NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
-----------------------------------------------------X
Scott Michael
Mishkin, P.C.
Plaintiff,
- against -
"P.G."
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------X
2nd AMENDED VERIFIED
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT "P.G."
Defendant, "P.G.",
appearing pro se, complaining of the Defendant, alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
..........1).....This Answer is also a criminal complaint against the
RICO formed by the enterprise corruption of Hon. Peter H. Mayer, Hon. Denise F. Molio and Plaintiff Scott Michael Mishkin
to recover damages based on the aforesaid RICO continued attempts to employ the Judaic doctrines Law of the Moser, Use of
Subterfuge to Trick Gentiles and Curse of Dark Skin. Law of the Moser prohibits Jews from reporting the crimes of fellow Jews
to the Gentile/secular law enforcement authorities; and which requires Jews' active participation to ensure that Gentiles
are prevented from filing criminal complaints against Jewish attorney Scott Michael Mishkin or any other Jew. See Babylonian
Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 26b); Informing on Fellow Jews Who Commit Crimes; Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba
Kamma, Folio 113a; Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 108b, footnote 34; Midrash Rabbah, page
293 attached as Exhibit A.
Crimes
With Which Defendant Charges RICO Members:
........2).....RICO/enterprise corruption, 18 USC §1962-1968, NYS
Penal Law §460; official misconduct, §195.00; New York State Judiciary Law, Misconduct by attorney; §487, collusion;
New York State Hate Crimes, §485; New York State larceny, §155.35 Grand larceny in the third degree; New York
State offenses involving false written statement, §175.35, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree;
New York State perjury and related offenses, §210.15, perjury in the first degree; New York State kidnapping, coercion
and related offenses §135.65 coercion in the first degree. Illegal Acts For Which Defendant Charge
the Plaintiff and Other Members of RICO.
.........3).....On March 13, 2012, while employing
willful blindness so as not to be aware that the statute of limitation on the action on which he pretended to work had already
expired, Plaintiff engaged in racism, fraud and grand larceny by stealing $12,000, $3,000 to be deposed from the Defendant
for which to do work on her time-barred. On the following day, Defendant faxed the complaint for the time-barred case.
.........4).....On
March 23, 2012, Plaintiff sent Defendant an e-mail that stated that he received the entire EEOC file of Defendant's time-barred
action. Plaintiff sent an e-mail to start performing work on the time-barred demanding $12,000 for the retainer fee and $350
for the filing fee. Defendant also procured the following information of her time-barred case: a) Defendant's
50H transcript; b) Plaintiff's complaint; c) chronology; d) the notice of claim; e) a “right to sue” letter. At
the time that Defendant submitted her documents, Defendant, who lacks legal experience, was unaware that her legal action
was time-barred because the statute of limitation on her action had expired.
.........5).....Defendant alleges that, from ____________
201__ to ___________201__, that while unknown to the Defendant, and in an attempt to create a legal technicality on which
to base dismissal of Defendant's case, Hon. Denise F. Molia employed willful blindness regarding knowledge of the Defendant's
address, so as to later charge the Defendant with some fictitious form of “contempt” for not responding to the
court appearance documents expeditiously that Defendant never knew she had; and that Plaintiff and Hon. Denise F. Molio colluded
and conspired to use one of the court's clerk to illegally mail court appearance documents to than Defendant's post office
box, even though court personnel had immediate access to Defendant's post office box, her telephone number, her telephone,
her job and her home address.
.........6).....That prior to June 17, 2014, Justice Denise F. Molio and Plaintiff Scott Michael Mishkin colluded
and conspired to deprive Defendant of her right to due process by cancelling the appointment for Defendants to attend the
certification conference.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
.........7).....Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious and irrelevant because, inter alia, at the risk of filing a criminal complaint
against this Court, the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant should be made to pay money
to the Plaintiff because he was so incompetent that he performed work on a case that was time-barred when
he met it and adjudged to be time-barred a few months later.1 The statute of limitation to the case to which the Plaintiff refers expired months before the Defendant met
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no legal standing to ask this Court to force the Defendant to pay for an contract that would
have been too unconscionable to honor because the case was found to be time-barred (there was never any viable cause of action
for which the Plaintiff could present a viable case, a fact that is verified by federal district judge Sandra Feuerstein and
federal magistrate Tomlinson and Counsel for the Defendant (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2012cv01482/328688/75/0.pdf; also see Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc. v. Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein LLP, 806 NYS2d 436 (2006), the court
held that the three-year statute of limitations period for the legal malpractice case started running from the date that the
plaintiff-client signed a Consent to Change Attorney form with the defendant-client. By signing that form (which indicates
that a client no longer wants the attorney to act as its counsel), the attorney-client relationship terminated and the clock
began ticking on the potential legal malpractice claim. As the lawsuit was filed after the three-year period, the plaintiff-client
was time-barred from commencing the legal malpractice case and it was dismissed. Defendant reiterates under penalties of perjury
that the Plaintiff committed perjury. Defendant will contact Allstate Insurance Company to ensure that the Plaintiff does
not use his false testimony to illegally collect money from Defendant's insurance to receive payment for a case that was already
adjudicated as time-barred.
JURISDICTION
.....FIRST-Q: The
jurisdiction of the Court over this controversy is based upon breach of contract as well as for quantum meruit that form part
of this case and controversy.
.....FIRST-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious. This Court has no jurisdiction over this case for the following reasons:
1) Plaintiff has no standing to ask this Court to help him trick the Defendant into helping him submit a fraudulent insurance
claim to pay his “fee” for doing work on a case that was time-barred when he met it, and adjudged to time-barred
a few months later. The Plaintiff does not have standing to commit perjury for the sole purpose of steal money from the Defendant
for a time-barred case. The Plaintiff had no right to defraud the Defendant into paying money into a case that was adjudicated
as time-barred based on the expiration of the statute of limitation. The statute of limitations for Defendant's case expired
even before Defendant met with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's acceptance of Defendant's $12,000 for a res judicata case are
fraud and grand larceny, both of which are crimes, that amazingly, the Plaintiff admits to in his Verified Complaint.
.....SECOND-Q: Therefore,
this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants in this action.
.....SECOND-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as provably
perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing. This Court has no legal jurisdiction over the Defendant because
the case cannot be tried in any court. It is time-barred. In addition, the Plaintiff's contractual condition are greedy, racially
motivated and unconscionable. The Plaintiff's conditions allows the Plaintiff, who is a Jew, to charge the Defendant thousands
of dollars to honor an unconscionable contract to “litigate” a case that has no chance of being accepted by any
court because it is time-barred and too late to file anywhere.
VENUE
.....THIRD-Q: The
unlawful conduct alleged below was committed within Suffolk County in the State of New York.
.....THIRD-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as provably perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing to demand that the Court force the Defendant
to pay for legal services on a case that was already adjudicated as time-barred. The illegal conduct alleged by the Plaintiff
did not start with the Defendant – it started with the Plaintiff and soon branched out to become a RICO that now includes
court personnel. Cheryl D. Uzamere reported said crimes to the following law enforcement agencies: 1) the New York State Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, 2nd Jurisdictional Department; 2) the Suffolk County District Attorney; 3) Loretta Lynch,
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; 4) the Supreme Court of the United States (Defendant's sister Cheryl
included Plaintiff's adherence to the Judaic doctrine Law of the Moser in her petition for a writ of certiorari); and, 5)
the United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. Said crimes were also mentioned at Defendant's sister's
website (http://thecrimesofsenatoruzamere.net/will_black_victim_get_justice.html) which shows the pictures of those court employees who are involved in helping the Plaintiff force his unconscionable
contract on the Defendant that requires her to pay the Plaintiff for legal services for a case that can never be used
in any courtroom because the case is time-barred; this is also based on case law (Frost Line Refrigeration,
Inc. v. Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein LLP, 806 NYS2d 436 (2006).
.....FOURTH-Q: At the time of the unlawful practices, plaintiff's
principle place of business was in Suffolk County in the State of New York.
.....FOURTH-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as provably
perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff lack the standing to tell this or any court that he suffered injury because
the Defendant figured out that the Plaintiff had defrauded her to give him $12,000 for a time-barred case. There are not,
nor have there ever been any unlawful practices on the part of the Defendant who is a practicing and obedient Jehovah's Witness.
Defendant's case was time-barred even before she met and discussed the case with the Plaintiff. Defendant intends to produce
her Verified Answer to the Allstate Insurance Company's general counsel to give the Plaintiff the opportunity to tell Allstate's
attorney that the Defendant's insurance should be used to pay for litigating a case that was time-barred even before he met
the Defendant.
.....FIFTH-Q: At
all times relevant to this action, plaintiffs residence was in Suffolk County in the State of New York.
.....FIFTH-A: Defendants denies
Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because the case was adjudicated as time-barred.
.....SIXTH-Q: Therefore, this Court is the proper venue.
.....SIXTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious and ridiculous because it was time-barred by the statute of limitations
when he met it, and adjudged to be time-barred a few months later. The only way that this Court can exercise jurisdiction
over the Dependant is illegally. If this Court exercises jurisdiction over the Defendant, this Court's justice will be reported
to: 1) the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2nd Jurisdictional Department; the Suffolk County District Attorney;
the New York State Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court of the United States and the United Nations Office of the High Commission
for Human Right, and to Defendant's sister's website. There is no legal or logical way that this Court can require the Defendant
to pay for legal services for a case that can never be used in any courtroom because it has already been declared time-barred.
While the Plaintiff's religion allows him to take advantage of Gentiles, it would violate the Defendant's First Amendment
rights to separation of church and state and freedom of speech; her Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law; and her
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law as a Gentile, as an African American and as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
FACTS
.....SEVENTH-Q: On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff and defendant
entered into a retainer agreement where the plaintiff agreed to represent the defendant in connection with an action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), for national origin discrimination and retaliation against defendant, by her employer
as well as for discrimination against defendant by her employer and certain individuals, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983, as well as for pendent State Causes of action in violation of New York Executive Law §290 et seq.
.....SEVENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious and as ridiculous because the Plaintiff does not have the right to require
the Defendant to pay him more money because he tricked her earlier to pay him $12,000 for a case that he refused to acknowledge
as properly time-barred. The Plaintiff perjures himself and defrauded the Defendant based on his attempt to give this Court
the false impression that Defendant's case was and is not time-barred. Defendant's case was time-barred even before the
met the Plaintiff for the first time.
.....EIGHTH-Q: The
April 11, 2012, fully executed retainer agreement, provided, inter alia, that in consideration for the services plaintiff
would render, the defendant would pay plaintiff a minimum fee of Twelve Thousand ($12,000.00) Dollars, (minimum fee) toward
the hourly rate for attorney work at Three Hundred Seventy Five ($375.00) Dollars and at the hourly rate of One Hundred Eighty
Five ($185.00) Dollars for paralegal work.
.....EIGHTH-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious enough
to warrant arresting him. The Defendant has no standing to demand this Court to force the Defendant to pay him to litigate
a time-barred case, nor does the Plaintiff have the standing to use this Court to trick the Defendant into believing that
it is normal to pay thousands of dollar for a case that the Plaintiff found to be time-barred, and that was adjudged to be
time-barred a few months later.
.....The
leading case for unconscionability in the United States is Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965). In this case that explains an unconscionable contact, the defendant,
a retail furniture store, sold multiple items to a customer from 1957 to 1962. The extended credit contract was written so
that none of the furniture was considered to be purchased until all of it was paid for. When the plaintiff defaulted and failed
to make payments on the last item of furniture, the furniture store attempted to repossess all of the furniture sold since
1957, not just the last item. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals returned the case to the lower court for trial to
determine further facts, but held that the contract could be considered unconscionable and negated if it was procured due
to a gross inequality of bargaining power.
.....The Defendant holds that even if she included persuasive case law, justice requires fairness.
Defendant holds that it is unfair to trick a client to pay for a service for which neither Defendant or her case can obtain
any benefit. Defendant holds that the Plaintiff's act in charging the Defendant money for a service from which her case could
never benefit was an act of fraud. It was fraudulent then, and it is fraudulent now. It is also racist based on the Judaic
believe that as a Jew, the Plaintiff has the right to rip Gentiles off with impunity – especially African Americans,
and to allow Plaintiff and other Jews to oppress Gentiles with impunity.
.....NINTH-Q: Defendant also agreed and acknowledged that in
further consideration of the services rendered to her by plaintiff that in the event she received monetary recovery, whether
by settlement and/or by any other means, (exclusive of disbursements), including but not limited to a jury verdict and/or
mediation, that exceeded her minimum fee, that her minimum fee would be returned to her first by plaintiff and then plaintiff's
fee would be thirty-three and one third percent of any sum recovered in excess of her minimum fee.
.....NINTH-A: Defendant first
denies Plaintiff's statement as hearsay, unusable by this Court. Additionally, Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as
perjurious, unprovable, racially and religiously motivated based on the Judaic doctrines Law of the Moser, that requires Jews
not to report the crimes of fellow Jews to other Gentiles (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Abodah Zarah, Folio 26b; that allows
Jews to use subterfuge to trick Gentiles in judicial settings (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Kamma, Folio 113a); and the
Curse of Dark Skin (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate 108b, footnote 34). Defendant also reminds this Court that the Plaintiff has no standing to require the Defendant to obey an unconscionable contract that requires her to pay an
attorney to attempt to litigate a case that was adjudged as time-barred.
.....TENTH-Q: As per the retainer agreement, defendant further
agreed that in the event a dispute should arise as to plaintiff's fees for legal services, that the fee dispute will be resolved
by arbitration conducted pursuant to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR), and that plaintiff
and defendant agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator(s) and agreed to waive their respective rights to reject
the arbitrator(s) award and would not commence an action on the merits (trial de novo) in a court of law.
.....TENTH-A: First,
Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing to tell this Court
that it has a legal obligation to help the Plaintiff trick the Defendant into paying thousands of dollars for legal work that
the Plaintiff never did, based on the Plaintiff's refusal to ascertain how many days the Plaintiff had left to litigate the
case. Defendant first denies Plaintiff's statement as hearsay, unusable by this Court. Additionally, Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious, unprovable, racially and religiously motivated because the Plaintiff took the $12,000 to perform
“legal work”, he did not do the legal work necessary to determine and acknowledge the case's lack of court-worthiness
of the time-barred case. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious, unprovable and racially and religiously motivated.
In addition, the Plaintiff has no standing to ask this Court to require the Defendant to obey an unconscionable contract that
requires Defendant to pay the Plaintiff for work he never did, based on the Plaintiff's failure to see that the case was time-barred.
The Plaintiff instead formed a RICO with members of this Court to engage in some childish
prank that a corrupt justice would use to employ willful blindness2, in order not to see the truth, but to see legal minutiae and other ways to misuse the law in order to render
decisions based on wrongly employed legal technicalities. The Plaintiff engaged in fraud to trick the Defendant into agreeing
to going along with a unconscionable contract for which Plaintiff rationalized Defendant as worthless based on her race and
religion, worthless as a Gentile and deserving to have $12,000 stolen from her by the Plaintiff, who rationalizes his commission
of grand larceny and fraud are entitlements because he is Jewish, and because of his belief that he can make arrangements
with this Court's justice because he is Jewish. Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR),
never applied to the Defendant because at the time of the Plaintiff's pretense of entering into a “contract”,
Defendant's case was declared res judicata by the federal district court because it was time-barred by the case's statute
of limitations.
.....ELEVENTH-Q:
The plaintiff and defendant understood that each were not required to agree to waive their rights to seek a trial de novo
under Part 137.
.....ELEVENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek a trial because Defendant's
case was time-barred before they met. It was officially adjudged to be time-barred by federal district magistrate Tomlinson
in her Memorandum and Order, and found to be correct by federal district just Sandra Feuerstein in her Order. The Plaintiff
does not possess psychic skills to be able to tell this Court
what Defendant understood. Defendant demands that this Court suffice it to say that a person who holds himself/herself
out to be psychic must not be believed.
Plaintiff's attempt
to offer unprovable statement as testimony to be believed by this Court is so incredibly dangerous that Defendant has no recourse
other than to report this grab for undeserved judicial favor to law enforcement.
.....TWEFLTH-Q: On April 18, 2013, defendant directed plaintiff
to stop representing her and requested to know what her financial obligation was to plaintiff.
.....TWEFLTH-A: To be determined during
discovery.
.....THIRTEENTH-Q: Defendant
further advised plaintiff that she wanted to represent herself, and that she was not firing plaintiff, that she was parting
with plaintiff in very good terms, and knew in her heart that plaintiff wanted to continue representing her and fighting for
her.
.....THIRTEENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing to require this Court to force
the Defendant to pay for “service rendered to a case that was time-barred before Plaintiff met the Defendant, and officially
adjudicated by a competent court of law. Also, if there is any time at which the Defendant believed the Plaintiff “knew
in her heart that Plaintiff wanted to continue representing her and fighting her”, all this implies is that the Defendant
was naive and lacked legal experience. Proof of this is the fact, instead of checking her case for the statute of limitations,
a relatively easy task for a person with a little bit of legal knowledge, instead, the Defendant naively gave the Plaintiff
$12,000 for a case that was time-barred when she met him, and adjudged to be time-barred a few months later. Defendant in
no way implies that the Plaintiff was anything other than a liar/perjurer, a thief and a criminal motivated by greed and by
so much of a sense of superiority over African Americans that he has no scruples to present his criminal verified complaint
to this Court – with a belief to an entitlement that requires this Court to form a RICO to violate the law – solely
because Plaintiff is a Jew.
.....In
addition, the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek a trial anywhere the Defendant is concerned. Defendant's case was time-barred
before they met. The case was officially adjudicated as time-barred by federal district magistrate Tomlinson in her Memorandum
and Order, and found to be correct by federal district just Sandra Feuerstein in her Order.
.....FOURTEENTH-Q: Defendant thanked plaintiff
for all their work, and that she was honorably discharging plaintiff as her attorney's.
.....FOURTEENTH-A: First, Defendant denies
Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing to tell this Court that it has a
legal obligation to help the Plaintiff trick the Defendant into paying thousands of dollars for legal work that the Plaintiff
never did, based on the Plaintiff's refusal to ascertain how many days the Plaintiff had left to litigate the case. Defendant
first denies Plaintiff's statement as hearsay, unusable by this Court. Additionally, Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement
as perjurious, unprovable, racially and religiously motivated because the Plaintiff took the $12,000 to perform “legal
work”, he did not do the legal work necessary to determine and acknowledge the case's lack of court-worthiness of the
time-barred case. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious, unprovable and racially and religiously motivated.
In addition, the Plaintiff has no standing to ask this Court to require the Defendant to obey an unconscionable contract that
requires Defendant to pay the Plaintiff for work he never did, based on the Plaintiff's failure to see that the case was time-barred.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement
as hearsay, perjurious and irrelevant because the Plaintiff has no standing to require this Court to force the Defendant to
pay for the legal services of determining when was that the Plaintiff never rendered”i to a case that was time-barred
Defendant he Union dale Union Free School District, and http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2012cv01482/328688/75/0.pdf on page eight (8), paragraph one (1), which says:
In countering these arguments, Defendants contend that (i) Plaintiff’s allegations regarding
her attorneys are vague and conclusory and are not sufficient to establish good cause; (ii) the addition of the Board of Education
is unnecessary since Plaintiff has already named the School District as a Defendant, which encompasses the Board of Education,
and, in any case, Plaintiff has long been aware of the existence of the Board of Education; (iii) any new details with respect
to Plaintiff’s national origin discrimination claims are unnecessary and/or duplicative since Plaintiff has already
conducted full discovery on these claims; and (iv) the alleged facts underlying Plaintiff’s new sex discrimination allegations
were known to Plaintiff at the time of the filing of the FAC, and, in any event, those claims are barred by the statute of
limitations because plaintiff never filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC. See Defs.’ Opp. At 1-3.
.....FIFTEENTH-Q: Plaintiff
advised defendant that in order to honor her decision, that plaintiff had to letter motion via an application to the Court
for its "SO ORDER," to be relieved as defendant's counsel.
.....FIFTEENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and irrelevant, insofar as the Plaintiff has no standing to tell this Court that
he has been injured because the Defendant refused to pay him for “litigating” a case that has already been adjudicated
as time-barred.
.....SIXTEENTH-Q:
As such, on April 18, 2013, plaintiff drafted a letter application for defendant's approval, prior to filing same with the
Court, to be relieved as defendant's counsel, which read, “Via ECF, April 18.2013, Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein, United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Long Island Federal Courthouse, 814 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY
11722-9014, Re: CV: 12-1481)SJF)(AKT), Guitar v. Uniondale Union Free School District, et al.
.....SIXTEENTH-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as provably perjurious and irrelevant because, inter alia, the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court
that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the
guise of “performing legal work,” but failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed
to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations
for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would
ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....SEVENTEENTH-Q: Prior to submitting the draft letter motion
as described herein in Paragraph "SIXTEENTH," plaintiff read the draft letter motion to defendant for her approval,
to which defendant stated after plaintiff read same to defendant that it “was wonderful," and
gave plaintiff authorization to file it with the Court, and then stated that she wanted to pay plaintiff all her legal fees
and to please send her a bill.
.....SEVENTEENTH-A:
Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious and irrelevant because, inter alia, the Plaintiff does not
have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff stole
thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” but failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently
and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations.
Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right
to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations
for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable
contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations
for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing
legal work” in any court of law.
.....EIGHTEENTH-Q: Plaintiff
advised defendant that a Statement for Services would be provided to her shortly. Defendant replied "very well,"
and "thank you very much."
.....EIGHTEENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as provably perjurious, as unprovable hearsay and irrelevant because, inter alia, the Plaintiff
does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff
stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” but failed to do so when the Plaintiff
incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute
of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have
the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the
statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff
to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine
the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever
represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....NINETEENTH-Q: Plaintiff then filed said letter application,
and on April 19, 2013, Judge Feuerstein granted plaintiff's letter application to withdraw as defendant's attorney.
.....NINETEENTH-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court
that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the
guise of “performing legal work,” but failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed
to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law.
.....TWENTY-Q:
As of April 18, 2013, plaintiff worked Two Hundred Twenty One hours and Eleven (221.11) minutes on defendants matter for a
total of hourly fee of Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($76,927.51) Dollars and Fifty One Cents.
.....TWENTY-A: Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court
that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine
the the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees”
for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility
had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of
“performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to
perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040218/NEWS/302189994&cid=sitesearch, Lawyer Accused of Padding Bills, By Oliver Mackson,Times
Herald-Record:
Poughkeepsie defense lawyer Donald Roth may face more
trouble besides five years in federal prison for trying to submarine a Newburgh drug case. For months, Dutchess County prosecutors
have been examining Roth's billing records, which showed him working as much as 25 hours a day on court-assigned cases. Federal
prosecutors used those records to attack Roth's credibility during a trial that ended last week. Roth and a private investigator,
David St. John of Millerton, were convicted of conspiracy to tamper with witnesses and obstruction of justice.
On May 25, 2001, "Donald Roth became Superman and he billed 25 hours in a day," a federal prosecutor told
the jury during closing arguments in Roth's trial last week. "He was padding the bill, and that's dishonest."
The jury also saw copies of bills that Roth submitted for work he did in April 2001. One day
showed 24 hours of work; another showed 24.6 hours.
.....TWENTY FIRST-Q: As of April 18, 2013, defendants only payment
was her minimum fee of Twelve Thousand ($12,000.00) Dollars.
...TWENTY FIRST-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because,
inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the
Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations for the causes
of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether
Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the
Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,”
Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining
the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing
because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's
intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's
case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars
for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was
left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....TWENTY SECOND-Q:
Defendant's outstanding balance that is due and owed to plaintiff is Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($64,927.51)
Dollars and Fifty-One Cents.
.....TWENTY
SECOND-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not
have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded
his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging
thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that
would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole
thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff
incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute
of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have
the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the
statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff
to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine
the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever
represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....TWENTY THIRD-Q: As per defendant's requests, on April
25, 2013, plaintiff provided defendant with her Eighteen (18) Page Statement for Professional Services, which described all
work and time performed by plaintiff for defendant with an outstanding of Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($64,927.51)
Dollars and Fifty-One Cents due and owed to plaintiff.
.....TWENTY THIRD-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because,
inter alia, the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff
because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's
case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was
time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly.
Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed
to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount
of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because
the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for
Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left
to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....TWENTY FOURTH-Q: When
plaintiff failed to remit her requested balance due, pursuant to the retainer agreement, on May 31, 2013, plaintiff filed
its "Attorney Request for Fee Arbitration" with the Suffolk County Bar Association.
.....TWENTY FOURTH-A: Defendant denies
Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia, the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the
Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the
statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees”
for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility
had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of
“performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to
perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law.
.....TWENTY
FIFTH-Q: On July 9, 2013, plaintiff received notification from the Suffolk County Bar Association advising that
since defendant was planning on bringing a malpractice action against plaintiff in the future, that the Fee Dispute Resolution
Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine plaintiff's fee dispute set forth in 22 NYCRR §137.1(b)(3) (4).
.....This notification by the Suffolk
County Bar Association provided plaintiff with the authority to commence this instant action for its earned fees.
....TWENTY FIFTH-A:
Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement regarding the Suffolk County Bar Association as perjurious. The Suffolk County Bar
Association is, in practice, a RICO that allows attorneys, especially those who are Jewish, to steal money from Gentile clients
under the guise the money stolen by the attorneys are “fee disputes” and not acts of crime based on the Judaic
doctrine Law of the Moser, that prohibits Jews from reporting fellow Jews who commit crimes; and also acts to block Gentiles
from filing criminal complaints against fellow Jews – even crimes as serious as child rape by a rabbi. Defendant also
denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia, the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that
the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the
the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees”
for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility
had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of
“performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to
perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law.
AS FOR DEFENDANT'S FIRST CAUSE
OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF HAS NO RIGHT
TO RECOVER ANY DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF QUANTUM MERUIT
.....Plaintiff is entitled to
jail time for the following: fraud; grand larceny; coercion (first degree); to pay all attorney fees and costs associated
with this proceeding, to publicly apologize to the Defendant and for equitable relief. Plaintiff did not work to determine
the case's statute of limitation. Any padding of Defendant's case, whether intentional or unintentional were the fault of
the Plaintiff for using willful blindness for not doing his job and an attorney to determine the case's statute of limitation,
or how much time he had left to file the case with the court, or if the case was time-barred.
That was Plaintiff's job and he did not do it. Plaintiff now lacks the standing to tell this Court to make the Defendant pay
for his mistake.
.....TWENTY
SEVENTH-Q: Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “FIRST”
through “TWENTY SIXTH” as though fully set forth at length herein.
.....TWENTY SEVENTH-A: Defendant repeats and realleges each
and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1A through TWENTY SEVENTH-A as though fully set forth at length herein.
.....TWENTY EIGHTH-Q:
Plaintiffs honorable discharge as defendant's counsel, at the direction of defendant, was justifiable for plaintiff
to motion the Court to be relieved as defendant's counsel and therefore does not forfeit any right to recover damages for
services rendered by plaintiff to defendant.
.....TWENTY-EIGHTH-A: Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because,
inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the
Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the statute of limitations for the causes of action
Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” while engaging in willfulness to rationalize
Plaintiff's refusal to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility
had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of
“performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to
perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to first employ willfulness
blindness to commit perjury, to pretend that the Plaintiff had do competent legal work when the Plaintiff's intentionally
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars
to engage in willful blindness to rationalize Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law.
.....TWENTY
NINTH-Q: Plaintiff has the right to recover all attorney fees, as damages, pursuant to quantum meruit, due to defendant's
directive that plaintiff advise the Court that defendant honorably discharged plaintiff as its attorneys.
.....TWENTY NINTH-A:
Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to
tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing
to determine the the statute of limitations for the causes of action of Defendant's case, and then engage in willful blindness
to charge Defendant thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred,
something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though
the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so
when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time
left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the
Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars
for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much
time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....THIRTY-Q: Since
it was defendant that breached the retainer agreement, plaintiff is entitled to its earned hourly attorney fees on a quantum
meruit basis.
AS FOR DEFENDANT'S SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT
TO RECOVER HIS DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF BREACH OF CONTRACT
.....THIRTY-A: Defendant
holds that in the mind of the Plaintiff, there was no breach of contract, only the opportunity to rip off a Gentile, and an
African American who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, Defendant holds that even in the best of circumstances,
it was not Defendant who violated the contract, it was the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's responsibility to know enough
of the law to determine the statute of limitation for her case. If there was any breach of contract at all, it was the Plaintiff,
not the Defendant.
.....Defendant
denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court
that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine
the the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees”
for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility
had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of
“performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to
perform any work associated with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's
statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the
sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case
and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires
the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's
cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work”
in any court of law.
.....THIRTY
FIRST-Q: Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs "FIRST" through
"THIRTY" as though fully set forth at length herein.
.....THIRTY FIRST-A: Defendant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained
in paragraphs “1A through THIRTY FIRST-A as though fully set forth at length herein.
.....THIRTY SECOND-Q: Defendant discharged
plaintiff after plaintiff performed Two Hundred Twenty One and Eleven hours (221.11) minutes, of service for defendant, resulting
in defendant's unjust enrichment and thus having an outstanding contractual obligation to plaintiff for its hourly fees of
Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($64,927.51) Dollars and Fifty-One Cents, prior to the completion of the services
for which the fee was agreed upon.
.....THIRTY
SECOND-A: Defendant holds that in the mind of the Plaintiff, there was no breach of contract, only the opportunity
to rip off a Gentile, and an African American who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, Defendant holds that even in
the best of circumstances, it was not Defendant who violated the contract, it was the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's
responsibility to know enough of the law to determine the statute of limitation for her case. That was the Plaintiff's responsibility.
If there was any breach of contract at all, it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia
because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff
because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations for the causes of action
Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether Defendant's
case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly.
Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed
to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount
of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because
the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for
Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left
to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....THIRTY THIRD-Q: As such, plaintiff
is entitled to recover compensation from the defendant for hours of work of completed services as damages in the amount of
Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($64,927.51) Dollars and Fifty-One Cents.
.....THIRTY THIRD-A: Defendant holds that in
the mind of the Plaintiff, there was no breach of contract, only the opportunity to rip off a Gentile, and an African American
who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, Defendant holds that even in the best of circumstances, it was not Defendant
who violated the contract, it was the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's responsibility to know enough of the law to determine
the statute of limitation for her case. If there was any breach of contract at all, it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement
as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged
to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations
for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine
whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing
with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal
work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated
with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious
and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending
that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left
to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay
thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and
how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....THIRTY FOURTH-Q:
Since defendant breached the retainer agreement, plaintiff is entitled to all of its earned hourly attorney fees, based on
defendant's breach of contract.
.....THIRTY
FOURTH-A: Defendant holds that in the mind of the Plaintiff, there was no breach of contract, only the opportunity
to rip off a Gentile, and an African American who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, Defendant holds that even in
the best of circumstances, it was not Defendant who violated the contract, it was the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's
responsibility to know enough of the law to determine the statute of limitation for her case. If there was any breach of contract
at all, it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff
does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff
padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations for the causes of action Defendant's case, and
then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine whether Defendant's case was time-barred,
something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing with the Defendant honestly. Even though
the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal work,” Plaintiff failed to do so
when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated with determining the amount of time
left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious and lacking standing because the
Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for
Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left
to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law. Plaintiff does not
have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine
the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff
to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine
the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever
represent “performing legal work” in any court.
.....THIRTY FIFTH-Q: Defendant also agreed, pursuant to the retainer agreement, to
pay for all disbursements in connection with her matter and that disbursements were separate fees from her hourly retainer
fee and included but were not limited to, service of process, travel, charges for electronic research, depositions, photocopying,
federal express and were due to notification to her.
.....THIRTY-FIFTH-A: Defendant holds that in the mind of the Plaintiff, there was
no breach of contract, only the opportunity to rip off a Gentile, and an African American who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In addition, Defendant holds that even in the best of circumstances, it was not Defendant who violated the contract, it was
the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's responsibility to know enough of the law to determine the statute of limitation
for her case. If there was any breach of contract at all, it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as
irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged
to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations
for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine
whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing
with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal
work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated
with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious
and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending
that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left
to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay
thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and
how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for
Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left
to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....THIRTY SIXTH-Q: Defendant,
is aware, due to plaintiff providing defendant with her outstanding disbursement balance during plaintiffs representation
of her, that she has an outstanding balance due and owing for disbursements in the amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty
Eight ($3,458.11) Dollars and Eleven Cents.
.....THIRTY SIXTH-A: Defendant holds that in the mind of the Plaintiff, there was
no breach of contract, only the opportunity to rip off a Gentile, and an African American who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In addition, Defendant holds that even in the best of circumstances, it was not Defendant who violated the contract, it was
the Plaintiff. It was not the Defendant's responsibility to know enough of the law to determine the statute of limitation
for her case. If there was any breach of contract at all, it was the Plaintiff, not the Defendant.
.....Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as
irrelevant because, inter alia because the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that the Defendant is obliged
to pay money to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff padded his bill after refusing to determine the the statute of limitations
for the causes of action Defendant's case, and then charging thousands of dollars in “fees” for refusing to determine
whether Defendant's case was time-barred, something that would have been his fiduciary responsibility had he been dealing
with the Defendant honestly. Even though the Plaintiff stole thousands of dollars under the guise of “performing legal
work,” Plaintiff failed to do so when the Plaintiff incompetently and fraudulently failed to perform any work associated
with determining the amount of time left for the statute of limitations. Defendant denies Plaintiff's statement as perjurious
and lacking standing because the Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending
that Plaintiff's intentional failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left
to file Defendant's case while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay
thousands of dollars for Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and
how much time was left to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
The Plaintiff does not have the legal right to commit perjury for the sole purpose of pretending that Plaintiff's intentional
failure to determine the statute of limitations for Defendant's case and the amount of time left to file Defendant's case
while forcing the Plaintiff to honor an unconscionable contract the requires the Defendant to pay thousands of dollars for
Plaintiff's failure to determine the statute of limitations for the Defendant's cause of action and how much time was left
to file Plaintiff's case would ever represent “performing legal work” in any court of law.
.....WHEREFORE, plaintiff demand
judgment against the Defendant as follows:
AS AND
FOR DEFENDANT'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT HOLDS
THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING
In law, standing or locus standi is the
term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged
to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:
a) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question,
and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either
does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose"
doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking
the court for relief.
b) This is not the Plaintiff's
situation. According to Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc. v. Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein LLP, 806 NYS2d 436 (2006), the court
held that the three-year statute of limitations period for the legal malpractice case started running from the date that the
plaintiff-client signed a Consent to Change Attorney form with the defendant-client. By signing that form (which indicates
that a client no longer wants the attorney to act as its counsel), the attorney-client relationship terminated and the clock
began ticking on the potential legal malpractice claim. As the lawsuit was filed after the three-year period, the plaintiff-client
was time-barred from commencing the legal malpractice case and it was dismissed. The Plaintiff was time-barred from commencing
any actions in court.
c) In addition, any fault associated
with employing willful blindness to pretend that it was not the Plaintiff's responsibility to carefully check the statute
of limitations to determine how much time the Plaintiff had left, if any, to file Defendant's lawsuit is Plaintiff's own fault,
not the Defendant's.
d) Plaintiff suffered no harm as
a result of not being able to file an already time-barred case, no in not receiving money from the Defendant to litigate an
already time-barred case, that again, the Plaintiff himself refused to check to determine if the Defendant's case was time-barred.
e) The Plaintiff perjured himself by pretending to have standing based
on some harm involved that has some reasonable relation to their situation, and/or the continued existence of the harm may
affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief, such as the “chilling effects” associated with
a S.L.A.P.P. action.
f) The party is granted automatic
standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain
waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows
them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person
who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without
having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
g) This does
not apply to the Plaintiff. There is no act of law associated with either the Plaintiff or the Defendant.
AS FOR DEFENDANT'S CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER
DAMAGES BASED ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL WRONGDOINGS
..... For all damages recoverable as a matter of law,
due to defendant's deprivation of plaintiff rights pursuant to Quantum Meruit, including but not limited plaintiff's outstanding
hourly fees in the amount of Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven ($64,927.51) Dollars and Fifty-One Cents and for
disbursements in the amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight ($3,458.11) Dollars and Eleven Cents, and for all damages recoverable as a matter of law, including but not limited to:
..... ..... a) Summary judgment as against the Plaintiff based
on CPLR b) §155.35, Grand larceny; 2) §175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the
first degree; §210.15 Perjury; §135.65, Coercion in the first degree.; said crimes exacerbated as a result of Plaintiff's
religiously-oriented hatred of African Americans; c) For all attorney fees and costs associated with
this proceeding; d) One million, five hundred dollars ($1,000,000) for pain and suffering as a Gentile
and as a African American; e) for pain and suffering inflicted by the Plaintiff based on Defendant's
religion; f) pain and suffering as a victim of the crimes that Plaintiff inflicted on the Defendant;
g) a public apology; h) For equitable relief; i) For such
other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: Islandia,
New York
June 18, 2014
TIME FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE AND
AFFIDAVITS
A notice of motion and supporting affidavits shall be served at least eight days before the time at which the motion is noticed
to be heard. Answering affidavits shall be served at least two days before such time. Answering affidavits and any notice
of cross-motion, with supporting papers, if any, shall be served at least seven days before such time if a notice of motion
served at least sixteen days before such time so demands; whereupon any reply or responding affidavits shall be served at
least one day before such time.
CLIENT VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY
OF SUFFOLK ) ss:
"P.G", being duly sworn, says that she is the Defendant appearing pro se in the within action; that Deponent has
read the forgoing Verified Answer on the 17th day of June, 2014 and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to Deponent's
own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters
Deponent believes them to be true.
Dated: Islandia, New York
June 18, 2014
______________________
Sworn to before me this
18th day of June 2014
NOTARY PUBLIC
1CPLR 3211(a)(2) & (3) provide: A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action
asserted against him on the ground that: (1) the court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action;
(2) the party asserting the cause of action has not legal capacity to sue. In addition, CPLR 3211(e) provides that any
objection or defense based on subdivision (3) must be raised in an answer or in a pre-answer motion or it is waived. There
is no such waiver for subdivision (2). Wells Fargo Bank Minn. v Mastropaolo, 2007 NY Slip Op 04626, the Second
Department held that it falls within subdivision (3), and thus must be raised in an answer or pre-answer motion or it is
waived. Defendant respectfully reminds this Court that this is an answer, and as such, Defendant demands the dismissal of
this case because it is Defendant's belief that the Plaintiff does not have standing to tell this Court that he suffered
injuries because he wasn't paid to litigate a case that is time-barred, and impossible to adjudicate anywhere else as anything
other than time-barred/statute of limitations has expired. Defendant will not allow this Court to bully her because she
is black and one of Jehovah's Witnesses because it has aligned itself with the racist, greedy bigot. Defendant will report
it to a law enforcement agency.
2Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation where an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for
a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts that would render him liable. For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite
intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out.[citation needed] A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 34 F.3d 643 (7th Cir.2003), in which the defendants argued that the file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files.
They suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users. The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part and would not constitute
a defense to a claim of contributory infringement. Also see Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S. A. 563
U. S. ____ (2011)