norvergence stole
from Qwest.

The bank has no claim on Norvergence in this case and a lawsuit would fail.
n-line's company has a claim on Norvergence, but the bank does not.

This is very, very bad advice.

I'm not sure it was that obvious.

Is this the same bank? If the bank was actively investigating Norvergence,
there might be some liability on their part -- maybe.

I'd suggest talking to a lawyer. I'm not at all convinced that Pat's advice
is correct.

JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / XXXX@XXXXX.COM
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal
advice. With that being said, I still maintain that an agressive and
litigous debtor is the best debtor in this case. **Do not** just give
in to bank's demands for payment from you; they are hoping their
bullying tactics will do the job. **If** it comes to the point of suit
which is not at all certain, at the very least countersue, which will
send many banks (and collection agencies) running for the hills.

Maybe it was not a *deliberate* act (i.e. fraud) by the bank, but it
was extremely careless of the bank not to completely investigate what
they were being asked to finance. Either bank knew (was part of fraud)
or **should have known** what was going on. At least one bank officer
or employee took the trouble to investigate on the net (here in this
Digest) what was known about the company they were being asked to
finance. Why didn't others, or maybe they did and chose to ignore the
warning signs; why bother to cover our backsides when there are always
debtors we can stick it to instead? I mean, many small merchants
cannot even get a Visa Merchant account, the bank says its not worth
all the hassles to us with customers refusing to pay, no signature
on file, etc; the merchant is mostly (or excusively) in a sex related
business, etc. Yet bank is willing to carry the paper for a multi-year
thousands of dollars deal *based on fraud* against end-users (regardless
of who actually committed whatever part of the fraud) and in essence
try to commit extortion against same end-users as needed to worm out
of any liability on their part? Uh huh ... and there were warning
signs from more than a year ago; when Norvergence started trying to
go legal on getting messages about them removed from the net, etc.

Another warning sign should have been that Norvergence wanted the bank
to pay them a full five year's worth before even one year (or a few
months) had been honored on the contract. So end-users are expected to
be responsible for the mistakes idiots at the bank make? Although it
is likely and probable that many end-users signed off on the obscene
contract presented to them by the Norvergence sales rep under much
pressure (remember the message we had here from the sales rep who said
he was trained to always insist on speaking directly and only to the
'decision maker' in the company and keep the pressure up on that
person [that person's personal knowledge of telecom, or the lack
thereof not withstanding]?), I sincerely doubt that bank had that kind
of pressure on

by **triple_des1544** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:53:15 GMT

> Yet bank is willing to carry the paper for a multi-year

The solution that Norvergence was offering was not fraudulent. It was
the poor management policies at the top that prevented it from
working. The banks had no way of knowing that NorV would not pay the
bills.

Anybody that has ever purchased a new vehicle should understand this
one. When you make out your check for the monthly payment, it is not
to the dealership that you drove away from. It is to a BANK. You do
not pay a dealership for a few months and then have a bank take over,
the dealership will shop your deal around to various banks until they
find one that will BUY the deal. At that point, the Dealership has
removed itself from the financial end of that agreement. It is you,
and the bank, whether your new car blows up or not. If it does blow
up, then you fall back on the WARRANTY, which is again NOT provided by
the dealership, but by the manufacturer.

The bank did not "loan" anybody anything. The bank BOUGHT the deal
from Norvergence -- for a lesser amount to reap a profit.

And to answer your question, Steven, it feels great to be without a
job. It is a well deserved vacation. I had earned 6 figures by
mid-year, I know that I did everything in my power to aid my
customers. I am proud to say that I worked with some of the best,
most honest, telecom sales people in the business. I am also very
confident that these sales people would sell circles around the
unscrupulous agents that tend to frequent these boards. You think
that Norvergence was dirty? Tell me you've never heard of an agent
stealing deals, or misquoting price. Telecom is not the clean white
sheet that people are making it out to be, and Norvergence is not the
only stain.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable with
regards to Norvergence. Advise bank to either go straight to
collection agency or court as they wish. PAT]

by **bonomi** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:09:43 GMT

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

[[ more grossly inaccurate legal mis-advice snipped ]]

You *really* shouldn't be practicing law without a license, especially
when you don't know jack sh*t about what you speak.

Unfortunately, the customers _are_ on the hook for the full price of
the equipment contract. *REGARDLESS* of whether Norvergence is still
in business *or*not*.

The legal premise is "Holder in Due Course". The party to the note
has recourse *ONLY* against the originator (Norvergence). When the
originator sells the paper to a third party, *ONLY* the payment
responsibilities are transferred. Any other issue _remains_ with the
originator.

Unfortunately, this means that those 'former' Norvergence customers
are just SOL.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable immediatly
regards Norvergence leases, etc. Tell the bank to file suit immediatly
against you if they wish, not to bother giving their good money to
an agency. PAT]

by **a_user2000** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:21:20 GMT

Sorry Pat, but you are all WRONG on this one. The bank purchased a
contract between the customer and Norvergance for the lease of
equipment. If the service goes away, the bank is not responsible,
they have a contract between two parties for equipment.

The equipment didn't go away, just the service for the equipment.
That does not render the contract invalid or unenforceable. If they
fail to pay the bank, then the bank has every right to sue and will
win in court.

Is it worth it to ruin yours, or your company's credit over a bad
choice YOU made?

This I know from personal experience. I have a friend who had a
business that had to go Chapter 7 because of a similar arrangement
with a copier. After almost $40,000 of lawyer fees he still had to
pay the bank for the contract on a faulty copier the bank had
purchased from the copier supplier.

Rodgers Platt

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Freeze all accounts payable immediatly
in reference to Norvergence. You mentioned your friend who wound up
going straight chapter 7. If the bank wants to buy garbage that is
bank's business, I guess. And I think it is just too damn bad that
the so-called American 'system' of justice favors banks over small
business people. In fact, I think the scale of justice is always
tipped in favor of big business and the banks. Why does it seem to
always take complete break downs in society (i.e. south central el lay
in the early nineties; Chicago [twice!] in 1968; many other similar
cases to demonstrate this?) PAT]

by **kludge** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:56:16 GMT

I don't, and that is the whole evil in the situation. The bank is holding
the note, rather than Norvergence, and the end user takes all the risk.

I think you had best talk to a good contracts lawyer, but I suspect that
unless something very dramatic happens as part of the bankruptcy settlement
(assuming there even is a bankruptcy settlement) that you are going to
continue to be liable for the ongoing lease of the box unless there is some
clause in the contract specifically invalidating the lease if Norvergence
is unable to meet their terms of service.

You are going to need to have someone look your contract over very
carefully. It's too late now to point out that you would have done
better to have had someone look the contract over before signing it,
of course.

--scott

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Norvergence sales rep would not
allow that! He insisted on talking to the 'decision maker' for the
company and getting him to sign, then the bank sits there with a
hurt look on its face saying well its not *our* fault. This should
be a good lesson; *any* salesman who comes to your door asking to
talk with the 'decision maker' should be unceremoniously kicked out
then and there -- on his ass! At the very least, freeze all accounts
payable relating to Norvergence until the lawyers have worked out a
settlement. Advise bank you prefer to have them take it straight to
court. PAT]

by **pv+usenet** » Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:02:01 GMT

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The bank did *not* loan the end user

You are completely wrong. Go back into the archives -- you can see
that many people have said that the loan is between the Norv customer
and the bank, and nobody else. Norvergence got the money, but they're
not the ones liable for the debt. It's possible they're not even
mentioned in the loan paperwork.

Simply refusing to pay is a great way to destroy your company, as your
other creditors will see the slow/no pay and freak out.

It's an expensive lesson, but a clear one -- never take out a loan
unless YOU are the one who pockets the money. *

* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is important that you stress to your
other creditors that you are *NOT* slow pay (and as needed, pay them
early or on time.) Stress to your other creditors that this is purely
a dispute between the various debtors of a charlatan bank and its
charlatan customer Norvergence, and that you will pay the charlatans
if a judge in court orders you to do so, not before. In fact, maybe
a form letter to all creditors explaining it would be wise. Explain
how it would appear that Norvergence conspired with the bank to do
this. But be certain to freeze all accounts payable to bank in refer-
ence to Norvergence in meantime. Chances are good charlatan bank will
not sue anyway, IMO. PAT]

by **hancock4** » Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:59:54 GMT

ELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:

I would tend to agree, but first I would review the contract very
carefully with a good attorney.

Other than that, I'm pessimistic. Without knowing the actual
loan agreement, everything below is speculative.

I'm not sure if that's accurate, it depends on the terms of the
loan and lease.

In general, when a bank lends you money, you are responsible
to pay it back, regardless of whatever you did with that money.
For instance, if you buy some land and it turns out to be worthless
or even a liability, the bank is not responsible, you are.

Any prudent buyer of a lease should and would know about early
termination options and quality guarantees, especially on a
five year lease. Normal business contracts have termination
clauses.

Unless the bank was acting as Norv.'s agent or was certifying
the reliability of the company, the end-customer is ultimately
responsible to pay the loan. I strongly doubt a bank made
any representation as to the fitness or applicability of the
produce/service.

When you take out a loan on something, the bank will check it
out to see that it basically actually exists and has some value
to it (that you're not buying thin air with their money). Clearly
this company existed and was running. I doubt a bank goes
beyond that; they certainly don't go poking around the switchroom.
As best I can tell, the bank loaned the customer money, nor Norv.

Every business takes a risk with every supplier and customer it deals
with. If a customer or vendor screws a business and goes bankrupt,
the business is stuck with the bill. The only recourse is to get in
line at bankruptcy court.

I have to ask why commercial customers were willing to sign under such
pressure. To be frank, it's hard for me to be sympathetic with such
commercial customers who'd were so anxious to save money they jumped
on a too-good-to-be-true contract. Any business person should know
whom they're dealing with, and dealing with a start-up entails extra
risk. Going out of business is NOT unusual.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to generally agree, Lisa. Why
in the hell anyone would sign an open-ended contract like Norvergence
sales reps handed out is beyond me. But, the bank, if it were not such
a charlaton (and thought this would make money for them illegally)
would have *also* gone over the contract with a fine tooth comb. Back
in 1968-70 the door-to-door enyclopedia sales company was doing the
same kind of thing. Not only were they completely abusing the guys
working for them (housing them in fleabag motels, buying them a lousy
hamburger for their one meal per day; abandoning the kids in strange
places when they were through using them); they were also selling
their paper to a few unscrupulous loan companies who were in effect
'loaning money' (just like the bank now) to the people who thought
they were getting a good deal on a set of worthless books. The loan
companies knew what was going on; I will suggest most of the banks
Norvergence was dealing with also knew what was going on. Banks are
not stupid; they **knew** who they were dealing with and how things
would go.

Look at bank's attitude toward someone who wants a lousy Visa Merchant
account. Credit checks, a complete investigation, etc. all so that
you can send them a few dollars now and then on a Visa transaction.
The banks s

by **Steven J Sobol** » Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:47:06 GMT

ELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Black Ninja
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:

I agree that the banks are not liable.

I disagree that the solution that Norvergence was offering wasn't
fraudulent.

Norvergence's leaders didn't MISTAKENLY mismanage to the point that they
owed, what, $8 million to a large LEC that they obviously had no intention
of paying?

Wow. I'm *really* impressed -- you're actually offering information instead
of insults.

OK. First, let me say that I believe that the SALES REPS were probably
on the level. Yes, you have some bad apples in any bunch, but most of
the salesforce was probably out to make an honest buck.

My problem with front-line sales and customer service reps is when
they're presented information and then ignore it and parrot the
company line. (Like you did.)

And I understand how the industry is, it's full of bloodthirsty
sharks. I used to run ISPs for a living. :) The ILECs are
horrible. The CLECs aren't much better.

Pat, how about advising people to talk to their attorneys instead of
giving them advice which will get them sued and will NOT relieve them
of their debt to the banks? Please?

Pat also wrote:

I've never been asked for anything other than a credit check on a
merchant app, and the reason they do a credit check is because the
possibility exists that in a given months you may have more
chargebacks than sales and end up owing the bank money.

JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / XXXX@XXXXX.COM
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But obviously the 'probability' that
*someone* would owe the bank a lot of money didn't seem to impress the
bank where buying all of Norvergence's worthless paper was concerned
did it? Either bank was an idiot or bank was a charlatan, pick one.
Either way I don't think small businesses should have to carry the
load. I still suggest investigating the ownership and/or management of
the banks which were involved, looking for common ownership/managment,
etc. The end-users did not select the 'bank which would lend them
money', Norvergence chose who the small handful of banks would be. It
is alledged there are about ten thousand Norvergence customers out
there on the hook. I can assure you there are not an equal number of
banks out there waiting for their money; probably a half dozen banks
at most. Norvergence hand-picked them (the banks); I wonder why? It
would really be hysterical if Salzano showed up on the board of
directors of any of those banks, or some other executives of Norver-
gence had associations with those banks, wouldn't it? Steve, would you
still sit there and wimper about 'better pay your bills or you will
get sued' if you found that to be the case?

I will agree end-users should make inquiry of their attornies on
this, **but until they get to that point, and their attorney
instructs them otherwise in the matter** my suggestion is still to
freeze all accounts payable regards Norvergence. It certainly won't
hurt bank to sit and wait for their money awhile. And please! no
discussion about how 'your credit will get ruined if you do not pay
on time.' About two years ago, Walmart unilaterily declared that
creditors would start getting paid in 45-60 da

by **Dan Lanciani** » Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:08:30 GMT

Is there any possibility that someone could post one of these
contracts? Sometimes folks talk about lease payments and sometimes
about loan payments. In the latter case it has been suggested
alternately that the bank may have originated the loan with the
customer (such that the paperwork might not even mention Norvergence)
or that the bank became a holder in due course of (only) the revenue
component of a contract between the customer and Norvergence. I am
not a lawyer, but these all seem like very different scenarios.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A 'lease' is different than a 'loan'.
The door-do-door encyclopedia sales people arranged with various
loan companies (well, really one under various corporate names) to
'loan' the money (which the buyer never saw) to pay the encyclopedia
company for the books which were allegedly free except that the
end-user agreed to pay for twenty years of 'annual updates' for the
books. The 'updates' cost for twenty years was much higher than any
set of encyclopedias could possibly cost. The Court pretty much
squashed the scheme but did allow some of the scheme to continue
with massive reforms to meet the law. Those reforms largely put the
encyclopedia door-to-door sales company out of business, but the
final straw came in the early nineties with computers, Google, etc.
I'd not be surprised at all to find some connections between the
late, great Norvergence and the handful of banks -- or really,loan
companies -- which 'loaned the money to buy the equipment' to the
end user with all sorts of fancy legal terms like 'holder in due
course', etc.

Thirty years ago, the 'loan companies' all screamed and squalled about
how they had been cheated out of their money owed them as 'holders in
due course' until the Court connected all the dots and drew a very
ugly picture for them. I am NOT saying for certain that same scenario
exists now, but in my old age I seem to recall having seen this part
of the movie before. I would not have said this earlier, when the
corporation 'Norvergence' was in business and there was a chance that
some modicum of technical and customer service could have been
rendered, no matter how half-assed it may have been. But now that
there is no longer any phone service to be repaired nor any fiction
of how that repair might be rendered, then my non-legal self-help
advice remains: FREEZE ALL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO NORVERGENCE AT LEAST --
BARE MINIMUM -- UNTIL THE ATTORNIES HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO INVESIGATE
IT ALL, UNLESS *YOUR COMPANY* HAS MONEY TO BE WASTED. MOST DO NOT. PAT]

by **Mark Crispin** » Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:13:05 GMT

I think that there is a lesson to be learned from this.

From what I've read, it appears that the Norvergence customers
effectively purchased the equipment (at inflated prices) and paid for
an extended period of service in advance, financing it through a bank.
Worse, it seems that they actually sold the equipment to the bank and
leased it back.

My reaction: what part of "bad deal" is difficult to understand here?

Presumably the equipment has some residual value; but since you don't
have title, the best you can do is try to get out of the lease somehow
and let the back reclaim the equipment. Even if you had title, you'd
still be stuck for the difference between the purchase cost and the
residual value. This is all the more reason to ensure that the
purchase cost reflects actual market value.

The money paid for service in advance is lost. Never, *ever* pay for
long-term service in advance unless you are willing to lose the entire
amount. Never, *ever*, finance a fee for long-term service in
advance.

There's a big difference between a "service commitment" in which you
agree to maintain monthly service for a year, and buying a year of
service with $x/month payments.

Something tells me that people did not read their contracts carefully.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

by **pv+usenet** » Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:22:47 GMT

Mark Crispin < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

Kinda. The way I understand it, it's sort of like the "OEM rule" at
online computer stores. For example, you can only buy OEM Windows if
sold with a 'piece of computer equipment'. This is handled at some of
these stores by bundling your order with an old BIOS ROM or a useless
adapter cable, sold to you for a tiny extra charge.

The deal with Norvergence is that they determined the value of five
years of a customer's business, and then attached that value as a
pricetag on this matrix box thing (the matrix box never even got used
for anything in some cases). So, customer takes out a conventional
business loan for the value of this piece of equipment, and then pays
Norvergence with the loan's proceeds when approved. Norvergence has
the whole 5 years in cash upfront, and the customer is paying off the
loan on a massively overvalued, and possibly useless piece of gear. If
they got through the whole 5 years it might have been a decent deal,
but as it turns out nobody did. That may have been the plan all along,
or maybe not -- we'll leave that for the courts to determine. I don't
think you need my vote.

The thing that amazes me is that Norvergence didn't make enough money
to pay their bills doing this. They reported 10,000 customers, so even
if you're taking a measly $5000 bucks from each one, that gives you
$50 million to play with, and there were some reports here of people
paying Norv a lot more than $5000 (hundreds of thousands in some
cases). Somebody was lining their pockets with too much of the
'profits'. A charitable person would say that they didn't have a good
long-term money manager. Other darker possibilities are equally or
more likely.

* -- * PV something like badgers--something like
lizards--and something like corkscrews.

by **Lisa Chambers** » Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:14:17 GMT

ELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steven J Sobol
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >:

Please don't release my email address. I happened upon this website
after meeting with an aquaintance earlier tonite, and hearing about
his business experience with Norvergence. Since I've seen the
contract, I thought maybe I could add my opinion to this thread.

I've seen the contract. There is NOTHING in the contract to connect the
'lease' of the equipment with the promise of service. As a matter of
fact, the contract specifically states, in BOLD print, that the lease is
non-cancelable. Other interesting clauses state that the equipment is
used specifically for business (no consumer protection there) AND that
the signer waives the right to jury trial. Also interesting was a clause
that the contract could be changed at anytime, and the renter would be
bound to the changes. I'm not a lawyer -- it seems impossible you could
sign away all rights forever -- but that IS what the contract says.

The bank DID, I am sure, investigate what they were financing. They
were financing a lease agreement. The poor folks who signed the 60
month leases were most likely thoroughly investigated as to their
credit worthiness.

Actually -- there was no 'loan' of money, at least not in an obvious way.
There was a lease agreement on a piece of equipment.

There was no 'mistake' made at the bank. The 'idiots' who suggested
purchasing the lease agreements from Norvergence probably got
promotions and a nice bonus year-end. The banks probably purchased the
financing options at a deep discount. And here, Norvergence has gone
out of business, and the money still flows.

Again, they did not finance a service. They sure as s**t did NOT make
ANY representations about the equipment.

Well, here is where it may get sticky for the banks ... the equipment
DID exist -- but it was leased to different businesses at different
prices. The price of the contracts had no relation to the price of
the equipment -- and was, in fact, based on the business
phone/cellular/and internet bills. An average was taken, and 20% was
discounted. An insurance policy was also required -- at an additional
cost -- that valued the equipment at the five year contract price.

If anything, THAT might indicate collusion with the bank and
Norvergence. Surely, nothing in the contract or in ANY of the
literature sent out by Norvergence indicated an agreement to provide
phone service. Yet, the equipment valuation was BASED on phone bills.

UNLESS there was an intent to commit fraud -- and the banks were
complicit in that attempt.

I asked. What I was told was that they never realized it was a lease
agreement - even tho the papers were clearly marked. The way it worked
was this:

The Norvergence folks contacted them to tell them about this great
network that would provide them with a 20% savings over their current
bills -- guaranteed for the next five years. There were various
AirMail overnites to determine if they were WORTHY of this great
opportunity. The news comes in -- YES! they qualify. The rep comes
over. The contract is passed for the owner to sign. Equipment rental?
Oh yes, that is for the "magic box" -- the item that makes the cost
savings possible. The pen is pulled out, the contract is signed, the
deal is done.

Why was it too-good-to-be-true? Heck, long distance companies call me
(often) with promises to reduce my mo

telecom, Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out

telecom >> Norvergence - How Do I Get Out