Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 1 of 6

Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 2 of 6

Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 3 of 6
591 IT 1-3). The fact that the fraudulent credit applicant statement printed on October

7, 2009 with a signature agreement page signed on September 30, 2009 shown on

the face that it is fraudulent, stolen, counterfeit, and fictitious.

The Thomases clearly did not give Kia Auto Sport or SunTrust Bank

permission to record or use their identifying information that is recorded on the

fraudulent applicant credit statement, that shows it was created on 10/07/2009, with

a third page attached to showed the Thomases signatures on 9/30/2009 could not

give Kia Auto Sports or SunTrust Bank permission to use or record their names and

social security number on a fraudulent document to fraudulently access their

resources to obtained a fraudulent loan. See Petition Case S21C0048 Filed

07/30/2020 Pg. 7. 29-31.

Article 8 Identity Fraud along with the undisputed fraudulent applicant credit

statement Demand the Thomases have a right to court in a jury trial. It is clear that

appellate courts disregarded their duty under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), to prejudice the

Thomases. So the obvious question is why have the courts consistently ignored the

above laws and facts in the Thomases case there can only be two reasons; 1) the

Thomases race which there are not allowed to sue and win against White people or

people who are represented by white attorneys; and 2) the judicial system has

it shall not be necessary to show a conviction ofthe principal thief counterfeiter, or

fraudulent user.(Emphasis supplied.)
Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 4 of 6
Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 5 of 6
Case S21C0048 Filed 03/30/2021 Page 6 of 6