Robert Van Buren Smith

47611 NW Hayward Road

Manning, Oregon 97125
07/06/2021

ATTORNEY

NAME: MATTHEW R. AYLWORTH, BAR #070930 (hereinafter "Aylworth")

ADDRESS: 4023 W 1st Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97402
LAW FIRM: GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI, P.C.
ATTORNEY COMPLAINT [GRIEVANCE]
Certified mail #_______________________________

Matthew R. Aylworth: Committed numerous crimes & violated professional rules

of conduct.

Matthew R. Aylworth violated Rule 8.4 Misconduct:

(a)(2) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that

reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects;

(a)(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation

that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;

1. Since my first bar grievance against Matthew Aylworth was received by your
organization on May 25, 2021, Mr. Aylworth has violated the professional rules of
conduct once again. Previously, Matthew Aylworth, who appears to be employed by a
fictitious entity named GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI, P.C. sent fraudulent mail to my
home, which contained unverified claims that threatened I, a man, Robert Van Buren
Smith, if I did not send money (which factually makes it extortion). This document was
unsigned.

2. In response, I requested a man or woman, employed by this fictional entity, to send

back to me a notarized affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, substantiating their
claims against, I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith. (sent certified mail #7020 0640 0002

Page 1 of 5
1144 6302, received by Amber Strasdas on 04/12/2021). I also, filed a complaint for mail
fraud.

3. On or about April 25, 2021, meaningless documents, in the sense that they were
purported to substantiate the initial unverified, unsigned claim, against, I, a man, Robert
Van Buren Smith, were sent by a man, Matthew R. Aylworth, on behalf of PERSONS
doing business as GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI, P.C. In truth, they pointed more
towards evidence of, continued mail fraud, identity theft, securities fraud and violations
of the Oregon UTPA [which by the way, this law firm has been found to be in violation
of, back in 2017, due to usage of “unconscionable tactics” that caused “confusion” and
“misunderstanding”, by the Oregon Supreme Court see Gordon v. Rosenblum, 361 Or
352 (2017)]. Matthew, not only further incriminated himself by sending these
documents, but he also failed to send back a notarized affidavit, signed under penalty
of perjury to verify his claim, upon request by, I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith.

4. The documents that Matthew Aylworth sent included a BILL OF SALE/FORWARD

FLOW ACCOUNTS PURCHASE AGREEMENT, dated 11/12/2019, between SYNCHRONY
BANK and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., of charged off debts, which
evidenced securities fraud. It is a fact that it is customary for large banks such as
SYNCHRONY BANK to carry credit insurance and/or accounts receivable insurance. We
also know that banks such as SYNCHRONY BANK sell credit card asset back securities,
which require certain filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is
securities fraud and insurance fraud to collect insurance on charged off debt, not report
it to the SEC, and then turn around and sell the same charged off debt to a third party
for a profit. Matthew Aylworth is claiming to represent MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC. to collect on fraudulent, charged-off debt. Furthermore, he is
using identity theft to do it.

5. In response, I, sent Matthew a notice of claim with a demand to cease and desist his
illegal activity, my affidavit of status, and a notice of deficiencies and irregularities, sent
via certified mail#7020 3160 0000 6459 8999, received by “CDJ (T?)” on 05/24/2021. I
requested that Matthew respond with a rebuttal, in writing, via a sworn affidavit, point-
for-point, addressing each of my claims within 10 days of his receipt.

6. Matthew never responded to my notice of claim or rebutted my affidavit of status.

Matthew is ignoring the fact that he is already in commercial Default on a Notice of
Claim totaling$150,000.00 supported by Affidavits, served to him on May 24, 2021 via
certified mail #[7020 3160 0000 6459 8999] by I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith.

Page 2 of 5
7. Matthew ignored the fact that his failure to rebut the foregoing Affidavits/verification
requests referenced in paragraphs 2 and 5, had Estopped him from making any Claims
against I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith, and my Property.

8. Matthew, instead, chose to violate the UPTA, using an “unconscionable tactic” by

filing a lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, with the Washington County Circuit Court
on 06/16/2021, against I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith, after defaulting on my notice
of claim and failing to simply send a sworn affidavit verifying his claim against me
outside of the circuit courts to prove his claim.

8a. Despite, this illegality, in good faith, I sent Matthew a Notice of Default on Claim
with an opportunity to cure that default within 3 days of receipt of notice, if he simply
responded, with a sworn affidavit that rebutted my affidavits point-for-point, to verify
his claims, sent certified mail #7020 1810 0000 6039 5992, and received by CDT on
07/01/2021. I even gave Matthew an extra day to respond because of the 4 th of July
holiday. As of the date of this Bar Grievance, Matthew failed to respond.

9. Matthew, of his own accord, determined that MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
a corporate fiction, which is an IT, has rights in my property. I, a man, Robert Van Buren
Smith, am not owned by IT, am not a subject of IT, have no contracts with IT, and have
no obligations with IT.

10. I, a man, verify under penalty of perjury that there is NO debt owed to, Matthew R.
Aylworth, a man, the PERSONS doing business as MIDLAND FUNDING or GORDON,
AYLWORTH & TAMI, P.C. There is no res judicata case determined in a Trial by Jury,
where it was determined that any claimed debt exists. (There was never one before
Matthew Aylworth sent fraudulent mail to me and now…See paragraphs 7 & 8a above.)

11. My body, information, genetic material, all that I own and Claim is my exclusive
Property.

12. Aylworth, and the PERSONS doing business as MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT
INC. and GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI, P.C. have no right, no interest, no jurisdiction,
no authority, and no standing, to do anything with my Property. Any claims that
Aylworth and the foregoing entities had, needed to first be adjudicated in a Trial by
Jury. This violated Article 1, Section 12 of the Oregon Constitution. (There was never
one before Matthew Aylworth sent fraudulent mail to me and now…See paragraphs 7 &
8a above.)

Page 3 of 5
13. Aylworth, engaged in “Unlawful Collection Practices” under Oregon Revised Statutes
§646.639(4)(b) by bringing a legal action, against I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith, in
an attempt to collect a debt without possessing business records that could overcome
the rules to hearsay exceptions. Matthew was asked, more than once, for a sworn
affidavit from a man or woman, under penalty of perjury, employed by GORDON,
AYLWORTH & TAMI P.C., to verify the claim that I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith,
owed MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. a debt.

14. Aylworth, engaged in Unlawful Trade Practices under the OREGON UTPA
§646.607(1) by employing an unconscionable tactic in connection with collecting or
enforcing an obligation. Aylworth, had ample time to prove standing, personal
knowledge and truthfulness of his claims outside of court. I have been forthright about
my stance that I have no issue paying a debt I lawfully owe. I repeatedly asked Aylworth
for a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury of his claims of trespass against me. It is
an unconscionable tactic to waste everyone’s valuable time and money and knowingly
file a false claim in a court of law.

15. Aylworth, engaged in Unlawful Trade Practices under the OREGON UTPA §608(1)(b)
by Causing confusion and misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or
certification of services. As a debt collector and attorney, why would he sidestep a
lawful process that could potentially guarantee a positive outcome for his client, who he
purports to be MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.? In other words, the supposed
debtor (I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith), simply requested verification of the alleged
claim of a debt owed, via a sworn affidavit, from a man or woman with standing and
personal knowledge, which is something that would be required in a court of law, trial
by jury. This is a very simple and easy thing to do, if the claim was lawful and valid. It
is confusing and was confusing as to why Aylworth didn’t simply send the sworn
affidavit upon request, but would rather, instead, file a legal action, and pay money for
filing fees and a process server, for something that could be easily handled outside of
court? Confusing? Highly confusing. Is there a misunderstanding as to the certification
of services? Yes, because, what is Aylworth trying to accomplish here? Is his intent to
use the court system to bully or intimidate, I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith, into
paying a fraudulent claim? Based on his actions, it is clear the answer is yes.
16. Aylworth, is in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes §646A.670(4) when he filed his
breach of contract complaint as he did not provide an affidavit by a person with
knowledge to verify his complaint, which would show the possibility that there was a

Page 4 of 5
witness who could testify that could overcome the business records hearsay exceptions.
Instead, he signed the complaint himself. Aylworth is not trustworthy, if one simply
looks at his employer’s track record of violations of the UTPA. Aylworth claims to be
representing MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., so why is he signing the
complaint under penalty of perjury? There wasn’t a man or woman employed by
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. who could lawfully sign and “verify” the
complaint? After all, Aylworth’s claim is “IT” (a ficitious entity) was trespassed against by
I, a man, Robert Van Buren Smith, and he is representing IT and speaking for IT.

17. Aylworth engaged in “Deceptive or fraudulent business practices” under

Oregon Revised Statutes §645.040(c) by engaging in a transaction, act, practice or
course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any
person by, sending through the mail, fraudulent, unverified claims, for the purpose of
obtaining my property.

18. Aylworth engaged in “Identity theft” under Oregon Revised Statutes § 165.800.
Aylworth committed the offense of identity theft against Robert Van Buren Smith, by
possessing and using, through any means, identifying information of the
foregoing without their consent, to further his unlawful claims against my
Property.

19. Aylworth engaged in the following Federal Crimes: 18 U.S. Code § 241 -
Conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color
of law; 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindle; 18 U.S. Code § 2071 -
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally; 18 U.S. Code § 2073 - False
entries and reports of moneys or securities; 18 U.S. Code § 513 - Securities of
the States and private entities; 18 U.S. Code § 514 - Fictitious obligations
18 U.S. Code § 876 - Mailing threatening communications; and 18 U.S. Code §
1001 - Statements or Entries Generally.

Pursuant to 28 USC § 1746(1)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the ____ day, of the ____
month, in the year of our Lord and Savior, two thousand twenty-one.

_________________________________________________
Robert Van Buren Smith: man

Page 5 of 5