arrow left
arrow right
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
  • Five Star Bank v. Peter A. Davis A/K/A PETERRR CHRIST LIFE LIGHT GODVESSELOther Matters - Consumer Credit (Non-Card) Transaction document preview
						
                                

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