To: Carol Van Houten, Esq.
COHEN & SLAMOWITZ, LLP
Attorneys for Citibank
March 10, 2010
Creditor: CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.
Client Account No.: [redacted]
C&S File No.: P007823
Index No.: [redacted]
Re: Notice of publication, request for answers and for identification of any incorrect statements or conclusions.
Dear Ms. Van Houten:
Cohen & Slamowitz and your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition are now featured at http://liarsandcheats.info/cohen-slamowitz-unfair-collection-litigation-practices/
A. THE COHEN & SLAMOWITZ INDIFFERENCE ABOUT THE FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
In ¶ 1 of your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition you state that you are “fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case.” You then acknowledge that my client described in his motion to dismiss the false information on the Affidavit of Service. In ¶ 8 you claim that he failed to offer any “evidentiary form” to support his claims.
Ms. Van Houten, what exactly do you consider “evidentiary form?” Didn’t he submit his sworn declaration to the court?
In ¶ 10 of your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition you state: “Defendant’s conclusory denial of receiving process on the date sworn to in the Affidavit of Service raises no issue of fact and, as such, Defendant is not entitled to a dismissal of Plaintiff’s action.”
Unlike my client, you have NO personal knowledge about the dates of service.
What “evidentiary” form do YOU have to support your claim that the server did NOT falsify the Affidavit of Service?
Ms. Van Houten, did you actually READ my client’s filing and exhibits? From his CONCLUSION:
The Honorable Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System, wrote in the verified petition on Page 7 #35 & #36: “Affidavits of service swear to the truthfulness of the information contained therein. Persons who are sued and the courts rely on the presumption that the affidavits are truthful. They all must be able to rely on the truthfulness of the affidavits for the courts to render decisions in those disputes, leaving no question as to the validity and fairness of those decisions. The integrity of the court system depends upon the confidence of the litigants and public that courts provide justice, and there can be no such confidence when there is doubt whether parties received proper notice to appear in court to be heard in the underlying case.”
How can you be licensed to practice LAW in New York and openly DISAGREE with Chief Administrative Judge Pfau?
Do you believe that it makes no difference WHEN a defendant is served?
Do you believe that it is not necessary to MAIL the summons and complaint as required by law?
Cohen & Slamowitz continues to do business with Rondout Legal?
When was your COMPLAINT dated June 9, 2009 filed?
It is reasonable to conclude that the process server falsified the service date because the ACTUAL date of service was 120 days after the date on the summons and complaint.
Ms. Van Houten, I have NO confidence whatsoever in the legal system because most attorneys feel just like you do about the TRUTH and DUE PROCESS. And that is why I am publishing and documenting the misconduct of attorneys like you at my websites.
B. MY “LEGAL” REPRESENTATION OF MY CLIENT, MY FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES AND YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
I explained in my fax to Cohen & Slamowitz and on numerous occasions on the telephone that my client had been defrauded by FDRS and that I am working with him because I investigated and published the FDRS fraud for over 2 years.
In ¶ 11 of your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition you seem to object to my discovery of the discrepancies between the affidavit of service and the actual service.
You falsely accuse me of making “discovery demands to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant.”
It seems only “fair” that collection lawyers provide all documents related to FRAUD voluntarily and outside court upon request of the consumer or his representative.
I requested your client Citibank’s ASSISTANCE with legal action against FDRS and the persons who defrauded my client (and MANY others) so they would pay the enrolled debts and compensate the defrauded consumers for their damages.
In ¶ 12 of your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition you seem to accuse me of the unauthorized practice of law:
Although Defendant provided Baker a limited power of attorney, Baker has no authorization to legally represent Defendant. In Whitehead v. Town House Equities, Ltd., 8 AD3d 369, 777 N.Y.S.2d 917 (2nd Dept. 2004), the Appellate Division stated: “A person not licensed to practice law in the State of New York pursuant to the Judiciary Law may not appear pro-se in court on behalf of a litigant as attorney-in-fact pursuant to a power of attorney. A person who does so has unlawfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”
I DO have the right to LEGALLY represent my clients and I have done so for over 20 years. However, “legal representation” has absolutely nothing to do with the practice of law.
Your false accusations and intimidation tactics will NOT keep me from submitting my AFFIDAVITS to the courts. I will continue to appear as my clients’ WITNESS of your and other collection lawyers’ unfair and deceptive practices.
Outfits like Cohen & Slamowitz specialize in obtaining default judgments against consumers with no legal skills and no CASH to pay lawyers.
Unlike most consumers, I am capable of recording telephone calls and DOCUMENTING my efforts and in this case, documenting and publicizing your unfair and deceptive collection practices.
In ¶ 13 of your 2/19/10 Affirmation in Opposition you claim:
As Baker is not an attorney, and as such not authorized to legally represent Defendant, Plaintiff respectfully submits that it was not improper of Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid with her the discussion of Defendant’s legal issues.
As you admit, I provided Cohen & Slamowitz with proper power of attorney. I have the RIGHT to assist defrauded consumers and to request an extension of time to respond to complaints so that they can try to find an attorney or if they can’t (because they have no money to pay an attorney) research the law and court rules to prepare their own response.
Like most consumers, my client is rather busy working to pay the rent and to provide for his family.
Of course my client could have taken a few minutes at work to speak to an attorney at Cohen & Slamowitz IF that was possible and IF he did not mind that his co-workers and superiors find out that he is calling about a debt collection suit.
However, I wasted literally HOURS on the phone with Cohen & Slamowitz moronic collectors and I never once got to speak to an attorney.
In fact, when Cohen & Slamowitz did not contact me after I sent my initial fax, I confirmed receipt of my fax on 11/5/09 with Stephanie Spivack and she advised that no attorneys are assigned to active Cohen & Slamowitz lawsuits until AFTER an answer is filed.
It is simply NOT FAIR to require unrepresented consumers to jeopardize their employment because Cohen & Slamowitz does NOT have attorneys available to communicate with unrepresented defendants and their representatives.
I also have the RIGHT to prepare case summaries, to draft complaints to regulators, to locate legal aide services, to provide legal resources on the internet, to seek assistance from consumer attorneys and to PUBLISH my experiences.
Some examples of my work:
Do you have the right to refuse to communicate with me when I advise of service discrepancies and that my client was defrauded?
On 11/6/09, Stephanie Spivack with Cohen & Slamowitz faxed to me the affidavit of service.
Ms. Spivack stated that attorney David Robinson would get back to me.
However, he did NOT contact me.
On 11/23/09 I spoke with Lisa D’Alessio, Cohen & Slamowitz manager at 516-364-6006 ext. 8476. She did NOT refuse to communicate with me. However, she stated that it made no difference when my client was served as long as he received the summons and complaint.
Notably, my client received NO notice advising of your refusal to communicate with me.
Quite likely, Cohen & Slamowitz routinely communicates with consumer representatives who are NOT attorneys and offer to arrange PAYMENTS.
I am ready to prepare a case summary to provide to consumer attorneys and to draft my client’s complaint to regulators. I hope that Cohen & Slamowitz, attorney David Robinson, manager Lisa D’Alessio and you will be sued for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York state law.
It took me two years to put FDRS out of business and I hope it won’t take that long to put an end to the Cohen & Slamowitz unfair and deceptive collection practices.
Of course I’m also appalled by your client Citibank’s refusal to address the FDRS fraud and its decision to pursue my client INSTEAD of the criminals at FDRS and I will set up a new blog to publicize the Citibank business practices.
Americans deserve to know who they’re bailing out and how collection attorneys operate.
In the interest of FAIRNESS, I am providing Cohen & Slamowitz and you personally the opportunity to answer my questions and to correct any false statements, assumptions or conclusions.
You may open an account at http://liarsandcheats.info free of charge to post directly at the Cohen & Slamowitz collection practices documentary or you can contact me by fax or email.