UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Mary- Estes
Plaintiff,

Affidavit in Support of Order

To Show Cause

-againstTOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES

Defendants (s).
___________________________

____ CV_________ (

)(

I Mary- Estes , plaintiff in the above entitled action, respectfully moves this court to
issue an order enjoining defendant TOYOTA FINACIAL SERVICES from pursuing a debt ,demanding
payments and possibly levy on my auto that was the result of an unconscionable contract (whereas
they allegedly sold the original loan and promissory note that was used to procure the acquisition of the
2013 TOYOTA TACOMA ) until a final disposition on the merits of the above entitled action.
I am proceeding by order to show cause because it is the most effective remedy to
compel the defendant to display the original wet ink signature documents to validate the debt in order
for me to continue honoring said contract.
I have made the following attempts to contact my opponent and inform them that I am
seeking restraining order; by way of a validation of the debt letter on or about December 17,2013.
Unless the preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are issued, I will
suffer immediate and irreparable injury as shown by the following facts.
1. I will have to continue to make payments to a company who has allegedly profited from my
Private property as my signature promissory note is currency under UCC 1-304 and can be
securitized and monetized by ten and the Fifth Amendment prohibits this form of theft.
2. I am in a complicated position whereas the banks have been pillaging and usurping the
people for over 80 years in quite a disregard for the House Joint Resolution of June 5, of

1933 accentuating the American people unlimited Credit due to the Gold being unlawfully
confiscated and tricking us to make payments instead of issuing a discharge in compliance
to the non-rescindable laws of HJR 192. Winning this case is not an effective remedy as to
Payment vindication, refund and or full compensation of the allegedly sold promissory note
and loan because the harm was an extra burden for almost a year now and that time can
never be replaced.
3. The possibilities are astronomical as far as my chances of winning this case because once the
defendant fails to produce the original documentation with the wet ink signatures attached
they fail to validate the debt in accordance to the TILA ACT, FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT and the Maxims. The defendant automatically becomes a debt collector
when the original documentation is void in presence which is an undisputable fact.

4. The defendant can never become an injured party by this action due to the fact that you
have millions of people who are unaware of the deceitful tactics that the banks exhibit and
utilize against us when engaging in commerce and they capitalized off of this fact alone for
years and they are a lot of people whove died and past on that can never challenge them
thus a big win for the bank.