JUNK DEBT BUYER ECMC CRIMINAL STUDENT LOAN SCHEME TO DEFRAUD, CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE ORGANIZED FRAUD TO SUBTERFUGE NO CONTRACT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT POSTED AT: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/final_published_notarized_ecmc_crim
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER, CONSUMER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS
-VJANICE HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RICHARD BOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ECMC),
FICTITIOUS PAYEES ------------------------------------------------------------------X 1. SNYDER’S CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES AGAINST ECMC, 2. SNYDER’S 20 EXHIBITS, 3. SNYDER’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, 4. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING,
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, NY 10467 Eric Holder, US Attorney General US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Criminal Section – PHB Washington, DC 20530 AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
March 12, 2014
US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Section – 1425 NYAV Washington, D.C. 20530 Fax: (202) 307-1197 email@example.com U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Educational Opportunities Section, PHB Washington, D.C. 20530 firstname.lastname@example.org Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor, http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php Elder Abuse Unit State of New York, State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 NYC FBI, E-mail: email@example.com FBI Victim Assistance, 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 Phone: (212) 384-1000 AND Fax: (212) 384-4073 / 4074 Mr. Schneider, NYS Attorney General, firstname.lastname@example.org Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341
Bureau of Consumer Protection, COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV email@example.com. Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-2222 FAXED AND EMAILED: https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/tipline Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5074 Fax: (202) 225-3974 US Congressman Schumer, firstname.lastname@example.org 780 Third Avenue Suite 2301 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-486-4430 Fax: 212-486-7693 Congressman Eliot Engle, Congressman_Engel@housemail.house.gov 3655 Johnson Avenue Bronx, NY 10463 Phone (718) 796-9700 Fax: (718)796-5134 FAXED TO: 410 962 4910 Department of the Treasury Financial Management Service P.O. Box 1686 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1686 US Dept. of Education, OCR@ed.gov Federal Offset PO Box 16288 St Paul, MN 55116 Cathleen Tighe, email@example.com Inspector General US Department of Education Office of Inspector General 400 Maryland Ave SW Washington Dc 20202-1500 Fax 202 245 7047
RE: JANICE HINES AND RICHARD J. BOYLE, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATE OFFICERS AND EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPOTRATION: 18 U.S. CODE § 1028 - CONSPIRACIES AND CONTINUING OFFENSES, FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS, AUTHENTICATION FEATURES, AND INFORMATION, 18 U.S. CODE CHAPTER 31, EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC MONEY 18 U.S. CODE § 641, NY PENAL CODE 155.40(2) EXTORTION BY MOST SERIOUS MEANS, 18 U.S. CODE § 241 - CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS, CRIMINAL USE OF A CONSPIRATORIAL, WORTHLESS, NULLIFIED, AND INVALID STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT TO STEAL AND EMBEZZLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MONIES, FORGED PROMISSORY NOTE, CRIMINAL AND UNREGULATED PREDATORY DEBT CREATION, DECEPTION, AND COLLECTION, STUDENT LOAN FRAUD, EFFECTUATING PREMEDITATED INDUCED OPPRESSION, POVERTY, DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION AGAINST FDCPA DISPUTE AND VALIDATION MANDATES, AS WELL AS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT, 18 U.S. CODE § 1028A - AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT, THEFT OF PRIVATE MONEY, FINANCIAL CRIMES AND INJURY, COVERT AND CRIMINAL INDUCED OPPRESSION/POVERTY, TERRORISTIC SCHEME TO DEFRAUD, 18 U.S. CODE § 249 HATE CRIME ADMINISTRATION: USE OF FICTITIOUS AND UNAUTHENTICATED COURT PAPERS AS WEAPONRY TO STEAL AND CAUSE BODILY HARM- INDUCED STRESS AND WILLFUL NON COMPLIANCE WITH US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HEARING AND UNDUE HARDSHIP PROVISIONS, DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES
Dear Directors and Public Officials: I write this criminal report affidavit regarding the above crimes inflicted on me by Educational Credit Management Corporation above noted corporate officers. The officers and the company as a whole has invoked unscrupulous, criminal, predatory debt deception across the nation and on me. ECMC’s criminal debt collection activities are deadly as this company’s unregulated ongoing criminal conspiracies, grand larceny crimes and relentless greed has criminally put my family and me into a premeditated oppressive and impoverished state that we were not in before their crimes. ECMC is targeting vulnerable populations to administer their debt creation, deceit and collection Conspiracies and Continuing Offenses, as exemplified in this matter. ECMC is administering these criminal conspiracies and continuing offenses, fraud and theft of private and public money crimes by willfully refusing to produce a contract, authenticate, validate and verify court and accounting documents.
ECMC criminal conspirators Hines and Boyle are using worthless and invalid falsified computer records such as a non-authenticated STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT to steal and embezzle consumer’s money. They have stolen my money with no authenticated judgment and used a fraud based nullified and invalid STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT to steal my money and did so with no penalties. They have produced no authenticated documents, no contract, and have produced forged promissory note computer printout papers to steal my money under the disguise of debt collection. They are acting as delusional and possibly criminally insane fictitious payees. They are criminally plotting to steal an additional over $50,000.00 based on this fraud and I demand sanctions, penalties and an end to ECMC’s conspiracies and continuing offenses, embezzlement, grand larceny crimes, and deprivation of rights to be free from unreasonable seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution. ECMC is using law department bullying, conspiracies and continuing offenses, fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 31, Embezzlement and Theft of Public money under 18 U.S. Code § 641, 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4): Falsification of computer records, Criminal and Unregulated Predatory Debt Creation, Deception, and Collection, and overall student loan fraud, to steal, to legally abuse and treat consumers in any criminal manner they wish without any penalty. The ECMC above noted conspirators must be charged with the above crimes as their criminal theft of my money and many other consumers and their debt creation, deceit and collection practices exemplify the elements of the above noted crimes and such has a profound discriminatory and financial injury impact.
The ECMC above mentioned conspirators which are junk debt buyers used a FRAUD BASED STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT as a weapon and as authority to criminally steal my money via garnishment. This statement of judgment is not the authentic judgment and the conspirators used such because there is no authentic judgment. This ECMC fiction, the Statement for Judgment, has been used as authority for ECMC conspirators to steal. The fraud based void statement for an alleged judgment is the unlawful agreement which is the controlling element of this criminal conspiracy. Please see the ECMC STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT FRAUD attached as exhibit 6. When the ECMC above noted conspirators used the fraud based statement of judgment to steal my money the crime of conspiracy was completed. Boyle and Hines entered into a conspiratorial agreement to use such to steal and did so. Moreover, the defraud statement of judgment was used as the agreement between two or more persons( Hines and Boyle) for the unlawful purpose of stealing money via overly easy access to money via garnishment of targeted peopleâ€™s money, understood as ECMCâ€™s prey. Please note that it is considered a criminal conspiracy even if there was no agreement regarding the details of the criminal scheme or the means by which the theft of money was accomplished. The agreement determines whether single or multiple conspiracies exist between the parties. A single conspiratorial agreement will constitute a single criminal conspiracy and multiple agreements to commit separate crimes will constitute multiple conspiracies. Please see the definition of conspiracies and continuing offenses page 11 posted at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf The evidence shows multiple conspiracies, both ECMC criminal conspirators and corporate officers knew they were not using an authenticated judgment and they used their fraud based statement of alleged judgment for the specific purpose of committing a federal crime, stealing federal money, not owed or due them.
Both conspirators Boyle and Hines committed a federal crime and defrauded the United States when they chose to use a bonafide fraud based non authentic fictional administration STATEMENT FOR ALLEGED JUDGMENT and did so in opposition to my God given right and mandate for authentication of the judgment. They acted like bottom bucket thieves who were assured that their crimes would be concealed via law department legal abuse and bullying, which further oppresses targeted populations, such as I. I seek an investigation, charges, sanctions and penalties against the ECMC conspirators for using a fraud based non authentic false instrument to steal my money and I seek a reason as to why was this allowed. I was financially and emotionally injured. I seek penalty enforcement for these indisputable felonious crimes. Please consider the following elements of these crimes to understand how ECMC has taken and or plans to take this criminal ongoing conspiratorial debt creation, deception and collection Ponzi and get rich defraud the United States scheme, global, if left unregulated. The below conspiracy element definition is from page 11 posted at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf Conspirators left uninterrupted will frequently continue on through several overt acts to the ultimate commission of the underlying substantive offenses which are the objectives of their plots. Pursuant to the above Conspiracies and Continuing Offenses definition, the above means that if ECMC conspirators crimes are uninterrupted, if they are not stopped from using their fraud based statement for an alleged judgment scam to steal consumers money, VOLUMINOUS THEFTS will be effectuated through the ECMC ongoing conspiracy and defraud the United states crimes, which is the objective of their plots. In other words, ECMC is operating a documented criminal Ponzi easy money get rich scam at the expense of innocent people, tax payers and emphasis on low income, disabled and elderly populations. 7
They are targeting vulnerable populations because of the easy access to steal their money via social security garnishments and their criminally masterminded STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINAL COMPUTER PRINT OUT. Please see exhibit 6. Their controlling false instrument filing is the fraudulent Statement for Judgment, not an authenticated judgment but an out of thin air created STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT which falls under: A. B. C. D.
18 U.S.C. §1030: (a)(4): Falsification of computer records 18 U.S.C. §872: Extortion under the color of law 18 U.S.C. §1341: Fraud 18 U.S.C. §4: Misprision of felony
There appears to be criminal conspirators planted in law departments all over by virtue of there not being any walls of protection against ECMC’s fraud and theft of innocent people’s money via the defraud judgment scam as exemplified in this matter. This is not a coincidence. The no walls of protection against thieves over an organization is a law department design. Social Security is being used as an easy access conduit to feed people’s money to ECMC without any authentication or validation. Please note I have requested validation and to see the certification documents for ECMC third party debt deception in Social Security and nothing was given to me. Social Security is feeding people’s money over to ECMC in contravention to the statute of Fraud and in the furtherance of ongoing Conspiracies to Defraud the United States and oppress its people. It is my contention based on ECMC’s evidence of ongoing conspiracies that ECMC’s criminal stolen money is being funneled somewhere in Social Security’s law department which effectuated no walls of protection from thieves over the people’s money. ECMC’s easy access to people’s money based on fraud and non-authentic documents via Social Security easy and criminal garnishment policy must be stopped. 8
An authentication department is needed in Social Security to make sure authentic court documents are being used for purposes of garnishment, debt collection and to make sure the most vulnerable populations are not being exploited, terrorized and financially injured based on ECMC’s unregulated, relentless fraud, grand larceny crimes, greed and ongoing criminal conspiracies against the rights of the poor, disabled and elderly. Above all, the recommended Social Security authentication department must be separate from the law department with a clear understanding that the law department has no control over such department. Experts do their jobs best without interference. Furthermore, this will protect the integrity of the authentication department and block current infectious unwarranted law department usurpations that allow and advance ongoing ECMC criminal conspiracies that steal people’s money based on defraud useless computer printout: STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT FRAUD, as epitomized in this matter. ECMC’s easy access to innocent people’s survival money must be stopped, particularly when the money is being stolen via garnishment based on fraud, a nonexistent and nonproduced, alleged judgment, as exemplified in this matter. Social Security’s lack of accountability over ECMC’s debt deceit and collection places an additional burden on the poor, disabled, and elderly. In addition to fighting off ECMC’s judgment fraud, theft of one’s money, and ongoing conspiracies, ECMC’s ongoing conspiracy and scheme to defraud crimes puts liability on Social Security. Hence, if a poor, disabled or elderly person has to sue, he must now include an extra party because ECMC’s ongoing conspiracy crimes and scheme to defraud, criminally enjoined Social Security as a third party tortious interference. Above all, ECMC’s masterminded thefts are concealed because ECMC gives no receipt for their stolen garnishment money and social security funds are on a card. Consequently, there is no real evidence of the ECMC theft of innocent people’s money because there is no direct ECMC receipt.
With this ECMC unregulated debt creation, deception and collection scam, ECMC can change their name every 5 years and replicate the crimes via criminally concealing payments and resetting the statute of limitations. With respect to Social Security, please note I have worked all of my life. I am an educational administrator by profession. However, I became victimized by repeated law department ordered job mobbing, stalking, bullying and abuse in every job I had. My income was criminally income lynched repetitiously despite exemplary commendations. I sued the law department and the union and was blacklisted in retaliation to such. But God! I was criminally left penniless, victimized and forced to Social Security as a legal abuse syndrome victim. Please see these unregulated law department led crimes: http://issuu.com/prayerwarriorsneeded/docs/56050639-full-notarized-finale-tort-may2011-nys-c. ECMCâ€™s criminal law department led income lynching crimes are not new to me, but will not be tolerated. With respect to conspiracies and continuing offenses, please consider the below underlined definition of the elements of conspiracies and continuing offenses and crimes to understand how the student loan contractually obstructive endless statute of limitations fiction was diabolically masterminded and incorporated into this ECMC or any other debt collector ongoing conspiracies crimes. In the below ongoing conspiracies definition take heed to the last act and the abandonment clause. I will show how this ECMC fraudulent judgment debt deception theft of money scam was created for purposes of an ongoing conspiracy with an abandonment and last act, where conspirators drop out and others drop in. The ECMC conspirators dropped in, where the criminal defraud judgment creation lawyers dropped out. Please see exhibits 7-10, these are the fraud based court documents which effectuated the FRAUD BASED STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT.
Exhibit 6 is ECMC’s nullified, defective and fraudulent conveyance false instrument used to steal public money titled as the STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT. Below I explain why and how come this computer printout unauthenticated court document is nullified, defective and fraudulent. Exhibit 10 is the defective and fraudulent attorney affidavit which conspiratorially effectuated ECMC’S STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT. Below I explain why and how come this computer printout unauthenticated court document is nullified, defective and fraudulent. Exhibit 12-13 is the defective and fraudulent affidavit of service. Below I explain why and how come this computer printout unauthenticated court document is nullified, defective and fraudulent. Exhibit 9 is the defective and fraudulent complaint created by documented wanton and reckless debt creation, deceit and collection criminal conspirators acting as lawyers and debt collectors. Below I explain why and how come this computer printout unauthenticated court document is nullified, defective and fraudulent. ECMC’s criminal use of the fraudulent conveyance STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT, which was effectuated by the above non authentic and fictional court papers exemplifies and aligns with the below conspiracies and continuing offenses elements description on page 11 posted at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf Thus, the statute of limitations for such conspiracies runs not from the first overt act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy but from the last. The statute of limitations under conspiracy statutes that have no overt act requirement runs from the accomplishment of the objectives of the conspiracy or from its abandonment. This ECMC ongoing student loan conspiracy against rights and the theft of money crime scams were designed so ECMC or any other debt collector or lawyer could drop in, when the defraud judgment creation lawyers dropped out. The details changed from time to time, some of the conspirators may not know each other, or the part played by others, but 11
a member need not know all the details of the plan and operation, the conspirator must however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Please see: Craig v. U.S. 81 F2d 816. All the criminal conspirators knew the purpose of the plan was to criminally steal innocent people’s money. The ECMC conspirators knew and know the purpose of the plan was to steal and embezzle money via the worthless STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT SCAM and to steal money from innocent people under the disguise of debt collection. The ECMC conspirators dropped in after the first conspirators dropped out or effectuated abandonment as stated above. Their purpose was the same as ECMC and that was to create unauthenticated, fraudulent, and frivolous court papers to steal money from innocent people, emphasis on vulnerable populations and thereafter conceal the debt collectors’ received payments by having no receipts so the conspiracy of stealing money can continue endlessly. Timing between ECMC and the first criminals doesn’t matter because the first set of criminals set the tone and table for endless, ongoing and continuous debt collection conspiracy against right crimes. The first conspirators in this matter are the lawyers and debt collectors from Hyat, Hyat and Landau law firm. Their job was to create debt out of thin air by filing a premeditated contemptuous and frivolous complaint in the courts. Thereafter, these criminals used a criminal notary conspirator to stamp falsified affidavits of service which lie and state the victim was served a student loan or any debt collection summons and complaint concoction. This is exactly what happened to me. Please see Hyat, Hyat and Landau egregious organized fraud crimes here: http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PF AU_NYS_LAW_SUIT_AGAINST_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
The ECMC conspirators dropped in when the Hyat, Hyat and Landau conspirators dropped out. The Hyat, Hyat and Landau law firm criminals were the first conspirators and their job was to start a frivolous law suit that effectuated the fraudulent, worthless, nullified and invalid STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT that could be used by any law firm or debt collection agency for the specific purpose of stealing money under the disguise of this unauthenticated criminal computer printout acting as an official court authorized judgment. The STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT is used because it understood by all involved sometimes including the courts and judges, that fraud is being administered. Thus an authenticated judgment cannot be used because fictional and fraud administration is controlling. Furthermore, a real judgment could not be used in this matter because the first criminal and conspirator Hyat, Hyat and Landau attorneys, did not and do not have a valid contract to sue. In this matter, the original conspirators, Hyat, Hyat and Landau created and used a frivolous complaint and summons. These documents are frivolous because they have no verification. Please see exhibits 8-9 attached. This is the frivolous and contemptuous non verified summons and complaint that effectuated the fraud based worthless STATENMENT FOR JUDGMENT that ECMC is using right now to steal and embezzle public money. Please see exhibit 9. This is the frivolous and defective complaint that effectuated ECMC fraud based STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT that was used to steal my money. Remember the first criminalâ€™s job was to criminally create the Statement for Judgment. ECMC drops in and uses this criminal print out to steal money. The frivolous student loan complaint that effectuated ECMCâ€™s STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT fraud and theft is frivolous and defective because the student loan complaint violates the courts rules via no certification or verification. In essence, exhibit 9, the attached student loan complaint that ECMC is using as authority for their premeditated STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT fraud and theft, exemplifies that: 13
THE STUDENT LOAN DEBT COLLECTOR AND LAWYER DID NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE PROPERLY CERTIFIED THE COMPLAINT THEY FILED IN THE INSTANT ACTION. 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."
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.
Additionally, not only is ECMC’s STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT fraud and theft student loan law suit missing a contract, it is also missing a full chain of assignment as stated below:
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).
Additionally, not only is ECMC’s STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT fraud and theft student loan law suit missing a contract and a full chain of assignment, it is also missing a required firsthand knowledge affidavit and business records as stated below: 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). 14
The first conspirators to ECMC’s conspiracy and offences, direct criminal purpose, ploy and plot was to commence a frivolous lawsuit without having the requisite proof needed for a prima facie case. In summary, the ECMC criminal conspirators are using a STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT fraudulent conveyance false instrument that is a nullity to steal my money and public money and have enjoined the Social Security Administration in their ongoing conspiracy and offense defraud America crimes. Please take notice that laches cannot and will not be tolerated or used to block the vacation of said nullified alleged judgment as the conspiracy crimes are ongoing up to today. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations for ongoing fraud and the following non-waivable trinity of dismissal doctrine may be raised at any time: 1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction (CPLR § 3211(a)( 2. Failure to state a cause of action (CPLR § 3211(a)(7)); and 3. Failure to join a necessary party (CPLR § 3211(a)(10)). A void Judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, lacks or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court, Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999). A void Judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nulity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. (1972) The ramifications of the ECMC conspirators current outrageous in character student loan financial crimes including larceny, stem from and got lawless POWER from the over 20 year old nullified, worthless, and fictitious STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT false filing, which was used to enjoin Social Security , steal my money and public money and was used to defraud the United States. A criminal investigation is needed to see how many innocent people are victimized by ECMC’s and other debt collector and court organized fraud that advances these type of life threatening, extortion, grand larceny, embezzlement, and conspiracy against rights crimes. ECMC’s fraud stems from fraud in the court via THE PATRICIA MCCARTHY COURT CLERK JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE SIGNATURE ON THE ORGANIZED FRAUD SCRIBBLED ON STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT. In this capacity, the court clerk impersonated a judge by signing her signature on the worthless statement for judgment. 15
This fraud was complimented by additional fraud by Mark Heiman’s signature on the scribbled premeditated STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT FRAUD. These crimes exemplify clear cut premeditated conspiracies and continuing offenses embedded in organized fraud seeking to conceal the fact that none of the criminal conspirators have a written contract consistent with the below common law statute of frauds: The Statute of Frauds was originally enacted by Parliament in 1677 under the title “An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.” Section four provided: And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after, the said four and twentieth day of June no action shall be brought (1) whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise, to answer damages out of his own estate, (2) or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of another person; (3) or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage; (4) or upon any contract for sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them; (5) or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof; (6) unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized. Section seventeen provided: And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the said four and twentieth day of June no contract for the sale of any goods, wares and merchandizes, for the price of ten pounds sterling or upwards, shall be allowed to be good, except the buyer shall accept part of the good so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents thereto lawfully authorized.
The legislatures of most U.S. states have enacted legislation that roughly duplicates the provisions of section four of the original Statute of Frauds. Similarly, U.C.C. § 2-201 establishes a writing requirement for all contracts and contract enforceability. In general, the primary purpose of the Statute of Frauds is for evidentiary reasons, to provide reliable evidence of the existence and terms of the contract, and the classes of contracts covered seem for the most part to have been selected because of importance or complexity.
Because ECMC and the other criminal debt collectors and lawyers did not have the required evidentiary documents to prove their claim, they resorted to organized fraud effectuating criminally created fraudulent computer printouts to appear as evidence. They infested fraud throughout this student loan matter by creating unauthenticated fraud based court documents to subterfuge the contract they do not have and need to sue. ECMC is presently stealing my money based on this documented premeditated conspiracies and continuing offenses embedded in organized fraud. Consequently, pursuant to the ADA Administrative Procedures, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, and all other relevant sanction laws, I Miriam Snyder seek an order imposing sanctions and penalties on the ECMC criminal conspirators and on ECMC as a whole based on the above and below crimes summarized: 1. The ECMC conspirators failed to sign and certify the court papers used as a weapon to steal private money and public money. These non-signatures, certify that ECMC papers submitted are meritless and inflicted to specifically rob money, undermine and obstruct consumer protections and justice as a whole. 2. ECMC corporate officers and lawyer’s refusal to sign and certify and or their refusal to use signed and certified court papers is a violation of FRCP 11. The law provides sanctions for violation of the certification. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 US 384 110 S. Ct. 2447 (1990). 3. Pursuant to the ADA Administrative Procedures and FDCP Rule 11 Miriam Snyder
demands that ECMC’s fraudulent, invalid, and unenforceable defective court concoctions in this matter be withdrawn permanently as they are obstructive and serve no other purpose but to further a documented ongoing grand larceny conspiracy against rights. This needs to be done on behalf of public policy and public safety. 4. Since Rule 11 does not apply to misconduct, unrelated to unsigned court papers, this
affidavit will not address Janice Hines and Richard Boyles misconduct. A misconduct complaint along with ECMC’s criminal fictional administration defective court papers, will be filed with the proper authorities and their bonding offices. 5. ECMC’s corporate officer’s refusal to sign their letters to me and their fraudulent court paper creations is because they know they were designed in bad faith, maliciously, with intent to deceive, undermine and obstruct consumer protections embedded in FDCPA and the NY GBL laws. 17
6. ECMC”s theft of my money and use of fictional grand larceny court papers are without legitimate legal or factual basis and are deemed in bad faith. Please see similar bad faith court paper rulings pursuant to: Porous Medical Corp. v. Parr Corp., 201 F.3d 1058, 1059 (8th Cir. 2000). 7. ECMC’s claims and criminal contentions contained in their grand larceny court paper creations, obstruct procedure and existing law by presenting frivolous claims for the reversal and obstruction of consumer protection laws. 8. Miriam Snyder seeks sanctions against ECMC pursuant to FRCP 11(b) & (c), as amended. These sanctions are needed to discourage ECMC’s dilatory and abusive tactics, and to help streamline the litigation process by lessening their frivolous claims. Please take Notice that Sanctions may also be imposed for the purpose of deterrence, compensation and punishment. Massengale v. Kolner, 267 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2001). 9. a. b. c. d.
The parties subject to sanctions under Rule 11 include: Janice Hines, individually and as President and Chief Executive Officer of ECMC Richard Boyle, individually and as Director of ECMC The Individual Attorney representing ECMC The attorney’s law firm, which is jointly liable
10. Miriam Snyder seeks the issuance of a sanction requiring the return of the money ECMC stole, over $1,800.00, payment of administrative fees to provide compensation to her and to provide compensation for the number of hours reasonably spent by her, directly related to ECMC’s violation, is multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate for the work performed. Miriam Snyder seeks such based on a public policy goal of deterrence. Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1998). 11.ECMC’s use of frivolous court papers that violate Rule 11, specifically, their organized fraud conspiratorial non certified complaint, coupled with their deceit and fraud negatively impacts all involved. It wastes court time and money and harasses. Above all, ECMC’s grand larceny court papers with malicious and unjustified claims, obstructed and obstructs the orderly and expeditious administration of government offices. 12. Sanctions against the ECMC criminals are needed to deter their continued frivolous, malicious, invalid, and unenforceable filings and enjoinments, and to avoid the continued expenditure of unnecessary resources.
13.Sanctions against the ECMC criminals are needed to dismantle their collections activities because the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs shows no record of ECMC Debt Buyers having a license to collect any debt. 14.ECMC’s scheme to defraud grand larceny court papers have maliciously exploited Miriam Snyder without reason or cause. The ECMC criminals have acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wanton and for oppressive reasons. ECMC has defamed the government, it offices, and the people. 15. ECMC has shown to all involved that that debt collectors like ECMC are using the courts as a Wild Wild west playground for premeditated grand larceny document creation crimes. Furthermore, this case shows the need for the U.S. Department of Justice involvement to stop judicial impersonations by court clerks and debt collectors. Penalties must be put in place to stop judicial impersonations inflicted to reverse and destroy righteousness embedded in the rule of law. 16. In this matter, ECMC should be made to pay the court a minimum of $50,000.00 for using court enjoined grand larceny documents, defaming the court, exposing the court, and for criminally using court resources for filing frivolous, harassing, defective and meritless concoctions such as the attached unenforceable and invalid STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT. ECMC’s use of criminally created unauthorized computer printout UNAUTHENTICATED court documents as weapons to steal money nationwide must be stopped. Sanctions will deter such criminal and conspiratorial improprieties by corporations, individuals and others. 17. ECMC’s criminals must be sanctioned for their willful refusal and failure to present a timely contract that is not unconscionable, more specific, their failure to produce any contract, while stealing my money and while alleging money owed. These criminal concealment and omission acts exemplify, deceit and misconduct embedded and included in:
18 USC § 1028A - Aggravated identity theft crimes, US Code - Section 1028: Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information 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 19
Article 175 - OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS
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. 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 NYPL 75.35 offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree; 175.40 issuing a false certificate.
18. Janice Hines and Richard Boyle are supposed to be alleged sophisticated investors. They should have used “prophylactic” measures to not enjoin themselves in this well documented organized fraud conspiracy. They should have stopped this student loan fraud racket when they received non authenticated fraudulent court records. Any reasonable person in a position to access other people’s money would have checked for authentication.
For the above reasons, sanctions are sought. The ECMC criminals should have used due diligence in securing authentic court documents. They sent me the fraudulent STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT, A FORGED PROMISSORY NOTE, and thereafter refused to sign their extortion letters to me. Please see an example of one of their deliberately unsigned extortion, deceit, and malicious letters attached as exhibit 20. Hines and Boyleâ€™s participation in this documented ongoing conspiracy against rights, which specifically targets victims of crime for further oppression and criminal acts, indicates that these conspirators are members of a satanic cult, called the shadow government. With the above conspiracy and continuing offences crimes, you can steal from and destroy an entire population of people based on this diabolical fraud. All one corrupt lawyer needs is to be friends or associates with the court clerk and he will get defaulted judgments easily with no evidentiary proof with this criminal judicial imposture design in place. Everyone involved in the default court judgment scam will get paid off of the victim. In fact, this is how desperate, trashy, bottom bucket money rackets operate. They make money off of stealing, bullying, and criminalizing targets until the target says no more! The saddest part of this crime is what the target has to go through to get justice. By criminal design, the victim may have to sue the clerk and judge just to stop these prioritized conspiracy and continuing offences crimes. In closing, the criminal insanity embedded in creating, concocting and using fraudulent, unauthenticated court documents as a weapon and for the sole purpose of stealing money that does not belong to one, requires sanctions and criminal penalties. To this end, I submit this criminal report and affidavit in support as I have been financially and emotionally injured and damaged because of these unregulated life threatening conspiracies and continuing offenses. I urge public officials and this office to invoke sanctions against Educational Credit Management Corporation and its corporate officials as they have clearly defrauded the United States and the people.
I have included 20 exhibits and an affidavit in support of this criminal report. I attest pursuant to the laws of this country that all of my statements and exhibits are true and correct. This is an appeal to stop ECMCâ€™s theft of my money based on their conspiracies and continuing offenses embedded in organized fraud. Sanctions are greatly needed on behalf of public policy, public safety, American consumers, and the sanctity of the contract clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1., which states that: No state shall enter into law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,
REFERENCES POSTED AT: http://www.endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/page11.html
Debt Deception: How Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to Prey on Lower-Income New Yorkers Debt-Buyer Lawsuits and Inaccurate Data Student Loan Debt Deception Brief Understanding Junk Debt Buyer Lawsuits HYAT, HYAT AND LANDAU SUED FOR FALSE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE NYS Sewer Service Lawsuit against Debt Collectors OR http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PFAU_NYS_ LAW_SUIT_AGAINST_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf ABROGATING THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE DOCTRINE
EXHIBIT 1 EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL CRIMES INFLICTED The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed U.S. CODE TITLE 10, INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS by stealing people’s money nationwide in contravention to the contract clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, and Clause 1. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 1960, 1901, 1905, 1911, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 (RICO) CIVIL RICO- CONTINUOS CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ACT (CCE) by participating and making a host of money off of this well documented court clerk judicial imposture default STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT creation scam led by the Chief judicial imposture disregard of this court clerk judicial imposture loophole. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGN, FREE, GOD CREATED, SPIRIT AND SOUL BEINGS, by willfully participating in a well-documented court clerk judicial imposture scheme to defraud to create UNENFORCEABLE default judgments with organized fraud illusions of judicial force to steal American consumer’s money and property. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2381 TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEIR CONSTITUTION OR AIDING ITS ENEMIES, by stealing people’s money nationwide in contravention to the contract clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC SEC 2384 SEDITION/SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY BY CONSPIRING TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by enjoining Social Security in ECMC’s scheme to defraud and steal money crimes, in violation to the contract clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 3130----3730 money laundering by laundering money out of government offices like Social Security and doing so with no valid authority but with the sole force of organized fraud.
The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 1512 ENGAGING IN MISLEADING CONDUCT by repetitiously sending ECMC letters with no signature, using an organized fraud STATEMENT OF JUDGMENT to steal, coupled with a host of other organized fraud fictional court records. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 1503 INTIMIDATE WITNESSES in retaliation to Miriam Snyder seeking FDCPA validation, ECMC stole her money under the disguise of garnishment, in violation to US Department of Education hearing and hardship provisions. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed IMPEDING DUE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BY ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT, OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE, AND INTERFERE WITH SAME, (18 USC SEC 1509) , by criminally seizing Miriam Snyder’s money with no lawful authority or contract and in violation to due process protections. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1962 RACKETEERING BY CONDUCTING AN ONGOING ENTERPRISE OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION, OR THREATS OF SAME, by stealing Miriam Snyder’s money with no lawful authority or contract. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC SEC 371 CONSPIRACY TO OFFEND AND DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES by stealing low income, disabled, and elderly people’s money via Social Security funds while having no lawful contract, written reason, certification, or cause. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 USC 35 -- Imparting or conveying false information in government records and offices to steal money and are currently doing so. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited and are currently doing so via stealing money on electronic cards and providing no direct ECMC receipt. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed U.S.C. Title 18, See, 2071 and 2073 (falsifying records) and further; uttering and possessing false obligations and counterfeit securities based upon the falsified records of U.S.C. Title l8, Sec. 471, 472, 473, and/or 513. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed corrupt business practices to make and possess false records and claim of obligation, not substantiated by truthful facts in violation of the Federal Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization (RICO), U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 1961 et. Seq. and are currently doing so as exemplified in the above complaint. 24
The ECMC Criminal Conspirators are using the U.S. Mail to present such fraud and false instruments amounting to Mail Fraud, criminal conduct falling under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 – Frauds and Swindles. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed sending mail with false and fictitious names, a criminal conduct falling under Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1842 - Fictitious Names. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S. Code § 249 - HATE CRIME ACTS by targeting people of color, women, victims of crime, low income people, disabled and the elderly and deliberately inducing unwarranted serious stress by stealing their survival money and obstructing constitutional protections to due process. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S. Code § 2332a - USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION by using judicial imposture fictional STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT and other fictional court documents as vicious weapons that steal, devour and kill innocent people. The theft is a terroristic act particularly when it is done in contravention to the Constitutional protection laws of the land. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators have committed 18 U.S. Code § 2339C PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM by directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully collecting funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out— acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population. The ECMC Criminal Conspirators, specifically, Janice Hines and Richard Boyle have committed 18 U.S. Code § 241 - CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS by conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Miriam Snyder by criminally seizing her money in violation of the 4th , 9th , and 14th Constitutional Amendments . They stole her money and deliberately denied her and retaliated against her for exercising her free speech rights to mandate validation and authentication of the criminal student loan fraud documents. They obstructed her free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and because of her having so exercised the same.
EXHIBIT 2 UNDERSTANDING CRIMINAL AND GANGSTER DEBT COLLECTION ORGANIZED FRAUD CRIMES INFLICTED ON MIRIAM SNYDER IN THIS MATTER Sewer Service A major reason for the high rate of default judgments is the fact that many people do not know they have been sued.59 Evidence suggests that people rarely receive notice of lawsuits brought by debt buyers.60 Debt buyers often send notices to addresses associated with the underlying credit card accounts, which are often outdated and no longer valid.61 Worse, many of the process servers hired to serve papers in consumer credit actions engage in “sewer service” – the practice of failing to serve court papers (and instead throwing them in the “sewer”) and filing false affidavits of service with the courts. The problem has been well documented in New York.62 In 2008, the New York State Attorney General on behalf of the Chief Adminstrative Judge of New York filed suit against 35 debt collection law firms and two debt collection companies. The case, Pfau v. Forster & Garbus, seeks to vacate more than 100,000 default judgments allegedly entered because of sewer service by a single process serving agency. The case is currently pending. Payment practices within the debt collection industry appear to contribute to the high rates of sewer service in debt buyer cases. Debt collection law firms usually enter into bulk contracts with process serving agencies, which, in turn, hire individual process servers to carry out the service.63 These process servers often work as independent contractors, not salaried employees, and are paid on a piecework basis of $3-6 per completed service.64 These wages have not increased significantly since 1986,65 and are, in fact, so low that it is impossible for a process server to serve all papers properly and still make the minimum wage.66 Process servers who serve papers in non-debt collection matters earn significantly more.67 On top of that, most debt collection law firms will not pay process servers for unsuccessful attempts at service, a practice that further encourages process servers to lie about having completed service.68 REFERENCE: http://www.nedap.org/pressroom/documents/DEBT_DECEPTION_FINAL_WEB.pdf
THE CONSPIRATORS IN THIS MATTER HYAT, HYAT AND LANDAU HAVE BEEN SUED FOR THE SAME ORGANIZED FRAUD SEWER SERVICE INFLICTED ON ME IN THIS MATTER. PLEASE SEE THEIR CRIMES HERE: http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PFAU_NYS_LAW_ SUIT_AGAINST_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
EDUCATION CREDIT MANAGEMENT CRIMINAL TACTICS INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL THEFT OF MY MONEY VIA GARNISHMENT IS DONE TO SUBTERFUGE ECMCâ€™S LACK OF A CONTRACT
Lack of Proof The staggering number of default judgments obtained through sewer service masks the fact that debt buyers rarely have admissible evidence of the debt and that many cases are meritless.69 As discussed above, debt buyers typically do not purchase documentation of debts, such as credit applications bearing signatures, the contracts that applied to each account, account statements, or customer service records that would confirm or clarify fraud claims or customer disputes. While some debt buyers have a contractual right to obtain a portion of this information in a limited number of cases, this is far from the norm.70 In the vast majority of cases filed, debt buyers cannot provide documentation of the underlying debt.71 The law requires that debt buyers provide proof of their claims in order to win a case. If a debt buyer cannot do so, and the case is contested, the case must be dismissed.72
ECMC DISCRIMINATORY IMPACT: Abusive debt buyer lawsuits not only harm individual New Yorkers but also have a deleterious impact on New York Cityâ€™s LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, which bear the brunt of abusive debt buyer lawsuits. Default judgments obtained by debt buyers are overwhelmingly concentrated in these communities, where thousands of New Yorkers are subject to wage garnishment and other types of judgment enforcement, such as frozen bank accounts. In other words, these practices strip lower income neighborhoods and communities of color of community assets, not only destabilizing households but also jeopardizing financial security in entire neighborhoods.
EXHIBIT 4 UNDERSTANDING THE ROOT OF THE ORGANIZED FRAUD CRIMES:
THE SCAM BY JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE DESIGN THE COURT CLERK ACTS AS A JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE WITH NO PENALTY AND CRIMINALLY SIGNS DEFAULT JUDGMENTS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. THIS IS A CRIMINAL JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE LOOPHOLE THAT MENTORS, TRAINS, FOSTERS, AND ADVANCES, JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE AND JUDICIAL TRESPASSING AS A CRIMINAL METHOD OF OPERATION TO STEAL MONEY AND DESTROY TARGETED PEOPLE BY DESIGN!
Insufficient Scrutiny of Applications for Default Judgments In Debt Weight, the Urban Justice Center found that debt buyers routinely obtained default judgments even though they almost always failed to submit the proof required by law.101 Our study shows that these practices continue. In the Court Sample, debt buyers never provided an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the facts of the case, as is required under New York law.102 Despite these glaring deficiencies in their applications, debt buyers regularly obtained default judgments. The problem is exacerbated by
the Court’s practice of giving
applications for default judgments to clerks instead of judges. Court clerks are often not lawyers, and they do not have the ability to assess whether the application meets minimum evidentiary standards. This practice results in large part from the overwhelming volume of debt collection lawsuits and the Court’s lack of sufficient resources to handle the increased caseload. Nevertheless, the
lack of any meaningful review by someone with judicial training makes the process ripe for abuse.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Immediate legislative and regulatory action is needed to end abusive debt collection lawsuits. Here are our key recommendations: • ENSURE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND SETTLEMENTS.
Court clerks, rather than judges, routinely grant default judgments to debt buyers despite glaring legal deficiencies in their applications. Many people sued are pressured into unfair and unaffordable settlements that leave them in a worse position than if they had ignored the lawsuits. To ensure fundamental fairness, additional resources need to be provided to the courts so that judges settlement agreements.
can review default judgment applications and
• PROHIBIT DEBT BUYERS FROM FILING LAWSUITS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Debt buyers routinely file frivolous lawsuits against low-income New Yorkers even though they have no evidence to prove the debts are owed. The New York State legislature should crack down on this unfair practice by enacting the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (CCFA), which would raise the bar on what information debt buyers have to submit to the court when filing lawsuits and applying for default judgments. • AGGRESSIVELY REGULATE AND MONITOR PROCESS SERVERS.
Many people never receive notice of debt buyer lawsuits because process servers routinely engage in “sewer service” – failing to serve court papers and filing false affidavits of service with the courts. The New York City Council recently passed groundbreaking legislation intended to curb this unlawful practice. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) should implement strong regulations to carry out the new law and make enforcement of the new law an agency priority. • EXPAND GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST DEBT COLLECTORS.
The New York State Attorney General and the New York City DCA should continue to take aggressive action against the debt collection industry and use the findings of this report to initiate new investigations. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should continue to make debt collection an agency priority, with specific focus on the debt buying industry. • INCREASE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND RESOURCES FOR PEOPLE SUED BY DEBT
BUYERS. Overall, only 1% of people sued by debt buyers in New York City are represented by counsel. The abusive practices described in this report have flourished because of the gross imbalance of power between represented debt buyers and unrepresented New Yorkers. New York City and State should correct this imbalance by supporting increased legal representation and resources for low-income people sued by debt buyers. REFERENCE: Debt Deception: How Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to Prey on Lower-Income New Yorkers 29
EXHIBIT 6 ECMC’S DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES ORGANIZED FRAUD
STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT SCAM A void Judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nulity and without legal effect, Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. (1972)
1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction (CPLR § 3211(a)( 2. Failure to state a cause of action (CPLR § 3211(a)(7)); and 3. Failure to join a necessary party (CPLR § 3211(a)(10)). 30
EXHIBIT 7 THE CRIMINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT CREATION SCAM 190.23 - FALSE PERSONATION. PATRICIA L. MCCARTHY THE COURT CLERK IMPERSONATING A JUDGE BY SIGNING THIS ORGANIZED FRAUD STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENT AND CRIMINALLY DOING SO WITHOUT ANY EVIDENTIARY PROOF.
PATRICIA L. MCCARTHY COURT CLERK AND JUDICIAL IMPERSONATOR
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 – Creation/Possession of usurious loan records. 31
EXHIBIT 8 THIS IS THE ECMC CONSPIRATORS NON CERTIFIED SUMMONS A VIOLATION OF THE COURT RULES 4. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction (CPLR ยง 3211(a)( 5. Failure to state a cause of action (CPLR ยง 3211(a)(7)); and 6. Failure to join a necessary party (CPLR ยง 3211(a)(10)).
EXHIBIT 9 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 CIRCUMSTANCE ) 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)
THIS IS ECMC’S CRIMINALLY CONSPIRED AND ENJOINED FALSE AND LEGALLY INADEQUATE AFFIDAVIT, A VIOLATION OF CPLR SECTIONS 3212, 3215, AND 4518 BUSINESS RECORDS. ADDITIONALLY, THEIR CONSPIRATORIAL AFFIDAVITS OBSTRUCT THE EVIDENCE PROTECTIONS IN: FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56C AND FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 106, 601, 602, 603, 803B5, AND THE AUTHENTICATION RULES IN FED.R.EVID. 901(A). NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE PURE ORGANIZED FRAUD
A. 18 U.S.C. §1030: (a)(4): Falsification of computer records B. 18 U.S.C. §872: Extortion under the color of law C. 18 U.S.C. §1341: Fraud
EXHIBIT 11 ORGANIZED FRAUD CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS A. 18 U.S.C. ยง1030: (a)(4): Falsification of computer records B. 18 U.S.C. ยง872: Extortion under the color of law C. 18 U.S.C. ยง1341: Fraud
EXHIBIT 12 HYAT, HYAT AND LANDAU PATTERNED AND PRACTICED FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ORGANIZED FRAUD COMPLIMENTING THE PRIOR ACTS http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PFAU_NYS_LAW_SUIT_AGAINS T_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
EXHIBIT 13 HYAT, HYAT AND LANDAU PATTERNED AND PRACTICED FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ORGANIZED FRAUD COMPLIMENTING THE PRIOR ACTS http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PFAU_NYS_LAW_SUIT_AGAINS T_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
A. 18 U.S.C. ยง1030: (a)(4): Falsification of computer records
The details changed from time to time, some of the conspirators may not know each other, or the part played by others, but a member need not know all the details of the plan and operation, the conspirator must however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Please see: Craig v. U.S. 81 F2d 816.
EXHIBIT 15 COURT RECEIPT FOR THE COURT OF THE CLERK JUDICIAL IMPOSTURE FILES. PLEASE NOTE THE FILES WERE CERTIFIED ON THE BACK OF THE PAGE BECAUSE THIS IS PRIORITIZED ORGANIZED FRAUD FROM THE COURTS
This ECMC ongoing student loan conspiracy against rights and the theft of money crime scams were designed so ECMC or any other debt collector or lawyer could drop in, when the defraud judgment creation lawyers dropped out. The details changed from time to time, some of the conspirators may not know each other, or the part played by others, but a member need not know all the details of the plan and operation, the conspirator must however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Please see: Craig v. U.S. 81 F2d 816.
EXHIBIT 16 FORGED ECMC STUDENT LOAN PROMISSORY NOTE BANK ENDORSEMENT I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT, MIRIM SNYDER DID NOT SIGN, AUTHORIZE OR CONSENT TO THE BELOW PROMISSORY NOTE FORGED ENDORSEMENT BELOW IS NOT MIRIAM SNYDER’S ENDORSEMENT THE BELOW IS CRIMINAL FORGERY AND COLLUSION BETWEEN ECMC BOYLE AND VOLPE DESPERATE SECURITIZATION SCHEME TO DEFRAUD 170.00 Forgery; definitions of terms.
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. 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 NO NOTARY – REQUIRED FOR LEGAL ENDORSEMENT Making a false NO DATE OF ENDORSEMENT statement of credit NO CORPORATE SEAL terms. 190.60 ROBO-STAMPED FORGED, UNAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Scheme to defraud in the second degree. 190.65 - Scheme to defraud in the first degree. New York Laws: Penal : 40 (185.00 - 185.15) Frauds On Creditors 185.05 - Fraud involving a security
170.05 Forgery in the third degree. 170.10 Forgery in the second degree. 170.15 Forgery in the first degree. 170.20 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree. 170.25 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree
"Complete written instrument" means one which purports to be a genuine written instrument fully drawn with respect to every essential feature thereof.
An endorsement, attestation, acknowledgment or other similar signature or statement
ROBO-STAMPED JOHN VOLPE
is deemed both a complete written
Article 190 OTHER FRAUDS of the main instrument in which instrument in itself and a part
190.23 - False 190.25 Criminal impersonation contained or to which it in the second degree. 190.26 - Criminal attaches. impersonation in the first degree it personation. is
EXHIBIT 17 PATTERN AND PRATCTICE OF HAYT, HAYT AND LANDAU DOCUMENTED ORGANIZED FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY CRIMES http://endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU_PFAU_NYS_LAW_SUIT_AGAINST_DEBT _COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
EXHIBIT 18 HAYT, HAYT AND LANDAU ORGANIZED FRAUD DOCUMENTED
EXHIBIT 19 (8 PAGES) 2012 NY Slip Op 50008 Midland Funding LLC d/b/a in New York as Midland Funding of Delaware LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dianne Wallace, Defendant. 1788-08 City Court of Mt. Vernon Decided on January 5, 2012
Rubin & Rothman, LLC Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Counsel for Midland Funding LLC & Rubin & Rothman, LLC Dianne Wallace Defendant Pro Se The Lawyers' Fund For Client Protection Mark A. Gross, J. By Decision and Order dated September 6, 2010, this Court ordered a hearing to determine whether sanctions would be imposed upon plaintiff and/or plaintiff's attorneys for filing a frivolous debt collection lawsuit. On or about June 18, 2010 plaintiff moved ex parte to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on June 17, 2008 and to discontinue the action. Although the plaintiff failed to provide any explanation regarding why the judgment was erroneously entered or the reason for the two year delay in seeking to vacate said judgment, the Court granted plaintiff's request to vacate the default judgment so that the defendant would no longer be prejudiced by having a default judgment on her record. Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney were directed to appear before this Court on October 5, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. for a hearing to determine whether plaintiff's attorneys should be sanctioned under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1 for their frivolous conduct in entering a default judgment against the defendant in error and failing to vacate said erroneous judgment in a timely fashion.
Specifically, the plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with documentary proof of the alleged claim in the instant action establishing plaintiff's prima facie case, including the entire chain of assignment(s) of the debt alleged. The Court further directed that plaintiff and/or its attorneys provide the Court with a sufficient explanation as to why the default judgment was entered in error and why there was a two year delay in seeking vacatur of said erroneous default judgment. The hearing was adjourned several times and finally was held on January 10, 2011. Contrary to the assertions in plaintiff's motion, at the hearing, plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that it had mistakenly sought to vacate the default judgment entered due to an error by one of plaintiff's counsel's associates. Plaintiff had instructed counsel to vacate a judgment on another file counsel handled for plaintiff, however, counsel's office inadvertently transposed one file digit which led to the mistaken motion to vacate the judgment in the instant matter. Plaintiff's counsel contends that plaintiff had a valid judgment against Dianne Wallace, the defendant herein. In support of their contention that plaintiff's judgment against Ms. Wallace is valid, plaintiff's counsel produced an Assignment of Accounts from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to Midland Funding LLC dated February 10, 2006 which references two other agreements which were not produced. Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a sworn statement of Andrew Carlson, the Manager of Portfolio Sales for Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. In his statement, Mr. Carlson swears that CompuCredit Corporation is the parent corporation of Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and that CompuCredit Corporation acquired certain credit card accounts issued by Columbus Bank and Trust Company. Mr. Carlson further swears that after the accounts are charged off by CompuCredit the accounts are transferred and assigned to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. Mr. Carlson also affirms that Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC subsequently sold many of the accounts it had acquired to Midland Funding, LLC which sale was consummated by an Assignment of Accounts. It is further sworn that the accounts associated with the Columbus Bank and Trust Company accounts are identified as being in bin 410636 and that all information regarding those credit card accounts was transmitted electronically to the account purchasers. Ms. Danielle Wohlfehrt, a legal outsourcing manager for Midland Credit Managing, the servicing agent for plaintiff, testified at the hearing that based upon her experience in the consumer debt industry, a credit card account in the name of Dianne Wallace was included in the account bin referenced in Mr. Carlson's affirmation.
The Court notes that only one actual assignment of plaintiff's account was submitted to the Court in support of plaintiff's counsel's contention that plaintiff's judgment against Ms. Wallace was valid, that being the assignment from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to Midland Funding LLC. Plaintiff's counsel was unable to present admissible evidence of the entire chain of assignment of the underlying debt in this matter. Noticeably missing was an assignment from the original creditor Columbus Bank and Trust Company, with whom defendant allegedly entered into a credit card agreement, to CompuCredit Corporation. The alleged assignment from CompuCredit Corporation to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC was also not produced. Mr. Carlson's hearsay assertion in his affirmation that such assignments took place is not sufficient as a matter of law to prove that such an assignment took place. See, Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). Moreover, the Court finds Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony to be inconsequential to plaintiff's contention that it had a prima facie case against the defendant. First, Ms. Wohlfehrt acknowledged that she had no personal knowledge of the assignment of the alleged debt between any of the parties. Rather, Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony relied solely upon the documents that were provided after the alleged assignment took place. Second, Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony regarding the electronically transferred documents highlights the fact that there is no actual proof that defendant's account was actually assigned. According to Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony, the assignment of accounts refers to a series of credit card accounts grouped together by the first seven digits of the account numbers referred to as the bin number. In fact, Ms. Wohlfehrt acknowledged that she does not know if all of the accounts issued by Columbus Bank and Trust having the same bin number were part of the assignment. As such, there is no admissible proof specifically establishing that defendant's credit card account was one of the accounts assigned.The Court also notes that Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony is itself contradictory in that she testified that the bin number was the first seven digits of the credit card account numbers yet the documents submitted by plaintiff's counsel as evidence of the assignment only show a bin number that is six digits, not seven. Nothing in Ms. Wohlfehrt's testimony establishes plaintiff's chain of assignment of defendant's alleged debt and therefore, plaintiff's counsel did not have a prima facie case against defendant. It is plaintiff's counsel's contention that plaintiff need not be able to establish a prima facie case before issuing a summons and complaint. Rather, counsel contends that the rules requiring certification of a summons and complaint require only that plaintiff have a basis in law and fact before commencing an action and need not have the requisite proof 45
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, 46
especially in light of the fact that it was ordered by the Court to produce documentary proof of the alleged claim, including the entire chain of assignment of the debt. Ignoring their obligations, plaintiff's counsel merely produced the one assignment from Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC to its client and an affidavit containing hearsay allegations regarding the remaining assignments, including the one from the original creditor. The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel's failure to produce the directed documentary proof is even more egregious given plaintiff's assertion at the very outset of hearing that the judgment herein was valid (despite plaintiff's prior request to vacate the same) and further given the fact that the hearing was adjourned from its originally scheduled date at counsel's request and then was further adjourned in mid-hearing for one more month to allow counsel yet another opportunity to obtain the necessary documentary proof. The apparent lack of a factual basis for the claim renders plaintiff's counsel's conduct in commencing this action without having proof of its merit frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR § 130 -1.1(c). Moreover, the Court takes issue with plaintiff's counsel's contention that they fulfilled the requirements of CPLR § 3215 in obtaining the default judgment. CPLR § 3215 requires submission of an affidavit of merit setting forth the factual proof constituting the claim made by the party in support of such party's application for a default judgment. In the case at bar, the Court does not consider the affidavit submitted by plaintiff with its default judgment application to be an affidavit satisfying the requirements under CPLR § 3215. First, the affidavit is by a non-titled employee of plaintiff's servicing agent and as such is not a affidavit made by the party as required under CPLR § 3215. See HSBC Bank v. Betts, 67 AD3d 735 (2nd Dept. 2009). Second, the allegations asserted in the affidavit are not made by an individual with first hand knowledge of the facts. Although the affidavit is carefully drafted to appear as if the affirmant has actual knowledge of the underlying facts, in fact, the allegations are based upon hearsay. At one point the affirmant actually asserts "[u]pon information and belief, defendant(s) used or authorized the use of credit card account to obtain loans from the original credit grantor ...." Clearly, the affirmant had no first hand knowledge of the facts constituting the claim as required under CPLR § 3215. 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. 47
The fact that the New York City courts had to explicitly delineate how to satisfy the statutory prerequisite under CPLR ยง 3215 for assignee plaintiff's in consumer debt cases because of the abusive conduct of counsel for assignee creditors' does not mean that the rules have changed. Rather, it means that assignee plaintiff's and their counsel were improperly seeking default judgments in consumer cases where they did not have the requisite proof of facts constituting the claim and so the courts felt the need to direct counsel regarding the proper statutory pre-requisites for a default judgment in a consumer debt action. The Court is outraged at counsel's cavalier retort "so we don't win at trial" in response to the Court's contention that plaintiff's counsel could not have had an actual basis in law and fact because plaintiff did not have a complete chain of assignments. See January 10, 2011 Hearing Transcript, pg. 16, line 14. Clearly, plaintiff's counsel knows that under New York law, a full chain of assignment in addition to documentary proof of the contract and debt is required in order to prove a prima facie case in a consumer debt action where the plaintiff is an assignee of the original creditor. See, Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); Palisades Collection, LLC v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc 3d 1058A (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005); DNS Equity Group, Inc. Lavalle, 26 Misc 3d 1228A (Dist. Ct. Nassau Cty. 2010). Without proof of the chain of assignment plaintiff is unable to show its standing to sue the defendant and a lack of standing renders a litigation a nullity, subject to dismissal without prejudice. Citibank v. Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219 (Civ. Ct. NYC 2005). The sentiment behind counsel's statement renders the intent behind both the certification requirement under 22 NYCRR ยง 130 -1.1-a and the affidavit of merit requirement under CPLR ยง 3215 utterly meaningless. The Court is similarly appalled at plaintiff's counsel's conduct in the case at bar. First, plaintiff's counsel both commenced an action and took a default judgment without having a chain of assignment or proper documentary proof of a claim. Then plaintiff's counsel made an ex-parte application to vacate the default judgment two years later on the grounds that it was entered in error without providing a further explanation. 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
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER, CONSUMER
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS
JANICE HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RICHARD BOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ECMC),
FICTITIOUS PAYEES ------------------------------------------------------------------X Miriam Snyder victim of Educational Credit Management Corporation grand larceny conspiracies and continuing offenses/crimes, duly sworn deposes and says: I.
I, Miriam Snyder write this criminal report based on personal knowledge. I am seeking an end to the attached egregious crimes inflicted on me by a junk debt buyer company titled Educational Credit Management Corporation.
I submit this affidavit in support of the attached ECMC Criminal Complaint for Administrative Sanctions and Penalties.
I attest to the facts in the Criminal Complaint and Demand for sanctionâ€™s and penalties to deter these crimes. I further attest to the veracity in every statement and exhibit attached to this criminal complaint.
I attest to the fact that the statements in the criminal complaint and demand for Sanctions are true, accurate and correct.
V. I attest to the fact that the ECMC conspirators have submitted organized fraud alleged court papers to steal from Miriam Snyder. They are using fictional court papers that stem from a complaint with no verification in opposition to: 52
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 1301.1(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." 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. VI.
Educational Credit Management Corporation Criminal Conspiracies and Continuing Offenses Collection Tactics include enjoining in an endless criminal judgment creation scheme to defraud already in progress conspiracy. ECMC joined in where the Hyat, Hyat and Landau conspirators dropped out via using criminal heavy-handed grand theft and extortion tactics to enforce the fraud Hyat, Hyat and Landau criminal conspirators had initiated and abandoned.
VII. ECMC Enjoined in organized fraud the minute they pursued and enforced their unauthenticated and forged documents. Please see exhibits 1-20. ECMC joined in after the first Conspirators Hyat, Hyat and Landau filed a frivolous lawsuit without having or being able to produce any proof. This fraud effectuated a nonauthenticated STATEMENT FOR JUDGEMENT FICTION. VIII. ECMC dropped in Hyat. Hyat and Landau conspiracy against rights under the disguise of default judgment enforcer. ECMC advanced the CONSPIRACIES AND CONTINUING OFFENSES by filing the frivolous and fictional court papers without checking authentication and got money for such organized fraud.
Hyat, Hyat and Landau were the initial criminal conspirators who sought default judgment on the basis of a non-certified complaint, coupled with false and legally inadequate affidavits, a violation of CPLR Sections 3212, 3215, and 4518 Business Records. Additionally, their conspiratorial affidavits obstruct the evidence protections in: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56c and Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 106, 601, 602, 603, 803b5, and the authentication rules in Fed.R.Evid. 901(a).
Hyat, Hyat, and Landau the first criminal conspirators hired and used known process serving agencies that routinely fail to serve people. Please see evidence of such here: http://www.endorganizedcrimeuniverse.com/assets/download/HAYT__HAYT_AND_LANDAU _PFAU_NYS_LAW_SUIT_AGAINST_DEBT_COLLECTORS_SEWER_SERVICE.pdf
I was not served any summons and complaint in this matter. I found out about this fraud through a criminal fictional income execution that stole my money. A Default judgment was criminally created and sought after via organized fraud. The first conspirators Hyat, Hyat and Landau, just like ECMC has no standing to collect or sue as they do not own nor had or have a contract with Miriam Snyder.
XII. The major conspirator set in place is the court clerk impersonating a judge by signing default judgments, better yet, criminally signing and rendering criminal STATEMENT FOR JUDGMENTS that are being criminally used as actual judgments signed by a judge, when they are not signed by a judge by design. This is where the conspiracies and continuing offenses, criminally begin by the court clerk impersonating a judge and maliciously not checking the debt buyersâ€™ evidence. A separate criminal complaint will be written detailing and addressing the court clerk impersonating a judge crimes under the lawless leadership of a NYS Chief judicial impersonator and trespasser. XIII. I have no record, or competent evidence of any application or Business agreement signed and agreed upon by ECMC and Miriam Snyder. XIV. I am not in receipt of any document which verifies that ECMC has or has had any permission, consent, or permissible purpose to steal my money. XV. I am not in receipt of an ECMC joinder, agreement, assignment, novation contract and or any contract. XVI. The ECMC criminals have not proven with certified documentation (contract or written agreement) establishing any business relationship with Miriam Snyder. 54
XVII. I have no record, knowledge or belief that an ECMC, contract or “agreement”, exist between ECMC, Hayt, Hyat and Landau and Miriam Snyder, nor has there been any evidence of such presented to me.
ECMC has not proffered any evidence to support their claim for stealing my
money and or advancing this documented organized fraud, particularly without contract or agreement established. This is fatally obstructive.
XIX. The ECMC criminals have failed to establish a permissible and an independent basis for stealing over $1,800.00 from Miriam Snyder and sanctions are needed to stop them from stealing the premeditated over $50,000.00 documented in their organized fraud court fiction papers.
XX. In plain English, the ECMC conspirators have failed to produce any evidence that is a permissible purpose for stealing Miriam Snyder’s money and therefore have no right to continue to do so without sanctions and penalty. XXI. ECMC’s unsigned extortion letters, the extortion in itself, and the organized court fraud documents are defective and devoid of foundation and relevant facts and are terroristic. There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes for federal crimes of terrorism, such as this.
XXII. The ECMC conspirators have failed to execute the reasonable standard of care a person trained in debt buying and collection would have executed.
I submit this Demand for Sanctions and penalties to stop ECMC’s ongoing
conspiracy against rights embedded in the theft of my money, their malice, baseless, harassing, vexatious and malicious filings from its inception. 55
I object to the authenticity and validity of each and every one of ECMC’s
organized fraud court documents used to steal my money. XXV. I attest under penalty of perjury that the organized fraud exhibits attached were received from ECMC and the courts exemplifying organized fraud in stealing my money and mail fraud. XXVI.
Miriam Snyder has first-hand knowledge as to the nature of the documents
and their authenticity. ECMC sent Miriam Snyder forged Promissory note documents in addition to their unsigned extortion letters.
XXVII. In particular I object to the use of a non-certified complaint and a nonexistent judgment to steal my money and I object to the validity of all ECMC fdocuments used to steal my money. XXVIII.
I attest under penalty of perjury that ECMC has no business relations with
me and had and has no right to my money. I further attest that the ECMC criminals are negligently and maliciously using the student loan forum to wilfully and maliciously invoke deceit and theft as illustrated in their inability to produce a contract, refusal to sign their very own letters, and the organized fraud court documents they are using to steal my money. XXIX.
I, Miriam Snyder declare under penalty of perjury that the following fees,
costs and expenses for which reimbursement is sought are directly related to the volatile obstructive practices and crimes ECMC has inflicted on me. 1. Sanction fees: Costs for research, time, consultations, copies, and
administrative costs: $10, 00.00. 2. ECMC’s criminal conduct violated the several laws in the criminal complaint
and exhibits attached. Actual Damage, Indignation, Pain, Suffering, Embarrassment, Humiliation, etc… $175,000.00 56
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------X MIRIAM SNYDER, CONSUMER
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR SANCTIONS
-VJANICE HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, RICHARD BOYLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (ECMC), FICTITIOUS PAYEES
------------------------------------------------------------------X I, Miriam Snyder, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Criminal Complaint for ECMC Sanctions and Penalties, Exhibits and Affidavit in Support of ECMC Sanctions and Penalties were emailed according to the below and mailed via U.S. Post Mail to the specific parties listed below on the 12th day of March, 2014 to the following addresses: US MAIL 3/12/14 Eric Holder, US Attorney General US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Criminal Section – PHB Washington, DC 20530 US MAIL 312/14 Andrew Cuomo, NYS Governor, http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php Elder Abuse Unit State of New York, State Capitol Albany, NY 12224 58
US MAIL 3/12/14 NYC FBI, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org FBI Victim Assistance, 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 Phone: (212) 384-1000 AND Fax: (212) 384-4073 / 4074 FAXED AND OR EMAILED ACCORDINGLY: US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Section â€“ 1425 NYAV Washington, D.C. 20530 Fax: (202) 307-1197 email@example.com U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Educational Opportunities Section, PHB Washington, D.C. 20530 AskDOJ@usdoj.gov firstname.lastname@example.org
Bureau of Consumer Protection, COMPLAINT@FTC.GOV email@example.com. Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-2222 FAXED AND EMAILED: https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/tipline Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5074 Fax: (202) 225-3974 Faxed To: 718 325 8351 Social Security Administration 3247 Laconia Avenue Bronx, NY 10469
US Congressman Schumer, firstname.lastname@example.org 780 Third Avenue Suite 2301 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-486-4430 Fax: 212-486-7693
Congressman Eliot Engle, Congressman_Engel@housemail.house.gov 3655 Johnson Avenue Bronx, NY 10463 Phone (718) 796-9700 Fax: (718)796-5134 FAXED TO: 410 962 4910 Department of the Treasury Financial Management Service P.O. Box 1686 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-1686
US Dept. of Education, OCR@ed.gov Federal Offset PO Box 16288 St Paul, MN 55116 Cathleen Tighe, email@example.com Inspector General US Department of Education Office of Inspector General 400 Maryland Ave SW Washington Dc 20202-1500 Fax 202 245 7047
Respectfully, _______________________ Miriam Snyder, Pro Se Plaintiff 3230 Cruger Avenue 6B Bronx, NY 10467
FAX REPORT Date / Time Mar 10/14 09:10 AM Mar 10/14 09:10 AM Mar 11/14 11:45 PM Mar 12/14 12:11 AM Mar 12/14 12:08 AM Mar 11/14 11:46 PM Mar 11/14 11:16 PM Mar 12/14 01:00 AM Mar 12/14 06:23 AM Mar 12/14 06:23 AM Mar 12/14 06:23 AM Mar 12/14 06:24 AM Mar 12/14 07:22 AM
To / From Number 1 212-264-0246 1 212-384-4073 1 718-325-8351 1 202-225-3974 1 202-307-1197 1 410-962-4910 1 202-245-7047 1 202-245-7047 1 202-225-3974 1 202-245-7047 1 718-325-8351 1 410-962-4910 1 410-597-0118
Pgs 8 8 62 62 62 62 62 62 1 1 1 1 62 454
Type OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT
Status Sent Sent Sent Sent Sent Sent Failed Sent Sent Sent Sent Sent Sent
Length 9:48 9:56 29:22 55:25 51:55 30:07 71:04 99:09 0:39 0:22 0:25 0:27 27:17 385:56
Remote fax abo