Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

LNvsACL

Expand Messages
  • stonekutteral
    Hello Everyone, here is some stuff that will be brought up in my trial on Wednesday Sept 9th....comments are welcome.....This is for California of course, laws
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Everyone, here is some stuff that will be brought up in my trial
      on Wednesday Sept 9th....comments are welcome.....This is for
      California of course, laws in your state or place may vary..... Cheers
      , Al
      Al Cintra-Leite
      C/o 1923-A El Camino Real
      San Mateo , California

      SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
      COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

      PLAINTIFF
      L& N Aquisitions.
      CASE NUMBER CIVXXXXXXXXXX
      DEFENDANT
      AL CINTRA-LEITE
      All defendants communications with the the court shall be construed
      under the provisions of cases such as “Haines vs. Kerner”, Platsky,
      etc.
      In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading
      standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies
      in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to
      submit evidence in support of their claims.
      In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant
      without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair
      pleadings.
      In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when
      courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated.

       
      OBJECTIONS TO LAWSUIT
      Regula pro lege, si deficit lex. In default of the law, the maxim
      rules.
      Non est certandum de regulis juris. There is no disputing about
      rules of law.
      Defendant has multple affirmative defenses that apply , see Weil and
      Brown California Practice Guide Civil procedure before Trial,5-263 et
      seq.


      page 1 of 56


      Pursuant to the maxim of law which states
      “Nemo prohibetur pluribus defensionibus uti.- No one is restrained from
      using several defenses”, and California EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 320.
      “Except as otherwise provided by law, the court in its discretion shall
      regulate the order of proof.”, Defendant will present several
      affirmative defenses,and let the court decide in which order to apply
      them.

      California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 720.360. At a hearing on a
      third-party claim, the third person has the burden of proof. Defendant
      objects that the plaintiff both 1) is not the real party in interest
      (lacks standing) and 2) is not authorized to represent the real party
      in interest (capacity).

      California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
      430.10.The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been
      filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30,
      to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:



      page 2 of 56


      “(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of
      action alleged in the pleading.” Pursuant to California CODE OF CIVIL
      PROCEDURE SECTION 430.10 , Defendant hereby objects that the court has
      no jurisdiction , Because the case must be brought where the Defendant
      is a resident, and although Defendant has a San Mateo mailing address
      for convienience,I am not a resident of San Mateo County, as evidenced
      by my Nevada drivers license.
      Rock of Ages is not a corporation and therefor not a person who can
      be brought into a suit.
      The court has no jurisdiction, as this action has been brought by a
      third party debt collector, and they have no standing or capacity
      according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17a, as they are
      not a "real party in interest" , also required by
      California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
      SECTION 367. “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the
      real party
      in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.”
      There is no statute that provides for either LN Aquisitions or Spiwak
      and Iezza to prosecute this action, therefor it is null and void “ab
      initio” from the beginning.
      page 3 of 56


      “Nemo debet immiscere se rei alienae ad se nihil pertinenti. No one
      should interfere in what no way concerns him,” is a maxim of law,and
      this matter in no way concerns the plaintiff. If it did,
      Plaintiff still needs to properly "ratify commencement". for
      starters , LN Aquisitions , has to give authorization , called “Power
      of Attorney”to Spiwak and Iezza to even represent them in this case but
      that authorization has not been given although it is required ,
      pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2400.Powers of attorney are
      governed by the Power of Attorney Law(Division 4.5 (commencing with
      Section 4000) of the Probate Code) to the extent provided in that law.-
      and, California Probate Code Sections 4000 Et Seq,, and has not been
      complied with, has not been given or filed with this court ; therefor
      Spiwak and Iezza have no standing or capacity to bring this case , (who
      ARE these guys?.....) ...even IF they were in compliance with
      California Business and Professions Code Section 6067 , which they are
      not . And , according to California Business and Professions Code
      Section 16240. “Every person who practices, offers to practice, or
      advertises any business, trade,profession, occupation, or calling,or
      who uses any title, sign, initials, card, or device to indicate that he
      or she is qualified to practice any business, trade,profession,
      occupation ,

      page 4 of 56

      or calling for which a license, registration,or certificate is
      required by any law of this state, without holding a current and valid
      license, registration, or certificate as prescribed by law, is guilty
      of a misdemeanor.
      therefor Spiwak and Iezza have no capacity or standing to bring this
      case ,and if a power of attorney for them is filed it needs to be
      properly notarized as of the date this case was originally filed or is
      invalid, and any attorney they send has to have authorization from them
      , even if they were in compliance with California Business and
      Professions Code Section 6067 , which they are not , and they have not
      proved that they are in compliance with this law, and , I am not
      required to prove a negative,that they are not in compliance, that is ,
      they have to produce proof of them having a license with their Oath of
      Office endorsed and subscribed by the license holder as required by
      California Business and Professions Code Section 6067, notarized by a
      notary who is not and was not an employee of the license holder. If I
      was required to prove a negative, that is , if I was required to prove
      that their license doesn’t exist when they say it does , then I could
      turn around and say , “IF” there was a debt then, it was paid,because I
      would remember any unpaid bill of 25 thousand dollars, and I dont have
      to prove that it was paid or produce any reciepts any more than
      Plaintiffs have to produce reciepts of money Plaintiffs claim I spent
      ,or prove that Spiwak and Iezza are in compliance with California B+P
      Section 6067 by producing their license with signed and notarized oath
      of

      page 5 of 56

      office on it.
      However ,for me to do so ,would assume that I recognized thiese
      allegations as true, and , I do NOT recognize them as being true, I
      have repeatedly asked for verification of this alleged debt from Spiwak
      and Iezza but have gotten no response but slander , libel ,and
      defamation of character over loudspeaker on court phone and no
      response to show where any of these allegations came from. And
      Plaintiff has not fufilled the requirements pursuant to, amongst
      others, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033 (b) (2) and
      federal Code section 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]
      “(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer
      in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall,
      unless the following information is contained in the initial
      communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a
      written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name
      of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless
      the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes
      the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be
      assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the
      consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day
      period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt
      collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment
      against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will
      be

      page 6 of 56

      mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that,
      upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the
      debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of
      the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
      (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the
      thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any
      portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name
      and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease
      collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt
      collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment,
      or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such
      verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor,
      is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.”
      And , If there was a debt and any harm done, they would still have
      no standing because it is a legal maxim that “One cannot willing and
      knowingly place oneself in harms way and then sue to recover damages.”
      It’s like the insurance scammers who jump in front of a car and then
      sue for damages, If a debt is assigned to a third party collector, it
      is no longer legally enforceable because the creditor has waived his
      standing or rights to collect. The same applies to the third party
      collector. No one can put himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly
      and

      Page 7 of 56

      (voluntarily) and then expect to be awarded damages for his
      losses.Co. Litt. 304.-This is like someone jumping in front of a car
      and then sueing for money, it is insurance fraud.
      Scientia et volunti non fit injuria. A wrong is not done to one
      who knows and wills it.
      To him consenting no injury is done.
      He who consents cannot receive an injury.
      One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of
      that thing as an injury.
      He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to
      complain.
      Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One
      cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave
      his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.
      Especially when no damages to anyone have been entered into
      evidence in this case , only allegations --(Testis nemo in suƒ causƒ
      esse potest. No one can be a witness in his own cause.
      Idem agens et patiens esse non potest. One cannot be agent and
      patient, in the same matter. Jenk. Cent. 40.---- allegations of
      opposing counsel, - - who is , himself , a supposed lawyer who has
      chosen to


      page 8 of 56

      place himself in harms way.
      (No one can put himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly and
      voluntarily) and then expect to be awarded damages for his losses.
      ”Nemo tenetur seipsam infortunis et periculis exponere. No one is bound
      to expose himself to misfortune and dangers. Co. Litt. 253.
      Volunti non fit injuria. He who consents cannot receive an
      injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div.
      449.
      And, he who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to
      complain. , are maxims of law , and , despite Mr. Iezza presumably
      knowing the law , as he claims to be a lawyer , although that claim is
      disproved,because you can’t be doing illegal and immoral stuff if
      you’re a lawyer, disproved both by his illegal (perjury, racketeering ,
      Mail Fraud by use of the United States Mail , attempting peonage etc.)
      and immoral (slander, libel) actions in this case , and by his not
      having



      page 9 of 56

      met the requirements of California Business and Professions code
      Section 6067 ) ....his actions are illegal because he has perjured
      himself in this case by alleging something to be in his pleading when
      it is definitely not in there , therefor, his saying it that it “is” in
      there , is a bald faced lie and thus perjury and illegal, what he is
      falsely claiming , on Page 4 line 20,number 25 , is that Defendants “In
      their individual capacities unconditionally guarantee and promise to
      pay upon demand to Wells Fargo Bank all indebtedness of company named
      herein at any time under such companys Businessline Account”-
      defendant objects that nowhere in evidence filed with this court are
      such words to be found, therefor this is perjury and a false plea
      Plaintiff has entered .And maxims of Law state -Exceptio falsi omnium
      ultima. A false plea is the basest of all things.Falsus in uno, falsus
      in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. 1 Sumn. 356. Qui
      semel malus, semper prasumitur esse malus in eodem genere. He who is
      once bad, is presumed to be always so in the same degree. Cro. Car.
      317. Semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus in eodem genere.
      Whatever is once bad, is presumed to be so always in the same degree.
      Cro. Car. 317. Therefor, from the fact that Mr. Iezza is lying about
      one thing , this maxim thus now legally presumes him to be lying about
      all things.

      page 10 of 56

      Frustr… legis auxilium quaerit qui in legem committit. Vainly does he
      who offends against the law, seek the help of the law.
      Nemo ex suo delicto melioroem suam conditionem facere potest. No one
      can improve his condition by a crime. Dig. 50, 17, 137.Praetextu liciti
      non debet admitti illicitum. Under pretext of legality, what is illegal
      ought not to be admitted. 10 Co. 88.Quod contra juris rationem receptum
      est, non est producendum ad consequentias. What has been admitted
      against the spirit of the law, ought not to be heard. Dig. 50, 17,
      141.page 11 of 28
      Qui per fraudem agit, frustra agit. He who acts fraudulently acts in
      vain. 2 Roll. R. 17.
      Qui semel malus, semper prasumitur esse malus in eodem genere. He who
      is once bad, is presumed to be always so in the same degree. Cro. Car.
      317.
      Semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus in eodem genere. Whatever
      is once bad, is presumed to be so always in the same degree. Cro. Car.
      317.

      page 11 of 56

      Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malum
      et injustum efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by
      force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3 Co. 78.
      Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern.
      270.
      Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never agree
      together. Wing. 680.
      Quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur. What is done contrary to
      the law, is considered as not done. 4 Co. 31. No one can derive any
      advantage from such an act.)- and his actions are immoral as well as
      illegal because he has brought a suit where he has no standing , and he
      should know this , but still commits the crime anyway. This Defendant
      demands
      to have findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law spelled out by the
      court in detail, for any judgement in this case , to find out , amongst
      other things, why this case has even ever sent to arbitration or set
      for a court date , when there is no evidence and has been no evidence
      filed whatsoever to show this charge warrents any action at all, much
      less the inconvienience and expenses of myself filing papers and
      countersuits .

      page 12 of 56

      Defendant objects pursuant to
      California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.30(b) The person who
      filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.The
      plaintiff both 1) is not the real party in interest (lacks standing)
      and 2) is not authorized to represent the real party in interest
      (capacity).
      Pursuant to CCCP section 430.30(b)The person who filed the pleading,
      Nick Iezza , does not have the legal capacity to sue.
      because he was not, as of the date the complaint was filed and still
      as of the date of trial September 9th 2009, not in compliance with
      California Business and Professions Code 6067, which requires an
      attorney to have his oath of office on his license. Mr. Iezza has no
      such documents as are required,and, in spite of having been warned to
      bring these documents,in defendants letter to plaintiff sent August
      27th 2009 and filed into this case as Exibit XXXXXXXXXto court or be
      disqualfied from appearing as an attorney in this matter. and therefor
      has failed to meet the requirements to be an attorney in California,
      therefor lacks standing to file this case. Nick Iezza also does not
      have standing or capacity to sue because he has no Power of Attorney
      signed over to him from whoever is authorized to sign that document ,
      at LN Aquisitions, nor

      page 13 of 56

      does he have any legally admissable document from Wells Fargo
      authorizing him to sue or represent anyone in this case. And No One can
      Sue in the Name of Another.
      California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.30 (d) There is a
      defect or misjoinder of parties.
      There are several defects, as defendant has requested debt validation
      several times, including but not limited to the request for debt
      validation that was filed by defendant into this case on the date of
      April 17th, 2009 and until such validation is provided,(which it never
      has been) all action in this matter must cease and desist as per the
      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
      The Alleged validation, on page 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint for money,
      is not notarized and therefor is invalid even if it did have any
      reference made to this particular case, rather than just being a
      generic one-size-fits-all validation form letter. It claims she
      believes what the complaint states , as being true, well why doesnt she
      say what complaint she is referring to? How many of these does she sign
      a day? ,why didn’t she complain when


      page 14 of 56

      the charges were dropped against Does 1 through 10? She believed it
      before, that they were guilty , so why doesn’t she believe that now?
      What new evidence has come to light , since the case was originally
      filed, that would make her change her sworn testimoney?
      And Defendant objects pursuant to California Evidence Code Section
      1400. “ Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of
      evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that
      the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of
      such facts by any other means provided by law.”
      And “1401. (a) Authentication of a writing is required before it
      may be received in evidence.
      (b) Authentication of a writing is required before
      secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence.”-
      -Defendant objects that there is no proof that this person is actually
      a corporate officer of Plaintiff, maybe she is just one of those people
      that fraudulently signs these things like in the article in the news
      about the guy in the trailer park that signed three of these documents
      in less than a month,as if he was a president of three different
      companies ...just more fraud!
      Also, the alleged “Verification” states “I am informed and believe
      that the matters stated in it are true.” Defendant hereby objects to
      this, as a verification

      page 15 of 56

      must state matters which the signer knows personally to be true ,
      pursuant to
      California Corporations Code Section 193., which states “ "Verified"
      means that the statements contained in a certificate or other document
      are declared to be true of the own knowledge of the persons executing
      the same in either:
      (a) An affidavit signed by them under oath before an officer
      authorized by the laws of this state or of the place where it is
      executed to administer oaths”- Once again , defendant hereby objects
      that this alleged verification does not meet these requirements.
      Also, a maxim of law states “Frustr… probatur quod probatum non
      relevat. It is vain to prove that which if proved would not aid the
      matter in question.”, and that applies to several aspects of this case
      , the first being that - A third party debt collector has no standing,
      the second being that - there is no contract in evidence, and the third
      being that-a third party who has knowingly exposed themselves to harm
      in hopes of recovery by law has no standing,therefor if a contract ever
      did exist it would not matter because neither Spiwak and Iezza nor LN
      has any standing or capacity in this matter, and the court has no
      jurisdiction pursuant to California CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
      430.30 (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute
      a cause of action.- plaintiffs pleading fails to state the facts of who
      the Power of attorney is

      page 16 of 56

      signed to,Spiwak and Iezza or some other law firm or no law firm at
      all....
      And FRCP RULE 12(b)(6) applys here in this case , to dismiss for
      failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I move the
      case against defendant Cintraleite be dismissed with prejudice since
      Plaintiff had the opportunity to plead, establish standing, and
      jurisdiction and failed.
      Oportet quod certa res deducatur in judicium. A thing, to be brought to
      judgment, must be certain or definite. Jenk. Cent. 84.- as plaintiff’s
      pleading does not state what laws,if any, defendant is alleged to have
      broken, nor does it show that a contract with defendants signature ever
      existed, nor does it explain why or how it came up with the dollar
      amount it is claiming is owed,(such as showing reciepts added up
      according to GAAP, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) And
      this court, if it represents the state ( and I hereby object to there
      being any claim to statehood by California which is issuing bills of
      credit(“IOUS”) which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution for
      the united States, in Article 1 Section 10, of the United States
      Constitution.


      page 17 of 56

      And defendant objects to the fact that this court is apparently acting
      under the same false jurisdiction claimed by Acting -as- Governer
      Arnold Swarzenneger, who is emitting Bills of Credit (IOUs) in
      violation of the Constitution for the united States, Article 1 section
      10.
      Defendant objects pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
      Section 430.30(f) “The pleading is uncertain. As used in this
      subdivision, "uncertain" includes ambiguous and unintelligible.””
      Defendant objects that the pleading is UNCERTAIN as to whether any
      contract was ever made between defendant and anyone else at any time
      ever,and, also, as to whether or not any contract was made between
      Wells Fargo Bank and LN Acquisitions,as the alleged “true and correct
      copy“ of the alleged bill of sale is not dated, not notarized, and
      UNINTELLIGABLE as to the signature, contrary to the provisions of CCCP
      section 430.30 (f).
      ( Maxim of law-Nemo plus juris ad alienum transfere potest, quam ispe
      habent. One cannot transfer to another a right which he has not. Dig.
      50, 17, 54; 10 Pet. 161, 175.) And, to boot , the alleged “True and
      Correct” Bill of

      page 18 of 56

      sale is made out to LN Aquisitions (spelled with no “C” after the “A”
      and before the “Q” which is a different company than LN Acquisitions ,
      just as the dating service “Goggle.com” is not the
      search engine company“Google.com” even though the names are spelled
      with only one letter different, also Defendant has filed into this
      case an affidavit of denial of corporate existance for LN Aquisitions
      and LN Acquisitions, and neither one has been rebutted,therefor niether
      of those companys exists,and therefor niether one has standing.Also the
      alleged bill of sale does not have any other legal connection with any
      other paper, as stacking and /or stapling two pieces of paper together
      does not give them any status that the paper does not claim to have on
      the paper , such as
      describing what other documents are attached , and how many pages those
      attached documents are ( indicating Page 5 of 10, for instance), and
      what their connection is to each other, and thus it fails to prove the
      transfer of any accounts (IF there ever were any accounts to transfer
      in the first place) to any entity whatsoever.


      page 19 of 56

      Also, the alleged “bill of sale” says accounts are sold “on an “AS IS”
      basis and “WITH ALL FAULTS”,as is,“WITHOUT RECOURSE”, and “without
      representations or warrenties of any type, kind,character, or nature,
      express or implied,all of assignors right, title, and interest in and
      to each of the assets identified in the asset schedule attached hereto
      as Exibit B, together with the sole right to collect and charge all
      principle, interest or other proceeds of any kind with respect to the
      assets remaining due and owing as of the date hereof” first off it’s
      not dated , so what do they mean by “as of the date herof” -When might
      that have been, pray tell?- but also,lots of maxims of law state things
      like,”Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One cannot
      complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his
      consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.”
      ,also, the bill of sale is totally non specific as to just exactly what
      was sold ,and whether nWells Fargo Acually had any rights to sell,
      Wells Fargo, who seemingly would be the “real party in interest”
      nowhere claims this, they claim nothing is being sold but a vague
      possibility.(Oportet quod certa sit res venditur. A thing, to be sold,
      must be certain or definite.)
      page 20 of 56

      Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1045. “A mere possibility,
      not coupled with an interest, cannot be transferred.”-
      Since the alleged “Bill of sale” is nonspecific as to what accounts
      were alleged to be sold, whether or not there was any debt attached to
      those accounts, and what the right allegedly transferred was(maybe the
      rights that were being sold were only the right to PAY the debts, not
      the right to COLLECT the debt-some people might be happy to pay a
      celebrity bar tab or restaraunt bill....) whether or not there was any
      rights to be transferred,it is a mere possibility, and since there was
      never a contract, there is no interest to be transferred.
      It is undated , and has no sale price mentioned. A “note” or bill
      of sale must have on it clearly written: a Payor or transferee; a
      Payee or transferor; an
      amount; a date executed and a date due;and a thing transferred. The
      alleged “True and Correct Copy of the Bill of Sale” filed into this
      case by Mr. Iezza has NONE of these things, as there is no amount due
      or even mentioned - And not being notarized or dated or having a
      legible signature of someone who is authorized by Wells Fargo to
      conduct their business, is inadmissable as evidence,and even if it was
      notarized it is still hearsay and has several other defects, most
      notably that it clearly states on it “WITHOUT RECOURSE”, this doesn’t
      say without recourse against Wells Fargo,or without recourse against
      someone or something specific,it says, “WITHOUT

      page 21 of 56

      RECOURSE”,that means, against anybody at anytime. There is no Thing
      transferred, exept for unspecified “Rights” that it is not legal for
      Wells Fargo even to Sell or transfer those alleged rights in the first
      place, if they ever did have them,pursuant to California Business and
      Professions Code 17350. “With respect to contracts entered into on or
      after the effective date of this chapter, no financial institution
      shall enter into a contract which provides for reassignment.”-therefor
      the contract that plaintiff alleges to exist would be null and void
      under conditions that plaintiff claims for it.Also,there has been no
      injury or damages to LN or anyone, therefor they have no standing.
      -That makes it as uncertain and ambiguous as a document can possibly
      be. Also California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1788.13(l) states
      that it is illegal for any debt collector to commit“(k) The false
      representation that a consumer debt has been,is about to be,or will be
      sold,assigned, or referred to a debt collector for collection; or
      (l) Any communication by a licensed collection agency to a debtor
      demanding money unless the claim is actually assigned to the collection
      agency...
      and , as any alleged debt has not actually been assigned to Mr. Iezza,
      as evidenced by his lack of both any actual bill of sale for said
      alleged debt, which is why he resorts to the poorly forged copy he has
      illegally filed into evidence in this case, and also by his lack of any
      authorization such as a power of attorney from LN Aquisitions or LN
      ACQUISITIONS , or

      page 22 of 56

      anyone at all, to enter into this case and/or have any standing or
      capacity, he is acting like he has standing and capacity to even bring
      up any issue with me when he definitly does not have either, and thus
      is breaking the law mentioned supra, California Code of Civil Procedure
      Section 1788.13(l), And I also believe that this is Systematic Abuse
      by the county of San Mateo,for letting these lawsuits being filed by
      third party debt collectors with no legal standing, this is being done
      to collect filing fees and this defendant hereby objects to this,and a
      judicial canon even says “A good judge removes the cause of dispute”.
      Defendant objects pursuant to CCCP section 430.30 that the pleading
      is UNCERTAIN as to the reaoning behind the amount of money asked
      for,where did Plaintiff get this idea from, was this number arrived at
      by using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles(GAAP)? Where did the
      numbers come from in the first place? Does Plaintiff have any signed
      reciepts or a signed contract filed into evidence? The pleading is,
      contrary to CCCP 430.30, UNCERTAIN as to whether there was ever any
      contract or credit card or bank account or anything , as well as being
      uncertain IF those things WERE legitimite complaints,UNCERTAIN as to
      the amount of money alleged to have been

      page 23 of 56

      loaned, if what was alleged to have been loaned was legal tender,
      lawful money or if the banks credit was loaned ,( which is illegal
      because banks cannot loan their credit pursuant to the following case
      cites -
      "A national bank cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety,
      endorser, or guarantor for him, such an act; is ultra vires…" Merchants
      Bank v. Baird
      160 F 642.
      The following case cites also support this Memorandum on credit loans
      and void contracts:
      "In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank
      has no power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety,
      endorser, or guarantor for him." Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield
      Nat'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S.669.
      "A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or
      corporation…Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari
      denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.
      "Mr. Justice Marshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires is a most
      powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate
      spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters,
      and it probably is not invoked too often. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First
      National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens
      State Bank, 194 NW 430.

      page 24 of 56

      "A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a
      transaction turns out to have been a benefit to the bank, and in
      support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would like a
      catalog of ships." [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat.
      Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
      "It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under
      federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its
      credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered
      into by its officers are ultra vires…" Howard and Foster Co. v.
      Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759 (1926).
      "…checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of
      the United States…" State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.
      "Neither, as included in its power not incidental to them, it is a
      part of a bank's business to lend it's credit. If a bank could lend its
      credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and
      was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more
      than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful,
      the power would be the mother of panics,…Indeed, lending credit is the
      exact opposite of lending money which is the real business of a bank,
      for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the
      former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks
      and


      page 25 of 56

      Banking 5th Ed. Sec. 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248."
      American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.
      "It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even
      though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various
      ways in which that might be done." Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v.
      L "Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
      "There is no doubt but what the law is that national bank cannot lend
      its credit or become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of
      Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.
      "…the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it
      must be money that it loans, not its credit." Seligman v.
      Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No. 12, 642, 1039.
      "A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the
      receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express
      or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." Parsons v. Fox
      179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and
      United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
      "The word `money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold,
      silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange…" Lane
      v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.

      page 26 of 56

      "A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the
      equivalent of actual payment.." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah
      406.
      "A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the
      depositors account." Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
      "A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v.
      Hembree, 73 P2d 393.
      Defendant objects,how much money was alleged to be loaned,- and how
      much is being sought as interest charges,punitive damages and or
      attorneys fees?
      Plaintiffs allegations are, contray to CCCP 430.30, “AMBIGUOUS” , as it
      claims at one point that the contract was based on an application ,(and
      an application is not a contract), without saying whether the
      application was a tender of a contract or an acceptance of a tender of
      a contract, and while claiming that the application was verbal - which
      would “time bar” any actions against it, they also in the same pleading
      claim the terms of the contract were written , well, I ask ,IF there
      was a contract, was it written or verbal? Plaintiff gives no answer ,
      therefor it is UNCERTAIN.And, if such a contract did exist, if verbal
      it would be “time barred”,as well as hearsay evidence, and

      page 27 of 56

      thus inadmissable, and if written then plaintiff must produce the
      original note with defendants signature, properly notarized.
      Defendant objects the pplaintiffs pleading is “AMBIGUOUS”, contrary
      to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.30(g) .....”in an
      action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the
      pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by
      conduct”. This action seems like they say it is supposed to be founded
      on a contract but it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether
      the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.This Action
      meets all the requirements of the above objections and fails to conform
      to the requirements for a lawsuit to proceed , therefor must be
      dismissed with prejudice.







      page 28 of 56

      OBJECTION TO EXIBIT 1
      Objection is hereby made to Exibit 1 for the following reasons.
      1. Exibit 1, consisting of 2 sheets , is inadmissable as evidence
      because it is , first and foremost, not notarized.
      It is illegible and not notarized or dated , we don’t know who signed
      it , or when they allegedly signed it, so he or she cannot be called as
      a witness, therefor this is hearsay evidence and inadmissable. We can
      not be sure of who actually signed that document,even If the signature
      Was legible , which it most certainly is not
      ( The name has been seen by several people whom I have asked what name
      it is , if indeed it is a name.People have told me it looks like it
      says Warren R. Slocum, or Mann K. Opevat, or Wax Pi Caalca, and I
      myself think it looks like Mau R. Qeatx, but at this point there is no
      telling who it might have been. If it had actually been signed in front
      of an actual notary public, they might have bothered to Print the name
      of the alleged signator and also put a date on the document, but since
      they did not bother with any of that stuff , we can have no way of
      knowing when it was written , or
      when it was signed or who signed it , or , to what it refers to when it
      mentions “EXIBIT B” , or what relevance the alleged exibit B may have
      to this case,
      as there is no document in this court case that is, or purports to be,
      this or any other exibit B.
      Also , as I have pointed out in my Affidavit of Lack of Standing,
      the spelling of the name of the entity in the document is different
      than the spelling of the name of the entity which filed this suit.

      page 29 of 56

      Also, the document purports to sell “AS IS “ and “WITHOUT RECOURSE” ,
      and “without representations or warranties of any type, kind, character
      or nature, express or implied” I. E. , They are not claiming anybody
      owes anything to anybody,they are not claiming anything at all...
      therefor no one has been damaged or injured and the document would be
      without force at law if it were admissable, which it is not.
      Furthurmore, the document expressly states that it refers to “Assets
      remaining due and owing as of the date hereof” and ends with “from and
      after the date of this Bill of Sale and Assignment of Assets.”
      Once again , may I bring the Courts attention to the fact that this
      document Has No Date on it , is not notarized, and is therefor null and
      void AB INITIO as a contract of any type or kind, and again ,
      inadmissable as evidence.

      Also , it claims to be a bill of sale but has no sale price or
      consideration mentioned , therefor is null and void as a bill of sale
      and thus inadmissable as evidence.

      2. Page 2 of 2 , in Exibit 1 , is simply a computer printout of a
      bunch of words and numbers, some of which do say Rock of Ages Tattoo,
      (not Rock of Ages Tattoo Inc. , which is ‘who’ this lawsuit is brought
      against) but, anyone can print out stuff from a computer, and there are
      about ten thousand Rock of Ages Tattoos in the world , which one does
      this paper refer to, the one in Philadelphia, the one in Dallas, the
      one in Richmond, or some other one? and what does it have to do with
      me, and what does it have to do with this court case, and

      page 30 of 56

      where did they get this from anyway, did they make it up themselves or
      maybe buy it from the internet black market in credit card numbers?
      (Nomen non sufficit si res non sit de jure aut de facto. A name does
      not suffice if there be not a thing by law or by fact. 4 Co. 107.) What
      does it even have to do with page 1 of Exibit 1,other than having been
      stapled together by someone? Defendant objects that It has nothing to
      do with any issues before the court and is therefor inadmissable as
      evidence of debt , although defendant will allow it as evidence of
      fraud by Plaintiff LN, and that what ever debt is alleged by plaintiff,
      is an undifferentiated debt, shared by many, and although one of them
      may be “A” “Rock of Ages Tattoo” , defendant objects that it is not
      THIS Rock of Ages Tattoo, and if it was , to what percent would each
      alleged account on that page, such as Patterson Communications ,
      Peterson Realty, Razdan Auto Body, and Roma Design, amongst others, for
      example, be responsible for the amount that Plaintiff allegedly bought
      those alleged accounts for?
      Just how much did plaintiff allegedly pay for that list of accounts
      anyway? Is Defendant alleged to be responsible for the entire debt that
      Plaintiff was alleged to have bought? Were any other accounts on that
      list Sued as if they were responsible for the entire amount? Was money
      collected from them? If so , and the debt was therefor paid, why is
      the alleged debt being sued on again, if there was any money to sue
      on?



      page 31 of 56

      Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the
      injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people.”-
      The alleged “True and Correct copy of the bill of sale” does not name
      anybody and does not differentiate how much percentage is alleged to be
      owed by any individual. Also it has “Rock of Ages Tattoo” attached to a
      Seperate piece of paper with a whole bunch of other names, this is
      undifferentiated ,first of all there are about a thousand and one
      places called “Rock of Ages Tattoo” out there; which one does this
      paper refer to? You can’t tell who is responsible for what , if
      anything, as the page with all the names has no heading and is
      apparantly part of some
      longer list, which may or may not be alleged to be part of the alleged
      “sale” of whatever is alleged to have been sold. In any case the list
      of names is obviously not part of the same document, as the first page
      of the alleged bill of sale has on the bottom of it, some printing that
      shows somebody had a fax machine that was programmed to say it was
      Wells Fargo. Anybody can set up a fax machine to print that on the page
      it prints out , but what is more relevant here is that the next page,
      the list of names, does NOT have that little “wells fargo” printed on
      the bottom of the page, and so wherever the first and second pages DID
      come from they did Not come from the same place,as they are apparantly
      purported to by Plaintiff, and they were not made on the same dates, in
      fact they are completly unrelated documents , which are inadmissable,
      except that

      page 32 of 56

      I would like the documents that plaintiff filed into the court to be
      admitted as evidence of fraud , one of the papers even has white out
      on it , it is an altered document and thus inadmissable.
      In order for you to be obligated to any assignee, you must have
      derived some benefit from the assignee, or signed a new written
      agreement (a novation). You must agree to the assignment or it is not
      enforceable. And defendant has never agreed to any assignment or
      contract at all , not with anyone in this court case.The affirmative
      defenses include "accord and satisfaction," "statute of frauds (no
      contract )," and "failure of consideration,".
      The first is "failure of consideration" which means, there is no
      evidence that an agreement was made, no payment, no exchange of any
      benefit or detriment to any party. The second is "statute of frauds"
      which means there is no contract between the parties and thus filing
      this case is fraud on the part of Mr. Iezza. Because the original

      page 33 of 56

      creditor (if any) never actually named the new collector as an assignee
      in the credit agreement, the assignee can never be a party to that
      agreement unless permitted by both the debtor and creditor.
      The third used is "accord and satisfaction" which means the debt has
      been satisfied in full. The analogy is if you owed your neighbor $100
      and a friend paid the debt for you and your neighbor accepted $75 in
      satisfaction of the debt, neither your friend nor your neighbor can sue
      you for the $25 because
      they accepted another amount in lieu of the original debt. It can also
      be called a "novation." This also happens because of an assignment. If
      a debt is assigned to a third party collector, it is no longer legally
      enforceable because the creditor has waived his standing or rights to
      collect. The same applies to the third party collector. No one can put
      himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly and voluntarily) and then
      expect to be awarded damages for his losses.



      page 34 of 56

      California Code of Civil Procedure 412.30. In an action against a
      corporation or an unincorporated association (including a partnership),
      the copy of the summons that is served shall contain a notice stating
      in substance: "To the person served: You are hereby served in the
      within action (or special proceeding) on behalf of (here state the name
      of the corporation or the unincorporated association) as a person upon
      whom a copy of the summons and of the complaint may be delivered to
      effect service on said party under the provisions of(here state
      appropriate provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of
      the Code of Civil Procedure)." If service is also made on such person
      as an
      individual, the notice shall also indicate that service is being made
      on such person as an individual as well as on behalf of the corporation
      or the unincorporated association.



      page 35 of 56

      If such notice does not appear on the copy of the summons served, no
      default may be taken against such corporation or unincorporated
      association or against such person individually, as the case may be.”
      Defendant objects that the above requirements of California Code of
      Civil Procedure 412.30.-have not been complied with and therefor
      service of process has not been properly performed.
      California Code section 476. Every person who makes, passes,
      utters, or publishes, with intent to defraud any other person, or who,
      with the like intent, attempts to pass, utter, or publish, or who has
      in his or her possession, with like intent to utter, pass, or publish,
      any fictitious or altered bill, note, or check, purporting to be the
      bill, note, or check, or other instrument in writing for the payment of
      money or property of any real or fictitious financial institution
      as defined in Section 186.9 is guilty of forgery.



      page 36 of 56

      480.(a)Every person who makes,or knowingly has in his or her possession
      any die, plate, or any apparatus, paper,metal, machine, or other thing
      whatever, made use of in counterfeiting coin current in this state, or
      in counterfeiting gold dust,gold or silver bars, bullion, lumps,
      pieces, or nuggets, or in counterfeiting bank notes or bills, is
      punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two,three, or four
      years; and all dies,plates, apparatus, papers, metals, or machines
      intended for the purpose aforesaid, must be destroyed.
      (b) (1) If the counterfeiting apparatus or machine used to violate
      this section is a computer, computer system, or computer network, the
      apparatus or machine shall be disposed of pursuant to Section 502.01.
      (2) For the purposes of this section, "computer system" and
      "computer network" have the same meaning as that specified in Section
      502. The terms "computer, computer system, or computer network"
      include any software or data residing on


      page 37 of 56

      the computer, computer system,or computer network used in a violation
      of this section.

      CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 367
      “ Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party
      in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.”


      425.11. (a) As used in this section:
      (1) "Complaint" includes a cross-complaint.
      (2) "Plaintiff" includes a cross-complainant.
      (3) "Defendant" includes a cross-defendant.
      (b) When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for
      personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time
      request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages
      being sought. The request shall

      page 38 of 56

      be served upon the plaintiff, who shall serve a responsive statement as
      to the damages within 15 days. In the event that a response is not
      served, the defendant, on notice to the plaintiff, may petition the
      court in which the action is pending to order the plaintiff to serve a
      responsive statement.
      (c) If no request is made for the statement referred to in subdivision
      (b), the plaintiff shall serve the statement on the defendant before a
      default may be taken.
      (d) The statement referred to in subdivision (b) shall be served
      in the following manner:
      (1) If a party has not appeared in the action, the statement shall
      be served in the same manner as a summons.
      (2) If a party has appeared in the
      action, the statement shall be served upon the party's attorney, or
      upon the party if the party has appeared without an attorney, in the
      manner provided for service of a summons or in the manner provided by
      Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.

      page 39 of 56

      (e) The statement referred to in subdivision (b) may be combined with
      the statement described in Section 425.115.
      CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.10
      The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed
      may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the
      pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
      (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of
      action alleged in the pleading.
      (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal
      capacity to sue.
      (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the
      same cause of action.
      (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.
      (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
      cause of action.
      (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used




      page 40 of 56

      in this subdivision, "uncertain" includes ambiguous and unintelligible.
      (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained
      from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is
      implied by conduct.
      (h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.
      (i) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.36.

      Credit Laws that plaintiff has violated in connection with this
      matter inclde the following:

      Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z) 12 CFR 226

      Fair Credit Billing Act

      Fair Credit Reporting Act

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

      15 USC section 1692g

      The right of subrogation does not exist for a stranger to the
      transaction. If the debt has been assigned, sold, or transferred to
      anyone that was not a signatory to the original event/transaction, then
      that party bringing suit is out of luck and has no standing in Court.
      AETNA Life Ins v Middleton per Supreme Court 124 US 534 and can be read
      in 73 Am Jur 2nd Section 90.
      page 41 of 56

      TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 582  No national banking
      association shall hereafter offer ..... United States notes or
      national-bank notes as security or as collateral security for any loan
      of money......or consideration for any loan of money...... The officer
      or officers of any association who shall make any such loan shall be
      liable for a further sum equal to one-quarter of the money loaned; and
      any fine or penalty incurred by a violation of this section shall be
      recoverable for the benefit of the party bringing such suit."

      Defendant refers to Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1969)
      - “dollar. The legal currency of the United States; State v
      Downs, 148 Ind 324, 327 ; the unit of money consisting of one hundred
      cents. The aggregate of specific coins which add up to one dollar.”
      In the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory
      notes, bonds, or other evidences of debt. 36 AM Jlst Money A§ 8
      American Jurisprudence, Volume 36, A§ 8 [T]he term “dollar” means
      money, since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the
      absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds
      or other evidences of debt. The term also refers to specific coins of
      the value of one dollar. (27 Ohio Jur pp . 125, 126, A§ 3), (United
      States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L ed 852).

      page 42 of 56

      Then the report defines Federal reserve notes:
      Black’s Law, Second Pocket Edition (1996)
      “Federal Reserve Note. The paper currency in circulation in the United
      States. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are
      effectively non-interest-bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on
      demand, and are issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100,
      $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000.”
      Defendant objects that this debt has not been validated by
      Plaintiff according to the requirements of
      § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]
      (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in
      connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall,
      unless the following information is contained in the initial
      communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a
      written notice containing --
      (1) the amount of the debt;
      (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
      (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days
      after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any
      portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt
      collector;
      (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in
      writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion
      thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of
      the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of
      such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the
      debt collector; and
      page 43 of 56

      (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the
      thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with
      the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the
      current creditor.
      (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within
      the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any
      portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name
      and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease
      collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt
      collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment,
      or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such
      verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor,
      is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
      With regards to assignments: "Case law tells us that even though a
      creditor can legally assign an account to a collector, it is not
      enforceable unless the debtor agrees to the assignment. The collector
      has no standing to collect without your consent.
      In order for you to be obligated to any assignee, you must have
      derived some benefit from the assignee, or paid a bill to them, or
      signed a new written agreement (a novation). You must agree to the
      assignment or it is not enforceable.


      page 44 of 56

      The affirmative defenses include "accord and satisfaction," "statute
      of frauds (no contract in writing)," and "failure of consideration,"
      for most of these types of cases. These defenses are to be used when
      the "debtor" is sued by one of the assignees (it doesn't matter if the
      original creditor ends up as one of the assignees).
      The first is "failure of consideration" which means, there is no
      evidence that an agreement was made, no payment, no exchange of any
      benefit or detriment to any party. The second is "statute of frauds"
      which means there is no contract in writing between the parties.
      Because the original creditor never actually named the new
      collector as an assignee in the credit agreement, the assignee can
      never be a party to that agreement unless permitted by both the debtor
      and creditor.The third used is "accord and satisfaction" which means
      the debt has been satisfied in full. The analogy is if you owed your
      neighbor $100 and a friend paid the debt for you and your neighbor
      accepted $75 in satisfaction of the debt,


      page 45 of 56

      neither your friend nor your neighbor can sue you for the $25 because
      they accepted another amount in lieu of the original debt. It can also
      be called a "novation." This also happens because of an assignment. If
      a debt is assigned to a third party collector, it is no longer legally
      enforceable because the creditor has waived his standing or rights to
      collect. The same applies to the third party collector. No one can put
      himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly and voluntarily) and then
      expect to be awarded damages for his losses. In any case, these
      defenses don't need to be spelled out when addressing a collector (not
      the creditor) with a request for validation. There may have been some
      accord and satisfaction in the form of an insurance claim or write-off,
      as a consequence of the assignment. Defendant hereby objects that any
      bank that loses money has inurance to cover it , and any such insurance
      would have been paid to the bank, making this suit insurance fraud, and
      Mr. Iezza the perpetrator of said fraud, unless it can be proved that
      some one else filed this


      46 of 56

      suit, but if no corporate officers for LN Acquisitions show up in court
      on September 9th. 2009, then it will prove Mr. Iezza is committing
      fraud.
      And here is a statement that plaintiff needs to include at least in
      this lawsuit but actually legally it should have been served on me
      earlier than the lawsuit was filed. I am sueing over this not being
      included and other things also.
      ""The state Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
      federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act require that, except under
      unusual circumstances, collectors may not contact you before 8 a.m. or
      after 9 p.m. They may not harass you by using threats of violence or
      arrest or by using obscene language. Collectors may not use false or
      misleading statements or call you at work if they know or have reason
      to know that you may not receive personal calls at work. For the most
      part, collectors may not tell another person, other than your attorney
      or spouse, about your debt. Collectors may contact another person to
      confirm your location or enforce a judgment. For more information about
      debt collection activities, you may contact the Federal Trade
      Commission at 1-877-FTC-HELP or www.ftc.gov." Beyond the Article

      page 47 of 56

      III requirements of injury in fact, causation, and redressibility,
      Plaintiff must also have prudential standing, which is judicially-
      created set of principles that places limits on the class of persons
      who may invoke the courts’ powers. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,
      Docket #74, Hultman Declaration at ¶ 3. 12 Docket # 74, Hultman
      Declaration at ¶ 4. 13 The standing doctrine “involves both
      constitutional limitations on federal-court 14 jurisdiction and
      prudential limitations on its exercise.” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S.
      125, 128-29 (2004) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).
      Stay-relief requests are governed by FED. R. BANKR. P. 4001(a)(1), to
      which FED. R. 15 BANKR. P. 9014 is applicable. Rule 9014, in turn,
      incorporates Rule 7017, which makes FED. R. CIV. P. 17 applicable
      (“[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in
      interest.”). 41 2 3 4 499 (1975). As a prudential matter, a plaintiff
      must assert “his own legal interests as the real party in interest,”
      Dunmore v. United States, 358 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9 Cir. 2004), as found
      in th FED. R. CIV. P. 17, which provides “[a]n action must be
      prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”


      page 48 of56

      There's enough evidence to show that the lenders are acting outside
      their corporate authority to do what they
      do. This makes the lenders not the victims, but unable to recover
      damages or enforce their lending agreements due to the doctrine of
      "ultra vires" alone.
      In securities law, the most important requirement is full disclosure.
      Investors have to be given the full scoop. You cannot hold anything
      back. Everything-lawsuits , criminal records, market share, debt-has to
      be disclosed. This same type of disclosure is required in the Truth in
      Lending Act as well. With that said, why is it that no one has ever
      heard of this legal argument? Well, probably because they have not been
      told. But don't you think that it is important and relevant to tell
      potential loan customers, as well as bank shareholders, that according
      to the US Code and numerous judicial decisions, it is questionable
      whether a national bank is actually authorized to lend credit, become a
      guarantor, or become surety?Also , they must give a disclosure in or on
      any application for credit , pursuant to California Civil code section
      1748.10. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Areias
      Credit Card Full Disclosure Act of 1986."
      (g) All application forms for an open-end credit card account
      distributed in this state on or after October 1, 1987, other than by
      mail, shall contain a statement in substantially the following form:
      "If you wish to receive disclosure of the terms of this credit card,
      pursuant to the Areias Credit Card Full Disclosure Act of 1986, check
      here and return to the address on this application."


      page 49 of 56

      Defendant objects that this requirement has not been followed , and
      defendant objects that if there was any credit card , it was given as a
      gift to applicant, free of charge , and pursuant to Law any gift is a
      gift and not to be paid back.
      Here are other things to consider:
      If a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that
      it knows it is not allowed by law to execute, is it moral to allow that
      party to enforce the agreement?
      Is it moral to force a person to pay on an alleged loan, when they
      never got that loan, or, when any deficit in payment has been insured
      by a third party insurance company and can be and has been written off
      as a claim?
      In addition to these points, consider also that moral arguments
      (arguments based in equity), verses legal arguments (arguments based in
      law), are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement
      comes to the
      court with "clean hands." This concept is known as the clean hands
      doctrine. What this doctrine means is that if a plaintiff desires to
      enforce an agreement based on equity (morality), then they must have
      acted equitable (moral). In the case of credit, if the banks know that
      the law prevents them from loaning credit (there is over a hundred
      years of case law on this point) and they do it anyway, then they
      simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in equity.
      Therefore they must argue in law. MEANWHILE, THE LAW PREVENTS THEM FROM
      LOANING CREDIT. There are penalties and forfeitures attached to what
      the bank did. In this case there are.

      page 50 of 56

      In fact there are penalties attached to national banks going beyond
      their express powers in that they are exposing depositor's money to
      loss in contradiction to the bank's primary duty. Therefore, the issue
      that can be raised is the argument of ultra vires and not only is the
      contract void, but even if the borrower did receive a benefit, the
      borrower was not unjustly enriched. If the contract is void then both
      parties walk away as if there never was a contract. The judge is then
      asked to declare a zero balance and deem it as paid as agreed. Since
      the borrower provided the value for the source of funds, the borrower
      is also entitled to a judgment in the amount of the highest credit
      limit issued or loan amount. Also, since the banks acts demonstrates
      that the bank took unfair advantage of the borrower, this
      results in the bank needing to be penalized. Typically, the borrower is
      entitled to ask for a financial award against the bank in the amount of
      the debt forgiven. Since fraud is committed, the borrower is entitled
      to all sums paid on the contract including interest, plus treble
      (triple) damages, attorney fees expended and court and other costs in
      addition. The borrower can also demand a zero balance on the alleged
      debt, and a voidance of the alleged loan agreement, and a financial
      judgment in favor of the alleged borrower due to the bad behaviour of
      the alleged lender.


      page 51 of 56

      ADDITIONAL BORROWERS RELIEF
      In Federal District Court, the alleged borrower may have additional
      claims for relief under "Civil RICO" Federal Racketeering laws. (18
      U.S.C. 1964) As the alleged lender may have established a "pattern of
      racketeering activity" by using the U.S. Mail more than twice to
      collect an unlawful debt and the alleged lender may be in violation of
      18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1961 and 1962. The Defendant may have other
      claims for relief. Defendant believes he can prove there was and/or is
      a conspiracy to deprive him of property without due process of law.
      Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Constitutional Injury), 1985 (Conspiracy) and
      1986 ("knowledge" and "Neglect to Prevent" a U.S. Constitutional
      Wrong). Under 18 U.S.C.A. 241 (Conspiracy) violators, "shall be fined
      not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten (10) years or
      both. In an alleged Debtor's RICO action against its creditor,
      alleging that the creditor <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.