CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------ x INDEX NO. 31760-10
:
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A. :
Plaintiff :
: AFFIRMATION IN
-against- : OPPOSITION
: TO PLAINTIFFS
: MOTION TO COMPEL
: AND
OSVALDO VALDES : “ORDERING” TO
: STRIKE CONTERCLAIM
Defendant :
:
------------------------------------------------------------ x

NOTICE 1

Comes now respondent Osvaldo-Valdés one of the people of the republic of new york,

not a corporation or en legis artificial person of any kind and and a real party with interest in this

matter, a creditor and grantor/settlor and beneficiary to OSVALDO VALDES © and all

variations derived therefrom, appears specially not generally before this court with

administrative judge to recover trust property. Osvaldo-Valdés is a non-attorney, creditor to

plaintiff, the undersigned, and invokes this court without accepting jurisdiction of this court

to deny PLAINTIFFS MOTION COMPEL DEFENDANT COMPLY WITH

INTEROGATORIES, TO STRIKE CONTERCLAIM AND PLAINTFFS AFFIRMATION.

NOTICE 2

All legal entities collecting public trust funds. All trustees with public office of honor, profit

and trust. All individuals with a duty to defend OSVALDO VALDES: come forward now.

3176010
- 1 of 4
1. Defendant cannot comply with plaintiff's first set of interrogatories because plaintiff

requests answer “..as provided in Rule 3134.” Rule 3134 has been repealed and defendant

cannot comply with repealed rules, therefore, defendant cannot comply with plaintiff's request.

(EX. A, B).

2. I do not consent to or accept any “ordering” from plaintiff that counterclaim be striken as

plaintiff is without power to issue “ordering” to strike first hand claims against plaintiff. (EX. C).

3. Plaintiff cannot produce instrument with wet signature between plaintiff and defendant.

As per LAWS OF NEW YORK, LIABILIIES OF PARTIES, Section 3--401. Signature:

(1) No person is liable on an instrument unless his signature appears thereon.

Plaintiff cannot produce instrument with defendants signature thereon, therefore, defendant

is not liable for any claims by plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff is aware of first hand affidavit of July 10 2010 denying and contradicting debt as

presented Rubin and Rothman DEBT COLLECTORS and now allegedly

plaintiff attorney. (EX D, E).

5. Plaintiff is aware and agrees there is a change in terms. Plaintiff received NOTICE OF

ULTRA VIRES Customer Agreement. Plaintiff agrees its Customer Agreement is ULTRA

VIRES. (EX F).

6. Plaintiff is aware and agrees that a good faith tender of payment was issued to plaintiff by

defendant on 18 March 2010. (EX G). Plaintiff refused to collect payment from defendant.

As per LAWS OF NEW YORK, LIABILIIES OF PARTIES, Section Section 3--604.

Tender of Payment.

3176010
- 2 of 4
 (1) Any party making tender of full payment to a holder when or after it is due is
discharged to the extent of all subsequent liability for interest, costs and
attorney's fees.

(2) The holder's refusal of such tender wholly discharges any party who has a
right of recourse against the party making the tender.

By not accepting defendant's payment, plaintiff also agreed under U.C.C. §3-603 Tender

of payment.

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person

entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of
law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract. Further, the United
States Supreme Court has ruled:

"His tender, as we have already seen, was equivalent to payment, so far as concerns the legality
of all subsequent steps by the collector to enforce payment by distraint of his property."
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 quoted in AYERS. SCOTT. MCCABE., 8 S. Ct. 164, 123
U.S. 443 (U.S. 12/05/1887) Further:

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or
when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone
this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of
deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately"
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300.

CITI BANK has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

7. Plaintiff has not denied it owes defendant $1,231,132.18. Plaintiff has been billed

this amount by defendant. (EX G).

CONCLUSION:

Whatever claim plaintiff may have had are now discharged. In addition, plaintiff has not

submitted any first hand evidence into this case. All we have is hearsay testimony from

an attorney claiming to represent a plaintiff. Such testimony does not qualify as evidence.

An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an
attorney or a witness". (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)

3176010
- 3 of 4
 “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the
disposition of [a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S.
Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,

This case should be dismissed in favor of the defendant as the plaintiff has failed to do

what plaintiffs do best. Prove their case and state a claim.

11 March 2011 From Osvaldo Valdés

184 East 7th Street
New York, NY 10009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing MOTION TO STRIKE was served by
mailing a copy by United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, on MARCH 11TH, 2011, as
follows:

RUBIN AND ROTHMAN, LLC

Plaintiff's Attorney
1787 Veterans Highway
Islandia, N.Y. 11749

__________________________
Osvaldo Valdes, 184 East 7th Street, New York, NY

3176010
- 4 of 4