HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-1342COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
.
COMMON PLEAS NO W ^ 1311A
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Intuit r?11
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the
date and in the case mentioned below.
NAME OF APPELLANT MAG DIST NO OR NAME OF D1
SHER14AN ACQUISITION LIMITED PARTNT jIIP AS ASSIGNEE OF SEARS 09-3-05
ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZP CODE
c/o Edward Stock, Esquire, 804 West Avenue, Jenkintown, PA 19046
DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (H ,Mff) !pelerMartl
3/19/04 SHEEM AOXISITIGN LIIKPIED PAR1NERS[UP AS 1f?'rtT
CLAW NO ACST(T1FF; OF SEARS SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR XIS ATT ? A
EDWARD STOCK SQ E, ,#13657
CV 19-04
LT This block will be signed ONLY when this natation is required under Po. R.CP.1.P. NO If /I was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No.
1008B.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a 1001(6) in action before District Justice, he MUST
SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after
filing his NOTICE of APPEAL.
signature of Prothonotary or Deputy
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice.
IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee).
PRAECIPE: To Proflw*tary
Enter rule upon , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of appef/ee(s)
(Common Pleas Na ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of ran pros.
Signature of appellant or his atfomey a agent
RULE: To , appellee(s).
Name of agVIA (s)
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of
service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail.
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing
Date:
Signetua or Rwlalofery or ONDUN
AOPC 312-90
COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY
'fi?,?'1,"^i t• ;'$$:$Y 44t i,n? "!%: F?.; ?,sv^t ,.?... . .... ... r. :s .t.
CtUtdVAE)NYv'.EAL to ZF Fcty rilSsau„;?i.i
AFFIDAV k:rE't74 4`'"{I ?;??fj r.,i Y,a 1£e'}
ce,
w
C
O
r?
n) O
A
fi
W ?
t
CD `k,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNS? `MANIA
--.COUNTY OF: CUMBERLANDy._-'
Mag. D,st. No.'
09-3-05
DJ Name: Hon.
GAYLE,' A. ELDER
Address: 507 N. YORK ST.
MECHANICSBURG, PA
eiepnona `(717) 766-457517055
.r?
NOTICE O'- 1IU,DGMENVTRANSCRIPT
J v
PLAINTIFF: IL CASE .
NAME and ADDRESS
FSHERMAN ACQUISITION LTD FOR SEARS 7
RESSLER&RESSLER
804 WEST AVENUE
LJENKINTOWN, PA 19046 L
vs.
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS _
FPAOLETTA, MICHAEL L
1771 S. MEADOW DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
L
DocketNo.: CV-0000019-04
Date Filed: 1/30/04
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LTD FOR SEARS
RESSLER&RESSLER
804 WEST AVENUE
JENKINTOWN, PA 19046
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment 1 _
PAOLETTA, MICHAEL L
$ISMT-SSRT1 W/O-PRRJUDICE ----
F Judgment was entered for: (Name)
? Judgment was entered against: (Name)
in the amount of $
? Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
on: (Date of Judgment)
0 Damages will be assessed on:
?X This case dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to
Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 $
Portion of Judgment for physical
damages arising out of residential
lease $
(Date & Time)
Xts
J
DEF 001
Amount of Judgment $ .00
Judgment Costs $ .00
Interest on Judgment $ .00
Attorney Fees $ .00
Total $ .00
Post Judgment Credits $
Post Judgment Costs $
Certified Judgment Total $
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER
ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE.
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES,
OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
o 19/DV Date I (, • & eyn,7 , District Justice
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment.
Date
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006 .
District Justice
SEAL
AOPC 315-03 DATE PRINTED: 3/19/04 9:18:00 AM
.?7/1??
JMM.CLL .'A. .yai4xe2 "
(215) 576-1900
March 25, 2004
Office of the Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, As Assignee of Sears vs.
Michael L. Paoletta
District Court 09-3-05
No. CV-19-04
Gentlemen:
I represent Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, as Assignee of Sears in regard to the above
matter wherein an adverse decision was rendered against my client in the above District Court of
Cumberland County on March 19, 2004.
Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal together with my check in the amount of $55.25 to cover
the cost of docketing and filing the same.
I am also enclosing an original and a copy of a Civil Action Complaint for this case. After the
Notice of Appeal is assigned a court number, I would appreciate your conforming the original
complaint for me and docket and file the same.
I would be grateful if you could please return the Notice of Appeal and a copy of the complaint
properly time-stamped in the enclosed envelope so that I may proceed to serve the Notice of
Appeal upon the District Court as well as the Defendant(s), together with a copy of the
complaint.
Thank you for your courtesy.
ES:kd
Enclosures
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP
BY: EDWARD STOCK, ESQUIRE
I•D•# 13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Plaintiff
Attorney for Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERL?NID COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
VS.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsbbrg, PA 17055
N0. 041 , /3yOZ? (2jC)t Qrv
Defendant(s)
CIVIC. ACTION
"NOTICE"
"You have been sued in court. If you wish
to defend against the claims set forth in the fol-
lowing pages, you must take action within twenty
(20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appdarance person-
ally or by attorney and filing in writing with the
court your defenses or objections to the claims
set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you
and a judgment may be entered against you by
the court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint or for any other claim
or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose
money or property or other rights important to
you.
"YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO
YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
"AVISO"
"Le han demandado a usted en la Corte. Si
usted quiere defendersede estas demandas ex-
puestas en [as paginas siguientes, usted tiene
veinte (20) dias de plazo at partir de la fecha de
la dernanda y la notificaci6n. Hace falta asentar
una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un
abogado y entregar a la torte en forma escrita
sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas
en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si
usted no se defiende, la Corte tomara medidas
y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin
previo aviso o notificaci6n. Ademas, la torte
puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere
que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de
esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus
propiedades u otros derechos importantes para
usted."
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, "LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABO-
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET GADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABO-
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU GADO CS] NOTIENE ELDINERO SUFICIENTE
CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PER-
SONA 0 LLAME POP TELEFONO A LA OFI-
CINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA
ESCRITA ABAJO ARA AVERIGUAR DONDE
SE PUEDE COHSE 11R ASISTENCI^ LEGAL.
LAWYER REFERENCE SERVICES
Court Administrator -- Cumberland County Courthouse
4th Floor, One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
RESSLER & RESSLER, P.C.
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Plaintiff
vs.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO.
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, as purchaser from and
assignee of Sears, Roebuck and Co., or Sears National Bank or any other assignee that may
have or have had any interest in defendant's credit card account or any interest in any
obligation relating to such credit card account, with Sears, Roebuck and Co. acting as servicer
for Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, a limited partnership organized in Delaware,
with it's principal place of business in Texas, and duly authorized to do business in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, for purposes of this litigation, maintaining a place of
business c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C., 804 West Avenue, Jenkintown, PA 19046.
2. Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, is an adult individual, who presently resides at
1771 S. Meadow Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055, in the County of Cumberland.
3. The Defendant purchased various merchandise and services from the Plaintiff on
the following line of credit: Credit Card Account No. 0661150581022.
4. The Defendant has refused to pay, and now refuses to pay, the balance due and
owing on the aforesaid account in the sum of $3,383.58, plus costs of this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in
favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, in the sum of $3,383.58, plus costs of
this action.
RESSLER
DATE: ?,?.? B - -- - -
VERIFICATION
EDWARD STOCK, ESQUIRE, Attorney for Plaintiff herein, verifies that the
statements made in this Pleading are true and correct and that he is authorized to
make them on behalf of the Plaintiff. He understands that the statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
f
EDW¢1R ST
C; `y O
f
C l)
o ;i
rMQUIF OF SE V CE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL +'3€yD RULE TO Fi-,F: COMPLAINT
(TP,s proof a` service tv?VST EE Fier,- WfT IN 7 EN, ! n.,, c?,a, v, t = r .e++•U orre .'.
•p,?",,..aG;e 4azes?.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANiA
CduNTY dF__-- PHILADELPHIA -
AFFIDAVIT; I lteraby swear or affirm that !served
a COPY of the Notice of A 01+-1342 Cavil Term
ppeal, common f,Ea,NO. : uporf th;? Ct?gtrlct
(date of aervrce) Apx?7 2 2004 -' „atic;e c9asf naf e .hcu .=n
J by Persona, service $ n,r {cernf?ehl f ?egiste 0& FIJI?),
(?GB ?, d?i8t`hE0 . JitJ ut?L
tl eC. serfdei's
?v?c l?h rhaal L...Padett?.... _.
Aonl ?a?GUIN _ _ _ _ on
-- - `J b personal serif r I pr f, rrrt-fied7 rcg steft ,o) n 00ecr i? s eceip, a! ached hereto
t? andfurtr.ertha.? erveadthe Rafet<;F le3t.c r.(+! r au am„s t wq tF;e3, >v,,Not=cr fAFpeul,pm he a},r ell,es;
the Ru'e was addressed on
__'__ tc whorrf
_ _. _ 7 try Z,ar=
mafl .;enuc"'S r ceipt aua 'tie i '.am+t e:1 "rr:gie'e
SWOR (.AFF)RfVlED; AND SD8BC41F3ED BEFORE ME -
TF S 2nd
April 2004 /
.. ?? Si narti.?e ofeffiant
Si amre of Plfiga8l aP`O+o whom -- --------------?- ? -_
N(7IARY I'Liju0
ciao of olt;ca"
My cOmm*b 'On axpll" ",
c?
r -n
'
6?
NOTICE OF APPEAL
COMMItt WW-fALTN OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT --OF COMWOP
rt
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS Ns (O!y .?
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the
date and in the case mentioned below.
AREUAM
SHFRSWl AC01JISITION L-LAITLD PARITL'ntr2 AS A.SSIUN1 X 311AI.'S
i9-3-J
I APFEUArar , t
c' ,c) Edward Stock, issquire, Y,G4 'West Avenue, Jenkintown, PA -
3/19/04
Cv 19-04
LT
LLum) i)AMNOS UP AS
T?li:d Ait'J
This bock will be :signed ONLY when this rotation is required under Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No.
1008& will operate as a
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, op
SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case
or
1:;657
If apoellmCwa8 CLAIMANT (see ra. rr.t.r..J.m nvu.
1001(6) in action beforeDistrict Justice, he MUST
FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after
filing his NOTICE of APPEAL.
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when oppeliant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before DisVict Justice
IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee).
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
apPeltee(s), to file a complaint in this upped
Enter rule upon Nsme of eppetlee(s)
within twenty (20) do" aft -service of rule: or suffer entry. of judgment of ran Pros
(ComrrorvPkas No, $igllaNre of appeEant or ha aM-W a W&W
RULE: To , appellee(s).
Mime or agoellea(sr
(1) you am notified thata rule is hereby entered upon You to file a complaint in this appeal within. twenty (20) days after the date of
service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail.
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing.
- - SipWVe of ft"-WY p. DFWIF
Date: ? --
AOPC'312-90
i
i
COURT FILE
M
.. '..?
ru
ru Postage $
17-
Certified Fee q
i P?g?, R\'?f
1
"
°
.a Return Receipt Fee e
re?
'1
i H
Cr (Endorsement Required)
M
Restricted Delivery Fee O
'
C3 (Endorsement Required)
.
I.
C3
O
Total Postage & Fesa
$
-''-"
N Seyt?To
Clr. Michael L.
?Floletta
-; - a -- d -- o - w ------
S
:---- M-e -- v -- e -- - °------ ----------------
r, or PO Po
o,c Box No.
cry anicsbu: g Pa. 17055
o ,
r-
V
cc
{.?
M
N
fit ostage $ c \r` '.
M
d Fee
C
tif a +
er
ie
7 V
eipt Fee
equimd)
Requimd)
Here
O
very Fee
O equired)
O & Fees
v.-1i $e"ITbn. Gayle A. Elder
N ---
si?ai;:npeNO.;---"'-Disfrcc Cou-
r --- t 0-- 9--- -3-OS -----
r-I
C3 orPo ?I
-r-ee t
Citg 5 te, IP.d?'- -
-4 G
i
b
h
M
- - - - -
17055
° urg, a.
cs
an
ec
V
April 1, 2004
Hon. Gayle A. Elder
District Court 09-3-05
507 N. York Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Mr. Michael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Re: Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, as assignee of
Sears vs. Michael L. PaOletta
District Court 09-3-05
No. CV-19-04
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County
No. 04-1342 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Paoletta:
On behalf of the plaintiff, Sherman Acquisition Limited
Partnership, as assignee of Sears, enclosed please find a true
and correct copy of a Notice of Appeal, the original of which was
filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on
March 29, 2004 in regard to the above matter.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD STOCK
ES:kd
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR
THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT
TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR
THAT PURPOSE.
April 1, 2004
Hon. Gayle A. Elder
District Court 09-3-05
507 N. York Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Mr. Michael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Re: Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, as assi
Sears vs. Michael L. Paoletta
District Court 09-3-05 assignee of
No. CV-19-04
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County
No. 04-1342 Civil Term
Dear Judge Elder:
On behalf of the plaintiff, Sherman Acquisition
Partnership, as assignee of Sears, enclosed
Limited
and correct COPY Of a Notice of A Please find a true
Court of Common Pleasa of e original of which was
March 29, 2004 in regard to the Cumberland County on
above matter.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
ES: kd EDWARD STOCK
Enclosure
CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR
THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. THIS IS
TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY
AN ATTEMPT
THAT PURPOSE. INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR
Attorney for Plaintiff
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-1342
Plaintiffs Defendant files Preliminary
Objections under Pa. R.C.P.
1028 ; Correct Names of Party
under Pa. R.C.P 1033; and
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
Complaint.
vs.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
NOW COMES Michael L. Paoletta, proceeding at least for the present
Personam submits this Preliminary Objection , Correct Names of Party; and Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, and to expound upon the claim that the Plaintiff, (whoever
he is) has failed to provide proof regarding the existence of a valid and lawful contract
between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. On numerous occasions the Defendant has
requested in writing that the Plaintiff and their counsel validate that an actual debt exists.
The Defendant has also submitted, in writing, requests for validation under 15 USC
§ 1692g and a series of questions and concerns to the Plaintiff regarding the substance of
the alleged contract. To date, (first request more than three years ago) the Defendant has
not received any answers addressing the concerns regarding the existence, substance and
validity of the alleged loan contract. The economic effect of this alleged transaction has
damaged the Defendant. The Defendant is seeking this Complaint be dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice and that this Court grant a judgment in favor of the Defendant. This
introduction paragraph brings forth the question of subject matter jurisdiction in this civil
matter because the Plaintiff s Complaint is based upon deception, deceit, misleading
information in direct violations of the "Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and other state
and federal violations to be presented to this Court. The Plaintiff's claim is barred by the
entire controversy doctrine, 2. fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
Plaintiff(s)(?) lacks proper standing to file this suit, 3. Plaintiffs claim fails because
Plaintiff has violated the U.C.C. 4. Plaintiff claim fails because of illegality and the
Statures of Fraud, 5. Plaintiff s claim fails because of equitable and promissory estoppel,
6. Plaintiff has violates Defendants Constitutional rights, particularly due process, equal
protection laws, state and federal banking laws.
THIS COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
DEFENDANT FILES PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS UNDER PA. R.C.P. 10287
CORRECT NAME OF PARTY UNDER RULE 1033; AND MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
COUNT NUMBER 1; PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF LEGAL STANDING
NOW COMES, Defendant Michael L. Paoletta, Propria Persona, files his
Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint moving to amend' and/or correct the name
of the parties, and this Motion to Dismiss serves as Defendant's Preliminary Objection in
response to the Plaintiffs Complaint;
The Plaintiff is not Sears. Sherman Acquisitions Limited Partnership is not the
assignee of Sears. The Plaintiff is the Attorney Debt Collector Stock &
Grimes, LLP or it could be Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership, who is a
debt collector.2
2. The Defendant files Preliminary Objections on the ground that this Stock &
Grimes, LLP, are debt collectors,3 who "regularly" engages in consumer-debt-
Pa. Rules of civil Procedure, Rule number 1033
a Title 15 USCA section 1692(a)(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any
instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of
which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the
exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any
creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts uses any name other than his own which
would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the
purpose of section 1692 f (6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any
instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of
which is the enforcement of security interests.
' HEINTZ v. JENKINS C.A. 7 (Ill.) (1995) 115 S. Ct. 1489, 514 U.S. 291, 131 L. 2d 395; JUSTICE
collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation in complete
contravention to the laws of this Commonwealth4, and of this United States.5
3. The Defendant demand that Plaintiff places in evidence all accounting ledgers
and cannot give mere opinion evidence, such as affidavits in support of any
complaint not just attesting to what Plaintiff s records show, but must place in
evidence the original signed contract, complete ledgers themselves, showing
that Plaintiff made full disclosure, valuable consideration was given or
otherwise any opinion affidavits, or statements made by Plaintiff by and
through its counsel are mere hearsay evidence.
The Complaint by Plaintiff never alleges any consideration on the part of the
Plaintiff, nor has the Plaintiff provided any evidence that it ever incurred a
financial loss, or any loss whatsoever, or that their exists any requirements of
contractual consideration by the Plaintiff, see UCC §3-303(a) " a holder takes
the instrument for value to the extent that the agreed consideration has been
performed.
5. The alleged debt has been disputed directly to Sears, Sherman Acquisitions,
Hanna & Hanna and each has been notified that there is a claim against any
negotiable instrument(s) that they could have having my fraudulently obtained
signature. See UCC §3-305(a)(1)(iii), resulting in fraud in the inducement.
(Am Jur 2"d , 17A Contracts, page 236).
6. Plaintiffs have not presented any variable evidence to substantiate their
Complaint. The Plaintiff has committed fraud in the inducement, failure of
consideration, deceptive business practices, violated the truth In Lending
Laws, material alterations and no competent witness.
BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before us is whether the term "Debt
Collector" in the Fair Debt Collection Act, 91 Stat,874, 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692o (1988 ed. Supp.
V), applies to a lawyer who "regularly," through litigation, tries to collect consumer debts. The
court of appeals for the Seventh circuit held that it does. We agree with the Seventh circuit and
we affirm its judgment.
4 Title 73 P.S. chapter 42, section 2207.03 "Debt Collector" (1) a person not a creditor conducting
business within this Commonwealth, acting on behalf of a creditor, engaging directly or
indirectly in collecting a debt owned or alleged to be owed a creditor or assignee of a creditor.
Pursuant to title 15 USCA 1692(1): (b) Authorization of actions: Nothin¢ in this subchapter shall
be construed to authorize the bringine of leeal actions by debt collectors.
4
7. The Plaintiff, Stock & Grimes, LLP and/or Stock & Grimes, and Edward Stock, Esquire,
herein known as Stock & Grimes, LLP is a Debt collector who is perpetrating a fraud6 upon
on this Court, and the rights of this Defendant and has no legal standing to commence the
claim in this Court, and further Plaintiff, Stock & Grimes, LLP, has no legal standing to
initiate legal action.
8. The Plaintiff, Stock & Grimes, LLP submitted documents to this Court that state
plainly on their face, that it is a debt collector 8.
9. The Plaintiff, Stock & Grimes, LLP moved in a deceptive practice in violation of the laws
of this Commonwealth9, and this United States.10
Note: In the caption, Stock & Grimes, P.C. refer to Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership
as the assignee of Sears and in the first paragraph Sherman Acquisition Limited Partnership
now becomes the purchaser from and assignee of Sears. In Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.
The two terms are not interchangeable. If they are the assignee, what and when did Sears
assign it? If Sherman has something then produce it. If Sherman purchased something from
Sears, the logical questions should be, first, what and when did Sears sell them and secondly,
what did they pay in order to get whatever they got? 11 I think that if Sherman Acquisitions
Limited Partnership, Stock & Grimes, LLP and/or Mr. Stock wanted to produce the
competent evidence in questions, one would think that would be very possible. Is it not a
security violation to lose something that could be possibly that valuable?
6 Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(5): Preliminary objections may be fled by any party to any
pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (5) ILlack of capacity to sue.
7 Pursuant to title 15 USCA 1692(1): (b) authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be
construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.
s Plaintiff has served in this honorable court a Civil Action-Law, Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure
and the caption page is clearly marked, "THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND
ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE."
9 Title 73 P.S. chapter 42, 2270.4. Unfair or deceptive acts or practices (a) By debt collectors.-It shall
constitute an unfair or deceptive debt collection act or practice under this act if a debt collector
violates any of the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Public Law95-109. 15
U.S.C. & 1692 et seq.).
10 Title 16 CFR-Chapter 1 - Part 901, This part establishes procedures and criteria whereby States may
apply to the Federal Trade commission for exemption of a class of debt collection practices within
the Pennsylvania Rules of Court, State, Rules of civil Procedure, rule 1033
Holcomb v. Wyckoff, N.J. Supp, 35 N.J.L. 1870 Lexis 57. the court ruled that the purchaser is only
entitled to recover the consideration for which he paid for the notes plus interest. (not the face
amount)
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to dismiss
this action with prejudice for all of the reasons listed above and in the name of justice.
COUNT 11: Plaintiffs Complaint Fails to Conform to Pa. R.C.P. 2002
10. Paragraphs one (1) through nine (9) of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to
Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.
11. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against defendant in this matter. A true and correct
copy of the Plaintiffs Complaint is attached hereto as `Exhibits DA, DA I, DA2 and
DAY.
12. Plaintiffs paragraph one (1) is confusing, misleading and fails to state with
specificity just who or whom the Real Parties In Interest are per Pa. R.C.P 2002.
13. The Plaintiffs Complaint being defective, does not state with specificity just
who or whom the Real Parties In Interest are, must be dismissed with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to dismiss
this action with prejudice for all of the reasons listed above and in the name of justice.
COUNT III: Plaintiffs Complaint Fails To Confoirm to Pa. R.C. P. 1019
14. Paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) of Defendant's Preliminary
Objections Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein. by reference as if fully set
forth below.
Plaintiffs paragraph three (3) states as follows:
"The Defendant purchased various merchandise and services from the Plaintiff
on the following line of credit: Credit Card Account No. 0661150581022."
15. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(h) requires that:
"When any claim or defense is based upon an agreement, the pleading shall
state specifically if the agreement is oral or written."
Note: If the agreement is in writing, it must be attached to the pleading. See
subdivision (i) of this rule.
16. The explanatory comment to Rule 1019 states as follows:
"Present subdivision (h) of Rule 1019 governs the pleading of writings. It is
revised to apply to agreements. The pleading must state if an agreement is oral
or written. "...."A note advises that a written agreement must be attached to the
pleading as provided by subdivision (i). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
has amended rule 1019 governing the pleading of agreements and writings
generally when claims or defenses are based upon them. The new Subdivision
(i) clearly states, "the new subdivision is derived from present subdivision (h)
and provides that a writing or the material part thereof be attached to the
pleading. Written agreements are "writing" and thus subject to the rule." In
Plaintiffs Complaint there is not agreement.
17. The Plaintiffs Complaint being defective because 1019i states with specificity
that the written agreement or written as required by Rule 1019(h), must be attached to the
Complaint, however, it was not, so the complaint is defective and must be dismissed with
prejudice.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to dismiss this
action with prejudice for all of the reasons listed above and in the name of justice.
COUNT IV: Plaintiffs Verification Fails To Conform to Pa. R.C.P. 1024
18. Paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (17) of Defendant's Preliminary
Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set
forth below.
19. The verification to Plaintiffs Complaint was not made by anyone listed in the
misleading and confusing paragraph one (1) to Plaintiffs Complaint as a purchaser, assignee
or servicer with a Limited Partnership or duly authorized to do business in Texas, Delaware or
this Commonwealth. The verification was signed by one Edward Stock, Esquire of Stock &
Grimes, P.C. of Jenkintown, PA.
20. Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c) requires that:
"The verification shall be made by one or more of the parties filing the
pleading unless all the parties (1) lack sufficient knowledge or information, or
(2) are outside the jurisdiction of the court and the verification on none of them
can be obtained within the time allowed for filing the pleading. In such cases,
the verification may be made by any person having sufficient knowledge of
information and belief and shall set forth the source of the person's
information as to matters not stated upon his or her own knowledge and the
reason why the verification is not made by a party".
21. The verification to Plaintiffs Complaint was not taken by any party as stated
within the confusing and misleading paragraph one (1) of Plaintiffs Complaint, it was signed
by Attorney, Edward Stock, and could not possibly be understood by the person signing the
verification due to the paragraph's confusing nature, and does not set forth the source of the
information as to the matters contained in the complaint as prescribed within Pa. R.C.P.
1024(c).
The verification to Plaintiffs Complaint is defective under Rule 1024(c).
Signora v. Kaplan, 33 D&C. 4`h (1996) states the following:
"4 Standard Pa. Practice 2d, ch. 21 § 21:29 states that as a general rule, a
party's pleading may not be verified by that party's attorney. Further, unless all
requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 1024 are met, verification by counsel is inap-
propriate. 3 Standard Pa. Practice 2d, ch. 16 § 16:39. It is recognized that
verification is the manner is which a party attests to the truthfulness of the
pleading. Without a proper verification the pleading is of little value to the
court." 3 Standard Pa. Practice 2d, ch. 16 § 16:35. "A court will not treat
verification lightly or as a procedural formality; the law requires verification
and without it, a statement of claims is a mere narration which amounts to
nothing." Id.
22. Rupel v. Bluestein, 280 Pa. Super. 65, 421 A2d. 406 (1980), the court noted
that the rules should be liberally construed, but also stated that a complaint is
defective where it is verified by the petitioner's attorney and fails to state
which allegations were made on the basis of the verifying attorney's know-
ledge and what the source of the attorney's information is in regards to the
matters not within his knowledge.
Attorneys are not permitted to by the rules of professional conduct to testify on behalf
of their client. Nor are attorneys permitted to testify to matters based on information
and belief that have been related to them by their client (s). If the alleged creditor has
any original documents attesting to their claim they must bring in competent fact
witnesses to support their contentions and they must have supporting documentation
to prove and verify the existence of a valid lawful claim against Defendant. Being that
the verification is defective and attorneys can not testify on behalf of their client then
Plaintiffs Complaint is not properly verified and do not have a expert witness as
required of a pleading under Pa. R.C.P. Rule 1024, must be dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. Stock and or Stock & Grimes, LLP have not reviewed Defendant's file and cannot
attest to the existence of any competent evidence (original note-instrument or
agreement or numerous requests for validation under "The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act" has ever been produced. So the debt collecting law firm of, Stock &
Grimes, LLP, and Sherman Acquisitions Limited are deprived of subject matter
jurisdiction by an Act of Congress for violations of Title 15 U.S.C. §1692a-o. Clearly
and unequivocally this Complaint is to be considered as an unauthorized action. See
Black's law dictionary (6a' edition page 284, defines competent evidence as; "That
which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires, as, the production of a
writing where its contents are subject of inquiry."
And Nash v. Lerner, 709 A.2d 799, (1998 App. Div.), and "for purposes of Evidence
Rule 602, requiring witness to have "personal knowledge" of a fact which can be
perceived by the senses only if he had opportunity to observe and actually observed
the facts, and; 1. Stock & Grimes, P.C., and Mr. Stock., Sherman Acquisitions, Sears
and Hanna & Hanna have not been able to verify the existence of a valid claim against
9
Defendant; 2. Whoever the Plaintiff is in this case and especially Mr. Stock, Esquire
and Stock & Grimes, LLP lack sufficient knowledge and information to determine as
to the truth or falsity as to authenticity of this alleged debt.
Had Stock & Grimes, LLP and Mr. Stock examined the entire case they would have
found numerous request for validation of the purported debt under Title 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692 g(4). Stock & Grimes, P.C. and Mr. Stock proceeded with this Complaint in
direct violation or the validation section. (s) of the "Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act," or have violated § 1692g(3) (must examine the complete file) The documents
presented with this Preliminary Objections clearly show lack of conformity to state
and federal law by Stock & Grimes, LLP and Mr. Stock, Esquire. Notice is hereby
given that Stock & Grimes, LLP and Mr. Stock, Esquire, are committing a fraud upon
this court in direct violation of "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" and are
punishable by civil action, criminal actions, and other actions to which the Aggrieved
Party is entitled as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to dismiss
this action with prejudice for all of the reasons listed above and in the name of justice.
COUNT IV: Plaintiffs Complaint Notice Print Size Is Not Of Proper
Size And Is Not Readable
10
23. Paragraphs one (1) through twenty two (22) of Defendant's Answer to
Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.
24. Plaintiffs Complaint Notice print size is not readable due to the small size print
utilized within the Notice.
25. Without a proper Notice To Defend per Pa. R.C.P. 1018.1, the Prothonotary
cannot enter a default judgment.
26. Pa.R.C.P. 237.5 states the following:
Form of Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default
Explanatory Comment-1994
Form of Notice
"The form of notice to be given when a default judgment is sought is adapted
from the notice to defend which Rule 1018.1 requires on every complaint." (emphasis
added)
27. The Notice must be readable and understandable for it to comply to Pa. R.C.P.
1018.1, the Plaintiffs Notice is not readable due to its small print in the Notice.
28. Without the appropriate Notice To Defend with proper font size, this court
cannot rule in favor of a judgment for a Plaintiff if the Complaint is NOT answered within the
twenty (20) days.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to dismiss
this action with prejudice for all of the reasons listed above and in the name of justice.
COUNT V: Plaintiffs Complaint Caption Per Pa. R.C.P. 1018 Is Confusin¢
As To Who And/Or Whom Is/Are The Plaintiffs
29. Paragraphs one (1) through twenty-eight (28) of Defendant's Answer to
Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.
Pa. R.C.P. 1018 Caption states the following:
11
"Every pleading shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the
number of the action and the name of the pleading. The caption of a complaint
shall set forth the form of the action and the names of all the parties, but in
other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side
in the complaint with an appropriate indication of other parties".
30. The Plaintiffs Complaint names as many as four (4) persons and or entities
who are part of the Complaint per Pa. R.C.P. 1018, it is unclear just who or whom is/are
actually filing the Complaint and lacks Plaintiff specificity within the Caption.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, demands of this Court to
dismiss this action with prejudice for all the reasons listed above and in the
name of justice.
NEW MATTER
COUNT VI: ATTORNEYS DO NOT HAVE, AUTHORITY TO
PREPETRATE FRAUD ON THIS COURT.
IN REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT. A LAWYER SHALL NOT:
Paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff s
Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth below.
31. file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take
other action on behalf of his client when he knows or when it is
obvious and or he should know that such action would serve merely to
harass or maliciously injure another.
32. Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under
existing law.
33. Conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that is required by law to reveal.
34. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
35. Knowingly make false statement of law or fact.
12
36. Participation in the creation or preservation of evidence when he knows
it is obvious that the evidence is false.
37. Counsel or assist his client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be
illegal or fraudulent.
38. Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to his
Disciplinary Rules.
39. A Lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that:
His client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud
upon person and/or tribunal, shall promptly call upon his client to
rectify the same, and if his client refuses or is unable to do so, he shall
reveal the fraud to the effected person or tribunal.
Any attorney acting contrary to the Conons of Ethics is outside his delegation of authority to
represent his client. Therefore, Stock & Grimes, LLP robs this Court of its Subject Matter
Jurisdiction. Efforts by Stock & Grimes, LLP and Mr. Stock, Esquire, your alleged client(s),
or your alleged client's agents, employees, or officers that your efforts to collect this
purported debt is in violation of title 15 U.S.C. § 192a-o and is punishable by civil action,
criminal actions and other private actions to which I am entitled as a matter of law.
Notice is hereby given that Title 15 U.S.C. §1692 establishes in Sub parenthesis (e) of the
"Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" the statute establishes, "False or misleading
representation" in connection with the collection of any debt is a violation of Act. Among
other things, said false, deceptive and misleading representation include the false
representation of the character or legal status or legal amount of any debt. It also makes the
13
threat to take action that cannot legally be taken a deceptive practice. And any court filings for
the purpose of harassing, confusing, misleading, taking unfair advantage and other violations
of state and federal law is in violation of and not only limited to 1692. Your filing a
Complaint in small claims Court and not showing up for Court was nothing more than unfair,
deceptive misleading, based upon fraud and misrepresentation and in violation of ACT.
UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE
The clean hands doctrine is based upon the maxim of equity that he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands. The clean hands doctrine in substance provides that no person
can obtain affirmation relief in equity with respect to a transaction in which he has, himself,
been guilty of inequitable conduct. The Plaintiff should be denied relief by this Court of
equity based on the fundamental maxim of law that actions of :Plaintiff has been inequitable,
unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, unconscionable, willfully concealing, withholding,
falsifying books and records and other deceitful measures relating as to the controversy in
issue. This Court should not permit Plaintiff to rely on their wrongful conduct to recover.
In "Zeferopulos v City of Chicago, 206 ILL. App.3d 904, 565 N.E. 114 (1991), "it is well
settled that where a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it cannot be conferred by
stipulation, consent or waiver and where subject-matter jurisdiction is absent, the court should
decline to proceed further in the cause." See City of Marseilles, v Radke, 287 ILL. App.3d
757, 679 N.E. 2d 125, (1997)
Further, we have stated that a party "may be denied relief where his conduct has been
unconscionable by reason of a bad motive, or where the result induced by his conduct will be
14
unconscionable either in the benefit to himself or the injury to others." Johnson v Freberg,
178 Minn.594, 597-98 N.W. 159, 169 (1929)
"It is well-settled law "that a party who has been guilt of fraud or misconduct in the
prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be pennitted to continue to employ the
very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends." Metropol tan Dade county v. Martinsen,
736So. 2d 794, Fla App.3 dist. (1999). See, Honono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1998)• Cox v.Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5' DCA 19904
The Defendant also agrees with the Fifth District as stated so eloquently in Cox, 796 So. 2d at
4ythat, "the integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts".
The Defendant states that this court will error in its discretion if it fails to dismiss Plaintiff's
action.
Note: A NOTE VOID IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE, BECAUSE OBTAINED BY HIM
OF THE MAKER BY FRAUD. IS COLLECTIBLE IN THE HANDS OF A SUBSEQUENT
BONA FIDE HOLDER WHO HAS TAKEN IT BEFORE MATURITY FOR VALUE; BUT
IF SUCH HOLDER HAS PAID ON SUCH TRANSFER A LESS SUM THAN THE
AMOUNT OF THE NOTE, HE CAN ONLY RECOVER THE; AMOUNT WHICH HE OR
SOME PRIOR HOLDER THROUGH WHOM HE DERIVES TITLE, HAS PAID FOR IT.
CONCLUSION
1. The Plaintiff has failed to produce competent witness and the only
witness in this case is an attorney for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's
attorney can not offer or give any testimony.
2. Without a competent witness, the Court has no subject matter
jurisdiction.
15
Plaintiff has failed to produce an original contract signed by
Defendant. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
4. If Preliminary Objections are refused, Defendant will be denied due
process of law and therefore this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction.
Wherefore, based on The Plaintiff's lack of legal standing 12 to pursue this cause
of action under the laws of this Commonwealth, the Defendant respectfully begs
of this honorable Court:
1) To allow the Defendant's request and adopt this document as such
Preliminary Objections in the interest of Justice.
2) Dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for its failure to state a proper
claim upon which relief shall be granted under the laws of this
Commonwealth. 13
3) That the Defendant recover reasonable cost and
4) For such further relief that this honorable Court deems just and propler under
the laws of this commonwealth, 14 and this United States.15
For the sake of Justice, I am
Very respectfully yours;
Michael L Pao etta ?jeo0.??tth ????
12 see Statement of Fact. Page 17
" Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1512 1512: the court may enter a nonsuit against the Plaintiff under the same
circumstances, subject to review in the same manner and with the same effect as in action at law.
Title 73, P.S. chapter 42, section 2270.5. enforcement and penalties (a) Unfair trade practices,--If a
debt collector or creditor engages in an unfair or deceptive debt collection act or practice under this
act, it shall constitutes a vilation of the act of December 17, 1968 (P.L. 1224 No. 387, Known as the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
" Title 15 USCA Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
16
Statement of Fact
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Heintz v Jenkins that there are two strong reasons
for believing that the Act applies to the litigating activities of lawyers.
1, the Act defines by definition exactly who is a debt collector. And by the admission
of Stock & Grimes, P.C. and Mr. Stock, Esquire on Court document(s) admit such.
2, Congress enacted the original FDCPA in 1977 and one statute expressly exemption
lawyers from the Act. However, in 1986 this stature was specifically repealed placing all debt
collectors, including 1692a(6) definition of lawyers.
The debt collecting law firm of Heintz went before the High Court and argued three main
points,
A, Heintz argued that there was an implied powers within the Act that still exemption
litigating lawyers. He reasoned that Congress simply could not have wanted lawyers to be
subject to the Act and were restricted by the attorney exemption clause. Heintz raised other
issues as well including harmful anomalous and still the High Court spoke concerning
Heintz's first argument, "Particularly when read in this light, we find Heintz's argument
unconvincing".
Congressional research will show that the question of exemption was highly debated on both
the Senate as well as the House Floor and this exemption was removed. There is no implied
powers of exemption. Heintz also argued that it would be odd that attorneys could not bring
litigation. Justice Breyer recognized two distinct classification of lawyers, covered and non-
covered or exempt and non-exempt. Breyer made this perfectly clear, "there are exception
within the Act that permit attorney litigation," Breyer explained the exceptions as being, a
creditor bringing the suit himself and the exceptions under 1692a(6)(F)(ii) and (iii). Mr.
Stock, this excludes you from being exempted by the Act. You are hereby classified by the
United States Supreme Court as being covered by the Act so therefore, You lack legal
standing to bring this suit because you are a debt collector. (I 692a(6) 16921)
B, Heintz points to Congressional statements of Congressman Frank Annunzio, "The
Act only regulates the conduct of debt collectors, it does not prevent creditors, through their
attorneys, from pursuing any legal remedies available to them," 132 Cong. Rec. 30842
(1986).
The Supreme Court examined those documents to actually determine Congressional intend
and the Supreme Court ruled, "this statement, however, does not persuade us." In the decision
of the High Court they did take into account Congressional Records, statements of our elected
officials, and ruled on Heintz's second argument, "This statement, however does not persuade
us." And for one thing these remarks were made after the FDCPA and/Act had passed both
17
Houses of Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. Heintz's second argued was
denied.
C, Finally, Heintz points to the "Commentary" on the Act by the Federal Trade
Commission's staff. It says:" Attorneys or law firms that engage in traditional debt collection
activities (sending dunning letters, making collection calls to consumers) are covered by the
(Act), but those whose practice is limited to legal activities are not covered." 53 Fed.Reg.
50097, 50100 (1988).
Breyer once again spoke for the High Court and said, "We cannot give conclusive weight to
this statement. The Commentary of which this statement is a part says that it "is not binding
on the Commission or the public." Breyer continued, "More importantly, we find nothing
either in the Act or elsewhere indicating that Congress intended to authorize the FTC to create
this exception from the Act's coverage-an exception that, for the reasons we have set forth
above, falls outside the range of reasonable interpretations of the Act's express language."
The United States Supreme Court ruled, "For these reasons, we agree with the Seventh Circuit
that the Act applies to attorneys who "regularly" engage in consumer-debt collection activity,
even when that activity consists of litigation. Its judgment is therefore," "AFFIRMED".
18
?, ?,
,- ,,
° n
? T7
`?
n .
Tt.
'
__ -
r
'_r i`l
a:- c4?
_.?,
-?? --:
'r
_;
N -C
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-1342
Plaintiffs
VS.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
NOW COMES, Michael L. Paoletta, respectfully requesting this Court to dismiss this
action with prejudice and in support of this Motion, states that:
The Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 29, 2004 by filing a complaint.
The Complaint was served upon the Defendant by U.S. First Class Mail.
The Defendant, Michael L. Paoletta, filed Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs
Complaint on May 13, 2004 within the Ten (10) Day Notice timeframe.
4. The Plaintiffs Complaint has failed to comply with the Pa. R.C.P. throughout
its entirety, has NOT followed the Rules for proper form and has failed to state a cause for
which relief can be granted.
19
WHEREFORE, this Court should dismiss this action with prejudice due to the
apparent frivolous nature of the pleading, for its failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted and for wasting this Court's valuable time.
6fA4 A?Ov 0
Mic ael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, Penna. Postal Code 17055
Ph. 1-717-790-9556
Propria Personam
20
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Plaintiffs
VS.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
Attorney for Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-1342
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED
WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THIS CASE WITH PREJU-
DICE FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
GRANTED.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Michael L.
Paoletta, the Defendant, and the complaint fails to meet many requirements of
21
Pa. R.C.P. i.e., Pa. R.C.P. 1019,1019(h), 1019(1) and 1018. Rule 1024,
1024(c) as stated in Signora v. Kaplan, 33 D&C 4`h (1996) and in Rupel v.
Bluestein 280 Pa. Super, 65, 421 A2d. 406 (1980) specifically explains that an
improper Verification to a Complaint is of no use to the court for failure to
comply with the Rules governing its construction. The Rules of Court must be
strictly adhered to in a Complaint.
ARGUMENT.
This court should dismiss this action with prejudice due to its defects and
failure to comply with the Rules and procedures, and for failing to state a claim for
which relief could be granted.
CONSLUSION.
This Court must dismiss this action with prejudice due to the many defects and
Failure to comply with the Rules of Court in its construction of the Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
Z%/
Michael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, Penna. Postal Code 17055
Ph. 1-717-790-9556
Propria Personam
Attorney for Plaintiff
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
22
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Plaintiffs
vs.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
VERIFICATION
Attorney for Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-1342
1, Michael L. Paoletta, Propria Personam, of Heaven, as such is endowed by God with
unalienable Rights, hereby acknowledge that I make this Verification and I hereby verify that
the statements set forth in the foregoing Defendant's Answer To Plaintiff's Complaint are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements made by me are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
By: May -K, 2004
Michael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, Penna. Postal Code 17055
Ph. 1-717-790-9556
Propria Personam
24
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D.#13657
Attorney for Plaintiff
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF
SEARS
c/o Ressler & Ressler,P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-1342
Plaintiffs
VS.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael L. Paoletta, certify that I did serve a copy of the foregoing document upon the
following person(s), Mr. Edward Stock of Stock & Grimes, LLP, Attorney for the Plaintiff, at
804 West Avenue, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, Postal Code 19046 via U.S. First Class Mail.
May 43, 2004
Michael L. Paoletta
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, Penna. Postal Code 17055
Ph. 1-717-790-9556
Propria Personam
25
N
>
C1
r T
--i
n
r
t-
r1
a
r
N "?
MAY 1 7 2004 '
Attorney for Plaintiff
STOCK & GRIMES, LLP, P.C
By: Edward Stock, Esquire
I.D. #13657
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
(215) 576-1900
SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
PARTNERSHIP, AS ASSIGNEE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
SEARS CIVIL ACTION-LAW
c/o Ressler & Ressler, P.C.
804 West Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046 NO. 04-1342
Plaintiffs
vs.
MICHAEL L. PAOLETTA
1771 S. Meadow Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this ?? day of 2004, upon motion of the
Defendant, 00m em
VJ
` a,v?t ? otr? /WII L
BY THE COURT:
1
J.
45 23
RSNN?d
ry
09 :2 kd hZ AVW WZ
A&l0N01-UCUd 3HI d0
'OiAC-'OTId
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
office of the Vrotbonotarp
Cumberlanb Countp
Renee K. Simpson
Deputy Prothonotary
John E. Slike
Solicitor
O q -13 46Z. CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R C P 230.2.
BY THE COURT,
CURTIS R. LONG
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573