RUBIN $ ROTHMAN, LLC TERRORIZATION DEBT COLLECTOR HOLDER IN DUE PROCESS FRAUD: by PRAYER WARRIOR

516 642 6007 POSTED AT: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/rubin_and_rothman_mailed_dismissal_final?mode=window&viewMode=singleP age

June 25, 2012 Ministers Across the Nation Christopher G. Quinn, Supervising Judge District Court of Nassau County 99 Main Street Hempstead, New York 11550-2405 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 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 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 U.S. Senator Schumer 780 3rd Avenue #2301 New York, NY 10017 (212) 486-4430 U.S. Representative Engle 3655 Johnson Avenue Bronx, NY 10463 Map & Directions Phone : (718) 796-9700

COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV Federal Trade Commission 1

Criminal Fraud Division Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence against Women The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments National Association of Consumer Advocates

1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Ste 710, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 452-1989 | Fax: (202) 452-0099 Email: info@naca.net cportelli@nylag.org EMcolon@legal-aid.org santos@wnylc.com jkelemen@wnylc.com rortega@urbanjustice.org justiceelerts@urbanjustice.org National Center for Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001-6708 Phone: (212) 633-6967 Fax: (212) 633-6371 Email: info@nclej.org svp@urbanjustice.org. lcattell@urbanjustice.org nhallett@urbanjustice.org akasdan@urbanjustice.org, Rosita.Rivas@fns.usda.gov info@mfy.org, Joe.Torres@fns.usda.gov , Rebecca.Lucero@fns.usda.gov Sherry.Daigre@fns.usda.gov 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 MFY Legal Services, Inc. 299 Broadway, 4th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-417-3700 Fax: 212-417-3891

NYS Office of the Inspector General Empire State Plaza | Richard.Dillon@ig.ny.gov Agency Building 2, 16th Floor Albany, New York 12223 dschaefer@mfy.org rcordero@mfy.org 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 jkruse@nclc.org NYAG.Pressoffice@ag.ny.gov, cgquinn@courts.state.ny.us vclavin@courts.state.ny.us cculhane@courts.state.ny.us 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

Dear Public Officials: Your help is greatly needed. Attached you will find a District Court of The County of Nassau First District Hempstead fraudulent judgment. This judgment has NO required court clerk wet ink signature and it has NO original authenticated seal. It is pure fraud. Despite such, this fraud has been used to stalk and terrorize me. It has been used to criminally garnish my wages, terminate me from a professorship position within 30 days of this criminal garnishment, and it has criminally frozen several bank accounts. The judgment fraud has happened, in addition to the summons and complaint NOT being certified or ratified. Despite all of these crimes, I was not able to vacate this fraud via motion or order to show cause. I am now appealing to your office to please contact the court and have these court and attorney robosigning fraud crimes stopped and this fraudulent judgment dismissed immediately on behalf of public safety. The courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s phone number is: Supervising judge: Christopher G. Quinn 99 Main Street Hempstead, NY 11550 (516) 572-2200

Your professional assistance is greatly needed. Sincerely,

Miriam Snyder 3

DISTRICT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU FIRST DISTRICT HEMPSTEAD ______________________________________________x Index No. 021456-04

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, June 25 2012 FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL NOTICE, AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH, AND ATTACHED MEMORANDUM OF LAW DEMANDING DISMISSAL OF THE ATTACHED RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT AND FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT

-Against-

MIRIAM SNYDER, AFFIANT/DEMANDANT

________________________________________________x

JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH DEMANDING DISMISSAL OF RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC HOLDER IN DUE COURSE FRAUD RAQUET EFFECTUATING RUTHLESS AND CRIMINAL ROBO-SIGNED FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS, SPECIFICALLY CASE #21456-04 DISMISSAL IS SOUGHT BASED ON KEITH ROTHMAN AND RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC RELENTLESS FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, MISCONDUCT, FRAUD ON THE COURT, EXTORTION DOCUMENTS, LACK OF STANDING, NON RATIFIED AND FRAUDULENT KEITH ROTHMAN COMPLAINT, SUMMONS, AND UNAUTHENTICATED COURT JUDGMENT, KEITH ROTHMAN AND HIS CO- CONSPIRATORS CRIMINAL IMPERSONATIONS AS FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, DEBT COLLECTOR AND ATTORNEY VEXATIOUS LITIGATION ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION KEITH ROTHMAN LAW LICENSE # 1419498 MARK RICHARD BRAVERMAN ALLEGED LAW LICENSE # 2799260 MARIANNE C. SMITH-STAHL, ESQ ALLEGED LAW LICENSE 2842581 ALEX SHAFRAN SERVER LICENSE # 0862826, EDGAR MORA, ALLEGED SERVER LICENSE # 108706 AND GINA TORNAMAN, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE/ "ROBO-SIGNER" FILING OUT OF STATE FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS TO ADMINISTER EXTORTION IN THE COURTS BASED ON UNREGULATED AND DOCUMENTED FRAUD

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF COURT ROBO-SIGNER IN HEMPSTEAD DISTRICT COURT ROBO-SIGNER ROBERT SHIMONSKI ROBO-SIGNING FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS AND ROBO-NOTARIZING PAPERS IN CONTRAVENTION TO CERTIFICATION AND NOTARY LAWS 4

1. Miriam Snyder is a natural person residing in Bronx New York. As such, the aggrieved natural person demands that the attached frivolous complaint and its fraud based judgment be dismissed based on law and the detailed fraud below in accordance with the attached alleged plaintiff’s fraudulent and defective documents that exemplify fraud on the court. Please see exhibit 1 showing that this 2004 case is still being used in 2012 to terrorize and harm affiant requiring the filing of this counterclaim based on Attorney Keith Rothman’s unregulated fraud. 2. Ms. Snyder files this affidavit of truth demanding dismissal of the fraudulent judgment as a matter of law. The alleged Plaintiff’s acts are criminal and reckless and as such Ms. Snyder is filing this criminal affidavit with the Attorney General, NYC Police Chief Kelly and the FBI. 3. Keith Rothman, individually and as a member of Rubin & Rothman LLC, has engaged in criminal expert debt collection fraud, deceptive practices, and defamed and injured affiant’s reputation by his fraudulent and

non-authenticated, non-seal bearing and non-wet ink

signed judgment, a published writing. Keith Rothman and his racketeers are using the courts for the criminal administration of Torts, in accordance with the tort definition in Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition. Affiant Miriam Snyder seeks relief and damages for these crimes, pursuant to every remedy secured in the FDCPA Section 813. Civil liability, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12) (McKinney) and N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350. 4. Attorney Keith Rothman and his criminal debt collection enterprise have a history of repeated criminal and unscrupulous debt collection acts similar to matters addressed in this case. For instance, recently they were sanctioned $10,000 for filing frivolous debt collection law suits that had no lawful evidence. Please see: LVNV Funding LLC, Plaintiff, v. Annetta Guest, Defendant. 2091-10 City Court of Mount Vernon, Decided on May 29, 2012. This case is located at: https://www.plol.org/Pages/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fPages%2fSecure%2fDocument.aspx%3fd %3dwmmFBB%252fuxTRX86gr5ucwtw%253d%253d%26l%3dCases%26rp%3d4&d=wmmFB B%2fuxTRX86gr5ucwtw%3d%3d&l=Cases&rp=4&u=mirisni@aol.com&UUID=15cde5c2-f67d4cfe-b024-1f354b0d2a34 5. 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 because the consumers were never served. 5

6. As in this case and in nearly all of Attorney Keith Rothman’s debt collection lawsuits, Keith Rothman and his racketeering enterprise do not possess and cannot obtain proof that the people they sue owe the alleged debts. Consequently, they sewer serve and criminally get default judgments, like what was done in this matter. Failure to provide Full Disclosure is Fraud, predicated upon violation of Due Process of Law. Fraud is gaining at the loss of another using trickery or deception. Attorney Keith Rothman has engaged in and specializes in criminally expert fraud administration in the New York State Courts, to the detriment and expense of innocent New Yorkers. 7. In another 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. 8. This Affidavit of Truth Demanding Dismissal of this Rubin & Rothman LLC, unregulated and Continued fraud, specifically their fraud based judgment is submitted under penalty of perjury and is submitted pursuant to the below laws and the laws noted in affiant’s attached Memorandum of Law: A. CPLR RULE 5015 SECTION A3 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER BASED ON

FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY, B. CPLR RULE 5015 SECTION A4 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

LACK OF JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER. C. 47 USC § 502 - VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC D. 18 USC § 4 - MISPRISION OF FELONY: WHOEVER, HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE

ACTUAL COMMISSION OF A FELONY COGNIZABLE BY A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, CONCEALS AND DOES NOT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE MAKE KNOWN THE SAME TO SOME JUDGE OR OTHER PERSON IN CIVIL OR MILITARY AUTHORITY UNDER THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR BOTH.

E. 15 U.S.C. § 1692E - FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS A DEBT

COLLECTOR MAY NOT USE ANY FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OR MEANS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF ANY DEBT. F. 15 U.S.C. S 1692F - UNFAIR PRACTICES

A DEBT COLLECTOR MAY NOT USE UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS TO COLLECT OR ATTEMPT TO COLLECT ANY DEBT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT IS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION (B) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS A DEBT COLLECTOR IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 1692K OF THIS TITLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PROVISION OF THIS SUBCHAPTER. G. TITLE 21. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 13 SECTION 453 - FALSE

PREPARATION OF EXHIBITS AS EVIDENCE, ANY PERSON GUILTY OF FALSELY PREPARING ANY BOOK, PAPER, RECORD, INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, OR OTHER MATTER OR THING, WITH INTENT TO PRODUCE IT, OR ALLOW IT TO BE PRODUCED AS GENUINE UPON ANY TRIAL, PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY WHATEVER, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY, R.L. 1910, § 2228; AMENDED BY LAWS 1997, H.B. NO. 1213 C. 133. § 198, EMERG. EFFECTIVE DATE AMENDED TO JULY 1, 1999 BY LAWS 1998, C. 2 (FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION), §§ 23-26, EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 1998 H. N.Y. NYC. LAW § 172 B: NY CODE - SECTION 172: SANCTIONS

9. Miriam Snyder Demandant and Affiant reference the plaintiffs as alleged plaintiffs because there is no evidence that they Represent Ford Motor Credit Company. The alleged plaintiffs have failed to produce a CONTRACT with the affiant as required under law. They have failed to prove that they are a party of interest in the alleged agreement that the Consumer had agreed. Without a contract, or proof that they are a party to an agreement with the Consumer, then they are not a holder in due course. Furthermore, the racketeers have failed to produce "every document bearing affiant’s signature that in any way supports the alleged plaintiff's claim." 10. The racketeers have failed to produce the prima facie - documents they allege affiant has made purchases amounting to the figures extorted. The alleged plaintiffs have defrauded the courts and Affiant with respect to plaintiff impersonations as Ford Motor Credit Company. 11. In the instant alleged case #21456-04, The Rubin & Rothman, LLC racketeers have criminally Impersonated Ford Motor Credit Company, while disguising as debt collector and attorney. They have committed this false personation crime in a most criminally expert, patterned, practiced, deceptive, fraud based, misrepresentation, misconduct, and fraud on the court manner. Please see Exhibits 1B,C,D, and 7.

12. Examples of the above noted Keith Rothman and his co-conspirators holder in due course fraud racquet, money extortion, and impersonation crimes include: A. In exhibit 7, the undated, signed by Keith Rothman violative and criminal money

extortion letter, Keith Rothman is disguised as the debt collector. B. In Exhibit 1D, the alleged Plaintiff, un-ratified complaint, Keith Rothman is disguised as

the attorney. C. In exhibit 1C, the Keith Rothman unsigned summons, Keith Rothman is impersonating as

Ford Motor Credit, the alleged Plaintiff. 13. The above noted Attorney Keith Rothman acts are criminal pursuant to: 190.23 False personation. 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree. 190.26 Criminal impersonation in the first degree. 14. In this Keith Rothman extortion and fraud case, additional fraud was practiced in obtaining complaint warranting vacation of â&#x20AC;&#x153;complaintâ&#x20AC;? 21456-04: KEITH ROTHMAN LAW LICENSE # 1419498, MARK BRAVERMAN ALLEGED LAW LICENSE # 2799260, ALEX SHAFRAN SERVER LICENSE # 0862826, EDGAR MORA, ALLEGED SERVER LICENSE # 108706 and GINA TORNAMAN, ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE, each one of these conspirators individually and collectively committed felony fraud by advancing writings which Keith Rothman law license # 1419498 knew were false with the intent that Miriam Snyder and the court would rely on to deprive Miriam Snyder of money, property and rights. KEITH ROTHMAN LAW LICENSE # 1419498 knew that he lacked standing to demand any sum of Miriam Snyder under any lawful theory. 15. Consequently, since Keith Rothman Law License # 1419498 and his above noted co-conspirators, were unable to present admissible evidence of the entire chain of assignment of the alleged underlying debt in this matter, they filed multitudes of false instruments in the courts to deprive Miriam Snyder of money, property, due process, and other rights. 16. The complaint is insufficient/fraudulent on its face. The complaint is not ratified by the signature of a judge. This suggests that each and every one of the aforementioned alleged plaintiffs are involved in the holder in due course fraud racket. See NYPL 190.65 Scheme to defraud in the first degree; 190.40 Criminal usury in the second degree; 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; 175.35 Offering a false 8

instrument for filing in the second degree; 175.45 Issuing a false financial statement; 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree. 17. This fraud racket is rooted off of “Attorney Buying Evidence of Debt-Misleading Court”. Please see: Title 21. Crimes and Punishments Chapter 19 Section 554, Oklahoma Statutes Citationized. 18. Examples of rackets of the enterprise: (1) The holder in due course fraud racket. In the holder in due course fraud racket, racketeers affect interstate commerce by buying evidence of debt, suing for collection, usually in the name of the original maker of the debt, when the racketeers know that the party sued is not responsible and does not owe the debt. They make false statements, and submit false documents to the court to defraud people of money and property. For example of prohibition of the holder in due course racket, review Oklahoma public laws: O.S. Title 21, Chapter 19, § 554, “Attorney Buying Evidence of Debt-Misleading Court. Every attorney who either directly or indirectly buys or is interested in buying any evidence of debt or thing in action with intent to bring suit thereon is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any attorney who in any proceeding before any court of a justice of the peace or police judge or other inferior court in which he appears as attorney, willfully misstates any proposition or seeks to mislead the court in any matter of law is guilty of a misdemeanor and on any trial therefore the state shall only be held to prove to the court that the cause was pending, that the defendant appeared as an attorney in the action, and showing what the legal statement was, wherein it is not the law. If the defense be that the act was not willful the burden shall be on the defendant to prove that he did not know that there was error in his statement of law.” Any person guilty of falsely preparing any book, paper, [({ record, })], instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced as genuine upon any [({ trial, proceeding or inquiry whatever, })] authorized by law, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY. See Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments, Chapter 13, Section 453. 19. In this matter, additional fraud was practiced by Attorney Keith Rothman’s filing of a noncertified summons and complaint. Keith Rothman’s signature is missing on the complaint and the summons. His signature is not missing on his undated, false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, and harassing debt collection, extortion, and FDCPA violation letter. Please see exhibit 7.

20. Keith Rothman, the attorney and Plaintiff impersonator, in this matter, did not and could not have properly certified the Ford Motor Credit complaint filed in the instant action because 22 NYCRR § 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 § 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." Please see exhibit 1D. 21. Keith Rothman could not sign or certify the complaint against Miriam Snyder because the complaint, summons, and the affidavits, were all based on malicious fraudulent asserts and allegations, created out of thin air and designed to and did damage Miriam Snyder. Keith Rothman could not certify the complaint or summons because under 22 NYCRR § 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. 22. Fraud was practiced and filed in the courts in Keith Rothman’s falsified affidavit of sewer service. Affiant was not served like the many other Rubin & Rothman, LLC sewer service and fraud based default victims. Please see: CPLR 3215 DISMISSALS CALENDAR http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/10jd/suffolk/dist/pdf/4dismiss.pdf. This is a list of the many victims Rubin & Rothman LLC, has defrauded via sewer service and this fraud effectuated premeditated, meaning before the date dismissals. 23. Above all, in this matter, Keith Rothman’s robo-signer process server failed to engage in a diligent search and inquiry of affiant prior to resorting to substitute service. They did such because they did not want the affiant to answer and replicate her FDCPA validation request. They knew this matter was based on fraud and misrepresentation as exemplified in their fraudulent documents. They were trying to extort money from affiant as well as thousands of New Yorkers via their sewer service scam that criminally and effectively effectuates fraud based DEFAULT judgments. 24. Fraud was practiced and filed in the courts in Keith Rothman’s falsified Affidavit of Merit which was deceptively used to appear as fulfilling the requirements of CPLR § 3215 in obtaining the default judgment. CPLR § 3215 requires submission of an affidavit of merit setting forth the 10

factual proof constituting the claim made by the party in support of such party's application for a default judgment. 25. The Keith Rothman’s affidavit of Merit criminally filed in the court with his default judgment application was deceptively written to appear as an affidavit satisfying the requirements under CPLR § 3215. However, the affidavit is by a non-titled employee of Rubin $ Rothman’s LLC, 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). 26. CPLR § 3215 sets out the requirements for affidavits, it requires that the affidavit be made on personal knowledge. Hearsay, of course is not personal knowledge. The affidavit of Merit attached to Rubin & Rothman’s, LLC extortion and default application does not constitute a basis which the personal knowledge of the facts contained herein can be determined. Please see Rothman’s patterns and practice of filing frivolous Affidavits of Merit in exhibit 1E,10,11 and 13. 27. Additionally, the allegations asserted in the affidavit are not made by an individual with firsthand 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. 28. Exhibit 1E is the defendant’s default judgment affidavit of merit. This affidavit actually asserts that it relies on Keith Rothman’s records to verify it merits. Clearly, the affirmant had no firsthand knowledge of the facts constituting the claim as required under CPLR § 3215. Above all this non-qualifying 3215 hearsay affidavit of fraud was notarized in the state of Arizona when Ford Motor Credit, Affiant, and this case is NOT located in Arizona. Again, the Keith Rothman racketeers obstructed and misrepresented the statutory requirements embedded in CPLR § 3215. 29. It is impossible to have the firsthand knowledge necessary for a statutorily proper affidavit of merit as required by CPLR § 3215 such party must have obtained the entire chain of assignment(s) and the underlying documentary proof as well as have done such in the statutorily proper state where the suit is filed. Rothman’s Affidavit of Merit is notarized in Arizona and not in NYS. 30. Recent court decisions confirm that Rubin & Rothman, LLC do not possess, and cannot obtain, the evidence required to make out a prima facie case. See, e.g., Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 2010 WL 547476 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), Bolanos v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC and Rubin & Rothman, LLC, and 10-cv-07243 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), 2012 NY Slip Op 50008 Midland Funding LLC 11

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. 31. Rubin & Rothman, LLC should have known 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). 32. Rubin & Rothman have a high rate of defaults in their debt collection lawsuits, because they have designed a criminal scheme to defraud the courts and consumers by denying consumers due process via sewer service, which stops victims from challenging their nonexistent proof. This has happened in this matter and in several hundred other matters. Please see: CPLR 3215 DISMISSALS CALENDAR http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/10jd/suffolk/dist/pdf/4dismiss.pdf 33. In this matter a default judgment was rendered against affiant because she was not served. The Rothman enterprise alleged to have served their frivolous law suit and not signed summons and complaint via “sewer service”. The term "sewer service" is widely used to describe the practice of failing to serve a summons and complaint and then filing a fraudulent affidavit of service. 34. Sewer service deprived plaintiff of due process because she did not get notice of the lawsuit and was denied her day in court. A default judgment was then entered on the basis of this Attorney Keith Rothman patterned and practiced sewer service scheme to defraud. 35. Additional fraud is noted in Keith Rothman’s fraudulent judgment that was obtained via fraudulent means and is defective and fraudulent via the missing wet ink signature of the clerk and the judgment has no seal or authentication as required under law. Please see exhibit 1A-B and read the signature section that references a signature and a seal that is not there. 36. There is no logical reason for this magnitude of fraud in the courts including a non-authenticated judgment, a judgment with no seal, no judge’ s signature, no court clerk’s signature and a court robo- signer disguised as court clerk and court notary. What is even more scandalous is that the court robo- signer ROBERT SHIMONSKI fraudulently stamped the judgment and this fraudulent and defective judgment had and continues to criminally have out of thin air, criminal, 12

magical, satanical court ruling and extortion powers that criminally stole, garnished and froze monies due affiant. 37. Reasonably and logically, the rubber stamp mark of Robert Shimonski either appears on the attached putative judgment without knowledge of Robert Shimonski or Robert Shimonski chose to stamp the judgment 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 caused extreme commercial harm and duress by garnishing wages, freezing two of affiant’s bank accounts unjustifiably and unnecessarily for one year. 38. The unsigned and unsealed judgment in this instant case is not a lawful judgment. It is also true that an unsigned order is not an order. See SECOND NAT. BANK OF PAINTSVILLE v. BLAIR, 186 S.W.2d 796. Yet this fraudulent document acting as an order has inflicted immeasurable legal, and commercial abuse and emotional distress damages. 39. Attorney Keith Rothman’s affidavit of service appeared facially valid, but was based on fraud. Plaintiff lived and lives in the Bronx and the affidavit alleged serving a Long Island address. Affiant Miriam Snyder challenged the improper service and Rubin Rothman’s lack of standing in the court. Her lawful challenge was disregarded and a reason for such is needed on behalf of consumer protections. This should not have happened. 40. Affiant Miriam Snyder was harmed when Attorney Keith Rothman used the default judgment to freeze her bank account, garnish her wages, and criminally pressured her into making settlement agreements on this alleged debt of nonexistent merit for which no documentation is available. Affiant has also been harmed by this judgment appearing on her credit reports. 41. The robo-signing of affidavits and the judgment in his matter served to cover up the fact that Keith Rothman and his conspirators cannot demonstrate the facts required to conduct a lawful debt collection law suit. The court robo-signer clerk titled Robert Shimonski, did indeed sign off on the attached default judgment without review, and committed fraud by claiming knowledge of a financial matter of which he/it had no personal knowledge. 42. Additional fraud is noted in Attorney Keith Rothman suing in the name of a Fictitious Plaintiff. Ford Motor Credit Company was used as Attorney Keith Rothman’s Fictitious Plaintiff. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (Page 752) defines a fictitious plaintiff as: A person appearing in the writ or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the 13

suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party. See 4 Bl. Comm. 134. 43. Please note that Attorney Keith Rothman’s Fraudulent Debt Collection Practices also included criminally suing affiant Miriam Snyder in a remote jurisdiction that is not where the alleged consumer resides, or the one in which the contract was made. This is a proud Attorney Keith Rothman violation of FDCPA § 1692 i(a)(2). 44. Attorney Keith Rothman also criminally and fraudulently charged for items not due under the alleged contract. Please see exhibit 1H. This is another proud Attorney Keith Rothman violation of FDCPA § 1692 i(a)(2). 45. Exhibit 1H, 2 will show Attorney Keith Rothman’s Unlawful post-judgment charges. It is unlawful to add certain post-judgment costs. As such, this is another proud Attorney Keith Rothman violation of FDCPA § 1692 d and § 1692 e(10). He added $4,000.00, in addition to the extorted judgment and criminal garnishment. 46. Please note that Attorney Keith Rothman’s Fraudulent Debt Collection Practices also included speaking with affiant Miriam Snyder’s employer in order to get "payroll" information and advised him that legal process would be served there. In other words, Attorney Keith Rothman told affiant Miriam Snyder’s employer that his employee was a no-good deadbeat. Thus Attorney Keith Rothman and his conspirators disclosed this false and demeaning private information to a third party, a big "no-no" under the FDCPA 15 USC §1692c(b) . 47. In addition to Attorney Keith Rothman and his conspirators criminally contacting affiant’s employer regarding this frivolous and vexatious lawsuit, Affiant Miriam Snyder was criminally terminated from a professorship position, within 30 days of Attorney Keith Rothman’s fraudulent and malicious garnishment. She was criminally terminated without cause or reason and while her payroll checks were being criminally garnished and ultimately criminally terminated. She was ousted from a college professor position because of these Attorney Keith Rothman unregulated, criminal, debt collection crimes. Please see exhibits 3-7. 48. This court is noticed that in the record made in this instant case and in the above noted other Attorney Keith Rothman extortion cases, Keith Rothman, Head of Rubin & Rothman LLC, their documents and acts effectively confess primary business as the holder-in-due-course fraud racket. Please see exhibits 10-14, these court decisions and cases exemplify such. 49. The Attorney Keith Rothman/Ford Motor Credit impersonation crimes, the Rubin & Rothman 14

LLC, deceptive and racketeering documents, coupled with lack of standing, epitomizes vexatious litigation, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Each act individually and collectively demands for the fraud judgment dismissal immediately, sanctions, a needed injunction stopping the impersonation, extortion, fraud, misrepresentation, trickery, magical, satanic, and racketeering crimes and requires restitution. 50. On behalf of public safety, immediate investigation and penalty enforcement is needed regarding ending Robo-signing and stopping premeditated multitudes of court Robo-signing, under the disguise of clerks, judges and notaries, as noted in this matter. The below link will show the root of Robo-signing fraud administration as it is being transferred from lawyers to the courts. Please see: http://www.nycourts.gov/press/pr2010_12.shtml. The ramifications of the continued use of court robo-signers is deadly and puts the sheriff, police, officers and innocent and targeted New Yorkers lives in jeopardy unwarrantedly and while these atrocities are preventable by ending robo-signing via severe commercial and criminal enforcement. 51. Robo-signing is a satanic manifestation implemented as a form of magic embedded with a ruthless unseen ruling force as exemplified in this matter. The Robo-signed judgment in this matter has had ruthless, uncontrollable, fraudulent, unseen, damaging spiritual power that has harmed immensely and could have left someone dead. 52. Robo-signing is an unGodly control/ruling phenomenon/diety developed from the satanic creation called plausible deniability. Satanists have infested and infiltrated the Bar Association, Mortgage Industry and banking with their robo-signing phenomenon. Since unregulated, this satanic manifestation is infesting and ruling in the courts. This should not be happening. No one should have a robo-signed judgment, particularly when there are civil and criminal penalties against such. 53. Please note the purpose of robo-signing, is just like the satanic purpose and creation of plausible deniability. Both of these man-made words, acts, manifestations, and phenomena specialize in advancing the works of the kingdom of darkness. Specifically, robo-signing is a manifestation of plausible deniability and was created to advance criminality embedded in master deceptions, secrecy, hiding blame, concealing evidence, enjoining third parties in deadly schemes, avoiding responsibility, and hiding/silencing wrongdoing or abuse. Plausible deniability is defined as:

ď&#x192;ź

the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.

 In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, highranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts.  forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge 

Refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player.

 Plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.  Plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.  Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.

54. An example of plausible deniability is exemplified in the below linked creation. By creating a new law appearing to make attorneys strengthen their verification of debt processes, you plant judicial, clerk, and notary robo- signers all across the courts to do more fraud and damage than attorneys did. This is called forethought plausible deniability where you use a new disguised law to intentionally set up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility or knowledge of premeditated fraud via judicial, court clerk and notary robo-signing in the courts. Please see: http://www.nycourts.gov/press/pr2010_12.shtml. 55. Court ratification of documents, verification of court official signatures and verification of authenticating original seals is needed to preserve the Integrity of the courts. Court signature and authentication verification is also needed to stop the use of court clerk and notary robo-signed fraudulent judgments to enjoin third party officers in a forethought deadly scheme to defraud or conspiracy to murder.

CONCLUSION 56. Attorney Keith Rothman and his council should be ORDERED TO PAY AFFIANT Miriam Snyder MAXIMUM AMOUNT ENTITLED in this court and should be sanctioned for deliberately and consistently continuing to file frivolous complaints without merit, and wasting the public’s resources and the Courts valuable time, while neglecting to follow and continually violating the Civil Procedure Rules and the Rules of Judicial Administration. 57. It is beyond the comprehension of a lay person how a Court would allow such conduct without properly reprimanding Keith Rothman and every participant in this scheme to defraud for such continued behavior would burden the tax payer with the misuse of public resources. 58. Affiant seeks and reserves the Right for a counter-claim on the grounds of: 

Extortion;



Breach of Privacy Acts;



Harassment and terrorization with intent to harm, terrorize, threaten and alarm;



Attorney Keith Rothman Falsely stating Damages,



Actual damages including: Stress related injuries i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. 

Crying; Nightmares; insomnia, night sweats; Emotional paralysis; Inability to work; Headaches; Shortness of breath; Anxiety, nervousness; fear and worry; Hypertension (elevation of blood pressure); Irritability; Hysteria; Embarrassment, humiliation; Indignation and pain and suffering.

Monetary damages: xiii. Payment of a debt barred by the statute of limitations; xiv. Garnishing Affiant’s wages unlawfully effectuating a malicious ouster by obstructing the FDCPA, xv. Attorney/administrative fees to defend this suit since 2006 when affiant was notified of this vexatious law suit. She was notified via criminal garnishment in violation of the FDCPA;

 

Damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress generally (see above). As well as other claims, 17

MEMORANDUM OF LAW DEMANDING DISMISSAL OF RUBIIN & ROTHMAN, LLC HOLDER IN DUE COURSE FRAUD RAQUET EFFECTUATING RUTHLESS AND CRIMINALLY EXPERT FRAUD JUDGMENTS ACROSS NYS DISPROPORTIONATELY ASSAULTING CRIME VICTIMS AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY CASE #21456-04 Let the record show, that in this case the court has allowed this case to continue allowing Keith Rothman Attorney, continued engagement in acts that violate CPLR and the Rules of Judicial Administration. As such, Rubin and Rothman LLC, is in direct violation of the FCDPA, Federal and State. A party guilty of fraud or misconduct in prosecution of civil proceedings should not be permitted to continue to employ the judiciary to achieve its ends where civil and criminal immediate relief and protection is available as noted in the attached Affidavit of Truth Demanding Dismissal and in the below laws that support dismissal based on law. Absent the New York State Civil Procedure Rules is absent the need and usefulness of this court! Miriam Snyder, Affiant, hereby respectfully demands that this Court dismiss Rubin & Rothman, LLC fictitious lawsuit as a matter of law predicated on the below principles of law. AFFIANT SEEKS ALL REMEDIES ENTITLED PURSUANT TO: N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12) (McKinney) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350 CPLR AND OTHER STATE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF DISMISSING FRAUDULENT DEBTS. CPLR RULE 5015 SECTION A3 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER BASED ON FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY, CPLR RULE 5015 SECTION A4 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER LACK OF JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER. TITLE 21. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 13 SECTION 453 - FALSE PREPARATION OF EXHIBITS AS EVIDENCE, ANY PERSON GUILTY OF FALSELY PREPARING ANY BOOK, PAPER, RECORD, INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, OR OTHER MATTER OR THING, WITH INTENT TO PRODUCE IT, OR ALLOW IT TO BE PRODUCED AS GENUINE UPON ANY TRIAL, PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY WHATEVER, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY, R.L. 1910, § 2228; AMENDED

BY LAWS 1997, H.B. NO. 1213 C. 133. § 198, EMERG. EFFECTIVE DATE AMENDED TO JULY 1, 1999 BY LAWS 1998, C. 2 (FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION), §§ 23-26, EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 1998 47 USC § 502 - VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC 15 U.S.C. § 1692E - FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS A DEBT COLLECTOR MAY NOT USE ANY FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OR MEANS IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF ANY DEBT. 15 U.S.C. S 1692F - UNFAIR PRACTICES A DEBT COLLECTOR MAY NOT USE UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS TO COLLECT OR ATTEMPT TO COLLECT ANY DEBT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING, THE FOLLOWING CONDUCT IS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION (B) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS A DEBT COLLECTOR IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 1692K OF THIS TITLE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PROVISION OF THIS SUBCHAPTER .

KEITH ROTHMAN AND HIS CONSPIRATORS PROHIBITED ACTS CONSTITUTING MISDEMEANOR; FELONY: GBS § 352-C COMPARE CRIMES WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS 1. It shall be illegal and prohibited for any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, to use or employ any of the following acts or practices: Any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense or fictitious or pretended purchase or sale; Any promise or representation as to the future which is beyond reasonable expectation or unwarranted by existing circumstances; Any representation or statement which is false, where the person who made such representation or statement: (i) knew the truth; or (ii) with reasonable effort could have known the truth; or (iii) made no reasonable effort to ascertain the truth; or (iv) did not have knowledge concerning the representation or statement made; where engaged in to induce or promote the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase within or from this state of any securities or commodities, as defined in section three hundred fifty-two of this article, regardless of whether issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase resulted. 2. It shall be illegal and prohibited for any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, to engage in any artifice, agreement, device or scheme to obtain money, profit or property by any of the means prohibited by this section. 3. It shall be illegal and prohibited for any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, engaged in the sale of any securities or commodities, as defined in section three hundred fifty-two of this article, within or from the state of New York to represent that they are an "exchange" or use the word "exchange," or any abbreviation or derivative thereof, in its name or assumed name unless it is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange, pursuant to section six of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or unless it has been designated as a contract market by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, pursuant to section five of the Commodity Exchange Act. 4. Except as provided in subdivision five or six, a person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof, using or employing any act or practice declared to be 20

illegal and prohibited by this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 5. Any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof who intentionally engages in any scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud ten or more persons or to obtain property from ten or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more of such persons while engaged in inducing or promoting the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase of any securities or commodities, as defined in this article, shall be guilty of a class E felony. 6. Any person, partnership, corporation, company, trust or association, or any agent or employee thereof who intentionally engages in fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense or fictitious or pretended purchase or sale, or who makes any material false representation or statement with intent to deceive or defraud, while engaged in inducing or promoting the issuance, distribution, exchange, sale, negotiation or purchase within or from this state of any securities or commodities, as defined in this article, and thereby wrongfully obtains property of a value in excess of two hundred fifty dollars, shall be guilty of a class E felony. GBS ยง 458-G - CONTRACTS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE. 1. Any contract for services which does not comply with the applicable provisions of this article shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. 2. Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this article shall be deemed void and unenforceable by a credit services business as contrary to public policy. GBS ยง458-I - ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES BY CONSUMER. Any consumer injured by a violation of this article or by the breach by the credit services business of a contract which has been entered into pursuant to section four hundred fifty-eight-f of this chapter may bring an action for recovery of damages. Judgment shall be entered in favor of a consumer in an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages, but in no case less than the amount paid by the buyer to the credit services business. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. GBS ยง 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. ATTORNEY AND CRIMINAL KEITH ROTHMAN AND HIS CONSPIRATORS VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: GBS §602 – COMPARE WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS

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. UCC SECTION 1--203 - OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER V SEC. 501. - GENERAL PENALTY

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this chapter, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this chapter punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both CRIMINAL AND ATTORNEY, KEITH ROTHMAN AND HIS CONSPIRATORS CRIMES FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, AUTHENTICATION FEATURES, AND INFORMATION: US CODE SECTION 1028 http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/penal/pen0190.65_190.65.html

190.77 - Offenses involving theft of identity; definitions. 190.78 - Identity theft in the third degree. 190.79 - Identity theft in the second degree. 190.80 - Identity theft in the first degree. 190.81 Unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree. 190.82 - Unlawful possession of personal identification information in the second degree. 190.83 - Unlawful possession of personal identification information in the first degree.

http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/penal/idx_pen0p3tka190.html Article 175 - OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS 175.00 Definitions of terms. 175.05 - Falsifying business records in the second degree. 175.10 - Falsifying business records in the first degree. 175.15 - Falsifying business records; defense. 175.20 - Tampering with public records in the second degree. 175.25 - Tampering with public 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. 175.40 - Issuing a false certificate. 175.45 - Issuing a false financial statement. Article 190 - OTHER FRAUDS 190.23 - False personation. 190.25 - Criminal impersonation in the second degree. 190.26 - Criminal impersonation in the first degree. 190.40 - Criminal usury in the second degree. 190.42 - Criminal usury in the first degree. 190.45 - Possession of usurious loan records. 190.50 - Unlawful collection practices. 190.55 - 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. New York Laws: Penal : (185.00 - 185.15) Frauds On Creditors 185.05 - Fraud involving a security interest. __________________________________________________________________________________________

CRIMINAL AND ATTORNEY, KEITH ROTHMAN, AND HIS COHORTS SPECIALIZED CRIMES False and Misleading Statement - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - Failure to state material fact made letter a "false and misleading statement" within rule of securities and exchange commission. Securities and exchange commission v. Okin, C.C.A.N.Y., 132 F.2d 784, 787 False Pretenses - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - Designed misrepresentation of existing fact or condition whereby person obtains another's money or goods. People v. Gould, 363 ill. 348, 2 N.E.2d 324. False or Fraudulent Claim - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - A "false or fraudulent claim" within meaning of statute providing for punishment of any one receiving proceeds of fraudulent audit or payment, since to be "false or fraudulent," must be a claim for services or materials not actually rendered or furnished. People v. Dally, 175 Misc. 680, 24 N.Y.S.2d 692, 695. False Representation - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - A representation which is untrue, willfully made to deceive another to his injury. Falsification - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - In equity practice. The showing an item in the debit of an account to be either wholly false or in some part erroneous. Deceit - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - A fraudulent and cheating misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more persons to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. People v. Chadwick, 143 Cal. 116, 76 P. 884. 23

Defamation - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - The taking from one's reputation. The offense fo injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to include both libel and slander. Malicious - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - Characterized by, or involving, malice; having, or done with, wicked or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful and done intentionally without just cause or excuse. People v. Knapp, 274 N.Y.S. 85, 152 Misc. 368. Malicious Accusation - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - Procuring accusation or prosecution of another from improper motive and without probable cause. McKenzie v. State, 113 Neb. 576, 204 N.W. 60, 63. Malicious Prosecution - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. Eustace v. Dechter, 28 Cal.App.2d 706, 83 P.2d 523, 525. Negligence - Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition - The ommission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent mand would not do. Schneeweisz v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65] – “Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments". “Unconscionable bargain or contract. A contract, or a clause in a contract, that is so grossly unfair to one of the parties because of stronger bargaining powers of the other party, usually held to be void as against public policy. An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other. Hume v. U.S., 132 U.S. 406, 10 S. Ct. 134, 33 L. Ed. 393.” [emphasis added]From Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p 1561: Verification. Confirmation of correctness, truth or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter state and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. Sheeley v. City of Santa Clara, 215 Cal.App.2d 83, 30 Cal.Rptr. 121,123. Sworn or equivalent confirmation of truth. For example, a verified complaint typically has an attached affidavit of plaintiff to the effect that the complaint is true. In accounting, the process of substantiating entries in books of account…” Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge. The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any 24

awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge. In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo. More generally, "plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place. Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true. ROBO-SIGNERS assume paperwork to be correct and sign it automatically, like robots. In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, a robo-signing scandal emerged in the United States involving GMAC Mortgage and a number of major U.S banks. Banks had to halt thousands of foreclosures in numerous states when it became known that the paperwork was illegitimate because the signers had not actually reviewed it. While some robo-signers were middle managers, others were temporary workers with virtually no understanding of the work they were doing. Rather than actually reviewing the individual details of each case, robo-signers fraudulently certify that the financial institution has the correct and required legal documentation to foreclose on the property. Unfortunately, the signers have often used fraudulent and fictitious names and obtained invalid notarizations on documents recorded throughout the United States. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;robo-signingâ&#x20AC;? scandal revolved around massive abuses of notarization, including forged signatures, lack of screening for awareness and misuse of Notary seals by non-Notaries, among other violations READ MORE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002417170

EXHIBIT 1A HEMPSTEAD COURT CLERK ROBO-SIGNING FRAUD JUDGEMENT CREATION CRIMES FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE SECOND DEGREE. 175.10 - FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE. 175.15 - FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS; DEFENSE. 175.20 - TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS IN THE SECOND DEGREE. 175.25 - TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC 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. 175.40 - ISSUING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. 175.45 - ISSUING A FALSE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 130-1.1 (A) (B) OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FDCPA § 1692 E(9) REPRESENT DOCUMENTS AS AUTHORIZED, ISSUED OR APPROVED BY ANY COURT, OFFICIAL, OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR STATE. FDCPA SECTION 1692 E (2) CHARACTER, AMOUNT, OR LEGAL STATUS OF THE ALLEGED DEBT.

THIS IS ROBO-SIGNING AT THE COURT ADMINISTRATION LEVEL, A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PART 130. IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL OR AUTHENTIC OR ANY SEAL AS REQUIRED AND AS STATED ABOVE.THE ABOVE ROBERT SHIMONSKI STAMP IS A ROBO-SIGNATURE. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A WET INK SIGNATURE VERIFYING THIS JUDGEMENT’S MERIT. SINCE THIS COULD NOT BE DONE THE

CONSPIRATORS RESORTED TO FILING 26 FALSE INSTRUMENTS IN THE COURTS, A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AS NOTED ABOVE.

EXHIBIT 1B ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN ROBO-SIGNED SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND EXTORT CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT IN VIOLATION TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PART 130 RULES SPECIFICALLY, SECTION “(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 COMPARE THIS ADDRESES WITH THE ROTHMAN FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ADDRESS. FDCPA § 1692 E(9) REPRESENT DOCUMENTS AS AUTHORIZED, ISSUED OR APPROVED BY ANY COURT, OFFICIAL, OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR STATE FDCPA SECTION 1692 E (2) CHARACTER, AMOUNT, OR LEGAL STATUS OF THE ALLEGED DEBT.

KEITH ROTHMAN IMPERSONATION CRIMES, HE IS DISGUISED AS FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, THE

FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF

FDCPA § 1692 e(9) Represent documents as authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or state.

FDCPA §1692 j Forms been designed, compiled and/or furnished to create the false belief that a person other than creditor is collecting

THIS IS ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN IMPERSONATING AS FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY WITH MARK BRAVERMAN IMPERSONATING THE FICTITITOUS PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY

ROBERT SHIMONSKI CRIMINAL COURT ROBO-SIGNING FRAUD AGAIN IN THE COURTS

EXHIBIT 1C 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 FDCPA § 1692 E(9) REPRESENT DOCUMENTS AS AUTHORIZED, ISSUED OR APPROVED BY ANY COURT, OFFICIAL, OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR STATE

FDCPA

§1692 j Forms been designed, compiled and/or furnished to create the false belief that a person other than creditor is collecting

FDCPA § 1692 e(9) Represent documents as authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or state.

NO SIGNATURE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC VIOLATION OF SECTION 130-1.1 (A) (B). HERE IS IMPERSONATING AS THE FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF ATORNEY

EXHIBIT 1 D 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 FDCPA § 1692 E(9) REPRESENT DOCUMENTS AS AUTHORIZED, ISSUED OR APPROVED BY ANY COURT, OFFICIAL, OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR STATE. THIS IS THE NON RATIFIED AND NEVER SERVED COMPLAINT. ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN DISGUISED AS FORD MOTOR CREDIT THE FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF VIOLATIONS OF FDCPA § 1692 E ANY OTHER FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OR MEANS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEBT COLLECTION

FDCPA § 1692 e(9) Represent documents as authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or state.

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

THE ABOVE MARIANE SMITH STAHL IS A NEW UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY CRIMINAL ENJOINED IN THE FRAUD AND SHARING FEES HOLDER IN DUE COURSE FRAUD RACKET AND SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND EXTORT MONEY CRIMES. KEITH ROTHMAN AND HER HAVE WORKED TOGETHER CRIMINALLY AND EFFECTIVELY TO OBSTRUCT 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1-A. ACCORDINGLY,THE CERTIFICATION HERE IS DISINGENUOUS, MISLEADING AND FALSE.

EXHIBIT 1E ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN’S BELOW OUT OF STATE ARIZONA FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IS BY A NON-TITLED EMPLOYEE OF ATTORNEY ROTHMAN’S OFFICE 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.

FDCPA § 1692 e(9) Represent documents as authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or state.

§ 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representat ion or means in connection with the debt collection

THIS ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN FALSIFED 3215 DEFAULT APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT WAS NOTARIZED IN ARIZONA, THIS IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER CPLR § 3215.

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).

1 F ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE IT IS DISINGENUOUS, MISLEADING AND FALSE. IT IS SEWER SERVICE ยง 1692 i(a)(2) Brought any legal action in a location other than where contract signed or where consumer resides ยง 1692 e(13) Documents are legal process when they are not ยง 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the debt collection ยง 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person

EXHIBIT 1G LEARN ABOUT ATTORNEY ROTHMAN’S PROCESS SERVER ALEX SHAFRAN’S DECEPTION AND CRIMINALITY BELOW THE BELOW IS ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN’S ALEX SHAFRAN’S ADDITIONAL FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SEWER SERVICE IT IS DISINGENUOUS, MISLEADING AND FALSE. IT IS ADDITIONAL SEWER SERVICE

FALSE OR MISLEADING MEANS TO COLLECT A DEBT, 15 U.S.C. § 1692E.

Debt Deception: How Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to …

www.scribd.com/JillianSheridan/d/84945582-Debt-Deception-How-Debt...

and Rubin & Rothman. ... 2. aggressively regulate and monitor process servers. ... See, e.g., id. at 109 (testimony of Alex Shafran); id ...

... Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn,



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

§ 1692 i(a)(2)

Brought any legal action in a location other than where contract signed or where consumer resides

§ 1692 e(13) Documents are legal process when they are not

§ 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or

means in connection with the debt collection

§ 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person

Alex Shafran .

EXHIBIT 1 H MARCH 2012 ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN THREAT FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL DAMAGES BASED ON THE FRAUDULENT ROBO-SIGNED AND NO SEAL FRAUD JUDGMENT UNLAWFUL FRAUDULENT POST-JUDGMENT CHARGES 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 § 1692 d Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person

§ 1692 i(a)(2) Brought any legal action in a location other than where contract signed or where consumer resides

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 2 ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN UNLAWFUL FRAUDULENT POST-JUDGMENT CHARGES 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 3 190.50 - 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. MALICIOUS HARM TO PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION 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 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 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 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

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 6 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 7 A DAMAGES

MALICIOUS HARM TO REPUTATION AND CREDIT RECORD COLLECTOR DISCLOSED PRIVATE INFORMATION TO A THIRD PARTY, A BIG "NO-NO" UNDER THE FDCPA. 15 USC ยง1692C(B) 18 USC 1341 FRAUDS AND SWINDLES. PURE FRAUD: NO PROOF OF THE CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENTS OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT AND OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL CLAIM ยง 1692 D ANY CONDUCT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS TO HARASS, OPPRESS, OR ABUSE ANY PERSON

EXHIBIT 7B DAMAGES MALICIOUS HARM TO REPUTATION AND CREDIT RECORD COLLECTOR DISCLOSED PRIVATE INFORMATION TO A THIRD PARTY, A BIG "NO-NO" UNDER THE FDCPA. 15 USC ยง1692C(B) 18 USC 1341 FRAUDS AND SWINDLES. PURE FRAUD: NO PROOF OF THE CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENTS OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT AND OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL CLAIM ยง 1692 D ANY CONDUCT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS TO HARASS, OPPRESS, OR ABUSE ANY PERSON

EXHIBIT 8 ATTORNEY KEITH ROTHMAN’S CLAIM WAS MALICIOUS AND FICTITIOUS ALL ALONG THE DEBT WAS PAID IN FULL

EXHIBIT 9 EXPERIAN CREDIT REPORT EXEMPLIFYING THAT THE DEBT WAS PAID IN FULL

EXHIBIT 10 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 11 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). 44

EXHIBIT 12 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 13 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 14 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 52

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 54

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. For an assignee plaintiff to have the first hand knowledge necessary for a statutorily proper affidavit of merit as required by CPLR § 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 § 3215 for assignee plaintiff's in consumer debt cases 55

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. 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. 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

EXHIBIT 15 MEET ROBERT SHIMONSKI AGAIN, IN THIS CAPACITY HE IS THE CRIMINAL ROBO-SIGNED COURT NOTARY HE CRIMINALLY ROBO-NOTARIZED AFFIANT’S PAPERS AND SUCH EFFECTUATED ANOTHER CRIMINAL DISREGARD OF FRAUD AND A RUTHLESS DENIAL OF DISMISSAL OF THE FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT

190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree. SEC. 601, ARTICLE 29-H. DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURES

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;

CRIMINAL DISREGARD OF AFFIANTS ATTEMPTS TO VACATE THIS INDISPUTABLE, VICIOUS AND MALICIOUS FRAUDULENT JUDGEMENT § 1692 D ANY CONDUCT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS TO HARASS, OPPRESS, OR ABUSE ANY PERSON

THIS IS SMULATION OF A NOTARY. IT IS A VIOLATION OF NOTARY LAW TO STAMP AND NOT SIGN DOCUMENTS THE NOTARY IS NOTARIZING. ALL NOTARIES MUST SIGN DOCUMENTS THEY NOTARIZE EXCEPT IN THE NYS COURTS. WHERE FRAUD IS PRIORITIED

EXHIBIT 16 CRIMINAL DISREGARD OF AFFIANTS ATTEMPTS TO VACATE THIS INDISPUTABLE, VICIOUS AND MALICIOUS FRAUDULENT JUDGEMENT ยง 1692 D ANY CONDUCT THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS TO HARASS, OPPRESS, OR ABUSE ANY PERSON

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 cannot 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.

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

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 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 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