Jan 5 Service Package With Notarization

D. B. Kan-on, Ph.D.
348 East Fulton Street

Long Beach, New York 11561
January 5, 2010
Judge ROY S. MAHON

Chambers
10th District Supreme Court
New York State Supreme Court
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola, NY 11501
Re: TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs. D. B. KARRON

Index # 600232/2010
Dear Honorable Judge Mahon;
Attached is my surreply to the Plaintiffs unsupported Reply Affirmation and in support of my

Affidavit in Opposition to Summary Judgment and my Memorandum of Law, reiterating prima
facie triable grounds for trial.
The Plaintiff's reply histrionics do not address the Defendant's specific arguments in the least:
"If the defendant's alleged defenses were taken seriously that no bank or debt
purchaser could ever collect on a credit card account, then the entire economy of the
United States and perhaps the entire world would collapse on itself. Plaintiff Reply
Affirmation at 2 Paragraph 3. Emphasis added.
The Plaintiff does not show that they purchased my particular account from Chase Bank, and that
the account was not canceled or settled. The defense exhibits show this. The exhibits proffered
by the Plaintiff are only two generations of generic references to 'pool' [s] of accounts with no
specifics.
Consider an analogous situation: I know my neighbor owed the deli 10 bucks. What if I tried
to collect that on behalf of the deli? What if the deli never gave me permission or ownership of
that particular 10 bucks? What if the deli just tacitly let me coerce the money from my neighbor
because they gave up. What if I told my neighbor "you know you owe the money, so give it up,
only give it up to me".
My main argument is "Why? Who are you to do so? Mr Collector, prove to me and the court,
that you have the right, standing and authority to do so". So far the Plaintiff has not shown
they have the goods: Specific documents for this specific debt. The affirmation and reply
affirmation does not have any supporting exhibits with my name and their (client or
assignor's ) names on the same page, or even in the same document.My defense is prima
facie, the lack of specifics in the plaintiffs exhibits. In my attached affirmation exhibits, I show
example sample affirmations with specific citations to particular parties from Chase Bank.
The deli may give tacit, erroneous, or fraudulent permission to let me collect settled, canceled
or otherwise noncollectable debt. The deli may give out statement copies, but there is no note,
agreement, or specification, or assignment for this particular 10 dollars. The statements do not
show assignment.
The court can not condone this practice. The "world will not collapse on itself' if the Plaintiff
had to prove by a preponderance of evidence they had the right and authority to collect this
MasterCard account to Chase from me. The Plaintiff do not have specific evidence for the court
to grant a summary judgement against myself. G-d is in the details.
Sincerely,
D B Kan-on
14 )1w\-
Pro Se
AFFIDAVIT OF
SERVICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC.

Plaintiff,
-against- No.: 600232/20
Index No.: 600232/2010
I0
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
AIK/A DANIEL KARRON

D B KARRON A/K/A KARRON
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK

YORK))
ss:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
of the
I, D B KARRON, mailed and e-mailed a copy of
I. SURREPLY AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT

1.
2. SURREPLY EXHIBITS
2.
to:
STEVEN ROSENTHAL, ESQ. or (Attorney for Plaintiff)
ATTORNEY for PLAINTIFF
KIRSCHENBAUM & & PHILLIPS, P.C.
3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE,
FOURTH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NEW YORK 11756
+1 (516) 746-1144
+1
Signed
D
DBB KARRON
Pro
Pro Se
Defendant
348 East
East Fulton
Fulton Street
Long
Long Beach, NY 11561
DATED
Beach,
JANUARY 5,
DATED JANUARY 5, 201'
2011
SWORN before me this day (NOTARY)
Wf ~\'f'-/
~\ v
; ~~;_~_ W,U ~T
/ et—c.2._
PEARL APT&1!.Ar<- ~ ~
PEARL APTS -
Notary
Notary Public.
Public, $tate New York
State of New Vort<
NO.01AP4854300
No. 01AP4854300
Qualjfied in
Qualified inNassau
Nassau County _ • I
Commission Expires
Commission ExpiresMarch
March3. 3,
2O"L'"
201_7
SURREPLY
AFFIDAVIT IN
OPPOSITION
COUNTY OF NASSAU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.: 600232/2010
SUR-REPLY AFFIDAVIT
D B KARRON A/K/A DANIEL KARRON
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
I, D. B. Karron, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
This is a sur-reply affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiff’s reply affidavit. As shown below in
Exhibit F and G, all of the Defendant’s civil creditors, with the notable exception of the Plaintiff
/ Kirshenbaum and Phillips, have agreed to wait until the Defendants federal criminal and civil
problems are resolved.
The Defendant has serious Federal civil liens that are superior to any commercial or personal
civil lien, namely to the Federal Government for as much as $120,000 criminal restitution
(Exhibit E) , $5,000,000 civil penalties (Exhibit E) , and and $173,451.46. (Exhibit H) in IRS
liens.
The Defendant can not make any good faith commercial or personal civil debt settlements until
the superior Federal issues are resolved. Any funds the Defendant may earn are seized by the
Federal Government to satisfy its voracious appetite for everything the defendant may earn for
the remainder of her lifetime. These liens are non dis chargable in bankruptcy and go beyond the
grave to whatever estate the Defendant may leave to her children.
Any earning power of the Defendant was destroyed by the Felony Conviction. The Defendant
does not believe she will be able to earn a living until she wins a Civil Trial and her Felony
Conviction is overturned on Appeal. The defendant is destitute and without funds, currently on
food stamps and Medicare (Exhibit I) and when her minimum unemployment insurance runs out
she will be on public assistance.
The Defendant does not wish to go bankrupt and is actively defending pro se in Federal District
Court and will appeal the criminal conviction concurrent with a Civil Trial. Kirshenbaum and
Phillips can force the defendant to go bankrupt to the disservice of all of the other creditors who
have agreed to wait.
The appended cover letter for this package, the prior reply package, and the Defendants
Memorandum of Law, gives the essentials of the Defense argument. It is not appropriate to
reiterate the arguments in a surreply. The main purpose of this surreply is to provide additional
and more current material evidence.
Exhibit 1 shows a Chase Bank Credit Card Debt affidavit of debt giving full particulars with
Debtor Names, Account numbers, Dates balances and details of the chain of title to the debt.
There is only one problem with this exhibited sample affidavit. That problem is that the affiant,
Martha Kunkle, who allegedly executed, or authorized the execution of this affidavit by /MM
on May 24,2007, was deceased effective in 2005. See Exhibit C and D for more entertaining
details.
This Affidavit includes additional evidence in support of the Defense argument that Chase Bank
did not sell the Defendants account in good faith. Evidence of bad faith is shown in Exhibit A.
Exhibit A is a letter to the SEC by Linda Almonte, a mid-level executive formerly employed with
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and/or Chase Bankcard Services, Inc. ("Chase Bank").
Ms. Almonte specifically discloses and blows the whistle on a variety of Chase Bank practices,
including:
1. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
credit card accounts that were marked by Chase Bank as Judgment Accounts when in fact
Chase Bank executives knew that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated
balances.
2. As part of the sale of Judgment Accounts, Chase Bank executives knowingly

mischaracterized delinquent accounts as already reduced to judgment, when in fact proof
existed that no judgment existed or at the very least insufficient documentation existed to
reach that conclusion.
3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from

consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumers credit card file,
including bankruptcy notices, powers of attorney, notice of cancellation of auto-pay,
proof of payments and letters from debt settlement companies.
4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase

Banks collection efforts and those Chase Bank executives did not have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.
Chase Bank is one of he largest credit card lenders in the country. In support of this large
operation, Chase Bank maintains a large central database of its credit card accounts, which is
called the system of record by company employees. The system of record is in fact a compilation
of many legacy databases from the many portfolio and company acquisitions Chase Bank has
made over the years. These legacy databases have varying degrees of integration depending on
the types of databases, software compatibility, time of acquisition and other factors. The central
database and the legacy databases combined are referred to herein as the "System of Record".
Exhibit B is a copy of a printout of a New York Times article from October 31. 2010 on the junk
debt collection practices entitled “Debt Collectors Face a Hazard: Writer's Cramp”. The main
points relevant to this action are that affiants do not have personal knowledge of the material
they aver to: vis:
But lawyers who defend consumers in debt-collection cases say the banks did not invent
the
headless, assembly-line approach to financial paperwork. Debt buyers, they say, have
been
doing it for years.
"The difference is that in the case of debt buyers, the abuses are much worse," says
Richard
Rubin, a consumer lawyer in Santa Fe, N.M.
"At least when it comes to mortgages, the banks have the right address, everyone agrees
about
the interest rate. But with debt buyers, the debt has been passed through so many hands,
often
over so many years, that a lot of time, these companies are pursuing the wrong person, or
the
charges have no lawful basis."
The debt in these cases — typically from credit cards, auto loans, utility bills and so on
— is sold by finance companies and banks in a vast secondary market, bundled in huge
portfolios, for pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers often hire collectors to commence a
campaign of insistent
letters and regular phone calls. Or, in a tactic that is becoming increasingly popular, they
sue.
Nobody knows how many debt-collection affidavits are filed each year, but a report by
the
nonprofit Legal Aid Society found that in New York City alone more than 450,000 were
filed by debt buyers, from January 2006 to July 2008, yielding more than $1.1 billion in
judgments and settlements.
Problems with this torrent of litigation are legion, according to the Federal Trade
Commission,
led by Jon Leibowitz. The agency issued a report on the subject, "Repairing a broken
System” in July. In some instances, banks are selling account information that is riddled
with errors.
More often, essential background information simply is not acquired by debt buyers, in
large
part because that data adds to the price of each account. But court rules state that anyone
submitting an affidavit to a court against a debtor must have proof of that claim — proper
documentation of a debt's origins, history and amount.
Without that information it is hard to imagine how any company could meet the legal
standard
of due diligence, particularly while churning out thousands and thousands of affidavits a
week.
Analysts say that affidavit-signers at debt-buying companies appear to have little choice
but to
take at face value the few facts typically provided to them — often little more than basic
ccount
information on a computer screen.
That was made vividly clear during the deposition last year of Jay Mills, an employee of
a
subsidiary of SquareTwo Financial (then known as Collect America), a debt-buying
company in
Denver.
"So," asked Dale Irwin, the plaintiffs lawyer, using shorthand for Collect
America, "if you see on the screen that the moon is made of green cheese, you
trust that CACH has investigated that and has determined that in fact, the moon is
made of green cheese?"
"Yes," Mr. Mills replied.
Given the volume of affidavits, even perfunctory research seems impossible. Cherie
Thomas,
who works for Asta Funding, a debt buyer in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., said in a 2007
deposition
that she had signed 2,000 affidavits a day. With a half-hour for lunch and two brief
breaks,
that's roughly one affidavit every 13 seconds.
Exhibit C is a piece from Jan 2, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal about Martha Kunkle, who
passed away in 1995 yet was signing affidavits for Portfolio Recovery Associates through 2010.
vis:
Martha Kunkle has come back to life.
She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted
by
one of the nation's largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits
filed
against borrowers.
Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name reflects an epidemic of
mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate documentation in the debt-collection industry.
Lawsuits have surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and collection firms
turn to
courts to get what they are owed.
After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates decided in early 2008 that any
documents bearing Ms. Kunkle's name had "defects" and shouldn't be used when trying
to collect debts, a company spokeswoman said.
Last July, though, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought a court judgment in
a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for $2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she
allegedly owed. It was a cookie-cutter case, except for one thing: To vouch for the debt's
validity, the Norfolk, Va., company included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle.
Exhibit D is another piece on the same topic. As the Coroner must aver, “I thoroughly examined
her, and she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead”
Exhibit E is a copy of the complaint in federal district court by the United States of America v
Daniel B. Karron. Only the First and last few pages are included, but the government is currently
suing Dr. Karron for over 5,000,000 in civil damages, which can not be obviated by bankruptcy.
Exhibit F is a copy of the settlement letter from Portfolio Recovery Associates, dropping
litigation against Dr. Karron.
Dear D.B. Karron,

As you know, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC has filed a court action against you
to collect a debt. Portfolio has decided to discontinue the action against you. Enclosed
please find a Stipulation of Discontinuance in connection with the above-entitled
matter. Nassau County requires both parties to sign the Stipulation before it can be filed
with their Court. Kindly sign the Stipulation and return to our office at your earliest
convenience. We will then file it with the Court.
Exhibit F is a copy of the IRS Form 1099-C reporting cancellation of debt to the government
by Chase Bank. The Defendant believes there are more where these came from. Chase bank
has been remarkably uncooperative in this matter and has refused to cooperate in supplying
documentation to Dr. Karron. Karron believed that she had negotiated cancellation of all of the
debts with Chase Bank in 2008 prior to her incarceration with her bank officer.
Exhibit H is a copy of the recent Notice of Federal Tax Lien showing a total federal lien to be
negotiated of $173,451.46.
$173,451.46. The
TheDefendant
Defendanthas
hasbeen
beeninintouch
touch with
with IRS
IRS agent
agent Debra
Debra Lynch
Lynch and
is brought to conclusion, negotiations on this matter are junior to the
until the federal civil trial is
federal civil trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the PLAINTIFF'S Summary

Summary Judgement
Judgement
Must be DENTED
DENIED with prejudice and the AFFIDAVITS contained therein be quashed as
defective.
h
DBKARRON
D B KARRON
sKiagyv,
Defendant, Pro Se
. ■ s: e4
T~Nlt~:JI>-DI\
EercuTT
tif 44_2 0
-- i
--
Sworn to before me thIS

this 5 day ofBecemb
of ,201ir
({ivJ 4JII r ~
PEARL APTSKAR vork
/PEARLAPTIiKAR
Notary Public, State ;1~~
Public, State of New York
~.
. ~, -
Notary 4300
No. 01 AP485
Q1AP48 County
Qualified In Nass~~rch
Qualified in Nassau County
3. 20cl
Commission Expires March 3, 20L
Commission Expires
EXHIBIT A
60State Street Suite 700
Kyros & Pressly Boston, MA 02109
gpi _y_@pi vxmn
603-320-7030
November 30,2010
SEC Complaint Center

100 F Street N.E.
Washington D.C. 20549-1213
To whom it may concern.
My law firm and Jones, Gillaspia & Loyd L.L.P represent Linda Almonte, a mid-level
executive formerly employed with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and/or Chase Bankcard
Services, Inc. ("Chase Bank"). We make this SEC whistleblower submission on behalf of
Ms. Almonte.
Introduction
Newspaper headlines today read of possible fraud and gross neglect by bank
employees and executives in connection with the process of foreclosing on delinquent
homeowners. Many federal and state agencies have launched significant investigations
into large bank practices, including investigations of the following: (1) Bank practices of
robo-signing affidavits to support a foreclosure proceedings; (2) Bank document and
records retention policies, or lack thereof; (3) How a bank passes title of a home loan
among many different entities; And (4) how a bank accounts for and properly
memorializes amounts owed by borrowers. Some analysts worry that this "foreclosure
mess" could cost the banks billions of dollars, which clearly would have an adverse effect
not only on the Banks' securities but also may affect the value of many registered asset-
back securities where the underlying home loan is part of the collateral upon which a
registered asset-backed security was issued.
Based upon first hand observation while an employee at Chase Bank and supported
by a large volume of documents in her possession and available for review by the SEC,
Ms. Almonte's whistleblower SEC submission discloses and chronicles similar fraud and
gross neglect on the part of Chase Bank as it relates to the litigation and collection process
for delinquent credit card accounts. Ms. Almonte specifically discloses and blows the
whistle on a variety of Chase Bank practices, including:
1. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of credit card accounts that were marked by Chase Bank as Judgment
Accounts when in fact Chase Bank executives knew that many of those accounts
had incorrect and overstated balances.
mischaracterized delinquent accounts as already reduced to judgment, when in
fact proof existed that no judgment existed or at the very least insufficient
documentation existed to reach that conclusion.
3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications
from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumers
credit card file, including bankruptcy notices, powers of attorney, notice of
cancelation of auto-pay, proof of payments and letters from debt settlement
companies.
4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of
Chase Banks collection efforts and those Chase Bank executives did not have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.
5. When senior Chase Bank executives were made aware of these systemic
problems, senior Chase Bank executives — rather than remedy the problems —
immediately fired the whistleblower and attempted to cover up these problems.
Her disclosures may bring into question Chase Bank's representations regarding
Chase Bank's own securities but may also bear on certain asset-backed securities where
the underlying assets are Chase Bank credit card accounts.
Chase Bank's Credit Card Operation
Chase Bank is one of he largest credit card lenders in the country. In support of this
large operation, Chase Bank maintains a large central database of its credit card accounts,
which is called the system of record by company employees. The system of record is in
fact a compilation of many legacy databases from the many portfolio and company
acquisitions Chase Bank has made over the years. These legacy databases have varying
degrees of integration depending on the types of databases, software compatibility, time of
acquisition and other factors. The central database and the legacy databases combined are
referred to herein as the "System of Record".
2
The System of Record keeps track of standard information about each credit card
account such as the current balance, the current amount due, a history of payments and
borrower-specific credit limits. Many departments within Chase Bank access the System
of Records for a variety of purposes.
One such purpose is to keep tract of on-time and delinquent accounts. The System
of Record automatically or manually allows for the creation of specific status codes based
upon the borrower's payment status. One such status option is to code a credit card
account as in "litigation," which means that Chase Bank has elected to sue the credit card
borrower for the unpaid balance. Once an account is coded "litigation" it is hereinafter
referred to as a "Litigation Account". It is believed that in late 2009, Chase Bank had
close to $5 billion dollars of aggregate accounts deemed Litigation Accounts
Once a credit card account becomes a Litigation Account, at least three effects occur that
are important for this whistleblower submission. First, Chase Bank has a specific
department that is responsible for all activity on every Litigation Account. This internal
department is called the "Credit Card Litigation Department". Second, the above-described
System of Record is no longer the primary database to record and maintain facts and
information about the real-time status of a Litigation Account. As explained below, the
Credit Card Litigation Department has its own databases and record keeping processes.
Third, credit card borrowers routinely send to Chase Bank material correspondence about
the borrower's account such as settlement offers, bankruptcy notices, statement disputes,
proof of payment and debt settlement letters and notices. Once an account becomes a
Litigation Account, the process of assimilating these material inbound correspondences
falls to the Credit Card Litigation Department.
Credit Card Litigation Department
The Credit Card Litigation department performs three broad tasks:
Pre-Litigation
First within the Credit Card Litigation Department is a group of employees called
the "Pre-Litigation Group". This group is responsible for assimilating all information and
documents necessary to file a lawsuit against the borrower for the unpaid balance. The
group also makes a final attempt to collect the unpaid balance by sending to the client
written notice of Chase Bank's intent to sue and also telephoning the consumer to orally
deliver a final demand for payment. The Pre-Litigation Group is also responsible for
incorporating all inbound communications from account holders from the time the credit
card account is marked for litigation on the System of Record until the account is assigned
3
for litigation as discussed below. These inbound communications are material and
include bankruptcy notices, settlement offers, statement disputes, powers of attorney,
notice of cancelation of auto-pay, proof of payment, and communications from debt
settlement and credit counseling companies.
Litigation
The Credit Card Litigation Department handles litigation in one of two manners. In
some states, Chase Bank has set up its own group of lawyers to litigate unpaid accounts. If
a borrower resides in a state where Chase Bank has elected to litigate unpaid accounts
using its own team of lawyers, then that Litigation Account is assigned to that group of
lawyers. Chase Bank has a second litigation track for borrowers that reside in states in
which Chase Bank has elected not to litigate these files using in-house lawyers. In this
second track, the Credit Card Litigation Department assigns a Litigation Account to a pre-
approved third party law firm.
The Credit Card Litigation Department maintains a separate database of all

Litigation Accounts, which hereinafter is referred to as the "Litigation Database". The
Litigation Database is not integrated with the System of Record. All litigation activity
performed by in-house Chase Bank lawyers is inputted directly into the Litigation
Database. Third party law firms maintain their own database and at regular intervals the
third party law firms transmit via FTTP (or similar automated protocols or even by email)
the data and information from these many third party law firms for assimilation into the
Litigation Database.
The Credit Card Litigation Department also supports litigation activity by providing
in-house lawyers and third party lawyers with executed affidavits in support of lawsuits
brought to reduce unpaid balances to judgment. When a bank seeks to reduce a delinquent
credit card account to a court judgment, the bank must bring suit and reduce that suit to
judgment. While each state has its own unique rules and procedures, every state at some
point in the process requires that a person with personal knowledge execute an affidavit
setting forth basic facts of the debt. This type of affidavit is hereinafter referred to as a
"Judgment Affidavit". The Credit Card Litigation Department assigns a handful of
executives to execute Judgment Affidavits, and these assigned employees are hereinafter
termed the "Affidavit Signers".
In order to produce the information necessary to generate a Judgment Affidavit,

employees of Chase Bank need to reconcile the data and information contained in the
System of Accounts, the Litigation Database and at times the databases maintained by
4
third party law firms. Given that the System of Records includes a collection of legacy
databases, this reconciliation process can be tedious and is prone to significant errors.
Post Judgment Activities

Once a Litigation Account is reduced from an unpaid account to an enforceable
judgment, that account status is so notated on the Litigation Database. Such an account is
hereinafter referred to as a "Judgment Account". The Credit Card Litigation Department
third function is to coordinate and facilitate all post judgment activities on a Judgment
Account. This type of activity includes, among many activities, preparing Judgment
Accounts for sale to debt buyers. Before a Judgment Account may be sold to a third party
debt buyer, Chase Bank must perform some level of diligence on the Judgment Accounts
being sold, including a review of the file to determine that the actual judgment is in Chase
Bank's possession and a review of the file to determine that the appropriate court officials
and bank employees have executed the judgment. Additionally, Chase Bank using
statistical models and algorithms should test the amount of the judgment with the actual
amount owed so any discrepancies can be corrected. Traditionally, Judgment Accounts
are sold in batches and in relatively small dollar amounts when compared to industry
practices of selling charge off accounts to collection agencies, as a Judgment Account is
more expensive for a debt buyer because the account is readily enforceable, as it has
already been reduced to judgment.
Linda Almonte — an important executive in the Credit Card Litigation Department
From May 2009 through November 2009 Linda Almonte was a mid level executive
within the Credit Card Litigation Department at Chase Bank. She came to Chase Bank
from Washington Mutual, where she had spent four years in a variety of compliance
related executive positions. While at Chase Bank, Ms. Almonte supervised employees
across the litigation and post-judgment functions of the department. She routinely
interacted with all executives in the department and with other senior executives from
across the entire bank.
In mid October 2009 Ms. Almonte was instructed to spearhead the review and
diligence of what was described in real time as the largest sale of Judgment Accounts in
Chase Bank memory. National Loan Exchange was brokering the large judgment sale for
Chase Bank. The sale called for the sale of over 23,000 Judgment Accounts with a face
value of over $200,000,000.
The results of her preliminary diligence while working with National Loan
Exchange were alarming: Ms. Almonte and her group reviewed 11, 472 Judgment
5
Accounts where the borrower resided in California. 44% of the Judgment Accounts did
not have the judgment or if the file contained the judgment then it was not properly signed
or date-stamped by the court. In some instances a Judgment Account had a judgment
against Chase Bank, yet the Litigation Database had the accounts listed as a judgment in
favor of Chase Bank. In multiple accounts, Ms. Almonte and her team found Release of
Liens and Satisfaction of Judgments indicating that the account was paid in full, but Chase
Bank senior executives specifically instructed Ms. Almonte to ignore those documents and
sell those accounts as Judgment Accounts with out adjusting the account balance.
Additionally, some of Ms. Almonte's preliminary diligence showed a large number of
accounts with discrepancies and that the actual amounts owed Chase Bank was less than
the amount set forth in the Judgment Accounts.
Ms. Almonte's review raised real concerns about more narrowly the legality and
appropriateness of the specific judgment sale and more generally the entire operational
process of the Credit Card Litigation Department. Ms. Almonte raised her concerns to her
immediate supervisor who took no action to stop the judgment sale. Ms. Almonte
escalated her concerns and in November, 2009, literally while a senior litigation counsel
from Chase Bank was traveling from New York to meet with her, Ms Almonte was fired
and walked out of the offices by security. The sale was consummated with DebtOne LLC
after Ms. Almonte was terminated with senior Chase Bank executives fully aware of the
above facts. Ms. Almonte additionally made sure that each attorney of record for each
judgment was made aware of her diligence.
Specific Disclosures
Based upon the first hand diligence Ms. Almonte performed in late 2009, based
upon first hand knowledge Ms. Almonte gained from May 2009 until November 2009,
based upon documents in her possession and available for review by the SEC, this SEC
whistleblower submission makes the following assertions, which are intended to be
illustrations and not exhaustive:
1. The Pre-Litigation Group in the Credit Card Litigation Department routinely

destroyed material, inbound communications from borrowers including
bankruptcy notices, settlement communications, and debt settlement company
communications. To the extent the Pre-Litigation Group did not destroy these
inbound communications, the group failed to timely incorporate the information
contained in these communications into the Litigation Database. In one instance,
Ms. Almonte witnessed the head of the Pre-Litigation Group shred such
documents before incorporation into the Litigation Database. Failing to properly
6
record the information and data contained in these inbound communications to
the Litigation Database rendered the information therein inaccurate.
2. Senior Chase Bank executives instructed Chase Bank employees remove
important information and data from Litigation Accounts, as the retention of the
information would have resulted in increased computer hardware costs.
Removing important consumer information rendered the information in the
Litigation inaccurate and unreliable.
3. The information and facts set forth in a Judgment Affidavit required a
meaningful reconciliation among the System of Record (including at times
multiple legacy databases that compromise the System of Record), the Litigation
Database and at times third party law firms' own databases. At no time did the
Affidavit Signers perform this reconciliation, relying on hourly workers to
perform this process. Hence the Affidavit Signers did not have personal
knowledge of the facts set forth in the Judgment Affidavits.
4. The Affidavit Signers in a cavalier fashion almost flaunted their lack of
personal knowledge of the facts contained in the Judgment Affidavits. On
numerous occasions, Ms. Almonte witnessed these Affidavit Signers work
through at times 3-feet tall stacks of Judgment Affidavits at once during weekly
multi-hour long, non-related company meetings. The notaries were not present
at these meetings. The Affidavit Signers simply relied on hourly workers to
reconcile amounts owed and then treated the actual execution of the affidavits as
busy work to be performed while the Affidavit Signers could focus on other
matters.
5. The reconciliation process itself was manual in nature, cumbersome at best
and prone to significant errors. Chase Bank failed to properly integrate its
computer systems and databases so the underlying facts of these affidavits
required the reconciliation of information from multiple databases. The
diligence performed by Ms. Almonte in late 2009 uncovered errors in the actual
amount owed by a borrower and the amount Chase Bank claimed to be owed in
the Judgment Affidavit. Indeed, Ms. Almonte determined that as many as 20%
of the Judgment Accounts to be sold failed an internal test to check for accuracy.
Such errors could be the result of systemic errors in the reconciliation process,
which Chase Bank could have resolved if it unified its database onto one
platform.
6. Chase Bank failed to properly maintain records and documents that supported
the status of a Judgment Account. For example, a Chase Bank required practice
was to maintain a copy of a judgment secured in Chase Bank's favor in the
account file. In late 2009, Ms. Almonte audit work found that in a large
percentage of the files, Chase Bank did not have a record of obtaining such a
7
judgment and in fact in some files the records indicated that the borrower had
judgments against Chase Bank.
7. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of credit card accounts that were marked as Judgment Accounts when in
fact Chase Bank knew that many of those accounts had material defects, were not
in fact Judgment Accounts and had incorrect and overstated balances.
mischaracterized delinquent accounts as already reduced to judgment, when in
fact proof existed that no judgment existed.
mischaracterized delinquent accounts as Judgment Accounts when insufficient
documentation existed to reach that conclusion.
Conclusion
The facts as set forth herein show evidence of violations of federal law that are
subject to the SEC Whistleblower Program. Additionally the conduct articulated herein
could give rise to significant liabilities to Chase Bank, which in turn could affect the value
of its securities. My client may be willing to meet with an investigator from your office
(or the appropriate federal agency) and may be willing to produce the extensive
documentation in her possession that evidences the facts as set forth herein.
I am available on an ongoing basis to discuss this matter should the need arise.
Sincerely,
-7'
George Pressly. ESQ.
8
Case 4:08-cv-00036-RKS Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 1
Case 4:08-cv-00036-RKS Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2
AFFIDAVIT FORM
1, being duly sworn, hereby state and attest that I am the designated agent
of Providian National Barth ("Providian"), a national banking association, one of the
seller in that certain Purchase and Sales Agreement by and among Providian National
Bank, Providian Bank and Portfolio Recovery Associates ("Purchaser"), dated as of
12/05/05 fthe Agreement")
The account billing statement of COLE; JEANIE C,
4254491400850471,_the Cardholder to the best of my knowledge, reflects a true
and correct accounting of the cardholder's credit card account; that as of
12/05/05, the sum of $ 5911.87 was due to
Providian or any of its affiliates; and that,no FLO of,this sum has been paid or
satisfied, In accordance with the Agreement, Providian sold, assigned and
conveyed to Purchaser all right, title and interest in and to the Account and
its unpaid balance
Executed on May 24, 2007 at Arlington, Texas,.
604.14.1111_11",_; Martha Kunkle, Designated Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me this 24thday of May, 2007
Cau149mbiunoZ
e::.g My C3ITurlission E*:ies
11n7/2010
EXHIBIT B
1/5/2011 Robo-Signing at Companies That Buy ...
IP New ljork 'Onto- Reprints

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for
BEST LIAI TO RI
distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints' tool that appears next to any
article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
October 31, 2010
Debt Collectors Face a Hazard: Writer's

Cramp
By DAVID SEGAL
When Michael Gazzarato took a job that required him to sign hundreds of affidavits in a single
day, he had one demand for his employer: a much better pen.
"They tried to get me to do it with a Bic, and I wasn't going — I wasn't having it," he said. "It
was bad when I had to use the plastic Papermate-type pen. It was a nightmare."
The complaint could have come from any of the autograph marathoners in the recent mortgage
foreclosure mess. But Mr. Gazzarato was speaking at a deposition in a 2007 lawsuit against
Asset Acceptance, a company that buys consumer debts and then tries to collect.
His job was to sign affidavits, swearing that he had personally reviewed and verified the records
of debtors — a time-consuming task when done correctly.
Sound familiar?
Banks have been under siege in recent weeks for widespread corner-cutting in the rush to
process delinquent mortgages. The accusations have stirred outrage and set off investigations
by attorneys general across the country, prompting several leading banks to temporarily cease
foreclosures.
But lawyers who defend consumers in debt-collection cases say the banks did not invent the
headless, assembly-line approach to financial paperwork. Debt buyers, they say, have been
doing it for years.
"The difference is that in the case of debt buyers, the abuses are much worse," says Richard
Rubin, a consumer lawyer in Santa Fe, N.M.
"At least when it comes to mortgages, the banks have the right address, everyone agrees about
the interest rate. But with debt buyers, the debt has been passed through so many hands, often
over so many years, that a lot of time, these companies are pursuing the wrong person, or the
charges have no lawful basis."
nytimes.com/2010/11/01/.../Oldebt.ht... 1/4
The debt in these cases — typically from credit cards, auto loans, utility bills and so on — is sold
by finance companies and banks in a vast secondary market, bundled in huge portfolios, for
pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers often hire collectors to commence a campaign of insistent
letters and regular phone calls. Or, in a tactic that is becoming increasingly popular, they sue.
Nobody knows how many debt-collection affidavits are filed each year, but a report by the
nonprofit Legal Aid Society found that in New York City alone more than 450,000 were filed by
debt buyers, from January 2006 to July 2008, yielding more than $1.1 billion in judgments and
settlements.
Problems with this torrent of litigation are legion, according to the Federal Trade Commission,
led by Jon Leibowitz. The agency issued a report on the subject, "Repairing a broken Systei ,,,
in July. In some instances, banks are selling account information that is riddled with errors.
More often, essential background information simply is not acquired by debt buyers, in large
part because that data adds to the price of each account. But court rules state that anyone
submitting an affidavit to a court against a debtor must have proof of that claim — proper
documentation of a debt's origins, history and amount.
Without that information it is hard to imagine how any company could meet the legal standard
of due diligence, particularly while churning out thousands and thousands of affidavits a week.
Analysts say that affidavit-signers at debt-buying companies appear to have little choice but to
take at face value the few facts typically provided to them — often little more than basic account
information on a computer screen.
That was made vividly clear during the deposition last year of Jay Mills, an employee of a
subsidiary of SquareTwo Financial (then known as Collect America), a debt-buying company in
Denver.
"So," asked Dale Irwin, the plaintiffs lawyer, using shorthand for Collect America, "if you see on
the screen that the moon is made of green cheese, you trust that CACH has investigated that
and has determined that in fact, the moon is made of green cheese?"
"Yes," Mr. Mills replied.
Given the volume of affidavits, even perfunctory research seems impossible. Cherie Thomas,
who works for Asta Funding, a debt buyer in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., said in a 2007 deposition
that she had signed 2,000 affidavits a day. With a half-hour for lunch and two brief breaks,
that's roughly one affidavit every 13 seconds.
Executives at debt-buying firms say they have systems to ensure the accuracy of their
affidavits. Robert Michel, chief financial officer at Asta Funding, says his company hires outside
lawyers to read over affidavits, then has staff employees check their work.
"The people who work in this area are well trained, and they know that when they sign a
statement they have to follow certain procedures," he said. "They know what they are doing."
He added that the pace of affidavits filed by Asta had dwindled since 2007 and was now closer
to "several hundred" a day, rather than 2,000.
Even if debt buyers purchase the requisite information directly from a bank, it may be flawed.
Linda Almonte oversaw a team of advisers, analysts and managers at JPMorgan Chase last
year, when the company was preparing the sale of 23,000 delinquent accounts, with a face
value of $200 million. With the debt sold at roughly 13 cents on the dollar, the sale was
supposed to net $26 million.
As the date of the sale approached, Ms. Almonte and her employees started to notice mistakes
and inconsistencies in the accounts.
"We found that with about 5,000 accounts there were incorrect balances, incorrect addresses,"
she said. "There were even cases where a consumer had won a judgment against Chase, but it
was still part of the package being sold."
Ms. Almonte flagged the defects with her manager, but he shrugged them off, she says, and he
urged her and her colleagues to complete the deal in time for the company's coming earnings
report. Instead, she contacted senior legal counsel at the company. Within days, she was fired.
She has since filed a wrongful termination suit against Chase.
A Chase spokesman declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
The majority of lawsuits filed in debt collection cases go unanswered, which is why most end
with default judgments — victories for creditors that allow them to use court officers or sheriffs
to garnish wages or freeze bank accounts, among other remedies.
There is a persistent argument about why so few consumers respond in these cases. Consumers
often know they owe the debt and conclude that fighting about it is pointless, said Barbara
Sinsley, general counsel at DBA International, a trade group of debt buyers.
Lawyers for consumers, on the other hand, contend that few debtors ever learn about the legal
action until it is too late, often because the process server charged with alerting them never
actually delivered a notification. In those instances when a consumer hires a lawyer, the
consumer often prevails.
"I've lost four and I've taken about 5,000 cases," said Jerry Jarzombek, a consumer lawyer in
Fort Worth. "If the case goes to trial, I say to the judge, 'Your honor, imagine if someone came
in here to give eyewitness testimony in a traffic accident case and they didn't actually see the
crash. They just read about it somewhere. Well, this is the same thing.' The debt buyers don't
know anything about the debt. They just read about it."
Every plaintiffs lawyer and consumer advocate in this field has a theory about why there has
been so much fury over mortgage paperwork abuses but so little about debt collections. The
stakes in collections cases are smaller, and of course, debt buyers were never given a taxpayer
bailout.
"But what people don't realize," said Daniel Edelman, a plaintiff's lawyer in Chicago, "is that the
mortgage issue and debt collections are intimately connected. The millions of default judgments
out there — you better believe that's one reason that homeowners can't afford their homes."
Andrew Martin contributed reporting.
EXHIBIT C
Deceased Woman's Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits I http://foreclosuregate.prosepoint.com/story/deceased-womans-name-was...
SEARCH
Oartli.CL ltiCTRE. (9ATE

About Contact Us Register Login
Z OPT E
ACADEMIA ADVERSARIES ADVOCATES BLOGOSPHERE CASE LAW CONGRESS OP-ED HOMEOWNERS NEWS RESOURCES
UNITE
II home
USER LOGIN
Deceased Woman's Name Was Username:
Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits Password:
Front Page
by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Wall St Journal Log in

MAINSTREAM MEDIA
CREATE NEW ACCOUNT
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011
REQUEST NEW PASSWORD
n
Welcome She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted by
NAVIGATION
Back
CONTRIBUTORS
one of the nation's largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits filed
against borrowers. IMAGE GALLERY
Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name reflects an epidemic of
mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate documentation in the debt-collection industry.
Lawsuits have surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and collection firms turn to
courts to get what they are owed.
After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates decided in early 2008 that any
documents bearing Ms. Kunkle's name had "defects" and shouldn't be used when trying to collect debts, a company
spokeswoman said.
Last July, though, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates sought a court judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman for
$2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly owed. It was a cookie-cutter case, except for one thing: To vouch for
the debt's validity, the Norfolk, Va., company included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle.
The spokeswoman said the document was "inadvertently used by our outside counsel" because of "human error," adding that the
suit was dropped later "upon review of the case."
The company said Ms. Kunkle's name isn't on any other affidavits submitted to judges since early 2008 by Portfolio Recovery
Associates or outside lawyers who handle most of its debt-collection cases.
"When you see corner-cutting like this, it's alarming," Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said about the Kunkle case. Ms.
Swanson is investigating numerous buyers and collectors of consumer debt for falsifying affidavits. A spokeswoman for the
company, the second-largest debt buyer in the U.S. by revenue, said the company is unaware of the investigation and declined
further comment.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he wants to investigate whether Martha Kunkle's name appears on any affidavits
used to collect debt in the state of Missouri.
Some judges say robo-signing, in which affidavits are signed without fully reviewing underlying documentation, is more common in
debt-collection cases than foreclosures. In July, the Federal Trade Commission recommended that state regulators require the
disclosure of "more information" by debt collectors and buyers, concluding that they might be relying on erroneous or incomplete
paperwork when suing to recover money.
"I've watched and wanted to tell defendants in these suits to demand proof of the underlying debt because that proof is so often
flimsy," said Jeffrey Lipman, a magistrate judge in Polk County, Iowa, which includes Des Moines, the state's capital. Court rules
give him little leeway to instruct borrowers in court.
Large debt collectors such as Portfolio Recovery Associates and publicly traded rivals Encore Capital Group Inc. and
Acceptance Capital Corp. frequently buy delinquent accounts in bulk. Information about each debt sometimes is little more than a
line in a spreadsheet with the borrower's name and amount owed, according to lawyers who represent borrowers. As of Sept. 30,
1 of 2 1/4/2011 7:30 AM
Deceased Woman's Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits I http://foreclosuregate.prosepointcom/story/deceased-womans-name-was...
Portfolio Recovery Associates had $91.5 million in revenue from lawsuits it won, or 34% of its overall revenue.
Powered by ProsePoint
In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates, testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that
its "legal specialists" sign as many as 200 affidavits a day. The company's spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of
100 affidavits a day and are guided by "a very rigorous set of policies and procedures." Ms. Montoya couldn't be reached to
comment.
Questions about Martha Kunkle first popped up in 2008 after her name appeared in thousands of affidavits generated by a unit of
Providian National Corp. The credit-card issuer sold an undisclosed number of delinquent account balances to Portfolio Recovery
Associates and other debt collectors, which then sued the borrowers to collect the debt.
Most of the debt was racked up before 2004. Providian was acquired in 2005 by Washington Mutual Inc. The Seattle company's
banking operations failed in 2008 and were sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which declined to comment.
Concerns about Ms. Kunkle's affidavits were raised in 2008 by lawyers for Jeanie Cole, one of thousands of Montana residents
sued by Portfolio Recovery Associates to collect debts. After failing to locate Ms. Kunkle, lawyers for Ms. Cole interviewed her
daughter, who worked at Providian in a document-processing division.
The daughter testified in a deposition that other Providian employees used the name Martha Kunkle when signing affidavits. Along
with other employees, the daughter was responsible for signing affidavits. After countersuing Portfolio Recovery Associates for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ms. Cole was the lead plaintiff in a 2008 federal-court suit in Montana
alleging the company targeted 16,000 borrowers using "false and misleading" affidavits.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article

/SB10001424052970204204004576049902142690400.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Add new comment e I a la
COMMENTS
JUDGES ARE ALSO BOUGHT-AND-PAID FOR
Dead robo-signers, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov't violations of our right: They violate the 1st
Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like "America Deceived II" and censoring the internet. They violate
the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns. They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers. They
violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries. Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress,
except Ron Paul. (Last link of Banned Book): http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?Bookld=SKU-000190526
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/01/2011 - 10:10.
2 of 2 1/4/2011 7:30 AM
EXHIBIT D
1/5/2011 Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector - WSJ.com
&
An Execut-rwe Conference from Mr WAIL gilin.1011RVIT•
Request an
ECO •noniles
PARTICIPANTS INCLUDE
Invitation
ECOnomics.wsj.com
■ ■ CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or
customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now
THE WALL SMELT JOURNAL.

SJ.ccm
MARKETS DECEMBER 31, 2010
Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector

Deceased Woman's Name Was Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits
ByJESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
She died in 1995. Yet her signature later appeared on thousands of affidavits submitted by one of the nation's
largest debt collectors, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc., in lawsuits filed against borrowers.
Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name

Back From the Dead
reflects an epidemic of mass-produced, sloppy and inaccurate
II WPM Sci.r.- • documentation in the debt-collection industry. Lawsuits have
liwismi Re P•ky MP .14 V.V.\ T• • N. surged as more borrowers fall behind on payments and
,-414aliLILLEMel514 MA M.11. 1....2 Kb=1..1 4 Apm collection firms turn to courts to get what they are owed.
After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates

decided in early 2008 that any documents bearing Ms.
Kunkle's name had "defects" and shouldn't be used when trying
rwewol..Colivr6 Nab. 01.4r." i/•■••••
to collect debts, a company spokeswoman said.
View Full Image Last July, though, lawyers for Portfolio Recovery Associates
Details about Martha Kunkle, w hose name appeared sought a court judgment in a lawsuit against a Seattle woman
on thousands of affidavits used to collect credit-card
debts for $ 2,892.10 in credit-card debt and interest that she allegedly
owed. It was a cookie-cutter case, except for one thing: To
Died in 1995 vouch for the debt's validity, the Norfolk, Va., company
Name was used by employees who worked
included an affidavit signed by Martha Kunkle.
with her daughter
Minnesota's attorney general is investigating
The spokeswoman said the document was "inadvertently used
numerous buyers and collectors of by our outside counsel" because of "human error," adding that
consumer debt for falsifying affidavits the suit was dropped later "upon review of the case."
The company said Ms. Kunkle's name isn't on any other affidavits submitted to judges since early 2008 by
Portfolio Recovery Associates or outside lawyers who handle most of its debt-collection cases.
"When you see corner-cutting like this, it's alarming," Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said about the
Kunkle case. Ms. Swanson is investigating numerous buyers and collectors of consumer debt for falsifying
affidavits. A spokeswoman for the company, the second-largest debt buyer in the U.S. by revenue, said the
company is unaware of the investigation and declined further comment.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he wants to investigate whether Martha Kunkle's name appears on
any affidavits used to collect debt in the state of Missouri.
...wsj.com/.../S B1000142405297020420... 1/3

Some judges say robo-signing, in which affidavits are signed without fully reviewing underlying documentation,
is more common in debt-collection cases than foreclosures. In July, the Federal Trade Commission
recommended that state regulators require the disclosure of "more information" by debt collectors and buyers,
concluding that they might be relying on erroneous or incomplete paperwork when suing to recover money.
"I've watched and wanted to tell defendants in these suits to demand proof of the underlying debt because that
proof is so often flimsy," said Jeffrey Lipman, a magistrate judge in Polk County, Iowa, which includes Des
Moines, the state's capital. Court rules give him little leeway to instruct borrowers in court.
large debt collectors such as Portfolio Recovery Associates and publicly

Bulk Debt traded rivals Encore Capital Group Inc. and Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.
Portfolio Recovery Associates'
frequently buy delinquent accounts in bulk. Information about each debt
legal collections and quarterly sometimes is little more than a line in a spreadsheet with the borrower's
revenue, in millions of dollars name and amount owed, according to lawyers who represent borrowers. As
$100.. Legal collections ........... of Sept. 3o, Portfolio Recovery Associates had $91.5 million in revenue
Revenue from lawsuits it won, or 34% of its overall revenue.
In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates,

testified in a debt-collection suit filed by the company that its "legal
specialists" sign as many as 200 affidavits a day. The company's
40
spokeswoman said such employees sign an average of 100 affidavits a day
and are guided by "a very rigorous set of policies and procedures." Ms.
Montoya couldn't be reached to comment.
0 -
2002 '09
Questions about Martha Kunkle first popped up in 2008 after her name
Swam the ccaliwy.5filing5
appeared in thousands of affidavits generated by a unit of Providian
National Corp. The credit-card issuer sold an undisclosed number of
delinquent account balances to Portfolio Recovery Associates and other debt collectors, which then sued the
borrowers to collect the debt.
Most of the debt was racked up before 2004. Providian was acquired in 2005 by Washington Mutual Inc. The
Seattle company's banking operations failed in 2008 and were sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which declined
to comment.
Concerns about Ms. Kunkle's affidavits were raised in 2008 by lawyers for Jeanie Cole, one of thousands of
Montana residents sued by Portfolio Recovery Associates to collect debts. After failing to locate Ms. Kunkle,
lawyers for Ms. Cole interviewed her daughter, who worked at Providian in a document-processing division.
The daughter testified in a deposition that other Providian employees used the name Martha Kunkle when
signing affidavits. Along with other employees, the daughter was responsible for signing affidavits. After
countersuing Portfolio Recovery Associates for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
Ms. Cole was the lead plaintiff in a 2008 federal-court suit in Montana alleging the company targeted 16,o o o
borrowers using "false and misleading" affidavits.
Last year, Portfolio Recovery Associates agreed to settle the Montana suit. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed,
but the company's spokeswoman said it admitted no wrongdoing. She wouldn't say how many borrowers were
sued using documents signed by Martha Kunkle. Ms. Cole is prohibited from commenting under terms of the
settlement.
"I would like to reinforce that these were not Portfolio Recovery Associates affidavits," the spokeswoman said.
The company said it moved quickly to alert its outside lawyers that Kunkle documents shouldn't be relied on
when trying to collect debts.
The lawsuit against the Seattle woman included an October 2006 affidavit in which "Martha Kunkle,
Designated Agent" for Providian, swore "to the best of my knowledge" that the amount owed "reflects a true
and correct accounting of the cardholder's credit card account."
...wsj.com/.../S B1000142405297020420... 2/3
Robert Scanlon, the lawyer who filed the suit for Portfolio Recovery Associates, wouldn't comment on the case
or how long he has sued borrowers on behalf of the company. The borrower also declined to comment.
Copyright 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and
by copyright law . For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
...wsj.com/.../SB1000142405297020420... 3/3
EXHIBIT E
mc Mei rbAR ,
Unit 5taSesAttoori fokl ie i k
. n
0 FILE
Southern District of New York
By: MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ
Assistant United States Attorney
86 Chambers Street
23
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 637-1945
Facsimile: (212) 637-2750
E-mail: matthew.schwartz@usdoj.gov
Os
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

\\\1‘ Ncl\t
Plaintiff, coNinuArt
v. ECF CASE
DANIEL B. KARRON, 08 Civ.
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Plaintiff the United States of America, by its attorney Michael J. Garcia,
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, herein alleges for its
complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action brought by plaintiff, the United States of America,
on behalf of its agency the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce"),
against the defendant, Daniel B. Karron ("Karron"), under the provisions of the
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq.(the "False Claims Act"), to recover
damages sustained by, and penalties owed to, the United States as a result of
Karron's having knowingly presented or caused to be presented to the United States

37. On or about June 13, 2007, a federal grand jury in the Southern
District of New York indicted Karron on one count of misapplying federal grant
funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666. On or about May 21, 2008, a superceding
indictment was filed in United States v. Karron, 07 Cr. 541 (RPP), adding a
forfeiture count.
38. On or about June 11, 2008, a federal jury convicted Karron of violating
18 U.S.C. § 666 in connection with the Grant.
39. On or about October 24 and 31, 2008, the Hon. Robert P. Patterson
sentenced Karron to a term of seven and a half months imprisonment, three years
supervised release, a $100 mandatory assessment, and restitution in the amount of
$120,000.00.
FIRST CLAIM
(FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1))
40. The United States incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39
above as if fully set forth herein.
41. The United States seeks relief against Karron under Section 3729(a)(1)
of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).
42. As set forth above, Karron knowingly, or with reckless disregard for
the truth, presented and caused to be presented to an officer, employee or agent of
the United States, through Commerce, either directly or indirectly, false or
fraudulent claims for ATP Grant payments.
43. The United States, through Commerce, paid such false or fraudulent
claims because of the acts and conduct of Karron.
10
44. By reason of Karron's false claims, the United States has sustained
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
SECOND CLAIM
(FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2))
46. The United States seeks relief against Karron under Section 3729(a)(2)
of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2).
47. As set forth above, Karron knowingly, or in reckless disregard for the
truth, made, used, and caused to be made and used, false records and statements to
get false and fraudulent claims for ATP Grant money paid by Commerce.
48. The United States, through Commerce, paid such false or fraudulent
claims because of the acts and conduct of Karron.
49. By reason of these false claims, the United States has sustained
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CLAIM
(CONVERSION)
51. All ATP Grant payments up to the amount of $1,345.500.00 made to
CASI are the lawful property of the United States of America.
52. Karron knowingly converted these funds for his own use, in derogation
of the rights of the United States, which is entitled to these funds.
11
53. As a result of the conversion by Karron, the United States has been
damaged in the amount of $1,345.500.00, representing the ATP Grant payments
Karron has wrongfully withheld from the United States.
FOURTH CLAIM
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT)
55. The United States made ATP Grant payments to CASI and for the
benefit of Karron when they were not entitled to those payments.
56. Karron has been unjustly enriched by retaining the use and enjoyment
of the ATP Grant payments, to which he was not entitled.
57. Karron has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $1,345.500.00,
representing the ATP Grant payments which he used for his own benefit, but to
which he was not entitled.
58. The circumstances of Karron's receipt of these ATP Grant payments
are such that, in equity and good conscience, Karron should not retain these
payments.
FIFTH CLAIM
(FRAUD)
60. Karron made material misrepresentations of fact to the United States,
through Commerce, with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard of, their truth, in
12
connection with CASI's claim for ATP Grant payments.
61. Karron intended that the United States rely upon the accuracy of the
false representations referenced above.
62. The United States made substantial payments of money to CASI in
justifiable reliance upon their false representations.
63. Karron's actions caused the United States to be damaged in an amount
to be determined at trial.
SIXTH CLAIM
(PAYMENT MADE UNDER MISTAKE OF FACT)
65. The United States seeks relief against Karron to recover monies paid
under mistake of fact.
66. The United States made ATP Grant payments to CASI under the
erroneous belief that the information in Karron's claims for payment complied with
the applicable rules and guidelines. This erroneous belief was material to the
United States' decision to make these payments. In such circumstances, payment
was by mistake and was not authorized.
67. Because of these payments by mistake, Karron has received money to
which they are not entitled.
68. By reason of the foregoing, the United States was damaged in an
amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, the United States of America, requests that
13
judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant Daniel B. Karron as follows:
(a) On all Claims for relief, summary judgment as to liability pursuant to
the estoppel provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3731(d),
and the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, based on
Karron's conviction.
(b) On the First and Second Claims for relief (Violations of the False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(1) and (2)), for treble the United
States' damages, $1,345.500.00, plus an $11,000.00 penalty for each
false claim presented;
(c) On the First and Second Claims for relief, an award of costs pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a);
(d) On the Third Claim for relief (Conversion), in an amount to be
determined at trial, together with costs and interest;
(e) On the Fourth Claim for relief (Unjust Enrichment), in an amount to
be determined at trial, together with costs and interest;
On the Fifth Claim for relief (Fraud), in an amount to be determined at
trial, together with costs and interest;
(g) On the Sixth Claim for relief (Payment Made Under Mistake of Fact),
in an amount to be determined at trial, together with costs and
interest; and
(h) awarding such further relief as is proper.
14
Dated: New York, New York
November 24, 2008
MICHAEL J. GA C IA
United Sta
By:
EW L. CH RTZ
Assistant United States Attorney
Telephone: (212) 637-1945
Facsimile: (212) 637-2750
E-mail: matthew.schwartz@usdoj.gov
15
EXHIBIT F
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC
Litigation Department
140 Corporate Boulevard Norfolk, VA 23502
Telephone: 1 (866) 428-8102
Fax: (757) 518-1773
Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday 8 AM to 9 PM (EST)
April 6, 2010
D.B. Karron
348 E. Fulton St.
Re: Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC v. D.B. Karron

Index No: CV-002298-10
Capital One Bank
Original Balance: $8,296.40
Dear D.B. Karron,
As you know, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC has filed a court action against you to collect a
debt. Portfolio has decided to discontinue the action against you. Enclosed please find a Stipulation of
Discontinuance in connection with the above-entitled matter. Nassau County requires both parties to sign
the Stipulation before it can be filed with their Court. Kindly sign the Stipulation and return to our office at
your earliest convenience. We will then file it with the Court.
Thank you for your kind cooperation, and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Since .ply,
y :et Macma,
.1
Portfolio Recovery Assoc

140 Corporate Blvd
Norfolk, VA 23502
PH: 1-866-428-8102
MBM:ldl
Enc.
This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt.

Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
NOTICE: SEE ADDITIONAL PAGE(S) FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION

DISTRICT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU
FIRST DISTRICT
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, STIPULATION OF
DISCONTINUANCE
Plaintiff
-against- Index No: CV-002298-
10
D.B. KARRON,
Defendant,
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the undersigned, the attorney of record for the Plaintiff,
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, to the above-entitled matter, that whereas no party is an infant
or incompetent person for whom a committee has been appointed and no person not a party has an
interest in the subject matter of the action, the above-entitled action be, and the same hereby is,
discontinued without prejudice and without costs to either party as against the other. This
stipulation may be filed without further notice with the Clerk of the Court.
Dated: April , 2010
By:
Mary Beth Macina, Esq. D. B. Karron
Attorneys for Plaintiff 348 E. Fulton Street
140 Corporate Boulevard Long Beach, NY 11561
Norfolk, VA 23502
866-428-8102
File No: 4802132398884729
This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a

debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
EXHIBIT G
CHASE 0
Tax Year 2009 Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt (Copy B)
This is important tax information and is being furnished to the Internal
P.O. BOX 15298 Revenue Service. If you are required to file a return, a negligence
WILMINGTON DE 19850 penalty or other sanction may be imposed on you if taxable income
results from this transaction and the IRS determines that it has not
been reported.
Debtor's Information Creditor's Information

92573 TAS 1Z2 2010 - 0055 0032 80 (00.350) Federal ID Number: 22-2382028
...........................................................................
1111111111111111111 CHASE BANK USA, NA
D. B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST
LONG BEACH, NY 11561
Form 1099-C Questions

Phone Support: 866- 578-2888
Debtor's ID Number: 054-42-5466
Original
Summary of Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt (OMB No. 1545-1424)
Box Description Amount Box Description Amount
1. Date Canceled (See Details) 5. Was borrower personally liable for repayment of the debt? (See Details)
2. Amount of debt canceled $19,406.64 6. Bankruptcy No
3. Interest if included in box 2 $0.00 7. Fair market value of property $0.00
4. Debt Description CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT
Details of Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt (OMB No. 1545-1424)
Account Number Box #1 Box #2 Box #3 Other Boxes

Acct Description Date Amt. of debt Int. included
canceled canceled in box 2
5401683066629475 02/08/2009 $19,406.64 $0.00 #4 Debt description CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT

#5 Was borrower personally liable for repayment of the debt? Yes
#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
Instructions for Debtor
Note. You may not have to include in income all or a portion of certain qualified Box 1. Shows the date the debt was canceled .
principal residence indebtedness canceled in 2009. See Pub. 4681, Canceled
Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions, and Abandonments (for individuals), for Box 2. Shows the amount of debt canceled. Note: If you do not agree with this
more information. amount, contact your creditor.
If a federal government agency, certain agencies connected with the Federal Box 3. Shows interest if included in the canceled debt in box 2. See Pub. 525,
Government, financial institution, credit union, or an organization having a Taxable and Nontaxable Income, to see if you must include the interest in gross
significant trade or business of lending money (such as a finance or credit card income.
company) cancels or forgives a debt you owe of $600 or more, this form must
be provided to you. Generally, if you are an individual, you must include all Box 4. Shows a description of the debt. If box 7 is completed, box 4 shows a
canceled amounts, even if less than $600, on the "Other income" line of Form description of the property.
1040. If you are a corporation, partnership, or other entity, report the canceled
debt on your tax return. See the tax return instructions. Box 5. Shows whether borrower is personally Yki.b?e for repayment of the debt.
See Pub. 4681 for reporting instructions.
However, some canceled debts are not includible, or fully includible, in your
income, such as certain student loans, certain debts reduced by the seller after Box 6. If the box is marked, the creditor has indicated the debt was canceled in
purchase, qualified farm debt, qualified real property business debt, qualified a bankruptcy proceeding.
principal residence indebtedness, or debts canceled in bankruptcy. See Pub.
4681. Do not report a canceled debt as income if you did not deduct it but would Box 7. If, in the same calendar year, a foreclosure or abandonment of property
have been able to do so on your tax return if you had paid it. Also, do not include occurred in connection with the cancellation of the debt, the fair market value
canceled debts in your income to the extent you were insolvent immediately (FMV) of the property will be shown, or you will receive a separate Form
before the cancellation of the debt. If you exclude a canceled debt from your 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property. Generally, the gross
income, file Form 982, Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of foreclosure bid price is considered to be the FMV. For an abandonment or
Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment). voluntary conveyance in lieu of foreclosure, the FMV is generally the appraised
value of the property. You may have income or loss because of the acquisition
Account number. May show an account or other unique number the creditor or abandonment. If the property was your main home, see Pub. 523, Selling
assigned to distinguish your account. Your Home, to figure any taxable gain or ordinary income. See Pub. 4681, for
information about foreclosures and abandonments.
Page 2
CHASE 0
been reported.

IHhIIuIIIIIIIIIIII ...... IIuIIuIIuIIIIIIuIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIlI CHASE BANK USA, NA
DR D B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST

Phone Support: 866-578-2888
Debtors ID Number: 054-42-5466 Original


#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
Note. You may not have to include in income all or a portion of certain qualified Box 1. Shows the date the debt was canceled.
debt on your tax return. See the tax return instructions. Box 5. Shows whether borrower is personally liable for repayment of the debt.
Page 2
CHASE 0
been reported.

11111111111111111111 ....... III111111111111111111111111111111111111 CHASE BANK USA, NA
D B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST

Debtor's ID Number: 054-42-5466 Original

#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
Note. You may not have to include in income all or a portion of certain qualified Box 1. Shows the date the debt was canceled .

be provided to you Generally, if you are an individual, you must include all Box 4. Shows a description of the debt. If box 7 is completed, box 4 shows a
canceled amounts, even if less than $600, on the "Other income" line of Form description of the property
.
value of the property. You may have income or ioss because of the acquisition
Page 2
CHASE n
Tax Year 2009 Form 1099 C Cancellation of Debt (Copy B)
-

been reported.
Debtor's Information Creditors Information

=
74120 TAS 1Z1 2010 - 0055 0032 80 (00.350) Federal ID Number: 22 -2382028
CHASE BANK USA, NA
D B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST
Form 1099 C Questions

-

Debtor's ID Number: 054-42-5466
Original
Details of Form 1099 C Cancellation of Debt

- (OMB No. 1545 1424)
-


#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
Page 2
CHASE This is important tax information and is being furnished to the Internal
Revenue Service. If you are required to file a return, a negligence
P.O. BOX 15298
been reported.

11111111111111111111 ...... 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 CHASE BANK USA, NA
D B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST

Debtor's ID Number: 054-42-5466 Original
Summary of Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt -
(OMB No. 1545-1424)

#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
Page 2
CHASE 0
Tax Year 2009 Form 1099 C Cancellation of Debt (Copy B)
-

been reported.

CHASE BANK USA, NA
DR D B KARRON
348 E FULTON ST
Form 1099 C Questions

-

Debtor's ID Number: 05-4425466
Original
Details of Form 1099 C Cancellation of Debt

- (OMB No. 1545 1424) -


#6 Bankruptcy No
Page 1
have been able to do so on your tax return if you had paid it Also, do not include occurred in connection with the cancellation of the debt, the fair market value
Page 2
EXHIBIT H
1872
1872 Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service
Form 668 (Y)(c)
(Rev. February 2004)
Notice of Federal Tax Lien
Area: Serial Number
For Optional Use by Recording Office
SMALL BUSINESS/SELF EMPLOYED AREA #1
(800) 913-6050 685584210 • This Notice of Federal Tax Lien has
As provided by section 6321, 6322, and 6323 of the Internal Revenue been filed as a matter of public recor
Code, we are giving a notice that taxes (including interest and penalties)
have been assessed against the following-named taxpayer. We have made • IRS will continue to charge penalty
a demand for payment of this liability, but it remains unpaid. Therefore, and interest until you satisfy the
there is a lien in favor of the United States on all property and rights to amount you owe.
property belonging to this taxpayer for the amount of these taxes, and
additional penalties, interest, and costs that may accrue. • Contact the Area Office Collection
Name of Taxpayer Function for information on the
D B KARRON amount you must pay before we can
release this lien.
• See the back of this page for an

Residence explanation of your Administrative
348 E FULTON ST Appeal rights.
LONG BEACH, NY
LONG NY 11561-2327
11561-2327
IMPORTANT RELEASE INFORMATION: For each assessment listed below,
unless notice of the lien is refiled by the date given in column (e), this notice shall, on
the day following such date, operate as a certificate of release as defined in I RC
6325(a). ,
Tax Period Date of Last Day for Unpaid Balance

Kind of Tax Ending Identifying Number Assessment Refiling of Assessment
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
1040 12/31/2005
12/31/2005 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 12/15/2008
12/15/2008 01/14/2019
01/14/2019 6427.32
6427.32
1040
1040 12/31/2006
12/31/2006 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 04/13/2009
04/13/2009 05/13/2019
05/13/2019 22326.35
22326.35
1040
1040 12/31/2007
12/31/2007 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 04/05/2010
04/05/2010 05/05/2020
05/05/2020 23855.63
23855.63
6672
6672 09/30/2002
09/30/2002 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 03/10/2009
03/10/2009 04/09/2019
04/09/2019
6672
6672 09/30/2002
09/30/2002 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 03/16/2009
03/16/2009 04/15/2019
04/15/2019 52058.87
52058.87
6672
6672 12/31/2002
12/31/2002 XXX-XX-5466
XXX-XX-5466 03/10/2009
03/10/2009 04/09/2019
04/09/2019
6672
6672 12/31/2002
12/31/2002 XXX- XX-
XX-5466
5466 03/16/2009
03/16/2009 04/15/2019
04/15/2019 68783.29
Place of Filing
Nassau County
Nassau ClerkClerk
County
NassauCounty
Nassau County Total 173451.46
173451.46
Mineola, NY
Mineola, NY 11501
11501
This notice was prepared and signed at MANHATTAN, NY

MANHATTAN, NY , on this,
the 04th day of August

August 2010. .
2010
Sigrlat 1.p
." i Title
REVENUE OFFICER 21-06-2310
21-06-2310
forDEBRA
for DEBRALYNCH
LYNCH (516) 683-5208
(NOTE: Certificate of officer authorized by law to take acknowledgment is not essential to the validity of Notice of Federal Tax Lien
Rev. Rul. 71-466, 1971 -2 C.B. 409)
CAT. NO 60025X
Part 3 - Taxpayer's Copy
Form 668 (Y)(c) (Rev. 02-04)
EXHIBIT I
NEW YORK STATE
7423624
B
&~,~!JI
ENEFIT IDENTIII('Af1( )N .11Z1)
Identification Number
Identification
EQ70843T
Sex
M 10/25/195
Date
Birth Date
K
LAC ARsTriltNFI EL
FIRSTd"ltWI E M.I.
B
2321 1708
2321 1708 438
438 38 03/30/2011
38 03/30/2011
600486
ISO# ACCESS NUMBER

ACCESS NUMBLi SEQ.#
SECiA EXPIRES
", \k
NI \\ YORK
YORK S IA11_
SI-\ll
EST
TEMPORARY EBT
ACCESS CARD
ACCESS
CARD NUMBER
CARD NUMBER
600486 2004
600486 1017 537
2004 1017 537 00
00
NOT VALID
NOT VALID FOR
FOR MEDICAID
MEDICAID
PLAINTIFF
REPLY
AFFIRMATION
COUNTY OF NASSAU
X
TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC. Index No. 600232-10
Plaintiff,
-against- REPLY AFFIRMATION

K&P File: C911947
Defendant.
-
------- X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
STEVEN L. ROSENTHAL, attorney at law, hereby affirms the following is true
under the penalties of perjury.
Affirmant is associated with the firm of KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C.,
attorneys for the plaintiff herein, and as such, am familiar with the facts and circumstances
had herein. While affirmant would not ordinarily submit his affirmation in connection with
a motion for summary judgment, the same is being done to comment upon the
insufficiencies of the answering papers which fail to raise a triable issue of fact.
Affirmant does not even know where to begin in responding to the
defendant's affidavit in opposition. The defendant makes all kinds of wild claims regarding
the nature of the debt, that the debt was cancelled because of a federal tax liability and the
debt reverted to an asset of the defendant, etc., etc.
The defendant in his memorandum goes into great and specific detail
regarding the balance, the interest rate, the fees, etc. The defendant apparently has far
too much time on his hands. What is clear from the defendant's affidavit in opposition
however is that he has submitted no specific defense to this action, asserting that he does
not owe the money.
This was a simple credit card transaction entered into between plaintiff's
assignor and the defendant. Since these debts are freely assignable and plaintiff has
submitted proof that it is the current holder and owner of this account, that is not an issue.
Further, plaintiff has submitted statements of account all addressed and sent to the
defendant showing all of the activity on the account including payments. Therefore,
plaintiff has set forth an account stated.
All of the statements annexed are typical, ordinary credit card statements
which are similar to those sent to millions, if not tens of millions of credit card holders. The
statements show the usual and ordinary information such as account balance, payments,
interest rates, finance charges, late fees, etc. Absolutely nowhere in the defendant's
voluminous papers could plaintiff find any statement that the defendant did not open this
account, or make the credit card charges. The defendant does not claim he made
payments, nor does he dispute receipt of the statements without objection. Simply pL.1,
the defendant owes money pursuant to a credit card.
If the defendant's alleged defenses were taken seriously that no bank or debt
purchaser could ever collect on a credit card account, then the entire economy of the
United States and perhaps the entire world would collapse on itself. This Court, therefore,
should not give any merit to any of the alleged defenses set forth by the defendant.
The defendant has failed to set forth any evidentiary facts sufficient to
establish a bona fide issue of fact requiring a trial. The law is well settled that a party in
opposition to a motion for summary judgment must present evidentiary facts sufficient
to raise a triable issue of fact. ZUCKERMAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 49 N.Y.2d 557,
427 N.Y.S.2d 595; FRIENDS OF ANIMALS v. ASSOCIATED FUR MANUFACTURERS,
46 N.Y.2d 1065, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790. In DiSABATO v. SOFFES, 9 A.D.2d 297, 193
2
N.Y.S.2d 184 , the Court dealt squarely with the issue of the sufficiency of opposition to
a motion for summary judgment. There the Court stated:
On a motion such as this, the Court is called upon to

determine whether a bona-fide issue exists. If the plaintiff's
pleadings and other papers disclose no real defense and if
the defendant fails to controvert such proof and establish by
affidavits or other evidence the existence of a genuine
defense, the Court may find that no triable issue exists and
grant summary judgment.
It is incumbent upon a defendant who opposes a motion for

summary judgment to assemble, lay bare and reveal his
proofs, in order to show that the matters set up in his answer
are real and are capable of being established upon a trial...
In STEWART TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. EQUITABLE
LAND SERVICES, INC., 207 A.D.2d 880, 616 N.Y.S.2d 650, the Court stated: It is well
established that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie
showing of entitlement as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate
the absence of any material issues of fact (Winegard v. New York Univ. Med. Center,
64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.2d 316, 176 N.E.2d 642, Zuckerman v. City of New York,
49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Of course, summary
judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to
the existence of a triable issue (State Bank of Albany v. McAuliffe, 97 A.D.2d 607, 467
N.Y.S.2d 944), but once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the
party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in
admissible form sufficient to establish material issues of fact which require a trial of the
action (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C.

3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, 4 T FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NY 11756 (516) 746 - 1144
3
572; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, 49 N.Y.2d at 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404
N.E.2d 718).
The opposing papers clearly fall far short of the standard enunciated in
the DiSABATO and STEWART TITLE cases. The defendants have failed to establish
the existence of any genuine legal defense to plaintiff's cause of action, nor have they
raised any legitimate question of fact to defeat plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The mere self-serving statements of the defendant which constitute her
Affidavit in opposition have no legal basis, are completely without merit, are
unsupported by any pertinent documentary evidence, are absolutely of no probative
value, and fail in any way to raise a triable issue of fact. In fact, the documents
presented by the defendant actually support plaintiff's claims. "Bald conclusory
assertions, even if believable, are not enough to defeat summary judgment." CAPELIN
ASSOCIATES v. GLOBE MANUFACTURING CORP., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 357 N.Y.S.2d
478, quoting EHRLICH v. AMERICAN MONINGER GREENHOUSE
MANUFACTURING CORP., 26 N.Y.2d 255, 309 N.Y.S.2d 341. Also see, ROTUBA
EXTRUDERS, INC. v. CEPPOS, 46 N.Y.2d 231, 413 N.Y.S.2d 141; and INDIG v.
FINKELSTEIN, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370. Likewise, charges based upon
surmise, conjecture and suspicion are insufficient to resist such a motion. SHAPIRO v.
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK, 7 N.Y.2d 56, 194 N.Y.S.2d
509. Also see SHAW v. TIME-LIFE RECORDS, 38 N.Y.2d 201, 379 N.Y.S.2d 390.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted based upon the foregoing that the
defendant has failed to affirmatively deny or offer any documentary evidence against
the plaintiff's allegations, has failed to raise any triable issue of fact, and has not set

T
3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, 4 " FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NY 11756 (516) 746-1144
4
forth any genuine legal defense whatsoever to plaintiffs application for Summary
Judgment. Therefore, it is plaintiff's contention that plaintiff is entitled to Summary
Judgment as a matter of law.
Additionally, plaintiffs cause of action is predicated upon an account
stated, an agreement between the parties to an account based upon prior transactions
between them with respect to the correctness of the separate items composing the
account and the balance due. See generally, 1 N.Y. Jur., Accounts and Accounting,
Sections 5-7.
As stated in the moving papers, the monthly statements, copies of which
are annexed to the moving papers, had been forwarded to the defendant on a regular
basis and received without objection, which the defendant does not dispute. The
statements showed the transactions occurring in connection with the defendant s
account, and the defendant failed to dispute, any of the items shown in the statements.
The defendant was in default under the Agreement and was obligated to the plaintiff for
the relief demanded. Such an agreement may be implied if a party receiving a
statement of account keeps it without objecting to it within a reasonable time,
INTERMAN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD. v. R.S.M. ELECTRON POWER INC.., 37
N.Y.2d 151, 371 N.Y.S.2d 675; CORR v. HOFFMAN, 256 N.Y. 254; RODKINSON v.
HAECKER, 248 N.Y. 480; LOCKWOOD v. THORNE„ 18 N.Y. 285;
CHISHOLM-RYDER CO. INC. v. SOMMER AND SOMMER, 70 A.D.2d 429, 421
N.Y.S.2d 455; MILSTEIN v. MONTEFIORE CLUB OF BUFFALO INC., 47 A.D.2d 805,
365 N.Y.S.2d 301; JAMES TALCOTT INC. v. U.S. TELEPHONE COMPANY, 52 A.D.2c1
197, 383 N.Y.S.2d 39.

3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, 4 TH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NY 11756 (516) 746-1144
5
The failure to object raises a presumption of correctness which may be
rebutted by proof of any circumstances tending to a contrary inference. LOCKWOOD v.
THORNE, supra. It is alleged that monthly statements of the defendant's account were
delivered to, received, accepted and retained by the defendant without objection, and
the defendant does not dispute this fact! The defendant has produced no proof that
any of the statements are incorrect. The defendant has not produced any document to
support any claim that the amount due is incorrect. The self-serving statements of the
defendant's counsel which constitute the opposing papers, unsupported by any
documentary evidence, are insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the accuracy of the
statements of account.
An account stated may also be implied if the debtor makes partial
payment, such payment constituting an acknowledgement of the correctness of the
account, CHISHOLM-RYDER CO. INC. v. SOMMER AND SOMMER, supra; PARKER,
CHAPIN, FLATTAU & KLIMPLE V. DAELEN CORP., 59 A.D.2d 375, 399 N.Y.S.2d
596; MILSTEIN v. MONTEFIORE CLUB OF BUFFALO INC., supra.
A review of the monthly statements of the defendant's account annexed to
the plaintiff's moving papers shows that the defendant made payments on account
without any objections as to the balance or to any item shown thereon, thereby
establishing an account stated.
Defendant, having failed to present any proof as to any dispute, and the
defendant having made partial payments on this account, plaintiff's statements must be
deemed to be correct and an account stated must be deemed to have been
established.

3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, 4 TH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NY
11756 (516) 746-1144
6
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted based upon the foregoing that the
defendant has failed to affirmatively deny or offer any documentary evidence against
the plaintiff's allegations, has failed to raise any triable issue of fact, and has not set
forth any genuine legal defense whatsoever to plaintiff's application for Summary
Judgment. Therefore, it is plaintiffs contention that plaintiff is entitled to Summary
Judgment as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that plaintiff's motion be
granted in its entirety.
Dated: Levittown, New York

November 23, 2010
STEVEN L. THAL

3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, 4 TH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NY 11756 (516) 746-1144
7
Court Index No. 600232-10

COUNTY OF NASSAU
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
REPLY AFFIDAVIT

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address, Telephone
3000 Hempstead Turnpike, Fourth Floor
Levittown, New York 11756
(516) 746-1144
n.
Signature (Rule T a)
TO
Attorney(s) for
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.
Dated,
Attorney(s) for
Please take notice

] NOTICE OF ENTRY
that the within is a true copy of a
duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on
[ ] NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for
settlement to the HON. one of the judges
of the within named court, at
on at M.
Dated, Yours, etc.

TO: Attorneys for Plaintiff
Office and Post Office Address
3000 Hempstead Turnpike, Fourth Floor
Levittown, New York 11756
9
SES POS7-
.4`
3000 Hempstead Turnpike .1
•
Q
z
4th Floor PITNEY BOWES
02 1M $ 00.61°
Levittown, NY 11756 0004252425 NOV 23 2010
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 11 756
D.B. Karron, Ph.D

1ISSIS2027
PERMISSION
TO
SURREPLY
LETTER 1
D. B. Kan-on, Ph.D.
December 2, 2010
Judge ROY S. MAHON

Chambers
Mineola, NY 11501
Re: TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs. KARRON, D B

Index # 600232/2010
I humbly request permission to enter into the record my surreply to the Plaintiffs Reply
Affidavit.
Should the Court grant my request, my surreply Affidavit with Exhibits are forthcoming.
I have included in the surreply Affidavit additional evidence, specifically Stipulations to withdraw
litigation from other creditors and a collection of 1099-C's from banks regarding my accounts.
I have also included a statement of my debt accounts with my other creditors. All are awaiting
resolution of my Federal Civil and Criminal case (See Below). As my negotiations with the IRS
proceed I hope to get more 1099-C's missed while I was 'away'.
Additionally, I have enclosed an additional copy of my previously submitted Motion to Quash.

I humbly request the Court consider that the Plaintiffs Affidavits deficient in this matter because
they lack any specific recitation or details that can be used to them to my particular account.
The Plaintiffs motion for Summary Judgment can not be granted. Prima facie the Plaintiffs
own Affidavits do not show their standing to sue over my Accounts. It is a matter of fact and
principle of law. This problem is not mine alone: junk debt buyers are buying un-collectable
junk and betting that no one will notice that they don't have standing to sue. I fought this while
I was incarcerated, and on behalf of my deceased mother (who passed away while I was
incarcerated) I am now seeing junk debt collections against her and her estate. I'm seeing
junk debt collections against my deceased father (passed away some 30 years ago). I'm
seeing mindless collections against me for almost every account I had when I was abruptly
incarcerated and was unable to manage my affairs.
Finally, i am walking a very fine line with regard to declaring personal Bankruptcy. To date I
have managed to negotiate with all of my creditors. I have ducked none. All are aware that I
am fighting another battle in Federal District Court (Complaint, MSJ and Reply attached) that
should I loose will result in a 5M civil judgment against me, resulting in my 'Civil Death'. I can't
go bankrupt on this debt. I am awaiting the District Courts decision to grant me a civil trial, and
a new appeal on my criminal charges. As the Plaintiff is well aware, I can not make promises
to any one particular creditor that I can not keep should I be faced with a crushing Federal
decision. Only after I clear my name, or I am completely rolled over by the federal courts, can I
make promises to my creditors or go bankrupt in good faith. If the Plaintiff can not wait, and this
court can not dismiss or restrain them in some way, I have no choice but to seek Bankruptcy
protection from them, to the detriment of my other, more patient creditors.
Sincerely,
6.1rmz
D B Karron
Pro Se
COVER
LETTER 2
D. B. Kan-on, Ph.D.
November 22, 2010
Judge ROY S. MAHON

Chambers
Mineola, NY 11501
Re: TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs. KARRON, D B

Index # 600232/2010
This purpose of this letter is to brief the court on the multiple triable bases of my defense.
Because of these, the Plaintiffs motion for Summary Judgment can not be granted.
Attached are my papers in opposition to the Plaintiff, TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,
in their attempt to collect a "junk" debt they purchased in a 'pool' purchase from VION who
purchased it from Chase bank (while I was incarcerated in a Federal Prison Camp in 2009). With
my criminal conviction in 2008 for grant funds misapplication, Chase Bank not only wrote me
off, but they canceled and charged back all of my Chase accounts to myself and reported the
write off as taxable income to the IRS for 2008, as I have since discovered from the IRS. I am
attempting to restart my life and career and move forward. I have two arguments in this matter:
ARGUMENT 1: DEBT CANCELED BY ORIGINAL LENDER.

Because of that federal tax liability, the principle balance does not any longer belong to Chase.
The debt has reverted to myself as an asset. Chase is/was no longer trying to collect it. The funds
Chase advanced to myself are now reclassified as taxable income to myself. I now have this
additional tax liability. Because of this, the money belongs to myself as income.
The Plaintiff is attempting to collect funds have reverted to myself, not to Chase or themselves.
I have to pay taxes on these funds. This money is mine I do not owe this money any longer to
Chase, and most certainly not to Plaintiff.
ARGUMENT 2: NO STANDING TO LITIGATE.

Further, the Plaintiff has not met the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") Section 3 mandated burden
of proving they have the right to collect. The Affidavit of Phillips does not aver to Personal Knowledge,
1
as required by Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 602, and as recently highlighted in the press ("Debt
Collectors Face a Hazard: Writer's Cramp, New York Times, October 31, 2010, Business Section"
Further, many of my particular issues are pandemic in the small debt collection industry. I wish
to bring to the courts attention the above relatively small law firm, is or has prosecuted some
67,000 actions, as revealed by cursory electronic search of the New York State Unified Court
Systems electronic case management system. This firm buys vast 'pools' of junk debt from
banks and other firms, for pennies on the dollar, without proper documentary backup, with
incorrect debtor information, or other fatal flaws. For the seller, this amounts to found money;
they have written off the debt on their books; that is why they are called 'write off's'. But if a
firm writes off a balance, it must be 'written on' someplace else. The money does not disappear.
Unless it becomes valueless.
Chase bank, through my bank officer at my branch on 3rd Avenue, wrote me off when I was
convicted of misapplication of federal grant funds in 2008. I was in prison in 2009 when I
believe VION unsuccessfully and repeatedly attempted to serve papers on me multiple times
through the local prison town sheriff and the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. TRIBECA has
continued to attempt to sue me through 2009 and 2010. Despite multiple conversations with
them, and sympathetic agents making promises and offers, his particular debt collector just does
not get it that I am not in a position to settle, negotiate, or make agreements in good faith until I
resolve my more serious Federal problems. All of my creditors have held back suing me except
for this one.
There is no negotiating with them, and they represent the kind of mindless relentless pursuit of
barristry and mass execution of judgements against the debtor public. They prey on those who do
not respond or are unable to respond, either because of joblessness, incarceration, hospitalization,
or depression.
I will show at trial that their claim against me is without merit such that a jury will not only
dismiss their suit against me but dismiss their suit with prejudice such that that I will prevail in a
counter-suit and/or class action suit.
Sincerely,
)9*
pro se
cuyHyv
D. B. Karron
ENCLOSURES:
2
Reply Motion in Opposition,
Affidavit of Defendant
Memorandum of Law in Opposition
Motion to Quash
CC:
STEVEN ROSENTHAL, ESQ.
3000 Hempstead Turnpike
4th Floor
Levittown, NY 11756
(516) 746-1144
3
AFFIDAVIT
IN
OPPOSITION
TO
SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT
COUNTY OF NASSAU
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

ss:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
1. I am the Defendant named in the above action.

2. I have personal and contemporaneous knowledge of all of the events regarding my First
USA/Bank ONE/ Chase Bank Account 5401 6830 6662 9475.
3. Upon my personal knowledge and belief, Chase Bank cancelled all of my business and
personal loan, credit card accounts and forward this information to the IRS.
4. I am in the process of getting copies of the cancelation transactions from the IRS, and
request additional time to prepare evidence for trial.
5. For reasons of fact and law, argued in the Defendant's Memorandum of Law, submitted
herewith, Tribeca Assets does not have the locus standi to litigate this debt.
6. For reasons of fact and law, argued in the Defendant's Memorandum of Law, submitted
herewith, the Plaintiffs affidavit should be quashed.
EXHIBITS
7. Exhibit 1.0 is a copy of the reconciled Defendant's Quicken Register Report,
summarizing cost and spending categories
8. Exhibit 1.1 is a copy of the reconciled Defendant's Quicken Register Report,
summarising the account balance by year.
9. Exhibit 2.0 is a copy of the letter regarding the noviation of First USA Bank to Bank One
10. Exhibit 2.1 is a copy of the letter regarding the noviation of Bank One to Chase Bank.
1
11. Exhibit 3.0 is a copy of the Affidavit of Phillips as exhibited by the Plaintiff.
12. Exhibit 3.1 is a copy of the Affidavit of Currant, exhibited by the Plaintiff
13. Exhibit 3.2 is a copy of the Affidavit of Buraener, exhibited by the Plaintiff
14. Exhibit 4.0 is a copy of the Chase Bank Statement for 7/18/2007 to 8/17/2007
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied with prejudice
Plaintiff's Affidavits be quashed.
Sworn to before me this / k 0
SHARON TOPPER
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 02T05065859
Qualified in New York County 1 I
Commission Expires September 16, 20
2
AFFIDAVIT
OF SERVICE
(TO Plaintiff)
COUNTY OF NASSAU

Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

ss:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
I, D B KARRON, served, delivered, mailed, handed a copy of the
1. NOTICE MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

2. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3. AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT
4. MOTION TO QUASH
to:
STEVEN ROSENTHAL, ESQ. or other (Attorney for Plaintiff)
ATTORNEY for PLAINTIFF
516.746.1144
D B KARRON
Pro Se
Defendant
DATED NOVEMBER 4ift 2010

SWORN before me this day (NOTARY)
SHARON TOPPER
Notary Public, State of New
59
York
No. 027050658
Qualified in New York County
Commission Expires September 16, 20
12/29/2010 Gmail - USPS Shipment Info for 9405 5...
Gm II Dr DB Karron <dbkarron@gmail.com>
USPS Shipment Info for 9405 5036 9930 0407 6585 44

1 message
U.S._Postal_Service_ <U.S._Postal_Service@usps.com> Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 20:41

To: dbkarron@gmail.com
This is a post-only message. Please do not respond.
dr d b karron has requested that you receive the current Track & Confirm
information, as shown below.
Current Track & Confirm e-mail information provided by the U.S. Postal Service.
Label Number: 9405 5036 9930 0407 6585 44
Service Type: Priority Mail Delivery Confirmation
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
Delivered LEVITTOWN NY 11756 11/23/10 8:28am
Arrival at Post Office LEVITTOWN NY 11756 11/23/10 7:46am
Processed through Sort BETHPAGE NY 11714 11/23/10 3:44am

Facility
Shipment Accepted LONG BEACH NY 11561 11/22/10 4:24pm
Electronic Shipping 11/22/10

Info
Received
USPS has not verified the validity of any email addresses submitted via its
online Track & Confirm tool.
For more information, or if you have additional questions on Track & Confirm
services and features, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
section of our Track & Confirm site at
http://www. us ps .com/s hi ppi ng/t rackandconfi mnfaqs htm
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik... 1/1
Fax Transmission Report
Fax number: +1 516 7422735
Recipient name: STEVEN ROSENTHAL, ESQ, Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C.
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:21 AM
Status: Success
Pages: 2
Price: $0.25

COUNTY OF NASSAU
Plaintiff
STIPULATION
D B KARRON A/KiA DANIEL KARRON
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

SS:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
It is hereby stipulated and agreed that both Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to a two week
extension on the above matter, to a date of subject to court rescheduling, of the currently
docketed November 18, 2010 appearance and return date, on the above matter.
This additional time is required so that reply Motions and Affidavits may be served on Plaintiff
seven days prior to the court date.
The Defendant, currently responding pro se is in the process of getting necessary affidavits and
certified documents.
Agreed to and signed by
D B KARRON,
pro se
Defendant
348 E FULTON ST
LONG BEACH NY 11561-2327
Transmission Report generated by PamFax (www.pamfax.biz) on Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:52 AM
STEVE L. ROSENTHAL
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Kirshenbaum and Phillips, PC
3000 Hempstead Turnpike, Levittown, NY 11756
(516) 746-1144
Dated:
15 November 2010
MOTION TO
STRIKE
COUNTY OF NASSAU

Plaintiff,
MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

ss:
COUNTRY OF NASSAU)
1. Plaintiff has submitted into evidence the sworn AFFIDAVIT made by Barbra Phillips
(hereinafter referred to as "AFFIDAVIT of Phillips" or "AFFIDAVIT").
2. The AFFIDAVIT is deficient in multiple issues of fact and law.
3. This is detailed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law.
4. The affiant claims wrong information as knowledge, much less personal knowledge, even
when this information is plainly contradicted by correct information plainly visible in the
bank statements exhibited by the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Honorable Court that Plaintiffs Affidavit be stricken
from evidence in the above action.
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
D B KARRON
Defendant Pro Se
917 674 0828
I CERTIFY that I mailed / delivered a copy of this MOTION to:

516.746.1144
MEMORANDUM
OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION
TO SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT
COUNTY OF NASSAU
-
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENT
1. Chase Bank, the original creditor canceled all of the defendants debt accounts.
2. The Plaintiff, Tribeca Assets, does not have locus standi to litigate this matter..
a. The successor holders in due course(VION then TRIBECA) obtained the
defendant's account number as a result willful negligent error.
b. The Plaintiff's affiant is incompetent to testify on the defendant's alleged debt.
3. Kirshenbaum and Phillips, PC and Tribeca Assets, being one and the same, are recklessly
and willfully blind by `robo-fileing' many tens of thousands of fraudulent collection
lawsuits. Their affidavits are invalidated, en mass,because of the impossibility of the
affiant to possess personal knowledge of the facts to which they allegedly aver, despite
the Business Records Hearsay Exclusion and others. By engineering and automating
this fraud into a small practice, with faulty source document custodianship, they have
intentionally created a circumstance of 'contrived ignorance' by which they practice
collection baristry en massagainst the public. Because of this they have violated the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p in this instant action.
See Item 42.
DEFECTS IN AFFIDAVIT of Phillips DEMONSTRATE INCOMPETENCE
4. The sworn AFFIDAVIT of Barbra Phillips, (referred to hereafter as the "Phillips
1
Affidavit") executed, as an officer of the Plaintiff, alleges that Phillips has 'knowledge'
solely by examination of the books and records of the Plaintiff, but not of the originator,
First USA, Bank One and CHASE Bank .
5. Multiple plain errors of fact in Phillips Affidavit, detailed below, amply demonstrate
that the affiant has not conducted even a cursory examination of the the Plaintiff s
own exhibits, much less has some knowledge of the books and records of the original
agreement holder in due course.
6. Phillips does not aver to personal knowledge of the Defendant's particular account at
Chase bank.
7. Because the multiple errors detailed below it is prima facie evident that the affiant is not
competent to testify about the Defendant's account and the Affidavit should be quashed
in total.
SPECIFIC DEFECTS - lack of knowledge despite hearsay business records exemption and
voluminous computer records exception, robo-signing affidavits
8. The affiant does not aver to personal knowledge of business records related to the
aforementioned debt, only 'knowledge'.
9. The affiant does not explains how the affiant came to have the knowledge claimed, other
than
"have knowledge of the matters hereinafter set forth by reason of my examination
of the books and records of the plaintiff maintained in the regular course of
business under my supervision and control."
10. The affiant's testimony is impeached because affiant does not state if the "regular
course of business" was with "Tribeca" or Chase Bank and this course of business
contemporaneous with the Defendant's account at the time and place of the alleged
default.
11. Phillips avers in Page 1, Paragraph 2 "I am an officer of the plaintiff and have knowledge
of the matters hereinafter set forth by reason of my examination of the books and records
of the plaintiff maintained in the regular course of business under my supervision and
control." This examination of the books and records is presumably of the Plaintiff is not
the books and records of Chase Bank and First USA Bank and Bank One.
12. What are these books and records? Computer generated records may be entered into
evidence if sufficient foundation has been established. . Federal Express Corp. v.
Federal Jeans, Inc., 14 A.D.3d 424 (1st Dept. 2005). CPLR 4518(a) has been amended to
include "an electronic record" as defined in Section 102 of the N.Y.S. Technology Law.
This amendment is a codification of the "voluminous writings" exception to hearsay
combined with CPLR 4539. Pier, L.P. v. Chelsea Brewing Co., LLC, 1 Misc. 3d 134A,
781 N.Y.S.2d 627 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2004)(computer generated summary admissible);
Safmor Inc. v, Minister, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of
2
the City of NewYork, 7 Misc. 3d 1012A (Sup. NY, 2005, J. Beeler), app. withdrawn, 2005
N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8495 (1st Dept. 2005).
13. The hearsay exception for books and records maintained in the regular course of business
under the affiants supervision and control does not apply in this case. This is because the
affiant was not present, had control, or had supervisory authority at Chase Bank when the
alleged agreement and purported transactions of the defendant occurred. The records of
these transactions are voluminous and electronic in nature. And the affiant can't read the
records correctly anyway, as shown below.
14. The affiant avers in paragraph 4 "that this action [is] to recover a balance due under a
credit card agreement entered into by the defendant".
15. The Plaintiff has not produced a scintilla of evidence of said "credit card agreement
entered into by the defendant".
16. UCC § 1-201 governs negotiable instruments and it requires for a note to be
enforced that the person who asserts the status of the holder must be in possession
of the instrument. [Emphasis Added]
17. Holder"; means: (A) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument
that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in
possession; or (B) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods
are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.
UCC § 1-201 (21).
18. An "affidavit" is defined as "[a] voluntary declaration of facts written down
and sworn to by a declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths"
and an "affiant" is "[o]ne who makes an affidavit." Black's Law Dictionary
(9th Ed. 2009). "Generally, affidavits must be made on the affiant's personal
knowledge of the facts alleged in the petition. The affidavit must in some
way show that the affiant is personally familiar with the facts so that he
could personally testify as a witness." 3 Am. Jur. 2d 397, Affidavits § 14
(2002). Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009) defines "competence" as "[a]
basic or minimal ability to do something; qualification, esp. to testify."
See also Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc. v. Mike, 184 Conn.
352, 354, 439 A.2d 1026 (1981) ("The word 'competent' has a number of
meanings. One of the definitions is 'legally qualified; Webster, Third New
International Dictionary; or stated another way possessing the requisite . . .
legal qualifications.' Black's Law Dictionary [5th Ed. 19791'). These sources
indicate that competence denotes a threshold level of basic capacity and
ability.
19. In determining the competence of a witness, it is well established that "[a]
person
who has no personal knowledge concerning facts about which he or she is
asked to
testify is not competent to testify about these facts." C. Tait &E. Prescott,
3
Connecticut Evidence (4th Ed. 2008) § 6.4, p. 301; see also 1 C. McCormick,
Evidence(6th Ed. 2006) § 10, p. 47 ("[T]he law prefers that a witness testify to
facts, based on personal knowledge, rather than opinions inferred from such
facts. One of the earliest and most pervasive manifestations of the common
law insistence is the rule requiring that a witness testifying about a fact which
can be perceived by the senses must have had an opportunity to observe, and
must have actually observed the fact.'). "A distinction should be drawn
[however] between a witness who has no personal knowledge and one who
has only hearsay knowledge. A person who has no personal knowledge about
the subject matter of his or her testimony, i.e., the person is guessing or
speculating, is an incompetent witness as to that matter. A witness who is
testifying to information that is not admissible in evidence, such as
inadmissible hearsay or privileged evidence, is a competent witness as to that
matter because he or she has some personal information, but the evidence is
inadmissible because the evidence is incompetent." C. Tait & E. Prescott,
supra, § 6.4, p. 301. These sources indicate that the touchstone of competence
is personal knowledge. "Personal knowledge" is variously described as
knowledge acquired firsthand or from observation. See Black's Law
Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009); 1 C. McCormick, supra, § 10, p. 47. Black's Law
Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009)defines "personal knowledge" as "[k]nowledge
gained through firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a
belief based on what someone else has said." See also Ballentine's Law
Dictionary (3d Ed. 1969) ("[P]ersonal knowledge" is defined as: "One's own
knowledge. With more accuracy, knowledge derived from the exercise of
one's own senses. . . . A person's direct knowledge of anything, as
distinguished from that which he learns by hearsay." [Citation omitted.]).
Accordingly, the rule that a witness must testify from personal knowledge
requires "that a witness testifying about a fact which can be perceived by the
senses must have had an opportunity to observe, and must have actually
observed that fact." 1 C. McCormick, supra, § 10, p. 47. As the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals has explained: "When A testifies that B told him of an event,
A usually has personal knowledge only of B's report. It is B who has personal
knowledge of the event." (Emphasis added.) United States v. Stratton, 779
F.2d 820, 829 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1162, 106 S. Ct. 2285, 90
L. Ed. 2d 726 (1986). Excerpted from State of Conn. v. Sunrise Herbal
Remedies, Inc., 296 Conn. 556, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 196 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2010)
20. The business records exception to the U.S. hearsay rule is based on Rule 803(6) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). It is sometimes referred to as the business entry
rule. Business records, for the purposes of the exception, are any writings or records
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or
4
from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge are admissible if kept in
the regular course of business and if it was the regular course of business to make that
record, unless the source of information or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack
of trustworthiness. Affiants making clearly erroneous statements based on the business
records in question indicates a lack of trustworthiness.
21. FRE 803(7) states the negative counterpart of the business records exception: the use of
the lack of a record to prove that an agreement, transaction or particular occurrence had
not taken place, if it was the regular practice of the business to record such events if they
had actually occurred.
22. Affiants aver to have personal knowledge of the alleged facts to which they aver
under oath and under penalty of perjury. Non-personal knowledge would be hearsay
and inadmissible. The business record hearsay rule applies if the affiant was averring
to primary books and records showing particular relevance to the Defendant's alleged
account at Chase. Personal Knowledge does not does not mean reading from a computer
screen, or relying on reports from under staff.
23. The junk debt litigation industry is filing of lawsuits based on willful ignorance of
the truth or falsity of the evidence they are presenting. Repairing A Broken System:
Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration. ftc.govlos/2010/
07/debtcollectionreportpdf Debt collector's hazard: Writer's cramp. David Zegal. New
York Times News Service, Nov 01, 2010. However, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 11, requires parties to certify that "the factual contentions have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery."
24. When a relatively small firm files many tens of thousands of lawsuits, and their business
model depends on winning default judgments, their affidavits can not aver personal
knowledge, and the courts have ruled that the business records hearsay exemption does
not apply because deeper investigation reveals these affiants and the computer business
records on which they rely, are defective. Essential backup information simply is not
acquired by junk debt buyers, in large part because that data adds to the price of each
account. But court rules state that anyone submitting an affidavit to a court against a
debtor must have proof of that claim proper documentation of a debt's origins, history
and amount. Without that information it is hard to imagine how any company could meet
a legal standard of due diligence, particularly while churning out thousands of affidavits a
week. Much case law has developed on this issue. Luke v. Unifund CCR Partners, No. 2-
06-444-CV, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS' 7096 (2nd Dist. Ft. Worth Aug. 31, 2007). Palisades
Collection, LLC a/p/o AT&T Wireless v. Gonzalez, 10 Misc. 3d 1058A; 809 N Y.S.2d 482
(N.Y.County Civ. Ct. 2005): Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 434 F.3d
432 (6th Cir. 2006);Delawder v. Platinum Financial, 443 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D.Ohio
March 1,2005); Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 1:04cv238 (S.D.Ohio, July
8, 2004); Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 405 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D.Ohio. 2005);
5
Blevins v. Hudson & Keyse, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 655 (S.D.Ohio 2004), later opinion,
395 F.Supp.2d 662 (S.D.Ohio 2004); Stolicker v. Muller, Muller, Richmond, Harms,
Meyers & Sgroi, P.C., 1:04cv733 (W.D.Mich., Sept. 8, 2005).
25. A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support
a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. ... United States Code
Rule 602.Lack of Personal Knowledge.
AFFIANT MAKES FACTUAL ERRORS
26. The Phillips Affidavit allusion contains factual errors, belying the affiants lack of due
diligence and ignorance of the underlying facts of this matter, viz:"
a. "This is an action to recover a balance due under a credit card agreement entered
into by the defendant and the plaintiffs assignor, CHASE BANK USA, N.A"
27. Phillips is wrong in blithely assuming an agreement entered into by the defendant and
Chase Bank USA, N.A.
28. This Debt was not originated with Chase Bank, this account originally goes back to an
agreement signed with First USA Bank, N.A. in 1998. See Exhibit 2.1 and 2.2.
29. First USA Bank merged with Bank ONE about 2002. See Exhibit 2.1.
30. Bank One was absorbed by Chase Bank some time around 2004. See Exhibit 2.1.
31. The Defendant's contends and asserts that the original note is long gone in the churning chain
of account ownership and document custody, as is an industry wide problem cited in the press
(See, for example, Automated Debt-Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts. Andrew Martin, New
York Times, July 12, 2010, Press Release: FTC Issues Report on Reforming Debt Collection
Litigation and Arbitration; Recommends Steps to Protect Consumers and Repair
a Broken System. For Release: 07/12/2010. URL: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/
debtcollectionreport.pdf )
32. Defense Exhibit 1 shows a reconciled quicken register of First USA/Bank ONE/Chase
Bank Account 5401 6830 6662 9475.
b. The first statement and register shows an opening balance of $19,978.92 on 7/18/
2007 on Exhibit 4.0 and
c. the last statement and register ending balance shows a final balance of $21,031.63
(with a $0.20 reconciliation error due to the poor readability of the statements) On
Exhibit Exhibit 1.0, 1.1,and 4.4 .
d. The balance increases from 7/18/07 through 1/17/09 (Exhibit 1.1)
i. A period of 549 days or 1.5 years by only
ii. $1,052.71,
iii. a rate of %3/year.
e. The apparent fmal balance $21,031.63 consists of (Exhibit 1.1)
i. $6,021.64 Interest computed at various rates during this period, and
ii. $248.95 in other Bank Fees,
iii. $273.00 Late Fees
6
f.The Defendant paid into this account $9,173.72, and exclusive of interest and
fees, spent $5,563.27 on Exhibit 1.0.
g. Defendant was sliding backward against high interest and fees and not making
progress toward paying the principle part of the apparent debt on Exhibit 1.0..
33. The Phillips Affidavit states at Paragraph 4, last sentence that
h. "[t]he [D]efendant actually utilized the credit extended".
i.This is not true; the Defendant only actually received and made use of the
principle component of the account balance; the remainder of the alleged
final balance of $21,031.63 includes $6,021.64 interest and $273.00 fees. The
Defendant was treading water paying interest and fees and falling deeper into debt
despite paying $9,173.72 during the period covered by the exhibited Chase bank
statements.
34. The Plaintiff does not provide any documentation to substantiate the opening debt
balance shown in the exhibited Chase statement of 7/18/2007 Exhibit 2.0.
35. The Phillips is factually incorrect in averring at Phillips Affidavit Page 1, Paragraph 5
(Exhibit 3.0):
a. "Monthly statements of account were forwarded to the defendant at the address
provided by the defendant since the opening of the account and were received and
retained by the defendant without any objection by the defendant as to the balance
or to any items shown thereon."
and again at Page 2, Paragraph 1
b. "Annexed hereto are copies of the monthly statements of the defendant's account
for period between 7/18/07 through 1/17/09, all of which were forwarded and
received and retained without any objection thereto as stated above. "
36. In fact, the statements were never ever mailed to the Defendant; the defendant and
Chase Bank had an agreement for electronic statements and paperless electronic banking
exclusively.
37. This is yet more evidence of lack of due diligence and personal knowledge the Plaintiff
has of the subject account that they are attempting to litigate.
38. Additionally, the Plaintiff has no basis to refer to the 'opening of the account' at Page
1, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1 because the account was not opened with Chase Bank. The
Plaintiff's affidavit does not go back in time far enough to the opening of the account
in 1998. The Plaintiff bank statement record starts at 7/8/2007, some 9 years after the
account is opened in 1998, as shown in Exhibit 2.
39. The Plaintiff, even with the opportunity to study Defendant's Chase Bank statements,
can not gain knowledge, personal or otherwise, from them, as revealed by the plain
errors below.
36. Due diligence and knowledge should at least include perfunctory reading of documents
that the affiant is averring to: Affidavit at Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3 is incorrect:
j."As further shown in the statements of account, the last payment made by the
7
defendant was on 10/9/08 in the sum of $10.01".
37. Looking at Exhibit 4.1 and Exhibit 4.4, specifically, the statements ending at 11/17/2008
shows the last payment on the account is clearly not the $10.01 payment cited by the
affiant.
38. Affiant Phillips ignores the subsequent payments are clearly visible on the 11/17/2008
chase bank statement with this clearly incorrect assertion at Page 2, Paragraph 1 , last
sentence:
k."Minimum monthly payments continued to be due thereafter but the defendant
failed to make any further payments."
39. This is preposterous. The subsequent payments are plainly visible, even on the somewhat
blurry copies of Chase Bank statements given by the Plaintiff in Exhibit B.
40. Blatantly visible and subsequent to the above cited 'Last payment made by the defendant'
are FOUR (4) subsequent payments on the 11/17/2008 and 1/17/2009, statements for
I.$ 5.33, on Exhibit 4.2,
m. $ 5.33, on Exhibit 4.2,
n. $34.67, on Exhibit 4.2 and
o. $16.16. Exhibit 4.4
41. The plaintiffs lack of concern for plain and obvious facts only belies their overall
disregard for collection law and debtor's rights and even the underlying inarguable facts
of a an alleged debtors debt foundation details.
42. The Plaintiff's Attorney's are listed in some 67,000 actions in the NYS UCS e-fileing
system. Others are listed in some 80,000. See Item 28, above ("Few have been as prolific
as Cohen & Slamowitz, a Woodbury, N.Y., firm that has specialized in debt collection
for nearly two decades. The firm has been filing roughly 80,000 lawsuits a year. With just
14 lawyers on staff, that works out to more than 5,700 cases per lawyer. Automated Debt-
Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts. Andrew Martin, New York Times, July 12, 2010, )
43. The Plaintiff is ignoring their own evidence in a mindless and blind pursue of judgment
against the Defendant, and most probably against the general public that does not check
the details and/or respond to this barristry.
CHASE AFFIDAVIT OF SALE DEFECTS
44. Defendant Exhibit 3.2, (Also referenced as Plaintiffs Exhibit B contains an unlabeled
exhibit at the very end of the exhibit apparently entitled):
a. "AFFIDAVIT OF SALE OF ACCOUNT BY ORIGINAL CREDITOR" Cindy
A.. Buraener (afliant) being duly sworn. deposes and says: I am over 18 and not
a party to this action. I am the Team Leader (title) of Chase Bank CSA. NA. In
that position. I am custodian of the creditor's books and records, and am aware of
the process of the sale and assignment of electronically stored business records.
On or about 06/ 23/09. Chase Bank USA. NA(creditor) sold a pool of charged-
8
off accounts (the Accounts) by a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Bill of Sale
to Vion Receivable investments. As part of the sale of the Accounts. electronic
records and other records were transferred on individual Accounts to the debt
buyer. These record; were kept in the ordinary course of business of Chase Bank
SA, NA, I am not aware of any errors in these accounts. The above statements are
true to the best of my knowledge. Signed this 9th Day of July 2009"
45. For brevity of reference, the above affidavit will be cited as the "Buraener Affidavit".
46. The Buraener Affidavit does not contain any identifying information as to the Plaintiff's
specific interests in the Defendant's account.
a. It does not cite an account number,
b. account title,
c. account opening date
d. any identifying transactions
e. or any other specific references to this matter.
f. The reference to a "a pool of charged-off accounts" does not give any indication
if the Defendants account being litigated in this matter was in fact and indeed
transferred in this sale.
47. The "Buraener Affidavit" does not contain any affirmation of personal knowledge
by the affiant, Cindy A. Burgener, of any of the identifying details of the particular
transactions or account being litigated by the Plaintiff.
48. VION Receivables is not the Plaintiff.
49. The "Buraener Affidavit" references a "Purchase and Sale Agreement" which is not
included.
50. The "Buraener Affidavit" references a "Bill of Sale" which is also not to be found.
VION Currant AFFIDAVIT DEFECTS
51. Defense Exhibit 3.1 (Plaintiff Exhibit B, unreferenced is a second, penult, second before
last, unlabeled AFFIDAVIT, entitled "AFFIDAVIT OF SALE BY ACCOUNT TO
DEBT SELLER: viz:
a. State of Colorado, County of Larimer. Larry L Currant II , being duly sworn,
deposes and says: I am --- and a party to this action. I am the Executive Vice
President (title of seller). in that position I am the custodian of the debt seller's
books and records, and am aware of the procedures used for the sale and
assignment of electronically stored business records.
b. On July 29, 2009 (date) Vion Holdings LLC (debt seller) sold a pool of charged-
off accounts (the accounts) by a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Bill of Sale to
Tribecca Assets Management LLC (debt buyer). Vion Holdings LLC (debt seller)
had previously bought the accounts from Chase Bank, NA on June 29, 2009. The
original creditor was Chase Bank, NA. All records received by Vion Holdings
9
LLC (debt seller) were received with affidavits attesting that the records were
kept in the regular course of business. The records were incorporated into the
debt sellers records and kept in the regular course of business. I believe that there
are no errors in these accounts. The above statements are true to the best of my
knowledge. Larry L Currant II, (name of affiant)". [The quality of the photocopy
image is so poor as to render parts of the transcription unreliable and some words
are the best guess of the Defendant]
52. For ease of reference this penult affidavit in Exhibit B will be referenced as the "Currant
Affidavit".
53. The Currant Affidavit does not specify any personal knowledge of the facts or identifying
information of this particular account being litigated by the Plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF HAS NO LOCUS STANDI
54. The Plaintiff fails to show a chain of title to the Chase Bank account. A Standing to Sue
is based on clear title to the debt. UCC Article 3.
55. The original agreement and/or note is missing.
56. It is alluded to in Phillips Affidavit Defendant's Exhibit 3.0, at Paragraph 4, but not
introduced into evidence.
54. During negotiations with Plaintiffs firm, the Defendant repeatedly asked for proof of
debt.
55. Plaintiff's agents responded they did not have this information.
56. The records of CHASE Bank in this matter were obtained, presumably sometime after the
alleged sale of the Defendant's debt to the Plaintiff, and apparently after the Defendant
answered the Plaintiffs COMPLAINT.
57. The Defendant was not informed of the circumstances, understanding, written and
oral and agreements that officers of CHASE BANK made with the Defendant prior to
Defendant's conviction and incarceration on an unrelated criminal matter.
DISMISS SUIT BECAUSE DEBT CANCELED
58. Chase Bank wrote off and canceled the Defendant's debt.
59. CHASE Bank wrote off and canceled ALL of the Defendant's CHASE personal and
business accounts .
60. CHASE BANK gave up all collection actions and gave principle and interest to the
Defendant.
61. The IRS has informed the Defendant, in the course of the Defendants attempting to
eliminate superior IRS tax liens against the defendant, that CHASE BANK has issued
income statements to the Defendant, while the Defendant was incarcerated in 2009.
62. Copies of these statements have been ordered from the IRS and are pending.
63. The by doing so CHASE Bank created an additional tax liability for the Defendant.
10
64. The ownership of the principle was therefore transferred to the Defendant, not the
Plaintiff.
65. The title to the interest accrued on the principle apparently was also transferred to the
Defendant.
66. Bank fees and other costs were also apparently transferred to the Defendant.
67. This action is commenced in error and should be dismissed with prejudice.
QUASH AFFIDAVIT FOR ERRORS

68. "For reasons to be set forth, infra, in its analysis of the Defendants' renewed Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Court notes that the GE Capital-West Capital purchase
agreement fails to establish AAC's ownership of the Plaintiffs debt, even assuming,
arguendo, that Bradley's affidavit could establish the admissibility of the agreement.
WRIGHT vs. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, Case No. C-3-97-375, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
20675, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike sustained.
69. This Affidavit, inclusive of Exhibit 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, should be struck from the record.
11
Exhibit 1.0
Register Report
7/18/2007 through 11/18/2010
11/18/2010 Page 1
Date Account Num Description Memo Category Tag Clr Amount
EXPENSES -10,288.58
Uncategorized -0.20
Auto-Automobile Expenses -169.60
Bank Charge-Bank Charge -248.95
Other Bank Charge-Bank Charge -248.95
2/6/2008 chase banklo... Overlimit Fee Bank Charge R -39.00
7/16/2008 chase banklo... Returned Pay... Bank Charge R -39.00
9/11/2008 chase banklo... BANK Overlimit Fee Bank Charge R -39.00
9/12/2008 chase banklo... BANK Epay Fee Bank Charge R -14.95
Clothing-Clothing -19.99
computer -367.61
Gift-Gift Expenses not Tax Charity -19.50
Groceries-Groceries -444.61
Health -93.98
Household-Household Misc. Exp -228.46
Int Paid-Interest Paid -6,021.64
Other Int Paid-Interest Paid -6,021.64
8/17/2007 chase ban k1o... BANK Finance Char... $19,815.11 Int Paid R -156.04
8/17/2007 chase banklo... BANK Finance Char... $19,815.11 Int Paid R -115.58
9/17/2007 chase banklo... BANK Finance Char... Int Paid R -159.77
11/17/2007 chase banklo... BANK Finance Char... $17,644.97 Int Paid R -76.68
Register Report
7/18/2007 through 11/18/2010
Page 2
1/17/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Finance Char... Int Paid R -20.14
3/17/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Finance Char... finance char... Int Paid R -48.65
3/17/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Cash * Finan... finance char... Int Paid R -21.48
6/17/2008 chase banklo... Cash * Finan... finance char... Int Paid R -23.11
7/17/2008 chase banklo... Cash * Finan... finance char... Int Paid R -31.53
8/17/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Cash * Finan... Int Paid R -33.38
1/17/2009 chase ban k1o... BANK Purchases Int Paid R -389.64
1/17/2009 chase ban k1o... BANK Cash Advan... Int Paid R -38.80
Register Report
7/18/2007 through 11/18/2010
11/18/2010 Page 3
1/17/2009 chase ban k1o... BANK Overdraft Pr... Int Paid R -64.19
Late Fees-Late Payment Fees -273.00
7/16/2008 chase banklo... Late Fee Late Fees R -39.00
8/11/2008 chase banklo... Late Fee Late Fees R -39.00
9/11/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Late Fee Late Fees R -39.00
10/12/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Late Fee Late Fees R -39.00
11/11/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Late Fee 0000000000... Late Fees R -39.00
12/12/2008 chase ban k1o... BANK Late Fee 0000000000... Late Fees R -39.00
1/11/2009 chase ban k1o... BANK from junk de... Late Fees R -39.00
M & E-Business -544.40
Misc-Miscellaneous 16.16
Profl Services -450.00
Restaurant-DBK Personal Eating Out -1,161.64
Supplies -43.90
Travel -217.26
TRANSFERS 9,173.72
CHASE CHECKING 916-65-Personal Checking Account 9,188.93
Starbucks Card 8798 -15.21
OVERALL TOTAL -1,114.86
Exhibit 1.1
Register Report
7/18/2007 through 11/18/2010
11/18/2010 Page 1
BALANCE 7/17/2007 -19,916.97

7/18/2007 - 12/31/2007 2,128.22
BALANCE 12/31/2007 -17,788.75

1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008 -2,727.41
BALANCE 12/31/2008 -20,516.16

1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009 -515.47
BALANCE 12/31/2009 -21,031.63

1/1/2010 - 11/18/2010 -0.20
BALANCE 11/18/2010 -21,031.83
OVERALL TOTAL -1,114.86
TOTAL INFLOWS 9,867.57
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10,982.43
NET TOTAL -1,114.86

Exhibit 2.0
BANKtONE,
Dr. D. B. Karron
Apt. 4N
300 E. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10016-9463
Dear Dr. D. B. Karron:
We recently sent you a letter informing you of our name change from First USA to Bank One.
Within the next few months, you'll begin receiving account information under our new name. As
our transition progresses, please continue to accept information under both names until the change
is complete.
Individual Answers.su You'll continue to receive all the card benefits you've come to rely on.
We've just made them better. Because at Bank One, we are constantly looking for new ways to
deliver the individual financial solutions that fit your unique lifestyle. We're making our benefits
and services more flexible than ever before, adding new choices and payment options that match
the way you live.
We are starting by introducing the first credit card created by you, for you. A card that gives you
more choices and more decision-making power. You can pick the payment due date that works
best for you. Choose the most convenient payment method for you — online, phone, or mail.
You can even select a card color that best expresses your individuality.
A full range of financial products. Customizable account features are just one way Bank One
is adding renewed value to our relationship with you. We can be your one source for a wide
variety of innovative loan and investment products and services, so you can easily manage your
finances-and make the most of your money.
Stay tuned. There's a lot more on the way.
Sincerely,
CO-Jte LkX
k
Carter Warren
Chief Marketing Officer
Bank One, Delaware
P.S. To take advantage of the flexible new benefits and features of your credit card, please call
the number on the back of your card. For information on Bank One products and services visit
us online at www.bankone_com.
011/03-03711521-3
IA03 LAC26522_wr48062
1111111111111111111111111
Exhibit 2.1
Regarding your Bank One credit card account ending in 5250
Dr. D. B. Karron
300 E 33rd St
Apt 4N
New York, NY 10016-9406
1111111111111 ......1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Dear Dr. D. B. Karron:
As you may know, the JPMorgan Chase and Bank One holding companies merged in July, and Chase and Bank One are merging
as one bank under the Chase name. We believe that the merger of our two companies will enable us to serve you better with a
greater range of financial products — without sacrificing the quality of service you receive. This information is regarding your
Bank One credit card account.
Your satisfaction is important to us and we will do our best to ensure that this transition is as seamless as possible for you.
Please know that until the transition is complete, you may receive communications that reflect either the Bank One and/or the
Chase name. Your account number will not change and we will continue to honor any instructions you have provided for
recurring bills (such as utilities and Internet Service) or for scheduled payment of your credit card account. If you pay by check,
please continue to send your payments to the address provided on your monthly statement. You will also continue to enjoy the
benefits on your account, such as Zero Liability for Unauthorized Purchases and Emergency Cash and Card Replacement.*
We've enclosed a notice about changes to your Cardmember Agreement. Please read this document carefully and keep
this notice with your Cardmember Agreement for future reference. These changes will become effective as noted in
the Amendment.
Because protecting your personal information is a priority to us, we are enclosing our Privacy Policy. It describes the ways we
protect the Privacy of customer information, the information we share and your right to limit our sharing of information about
you. If you have already provided us with your Privacy opt-out choices, you do not need to contact us. If you want to change
the prior opt-out choices you gave us or have other questions regarding Privacy, please call us at the number listed inside the
enclosed Privacy Policy.
If you have any questions about the other enclosed information or about the merger, please feel free to contact us 24 hours a day,
7 days a week using the number on the back of your card.
Thank you for your business. It is our pleasure to serve you.
Sincerely,
Cardmember Service
* You will be informed of any future changes in terms to these account benefits 30 days before they take effect.
LTC12391
22100679
Exhibit 3.0
COUNTY OF NASSAU
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC. Index No. 600232-10
Plaintiff,
-against- AFFIDAVIT
Defendant.
-
------- X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
SS:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
BARBARA PHILLIPS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am an officer of the plaintiff and have knowledge of the matters hereinafter
set forth by reason of my examination of the books and records of the plaintiff maintained
in the regular course of business under my supervision and control.
I submit this Affidavit in support of plaintiff's application for summary judgment
against the defendant, as I verily believe that there are no triable issues of fact in this case
and the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
This is an action to recover a balance due under a credit card agreement
entered into by the defendant and the plaintiff's assignor, CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
pursuant to which the defendant was authorized to make purchases and receive cash
advances and was obligated to reimburse the plaintiff therefore, and to pay finance charges
provided for therein. The defendant actually utilized the credit extended.
Monthly statements of account were forwarded to the defendant at the
address provided by the defendant since the opening of the account and were received and
retained by the defendant without any objection by the defendant as to the balance or to
any items shown thereon.
C911947/
3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, FOURTH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NEW YORK 11756 516.746.1144
Annexed hereto are copies of the monthly statements of the defendant's
account for period between 7/18/07 through 1/17/09, all of which were forwarded and
received and retained without any objection thereto as stated above. As shown in the
monthly statements of account, there was a balance due of $21,03183 as of 1/17/09. As
further shown in the statements of account, the last payment made by the defendant was
on 10/9/08 in the sum of $10.01. Minimum monthly payments continued to be due
thereafter but the defendant failed to make any further payments.
Your deponent knows of no defense to this action upon a credit card
agreement executed by the defendant and upon which an account stated has been
established by the monthly receipt of account statements without objection
The defendant's Answer consists of mere denials and fails to set forth any
facts which could possibly constitute a defense to this action. It is respectfully submitted
that defendant's Answer has been interposed for the purpose of delay and to frustrate the
plaintiff in the prosecution of this action.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that summary judgment be granted
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the relief dem ied, in the Complaint.
\
1
BARB A PHILLIPS
Sworn to before me this

,-
:)'"day of c:c-tc_ \ocr, 2010.
1>rot ry Pubh SANDY MARQUES

Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01MA6174401
Qualified n Nassau (7,nuntr
C911947/
3000 HEMPSTEAD TURNPIKE, FOURTH FLOOR, LEVITTOWN, NEW YORK 11756 516.746.1144
Exhibit 3.1
OF
OF CCOi.:C1
DFI3I c'
t- to u
'r •
1. —k 'k
2,e1
Za gl arid
Tr;c84-44:. As- se.e. Ovl
w zst i
- tut.;6 i, vv
C 41-
!~
Exhibit 3.2
•
AFFIDAVIT OF SALE
OF ACCOUNT
BY ORIGINAL CREDITOR
State of Maryland. County of Frederick
Cindy A.. Buraener (afliant) being duly swum. deposes and says:
I am over 18 and not a party to this action. I am the Team Leader (title) of Chase Bank
CS.A. NA. In that position. f am custodian of the creditor's books and records, and am
aware of the process of the sale and assignment of electronically stored business records.
On or about 06/ 23/09. Chase Bank USA. NA (creditor) sold a pool of charged-off
accounts (the Accounts) by a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a Bill of Sale to
V ion Receivable investments. As part of the sale of the Accounts. electronic records
and other records were transferred on individual Accounts to the debt buyer. These
record; were k e pt i n the or di n ary course o f b u;i n e ss o f Chase Ban k t 'sA, NA,
I urn riot aware of any error; iIi these dC(.: ,..)1111LS, HIC above statements are true to the best
('I Ire k I ) ) I eCI e
SiLlned thL-, 9th day of .fuk. ")00(:).
But eller
0-
Sworn betbre me this 9th day of .Jul.
( Notan,-. Stamp!
•
•
Exhibit 4.0
Statement tor account number: 5417 1267 6703 5250
New Ealame Payment Due Date
9192116.11 0911147
Past Due Amount Minimum Payment
10130 848600
CHASE 0
Mato your chock pay:stria to Chaso Cad Sent cos.
Amount Enckcced 9 Nays addern 11T urinal' Prrt cc, r...244.
541,71,267979352500004880001981,51,10000001,
ocrwa SEX s■ =Ur n 101111111411111111.11111101101011 L011111111111111M111.11111.11111

DR D B KARI:40N
300 E 33RD ST APT IN CARDMEMBER SERVICE
NEW YORK NY 1C016-9405 PO BOX 15153
WILMINGTCN CE 19826-5153
1:5000 i60 28t: 22 26797935 250911'
OpenirtayCkating Date a,
07,1 o7 7.07 CUSTOMER SERVICE
CHASE 0 Payment Cue Date
Mint-nun Payment Cur
09.1 li07
9468 CO
In U.S.
Espana/
1-890-9452030
1- 295- 446 •3r43 p
TOD 1-6004956-5050
Pay by phone I-930436-7952i
Outside U.S.cat colect
1-333.594-2200
MASTERCARD ACCOUNT SUMMARY Account Number: 5417 1267 9793 5250
ACCOUNT INOUI RI ES
Previous eabn:,... 519 975 92 Tcral Credt Lire
3213030 P 0 SaY 15238
Payment Credits -3475.00 A,•aizble Credit
9124 Wilmriebn DE 1995.0-5299
Pun:Rases. each. Debit:, 4624.05 Cash Accetr:-.. Line 91.000
Finance Charges -929014 Avalable1Cf Cash 5153 PAYMENT ADDRESS
New Balance 515 :61511 P.O Eby 15152
VAIrringbn DE 19985-51E3
VPSIT US AT:
2v,141' 00.74 co mss ledtcard
Your next AutoPayrnent tar 94:13 CO writ be dedtraind from row account and credited cn your
due date. It your statement balance exceeds year credit unit you thocid retake a payment that
irciceles the arricurn referenced plus the ictal ovelltrnit amount prior to the due date Please do
not rely on you AutioF'syment service to adder: an io:erlriut otuation
TRANSACTIONS
Trans Amount
Date Reference Number Merchant Name Cr Transaction Ciescuption Credit Debt
03,01 05410197213730370293333 PETIX1 940- 609394M MANHATTAN Pit lo9.50

C9%10 1-5,1211227429364903300M PAYMENT- THANK YOU 479 CO
96 ,14 054101972263551C0422791 STARBUCKS USA 00002045 NEW YORK NY 4 55
FINANCE CHARGES
Fuslre, Charge
Daily Periodic Rate Corresp Average Daily Due To icarrtacion Accumulated F11/ANCE
Category 31 days In cyc le APR Balance Pmedc Rate Fee Fin Charge CHARGES
Purchases 05477% 19 93% SS 193 21 5156.04 90 CO 8) 00 5,156.04
Cosh advarces 05477% 19 97% 91 093 62 912 52 50.0) SO 00 51952
Overt altProtection 0%33% 13.09°c 99 726 CO 5115.55 90 CO 83.00 5115.52
Total Itnance charges 9293.13
Effective Annual Percentage Rate (APR): 17.40%

P101,0"-1 tee Inbretatten About Your Aix:ova rotten for balance computatcan meted grace period, and other anputani Inforrnaten
The Correseondng APR re the rate of {merest you pay 41E11 you carry a balance en any trarr—acnen categay
The Effective APR reFreterus your total finance charger - nth:ding trareactran ices
such at: oath advarce and balance tram:ter lees expressed ac a percentage.
IMPORIAMINEWL.
Prefect your ctecit card yr.ith ID Secure rn o nitonng
Try it nom ai wwit• idoecureccrurChasesne and you'll be
iderrbied ac a Chase cardmerrber entitled to the Triteglant
offer Mich include. cp to 920 cash back be einingl
Did you know you can use year credit card to acre • 0.=h
•.vfbneirer and Atterever you need W7 All you need is yew
PIN (Personal Identification Number) and an ATM
Jcel cal 1-203-297-4970
to create ya.d.rr PIN today
1
X 000[001 F1a7a.00 r, re 000 Y a1? 071011,1? F090 1 .1 i (011030 MA MA 100000 :1:110:0010010:004101
Exhibit 4.1
Statement for account number: 5417 1267 9793 5250
New Balance Payment Due Date
519.545.33 111106
Pact Due Amount Minimum Payment
52 04504 $4,34237 CHASE Cy
7-
1
Make your chock payable to:
Chas* Cord EarvIces.
Pkodo vale arrovet one bleat
-
Now dalreoe r.c 47-rnat; Punt on Dash .
5141,71,2679793525000434237019545330000004
COL44 BE4 D ;atm b eillo I to loll • 1 I 4sI 11.1111t•11111.1osIlitiLl..lieriloa

DP. D BKARRON
348 E FULTON ST CARDMEMBER SERVICE
LCNG BEACH NY 11561-2327 PO BOX 15153
WILMINGTCN DE 19696.5153
.11..1.1..11 — 1.11 -1.1„11..1.11.
1: 500 ❑ 160 2B1: 2 2 26 7 9 7 9 3 5 2 50 90
OpentngiClocirr; Cote acvia,t4 10:17,02 CUSTOMER SERVICE

CHASE 0 Payment Due Date
filtrunun Payment Cue
11,•71, a;
54,342 37
In U.S.
Etparial
1 4900-945-2030
1- . 81-446-3D38
TOD t-930-955-8050
Pay by phsne 1-930-436-7956
Oubide U.S.call colect
1.932.5942200
MASTERCARD CARD SUMMARY Account Number: 5417 1267 9753 5250
ACCOUNT IHOUIRIES
4
Previous Babnise 519.092 22 Total Great Line $17.930 P O Box 15.38
Payment. Credit!: -510 01 Aoaiable Credit Mimi-lien, DE 196-50-5238
Purchases. Cash, Debit: -539 00 Cash Access Line 53.550
Finance Charger. $418 12 Amniatile tor Cush $D PAYMENT ADDRESS
519 54533 P Box 15153
New Balance
Ifillmrigton, DE 19096-5153
VISIT US AT:
,
reeP.MaAe.renveresitc an1::.
You haven't made the required paymenic and your c fedi c ard account 47. 90 day pact due Ac
a result you credit biseau may be updated with a rtedahve tabu; Please tend you payment
trnmedotety or cal us at 1-2•03-955-9030 itasitec t 1 - 332-594 -8200i today
TRANSACTIONS
Trans Arnourn
Date Reterens.e Nirriber Merchant Name cr Transaction D-escribnon Credit Debit
10.09 128326309133006012934601 Payment - Thank You 510.01

1 0112 LATE FEE 3300
FINANCE CHARGES
Finance Charge
Cody Periodic Rate Con:Ito Airerage Daily Cue To Tram:scion Accurnsiale-d Ft HAUGE
Cattegcr, 30 day: tricycle APR Balance Period*: Rate Fee Fin Charge CHARGES
Purchase: ,
V 07205% 23 49', 514 142.54 5331.30 50.03 510 00 5331 ao
Cush adearces V 05614% 20.49% 51 418 t33 523.39 90 CO 10 00 523.93
-
Oiterdraft Protectisn, V 05614% 20.49% 53 7.33 e3 56293 ID 00 53 00 liM 93
Total finance charger 5418.1

Please tee Inturnatien About 'fox' A., xourli cesnoti for balance computation method graze period. and other intpertant information
The Correspandng APR ei the rate of interest you pay .when you carry a balance en any tram-zebu1 calegcry
The Effective APR reprecene. your total finance charger. - nctuling transaction tee::
:rich at each advance and balance trarcler tee-_ - eiprecced as a percentage
4.10),:e:A rrcaaartyn 014 c •ZIA I T IT Pp,. 1 .1 I titer Mr. MA D:enu tit t axnaneoad:_oetac
X
Exhibit 4.2
Statement for account number: 5417 1267 9793 5250
New Bubrr,s Payment Out Date
520 00997 12.12439
Past Due Anacurrt Minimum Payment
52 651 71 15471 136 CHASE 0
I -
Make your chock payobit,
Chow) Care eurvicue.
to:
Phw.oVrItAl arr,l,Moncreud
hew oadime. 4^111Sr? 01101 ,.1 , 11141,1,
54 L71,2679793525000547168020009970000009
os1411:1EX....,..nos Ck
DR D B KARODT4
346 E FULTON ,ST CARDMEMBER SERVICE
LCNG BEACH 111' 11561-2327 PO BOX 15153
WILMINGTON DE 10,966-5153
1:5000 LEAD 81: 2 2 26 797935 2 50 90
OpeningiCkscita; Cote 11310

T.°3 ' 11 17 09
' ' CUSTOMER SERVICE
CHASE p3.„,-,,, Cue Date 12 12 1-1300-045-2030

'' 71.' e
t.,5 4 C2 L13
ln.,3:.
E 69
0 Mimi-num Payment Cue 1- . 13-4.4.6-3306
TOD 1-930-9562330
Pay by plxyar 1 .830-436.7956
Outside U.S call coleot
1-532-594-9200
ACCOUNT INQUIRIES
Prevbakr; Eobnee •19 545.33 Total Creek Line 51 7.930 P 0 Bap 1..239
Payment. Credirc -545.33 Avaiable Crodd .0
3 VAlmeigisn DE 199.53-5208
Purchaers. Cash. Debits .53900 Carh Acre• Line 53.5543
Firorrde Charges X70:97 Ava table he Cash 50 PAYMENT ADDRESS
P O. Bay. 15153
Nem Balance 520 00'3.97
tfAlinngin, OE 10695-5163
VISIT US AT:
daate corricrechcards
Ifs not too late to re:atm the cutetancing talarrce on you credit card account We have a
vafwty of payment outcry; Mat may be right he rod Call 1" 8-792-7547 Malec'
1-302-594-0233110dak
The neky APR ant pram-Juanal late eviration reflected on this statement is o result al a late
payment on ycur accout For your convenience, ycki con alvio yr. pay chine by accessing okr
wetedite ea:pl•ted on the statement
TRANSACTIONS
Tram Amount
Dab Retererne Number Merchant Marne cr Traneashan Description Credit Cebu
1 0.19 1293..• ;030060%9i 2b03 Payment Thant. You 55 33

1 025 133029927000060E4507352 Payment - Thank, You 133
11.06 131134i2.7.9131069491E654 Payment - Thank You 34.67
11.11 LATE FEE 39 00
FINANCE CHARGES
Finance Charge
Daily Penolic Rote Car-reel). Average Catty Cue To Tram:anion Azcurn dated FINANCE
Categ cry 31 day: in crcle APR Balance Permdr, Pate Fee Fin Charge CKARGES
Purchases V 062.16C. 29.99`3- 514 509 16 531%154 30 0) 11).00 5359 54
Cash adea roes V 00216% 29 90% SI 446 04 53690 '51) CO 93 00 536.93
Overdraft Protectran V 05477% 19 93% 53.u03. 564.53 50 00 93 00 9S1 53
Total finance charges 5470 97

Phase one Inksynaturt .About "fan Accomit sechcn for totame computalun method, grxe period, and other irrportani inforrnatch
The Corressondng APR c the rate of interest you pay ..hen you carry a balance on any trarrdachen coleguy
The Effective APR remesente your to1a1 finance charges. - hcluding trantacitan feet
such as' cash advarrde and balance transfer bee expressed az a percentage
• tqt0:•1 rtg M.17 r: i 0 • t0 11+11 •7 Nis t .1 I V101+;", h111 $44 9114 3;2 10:0:,:.0:0-an 4 :1
x
Exhibit 4.3
Statement for account number: 5417 1267 p793 5250
CHASE Cr
Neer, Eabrre *Payment Due Date Past Due Amount Minimum Payment
5'20,516.15 0111129 53 361.1 16 BC"; ST
Mako your chock payobla to:

Made Card Souvicou.
PI2w...22 Meta An222ni annk22.22
Now 43122,22 441-22117 Pont or bad,
541,71,267979352500066888702051,61,60000003
2
.2:m22 BEI 92.2.2 U
DR D B KARRON
345 E FULTON ST CARDIrIEMBER SERVICE
LONG BEACH NY I 1581 -2327 PO BOX 15153
WILMINGTON CE 19883-5153
1:5000 160281: 2 2 2 6 7 9 9 3 5 250 90
Date
Opeltreg•Cion2.2; ilaos •
131706 CUSTOMER SERVICE
CHASE 0 Payment Cue Date

Minmt.rn Payment CLe
01x11:03 InU S.
65.59687
Espand
1-900-945-2030
I• WO-446.3306
TOD 1-6130-95643650
Pay by phane 1.930.438.7956
Outide U.S. cat collect
1-302.5938330
ACCOUNT INQUIRIES
Piensus Babrice ti2t3.009 97 Total Credt Line 517.930 P C. sae 15296
Purchases Cash. Debits 419 00 Ayalade Grethk 50 thilinngisn. DE 1 9650-6,799
Finance Charges $487 19 Cash Accece, Line 53.590
nvaiatle for Cash 50 PAYMENT ADDRESS
New Balance 520 516.16
P 0 Box 1E153
Wilmngisn, DE 19685.61E3
VISIT US AT:
corrtictclittard.:,
You haven't made the reqtared par tnenth and yam e red I card accotrit is 1E0 days past die
Yoy..1 can Mill turn thing: atotryd Call to today at I-8;8792-754 7 (coke! 1.302-594-60301 so
that we can lire a schrbon for your situation
TRANSACTIONS
Tram, Antourri
Date P.eterence Ntrnber Merchant Name or Transaction Description Credit Debit
1 212 LATE FEE la? 00
FINANCE CHARGES
Fame Charge
Dad/ Periodic Rate Corresp Average Daly Cue To Tram:lac:1bn Accumulated Fl HA ?ICE
Category 30 days in ctote APR Balance Periodic Rate Fee Fin Charge CHARGES
9
Purchase.; V 0E216% 29 99% 514.992,61 5367.07 160.D3 60 00 5337 07
Cash actrarr-ez V .062113% 29.99% St 465.69 $36.62 1O.03 80 .00 536. 82
Overdrati Protection V 0E177% 19. 99% 53.954 39 563.50 50 CO f3.00 143.5o
Total finance charges 1467 19
Effective Annual Percentage Rate (APR): 27.691.
Please see Information About Your Ascot-at tett= tor batarce computaltan meth-
.rd- grass paled and aihef trnpatant inforrnatran
The Correspondng APR t, the rate of interest you pay 2,41-2,2 you carry a balance cn any Iraroacticrt categcry
The Effective APR repre-xrro your total finance. charge. - rthfuding trarmacion teen
:arch as each advance and balance transfer ices - exprecced as a percentage
ni22221 Ft3z.r,22 Ii, 422 Y a 1: 211202 Ng. 1 nt i teem Mt Ott rota] Iccouncoransars:
X
Exhibit 4.4
Statement for account number 6417 1267 9793 5250
NefirdeoLarrx Rayrnent Due Date.
521,031 83 02111.09
Past Due Arncuni Minimum Payment
$405655 57933.36 CHASE 0
Make your choct, puyablo to:
Chas* Card £231, 41C9S.
Pluacu vafto arroLni An CK, ',2214
Now 401t2,272 or u-rnoill Peet sir Dad,
54101,267979352 500079 3113802 311330001:1009
‘aremadEX n onus C
DR 13 B KARFON
348 E FULTCN ST CARDMEMBER CiER410E
LCNG BEACH NY 11561-2327 PO BOX 15153
WILMINGTON DE 19886-5153
1:5 DO 0 LE,CI 281: 2 2 26 9 9 35 25090
OpentngtCkosing Date 1 2:10458.01A7.09 CUSTOMER SERVICE
CHASE 0 Payment Due Date:

Minumrn Payrnent Due
02'1 503
57 930 30
In U 2
Espana
1-D30.9,45-2000
I - 6-446-37.436
TOD 1-600-955•9060
Pay by phone 1.9)0.536.7956
Outside US c.all coIect
I•332, 594-01330
MASTERCARD CARD SUMMARY Account Number: 541 7 1267 9793 5250
ACCOUNT INOUIRIES
P(2, 102/S120412, 520516 16 Tctal Credt Line 1317,900 P Boy 15290
Payment Credits 41616 Avaiable Credit $0 Wilmington DE 19850.5238
Purchases Cash. Debit: .539!00 Cash Accem.7.-, Li ne 1:3520
Finance Charges .319283 AyalatIe lc( Cash $0 PAYMENT ADDRESS
521 031 83 P O. Box 1518$
New Balance
Wilmngion. DE 19095, 5153
VISIT US AT:
o.rimee.chase.corriciecitcards
The outstandnobalanse on noir credit card account es scheduled to be written oft as a bad deft
shady Asa react yam credit bLreau wit be updated with a negative ratng that cotdd last kr
op to seven year We can sill help, but nou need to cat us now at 1-8M-792-7547
1.303-594-87,C0i
TRANSACTIONS
Trans Amount
Date Relererce Nsrnber Merchant hafrIC cm- Transaction Descrrptron Credit Debt
01ttO 1039,3C9,201a103649166c.0 Payment - Thank You $16 16

01.11 LATE FEE 3900
FINANCE CHARGES
Finance Charge
Daily Periodic Rate Corresp. Average Daily D.re To Trarrsacl on Accumulated Fl HANCE
Category 31 day: in cpote APR Balance Periodic Rate Fee Fir, Charge CHARGES
Purchase: V 016%.29 99% 515 31313 18 5109.84 5,0 CO 177.00 4389.85
Cash action:es V .06216% 29 99% 523.26 $38.80 SO CO 1,0 BO 538 93
Overci-aft Protectian V .05271% 1 9.24% 53.929 25 $64.19 $0 03 03 00 1e34 19
Total finance charges 1.4 5,2
Effective Annual Percentage Rate (APR): 26.alg%

Ptease see Inicrinatren Atout Your AcciaLnt rental for balance oarnputatnan rnetticd. prase period, and other Irmo-tarn information
The Correspandng APR c the rate of interest you pay &hen you carry a balance en any trarr...acbcon calt•gor,
The Effective APR recreoents your total finance charges - ncluding transaction lee:
such as cash advance and balance transfer lees - errant:se:I as a percentage
armor Mama, p 2 arc . c -c u:rt7 P2921211 MAMA D:1114 :!2:2:12:21221,2.02 , 1

X
15

Jan 5 Service Package With Notarization

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jan 5 Service Package With Notarization

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

D. B. Kan-on, Ph.D.

348 East Fulton Street

Judge ROY S. MAHON

Re: TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC vs. D. B. KARRON

Dear Honorable Judge Mahon;

Attached is my surreply to the Plaintiffs unsupported Reply Affirmation and in support of my

TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC.

AIK/A DANIEL KARRON

STATE OF NEW YORK

I. SURREPLY AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT

I, D. B. Karron, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

2. As part of the sale of Judgment Accounts, Chase Bank executives knowingly

3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from

4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase

"Yes," Mr. Mills replied.

Martha Kunkle has come back to life.

Dear D.B. Karron,

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the PLAINTIFF'S Summary

Sworn to before me thIS

SEC Complaint Center

To whom it may concern.

Chase Bank's Credit Card Operation

Credit Card Litigation Department

The Credit Card Litigation department performs three broad tasks:

The Credit Card Litigation Department maintains a separate database of all

In order to produce the information necessary to generate a Judgment Affidavit,

Post Judgment Activities

Linda Almonte — an important executive in the Credit Card Litigation Department

1. The Pre-Litigation Group in the Credit Card Litigation Department routinely

George Pressly. ESQ.

of Providian National Barth ("Providian"), a national banking association, one of the

Bank, Providian Bank and Portfolio Recovery Associates ("Purchaser"), dated as of

12/05/05 fthe Agreement")

The account billing statement of COLE; JEANIE C,

4254491400850471,_the Cardholder to the best of my knowledge, reflects a true

and correct accounting of the cardholder's credit card account; that as of

12/05/05, the sum of $ 5911.87 was due to

satisfied, In accordance with the Agreement, Providian sold, assigned and

its unpaid balance

Executed on May 24, 2007 at Arlington, Texas,.

604.14.1111_11",_; Martha Kunkle, Designated Agent

Subscribed and sworn to me this 24thday of May, 2007

IP New ljork 'Onto- Reprints

October 31, 2010

Debt Collectors Face a Hazard: Writer's

"Yes," Mr. Mills replied.

A Chase spokesman declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

Andrew Martin contributed reporting.

Oartli.CL ltiCTRE. (9ATE

Deceased Woman's Name Was Username:

Robo-Signed on Thousands of Affidavits Password:

by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Wall St Journal Log in

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article

Add new comment e I a la

JUDGES ARE ALSO BOUGHT-AND-PAID FOR

THE WALL SMELT JOURNAL.

MARKETS DECEMBER 31, 2010

Dead Soul Is a Debt Collector

Martha Kunkle has come back to life.

Some regulators complain that the use of Ms. Kunkle's name

After being sued for fraud, Portfolio Recovery Associates

...wsj.com/.../S B1000142405297020420... 1/3

large debt collectors such as Portfolio Recovery Associates and publicly

In 2008, Judy Montoya, an employee at Portfolio Recovery Associates,