RUBIN & ROTHMAN LLC DEBT COLLECTORS CRIMINAL REPORT by PRAYER WARRIOR

CERTIFIED US MAIL CRIMINAL REPORT: RUBIN $ ROTHMAN LLC DEADLY AND CRIMINAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/finalee_rubin_rothman_fraud_judgment_enjoinment_in?mode=win dow&viewMode=singlePage

June 13, 2012 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor, Emailed to: http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php State of New York, State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 2 New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly One Police Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007 fax: 212-374-0265 Organized Crime Control Bureau: 1-888-374-DRUG NYPD Switchboard: 1-646-610-5000 Eric Holder, US Attorney General, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov 202 616-2278 U.S. Department of Justice, 1 202 616 0762 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 FBI New York, ny1@ic.fbi.gov 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 Phone: (212) 384-1000 Fax: (212) 384-4073 / 4074 Eric Schneider, Attorney General info@andrewcuomo.com, http://www.ag.ny.gov/online_forms/email_ag.jsp NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway New York City, NY 10271 COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV Federal Trade Commission Consumer Response Center Criminal Fraud Division Consumer Protections Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 Bill DeBlasio, NYC Public Advocate, Gethelp@Pubadvocate.Nyc.Gov, jdavila@pubadvocate.nyc.gov 1 Centre Street New York, New York 10007

Rose Gill Hearn NYC Commissioner, http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildoi.html 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 212-825-5900 Tina Stanford, Chairperson cvbinfo@cvb.state.ny.us NYS Crime Victims Board, State of New York Executive Department 1 Columbia Circle Ste 200 Albany, New York 12203 dschaefer@mfy.org rcordero@mfy.org MFY Legal Services, Inc. 299 Broadway, 4th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-417-3700 Fax: 212-417-3891 Pat Bath Director of Communications The Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 212-577-3346 347-245-5132 pbath@legal-aid.org sarah@nedap.org josh@nedap.org alexis@nedap.org joby@nedap.org monica@nedap.org

RE: RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC DEBT COLLECTORS ACTING AS JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S PERSONAL JUDICIAL HITMEN IMPLEMENTING AND ADVANCING A DOCUMENTED CONSPIRACY TO MURDER VIA A DEADLY SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND ENJOIN OFFICERS TO HARM MY ELDERLY MOTHER AND I BASED ON AN UNREGULATED,FRAUD BASED, DOCUMENTED PAID,OUTDATED, CAR LOAN JUDGMENT TO BE USED TO TURN INTO A HOUSING JUDGMENT. RUBIN $ ROTHMAN LLC, FILING OF FRIVILOUS LAW SUITS, SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITH NO SIGNATURE, NO CERTIFICATION, EFFECTUATING A DAMAGING, VEXATIOUS AND CRIMINAL JUDGEMENT ADVANCING ENJOINMENT IN PREMEDITATED MURDER AS ONE MUST DEFEND ONESELF FROM OFFICERS OR OTHERS ENJOINED TO ENFORCE A FRAUD JUDGMENT THAT CAN CRIMINALLY MAKE ONE HOMELESS. THIS MUST BE STOPPED. THIS IS VINDICTIVELY PREMEDITATED TO CRIMINALLY ATTEMPT TO SILENCE JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S NON CERTIFIED OATH OF OFFICE JUDICIAL TRESPASS, ADDITIONAL MOTIVE IS TO CRIMINALLY AND VINDICTIVELY STOP THE ATTACHED RUBIN $ ROTHMAN NOTICE TO SUE, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IS SOUGHT FROM PREMEDITATED MALICIOUS AND DEADLY DEBT COLLECTIONS,

RAMIFICATIONS AND THE ENJOINMENTS. THESE TOP DOWN ORGANIZED CRIMES MUST BE STOPPED. Dear Public Officials: I write this criminal report with respect to Rubin & Rothmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s deadly debt collection crimes that can effectuate homicide by premeditated design. Foremost, the use of the judiciary to overlook repeated frivolous law suits targeted at me to create and advance falsified judgment administration must be stopped because these fraud based judgments are being used to enjoin officers of the law and others in premeditated murder as detailed below and in the exhibits. Foremost, my name is Miriam Snyder. This is the second deadly and criminal debt collector fraud case that is being used to terrorize my family and I again and can be used to have someone killed by design. The first case was embedded in fraud and the police were criminally called in to harm and or possibly kill me under disguise. Please listen to the criminal enjoinment of the police to terrorize me in retaliation to fighting off a criminal debt collection law suit and while doing so requesting the certified oath of office of NYS Judicial Trespass Jonathan Lippman. Please listen to the criminal enjoinment of the police and their terrorization here: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=346403&cmd=apop Please read the police complaint about the terrorization here. http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/jonathan_lippman_criminal_use_of_nyc_police_depart? mode=window&viewMode=doublePage AND http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/jonathan_lippman_criminal_use_of_nyc_police_depart? mode=window&viewMode=doublePage Please read about the criminal debt collection practices that were advanced by judicial corruption here: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/threecriminalaffidavits?mode=window&viewMode=single Page OR http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/corrected_notarized_w_receipts_march_7_2010_crimi n?mode=window&viewMode=singlePage Please read about a continuous pattern of terrorization and fraud using debt collectors and credit bureaus to maliciously harm. http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/jonathan_lippman_third_partyy_enjoinment_in_attemp? mode=window&viewMode=doublePage Criminal report: Obstruction of 4.9 Judicative Input; Judicial Bond Number

http://www.endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/Criminal-Report-Jonathan-LippmanBond-Number-Oath-of-Office-Court-Entrapment-Patterns-Treason-Defraud-USA-CertifiedReceipts-and-Notarized-1.pdf With respect to Rubin & Rothman, LLC, I am in the process of suing them for vexatious, criminal and frivolous court filings, obstructing consumer protection laws and using such obstructions to maliciously stalk and terrorize me regarding a debt paid off in full and never late since 1999. Please see exhibits 10-11 exemplifying the alleged debt status. Despite this car loan debt being paid off in an exemplary manner and when I was gainfully working, Rubin & Rothman, LLC criminally used the NYS courts to advance their judgment creation criminal scheme to defraud and harm me. March and January 2012 they sent another threat to me regarding their vicious and lawless judgment fraud administration. Consequently, there is need for this criminal report as false judgments are deadly and can be used to have innocent people or officers killed. In this matter, the Rubin $ Rothman LLC fraud based judgment was criminally created and has been enforced as witchcraft having magical ruling powers that are not there, but yet has criminally enjoined third parties in replicated theft of funds and life threatening harm to me. This fraud based Rubin $ Rothman judgment has criminally frozen bank accounts, garnished my pay check and was used to have me wrongfully terminated as a professor with exemplary ratings. Please see exhibits 4, 5,6, and 9. This fraud based judgment has been used to harm me viciously and repeatedly. Since this fraud based judgment has not been regulated and is being sent to me as if it if has additional satanic powers, there is need for this criminal report. I say this because this fraud based judgment can be criminally used under the criminal judicial trespass of Jonathan Lippman as a non-existent, malicious, and deadly housing judgment to criminally make me homeless to silence Regional Killer Jonathan Lippmannâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s judicial trespass crimes. The magnitude of evil and criminality inflicted by this Rubin $ Rothman LLC fraud based judgment compels this criminal report. Above all, I believe this fraud based judgment is being plotted to disguise a killing. Please see exhibits 16 and 17. These exhibits show a clear relationship between Rubin $ Rothman LLC and Judicial Trespass, Jonathan Lippman. The Rubin $ Rothman LLC deadly judgment with satanic powers being used to harm me, is being done at the vindictive order of judicial trespass Jonathan Lippman. Exhibit 16 shows another one of Judicial Trespass Jonathan Lippman buddies named Fernando Tapia. This judicial impersonator attacked me previously. He too, like Rubin $ Rothman LLC tried to create a falsified judgment. These falsified judgments are criminally being created with the motive to criminally turn into a housing judgment to enjoin officers and others in a premeditated killing BASED ON UNREGULATED AND DOCUMENTED FRAUD AND SWINDELES FROM THE JUDICIARY. Please see exhibit 16 exemplifying two judicial trespasses, Jonathan Lippman and Fernando Tapia, both reigning over the housing court.

Judgment fraud enjoins and puts officers in deadly situations. Judgment fraud creates a government liability for those on the payroll attempting to enforce this fraud. Please see two criminal reports I wrote about this premeditated judgment scheme to defraud and the ramifications of such embedded in judicial trespassing, specifically alleged NYS judges who cannot produce the required judicial certified oaths of office. Please see: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/jonathan_lippman_criminal_use_of_nyc_police_depart? mode=window&viewMode=doublePage Please see the crimes and terrorizations I endured while fighting a fraud based judgment organized by criminally expert judicial impersonators, Lippman and Tapia. http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/lipman_no_oath_of_office_apartment_terrorizations_? mode=window&viewMode=singlePage Despite overcoming the above noted judgment fraud, January 2012, March 2012 and up to today, Rubin $ Rothman LLC judgment fraud is still criminally ruling. Consequently, my safety and life is again being recklessly threatened. Rubin $ Rothman’s LLC fraudulent judgment has stolen money from me, made me jobless and will not make me homeless. Consequently, I am writing this criminal report so the record is real clear. Rubin & Rothman LLC has a non-validated fraud based judgment on me for Ford Motor Credit, a debt that was paid off since 1999. There is no housing legal matter in my life. I have a private contract with the owner. I am living in a Co-op. I do not want officers enjoined in this fraud as they could or I could lose my life behind this criminally expert conspiracy to murder planning. An example of how this criminal insanity and abuse of officers and others on a payroll works is exemplified n the below link: Please listen to the criminal enjoinment of the police and their terrorization of me here: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=346403&cmd=apop Please see the criminal report here: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/jonathan_lippman_criminal_use_of_nyc_police_depart? mode=window&viewMode=doublePage I seek a police report documenting Jonathan Lippman’s ongoing, continued, patterned and practiced use of third party criminal debt collector entities, emphasis on Rubin $ Rothman LLC, to attempt to kill, harm and or destabilize me with the motive of intimidating and silencing his inability to produce a required certified judicial oath of office and is threatening me from suing such entities by criminally sending officers to my home to terrorize me as exemplified in the tape above. These judicial trespass positions give all judicial criminals direct access to enjoin third parties on government payrolls in their conspiracy to murder crimes via the enforcement of falsified non adjudicated and totally criminal judgments. Jonathan Lippman’s ties to the judicial impersonator

Fernando Tapia who was the judge that attempted to set me up with a Fraud judgment while he has ties to the Bronx Housing court, is exemplified in Exhibit 16. Under the lawless leadership of Jonathan Lippman the courts are being used as terrorist entities to obstruct consumer protection laws put in place to stop judgment fraud creation. Please see pages 40-84 here: http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/JONATHAN_LIPPMAN_THIRD_PARTYY_E NJOINMENT_IN_ATTEMPTED_MURDER_VIA_DEBT_COLLECTION_FRAUD.pdf All of my lawful and valid motions to dismiss Rubin & Rothman’s and other known debt collector criminal cases were criminally disregarded by the judiciary compelling me to write criminal reports seeking the arrest of criminal debt collectors pursuant to the below penal crimes. Please see the above linked criminal reports. The falsified judgment plot has been administered two times with direct intent to kill me. But God! As a God given right, I would defend myself from this deadly premeditated fraud that would destabilize me. Consequently, the third party enjoinments who may not know the magnitude of fraud are risking their lives at the expense of Jonathan Lippmann’s criminal insanity fraud judgment creation and judicial micromanagement. To this end, since Rubin $ Rothman LLC continue to criminally terrorize me with a fraud based, null and void judgment that has damaged me viciously previously and can further harm and or kill my mother and I based on criminal enjoinments, I am filing the below criminal charges against Rubin & Rothman. Rubin Rothman LLC debt collectors need to be arrested. I am charging them with the below crimes that they have inflicted on me and other innocent New Yorkers verified by the attached exhibits. New York Penal - Article 190 - § 190.65 Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree 175.05 - Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree. 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree. 175.30 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree. 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. 18 USC 1512 Engaging In Misleading Conduct. 18 USC 1503 Intimidate Witnesses. 185.15 Fraudulent Disposition Of (Intangible) Property Subject To A Conditional Sale Contract; 185.05 Fraud Involving A Security Interest; 190.40 190.42 190.45 190.50 190.55

Criminal usury in the second degree. Criminal usury in the first degree. Possession of usurious loan records. Unlawful collection practices. Making a false statement of credit terms.

190.60 - Scheme to defraud in the second degree. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree. I seek the arrest of Rubin & Rothman LLC live agents and an end to their crimes and all available restitution. I seek crime victim and retaliation protection from suing Rubin and Rothman for their reckless and criminal use of the debt collection process and for their recent attached criminal letters implying additional participation in a conspiracy to murder via their unregulated and criminal scheme to defraud judgment. Please see the exhibits attached exemplifying false instruments filed in court and the many other documents epitomizing the obstruction of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The attached Rubin and Rothman LLC, documents, specifically, the non-certified judgment, the no signature summons and unverified complaint, and the replicated falsified affidavits, exemplify fraud in the court, and are clear obstructions of the rules of the Chief Administrative Judge Part 130: costs and sanctions: section 130-1.1 i by failing to Certify The Complaint In Accordance With Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States: “(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The Circumstances, (1) The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1 (C)”.Of This Subpart, And (2) Where The Paper Is An Initiating Pleading, (I) The Matter Was Not Obtained Through Illegal Conduct, Or That If It Was, The Attorney Or Other Persons Responsible For The Illegal Conduct Are Not Participating In The Matter Or Sharing In Any Fee Earned There From, And (Ii) The Matter Was Not Obtained In Violation Of 22 NYCRR 1200.41-A [Dr 7-111]”. With respect to sharing in fees, Rubin & Rothman LLC initiated this frivolous law suit for purposes of sharing fees. They tried to swindle me into unconscionable contracting, under the disguise of a settlement offer. The settlement offer is opening a new contract with a stranger to pay them for a debt that is not owed. This is called, criminal independent liability creation and debt slave formation. It is an unlawful collection practice. It is rooted in unconscionable contracting. This type of criminal contracting is noted and prohibited in New York State. Please see: http://www.psinstitute.com/HonAnnPfauvForterGarbus.pdf Unconscionable consent is what is criminally used to authorize this racket. They get consent under the PRESUMPTION GAME and they immensely dislike, when one learns the game and refuses to be a party to a third party, trying to steal money with the consent of the defendant. Despite, being aware of the racquet, submitting an exemplary Motion to Dismiss with 2 NYS judicial opinions, defending myself properly, the judiciary was criminally used to disregard the obvious Rubin $ Rothman LLC frivolous and malicious law suit. Please see pages 40- 84 on the below link to see the judicial disregards that criminally and covertly advances Rubin & Rothman LLC current criminal debt collection practices. http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/JONATHAN_LIPPMAN_THIRD_PARTYY_E NJOINMENT_IN_ATTEMPTED_MURDER_VIA_DEBT_COLLECTION_FRAUD.pdf

It was at this point, I knew there was a bigger crime to be committed because the false filed instruments were being treated by the judiciary, like a sword. The judge disregarded the fact that there was no standing, no contract, no joinder, no liability and no jurisdiction whatsoever and that all of the attached evidence verifies that this was a frivolous, unscrupulous, vexatious, and meritless law suit. Rubin and Rothman need to be arrested before an officer or an innocent civilian is killed behind these fraudulent summons, court certificates, and judgments. These are false instruments filed in the NYS court. They are used again as authority to enjoin officers and advance premeditated murder. They should be arrested. I seek crime victim protection for the above linked multiple criminal debt collector frivolous law suits, theft of money, loss of job and income. In the exhibits, I have included other victims of Rubin $ Rothman LLCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scheme to defraud debt collection crimes. Attached there are 26 exhibits. Thank you. Sincerely,

Miriam Snyder

Exhibit 1 Most recent telephone harassment 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 18 USC 1512 Engaging In Misleading Conduct. RUBIN AND ROTHMAN DID NOT VALIDATE THE ALLEGED OUTDATED PAID ALREADY DEBT YET CONTINUE TO PURSUE COLLECTION ACTIVITY (FILE FOR JUDGMENTS, CALL AND WRITE ) THEY HAVE A CRIMINAL AND UNSCRUPULOUS PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTING THE FDCPA PARTICULARLY, SECTIONS 805 (C) AND 809 (B), Rubin and Rothman Obstructed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Sec. 227., 47 USC ยง 227(b)(1), 47 USC ยง 227(a) (iii). JUNE 8, 2012 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN DEBT COLLECTORS CALLED ME BACK TO BACK TO HARASS AND DID SUCH AS TELEPHONE NUMBER 5822. THEY CALLED AT 6:53 AND 6: 51 PM ON JUNE 8, 2012. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

Exhibit 2 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree. Rubin and Rothman obstruction of FCRA Section 605 (c) Running of the reporting period

Rothman criminal “Re-age” a paid car debt that is over 12 years old by updating the date of last activity on my credit report in the hopes of keeping negative information on my account longer

Rubin and Rothman LLC violated the requirements imposed on debt collectors by the FDCPA in that it (1) failed to include the 30-day validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g; (2) failed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11), to disclose that Rubin and Rothman LLC was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose; and (3) contained threats to take actions that could not legally be taken or were not intended to be taken, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

Exhibit 3 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW: 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree. Rubin and Rothman violation of FCRA Section 605 (c) Running of the reporting period Rothman criminal “Re-age” a paid car debt that is over 12 years old by updating the date of last activity on my credit report in the hopes of keeping negative information on my account longer Rubin and Rothman violated FDCPA § 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person.

Exhibit 4 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. Rubin and Rothman spoke with my employer in order to get "payroll" information and advised them that legal process would be served there. In other words, they criminally told my employer that I was a no-good deadbeat. Thus the collector disclosed this private information to a third party, a big "no-no" under the FDCPA. Rubin and Rothman violated FDCPA Section 15 USC ยง1692c(b)

Exhibit 5 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. RUBIN AND ROTHMAN VIOLATED 15 USC CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER II - RESTRICTIONS ON GARNISHMENT

2. Sec. 1674: Restriction on discharge from employment by reason of garnishment (a) Termination of employment : No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness. (b) Penalties : Whoever willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both

EXHIBIT 6 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. RUBIN AND ROTHMAN VIOLATED 15 USC CHAPTER 41, SUBCHAPTER II - RESTRICTIONS ON GARNISHMENT

Rubin and Rothman spoke with my employer in order to get "payroll" information and advised them that legal process would be served there. In other words, they criminally told my employer that I was a no-good deadbeat. Thus the collector disclosed this private information to a third party, a big "no-no" under the FDCPA. 15 USC ยง1692c(b)

EXHIBIT 7

RUBIN AND ROTHMAN OBSTRUCTION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, SEC. 601, ARTICLE 29-H. DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Â§ 600. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires: 1. "Consumer claim" means any obligation of a natural person for the payment of money or its equivalent which is or is alleged to be in default and which arises out of a transaction wherein credit has been offered or extended to a natural person, and the money, property or service which was the subject of the transaction was primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The term includes an obligation of a natural person who is a co-maker, endorser, guarantor or surety as well as the natural person to whom such credit was originally extended. 2. "Debtor" means any natural person who owes or who is asserted to owe a consumer claim. 3. "Principal creditor" means any person, firm, corporation or organization to whom a consumer claim is owed, due or asserted to be due or owed, or any assignee for value of said person, firm, corporation or organization. Â§ 601. Prohibited practices.

No principal creditor, as defined by this article, or his agent shall: 1. Simulate in any manner a law enforcement officer, or a representative of any governmental agency of the state of New York or any of its political subdivisions; or 2. Knowingly collect, attempt to collect, or assert a right to any collection fee, attorney's fee, court cost or expense unless such changes are justly due and legally chargeable against the debtor; or 3. Disclose or threaten to disclose information affecting the debtor's reputation for credit worthiness with knowledge or reason to know that the information is false; or 4. Communicate or threaten to communicate the nature of a consumer claim to the debtor's employer prior to obtaining final judgment against the debtor. The provisions of this subdivision shall not prohibit a principal creditor from communicating with the debtor's employer to execute a wage assignment agreement if the debtor has consented to such an agreement; or 5. Disclose or threaten to disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact; or 6. Communicate with the debtor or any member of his family or household with such frequency or at such unusual hours or in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor; or

7. Threaten any action which the principal creditor in the usual course of his business does not in fact take; or 8. Claim, or attempt or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist; or 9. Use a communication which simulates in any manner legal or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being authorized, issued or approved by a government, governmental agency, or attorney at law when it is not. Â§ 602. Violations and penalties. 1. Except as otherwise provided by law, any person who shall violate the terms of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such violation shall be deemed a separate offense. 2. The attorney general or the district attorney of any county may bring an action in the name of the people of the state to restrain or prevent any violation of this article or any continuance of any such violation. Â§ 603. Severability. If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid the invalidity thereof shall not affect other provisions or applications of the article which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this and the provisions of this article are severable. Website : http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg

EXHIBIT 8 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN OBSTRUCTIONS190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - Making a false statement of credit terms. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles.

CRIMINAL GARNISHMENT IN OBSTRUCTION TO ALL PROTECTIONS IN THE FDCPA

False Statements and Fraudulent Debt Collection Practices

EXHIBIT 9

18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. PURE FRAUD: NO PROOF OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT AND OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL CLAIM

EXHIBIT 10 THE DEBT WAS PAID IN FULL AUTHENTICATION FORTHCOMING

EXHIBIT 11 EXPERIAN CREDIT REPORT EXEMPLIFYING THAT THE DEBT WAS PAID IN FULL AUTHENTICATION FORTHCOMING

EXHIBIT 12 http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/06/04/lvnv-funding-v-guest-city-court-of-ny-no-evidentiary-proofaccount-was-actually-assigned-by-or-to-any-party-rubin-rothman-sanctioned-10000-00/

http://www.plol.org/Pages/Secure/Document.aspx?d=wmmFBB%2fuxTRX86gr5ucwtw%3d%3d&l=Case s&rp=4

EXHIBIT 13 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN REPLICATED FDCPA OBSTRUCTIONS

Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 2010 WL 547476 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) http://www.newyorkconsumerprotection.com/consumer-law-help/debt-collection/rubin-rothman-llc Rubin & Rothman, LLC Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a high volume debt collection law firm located at 1787 Veterans Hwy, Suite 32, Islandia, New York 11749. Rubin & Rothman, LLC has been sued repeatedly by consumers for its unfair and deceptive debt collection practices. For example: 

A 2003 New York court lambasted Rubin & Rothman’s conduct when the firm attempted to reserve a defendant while the defendant appeared for a traverse hearing to challenge the firm’s earlier defective service. The court said that Rubin & Rothman’s conduct “essentially allow[ed] the plaintiff to use a defective default judgment as a weapon with which to compel the defendant to submit to service of process.” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. George Bobo, 1 Misc.3d 901(A) (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 2003). The court expressed its disapproval of Rubin & Rothman’s questionable conduct when it remarked, “[t]he Court takes a very dim view of a plaintiff who serves process in the courthouse on a defendant who has appeared for a traverse hearing.”



A recent investigative report by MFY Legal Services, Inc. found that in 2007, Rubin & Rothman filed 31,661 cases in New York City alone. See Consumer Rights Project, “Justice Disserved,” June 2008. The defendant appeared in court in only 9.29 percent of those cases. Thus, the vast majority of those cases resulted in default judgments against the consumer.



In a recent federal court case, Rubin & Rothman, LLC, a consumer-debtor accused the law firm of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 2010 WL 547476 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). The abusive and deceptive tactics alleged against Rubin & Rothman included contacting third persons and discussing the consumer’s debts as well as financial condition, without knowledge or permission of the debtor consumer. Despite the fact that the plaintiff consumer was on full disability, Rubin & Rothman threatened to “drain all of [her] accounts” if she did not pay the debt and falsely and misleading told plaintiff that any money in her accounts, including disability payments was subject to attachment. Based upon these alleged facts, the Court denied Rubin & Rothman’s motion for summary judgment in its favor.



Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP recently filed a lawsuit against Rubin & Rothman, LLC and Arrow Financial Services in federal court (Southern District of New York), alleging that Rubin & Rothman and Arrow Financial Serviceswrongfully sued a consumer in state court on a medical debt she did not owe, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state consumer protection laws. Bolanos v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC and Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 10-cv-07243 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

EXHIBIT 14 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN REPLICATED FDCPA OBSTRUCTIONS 



 

New York Attorney General Launches Inquiry Into Debt Collection ... getoutofdebt.org/7033/new-york-attorney-general-launches-inquiry... ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LAUNCHES INQUIRY INTO DEBT COLLECTORS ACROSS NEW YORK ... Financial Systems, Inc.; North Shore Agency, Inc.; RJM Acquisitions LLC; Rubin & Rothman ... NY Attorney General Targets Collection Agencies - … accountsrecovery.net/profiles/blogs/ny-attorney-general-targets-1 New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is targeting collection agencies. ... Financial Systems, Inc.; North Shore Agency, Inc.; RJM Acquisitions LLC; Rubin &Rothman ... AG puts debt collector out of business www.againstbillcollectors.com/media/AGputsdebtcollectoroutof... · PDF file Agency, Inc.; RJM Acquisitions LLC; Rubin & Rothman LLC; and Sharinn & Lipshie P.C. Earlier this month, Cuomo announced a lawsuit against two debt settlement … New York AG Closes Collection Agencies - How to Stop Debt … www.howtostopdebtcollectors.com/newyork-ag-closes-collection-agencies New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is continuing his crusade against rogue ...Rubin & Rothman LLC; Sharinn & Lipshie P.C; You may remember LHR from the … Debt Collection Legal Process Server Arrested by New York AG www.howtostopdebtcollectors.com/cuomo-arrests-collector Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced criminal charges today against Long ...Rubin and Rothman, LLC – 31,661 cases filed; Forster and Garbus – 30,032 cases filed

EXHIBIT 15 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN REPLICATED FDCPA OBSTRUCTIONS 2 RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC SANCTIONS https://www.plol.org/Pages/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fPages%2fSecure%2fDocument.aspx%3fd%3d7NtF3xSCaiVEVm0XgrSpxA%253d%253d%26l%3dCases%2 6rp%3d4&d=7NtF3xSCaiVEVm0XgrSpxA%3d%3d&l=Cases&rp=4

2012 NY Slip Op 50008 Midland Funding LLC d/b/a in New York as Midland Funding of Delaware LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dianne Wallace, Defendant. 1788-08 City Court of Mt. Vernon Decided on January 5, 2012

Rubin & Rothman, LLC

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Counsel for Midland Funding LLC & Rubin & Rothman, LLC Dianne Wallace Defendant Pro Se The Lawyers' Fund For Client Protection Mark A. Gross, J. By Decision and Order dated September 6, 2010, this Court ordered a hearing to determine whether sanctions would be imposed upon plaintiff and/or plaintiff's attorneys for filing a frivolous debt collection lawsuit. On or about June 18, 2010 plaintiff moved ex parte to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on June 17, 2008 and to discontinue the action. Although the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation regarding why the judgment was erroneously entered or the reason for the two year delay in seeking to vacate said judgment, the Court granted plaintiff's request to vacate the default judgment so that the defendant would no longer be prejudiced by having a default judgment on her record. Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney were directed to appear before this Court on October 5, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. for a hearing to determine whether plaintiff's attorneys should be sanctioned under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1 for their frivolous conduct in entering a default judgment against the defendant in error and failing to vacate said erroneous judgment in a timely fashion.

Specifically, the plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with documentary proof of the alleged claim in the instant action establishing plaintiff's prima facie case, including the entire chain of assignment(s) of the debt alleged. The Court further directed that plaintiff and/or its attorneys provide the Court with a sufficient explanation as to why the default judgment was entered in error and why there was a two year delay in seeking vacatur of said erroneous default judgment. The hearing was adjourned several times and finally was held on January 10, 2011. Contrary to the assertions in plaintiff's motion, at the hearing, plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that it had mistakenly sought to vacate the default judgment entered due to an error by one of plaintiff's counsel's associates. Plaintiff had instructed counsel to vacate a judgment on another file counsel handled for plaintiff, however, counsel's office inadvertently transposed one file digit which led to the mistaken motion to vacate the judgment in the instant matter. Plaintiff's counsel contends that plaintiff had a valid judgment against Dianne Wallace, the defendant herein. In support of their contention that plaintiff's judgment against Ms. Wallace is valid, plaintiff's counsel produced an Assignment of Accounts from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to Midland Funding LLC dated February 10, 2006 which references two other agreements which were not produced. Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a sworn statement of Andrew Carlson, the Manager of Portfolio Sales for Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. In his statement, Mr. Carlson swears that CompuCredit Corporation is the parent corporation of Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and that CompuCredit Corporation acquired certain credit card accounts issued by Columbus Bank and Trust Company. Mr. Carlson further swears that after the accounts are charged off by CompuCredit the accounts are transferred and assigned to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. Mr. Carlson also affirms that Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC subsequently sold many of the accounts it had acquired to Midland Funding, LLC which sale was consummated by an Assignment of Accounts. It is further sworn that the accounts associated with the Columbus Bank and Trust Company accounts are identified as being in bin 410636 and that all information regarding those credit card accounts was transmitted electronically to the account purchasers. Ms. Danielle Wohlfehrt, a legal outsourcing manager for Midland Credit Managing, the servicing agent for plaintiff, testified at the hearing that based upon her experience in the consumer debt industry, a credit card account in the name of Dianne Wallace was included in the account bin referenced in Mr. Carlson's affirmation.

The Court notes that only one actual assignment of plaintiff's account was submitted to the Court in support of plaintiff's counsel's contention that plaintiff's judgment against Ms. Wallace was valid, that being the assignment from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to Midland Funding LLC. Plaintiff's counsel was unable to present admissible evidence of the entire chain of assignment of the underlying debt in this matter. Noticeably missing was an assignment from the original creditor Columbus Bank and Trust Company, with whom defendant allegedly entered into a credit card agreement, to CompuCredit Corporation. The alleged assignment from CompuCredit Corporation to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC was also not produced. Mr. Carlson's hearsay assertion in his affirmation that such assignments took place is not sufficient as a matter of law to prove that such an assignment took place. See, Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). Moreover, the Court finds Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony to be inconsequential to plaintiff's contention that it had a prima facie case against the defendant. First, Ms. Wohlfehrt acknowledged that she had no personal knowledge of the assignment of the alleged debt between any of the parties. Rather, Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony relied solely upon the documents that were provided after the alleged assignment took place. Second, Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony regarding the electronically transferred documents highlights the fact that there is no actual proof that defendant's account was actually assigned. According to Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony, the assignment of accounts refers to a series of credit card accounts grouped together by the first seven digits of the account numbers referred to as the bin number. In fact, Ms. Wohlfehrt acknowledged that she does not know if all of the accounts issued by Columbus Bank and Trust having the same bin number were part of the assignment. As such, there is no admissible proof specifically establishing that defendant's credit card account was one of the accounts assigned.The Court also notes that Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony is itself contradictory in that she testified that the bin number was the first seven digits of the credit card account numbers yet the documents submitted by plaintiff's counsel as evidence of the assignment only show a bin number that is six digits, not seven. Nothing in Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony establishes plaintiff's chain of assignment of defendant's alleged debt and therefore, plaintiff's counsel did not have a prima facie case against defendant.

It is plaintiff's counsel's contention that plaintiff need not be able to establish a prima facie case before issuing a summons and complaint. Rather, counsel contends that the rules requiring certification of a summons and complaint require only that plaintiff have a basis in law and fact before commencing an action and need not have the requisite proof to establish a prima facie case prior to commencing an action. Counsel further contends that they fulfilled the requirements of CPLR ยง 3215 in obtaining the default judgment. They further argue that although plaintiff had never actually obtained an assignment from the original creditor at the time they filed suit and obtained the default judgment the "rules" did not require a full chain of assignment at the time the debt was acquired. The Court finds that under the circumstances presented here, plaintiff's counsel did not and could not have properly certified the complaint they filed in the instant action. 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a requires that "by signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in subsection 130-1.1(c)." 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1(c) defines conduct as frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false." Under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a a proper certification of a complaint can only be made after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances establishes that the claim asserted in the complaint has merit in law and asserts truthful factual allegations. Plaintiff's counsel should have known what documentary proof was required for a meritorious lawsuit under New York law and knew that they did not have the required proof in the instant case when they filed suit. In order for any inquiry by counsel into the merits of the instant matter to be reasonable counsel had an obligation to obtain the required documentation substantiating a prima facie case, including proof of the entire chain of assignment(s) of the alleged debt, prior to filing the instant action. As such, since plaintiff's counsel failed to obtain the requisite documentation substantiating the merits of plaintiff's alleged cause of action against the defendant, plaintiff's counsel could not certify the complaint as required under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 1.1-a. Accordingly, the certification here is disingenuous, misleading and false.

In addition, counsel has a continuing duty to assess the legal and factual basis of a claim in order to avoid imposition of sanctions under Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. See Worldwide Asset Purchasing, L.L.C. v. Akrofi, 884 N.Y.S.2d 631 (Ithaca City Ct. 2009). In the case at bar, counsel was presented with multiple opportunities to re-evaluate the claim both when it applied for a default judgment against defendant and after it mistakenly sought vacatur of the default judgment, especially in light of the fact that it was ordered by the Court to produce documentary proof of the alleged claim, including the entire chain of assignment of the debt. Ignoring their obligations, plaintiff's counsel merely produced the one assignment from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to its client and an affidavit containing hearsay allegations regarding the remaining assignments, including the one from the original creditor.

The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel's failure to produce the directed documentary proof is even more egregious given plaintiff's assertion at the very outset of hearing that the judgment herein was valid (despite plaintiff's prior request to vacate the same) and further given the fact that the hearing was adjourned from its originally scheduled date at counsel's request and then was further adjourned in mid-hearing for one more month to allow counsel yet another opportunity to obtain the necessary documentary proof. The apparent lack of a factual basis for the claim renders plaintiff's counsel's conduct in commencing this action without having proof of its merit frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c). Moreover, the Court takes issue with plaintiff's counsel's contention that they fulfilled the requirements of CPLR § 3215 in obtaining the default judgment. CPLR § 3215 requires submission of an affidavit of merit setting forth the factual proof constituting the claim made by the party in support of such party's application for a default judgment. In the case at bar, the Court does not consider the affidavit submitted by plaintiff with its default judgment application to be an affidavit satisfying the requirements under CPLR § 3215. First, the affidavit is by a non-titled employee of plaintiff's servicing agent and as such is not a affidavit made by the party as required under CPLR § 3215. See HSBC Bank v. Betts, 67 AD3d 735 (2nd Dept. 2009). Second, the allegations asserted in the affidavit are not made by an individual with first hand knowledge of the facts. Although the affidavit is carefully drafted to appear as if the affirmant has actual knowledge of the underlying facts, in fact, the allegations are based upon hearsay. At one point the affirmant actually asserts "[u]pon information and belief, defendant(s) used or authorized the use of credit card account to obtain loans from the original credit grantor ...." Clearly, the affirmant had no first hand knowledge of the facts constituting the claim as required under CPLR § 3215. 28

For an assignee plaintiff to have the first hand knowledge necessary for a statutorily proper affidavit of merit as required by CPLR ยง 3215 such party must have obtained the entire chain of assignment(s) and the underlying documentary proof. Counsel's contention at the hearing that the "rules" had changed since the time plaintiff was assigned defendant's alleged debt is not just incorrect, its absurd. The rules have always required a plaintiff to have first hand knowledge of the facts constituting the claim when seeking to obtain a default judgment against a defendant. The fact that the New York City courts had to explicitly delineate how to satisfy the statutory prerequisite under CPLR ยง 3215 for assignee plaintiff's in consumer debt cases because of the abusive conduct of counsel for assignee creditors' does not mean that the rules have changed. Rather, it means that assignee plaintiff's and their counsel were improperly seeking default judgments in consumer cases where they did not have the requisite proof of facts constituting the claim and so the courts felt the need to direct counsel regarding the proper statutory pre-requisites for a default judgment in a consumer debt action. The Court is outraged at counsel's cavalier retort "so we don't win at trial" in response to the Court's contention that plaintiff's counsel could not have had an actual basis in law and fact because plaintiff did not have a complete chain of assignments. See January 10, 2011 Hearing Transcript, pg. 16, line 14. Clearly, plaintiff's counsel knows that under New York law, a full chain of assignment in addition to documentary proof of the contract and debt is required in order to prove a prima facie case in a consumer debt action where the plaintiff is an assignee of the original creditor. See, Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); DNS Equity Group, Inc. Lavalle, 26 Misc 3d 1228A (Dist. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2010). Without proof of the chain of assignment plaintiff is unable to show its standing to sue the defendant and a lack of standing renders a litigation a nullity, subject to dismissal without prejudice. Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). The sentiment behind counsel's statement renders the intent behind both the certification requirement under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a and the affidavit of merit requirement under CPLR ยง 3215 utterly meaningless. The Court is similarly appalled at plaintiff's counsel's conduct in the case at bar. First, plaintiff's counsel both commenced an action and took a default judgment without having a chain of assignment or proper documentary proof of a claim. Then plaintiff's counsel made an ex-parte application to vacate the default judgment two years later on the grounds that it was entered in error without providing a further explanation. 29

The Court ordered a hearing to determine if plaintiff's counsel should be sanctioned for frivolous conduct for entering a default judgment in error and failing to vacate the default judgment in a timely fashion. After multiple adjournments for over three months, plaintiff's counsel appeared at the hearing and asserted that its ex-parte application to vacate the default judgment had been made in error and that the judgment entered herein against the defendant was, in fact, a valid judgment. However, notwithstanding plaintiff's assertion that the judgment against the defendant was a valid judgment, plaintiff's counsel did not and could not provide any proof to substantiate its blatantly bald assertion. The Court even granted plaintiff's counsel a further continuance of the hearing to give counsel an additional month to obtain the proof required to substantiate its claim and plaintiff's counsel still failed to provide the requisite proof. Clearly, plaintiff's assertion that the judgment against the defendant was a valid judgment was tantamount to counsel

attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. The Court further notes that contrary to plaintiff's counsel's assertion, consumer debt actions are not akin to negligence actions where extensive discovery may need to be had before a plaintiff can prove a prima facie case. Rather, consumer debt actions are primarily document driven and thus, in general, a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case without any discovery whatsoever. In the instant matter, plaintiff's counsel commenced an action without having sufficient documentary proof to establish its prima facie case. Thereafter, plaintiff took a default judgment against the defendant and did so, this Court believes, in bad faith, fully knowing what proof was required to prove its case, that it was not in possession of such proof, and, most significantly, that, in all likelihood, it could never obtain and produce the requisite proof. The conduct of plaintiff's counsel not only improperly denied defendant the due process of law but is egregious, dishonest and unprofessional and holds the courts and the entire legal profession up for public scorn and ridicule. Such conduct shall not be countenanced by the Court. Based upon all the foregoing, the Court finds that the failure plaintiff's counsel, Rubin & Rothman, LLC, to obtain the requisite documentary proof of the claim alleged, including the entire chain of assignment(s) either prior to commencing the instant action or to obtaining a default judgment against defendant constitutes frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR ยง 130.1-1. 30

Based thereon the Court hereby imposes a monetary sanction against Rubin & Rothman, LLC in the sum of $7,500.00 which is to be paid by Rubin & Rothman, LLC to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection no later than February 29, 2012. Proof of compliance with this Decision and Order shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court by that same date. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated:January 5, 2012 Mount Vernon, New York _________________________________ HON. MARK A. GROSS City Judge of Mount Vernon

2012 NY Slip Op 50974 LVNV Funding LLC, Plaintiff, v. Annetta Guest, Defendant. 2091-10 City Court of Mount Vernon Decided on May 29, 2012 http://www.plol.org/Pages/Secure/Document.aspx?d=wmmFBB%2fuxTRX86gr5ucwtw%3d%3d&l=Cases&rp=4

Rubin & Rothman, LLC Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Counsel for Midland Funding LLC & Rubin & Rothman, LLC Annetta Guest Defendant Pro Se The Lawyers' Fund For Client Protection Mark A. Gross, J.

This Court ordered a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed on plaintiff and its attorneys for filing a frivolous debt collection lawsuit and whether plaintiff's counsel should be held in contempt of the Court for failing to provide court ordered documents. Plaintiff commenced the instant action on June 8, 2010. Defendant filed her answer on July 23, 2010. The matter was scheduled for a Pre-Trial Conference to be held on September 28, 2010. On September 28, 2010 both sides appeared and the plaintiff was ordered to serve on defendant and file with the Court its proof of the entire chain of assignments of the alleged debt, the credit card agreement and other documentary proof of plaintiff's prima facie case by October 29, 2010. The Pre-Trial Conference was adjourned to November 16, 2010. On November 16, 2010 both sides again appeared, however, plaintiff still had not provided the ordered documents to defendant nor filed them with the Court. Plaintiff's counsel requested an adjournment until January 18, 2011 so that they could obtain the documentary proof the Court had ordered it to provide by October 29, 2010. The Court informed plaintiff's counsel on the record that it would not tolerate any additional delay in plaintiff's counsel producing the required documentary proof. On January 18, 2011 plaintiff's counsel appeared and still did not have the documentary proof and requested to discontinue the case. The Court refused to accept plaintiff's request to discontinue the action, dismissed the case with prejudice and adjourned the case to February 24, 2011 for a hearing to determine whether plaintiff's attorneys should be held in contempt of the Court for failing to provide the requisite documents as directed and whether sanctions should be imposed on plaintiff and its attorneys under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1 for their frivolous conduct in commencing a lawsuit without having the requisite proof needed for a prima facie case. The hearing was held on February 24, 2011. With respect to the issue of whether sanctions should be imposed on plaintiff and its attorneys for filing a frivolous debt collection lawsuit, plaintiff's counsel contended that plaintiff had a valid case against Ms. Annetta Guest, the defendant herein. In support of their contention that plaintiff had commenced a valid action against Ms. Guest, plaintiff's counsel produced a copy of a statement by Leonard Turnbull, a Senior Sales Specialist at GE Money Bank, which is entitled an Affidavit of Sale and which is dated February 11, 2011 and allegedly sworn to before a notary public in the State of Georgia. In his statement, Mr. Turnbull swears that GE Money Bank sold Ms. Guest's account, account number 6018595219157951, to SHERMAN ORIGINATOR, LLC. Mr. Turnbull further swears that the correct amount owed by Ms. Guest as of the February 14, 2009 date of sale was $1,781.54. Plaintiff's counsel also presented an undated Bill of Sale which references a Forward Flow Receivables Purchase Agreement dated December 19, 2007 between GE Money Bank and SHERMAN ORIGINATOR III, LLC. The Bill of Sale indicates that GE Money Bank sold and assigned certain receivables as set forth in certain files delivered by GE Money Bank to SHERMAN ORIGINATOR III, LLC on February 14, 2009. Also presented to the Court was an undated document entitled Declaration of Account Transfer which indicates that on February 27, 2009 SHERMAN ORIGINATOR III, LLC sold and assigned certain receivables identified on a receivable file dated February 17, 2009 to SHERMAN ORIGINATOR, LLC. The document further states that SHERMAN ORIGINATOR, LLC subsequently sold the same assets to LVNV Funding, LLC.

Attached to the Declaration of Account Transfer as Exhibit A, is an untitled document which indicates that the receivable files dated February 27, 2009 were designated as part of transfer group number 114723 and portfolio number 12639. A copy of a statement from Ms. Nikki Foster, an untitled, allegedly authorized representative of Sherman Originator LLC, dated February 10, 2011, was also produced by plaintiff's counsel and allegedly sworn to before a notary public in the State of South Carolina. Ms. Foster swears in her statement that account number 6018595219157951 is owned by LVNV Funding, LLC and that the account was acquired by LVNV Funding, LLC from its affiliate Sherman Originator, LLC. Plaintiff's counsel also provided a copy of the computer screen printout that contains the electronically stored information regarding defendant's alleged credit card account which was reviewed and testified to by Jean Paul Torres, a witness for plaintiff, at the hearing. Mr. Torres is an employee of Resurgent Capital Services, LP, the servicing agent for Sherman Originator, LLC, Sherman Originator III, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC. Also produced at the hearing was a copy of the Resurgent Placement Print that Resurgent Capital Services, LP allegedly sent to plaintiff's counsel and which purports to contain data concerning defendant's alleged credit card account, which plaintiff's counsel allegedly used as their basis for commencing the instant action. Ms. Valerie Watts, an associate attorney of plaintiff's counsel, testified regarding the Placement Print at the hearing. Mr. Adam Acuff, an associate attorney employed by plaintiff's counsel who signed the complaint in the instant action, also testified at the hearing. It is plaintiff's counsel's contention that they did not file a frivolous lawsuit against the defendant. Counsel contends that defendant has admitted that she filled out a credit card application and that based upon the testimony of Mr. Torres, the exhibits introduced at the hearing and the purchase agreement submitted with counsel's post-hearing memorandum, it is evident that LVNV Funding, LLC owned defendant's account. Counsel further contends that based upon the testimony of Ms. Watts and Mr. Acuff and the documents produced at the hearing, it is clear that plaintiff's counsel had good reason to believe, based upon reasonable inquiry, that the claims against defendant were meritorious. Specifically, plaintiff's counsel asserts that it reviewed the Resurgent Placement Print and conducted its own investigation to determine that the account information provided by Resurgent was accurate. It is plaintiff's counsel's position that they have no legal obligation to independently verify the information regarding defendant's account that they received. Further, counsel contends that there is no rule that requires debt collectors or their attorneys to submit affidavits evidencing the chain of title regarding ownership before commencing an action. Lastly, counsel asserts that neither the Fair Debt Collection Act nor 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a requires that parties and/or attorneys have all the evidence necessary to prove the claim when filing the complaint. First, the Court notes that defendant's credit card account at issue herein originated with Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia. Plaintiff's counsel entirely failed to establish the relationship between the original creditor Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia and GE Money Bank. Plaintiff's counsel was only able to posit at the hearing that they are related entities and produced a copy of a Certificate of Merger regarding the merger of GE Capital Consumer Card Co. and Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia with its post-hearing memorandum. However, there has been no explanation or documentation offered regarding either the assignment of defendant's account by Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia to GE Capital Consumer Card Co. or the relationship between GE Capital Consumer Card Co. and GE Money Bank. Accordingly, the sworn statement of Mr. Turnbull that GE Money Bank owned the debt and subsequently sold it to Sherman Originator, LLC is entirely unsubstantiated hearsay and of no probative value. The Court also notes that the documents presented by plaintiff's counsel are contradictory regarding the chain of assignment of the alleged debt. Mr. Turnbull's sworn statement indicates that the alleged debt was sold by GE Money Bank to Sherman Originator, LLC yet the Bill of Sale produced indicates that the batch of accounts set forth in the Notification files of February 14, 2009, in which defendant's account was allegedly included, were sold and assigned to Sherman Originator III, LLC and not Sherman Originator, LLC.1 The Court finds Mr. Torres' testimony to be inconsequential to plaintiff's contention that it had a prima facie case against the defendant. Mr. Torres, who is an employee of Resurgent Capitol Services, LP, the servicing agent for plaintiff, acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of the assignment of the alleged debt between any of the parties. Rather, Mr. Torres' testimony relied solely upon the documents that were provided after the assignment took place. Mr. Torres' testimony regarding the electronically transferred documents highlights the fact that there is no evidentiary proof that defendant's account was actually assigned by or to any party.

According to Mr. Torres' testimony, his understanding of the assignments is that numerous accounts are transferred pursuant to a Bill of Sale. After a Bill of Sale is executed, the account information is transferred electronically. Exhibit A references transfer and portfolio numbers for the accounts that were allegedly transferred as part of the agreement. Apparently, portfolio number 12639 refers to a specific batch of accounts. The computer screen printout is a physical representation of the information that was transferred. However, there is absolutely nothing in the documentation to indicate that Ms. Guest's account was among the batch of accounts transferred pursuant to the agreements. Nothing in Mr. Torres' testimony establishes the chain of assignment of defendant's alleged debt. The Court notes that the Turnbull and Foster affidavits were both created on February 11, 2011, long after the litigation was commenced, specifically to bolster plaintiff's counsel's position at this sanctions and contempt hearing. Neither of such affidavits would be admissible in evidence as only photocopies were ever submitted and neither was accompanied by a certificate of conformity verifying the authenticity of the notaries who have acknowledged execution of such affidavits. Further, Mr. Turnbull's and Ms. Foster's "affidavits" that defendant's account was assigned from GE Money Bank to Sherman Originator, LLC and from Sherman Originator, LLC to LVNV Funding, LLC, respectively, are hearsay and are not sufficient as a matter of law to prove that such assignments did, in fact, take place. See, Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). As such, there is no admissible proof specifically establishing that defendant's credit card account was one of the accounts assigned. Plaintiff's counsel was unable to present admissible or any other evidence of the entire chain of assignment of the underlying debt in this matter and therefore, plaintiff's counsel could not show a prima facie case against defendant.

The testimony of Ms. Watts and Mr. Acuff demonstrates that plaintiff's counsel relied solely on the Placement Print sent over from Resurgent Capital when commencing the instant action. Although plaintiff's counsel contends that they conducted their own investigation, the record is devoid of any testimony delineating exactly what other investigation was conducted.2 Rather, the testimony clearly establishes that it was only the placement sheet that was relied upon. The Court finds that under the circumstances presented here, plaintiff's counsel did not and could not have properly certified the complaint they filed in the instant action. 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a requires that "by signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in subsection 130-1.1(c)." 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1(c) defines conduct as frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law ... or, (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false." Under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a a proper certification of a complaint can only be made after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances establishes that the claim asserted in the complaint has merit in law and asserts truthful factual allegations. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that over the past five years alone plaintiff's counsel has commenced well over five hundred consumer debt actions on behalf of assignee plaintiffs in this Court alone. In many of those prior actions after the Court directed that plaintiff provide proof of a prima facie case, including proof of the chain of assignment(s) of the debt claimed, the actions were either dismissed by the Court for plaintiff's inability to produce said proof or discontinued by the plaintiff. Clearly, plaintiff's counsel knew what documentary proof was required for a meritorious lawsuit and knew that they did not have the required proof in the instant case when they filed suit. Further, even though plaintiff's counsel well knew that it was routinely filing actions on behalf of assignee creditors when it could not prove a prima facie case, such attorneys continued to do so. In order for any inquiry by counsel into the merits of the instant matter to be reasonable, particularly under these circumstances, counsel had an obligation to obtain the required documentation substantiating a prima facie case, including proof of the entire chain of assignment(s) of the alleged debt, or, at least, certification from an identified individual(s) with personal knowledge of all elements of the case, prior to filing the instant action. As such, since plaintiff's counsel failed to obtain either the requisite documentation or other first party certification substantiating the merits of plaintiff's alleged cause of action against the defendant, plaintiff's counsel could not certify the complaint as required under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a. Accordingly,the certification here is disingenuous, misleading and false.

In addition, counsel has a continuing duty to assess the legal and factual basis of a claim in order to avoid the imposition of sanctions under Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. See Worldwide Asset Purchasing, L.L.C. v. Akrofi, 884 N.Y.S.2d 631 (Ithaca City Ct. 2009). In the case at bar, counsel was presented with multiple opportunities to re-evaluate the claim especially in light of the fact that it was ordered by the Court to produce documentary proof of the alleged claim, including the entire chain of assignment of the debt, since the matter first appeared on the Court's calendar. Only after being threatened with possible financial sanctions and with being held in contempt of court did plaintiff's counsel obtain even some of the court ordered documents. Even now, the chain of assignment has not been produced. The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel's failure to produce the directed documentary proof is even more egregious given plaintiff's assertion at the very outset of hearing in February 2011 that the judgment herein was valid (despite plaintiff's prior request to discontinue the action) and further given the fact that the hearing was adjourned to allow counsel additional time to submit documentary proof of its case, production of which would otherwise be required in the ordinary course of pre-trial discovery. The apparent lack of a factual basis for the claim renders plaintiff's counsel's conduct in commencing this action without having proof of its merit frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1(c). Moreover, the Court takes issue with plaintiff's counsel's contentions that they have no obligation to independently verify the information regarding the defendant's account and that there is no "rule" requiring evidentiary proof of the chain of title prior to commencing a lawsuit. Clearly, plaintiff's counsel knows that under New York law, a full chain of assignment in addition to documentary proof of the contract and debt is required in order to prove a prima facie case in a consumer debt action where the plaintiff is an assignee of the original creditor. See, Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); DNS Equity Group, Inc. Lavalle, 26 Misc 3d 1228A (Dist. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2010). Without proof of the chain of assignment, or alternatively, verification from an individual with personal knowledge thereof (and of the other elements of the case) plaintiff's counsel knows it is and will be unable to show its standing to sue the defendant and a lack of standing renders a litigation a nullity, subject to dismissal without prejudice. Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). The sentiment behind counsel's assertions renders meaningless the intent behind both the certification requirement under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a and the affidavit of merit requirement under CPLR ยง 3020. The Court further notes that consumer debt actions are not akin to negligence actions where extensive discovery may need to be had before a plaintiff can prove a prima facie case. Rather, consumer debt actions are primarily document driven and thus, in general, a plaintiff should be able to establish a prima facie case without any discovery whatsoever. In the instant matter, plaintiff's counsel commenced an action without having sufficient documentary proof to establish its prima facie case and did so, this Court believes, in bad faith, fully knowing what proof was required to prove a case, that it was not in possession of such proof, and, most significantly, that, in all likelihood, it could never obtain and produce the requisite proof. The conduct of plaintiff's counsel not only improperly denied defendant the due process of law but is egregious, dishonest and unprofessional and holds the courts and the entire legal profession up for public scorn and ridicule. Such conduct shall not be countenanced by the Court. With respect to the issue regarding whether plaintiff's counsel should be held in contempt for failing to provide court ordered documents, Ms. Watts testified about the attempts made by counsel to obtain the requisite documents as such efforts were recorded in the firm's computer notes, which were produced at the hearing as an exhibit. Ms. Watts testified that the firm's computer notes indicated that plaintiff's counsel's office requested certain limited documents from plaintiff's predecessors in interest, that being an affidavit of merit, billing statements and a bill of sale, shortly after the defendant's answer was received.3 Ms. Watts further testified that the only document received by plaintiff's counsel before the January 18, 2011 court date was an affidavit of assignment from Sherman Originator III, LLC to LVNV Funding, LLC. A review of Ms. Watts testimony clearly indicates that plaintiff's counsel had not even attempted to obtain the chain of assignment, original credit agreement, any modification of the credit agreement and an affidavit of merit from an individual employed by the original creditor who has personal knowledge regarding the creditor's record maintenance, all of which were required prior to the January 18, 2011 appearance date.

Although plaintiff's counsel contends that good faith efforts were undertaken to comply with the Court's directive that plaintiff serve on defendant and file with the Court its proof of the entire chain of assignments, the credit card agreement and plaintiff's prima facie case, the testimony adduced at the hearing coupled with the attorney computer notes entered into evidence make it clear that plaintiff's counsel made a minimal attempt at best to comply with the Court's order. Plaintiff's counsel's office put in one request in July 2010 for an affidavit of assignment, billing statements and a bill of sale. After the Court's order on September 28, 2010, plaintiff's counsel did not re-request any of these minimal documents, or the remainder of the documents as ordered by the Court, until after this matter was scheduled for the sanctions/contempt hearing. Rather than trying to proactively obtain these documents from their client, plaintiff's counsel waited for over five months for the client to send them the documents. Moreover, as noted above, the documents requested were only some of the documents ordered to be produced by the Court. Based upon all the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff's counsel Rubin & Rothman, LLC's failure to obtain the requisite documentary or other verifiable proof of the claim alleged, including the entire chain of assignment(s), prior to commencing the instant action against defendant constitutes frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR ยง 130.1-1. Based thereon the Court hereby imposes a monetary sanction against Rubin & Rothman, LLC in the sum of $10,000.00 which is to be paid by Rubin & Rothman, LLC to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection no later than July 25, 2012. Proof of compliance with this Decision and Order shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court by that same date. Regarding the issue of contempt, in its sound discretion, the Court declines in this instance to hold plaintiff's counsel Rubin & Rothman, LLC in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's directive. The Court trusts that plaintiff's counsel shall commence actions on behalf of assignee creditors in the future only after having received sufficient documentary or verifiable proof of the alleged claim and that they will adhere to future directives issued by any court before which they appear. Any future failure by plaintiff's counsel to comply with an order of this Court will not be tolerated. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated:May 29, 2012 Mount Vernon, New York _________________________________ HON. MARK A. GROSS City Judge of Mount Vernon

EXHIBIT 16

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 18 The affidavit here is disingenuous, misleading and false. Sewer Service

EXHIBIT 19 

Debt Deception: How Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to … www.scribd.com/JillianSheridan/d/84945582-Debt-Deception-How-Debt...

... Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn,

and Rubin & Rothman. ... 2. aggressively regulate and

monitor process servers. ... See, e.g., id. at 109 (testimony of



Alex Shafran); id ...

NY Process Servers blamed in part. - Docstoc – Documents ...

www.docstoc.com/docs/40799485/NY-Process-Servers-blamed-in-part May 28, 2010 · ... Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, and

Rubin & Rothman. ... Service, Accu-

Serve, Capital Process Servers, and ... See, e.g., id. at 109 (testimony of

Alex Shafran .

THE AFFIDAVIT HERE IS DISINGENUOUS, MISLEADING AND FALSE. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS BY ALEX SHAFRAN WHO WAS INVESTIGATED AND ARRESTED FOR DEBT DECEPTION AS NOTED ABOVE.

EXHIBIT 20 When you look at the BELOW PAGES you will see non authenticated, non wet ink, stamp signatures or no signatures. These are clear court crimes pursuant to : 175.40 - Issuing a false certificate. Reasonably and logically, the rubber stamp marks and signatures are used rather than sign it to be able to later deny knowledge of the fraud clearly articulated at NY PL 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree; 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree; 175.40 Issuing a false certificate. These false instruments epitomize the Rubin and Rothman offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and the court issuing a false judgment, to advance, pure, premeditated criminal fraud for the purposes of money laundering, extortion and debt slave creation based on criminal fraud.

NO WET INK SIGNATURE , NO SIGNATURE SUMMONS VIOLATIONS The attached court fraud and swindle documents were sent to the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission was supposed to expose and correct these criminal court crimes on behalf of public safety. They did not and innocent New Yorkers who do not understand these crimes are suffering behind this induced atrocity defraud judgment creation via the filing of false instruments and the issuance of false court certificates raqueteering and corruption scam. Those documents, specifically, the court certificate, summons and unverified complaint, with no index number, and the replicated falsified affidavit of service, were sent and are clear obstructions of the rules of the Chief Administrative Judge Part 130: costs and sanctions: section 130-1.1 i by failing to Certify The Complaint In Accordance

With Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States:

“(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The

The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1 (C)”.Of This Subpart, And (2) Where The Circumstances, (1)

Paper Is An Initiating Pleading, (I) The Matter Was Not Obtained Through Illegal Conduct, Or That If It Was, The Attorney Or Other Persons Responsible For The Illegal Conduct Are Not Participating In The Matter Or

Sharing In Any Fee Earned There From, And (Ii) The Matter Was Not Obtained In Violation Of 22 Nycrr 1200.41-A [Dr 7-111]”.

EXHIBIT 21 Violation of Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States: “(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The Circumstances, (1)

The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1

NO SIGNATURE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW Rubin & Rothman, LLC Violation of Section 130-1.1 (A) (B)

EXHIBIT 22 The apparent lack of a factual basis for the claim renders plaintiff's counsel's conduct in commencing this action without having proof of its merit frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c).

Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States: “(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The Circumstances, (1) The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1 THE NEVER SERVED SUMMONS.

NO SIGNATURE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW Rubin & Rothman Violation of Section 130-1.1 (A) (B)

EXHIBIT 23 The Rubin and Rothman below Affidavit of Merit is by a non-titled employee of plaintiff's servicing agent and as such is not an affidavit made by the party as required under CPLR § 3215. See HSBC Bank v. Betts, 67 AD3d 735 (2nd Dept. 2009). Second, the allegations asserted in the affidavit are not made by an individual with first hand knowledge of the facts. Although the affidavit is carefully drafted to appear as if the affirmant has actual knowledge of the underlying facts, in fact, the allegations are based upon hearsay.

The apparent lack of a factual basis for the claim exemplifies that Rubin & Rothman’s conduct in commencing this action without having proof of its merit is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c). 44

EXHIBIT 24 NYS COURT CLERK CRIMES; VIOLATION OF Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States: “(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The Circumstances, (1)

The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1

The above court clerk signature is a stamp. It is supposed to be a wet ink signature. 45

EXHIBIT 25 Section 130-1.1 (A) (B) Where It States: “(B) Certification. By Signing A Paper, An Attorney Or Party Certifies That, To The Best Of That Person’s Knowledge, Information And Belief, Formed After An Inquiry Reasonable Under The Circumstances, (1) The Presentation Of The Paper Or The Contentions Therein Are Not Frivolous As Defined In Section 130-1.1 THE NEVER SERVED SUMMONS. THE NO JUDGE’S SIGNATURE JUDGMENT USED TO GARNISH AND DESTROY CREDIT RATING. UNDER JONATHAN LIPPMAN EVERYBODY JOINS IN THE DISGUISED KILL!

EXHIBIT 25 B DEBONDING CRIMINALS ON A PAYROLL http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm http://www.politicalchips.org/forum/topics/distress-against-federal-judges-irs-agents-and-us-prosecuting

EXHIBIT 26 THIS WAS A LETTER I MEANT TO SEND BUT HAD OTHER CRIME VICTIM PRESSING SURVIVAL MEASURES TO DEAL WITH 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B

Bronx, New York 10467 January 10, 2012 New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly One Police Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007 fax: 212-374-0265 Organized Crime Control Bureau: 1-888-374-DRUG NYPD Switchboard: 1-646-610-5000 Eric Holder, US Attorney General, AskDOJ@usdoj.gov 202 616-2278 U.S. Department of Justice, 1 202 616 0762 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 FBI New York, ny1@ic.fbi.gov 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 Phone: (212) 384-1000 Fax: (212) 384-4073 / 4074 Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor, Emailed to: http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php State of New York, State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Eric Schneider, Attorney General info@andrewcuomo.com, http://www.ag.ny.gov/online_forms/email_ag.jsp NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway New York City, NY 10271 Bill DeBlasio, NYC Public Advocate, Gethelp@Pubadvocate.Nyc.Gov, jdavila@pubadvocate.nyc.gov 1 Centre Street New York, New York 10007 Rose Gill Hearn NYC Commissioner, http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildoi.html 80 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 212-825-5900 Tina Stanford, Chairperson cvbinfo@cvb.state.ny.us NYS Crime Victims Board, State of New York Executive Department 1 Columbia Circle Ste 200 Albany, New York 12203

RE: REGIONAL KILLERS BOYDEN GRAY AND JONATHAN LIPPMAN CRIMINAL REPLICATED USE OF ATTORNEY JOSEPH RUBIN AND KEITH ROTHMAN PAPERWORK TO CRIMINALLY LEAD THE WAY IN A THRID PARTY CONSPIRACY TO MURDER, AND CRIMINAL SCHEME TO DEFRAUD CRIMES, BY CREATING A DOCUMENTED FRAUD BASED NON EXISTENT JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ATTACHED FORD MOTOR CREDIT PAID CAR DEBT, CRIMINAL SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY USING SUCH ALLEGED FRAUD BASED JUDGMENT AS A HOUSING JUDGMENT, TO CRIMINALLY ENJOIN NYC POLICE AND OR SHERIFFS IN CONDUCT LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH AND OR SERIOUS INJURY VIA PREMEDITATED HOUSING FRAUD/EVICTION OR HOMELESSNESS BY CRIMINAL FRAUD

Dear Police Chief Kelly and Other Public Officials: This criminal complaint is written with respect to the above noted and attached Rubin and Rothman criminal fraud alleged judgment and life threatening criminal events this fraud based judgment can bring about. I seek an end to this deadly scheme to defraud and engagement in conduct likely to result in death and serious injury via police enjoinment/enforcement in this criminal and deadly judgment fraud and scheme to defraud crimes. This matter is an example of domestic violence homicide that is predictable and preventable. This criminal complaint provides clear warning signs, as well as seeks immediate intervention and protection for my elderly mother and myself, as the above scheme to defraud is a component into the above noted regional killer’s conspiracy to murder and injure crimes. Foremost the attached, Rubin and Rothman nonexistent, alleged, fraud based judgment is in contradiction to the attached, Experian Credit Report documenting that the Ford Motor Credit loan was paid in full. Please see exhibit _____. In addition, the attached Rubin and Rothman fraud based alleged judgment exemplifies the below crimes: New York Penal - Article 190 - § 190.65 Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree 175.05 - Falsifying Business Records In The Second Degree. 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In The First Degree. 175.30 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The Second Degree. 175.35 - Offering A False Instrument For Filing In The First Degree. 175.45 - Issuing a False Financial Statement. 18 USC 1341 Frauds and Swindles. 18 USC 1512 Engaging In Misleading Conduct. 18 USC 1503 Intimidate Witnesses. 190.55 Making A False Statement Of Credit Terms; 190.50 Unlawful Collection; 185.15 Fraudulent Disposition Of (Intangible) Property Subject To A Conditional Sale Contract; 185.05 Fraud Involving A Security Interest; Rubin and Rothman scheme to defraud paperwork is detrimental to my life and has no lawful reason for existence. Their fraud based judgment which is void based on law has been used to injure me previously. Please see exhibits 1-5. This fraudulent judgment was used to criminally garnish my

check and criminally cause havoc on a job, despite the attached Experian credit report showing this debt was paid on time. Please see exhibits 1-5. The attached, , Rubin and Rothman judgment fraud dated January 4, 2012 has manifested to injure me again. Above all, this defraud judgment has been erupted to In Exhibit 3, you will see Regional Killer Jonathan Lippmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s judicial imposture named Fernando Tapia. This judicial impersonator is Regional Killer Jonathanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lippmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bronx scheme to defraud judge. He is used in the Bronx Civil and Housing court to coordinate the above crimes and to criminally create fraud based judgments that third party officers use to kill and injure innocent people based on this fraud. Please see exhibits 1-3. These exhibits clearly show the above multiple scheme to defraud crimes.

My life, housing, and safety is at risk as long as these judgment fraud lawyer and judicial crimes are not regulated. Please stop this premeditated murder using third party debt collectors to enjoin officers to kill and terrorize. Thank you. Sincerely,

Miriam Snyder

EXHIBIT 1

Rubin and Rothman LLC violated the requirements imposed on debt collectors by the FDCPA in that it (1) failed to include the 30-day validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692g; (2) failed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692e(11), to disclose that Rubin and Rothman LLC was attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose; and (3) contained threats to take actions that could not legally be taken or were not intended to be taken, in violation of 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692e(5).

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN FRAUD BASED FORD MOTOR CREDIT JUDGMENT CREATION PREVIOUS INJURIES

Exhibit 6 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN PATTERN AND PRACTICE FRAUD BASED FORD MOTOR CREDIT JUDGMENT CREATION AND INJURIES 3230 CRUGER AVENUE #6B BRONX, NEW YORK 10467 April 10, 2007

KEITH ROTHMAN 1787 VETERANS HIGHWAY ISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11749

Re: ATTORNEY FRAUD: KEITH ROTHMAN ATTACHED UNAUTHORIZED CRIMINAL FRAUD UPON THE COURT EFFECTUATING A VOID, LAWLESS, CRIMINAL, NON SUMMONS SERVED, AB INITIO, CONSPIRED AND CORRUPTED DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OBSTRUCTING AND IMPEDING STATE AND FEDERAL EQUAL AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS EXEMPLIFYING THE PRIORITIZATION OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD IN THE NYS COURT SYSTEM.

AFFIDAVIT OF REQUEST FOR VALIDATION This is a request for validation of the attached judicially unsigned, unauthorized, unserved summons, criminal fraud judgment. This request for validation is submitted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, ยง 809. Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g, ยง 808. Unfair practices 15 USC 1692f, unfair or unconscionable means to collect, and ยง 807. False or misleading representations 15 USC 1692e. Please be advised that I am not refusing to pay, but I need the information requested in this correspondence before I can make any offer to settle this account. I would like to settle this account as soon as possible and I may have a counter claim to set-off or indemnify the disputed balance, this is why I am sending you this validation request. Please answer the following questions relating to the non validated attached judicially unsigned fraudulent judgment that has lawlessly defamed and injured me maliciously. Please answer the below validation and return to me within ten (10) business days upon receipt. If you need more time, or if you need any question restated, please make your request to me in writing. I do not wish to speak to you under any circumstances; therefore, anything you wish to say to me must be presented in writing. Phone calls and other communication will be recorded, ignored and considered a non-response. Please have the person validating the attached fraudulent judgment answer the following: 57

1. Please state your name, occupation and mailing address. 2. Please identify the source of the funds in the account that is the subject of this â&#x20AC;&#x153;judgmentâ&#x20AC;?. 3. Please furnish a copy of the original contract redacting my social security number to prevent identify theft and state under penalty of perjury that your client is the bona fide party in interest of the contract and will produce the original for my own and a judgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inspection should there be a trial to contest these matters. 4. Please produce the account and general ledger statement showing the full accounting of the alleged obligation that you are now attempting to collect. 5. Please identify by name and address all persons, corporations, associations, or any other parties having an interest in legal proceedings regarding the alleged debt. 6. Please verify under penalty of perjury, that as a debt collector, you have not purchased evidence of debt and are proceeding with collection activity in the name of the original contracting party. 7. Please verify under penalty of perjury that you know and understand that certain clauses in a contract of adhesion, such as a so-called forum selection clause, are unenforceable unless the party to whom the contract is extended could have rejected the clause without impunity. 8. Please provide verification from the stated creditor that you are authorized to act for them. 9. What was the account number of the account in which the funds were held prior to the opening of the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit? 10. Who was the owner of each account, or list those individuals having signature rights to each account? 11. Identify the account that was debited when the disputed account was created. 12. Who was the owner of each account or list those individuals having signature rights to each account? 13. Identify the source of the funds that created the disputed account. 14. Did the funds for the disputed account originate from another account or lending institution? 15. List the names and addresses of all lending institutions from which any funds were purportedly originated. 16. Please identify the account number from which the funds originated in order to create the disputed account. 17. Admit that no other account was debited when the disputed account was created.

18. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, please identify the account that was debited by account number and the name or names of the debited accountâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s signer, holder and/or owner, and explain how the funds for this account were originated. 19. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, state the total balance of this debited account at the time the debit was made and, list the names of the signers on the account and the date that the account was opened along with the opening balance. 20. Admit that the Miriam Snyder was the depositor for the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit. 21. Please produce all documents and information, related in any way, to your implication or allegation that a loan was given to Miriam Snyder. 22. Which employee of the bank authorized the transaction? 23. If any loan origination system, software or other procedures were used in the opening of the disputed account, please identify the system by name and describe how it works. 24. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender of the financial institution involved in the alleged loan to use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 25. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan, use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 26. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 27. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 28. Was the intent of the purported loan agreement that the party that funded the loan should be repaid the money lent? YES or NO. 29. Was the purported lender involved in the alleged loan follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP)? YES or NO. 30. Were all material facts disclosed in the written agreement? YES or NO. 31. What is the name and address of any bank auditor or certified public accountant involve with or having any relation to the accounting function regarding the disputed account?

32. Identify the name of the records system of account records or ledgers reflecting the transaction for the disputed account. 33. Were any loan numbers assigned to the disputed account? 34. If you answered yes to the above question, please list those account numbers. 35. Explain how each account was created or originated.

36. Explain how the funds for each account were deposited and where they originated. 37. Was an account created with the purported loan amount then debited to fund the disputed account? 38. Please explain your answer to the above question. 39. Please produce all records and tangible evidence relating to the question herein and send them along with your response. 40. Please reply with a copy of your Department of State filing information that authorizes you to operate your business in this state, for out of state claims as in this matter, as this will also verify if your filing has expired or is valid. 41. Provide evidence that the statute of limitations has not expired on this account; 42. Provide evidence of notification of due process rights pursuant to the FDCPA, 43. Please verify that you know and understand that collecting on this alleged non validated fraudulent debt without providing procedurally proper validation of the debt constitutes criminal fraud as such criminal charges will be filed accordingly. From the date of your receipt of this letter, you are granted ten (10) days to reply directly to the questions put forth in order to validate your claim of this alleged debt. If after the ten (10) day period you do not reply directly to these questions, this silence shall serve as tacit procuration, serve as valid proof that this is a fraudulent/imaginary account that has no origination and you may not pursue this fraudulent/imaginary account further. ESTOPEL BY ACOUIESCIENCE: In the event Rubin and Rothman admits the statements and claims by TACIT PROCURATION, all issues are deemed settled RES JUDICATA, STARE DECISIS and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. Rubin and Rothman may not argue, controvert, or otherwise protest the finality of the administrative findings in any subsequent process, whether administrative or judicial. Any action(s), by Rubin and Rothman, in any court or other forum, undertaken against Miriam Snyder outside this Administrative Remedy by Rubin and Rothman, is a trespass against Miriam Snyder and will result in an increase in the amount of the True Bill of ten (10) times the original amount and will continue to increase in the same amount of any additional trespasses. 60

Rubin and Rothman is granted 10 days from the date of service to respond to the statements and claims herein and/or to provide Rubin and Rothman own answers to inquires upon receipt of this letter which will be tracked using delivery confirmation and Certified Mail through the US Postal Service. Rubin and Rothman may, after agreeing to all claims put forth by Miriam Snyder, enter into negotiations to settle the agreement contract with terms to be agreed upon, signed under penalty of perjury.

Please note that any correspondence not presented in the form of a written request/answer format, will be ignored and/or considered an INVALID/NON-RESPONSE. In case of a misunderstanding, and you try to communicate with me without your correspondence being sent through the US Mail (US POSTAL SERVICE/Post Office) is a violation of my right to privacy, making unsolicited calls, causing annoyance, disturbance, shock, aggravation, depression, frustration, distress and rage causing me commercial damages, I will proceed accordingly holding you personally liable. The damages for these violations are listed below for your future reference. Understand that you will be held commercially liable for such actions, as you have been fully notified and after this point, if you continue with your fraudulent claims, you are willfully violating my rights, making unsolicited visits to a private property, causing harassment, contributing to stress, depression, rage, angina, chest constrictions, shock, Loss of appetite, Crying, Nightmares, insomnia, night sweats, Emotional paralysis, Inability to think or function at work, Headaches, Shortness of breath, Anxiety, nervousness, fear and worry, Hypertension (elevation of blood pressure), Irritability, Hysteria, Embarrassment, humiliation, Indignation and pain and suffering. Once you are in default, you have agreed that the above statements cannot be proven and you will be bound to correct the following errors: 1. Close this Criminal fraud account acknowledging the attached current paid status and zero (0) balance. See attached Experian credit reporting verification showing the Ford Motor Credit account is paid in full. 2.

Cease and desist from creating, sending, and/or collecting false non validated claims.

3. Withdraw/Remove and dismantle all degrading and derogatory judgments you created, conspired and lawlessly placed in the courts via a corrupted clerk, as exemplified on the attached court clerk signed, lawless fraudulent, void, no summons served, non due process, lawless, no judge signature judgment that lawlessly, and without any authority garnished my check, liened my bank account, and maliciously defamed my name, while the judgment has been paid in full as stated on the attached verified credit report. 4. Send a confirmation of the fraudulent judgment withdrawal/dismissal to me, signed under penalty of perjury, via Certified or Registered Mail within 10 days of receipt. 5.

After sending a confirmation, cease and desist from communicating with me further.

EXHIBIT 7 SEE BELOW DOCUMENTATION THAT THE FORD LOAN IS PAID WHILE ATTORNEY FRAUD IS STILL ADMINISTERED.

EXHIBIT 8

EXHIBIT 9 This private information to a third party, a big "no-no" under the FDCPA. 15 USC ยง1692c(b)

EXHIBIT 10

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Office of Legal Affairs Attorney Fraud Control Board Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Robert Johnson 66

Criminal Fraud Division Bronx District Attorney 198 East 161st Bronx, New York 10451 Rose Gill Hearn, Commissioner Fraud and Corruption City of New York Department of Investigation 80 Maiden Lane New York, New York 10038 Charles Schumer U.S. Senator Constituent Fraud Protection Enforcement Unit 757 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017 Chief Judge Judith Kaye 230 Park Avenue, Suite 826 New York City, New York 10169-0007 John Conyers, Committee on the Judiciary US House of Representatives Washington Office 2426 RHOB Washington, D.C. 20515-2214

Mr. Emery, Administrator New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway New York, New York 1006 Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

EXHIBIT 11 http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com http://prayerwarriorsneeded.googlepages.com/nyscrimevictimsboard 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, New York 10467 September 11, 2008 Dave Paterson, NYS Governor Emailed to: http://161.11.121.121/govemail State of New York State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 212 788-1665 Emailed to: http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.bd08ee7c7c1ffec87c4b36d501c789a0/index.jsp?doc_name=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fmail%2Fhtml%2Fmayor.html NYC Mayor Bloomberg 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Emailed to: info@andrewcuomo.com Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, New York, 10271 Fax: 646 610-5865 EMAILED TO: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailnypd.html NYC Police Chief Kelly, One Police Plaza New York, New York 10007 Fax: 718 547-8519 Deanne.brown@chase.com Chase Bank Consumer Banking 748 Allerton Avenue Bronx, New York 10467 Faxed to: 518 485-9978 cvbinfo@cvb.state.ny.us NYECOM@oft.state.ny.us, Jo-AnnPowell@cvb.state.ny.us State of New York Executive Department Crime Victims Board Albany, New York 12203 Rita E. Adler, Chief Counsel Second Judicial Department 10th Judicial District Grievance Committee 150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102 Hauppauge, NY 11788 FAX: 631/231-4041

http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com http://prayerwarriorsneeded.googlepages.com/nyscrimevictimsboard COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV Federal Trade Commission Consumer Response Center Criminal Fraud Division Consumer Protections Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580

RE:POLICE REPORT REGARDING KEITH ROTHMAN REPLICATED CRIMINAL BANK ACCOUNT FRAUD AND LEGAL ABUSE ADMINISTRATION, SUMMARIZED AS SERIAL KILLER BOYDEN GRAY ECONOMIC ASSASINATION HIT MAN AND CHASE BANK NEW ENJOINMENT: CHASE BANK CHECKING/VISA ACCOUNT, LAWLESS RESTRAINING AND FREEZE ON CHECKING ACCOUNT BASED ON REPLICATED, CONTINUED , AND UNREGULATED, DOCUMENTED KEITH ROTHMAN, CONTINUED FRAUD, LEGAL ABUSE, AND DEFRAUD AUTHORITY CRIMINAL SCHEMES. PLEASE SEE PAGES 5-8 FOR A SUMMARY OF THE INFLICTED AND DOCUMENTED CRIMES.

Dear Bank and Public Officials: My name is Miriam Snyder. I write this police complaint as an affidavit to document the replicated economic assassination and bank crimes being inflicted and administered in NYS against me again with no rationale, cause, and or law. Please see the above web sites for a summary of the deadly crimes being replicated. New York State government is being used for satanic administration, the enforcement of lawlessness. Foremost, I write this police report regarding the above two characters constant, documented, criminal and deadly activities. In addition this, report is written to contest the attached newest criminal fraud implementation premised off of defraud authority, the attached document titled: INFORMATION SUBPOENA AND RESTRAINING NOTICE signed by Keith Rothman, fraud specialist attorney acting as Serial Killer Boyden Grayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s local economic assassination hit man. September 11, 2008, this lawless attorney fraud scheme was used to freeze my Chase bank account while there is no lawful judgment or order for it because the debt does not exist, can not and has not been validated or verified, despite several lawful requests. See the attachments. The legal and banking systems are being used by Serial Killer Boyden Gray and his hit men, in this case defraud attorney Keith Rothman to advance the disguise economic assassination of innocent people. To the Chase Bank law department, I ask that the attached evidence be reviewed, the freeze taken off of the account based on the evidence, the unemployment direct deposit stopped from the VISA account and the account closed based on this fraud.

http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com http://prayerwarriorsneeded.googlepages.com/nyscrimevictimsboard

Above all, I ask that Chase Bank read the document that was faxed to me by Chase Bank Law Department. This document is titled: INFORMATION SUBPOENA AND RESTARINING NOTICE. The fifth paragraph clearly states that this notice shall not be effective to the extent of unemployment benefits. The monies confiscated out of my bank account were direct deposits from unemployment. Why is Chase Bank freezing my money while having documentation that this is not allowed? To the police department, I ask that Serial Killer Boyden Gray be arrested for the many name aligned crimes and disguised killings documented in the above web sites and that defraud attorney and hit man Keith Rothman, who is acting insanely with a vengeance against me, in retaliation to documenting Serial killer Boyden Gray’s crimes be arrested for implementing and administering a deadly bank and employment criminal fraud conspiracy against rights scheme based on his defraud authority default judgment that can not be validated and was never served. Enforced lawlessness kills, disguise kills and should be wiped off of this earth. Fraud specialist Keith Rothman needs to be arrested. He is using defraud authority to follow, stalk and harass me, from bank to bank and employer to employer and the courts have not stopped these crimes. There is nothing more I can do but to document these replicated crimes. I have been to court regarding this fraud. I submitted the attached credit report documentation and receipts showing this untimely debt of 1999 was created out of thin air. The evidence, the law, and the untimeliness of this fraud was disregarded in the courts thus advancing this replicated economic assassination scheme. A complaint will be filed with the Bar Association regarding Keith Rothman’s continued and replicated fraud and another law suit will be launched against him. It is my hope that each entity witnessing these crimes will do something to have these crimes stopped and wiped off of this earth. Keith Rothman’s name and defraud default judgment scheme have been used to implement the following crimes: 18 USC 242 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS, INCOME STALKING, AGGRAVATED HARRASSMENT, CRIMINAL FRAUD, TITLE 18 § 1341 FRAUDS AND SWINDLES, VIOLATION OF 42 USC SECTIONS 1964, 1981, 1983, 1985, AND 2000 (D) (e)

EXTRA COPY/ http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com http://prayerwarriorsneeded.googlepages.com/nyscrimevictimsboard 18 USC 1960, 1 961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1901, 1905, 1911, 1952, 1956, 1957, (RICO) CIVIL RICO- CONTINUOUS CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ACT (CCE) RACKETEERING BY CONDUCTING AN ONGOING ENTERPRISE OF ROBBERY, BRIBERY, EXTORTION, OR THREATS OF SAME

I have attached the following evidence for all to see this fraud scheme for what it is and how deeply rooted it is: 1. Experian Credit report showing this Ford Motor Company debt was paid in full with no late payments. 2. This same replicated defraud authority Keith Rothman fraud administration in the office of payroll administration at The Borough of Manhattan Community College, 3. This same replicated defraud authority Keith Rothman fraud administration in Wachovia Bank, 4. Affidavit of Request For Validation to Keith Rothman 5. Letter to Supervising Judge Quinn of District Court of Nassau County regarding Keith Rothman Fraud on the court, 6. Repeated, Unauthorized, Lawless Denied Order to Show Cause Finally, I respectfully request that the crimes be stopped, the criminals arrested, the unauthorized restrain stopped, my money released to me and the account to be closed thereafter based on the documented attached EVIDENCE. It is my sworn testimony that the above statement and the attached documents are true. This letter shall serve as an affidavit documenting these newly inflicted Keith Rothman continued crimes. Please contact me if further information is needed. Thank you. Sincerely, Miriam Snyder 516 642 6007 THE BELOW DOCUMENT EXEMPLIFIES SERIAL KILER BOYDEN GRAY PATTERNED AND REPLICATED THIRD PARTY ENJOINMENT FRAUD AND ECONOMIC CRIME ADMINISTRATION. THIS LETTER STATES THAT UNEMPLOYMENT MONEY IS EXEMPT, YET MY CHASE BANK ACCOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT UNEMPLOYMENT MONEY IS CRIMINALLY BEING HELD AND NOT RELEASED BASED ON THIS FRAUD.

PLEASE NOTE MY DIRECT DEPOSIT UNEMPLOYMENT MONEY WAS CRIMINALLY CONFISCATED FROM CHASE BANK WHILE THE BELOW EXEMPTION CLAUSE EXISTS AND IS BEING DISREGARDED. INFORMATION SUBPOENA AND RESTRAINING NOTICE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING

EXEMPT FUNDS: This notice shall not be

effective to the extent that Social Security, unemployment, disability veterans or workers compensation benefits, social security disability [SSOJ. supplemental security income [SSI] public assistance (welfare), alimony, child support or public or private pension payments or other exempt funds are the source of the deposit at your institution In such event, please indicate that the account is exempt in your response to the questions on the reverse side of this document. Dated: August 28, 2008 RUBIN & ROTHMAN. [LLC Attorneys for Judgment Creditor 1787 Veterans Highway- Islandia, New York 11749 63l 234â&#x20AC;˘ 1500 By___________ KEITH H. ROTHMAN. ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE THE EXPERIAN CREDIT REPORTVERIFYNG FORD MOTOR COMPANY PAID IN FULL SINCE MAY 2002

KETH ROTHMAN CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, DEFRAUD AUTHORITY, FINANCIAL INJURY AND DEFAMATION STRIKE AGAIN!

3230 CRUGER AVENUE #6B BRONX, NEW YORK 10467 April 10, 2007

KEITH ROTHMAN 1787 VETERANS HIGHWAY ISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11749

AFFIDAVIT OF REQUEST FOR VALIDATION This is a request for validation of the attached judicially unsigned, unauthorized, unserved summons, criminal fraud judgment. This request for validation is submitted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, § 809. Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g, § 808. Unfair practices 15 USC 1692f, unfair or unconscionable means to collect, and § 807. False or misleading representations 15 USC 1692e. Please be advised that I am not refusing to pay, but I need the information requested in this correspondence before I can make any offer to settle this account. I would like to settle this account as soon as possible and I may have a counter claim to set-off or indemnify the disputed balance, this is why I am sending you this validation request. Please answer the following questions relating to the non validated attached judicially unsigned fraudulent judgment that has lawlessly defamed and injured me maliciously. Please answer the below validation and return to me within ten (10) business days upon receipt. If you need more time, or if you need any question restated, please make your request to me in writing. I do not wish to speak to you under any circumstances; therefore, anything you wish to say to me must be presented in writing. Phone calls and other communication will be recorded, ignored and considered a non-response. Please have the person validating the attached fraudulent judgment answer the following: 44. Please state your name, occupation and mailing address. 45. Please identify the source of the funds in the account that is the subject of this “judgment”. 46. Please furnish a copy of the original contract redacting my social security number to prevent identify theft and state under penalty of perjury that your client is the bona fide 79

party in interest of the contract and will produce the original for my own and a judgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inspection should there be a trial to contest these matters. 47. Please produce the account and general ledger statement showing the full accounting of the alleged obligation that you are now attempting to collect. 48. Please identify by name and address all persons, corporations, associations, or any other parties having an interest in legal proceedings regarding the alleged debt. 49. Please verify under penalty of perjury, that as a debt collector, you have not purchased evidence of debt and are proceeding with collection activity in the name of the original contracting party. 50. Please verify under penalty of perjury that you know and understand that certain clauses in a contract of adhesion, such as a so-called forum selection clause, are unenforceable unless the party to whom the contract is extended could have rejected the clause without impunity. 51. Please provide verification from the stated creditor that you are authorized to act for them. 52. What was the account number of the account in which the funds were held prior to the opening of the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit? 53. Who was the owner of each account, or list those individuals having signature rights to each account? 54. Identify the account that was debited when the disputed account was created. 55. Who was the owner of each account or list those individuals having signature rights to each account? 56. Identify the source of the funds that created the disputed account. 57. Did the funds for the disputed account originate from another account or lending institution? 58. List the names and addresses of all lending institutions from which any funds were purportedly originated. 59. Please identify the account number from which the funds originated in order to create the disputed account. 60. Admit that no other account was debited when the disputed account was created. 61. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, please identify the account that was debited by account number and the name or names of the debited accountâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s signer, holder and/or owner, and explain how the funds for this account were originated. 62. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, state the total balance of this debited account at the time the debit was made 80

and, list the names of the signers on the account and the date that the account was opened along with the opening balance. 63. Admit that the Miriam Snyder was the depositor for the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit. 64. Please produce all documents and information, related in any way, to your implication or allegation that a loan was given to Miriam Snyder. 65. Which employee of the bank authorized the transaction? 66. If any loan origination system, software or other procedures were used in the opening of the disputed account, please identify the system by name and describe how it works. 67. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender of the financial institution involved in the alleged loan to use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 68. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan, use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 69. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 70. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 71. Was the intent of the purported loan agreement that the party that funded the loan should be repaid the money lent? YES or NO. 72. Was the purported lender involved in the alleged loan follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP)? YES or NO. 73. Were all material facts disclosed in the written agreement? YES or NO. 74. What is the name and address of any bank auditor or certified public accountant involve with or having any relation to the accounting function regarding the disputed account? 75. Identify the name of the records system of account records or ledgers reflecting the transaction for the disputed account. 76. Were any loan numbers assigned to the disputed account? 77. If you answered yes to the above question, please list those account numbers. 78. Explain how each account was created or originated. 81

79. Explain how the funds for each account were deposited and where they originated. 80. Was an account created with the purported loan amount then debited to fund the disputed account? 81. Please explain your answer to the above question. 82. Please produce all records and tangible evidence relating to the question herein and send them along with your response. 83. Please reply with a copy of your Department of State filing information that authorizes you to operate your business in this state, for out of state claims as in this matter, as this will also verify if your filing has expired or is valid. 84. Provide evidence that the statute of limitations has not expired on this account; 85. Provide evidence of notification of due process rights pursuant to the FDCPA, 86. Please verify that you know and understand that collecting on this alleged non validated fraudulent debt without providing procedurally proper validation of the debt constitutes criminal fraud as such criminal charges will be filed accordingly. From the date of your receipt of this letter, you are granted ten (10) days to reply directly to the questions put forth in order to validate your claim of this alleged debt. If after the ten (10) day period you do not reply directly to these questions, this silence shall serve as tacit procuration, serve as valid proof that this is a fraudulent/imaginary account that has no origination and you may not pursue this fraudulent/imaginary account further. ESTOPEL BY ACOUIESCIENCE: In the event Rubin and Rothman admits the statements and claims by TACIT PROCURATION, all issues are deemed settled RES JUDICATA, STARE DECISIS and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. Rubin and Rothman may not argue, controvert, or otherwise protest the finality of the administrative findings in any subsequent process, whether administrative or judicial. Any action(s), by Rubin and Rothman, in any court or other forum, undertaken against Miriam Snyder outside this Administrative Remedy by Rubin and Rothman, is a trespass against Miriam Snyder and will result in an increase in the amount of the True Bill of ten (10) times the original amount and will continue to increase in the same amount of any additional trespasses. Rubin and Rothman is granted 10 days from the date of service to respond to the statements and claims herein and/or to provide Rubin and Rothman own answers to inquires upon receipt of this letter which will be tracked using delivery confirmation and Certified Mail through the US Postal Service. Rubin and Rothman may, after agreeing to all claims put forth by Miriam Snyder, enter into negotiations to settle the agreement contract with terms to be agreed upon, signed under penalty of perjury. 82

Cease and desist from creating, sending, and/or collecting false non validated claims.

After sending a confirmation, cease and desist from communicating with me further.

SEE BELOW DOCUMENTATION THAT THE FORD LOAN IS PAID WHILE ATTORNEY FRAUD IS STILL ADMINISTERED.

Xc: Consumer Response Center Criminal Fraud Division Consumer Protections Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General Criminal Fraud Division Consumer Protections 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Second Circuit Court of Appeals Office of Legal Affairs Attorney Fraud Control Board Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Robert Johnson Criminal Fraud Division Bronx District Attorney 198 East 161st Bronx, New York 10451 89

Rose Gill Hearn, Commissioner Fraud and Corruption City of New York Department of Investigation 80 Maiden Lane New York, New York 10038 Charles Schumer U.S. Senator Constituent Fraud Protection Enforcement Unit 757 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017 Chief Judge Judith Kaye 230 Park Avenue, Suite 826 New York City, New York 10169-0007 John Conyers, Committee on the Judiciary US House of Representatives Washington Office 2426 RHOB Washington, D.C. 20515-2214 Mr. Emery, Administrator New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct 61 Broadway New York, New York 1006 Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

3230 Cruger Avenue #6B Bronx, New York 10467 December 20, 2006

FAXED TO: 516 571- 0760 Sent Certified Mail Receipt #: 7006 2760 0003 2210 5959 US Signature Confirmation Requested Certified JUDGE CHRISTOPHER QUINN ACTING AND/OR SUPERVISING JUDGE District Court of Nassau County 99 Main Street Hempstead, New York 11550-2405 In Regards to: FRAUD AND PHENOMENA IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT, Index No. 021456-04; TRESPASSING ON RIGHTS; UNLAWFUL JUDGMENT BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION; OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; A FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED WHEN NO LAWFUL JURISDICTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OR OBTAINED, AND NO AUTHORITY EXIST TO DO SO; BREACH OF CONTRACT [UCC]; VIOLATION OF RIGHTS; COERCION; HARASSMENT; DETRIMENT OF CHARACTER/NAME DEFAMED; EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL ANGUISH. Dear Judge CHISTOPHER QUINN: I am writing to inform you of the above documented fraud and phenomena in the above court. Yesterday, I received a DENIED decision dated 12/18/06 that stated no basis, regarding the attached VOID, judicially unsigned, lacking jurisdiction Index Number 021456-04 Judgment, by Judge Randy Sue Miller. The no basis was created via a phenomenon. My Order To Show Cause which was notarized by the clerk Karen, (no one would give me her last name), disappeared. Stated again, legal documents are phenomenally disappearing from files when they should not be. The Order to Show Cause disappeared from my file as a phenomenon. This disappearance made way for the decision of No Basis. My papers were improperly presented to the judge. This resembles organized crime. As such, I asked to speak to Karen, the clerk who notarized the Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2006 and she disappeared too. I asked to speak to the Supervisor. I spoke to Ms. Kathy Wankmuller. She said she was the supervisor. She said that sometimes papers in the files disappear. The disappearance of this legal document made way for a lawless decision. This should not be allowed. PAGE 1 0F 46. Consequently, I respectfully request that you put in place a docket description sheet in each Small Claims file or some type of system that can certify, confirm, verify and document legal documents in the files so these type phenomenon do not continue, as they obstruct justice and can possibly promote organized crime and or legal vendettas. Above all, this phenomenon could have made way for me to lose my God given right to have this matter in its entirety dismissed under lack of jurisdiction because the denial was used to refuse my Affidavit of Merit Dated April 19, 2006 with exhibits outlining documented fraud and court rendered 91

fraud documents, specifically, A COURT JUDGMENT WITH NO JUDICIAL SIGNATURE, that is being used to enforce lawlessness in the workplace and steal money. The phenomenon was corrected via a new Order To Show Cause was submitted with my Affidavit In Support of the Order To Show Cause/Affidavit of Merit with documented fraud and misrepresentation as exhibits. The exhibits attached to the Order To Show Cause dated December 19, 2006 epitomize and detail the fraud used that made way for the judicially unsigned fraudulent judgment, that is being used to lawlessly steal money via a lawless garnishment. Please note that this complaint letter shall serve as notice that no jurisdiction exists, and as such and as a matter of law, the entire matter must be dismissed. I seek no sanctions against the attorney because there is no jurisdiction for such. This complaint letter will be notarized and will additionally serve as an Affidavit of NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE TO CONTRACT pursuant to the following facts: 1) Regarding the attached commercial presentment, titled JUDGMENT DATED 12/04/04 ,Declarant conditionally accepts for value the courts offer to contract, and return contract to the courts for full discharge, closure, and settlement. 2) Declarant made a Special Appearance in Propria Persona based on commercial threat, duress, and coercion, on December 19, 2005 to inform the DISTRCT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, FIRST DISTRICT NASSAU: HEMPSTEAD and the alleged plaintiff: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY and the following third party interveners: RUBIN AND ROTHMAN, LLC that jurisdiction has not been established nor obtained based on several factors, in addition to improper service on the part of the alleged plaintiff. 3) Declarant has NOT received, NOR IS IN possession of any official SUMMONS AND OR JUDGMENT bearing a judge, magistrates, or clerks valid signature indicating that a LAWFUL, REAL, AND NON COLORABLE JUDGMENT in fact exists. Since the case record in The Small Claims Office has been available since the onset of this case, Declarant has not seen, nor is in possession of any official valid document or proof which demonstrates that a lawful SUMMONS, OR JUDGEMENT was ever issued at any point by any party in this matter. See attached alleged Ford Motor Credit Judgment with no Judge or Magistrateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s signature. 4) The court has allowed the alleged plaintiff to move in violation of ALL of the standard due process procedures established by LAW, at the expense of Declarant. 5) The alleged Complaint was not Verified in accordance with CPLR Â§ 3215(f), an affidavit of facts from the Plaintiff has not been provided. 6) Prior to Court Intervention there was no controversy in this matter. Declarant ensured that alleged debt would be paid in full UPON: a) Upon proof of claim that debt in fact exist. b) Upon verification that debt exists. c) Upon proof that RUBIN AND ROTHMAN have a valid contract to represent FORD MOTOR CREDIT., d) Upon proof that RUBIN AND ROTHMAN is not a third party intervener to this matter. e) Upon the production of a valid contract demonstrating that RUBIN AND ROTHMAN have a contract valid or otherwise to conduct business with Declarant. f) Upon production of any instrument that demonstrates that RUBIN AND ROTHMAN have a lawful claim (not colorable claim) to act as a moving party against Declarant. 7) Declarant has not seen or been presented with any evidence that demonstrates that a contract exists between Declarant and Respondent, and believes that none exists; 92

8) Declarant has not seen or been presented with any evidence that demonstrates that Declarant has a debt owing to Respondent, and believes that none exists; In this matter, there is no jurisdiction and the attached judgment is missing a required judicial signature and has no lawful signature. Consequently, it is indisputable that the Judgment in this matter is colorable, a disguise, and fraudulent. It is a void judgment. The below void judgment authorities, coupled with lack of jurisdiction substantiate the fact that the judgment in this matter must be vacated/dismissed. I am attaching Authorities on Void Judgments from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574: Void judgment. One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. See also Voidable judgment. Other Authorities on Void Judgments: Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. See: Wahl v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P.955 (1931) Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914) Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940) A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999) A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. See Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972) Void judgment is one that, from its inception, is complete nullity and without legal effect. Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, reconsideration denied 149 F.R.D. 147, affirmed 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985). 93

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect, Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D. Virgin Islands 1985). A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985). A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951). Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward. v. Terriere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958). Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987). Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App.Dist. 1993). Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990). Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982). Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994). Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity. People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907 (Ill.APp. 4 Dist. 1991).

Notarized copy.

EXTRA END OF LETTER BECAUSE RECENTLY MY NOTARIZATIONS HAVE BEEN DISAPEARING FROM THE EMAILED DOCUMENTS. 95

THIS IS PAGE SIX NOT NOTARIZED, JUST IN CASE OF PHENOMENA. Finally, efficiency in the administration of the court is advised. Above all, Equality under the Law is PARAMOUNT and MANDATORY under Law. A Final Disposition for a Full Dismissal and Vacating the Unauthorized Judgment in this Matter is Required because the Court and the alledged plaintiff DO NOT POSSESS JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER. Additionally, the attached Void judgment was rendered from this court, has no signature and must be vacated as such. I look forward to obtaining such and hearing from you. Thank You. Sincerely,

Miriam Snyder The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. STATE OF COUNTY OF

) ) )

Xc: Judith Kaye, NYS Chief Justice Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer

SEE ABOVE NOTARIZATION.

THIS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT HAS NO JUDGE’S SIGNATURE, HAS NO JURISDICTIONAL POWER, HAS NO LEGITIMACY, BUT HAS BEEN USED TO GARNISH MY CHECK AND EFFECTIVELY CAUSE HAVOC IN THE WORK PLACE. THIS IS A PATTERNED AND PRACTICED JONATHAN LIPPMAN CAN YOU PROVE IT PHENOMENON, JUST LIKE HIS DISGUISED KILLING CAN YOU PROVE IT SOCIAL PHENOMENON PROGRAM IN AFRICA, THAT HAS LEFT OVER 13 MILLION DEAD UNDER CAN YOU PROVE IT! JONATHAN LIPPMAN IS A DANGER TO HUMANITY.

DID ANYBODY SEE A JUDGES SIGNATURE IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THAT IS BEING LAWLESSLY USED TO GARNISH WAGES? CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAILED. JONATHAN LIPPMAN’S NEWEST ENOINMENT!

THIS IS MY SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE DISAPPEARED FROM THE COURT FILES UNDER A PHENOMENON.

100

101

THIRD: Nassau County Courts have no jurisdiction over this matter as the alleged respondent lives in the Bronx, New York and Ford Motor Credit is located in another state. See exhibit 2, acknowledging the fact that Ford Motor Credit knew of the Defendants correct address, but fraudulently, frivolously, and harassingly litigated the matter outside the jurisdiction of alleged Defendant’s residence, in violation to CPLR Commercial Claim procedures. FOURTH: The alleged Respondent does not owe any money to the attorney and or Ford Motor Credit and the fraudulent debt can not be validated, because no money is owed.

FIFTH:

The Alleged Defendant seeks an immediate vacate of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint

based on the fact that the entire matter is based on fraud, specifically, misrepresentation of facts, no personal or proper service as required, a Plaintiff defective/fraudulent affidavit of service citing improper service rule codes, and above all because the alleged defendant owes no money to the Plaintiff and or his attorneys AND THE DEBT CAN NOT BE VALIDATED. SIXTH:

The alleged Defendant seeks the immediate vacate of the attached garnishment because it is based

on fraud and greed, the alleged Defendant owes no money whatsoever, the debt can not be validated.

SEVENTH:

The Alleged Respondent will win on the merits of the case because she does not owe the Plaintiff

any money and Petitioner’s claims cannot be validated.

EIGHTH:

The Alleged Respondent does not have any outstanding debt with Ford

Motor Credit. NINTH:

The alleged Defendants First Cause of Defense is that the alleged Defendant does not reside in the

county in which this action is brought. See Exhibits 2 and 3, verifying and confirming Alleged Defendant’s place of residence. Second, as a result of Defendants non/improper service and fraud, embedded in Commercial Claims Procedural Violations and the Plaintiff’s inability to validate the debt, the entire matter must be dismissed and the judgment vacated. The fraud is exhibited in the attorney’s willful misrepresentation in the citing of CPLR 3215 (g) on his Affidavit of Additional Mailing, when this citation has nothing to do with serving a commercial transaction notice and or summons. In fact, this citation and or authority is supposed to be used when more than one

year has elapsed between the date of the default and the filing of the motion. The attorney improperly served the default judgment motion upon respondent misrepresenting CPLR 3215(G). THIS IS FRAUD! Third, the Plaintiff complaint is in violation of Section 1809-A of the Uniform City Court Act, in that the Plaintiff does not have its principal office in the State of New York.

102

TENTH:

The Plaintiff’s affidavit of Additional Mailing is fraudulent, improper, and defective and

exemplifies Plaintiff conspiracy to defraud and convolute via using CPLR 3215 as authority to serve a summons and or complaint, when CPLR 3215 is for judgment for excess where counterclaim interposed. See Defendant Exhibit 4, Plaintiff’s fraud and defective Affidavit of Additional Mailing sworn August 5, 2004 citing CPLR 3215 as authority for service. See Defendant Exhibit 8, citing CPLR 3215.G authority, which has nothing to do with summons service and or additional mailing rules. ELEVENTH: See alleged Defendant’s Exhibit 5, which is the Plaintiff’s fraudulent, non procedural and conspiracy to defraud the courts Affidavit of Service. This Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Service is non procedural, epitomizes “sewer service” of legal documents, and is in violation of Section 212.06 and Section 214.41aCommercial claims procedure. Summons, see Defendants Exhibit 6, Section 212.06, Civil practice summons rules clearly state that the summons is served by PERSONAL DELIVERY. The Plaintiff’s fraudulent Affidavit of Service is additionally in violation of procedures set forth for serving a commercial summons in that there is no personal service and or mailing receipts to validate sending the summons and or complaint to the Defendant and or in compliance with rules set forth .

TWELFTH:

Up to today’s date the application and the files show that the Plaintiff failed to offer proof that the

mailing of process was made by first class mail and or certified mail, as required. Defendant has copied the entire file and there are no mailing receipts whatsoever because Plaintiff’s entire case is based off of fraud, misrepresentation, and attorney misconduct in filing non procedural, defective, improper, and fraudulent documents in the court. See Defendant exhibits exemplifying such.

THIRTEENTH: Pursuant to CPLR 5015 the alleged Defendant has presented excusable default via Plaintiff non service documentation, Plaintiff Affidavits epitomizing willful sewer serving to a wrong address, when personal service is required. Defendant has provided evidence substantiating her correct address the same date/time frame this fraud was being initiated August 2004. Plaintiff fraud, misrepresentation and attorney misconduct are exemplified in the Plaintiff use of defective forms, citing improper rules and plaintiff failure to provide any mailing receipts. Above all, Plaintiff fails to establish and or present any evidence that the alleged defendant received a copy of the summons and complaint prior to the default judgment being entered against her. Additionally, the alleged defendant decrees lack of jurisdiction.

FOURTEENTH:

The Alleged Defendant Snyder specifically objects to the allegations of the complaint and

asserts affirmative defenses as noted above. This demonstrates that Snyder has a meritorious defense to the action (Beverage Distributors of Nevada, Inc. v SchenleyIndustries,Inc.,supra; In view of the above, and the well established public policy that favors a determination on the merits wherever possible, so that the parties may have their day in court to litigate the issues (see, Crooks v Lear Taxi Corp., 136 AD2d 452 [1st Dept 1988]; Stark v

103

Marine Power & Light Co., 99 AD2d 753 [2d Dept 1984]), the Alleged Defendant Snyder’s motion to vacate the default judgment should be granted. FIFTEENTH: The alleged Defendant further states that she has requisitioned and copied the entire file, and that there is no certification and or proof of mailing of any demand letter as required pursuant to UDCA section 1803A.a. This is another procedural violation exemplifying attorney frivolous conduct in litigating civil matters.

SIXTEENTH: The Alleged Defendant attests to the fact that a copy of this affidavit and Order to Show Cause will be mailed via U.S. Certified mail to the attorney incorporating this fraud upon court acknowledgment. Rubin and Rothman, LLC Attorneys At Law 1787 Veterans Highway, Suite 32 P.O. Box 9003 Islandia, N.Y. 11749

AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION WITH VALIDATING LAW ON THE DOCUMENTED ATTORNEY FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION.

The alleged defendant further reinstates that she has requisitioned the files again and there IS NO PROOF OF SERVICE MAIL RECEIPTS for anything. Defendant objects fully to placing any backdated mailing receipts in these files. When one reviews the false allegations made in the attorney’s documents, one can see that the attorney violated his ethical obligation to be truthful. He used false papers to lie and say he served the alleged defendant when he did not. He used sewer service documentation to subterfuge the fraud and to substitute required personal service procedure. Thereafter, he used defective forms and obstructed procedural rules to defraud the court. See exhibits. An attorney's reputation for veracity is the measure by which he/she is regarded and which holds one in good stead with courts and fellow attorneys. The presumption of good faith dealing which this Court assumes all attorneys conduct themselves, should not be cavalierly dissipated for the simple expediency of attempting to prevail on a motion at all costs.

Counsel needs to be reminded of the Disciplinary Rules contained within the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically DR 1-102 [22 NYCRR § 1200.3] providing in pertinent part that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; or engage in conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and DR 7-102 (A)( 5) [ 22NYCRR § 1200.33] which provides a lawyer

104

shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact. (see Matter of Aaron, 232 AD2d 119 (1997), where the Appellate Division, Second Department found submitting a false affidavit, affirmation to the Bankruptcy Court violated DR 1-102(A) (4) and (5) and DR 7-102(A) (5); and Matter of Kramer, 235 AD2d 87 (1997), lv denied 91 NY2d 805, lv dismissed 93 NY 883, cert denied 528 US 869, where the Appellate Division, First Department found that making false statements in an affidavit to the District Court violated DR 1-102(A) (4) and (5) and DR7-102 (A) (5) ). As was stated in the case of Matter of Schildhaus, 23 AD2d 152 (1st Dept 1965), affd 16 NY2d 748, appeal dismissed, cert denied by Schildhaus v Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 382 US 370 (1966).

Attorney Rothman should be held strictly accountable for his statements, documents, procedural violations, obstruction of justice, and unethical conduct which reasonably could have the effect of deceiving or misleading the court in the action to be taken in a matter pending before it. The court is entitled to rely upon the accuracy of any statement of a relevant fact unequivocally made by an attorney in the course of judicial proceedings.

Part 130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator [22 NYCRR 130-1.1] provides for the imposition of financial sanctions for frivolous conduct in civil litigation. Under Part 130-1.1(c)(3) frivolous conduct includes the assertion of material factual statements that are false. The defective attorney Affidavit of Additional Mailing, his fraudulent, sewer service, non procedural Affidavit of Service, and his misrepresenting CPLR 3215 (g), and his imaginary, fictitious, invalidated debt created out of thin air, all exemplify assertion of material factual statements that are false, procedurally incorrect, and fictitious.

The affidavit of service can not be validated, just like the fraudulent out of thin air created debt, can not be validated. There are no mailing receipts and there was no personal service, despite this being a procedural requirement. There is no proof of MAILING ANYTHING in the file as of today because the alleged defendant was not served or mailed notice of this fraud or she would have answered, like she is doing now.

Additionally, the attorney frivolous and contemptible conduct is further exemplified in his CPLR 3215 attached Affidavit of Additional Mailing. This frivolous non procedural form epitomizes the creation of a document to appear as if it cites authority to serve notice, when it is pure fraud, in that it is improper, misrepresents, violates the rules for servicing a summons, and has no proof of mailings. The citation of CPLR 3215 on the attorneys affidavit, when CPLR 3215 has nothing to do whatsoever with serving a summons, is a prime example of frivolous litigation.

Defendant is invoking a counter claim for the attorney fraud, misrepresentation and frivolous civil litigation acts. Defendant asks the courts to award the $5,000 to the Defendant for having to work hard in correcting, outlining, researching and unraveling the attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s multifaceted fraud, misrepresentation and

105

frivolous litigation stratagems. The courts should award the defendant, vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint based on the unethical, fraud based, and procedurally corrupted documents and attorney conduct.

Moreover, the court should set an example via sanction so these corrupted practices will discontinue immediately. Defendant Snyder respectfully requests that the court sanction the attorney and award monies to the Defendant for being victimized by this indisputable, contemptible, and documented attorney misrepresentation and mischief. Please see the below exhibits which validate and document the Plaintiff’s fraud and Defendants defense. Thank you.

EXHIBIT #

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

FRAUD BASED GARNISHMENT OF WAGES,

RUBIN AND ROTHNAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NON SERVICE AND CORRECT ADDRESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,

PROOF OF ADDRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF FRAUD INITIATED AUGUST 2004,

PLAINTIFF FRAUD: PLAINTIFF IMPROPER, FRAUDULENT, AFFIDAVIT OF ADDITIONAL MAILING WITH NO PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTS AND 3 DAYS LAPSED NOTICE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE.

PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE IS IN VIOLATION OF UNIFORM RULES SECTION 212.O6: SUMMONS AND IN VIOLATION OF COMMERCIAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE SECTION 212.41. THIS PLAINTIFF FRAUD DOCUMENT HAS NO PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTS.

UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS SECTION 212:06

SECTION 212.41 COMMERCIAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

106

107

EXHIBITS THE PUREST FORM OF DOCUMENTED ORGANIZED CRIME BASED ON FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

108

EXHIBIT # 1, FRAUD BASED GARNISHMENT OF WAGES

109

EXHIBIT # 2 RUBIN AND ROTHMAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NON SERVICE, CORRECT ADDRESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, AND ALLEDGED DEFENDANT PROOF OF ADDRESS.

110

EXHIBIT #3 DEFENDANT’S PROOF OF ADDRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF FRAUD INITIATED AUGUST 2004

DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED. DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED.

111

EXHIBIT # 4. DOCUMENTED PLAINTIFF FRAUD: PLAINTIFF MISREPRESENTING CPLR 3215 (G), PROCEDURALLY VIOLATING AND IMPROPER, FRAUDULENT, AFFIDAVIT OF ADDITIONAL MAILING WITH NO PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTS AND 3 DAYS LAPSED NOTICE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE.

112

EXHIBIT # 5. DOCUMENTED PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE IS IN VIOLATION OF UNIFORM RULES SECTION 212.O6: SUMMONS AND IN VIOLATION OF COMMERCIAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE SECTION 212.41. BOTH RULES STATE PERSONAL SERVICE FOR SUMMONS AND OR CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPTS. NEITHER WAS DONE. THIS PLAINTIFF FRAUD DOCUMENT HAS NO PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTS IN THE COURT FILES.

113

EXHIBIT # 6. RUBIN AND ROTHMAN VIOLATED THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS

SECTION 212:06, PERSONAL SERVICE SUMMONS RULES AND CERTIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE RECEIPT RULES. PLAINTIFFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S SUMMONS AND OR UDCA SECTION 1803-A CERTIFICATION WAS NEVER SERVED OR FILED AND THERE IS NO PROOF OF SERVICE MAILING RECEIPTS FOR SERVING AND OR MAILING ANYTHING, IN THE COURT FILES.

Uniform Rules for N.Y.S. Trial Courts PART 212. Uniform Civil Rules For The District Courts Commercial reuse of the Rules as they appear on this web site is prohibited. The official version of the Rules published in the NYCRR is available on Westlaw.

Section 212.06 Summons. (a) The summons shall state the district and location of the court in which the action is brought, as well as the names of the parties, and shall comply with all the provisions of the UDCA applicable to summonses. (b) Where an action is brought in any district where there are subdivisions designated as parts for a particular location, there shall also be set forth in the caption of the summons the name of the part, as, for example, "Third District, Great Neck Part." (c) The following form shall be used in a case in which: (1) the cause of action is for money only; (2)

the summons is served by personal delivery to the defendant within Nassau or Suffolk County; and (3) a formal complaint is not served therewith:

114

EXHIBIT #7. SECTION 212 41-A COMMERCIAL CLAIMS AND PROCEDURE

115

EXHIBIT # 8 ATTORNEY ROTHMAN MISREPRESENTATION PLAINTIFF FICTITIOUS AND IMAGINARY AUTHORITY CITATION OF CPLR 3215 G, DEFINED AS JUDGMENT FOR EXCESS WHERE COUTERCLAIM INTERPOSED. THIS CITATION IS USED IMPROPERLY IN THE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDVIT OF ADDITIONAL MAILING, EXHIBIT # 4 ABOVE. THIS FRAUD IS DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION IN THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED WHEN MORE THAN ONE YEAR HAD ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE DEFAULT AND THE FILING OF THE MOTION. THE ATTORNEY/PLAINTIFF IMPROPERLY CITED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION UPON DEFENDANT MISREPRESENTING CPLR 3215(G).

CPLR 3215. Default judgment. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Default and entry. Procedure before court. Default not entered within one year. Multiple defendants. Proof. Notice.

g) Judgment for excess where counterclaim interposed. (

(h) Default judgment for failure to comply with stipulation of settlement.

116

EXHIBIT # 9. SECTION 1809-A OF THE UNIFORM CITY COURT ACT STATES THAT THE CLAIMANT

CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP OR ASSOCIATION MUST HAVE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. PLAINTIFF PRINCIPAL OFFICE AS NOTED ON THE PLAINTIFF’S NON SERVED AND FRAUDLENT SUMMONS IS OUT OF NEW YORK STATE AND IN LIVONIA, MI, COUNTY OF WAYNE. SEE PLAINTIFF FRAUDULENT NON SERVED SUMMONS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT _______.

§ 1809. Procedures relating to corporations, associations, insurers and assignees. 1. No corporation, except a municipal corporation, public benefit corporation, school district or school district public library wholly or partially within the municipal corporate limit, no partnership, or association and no assignee of any small claim shall institute an action or proceeding under this article, nor shall this article apply to any claim or cause of action brought by an insurer in its own name or in the name of its insured whether before or after payment to the insured on the policy. 2. A corporation may appear in the defense of any small claim action brought pursuant to this article by an attorney as well as by any authorized officer, director or employee of the corporation provided that the appearance by a non-lawyer on behalf of a corporation shall be deemed to constitute the requisite authority to bind the corporation in a settlement or trial. The court or arbitrator may make reasonable inquiry to determine the authority of any person who appears for the corporation in defense of a small claims court case.

Excerpts from New York State Law...

117

EXHIBIT # 10. PLAINTIFF AND ATTORNEY RUBIN ROTHMAN DOCUMENTED CONTINUED MISREPRESENTATION VIA VIOLATION OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, A PART OF THE COMMERCIAL CLAIM PROCEDURES. THE FILES DO NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED UCDCA 1803 AND 1803-A CERTIFICATIONS

118

EXHIBIT # 11, 4 PAGES OF DOCUMENTED ORGANIZED CRIME

119

THE NEVER SERVED SUMMONS.

120

THE NEVER SERVED COMPLAINT. THE NEVER SERVED AFFIDAVIT OF FRAUD.

121

THE NO JUDGE’S SIGNATURE JUDGMENT USED TO GARNISH AND DESTROY CREDIT RATING.

122

123

THE NO JUDGE’S SIGNATURE JUDGMENT USED TO GARNISH AND DESTROY CREDIT RATING. UNDER JONATHAN LIPPMAN EVERYBODY JOINS IN THE DISGUISED KILL!

THE BELOW IS THE UNSIGNED COURT FURTHERANCE OF FRAUD. THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DISAPPEARED UNDER A PHENOMENON JUST LIKE OVER 13 MILLION

124

125

CIVIL COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU ______________________________________________x Index No. 021456-04 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, PETITIONER ALLEDGED RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE -AgainstMIRIAM SNYDER, ALLEDGED RESPONDENT/DEMANDANT ________________________________________________x ALLEDGED RESPONDENT’S/DEMANDANT AFFIDAVIT THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT FRAUD AND IMPOSSIBILITIES Respondent/Demandant Miriam Snyder, deposes and says under penalty of perjury, that the below is true and states that the below documents are needed to resolve this matter in a fair, equitable, truthful manner consistent with and to ensure equal protection of the law. In order for this matter to be adjudicated fairly respondent respectfully requests the following documents pursuant to the Civil Rules Of Procedure, all laws and defenses related to unconscionable bargains/contracts and all applicable Freedom of Information and Privacy Act laws. This affidavit shall serve as a request for validation. Please be advised that alleged respondent/demandant needs the information requested in this affidavit before any offer to settle can be made on this matter. Alleged Respondent/Demandant Snyder would like to settle this account as soon as possible as she may have a counter claim to set-off or indemnify the disputed balance. First:Upon the affidavit of Miriam Snyder, sworn to on December 14, 2006, be it known that Ms. Snyder states under oath the following: FIRST: I recently received the attached letter dated December 11, 2006 with a fraud based garnishment, erupting out of thin air, premised off of Ford Motor Credit and attorney fraud and legal abuse, but effectively enforcing enforced lawlessness in the workplace. SECOND: Respondent was not served any notice whatsoever. THIRD: Nassau County Courts have no jurisdiction over this matter as the alleged respondent lives in the Bronx, New York and Ford Motor Credit is located in another state. FOURTH: This matter is based on fraud and identity theft because the alleged Respondent does not owe any money to the attorney and or Ford Motor Credit. FIFTH: The Alleged Respondent seeks an immediate emergency stay of the attached garnishment because it is based on fraud and greed, and the alleged respondent owes no money whatsoever. SIXTH: The Alleged Respondent will win on the merits of the case because she does not owe the Petitioner any money and Petitioner’s claims cannot be substantiated. 126

SIXTH: The Alleged Respondent does not have any outstanding debt with Ford Motor Credit and or its attorney/s. As such and on behalf of equal protection of the law, the following information is needed in order for the alleged respondent to understand the rights and duties of all parties concerned. The following Freedom of Information documents are needed: 1. All documentation concerning how the amount of the alleged debt was determined 2. In what year or years was the alleged debt created? 3. What contract or agreement was signed between Ford Motor Credit and myself? 4. Kindly provide the certified documents bearing my authorized signature. 5. What was the value of the product provided? 6. How did Ford Motor Credit obtain the product provided? 7. Kindly provide certified documentation of the loss incurred by Ford Credit. 8. What was the consideration for the contract or agreement I allegedly entered into with Ford Credit? 9. What was the consideration for Ford Credit to enter into the alleged contract or agreement? 10. Was there any interest involved with the alleged debt? 11. What was the interest rate? 12. What was the basis for the interest rate? 13. Were there any changes in said interest rate during the time the alleged debt? 14. Why isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Ford Credit Company seeking to collect the alleged debt? 15. Did Ford Credit Company ever attempt to collect the alleged debt? If yes, kindly provide proof. 18. Kindly provide the Federal law or laws that govern the attorney involvement in collecting the alleged debt. 19. Kindly answer all questions true, correct, and complete under the penalty of perjury, on a point by point basis, citing all relevant Code Sections, Regulations, and/or Court Cases. Kindly state with particularity if there are no documents or information responsive to any request. Your failure to respond as such to this request will be deemed as an act of bad faith. 20. Please identify the source of the funds in the account that is the subject of this â&#x20AC;&#x153;judgmentâ&#x20AC;?. 21. What was the account number of the account in which the funds were held prior to the opening of the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit? 22. Who was the owner of each account, or list those individuals having signature rights to each account 23. Identify the account that was debited when the disputed account was created. 24. Who was the owner of each account or list those individuals having signature rights to each account? 25. Identify the source of the funds that created the disputed account. 26. Did the funds for the disputed account originate from another account or lending institution? 27. List the names and addresses of all lending institutions from which any funds were purportedly originated.

127

28. Please identify the account number from which the funds originated in order to create the disputed account. 29. Admit that no other account was debited when the disputed account was created. 30. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, please identify the account that was debited by account number and the name or names of the debited accountâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s signer, holder and/or owner, and explain how the funds for this account were originated. 31. If you denied that no other account was debited when the disputed account was opened or created, state the total balance of this debited account at the time the debit was made and, list the names of the signers on the account and the date that the account was opened along with the opening balance. 32. Admit that the Miriam Snyder was the depositor for the account that is the subject matter of this lawsuit. 33. Please produce all documents and information, related in any way, to your implication or allegation that a loan was given to Miriam Snyder. 34. Which employee of the Ford Motor Credit authorized the transaction? 35. If any loan origination system, software or other procedures were used in the opening of the disputed account, please identify the system by name and describe how it works. 36. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender of the financial institution involved in the alleged loan to use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 37. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan, use their money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note from the alleged borrower? YES or NO. 38. According to the alleged loan agreement, was the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan to accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 39. According to the bookkeeping entries, did the purported lender or financial institution involved in the alleged loan accept anything of value from the alleged borrower that would be used to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan? YES or NO. 40. Was the intent of the purported loan agreement that the party that funded the loan should be repaid the money lent? YES or NO. 41. Was the purported lender involved in the alleged loan following Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP)? YES or NO. 42. Were all material facts disclosed in the written agreement? YES or NO. 43. What is the name and address of any bank auditor or certified public accountant involve with or having any relation to the accounting function regarding the disputed account? 128

44. Identify the name of the records system of account records or ledgers reflecting the transaction for the disputed account. 45. Were any loan numbers assigned to the disputed account? 46. If you answered yes to the above question, please list those account numbers. 47. Explain how each account was created or originated. 48. Explain how the funds for each account were deposited and where they originated. 49. Was an account created with the purported loan amount then debited to fund the disputed account? 50. Please explain your answer to the above question. 51. Please produce all records and tangible evidence relating to the question herein and attach them along with your response. 52. Please reply with a copy of your Department of State filing information that authorizes you to operate your business in this state, as this will also verify if your filing has expired or is valid. 53. The Petitioners answers directly to the questions put forth are needed in order to validate the claim of this alleged debt. 54. If the Petetioners do not reply directly to these questions, this silence shall serve as tacit procuration, serve as valid proof that this is a fraudulent/imaginary account that has no origination and that this fraudulent/imaginary account can not be pursued further. 55. Respondent decrees ESTOPEL BY ACQUIESENCE, in the event Ford Motor Credit admits the statements and claims by TACIT PROCURATION, all issues are deemed settled RES JUDICATA, STARE DECISIS and COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. Ford Motor Credit may not argue, controvert, or otherwise protest the finality of the administrative findings in any subsequent process, whether administrative or judicial. 56. Be it further understood that any action(s), by Ford Motor Credit or attorneys, in any other court or other forum, undertaken against Miriam Snyder outside this Administrative Remedy by Ford Motor Credit, is a trespass against Miriam Snyder and will result in an increase in the amount of the True Bill of ten (10) times the original amount and will continue to increase in the same amount of any additional trespasses. 57. Ford Motor Credit is granted the time period allowed in this Order To Show Cause to respond to the statements and claims herein and/or to provide Ford Motor Credit own answers to inquires upon receipt of this letter which will be tracked using delivery confirmation and Certified Mail through the U.S. Postal Service. 58. Ford Motor Credit may, after agreeing to all claims put forth by Miriam Snyder, enter into negotiations to settle the agreement contract with terms to be agreed upon, signed under penalty of perjury. 129

59. Please note that any correspondence not presented in the form of a written request/answer format, will be ignored and/or considered an INVALID/NON-RESPONSE and default. 60. In case of a misunderstanding, you are to communicate with me only in writing and if you try to

communicate with me without correspondence being sent through the U.S. Mail (U.S. POSTAL SERVICE/Post Office), that communication shall be a violation of my right to privacy. This will exemplify the willful making of unsolicited calls, causing annoyance, disturbance, shock, aggravation, depression, frustration, distress and rage causing me commercial damages, I will proceed via counter suit accordingly, holding you personally liable. The damages for these violations are listed below for your future reference. Understand that you will be held commercially liable for such actions, as you have been fully notified and after this point, if you continue with your fraudulent claims, judgments and garnishment, you are willfully violating my rights, making unsolicited visits to a private property, causing harassment, contributing to stress, depression, rage, angina, chest constrictions, shock, Loss of appetite, Crying, Nightmares, insomnia, night sweats, Emotional paralysis, Inability to think or function at work, Headaches, Shortness of breath, Anxiety, nervousness, fear and worry, Hypertension (elevation of blood pressure), Irritability, Hysteria, Embarrassment, humiliation, Indignation and pain and suffering. 61. Once you are in default, you have agreed that the above statements cannot be proven and you will be bound to correct the following errors: The Ford Motor Credit default will effectuate the following: A. Close this fraudulent account with a zero (0) balance. B. Cease and desist from obtaining fraudulent, non jurisdictional, non existent judgments effectuating fraud based garnishments. C. Remove/Correct all degrading and/or derogatory remarks you placed on my credit profile and report â&#x20AC;&#x153;Paid as Agreedâ&#x20AC;? or other favorable comment to all the credit reporting agencies you are providing my information to. D. Cease and desist from adding further remarks on my credit profile. E. Send a confirmation of these corrections to me, signed under penalty of perjury, via Certified or Registered Mail. F. After sending a confirmation, cease and desist from communicating with me further. 62. This affidavit and the requests are in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act. 63. Upon receipt of this affidavit, unless disputed with proper explanation, Ford Motor Credit agrees to the terms and conditions of this letter. Furthermore, if Ford Motor Credit decides to communicate with me outside my wishes for privacy; Ford Motor Credit agrees to pay all associated damages. 64. Thank you for your prompt consideration in this matter as the information requested has direct bearing upon the subject matter and is needed for me to understand the nature and cause of this action. NOTARIZED PAGE.

130

131

132