Rocky River Municipal Court 21012 Hilliard Blvd.

, Rocky River, Ohio 44116440, ,200 #epte$%er 16th 200 &i'cover Bank (lainti)), *'. +ao$i R. ,illia$', (.O. Bo- 4.11"/ ,e'tlake, Ohio 4414. &e)endant. &e)endant0' $otion to vacate a void 1ud2$ent

!"

+ao$i R. ,illia$' petition' thi' court under the co$$on la3 authority o) Oxley v. Zacks 4#ept. 2!, 20005, )or vacation o) a void 1ud2$ent 4attached5, )or da$a2e' re'ultin2 )ro$ the void 1ud2$ent o) thi' court nu$%ered a' 02-C*6 1.14, and other relie) a' thi' court $ay )ind e7uita%le, la3)ul, and 1u't.. 8))idavit 9, +ao$i R. ,illia$', o) a2e and co$petent to te'ti)y, 'tate a' )ollo3' %a'ed on $y o3n per'onal kno3led2e: 1. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that corporation' have 'tandin2 to 'ue in the $unicipal court' o) Ohio. 2. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that &i'cover Bank ha' 'tandin2 to 'ue in any Ohio court %y virtue o) %ein2 duly re2i'tered a' ;&i'cover Bank,< or %y ;&i'cover Bank< $eetin2 the $ini$u$ contact' re7uire$ent' )or in personam 1uri'diction. . 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that Ohio $unicipal court' have 'u%1ect $atter 1uri'diction to liti2ate %reach o) contract ca'e'. 4. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that Ohio $unicipal court' have 'u%1ect $atter 1uri'diction to liti2ate civil ca'e' involvin2 controver'y a$ount' e-ceedin2 )ourteen thou'and dollar'.

.. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that 9 have a contract 3ith &i'cover Bank. 6. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that 9 o3e &i'cover Bank $oney. /. 9 a$ not in receipt o) any docu$ent 3hich veri)ie' that &i'cover Bank authori=ed thi' action or i' even a3are o) it. ". 8' a re'ult o) the hara''$ent o) %u'ine'' entity kno3n a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a', 9 have %een da$a2ed )inancially, 'ocially, and e$otionally, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ +ao$i R. ,illia$' #>8>A O6 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 9+&9*9&B8C 8CD+O,CA&EMA+> COB+>F O6 @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Be)ore $e, the under'i2ned, a +otary (u%lic in and )or 'aid County and #tate on thi' @@@@ day o) @@@@@@@@, 200@@, per'onally appeared @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ to $e kno3n to %e the identical per'on 3ho e-ecuted the 3ithin and )ore2oin2 in'tru$ent and ackno3led2ed to $e that he e-ecuted the 'a$e a' hi' )ree and voluntary act. Eiven under $y hand and 'eal the day and year la't a%ove 3ritten. My co$$i''ion e-pire' @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ +otary (u%lic Me$orandu$' o) la3 Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that party alle2in2 to %e creditor $u't prove 'tandin2 >ho$a' ? >ho$a' )ailed or re)u'ed to produce the actual note' 3hich

&i'coverBank alle2e' +ao$i R. ,illia$' o3e'. ,here the co$plainin2 party can not prove the e-i'tence o) the note, then there i' no note. >o recover on a pro$i''ory note, the plainti)) $u't prove: 415 the e-i'tence o) the note in 7ue'tionG 425 that the party 'ued 'i2ned the noteG 4 5 that the plainti)) i' the o3ner or holder o) the noteG and 445 that a certain %alance i' due and o3in2 on the note. #ee 9n Re: SMS Financial LLc. v. Abco Homes, Inc. +o.!"-.011/ 6e%ruary 1", 1!!! 4.th Circuit Court o) 8ppeal'.5 *olu$e 2! o) the +e3 Her'ey (ractice #erie', Chapter 10 #ection 12 , pa2e .66, e$phatically 'tate', ;...G and no part pay$ent' 'hould %e $ade on the %ond or note unle'' the per'on to 3ho$

pay$ent i' $ade i' a%le to produce the %ond or note and the part pay$ent' are endor'ed thereon. 9t 3ould 'ee$ that the $ort2a2or 3ould nor$ally have a Co$$on la3 ri2ht to de$and production or 'urrender o) the %ond or note and $ort2a2e, a' the ca'e $ay %e. #ee Re'tate$ent, Contract' # 1/04 5, 445 41! 25G C.H.#. Mort2a2e' # 46! in Carnegie Bank v S alleck 2.6 +.H. #uper 2 48pp. &iv 1!!25, the 8ppellate &ivi'ion held, ;,hen the underlyin2 $ort2a2e i' evidenced %y an in'tru$ent $eetin2 the criteria )or ne2otia%ility 'et )orth in +.H.#. 128: -104, the holder o) the in'tru$ent 'hall %e a))orded all the ri2ht' and protection' provided a holder in due cour'e pur'uant to +.H.#. 128: 02I #ince no one i' a%le to produce the ;in'tru$ent< there i' no co$petent evidence %e)ore the Court that any party i' the holder o) the alle2ed note or the true holder in due cour'e. +e3 Her'ey co$$on la3 dictate' that the plainti)) prove the e-i'tence o) the alle2ed note in 7ue'tion, prove that the party 'ued 'i2ned the alle2ed note, prove that the plainti)) i' the o3ner and holder o) the alle2ed note, and prove that certain %alance i' due and o3in2 on any alle2ed note. 6ederal Circuit Court' have ruled that the only 3ay to prove the per)ection o) any 'ecurity i' %y actual po''e''ion o) the 'ecurity. #ee Ma!!er o" S!a"" Mor!g. # Inv. Corp., ..0 6.2d 122" 4!th Cir 1!//5, ;Bnder the Bni)or$ Co$$ercial Code, the only notice 'u))icient to in)or$ all intere'ted partie' that a 'ecurity intere't in in'tru$ent' ha' %een per)ected i' actual po''e''ion %y the 'ecured party, hi' a2ent or %ailee.< Bankruptcy Court' have )ollo3ed the Bni)or$ Co$$ercial Code. In $e Inves!ors # Len%ers, L!%. 16. B.R. "! 4Bkrtcy.&.+.H.1!!45, ;Bnder the +e3 Her'ey Bni)or$ Co$$ercial Code 4+HBCC5, pro$i''ory note i' ;in'tru$ent,< 'ecurity intere't in 3hich $u't %e per)ected %y po''e''ion ...< Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that even in a de)ault 1ud2$ent, da$a2e' $u't %e proved Even with a default judgment, DAMAGES MUST BE PROVED BY EV DE!"E E!TERED O! T#E RE"ORD. 6or e-a$ple, 'ee American $e% Cross v. Comm&ni!y Bloo% Cen!er o" ! e O'arks, 2./ 6. d ".! 4"th Cir. 0/J2.J20015.

Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that to prove da$a2e' in )oreclo'ure o) a de%t, party $u't enter the account and 2eneral led2er 'tate$ent into the record throu2h a co$petent )act 3itne'' >o prove up clai$ o) da$a2e', )oreclo'in2 party $u't enter evidence

incorporatin2 record' 'uch a' a 2eneral led2er and accountin2 o) an alle2ed unpaid pro$i''ory note, the per'on re'pon'i%le )or preparin2 and $aintainin2 the account 2eneral led2er $u't provide a co$plete accountin2 3hich $u't %e '3orn to and dated %y the per'on 3ho $aintained the led2er. #ee (aci"ic Concre!e F.C.). *. +a&anoe, 62 Ha3. 4, 614 (.2d ! 6 41!"05, ,- Capi!al Ha.aii, Inc. v. /onenaka 2. (. d "0/, !6 Ha3aii 2, 4Ha3aii 8pp 20015, Fooks v. 0or.ic Ho&sing A&! ori!y 2" Conn. C. Rptr. /1, 4Conn. #uper.20005, and 1o.n o" Brook"iel% v. Can%le.oo% S ores -s!a!es, Inc. .1 8.2d 121", 201 Conn.1 41!"65. #ee al'o Solon v. ,o%bole, 16 9ll. 8pp. d "4., 114 9l. Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that a void 1ud2$ent cannot operate 9rre'pective o) 3hether a party $ove' to vacate a 1ud2$ent, Ohio court' have inherent authority to vacate a void judgment. (a!!on v. 2iemer 41!""5, . Ohio #t. d 6". 8 void judgment i' one that i' rendered %y a court that i' I3holly 3ithout 1uri'diction or po3er to proceed in that $anner.I In re Lock ar! 41!.25, 1./ Ohio #t. 1!2, 1!., 10. +.A.2d ., /. 8 1ud2$ent i' void ab ini!io 3here a court renderin2 the 1ud2$ent ha' no 1uri'diction over the per'on. $ecor%s 2eposi!ion Service, Inc. v. Hen%erson # ,ol%berg, (.C. 41!!.5, 100 Ohio 8pp. d 4!., .02G Comp&serve, Inc. v. 1rion"o 41!! 5, !1 Ohio 8pp. d 1./, 161G Sperry v. Hl&!ke 41!"45, 1! Ohio 8pp. d 1.6. 9n *an 2e$y! v. *an 2e$y! 41!665, 6 Ohio #t. 2d 1, 6, . Ohio Op. 2d 42, 4., 21. +.A.2d 6!",/04, 3e 'tated, I8 court ha' an inherent po3er to vacate a void judgment %ecau'e 'uch an order 'i$ply reco2ni=e' the )act that the 1ud2$ent 3a' al3ay' a nullity.I #ervice o) proce'' $u't %e rea'ona%ly calculated to noti)y intere'ted partie' o) the pendency o) an action and a))ord the$ an opportunity to re'pond. 8 de)ault 1ud2$ent rendered 3ithout proper 'ervice i' void. 8 court ha' the inherent po3er to vacate a void judgmentG thu', a party 3ho a''ert' i$proper 'ervice need not $eet the re7uire$ent' o) Civ.R. 604B5. 4A$pha'i'

added.5 -mge, 124 Ohio 8pp. d at 61, /0. +.A.2d at 40". ,e note )urther that appellantK' $ain contention i' that the de)ault 1ud2$ent 2ranted %y Hud2e Connor i' void %ecau'e it 3a' rendered a2ain't a non-entity. 8' 3ill %e addre''ed in)ra, 1ud2$ent' a2ain't non-entitie' are void. 8 Civ.R. 604B5 $otion to vacate a 1ud2$ent i' not the proper avenue %y 3hich to o%tain a vacation o) a void judgment. #ee Ol% Mea%o. Farm Co. v. (e!ro.ski 4Mar. 2, 20015, ,ea&ga 8pp. +o. 2000-E-226., unreportedG Copelco Capi!al, Inc. v. S!. Mark3s (resby!erian C &rc 46e%. 1, 20015, C&ya oga 8pp. +o. //6 , unreported. Rather, the authority to vacate void 1ud2$ent' i' derived )ro$ a 9. >HA >R98C COBR> courtK' inherent po3er. Oxley v. Zacks 4#ept. 2!, 20005,

8BB#A& 9># &9#CRA>9O+ BF &A+F9+E MR. 69+A#9C*ARK# MO>9O+ >O *8C8>A VOID JUDGMENT ,HA+ >HA B+CO+>RO*AR>A& >A#>9MO+F O6 MR. 69+A#9C*AR #BBM9>>A& >O >HA >R98C COBR> #HO,# >H8> MR. 69+A#9C*AR +A*AR RACA9*A& >HA COM(C89+> O6 C.A.9., OR +O>9CA O6 >HA (ROCAA&9+E# 9+ >HA >R98C COBR>. 99. >HA >R98C COBR> 8BB#A& 9># &9#CRA>9O+ BF 689C9+E >O HOC& 8 HA8R9+E O+ MR. 69+A#9C*ARK# MO>9O+ >O *8C8>A VOID JUDGMENT ,HA+ MR. 69+A#9C*AR >A#>969A& >H8> HA +A*AR RACA9*A& +O>9CA O6 >HA 8C>9O+ 69CA& BF C.A.9. 999. >HA >R98C COBR> 8BB#A& 9># &9#CRA>9O+ BF 69+&9+E MR. 69+A#9C*AR RACA9*A& #AR*9CA O6 >HA COM(C89+> ,HA+ C.A.9. &9& +O> OB>89+ #AR*9CA O6 (ROCA## 8# RALB9RA& BF >HA OH9O C9*9C RBCA#. 9*. >HA >R98C COBR> 8BB#A& 9># &9#CRA>9O+ BF 69+&9+E >H8> MR. 69+A#9C*AR ,8# #AR*A& 8> 8 (RO(AR BB#9+A## 8&&RA## ,HA+ MR. 69+A#9C*AR H8& CA6> >HA #>8>A 8+& +O CO+EAR M89+>89+A& 8+F (HF#9C8C (RA#A+CA 8> #89& BB#9+A## 8&&RA##. 8)ter revie3in2 the record and the ar2u$ent' o) the partie', 3e rever'e the deci'ion o) the trial court. Clevelan% -lec!ric Ill&mina!ing Company v. Finesilver, +o. 6! 6 4Ohio 8pp. &i't." 04J2.J1!!65. I>he authority to vacate a void judgment i' not derived )ro$ Civ.R. 604B5, %ut rather con'titute' an inherent po3er po''e''ed %y Ohio court'.I (a!!on v. 2iemer 41!""5, . Ohio #t. d 6", para2raph )our o) the 'ylla%u'G Cincinna!i Sc ool 2is!. B%. o" -%n. v. Hamil!on C!y. B%. o" $evision 420005, "/ Ohio #t. d 6 , 6". Becau'e a court ha' the inherent po3er to vacate a void judgment, a party 3ho clai$' that the court lacked

per'onal 1uri'diction a' a re'ult o) a de)iciency in 'ervice o) proce'' i' entitled to have the 1ud2$ent vacated and need not 'ati')y the re7uire$ent' o) Civ.R. 604B5. S!a!e ex rel. Ballar% v. O32onnell 41!!05, .0 Ohio #t. d 1"2, para2raph one o) the 'ylla%u'G Cincinna!i Sc ool 2is!. B%. o" -%n. at 6"G (atton at para2raph three o) the 'ylla%u'G 1 omas at 4 . #ee, al'o 4illiams v. L&%l&m 48u2. 20, 1!!!5, (or!age 8pp. +o. !"-(0016, unreported, at /, 1!!! Ohio 8pp. CAM9# "6!. >he authority to vacate a void judgment, there)ore, i' not derived )ro$ Civ. R. 604B5, I%ut rather con'titute' an inherent po3er po''e''ed %y Ohio court'.I (a!!on, s&pra, para2raph )our o) the 'ylla%u'. 8 party 'eekin2 to vacate a void judgment $u't, ho3ever, )ile a $otion to vacate or 'et a'ide the 'a$e. Comp&Serve, s&pra, at 161. Fet to %e entitled to relie) )ro$ a void judgment, a $ovant need not pre'ent a $eritoriou' de)en'e or 'ho3 that the $otion 3a' ti$ely )iled under Civ. R. 604B5. 4I8 void judgment i' one entered either 3ithout 1uri'diction o) the per'on or o) the 'u%1ect $atter.I -isenberg v. (ey!on 41!/"5, .6 Ohio 8pp.2d 144, 14". 8 $otion to vacate a void judgment, there)ore, need not co$ply 3ith the re7uire$ent' o) Civ.R. 604B5 3hich the petitioner ordinarily 3ould a''ert to 'eek relie) )ro$ a 1uri'dictionally valid 1ud2$ent. 2emianc'&k v. 2emianc'&k 41!"45, 20 Ohio 8pp. d 244, 4". +.A.2d /".. Antry 3a' void %ecau'e it con'tituted a $odi)ication o) a property divi'ion 3ithout a re'ervation o) 1uri'diction to do 'o--an act the court $ay not per)or$ under 4ol"e v. 4ol"e 41!/65, 46 Ohio #t.2d !!, at para2raph one o) the 'ylla%u', and our opinion in Sc ra%er v. Sc ra%er 41!!.5, 10" Ohio 8pp. d 2.. Becau'e the notice' re7uired %y R.C. Chapter ./1. 3ere not 2iven to Candle3ood prior to the BORK' Huly 2, 1!!/ hearin2 and a)ter it' 8u2u't 1", 1!!/ deci'ion, and no voluntary appearance 3a' $ade %y Candle3ood, the BORK' 8u2u't 1", 1!!/ deci'ion i' a nullity and void a' re2ard' Candle3ood. 8' one >e-a' appellate court 'o aptly 'tated concernin2 a void judgment, INiOt i' 2ood no3here and %ad every3here.I 2e.s v. Floy% 4>e-.Civ.8pp.1!6/5, 41 #.,.2d "00, "04. 8 court ha' an inherent po3er to vacate a void 1ud2$ent %ecau'e 'uch an order 'i$ply reco2ni=e' the )act that the 1ud2$ent 3a' al3ay' a nullity.I >he ter$ Iinherent po3erI u'ed in the t3o precedin2 ca'e' i' de)ined in BlackK' Ca3 &ictionary 46 Ad.1!!05 /"2 a' INaOn authority po''e''ed 3ithout it' %ein2 derived )ro$ another. 8 ri2ht, a%ility, or )aculty o) doin2 a thin2, 3ithout receivin2 that ri2ht, a%ility, or )aculty )ro$ another.I Becau'e thi' clai$ challen2ed the 'u%1ect $atter

1uri'diction o) the trial court, it 3a' not %arred %y re' 1udicata %ecau'e a void judgment $ay %e challen2ed at any ti$e. #ee S!a!e v. 4ilson 41!!.5, / Ohio #t. d 40, 4.-46, 6.2 +.A.2d 1!6, 200, )n. 6. 9) the trial court 3a' 3ithout 'u%1ect $atter 1uri'diction o) de)endantK' ca'e, hi' conviction and 'entence 3ould %e void ab ini!io. #ee (a!!on v. 2iemer 41!""5, . Ohio #t. d 6", .1" +.A.2d !41, para2raph three o) the 'ylla%u'. 8 void judgment i' a $ere nullity, and can %e attacked at any ti$e. 1ari v. S!a!e 41!2/5, 11/ Ohio #t. 4"1, 4!4, 1.! +.A. .!4, .!/-.!". 8 $ovant, ho3ever, need not pre'ent a $eritoriou' de)en'e to %e entitled to relie) )ro$ a void judgment. (eral!a v. Heig !s Me%. C!r., Inc. 41!""5, 4". B.#. "0, 10" #.Ct. "!6, !! C.Ad.2d /.. +or $u't a $ovant 'ho3 that the $otion 3a' ti$ely )iled under the 2uideline' o) Civ.R. 604B5 i) a 1ud2$ent i' void. In re M&rp y 41!" 5, 10 Ohio 8pp. d 1 4, 10 OBR 1"4, 461 +.A.2d !10G Sa!ava v. ,er ar% 41!!05, 66 Ohio 8pp. d .!", .". +.A.2d "!!G 'ee, 2enerally, Associa!e% -s!a!es Corp. v. Fello.s 41!" 5, 11 Ohio 8pp. d 112, 11 OBR 166, 46 +.A.2d 41/. Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that a void 1ud2$ent i' not void 3hen declared void %ut i' void ab ini!io 9) the trial court 3a' 3ithout 'u%1ect $atter 1uri'diction o) de)endantK' ca'e, hi' conviction and 'entence 3ould %e void ab ini!io. #ee (a!!on v. 2iemer 41!""5, . Ohio #t. d 6", .1" +.A.2d !41.

Me$orandu$ o) la3 in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that party 'eekin2 to vacate a void 1ud2$ent i' invokin2 the $ini'terial po3er' o) the court J court' lack di'cretion 3hen it co$e' to vacatin2 void 1ud2$ent' ,hen rule providin2 )or relie) )ro$ void 1ud2$ent' i' applica%le, relie) i' not di'cretionary $atter, %ut i' $andatory, Orner v. S alala, 0 6. d 1 0/, 4Colo. 1!!45. #ee al'o, 1 omas, !06 #.,.2d at 262 4holdin2 that trial court ha' not only po3er %ut duty to vacate a voi% 5&%gmen!5. 6or other authoritie' concurrin2, 'ee Allie% Fi%eli!y Ins. Co. v. $&! , ./ ,a'h. 8pp. /" , /!0, /!0 (.2d 206 41!!05, B%. o" $evision 420005, "/ Ohio

#t. d 6 , 6", Car!er v. Fenner, 1 6 6. d 1000, 100. 4.th Cir. 1!!"5, Chave= v. County o) *alencia, "6 +.M. 20., .21 (.2d 11.4 41!/45, Cincinna!i Sc ool 2is!. B%. o" -%n. v. Hamil!on C!y, Clevelan% -lec!ric Ill&mina!ing Company v. Finesilver, +o. 6! 6 4Ohio 8pp. &i't." 04J2.J1!!65, In re Marriage o" Marko.ski, .0 ,a'h. 8pp. 6 . , 6 ., /4! (.2d /.4 41!""5G Brick&m Inv. Co. v. *ern am Corp., 46 ,a'h. 8pp. .1/, .20, / 1 (.2d 41!"/5, In re6 1 omas, !06 #.,.2d at 262, In re6 4eaver Cons!r., 1!0 Colo. at 2 2, .4. (.2d at 104., Leen, 62 ,a'h. 8pp. at 4/", L&bben v. Selec!ive Serv. Sys. Local B% . +o. 2/, 4. 6.2d 64., 64!, 41't Cir. 1!/25,Mi!c ell v. +i!sap Co&n!y, .! ,a'h. 8pp. 1//, 1"0-"1, /!/ (.2d .16 41!!05, Moore v. (acker, 1/4 +.C. 66., !4 #.A. 44!, 4.0, Orner v. S alala, 0 6. d 1 0/, 4Colo. 1!!45, (a!!on v. 2iemer 41!""5, . Ohio #t. d 6" $oller v. Holly, 1/6 B.#. !", 40!, Small v. Ba!is!a, 22 6. #upp.2d 2 0, 2 1 4#.&.+.F. 1!!"5, ,ri2ht ? 8. Miller, 6A&AR8C (R8C>9CA 8+& (ROCA&BRA, 41!/ 5 ,Civil P 2"62. Me$orandu$ in 'upport o) the point o) la3 that 3hen 1uri'diction i' challen2ed, the party clai$in2 that the court ha' 1uri'diction ha' the le2al %urden to prove that 1uri'diction 3a' con)erred upon the court throu2h the proper procedure. Other3i'e, the court i' 3ithout 1uri'diction. ,henever a party denie' that the court ha' 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction, it %eco$e' the duty and the %urden o) the party clai$in2 that the court ha' 'u%1ect $atter 1uri'diction to provide evidence )ro$ the record o) the ca'e that the court hold' 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction. Bin%ell v Ci!y o" Harvey, 212 9ll.8pp. d 1042, ./1 +.A.2d 101/ 41't &i't. 1!!15 4Ithe %urden o) provin2 1uri'diction re't' upon the party a''ertin2 it.I5. Bntil the plainti)) 'u%$it' uncontrover'ial evidence o) 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction to the court that the court ha' 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction, the court i' proceedin2 3ithout 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction. Loos v American -nergy Savers, Inc., 16" 9ll.8pp. d ..", .22 +.A.2d "4141!""54I,here 1uri'diction i' conte'ted, the %urden o) e'ta%li'hin2 it re't' upon the plainti)).I5. >he la3 place' the duty and %urden o) 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction upon the "

plainti)). #hould the court atte$pt to place the %urden upon the de)endant, the court ha' acted a2ain't the la3, violate' the de)endantK' due proce'' ri2ht', and the 1ud2e ha' i$$ediately lo't 'u%1ect-$atter 1uri'diction. Mandatory 1udicial noticeJ notice to Delly Carrick #errat &i'cover Bank i' a 'u%'et o) the de%t collection racket, a 3ide-'pread, )arreachin2 'ca$ o) arti't' 'uch a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a'. Ho3 the 'ca$ 3ork': 9n a %ack roo$ o) the Chica2o Board o) >rade, 3orthle'' %undle' o) co$$ercial paper in the )or$ o) copie' o) char2ed o)) de%t are 'old at auction. >he typical )ace value o) the %undle' o)ten a$ount' to ten' o) $illion' o) dollar'. >he $ort2a2ee' are o)ten not har$ed %ecau'e they o)ten have hypothecated the loan and have ri'ked nothin2. 8ctor' up line )ro$ 'uch arti't' a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a' then %reak apart the %undle' and re'ell the 3orthle'' co$$ercial paper in clu'ter' %a'ed on the ori2inal $ort2a2ee and 2eo2raphic location o) the individual copie'. 8rti't' 'uch a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a' are the actual holder' in due cour'e althou2h typically in the 'ca$, arti't' 'uch a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a' inve't a' little a' /. cent' on the hundred )ace )or the 3orthle'' co$$ercial paper, then alle2e they are third party de%t collector' atte$ptin2 to collect )or the ori2inal $aker o) the loan. >hi' racket i' particularly heinou' in the ca'e o) credit card contract', 3hich a' a continuin2 'erie' o) o))er' to contract, are non-tra')era%le. >he 'ca$ i' co$plete 3hen arti't' 'uch a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a', 3ith the cooperation o) a local 1ud2e, de)raud partie' 'uch a' +ao$i R. ,illia$'. >hi' 'ca$ i' 3ide-'pread, )ar-reachin2 and the $ain racket o) the private %u'ine'' or2ani=ation' to 3hich arti't' 'uch a' >ho$a' ? >ho$a' %elon2. 6or other e-a$ple' o) thi' racket 'peci)ically involvin2 ;&i'cover Bank< 'ee &i'cover Bank ver'u' 8n2ie E. ,alker and A'ler C. ,alker, Civil 8ction 6ile nu$%er 0 -C*-

22!., Mu'co2ee County, Eeor2ia, &i'cover Bank ver'u' Carry (a'ket, ca'e nu$%er 0 #C-640, Clark County, ,i'con'in, and &i'cover Bank ver'u' Ro2er Braker and #haron 8. Braker, ca'e nu$%er C#-200 -24"", Oklaho$a County, Oklaho$a. >hi' court0' in7uiry, rea'ona%le under the circu$'tance', e'ta%li'he' a pattern o) racketeerin2 3ith &i'cover Bank a' the enterpri'e unle$$ Di$%&ve' Ban( ente'$ an a))ea'an%e in thi$ in$tant %a$e and j&in$ in the va%ati&n &f v&id judgment num*e' +,-"V.-/0/12 &eclaration 6i)teen day' )ro$ the veri)ia%le receipt o) thi' petition to vacate, an order 'hall %e prepared and 'u%$itted to the court )or rati)ication, unle'' prior to that ti$e, &i'cover Bank pre'ent' a co$petent )act 3itne'' to re%ut all article' - one throu2h 'even - o) +ao$i R. ,illia$'0 a))idavit, 'et' the $atter )or hearin2. (repared and 'u%$itted %y: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ +ao$i R. ,illia$' Certi)icate o) 'ervice 9, +ao$i R. ,illia$', certi)y that @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@, 200 , 9 $ailed a true and correct copy o) the a%ove and )ore2oin2 $otion to di'$i'' via certi)ied $ail, return receipt re7ue'ted to: &i'cover Bank0' a2ent )or 'ervice o) proce''. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ +ao$i R. ,illia$' Copy to: Hi$ (etro #tate O))ice >o3er 0 Aa't Broad #treet, 1/th 6loor Colu$%u', Ohio 4 21.- 42" $akin2 their 'tate$ent' under penalty o) per1ury, 'upportin2 all the re%utted article' 3ith evidence 3hich 3ould %e ad$i''i%le at trial, and

10