Preview
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
SUPREME COURT
COUNTY OF YATES STATE OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________
FIVE STAR BANK
Plaintiff/New-Defendants,
-against- Reply/Responding Affidavit
CPLR 2214 (b)
PETER A. DAVIS INDEX #: 2022-5085
PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODvessel
Defendant/New-Plaintiffs.
________________________________________________
PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODvessel, under penalties of perjury,
affirms truth of the following:
1. I am Pro Se representation for the Defendant/New-Plaintiffs’ in this
action. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the above-entitled action
and I make the statements in this Affidavit based on personal knowledge.
2. This Reply/Responding Affidavit is submitted in support of the
Defendant/New-Plaintiff counterclaim motions and in opposition to the
Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ Affirmation (NYSCEF DOC. 174). The aforementioned
motions is referred to herein as “New-Defendants’ Affirmation”.
3. Defendant/New-Plaintiff suffered recent medical cognitive damages as
a result of conditions from Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ unlawful acts (see Exhibit V
NYSCEF Doc. 156); and though Defendant/New-Plaintiff is still damaged and
experiencing cognitive difficulties, is on their fourth day of recovery treatment and
is able to approach this Reply Affidavit with better clarity and cognitive ability to
reply.
1 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
4. The Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ should be found guilty of procurement
fraud, defamation: slander and libel, liability negligence breach, entrapment,
Extortion / Blackmail, grand larceny, enslavement, and possibly racketeering,
[Article 190 NY Penal Law, Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 38 (N.Y.A.D.
1 Dept.1999), Sandy Hook Families v Alex Jones, Calculus of negligence: The
Learned Hand Formula (B < P L), Penal Law § 40.05, United States v. Carroll
Towing Co.,[1], FDIC IV. Fair Lending Laws and Regulations, First Amendment to
the United State Constitution, N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05(2)(e), 155.30(6) & 155.40(2),
(NYSCEF Doc. #s 152, 153, 162), Thirteenth Amendment to the United State
Constitution]; punitive damages.
5. The Plaintiff/New-Defendant should be held liable for damages from
breach of contract (illegal third party communication), negligence liability breaches,
medical and health damages, general damages, physical and emotional pain and
suffering, monetary, lost opportunity, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life,
statutory, compensatory damages, special and general, property, past and future
lost income, damage to assets, consequential damages, restitution etc. [NYSCEF
Doc. 153 Exhibit R, NYSCEF Doc. 156 Exhibit V, NYSCEF Doc. 161 Exhibit EPA,
NYSCEF Doc. 163 Exhibit Z, FDIC 6000 C.P. § 804 & 805(b), FDIC 6500 C.P. 805(b)
& 807(5) Consumer Credit Fairness Act 2021 (CCFA), N.Y. S153, Calculus of
negligence: The Learned Hand Formula (B < P L), United States v. Carroll Towing
Co.,[1], Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 e(d) Section 607 and Section 609,
2 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
15 U.S.C. 1681 b(a)(3)(F) Section 604, Fourteenth Amendment to the United State
Constitution]
Some “within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a
breach at the time of or prior to contracting” (Chapman v Fargo, 223 N.Y. 32, 36).
The Defendant/New-Plaintiffs have made substantial and reasonable effort in duty
to mitigate damages.
6. In response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 4 and 5 use of, it’s
interesting that the plaintiff/new-defendants’ would cite CPLR § 3211(a)(5) as it
deals with arbitration: “generally intended to make a party whole by giving full
reparation. The goal of full reparation is not to provide a windfall or a penalty to
either party, but rather to wipe out all the consequences of the ILLEGAL ACT.”1
That is indicative that the plaintiff is aware they’ve committed an Illegal Act.
Further interesting that the Defendant/New-Plaintiff proposed CPLR 3211
dismissal prior to the Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ proposed use thereof.
7. In further response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 4 and 5, not only
are the points presented by the Defendant/New-Plaintiff cross-sectional and
evolving regarding a growing number substantial rights, damages, and civil rights
violations toward the Defendant/New-Plaintiff. The arguments raised by the
Defendant/New-Plaintiff are not duplicative, they are presented pursuant
automatic Stays and leave to amend and correct answers and filings within 20 days
from response of the Answer [CVP NY CPLR 5519 (2015) (a) (2), NY CPLR Rule
3025, in lieu of NY CPLR 5019 (see. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 112, 131, 143, & 146)].
1. [Global Arbitration Review, Third Edition]
3 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
8. Continued response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 4 and 5; the
automatic stays aforementioned were made because of those evolving and growing
substantial rights and damages under review and because the referenced judgments
made with prejudice were negligent: procedural grounds of service and notices were
incomplete (late affidavit and fault of service, NYSCEF Doc. 160 Exhibit XX:
showing faulted Doc. 111), incorrect (misaddressed, NYCEF Doc. 6 & 7) or all
together absent (no UCS-CCR2, Consumer Credit Fairness Act 2021-22) by the
plaintiff/new-defendant and the evidence that proves the plaintiff’s/new-defendants’
breach of the agreement by way of illegal third-party communication renders
plaintiff’s case non-jurisdictional (NYSCEF Doc. 153 Exhibit R). Also,
NYSCEF DOC. 111 in itself shows lapse of service in additional notice allegedly
served August 4, 2022, Affidavit of Service signed late August 31, 2022 and actually
served even later on 10/10/2022.
9. CPLR §3211(a) (7) provides that complaints are to be "liberally
construed and the facts alleged accepted as to determine whether the facts as
alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." [Wiener v. Lazard Freres & Co., 241
A.D.2d 114, 672 N.Y.S.2d 8 citing Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 638 N.E.2d 511,
614 N.Y.S.2d 972.]
In the Plaintiff’s/New-Defendant’s case their facts alleged are non
jurisdictional as cause of breach of agreement from illegal acts of illegal
communication in order to obtain them and thus do not fit within any cognizable
4 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
legal theory. In fact are unlawfully prejudicial and discriminatory; also very
predatory.
Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff/New-Defendant didn’t breach the
agreement, which they did, there is no cognizable ground to award a Default
judgment, as a result of their lapse of grounds to produce default judgment, namely
service and notices thereof.
10. Your Hon. Must be liberal in siding in favor with the Plaintiff and
since the Defendant is the New-Plaintiff, Hon. limited to determining whether the
counterclaims state cause of action, and they do, and must by liberally construed in
favor of the New-Plaintiff.
‘The court is limited to determining whether the complaint states a cause of
action and must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff.’ [Edmond v. IBM; 91
N.Y.2d 949, 694 N.E.2d 438, 671 N.Y.S.2d 437.]
11. Thus, as result of aforementioned, the Plaintiff’s motions and
complaint should be dismissed pursuant CPLR 3211(a)(1)(2)(3).
12. In response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 6, any procedural defects
that have been a cause arising as a result of the damages incurred by the
Defendant/New-Plaintiff from the Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ unlawful acts: illegal
third-party communication (see Defendant’s Exhibit R NYSCEF Doc. 153),
defamation, entrapment, extortive behavior, and procurement. In light of damages
and recent cognitive and medical damages incurred by the Defendant/New-Plaintiff,
the New-Plaintiff is more capable of representing themselves in person and in oral
5 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
argument; furthermore, Motion for Continuance and Leave should be GRANTED
for recovery or 7th Amendment to the United State Constitution right to TRIAL
should proceed.
13. In further response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 6, the factual
evidence in this case only support the Defendant’s/New-Plaintiffs’ case. As well as
the aforementioned, one example is documentary hard copy evidence Exhibit R,
NYSCEF Doc. 153. Sworn here under penalty of perjury, the following transcript of
Exhibit R, NYSCEF Doc. 153 conversation between Defendant/New-Plaintiff &
Landlord is true and accurate:
Landlord: “a personal loan from your bank in the incorrect name, and
probably committed fraud when it comes to that $7000 loan you took out”
Defendant/New-Plaintiff: “No, that’s the prop; that’s the proper name,
that’s the proper name”
Landlord: “so these are the two things that, that right now are going on
Defendant/New-Plaintiff: “what is that of your concern? What is that loan
of your concern”
[Entrapment: Penal Law § 40.05; defamation: Dillon v. City of New York, 261
A.D.2d 34, 38 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.1999) and Sandy Hook Families v Alex Jones
(InfoWars); FDIC Fair Credit Reporting Act; FDIC 6000 C.P. § 804 & 805(b), FDIC
6500 C.P. 805(b) & 807(5); 15 U.S.C. 1681 e(d) Section 607 and Section 609, 15
U.S.C. 1681 b(a)(3)(F) Section 604; Negligence Liability Breach; Fourteenth
6 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
Amendment to the United State Constitution; The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601
et seq.; …]
and the Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ have elicited unlawful prejudice and
discrimination, and have endangered the Defendant/New-Plaintiff. Plaintiff/New-
Defendants’ intent at entrapment, defamation etc. is also clear at their attempts to
claim fraud for a signature verification sheet that had extra signature verification
form
14. In further response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 6, the
Defendant/New-Plaintiff claim for damages are supported factually with supporting
documents and medical records in the form of Exhibits (NYSCEF Doc. 152 – 157,
160-163) and hard copy submissions. Medical records support the Defendant/New-
Plaintiffs’ claims for cognitive difficulties that have caused defects in their filings
and ability to respond to the best of their ability and should not be prejudiced for
such, though awarded for damages. Also, support for Continuance and/or Leave as
requesting in Motion #6 is even more relevant.
15. Continuing from the aforementioned in response to New-Defendants’
Affirmation 6, the Defendant/New-Plaintiff has shown real records regarding asset
and monetary growth rate, affirmations regarding business set forth with
documents; the persistence reference to the need for more documents from the
Plaintiff/New-Defendant further supports Defendants counterclaims of extortion.
The Defendant/New-Defendant reaffirms that they are not going to disclose any
further business information nor trade secrets to the Plaintiff/New-Defendant.
7 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
Damages are fully supported, and the award for damages don’t have to be actual
simply “just”.
16. In response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 7, the claim/statement by
the Plaintiffs/New-Defendants’ of off basis and representative of their disregard for
the totality of the counterclaims in this matter, and further exemplary of the
Plaintiff’s/New-Defendants’ negligence with regards to such counterclaims and the
damages resulting to the Defendant/New-Plaintiffs’ thereof as a result of the
Plaintiff’s/New-Defendants’ negligence, disregard for their own unlawfulness and
recklessness, and overprivilege. The Plaintiff/New-Defendants’ violated FDIC 6000
C.P. § 804 & 805(b), FDIC 6500 C.P. 805(b) & 807(5), Consumer Credit Fairness Act
2021 (CCFA), N.Y. S153, Calculus of negligence: The Learned Hand Formula (B < P
L), Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 e(d) Section 607 and Section 609, 15
U.S.C. 1681 b(a)(3)(F) Section 604, Fourth Amendment to the United State
Constitution, Fifth Amendment to the United State Constitution, First Amendment
to the United State Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United State
Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution, and
threatening the Seventh Amendment to the United State Constitution.
17. The Plaintiff/New-Defendant has made false statements under oath
and under penalty of perjury.
18. In response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 8, setting forth CPLR §
3013; the Defendant’s/New-Plaintiffs’ statements in these proceedings are
“sufficiently particular to give the court and the parties notice of the transactions or
8 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
occurrences intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action
or defense”. Further, the Defendant’s/New-Plaintiffs’ contends that their
transactions or occurrences intended have been forthrightly noticed, presented and
were unlawfully prejudiced by the Plaintiff/New-Defendant unto fear of continued
unlawful prejudice in NYSCEF filing in order to defending themselves and
presenting counterclaims in an organized and orderly fashion, when the
Plaintiff/New-Defendants claimed an abuse of the NYSCEF system with “endless
strings” of filings by the Defendant/New-Plaintiffs, that where modeled in part after
the New York State Attorney General’s example, particularly/presumably in Motion
#5 response and counterclaims to the Plaintiff’s/New-Defendants’ responses, which
also happened to be filed under other Motion #s and were in reference to “also
relates to Motion 4 and 5” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 71 and 74, Affirmation and Affidavit
filed back to back by the Plaintiff/New-Defendant under Motion #3).
19. Further response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 8, namely and
specifically one example, bringing our focus back to filings in Motion #8,
particularly Defendant/New-Plaintiffs’ ORDER (Proposed), NYSCEF Doc. 144, were
the Defendant/New-Plaintiffs provided notice intentions of the occurrence(s) of
“[ORDER], that the Defendant has shown good cause for counteraction and may
enter counterclaim(s) for award of damages” and also “ORDERED that the
Defendant / New-Plaintiffs PETER A. DAVIS, PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT
GODVESSEL, 146 E. Elm St., Apt. 1, Penn Yan, New York 14527, may enter
proposed order(s) of judgment(s) for and recover damages from the Plaintiff/New-
9 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
Defendant, Five Star Bank, 100 Chestnut Street, Rochester, NY 14604, as deemed
proven with proper motion(s) and order(s)”; of which were unlawfully
prejudiced/discrimination/or threatened, unto the fear of filing by the
Defendant/New-Plaintiffs for fear of further unlawful prejudice.
20. In response to New-Defendants’ Affirmation 9, the Plaintiff’s/New-
Defendants’ affirmation 9 supports the Defendant/New-Plaintiffs’ aforementioned
reply/response # in that it suggest eliciting further unlawful prejudice.
21. The Defendant’s/New-Plaintiffs’ reply/response to New-Defendants’
Affirmation 10 is reaffirmation of Defendant’s/New-Plaintiffs’ reply/response 10, 11,
and 12.
22. Defendant felt in fear to seek proper and just judicial remedy for fear
of further unlawful prejudice and harm from the Plaintiff and then from the courts,
possibly as a result of the abuses of authority by the plaintiffs.
23. The Plaintiff/New-Defendant should be removed pursuant Civil
Service (CVS) Chapter 7, Article 5, Title B § 75
24. The Defendant/New-Plaintiff is entitled to full amount of damages to
be awarded, it’s only just: $3,385,800,000 Asset Damage & Investment Losses
$385,800,000 for unavoidable prolonged duress, enslavement at least $
$300,000,000 for defamation and any and other further relief that You Honor deems
necessary and appropriate.
25. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true and
accurate, under the penalties of perjury.
10 of 11
FILED: YATES COUNTY CLERK 11/28/2022 11:56 PM INDEX NO. 2022-5085
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/28/2022
11 of 11