Aaron Wider Ghost Writer humilates Robert Bozdin in Eastern District Federal Court (Motion)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) June 20, 2010 -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GMAC BANK


Plaintiff, Civil Action CV-00106-ER

V.

HTFC Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.


AARON WIDER’S REPLY TO MOTION OF CONTINUED RENEWAL RE-ARGUMENT OF DISMISSAL

I, Aaron Wider Pro Se, being duly sworn depose and say:

SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT

Under NY law, substitute service may be used only after diligent efforts to effect personal service have failed. In this case, the plaintiff did not effect these efforts and this is evidenced by the use of an improper address used by plaintiff’s counsel on mailings and correspondence. The plaintiff has the legal duty to establish jurisdiction over a defendant. This begins with the commencement of an action against the defendant and it is the duty of the plaintiff to check public records of a defendant to be served, to ascertain that the correct address and correct name are found on the Summons and Complaint to avoid improper service. If plaintiff had checked records then this discrepancy regarding 324 Clocks Blvd would not exist. The burden and duty rests on the plaintiff. The fact that Mr. Wider uses the address 324 Clocks Blvd on his mailings and legal correspondence does not deflect the responsibility of the plaintiff to use the correct address. This assumption that an address is correct because of its use by the defendant clearly shows that plaintiff’s counsel did not do due diligence, and did not properly initiate a lawsuit as the Summons and Complaint was not delivered to the correct address. Mistakes are made regarding wills, deeds, and notes by client’s attorneys alike. Clearly, if the plaintiff had first used all diligent efforts to effect personal service, the correct address would have been listed on the original Summons and Complaint and would have been carried over to any new suits See CPLR 305. Summons.

CPLR 305 Summons; supplemental summons. “A summons shall specify the basis of the venue designated and if based upon the residence of the plaintiff it shall specify the plaintiff’s address”

Under NY law, substitute service occurs when the process server leaves one copy of the summons at your home or place of business with a roommate, relative, or other responsible party known as a person of suitable age and discretion and mails a second copy of the summons to you at your last known address. In this case, Wider’s address was not last known, it was unknown or assumed. In the Affidavit of Service, it does list age but makes no reference to discretion. What is legal discretion in reference to service? It is determining that the relationship to defendant is suitable as listed above, or a resident of the dwelling. In the legal system, discretion is a very key legal concept, police, prosecutors, litigants, judges, and juries must exercise their ability to make responsible decisions, to have clarity, using good judgment. A person with verified relationship to the defendant has discretion and will deliver the summons to the defendant as opposed to someone who has no relationship to the defendant and does not understand its importance or can’t be held accountable for their actions. See NY CPLR 308. Personal Service Upon a Natural Person. See FED C.P. 4(e)

2. by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place

(B) leaving a copy of each at the individuals dwelling or usual abode with someone of suitable age or discretion who resides there…

Plaintiff’s counsel did not mail a second copy of the summons to the defendant at his home or to his place of business and has implied that the process server mailed it on behalf of the plaintiff and instead plaintiff’s counsel enclosed a copy of a letter which states service was sent to an attorney in another state who was not employed by Wider nor was this attorney a designated agent and therefore not a proper substitute to be mailed service, by law. Plaintiff’s counsel states that substitute service was properly served as evidenced by this letter which is an example of improper substitute service and he disproves himself according to NY CPLR 308 (2).

Widers proof of facts are irrefutable and are not contradictory. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to give the plaintiff a proper address for proof of service to serve a summons and complaint before the process starts. It was Bodzin that served HTFC Corporation maliciously at 400 Garden City Plaza NY 11530 knowing it was out of business with the incorrect residential address as per the civil cover sheet attached of Aaron Wider at 324 Clocks Blvd Massapequa, NY 11758 as per case number’s 08-2985, & 06-5291 and subsequently every decision that the court made was mailed to the corporate address and returned. This was not a mistake and was done out of malice to obtain a default judgment on behalf of the plaintiff. As stated previously Mr. Bodzin relied on old inaccurate information. HTFC corporation was already sued once and obtained a default judgment and was out of business. Bozdin attempted to pierce the corporate veil to sue Wider which is the right of the plaintiff however Wider never lived at the old corporate address and never lived at 324 Clocks Blvd. The Plaintiff that hires counsel has the responsibility and burden of proof through simple due diligence procedures to obtain the legal residency of the defendant. The defendant is not employed by the plaintiff and has no legally responsibility in correcting the plaintiff if in error. Both the defendant and plaintiff have the tools to validate residency. Disco, Fraud Guard, Lexis Nexis, Accurint, Fire Serve, Avista Solutions, Interthinx, Sitexdata.com, Mari, Hud, NYS Banking Department public records, county records, assessor’s records, court records, town records, village records, recorded deeds and the most important United States Post office. Nor was certified mail, express mail, Fed Ex, UPS or any other courier utilized. Bodzin cannot provide proof because he never did his due diligence and is experiencing humility. All Mr. Bozdin has to do is provide evidence to the court that any one of these tools were used but cannot because he fumbled the ball and is negligent to the plaintiff, the Court and the defendant. Bodzin might understand the law, might be able to incite the law but has provided evidence to the court that he is inept in interrupting the law. You can’t be half pregnant. I don’t have to challenge plaintiff’s counsel because the facts are irrefutable. All the court has to do is look at the recorded deed which could have been obtained with the 21 resources provided above. As simple this task may be the court should question why and how this was done only to obtain an illegal default judgment because of plaintiff’s lack of merit and inability to prosecute.

Statement of Facts:

The Due Process clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit Courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has proper notice of the court's proceedings. To meet this rule, courts require plaintiffs to arrange for defendants to be served with a court summons and a copy of the plaintiffs' complaint. These papers are collectively called process. It is not enough to simply mail process to the defendant. The summons and complaint must be either given directly to defendants (personal service) or left with a suitable person at their home or place of business (substitute service) or a conspicuous service (nail and mail).

A process server employed by an attorney who has repeatedly misrepresented the truth to the courts as evidenced that allegedly served an address that does not exist in the county is not proper service. The summons and complaint must be either given directly to defendants (personal service) (never happened) or left with a suitable person at their home or place of business (Could not of happened business has been closed for 2.4 years and process server affidavit reflects service to a non existing address in my County(substitute service) or a conspicuous service (nail and mail) could not happen no such address exist. The court should know not only was 312 Clocks Blvd an oversight but Bozdin can’t provide evidence to the court for the obvious, that Bozdin will not be able to provide a deed for 324 Clocks Blvd because it does not exist. Service may usually be performed by any adult who is not a party to the lawsuit. Plaintiffs may hire professional process servers to serve defendants. Serving an address that does not exist is not professional. Neither personal nor proper substituted service was given by the plaintiff.

Bozdin purports that Wider’s new allegation that he does not reside at 324 Clocks Blvd is contradictive. This is not an allegation this is fact. The Deed has been provided to the Courts that existed since 2004 when Wider purchased his home before HTFC’s relationship with GMAC providing evidence to the court that Plaintiffs counsel Bozdin and did not do the due diligence required by law to initiate a lawsuit. .Widers deposition in Philadelphia is a continuance of Bodzins negligence. Bodzin has played follow the leader in misrepresentations starting with the Civil Cover sheet with the address of 324 Clocks Blvd I only agreed with plaintiff’s counsel misrepresentation. I was not dishonest nor did I omit truth The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff of proper service. The plaintiff served HTFC Corporation and UTILIZED an address that never existed 324 Clocks Blvd for the defendants assumed residence on its coversheet providing evidence to the Court from the inception of the GMAC vs. HTFC Corporation that Bodzin never did what he was paid to do. It is not the responsibility of the defendant to coach, help or correct plaintiff s counsel.

In the bankruptcy petition Wider continued to utilize Bodzins False misrepresentation in his game of follow the leader.. A nonexistent address supplied by the plaintiff to the court is not a misrepresentation on the defendant’s part. Wider has continued to respond to the plaintiff and the Courts with the misrepresented address supplied to the Court by the Plaintiff.

WIDER WAS NOT SERVED PURSUANT TO FED.CP.4(e) AND N.Y. CPLR 308.2

The summons and complaint was never served to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode. As per public records HTFC Corporation has not been at 400 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530. Since November 2007, Bozdin used this business address knowing that it no longer existed. Secondly, Bodzin never performed the required due diligence to provide proof of defendants address to the court which is 312 Clocks Blvd which has been provided to the court. Bozdin cannot provide a deed to 324 Clocks Blvd where Bozdin alleges proper service. FED.CP.4(e) AND N.Y. CPLR 308.2 requires strict compliance and thus even a defendant's subsequent receipt of actual notice of a lawsuit will not cure a defect or confer evidence of jurisdiction upon the court (see Raschel v Rish, 69 NY2d 694, 697 [1986]; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234, 241 [1979]). While a process server's sworn affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie Proper service (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v-3- 96847 Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 344 [2003]), a defendant may rebut that Affidavit with a "detailed and specific contradiction of the allegations in the process server's affidavit" sufficient to create a question of fact warranting a hearing (id. at 344; see Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v MacPherson, 277 AD2d 418, 418

[2000]). Here, Plaintiff’s process server submitted an affidavit claiming, without proof, that he served Gianna Decarlo( No existing person exist in in the US except a Persain Porn Star who Mr. Malaussena determined was of suitable age and discretion at 324 Clocks Blvd which address does not exist, therefore, defendant maintains, service was not made at his "dwelling place" or "usual place of abode" within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2) (see generally Feinstein v Bergner, supra at 239-241). This affidavit of service is defective by law because it does reflect discretion, meaning by law, it does not state any relationship to the defendant or if the person served resides at that address. In accordance of NY law Bodzin alleges Mr. Malaussena mailed the summons and complaint to Wider but no proof of such mailing exist and no certificate of service exist docketed on line with pacer which is another misrepresentation. Bodzin purports that he received a letter from Joseph Ziccardi who was Wider’s former attorney. Exibit # Receiving a letter from a former attorney and former registered agent does not constitute proper service. Sending a summons and complaint outside of both plaintiffs and defendants jurisdictions is not proper service. Because my former attorney states that he mailed me the summons and complaint does not constitute proper service. Plaintiff’s counsel did not mail a second copy of the summons to the defendant at his home or to his place of business and has implied that the process server mailed it on behalf of the plaintiff yet no affidavit or certificate of service can be produced. Instead plaintiff’s counsel enclosed a copy of a letter which states service was sent to an attorney in another state who was not employed by Wider nor was this attorney a designated agent and therefore not a proper substitute to be mailed service, by law. Plaintiff’s counsel states that substitute service was properly served as evidenced by this letter which is an example of improper substitute service and he disproves himself according to NY CPLR 308 (2).


The Summons & Complaint was never properly served. Plaintiff ‘s counsel purports that it’s process server served Wider on February 5,2009 ,however Pacer reflects the clerk docketed the Affidavit of Service by Robert Malaussena to a Gianna DeCarlo to an address that is not Wider's residence to Gianna DeCarlo of whom discretion by law was not stated. Wider was unable to respond to the Summons & Complaint because it was never served to him. Default judgments have no time limits on reasonable excuses.

CONCLUSION

For each and all of the foregoing reasons The defendant respectfully request that the Court vacate the following default judgment with prejudice based upon the above explained and reasonable excuse and grant a motion for a Transverse hearing on or about February 25th or at a time convenient to the Court.

Dated: Massapequa, New York
February 19, 2010 Time 10:03 am

Robert B. Bozdin
Kleinbard Bell & Brecker LLP
One Liberty Place 46th Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19103
215-568-2000 Dr. Aaron Wider
Pro se
Aaron Wider

__________________
Aaron Wider
312 Clocks Blvd 11758
Massapequa, NY
347-245-5524


UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Re: Case # CV-00106-ER

GMAC BANK Plaintiff

-against-


HTFC Corporation, et al.,

Defendant

Aaron Wider     HTFC Corporation     Robert Bodzin