OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE...
Transcript of OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE...
2
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
NOW COMES Defendants/Counterclaimants HOROWITZ and KANE (“H&K”) Opposing real
party of interest PAUL J. SULLA, JR.’s Motion titled “PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT JASON HESTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS FILED ON
AUGUST 21, 2014 BY DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS LEONARD G.
HOROWITZ AND SHERRI KANE [pursuant to Rules 7, 9(b)(g); 11(c)(B); 12(b); 13(a)(g)(h)(i);
and 19(a)(1-2)(b)]; for fraud upon the court in contriving excuses to delay and multiply
processes, by falsely filing [pg. 2] “that the statute of limitations for all claims but for the claim
for Quiet Title have been exceeded and therefore are not the proper subject of a Counterclaim
by Defendants.”
I. ARGUMENT A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS RAISED BY SULLA ARE MOOT. A-1. “HESTER” is not the real party of interest. SULLA is the concealed surety—a
malpracticing attorney violating, inter alia, RCCH Rule 26(b) as proven by Exhibit “BB.” (See
also: Separate required RICO Exhibits Binder). Said act is also a violation of ethics rules
HRPC 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4, among others.
A-2. Under these prohibited circumstances and pleadings, contrived to defraud the honorable
Court, SULLA fraudulently claims HOROWITZ cannot defend THE ROYAL BLOODLINE OF
DAVID (“RBD”) in Propria persona; when, in fact, SULLA knows very well that the “body
corporate” of a Corporation Sole, in this case, HOROWITZ, unlike any other kind of
corporation under the laws of the State of Hawaii, requires HOROWITZ’s standing, not
prohibitively-costly counsel, to defend against “HESTER’s” malicious prosecution, pursuant to
exaction, extortion, and superseding federal law 42 U.S.C. § 1981, that grants HOROWITZ
his civil right to defend RBD and the subject Property.
3
A-3. Moreover, the honorable Third Circuit Court of Hawaii holds no jurisdiction to adjudicate
an action against RBD in violation of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution that requires
disputes over “lands under grants of foreign states” to be heard in federal courts.
A-4. Relatedly, MEDICAL VERITAS INTERNATIONAL, INC. is not a real party of interest in
this Quiet Title action. It is the beneficiary of a gift lease of “lands under grants of foreign
states” requiring Article III court jurisdiction to be prosecuted for trespass.
A-5. The premature addition of Counterclaim Defendants is no valid cause for striking the
compulsory Counterclaim.
A-6. The Counterclaim is adequately clear, concise, and comprehensible to any reasonable
person; and SULLA’s claim to the contrary is transparently contrived in bad faith.
B. SULLA’S FRAUDULENT “STANDARD” SUBVERTS JUSTICE IN LAW AND EQUITY. B-1. SULLA’s claim that Defendants failed to state claims for which relief may be granted is
typical of “above the law” prosecuting, and reckless, criminal, diversionary, and detached
reasoning—a “condition of mind” SULLA has repeatedly demonstrated in this Court.
Defendants filed twenty-two (22) counterclaims (i.e., twenty-four (24) in federal court First
Amended Counter Complaint filing of Sept. 18, 2014), not one of which SULLA demonstrably
controverted in his frivolous and fraudulent pleading(s).
B-2. SULLA pleaded similarly, recklessly, deceptively, and unsuccessfully in his Motion for
Summary Judgment in SLAPP lawsuit Civ. No. 12-1-0417.
B-3. Given the above three-year history before this honorable Court, and the hard, cold,
material evidence presented by Defendants in their pleadings and exhibits to defeat SULLA’s
torts and crimes in this instant case, coupled with SULLA’s repeated incivility openly resented
by the Court, it is astonishing and unreasonable that the Court has not already sanctioned
4
SULLA, arrested him, and secured the Defendants’ damages by seizure of SULLA’s person
and/or property, sua sponte!
B-4. SULLA misrepresents Rule 9(b) “Standard,” since that rule requires pleading fraud “with
particularity” that SULLA has failed to provide.
B-5. How, prey tell, could SULLA plead with particularity when he claims he doesn’t
understand the charges the Defendants have filed against him and HESTER?
B-6. SULLA’s “bad faith” assertion, thus, raises an inconsistent defense against the
Counterclaims, only “incompressible” to people with conflicting interests, purposely
neglecting and/or aiding-and-abetting the Counterclaimed crimes by “willful blindness.”
C. SULLA’S TWO ARGUMENTS ARE LAME and RECKLESS.
C-1. SULLA brings two reckless Arguments against Defendants’ Counterclaims. He falsely
claims the Counterclaims are:
(1) “untimely” (i.e., beyond the six (6) year cut off date required under HI Rev Stat §
657-1 (2012) , or beyond the twenty (20) year cut of date pursuant to this matter of unlawful
non-judicial foreclosure and theft of real property/title, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31;
and
(2) “incomprehensible,” and depriving “HESTER” of “fair notice.”
C-2. SULLA fraudulently wrote (page 9), “Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant JASON HESTER
(“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Hester”) filed his Complaint on February 27, 2013 (“Complaint”). In
response, Defendants Leonard G. Horowitz and Sherri Kane (“Defendants” or “Mr. Horowitz”
and “Ms. Kane,” respectively) filed “Defendants/Counterclaimants Answer, Affirmative
Defense, and Counterclaims to Paul J. Sulla, Jr. and Jason Hester’s Conspiracy to Commit
Theft Under Color of Law” on August 21, 2014 (Counterclaims”). . . .”
5
C-3. In fact, said Complaint was stamped by the Court on August 11, 2014, and served August 26, 2014. SULLA’s factual error pursuant to the Complaint filing date evidences the
severe recklessness and fraudulent pleadings characterizing this malicious prosecution with
which SULLA extends his pattern of abusing processes for organized crime and theft. By
similar ploys committed by SULLA in the related SLAPP lawsuit (Civ. No. 12-1-0417), the
Court granted SULLA: a) a Constitutionally-prohibited Preliminary Injunction on Defendants’
publications; and b) Motion to Strike all the Defendant’s counterclaims in that action, severely
prejudicing the Defendants and damaging them over 2.5 years, financially and emotionally.
C-4. The following are significant dates in this action: a) HOROWITZ and RBD’s
Warranty Deed was issued on January 15, 2004; and illegal foreclosure actions were
commenced by SULLA’s “client,” Seller “Lee,” virtually immediately, extending a pattern of
organized crime and deprivation of citizen’s rights and property rights to this time; b) March
thru June, 2009, SULLA/HESTER et. al., failed to Release the Mortgage following payment
in full was made and many Notices were served; c) May 15-28, 2009, SULLA/Lee
fraudulently transferred $375,000.00 of false debt into a sham “church” SULLA incorporated
at the same time in order to extort the Defendants, evade five (5) judgment creditors; and
steal the Property by means of bringing a foreclosure under color of law; d) March 19, 2010,
SULLA commits consumer fraud by publishing Mortgagee’s Notice of Public Sale,
fraudulently advertising foreclosure action under color of law; e) April 20, 2010,
SULLA/HESTER commits fraudulent foreclosure by “mock auction” using the sham “church”
SULLA incorporated (on May 28, 2009); f) May 11, 2010, SULLA slanders title by issuing
Quitclaim Deed to said sham (fraudulent conveyance) “church;” g) June 9, 2011, SULLA
further slanders title to the subject property by issuing: i) a Mortgage to HESTER (illegally
secured by the Property) issuing claimed debt as Lee’s lawyer, estate fiduciary, trustee, and
co-beneficiary with HESTER, as well as HESTER’s lawyer; and ii) a second Quitclaim Deed
transferring color of title from the “church” to HESTER (really SULLA); h) On-or-about,
October 1, 2012, HOROWITZ discovers conspiracy to deprive citizen’s rights by Property
theft and extortion involving judicial officers SULLA, Gary Dubin, Benjamin Brower, John S.
Carroll, Glenn S. Hara, and Robert Ibarra, each of whom concealed “The Hara File” (i.e.,
6
evidence tampering) providing prima facie proof of fraud in the sale of the Property by Lee,
organized criminal conspiracy to deprive citizen’s rights, evidence tampering, and witness
tampering by said attorneys and Glenn Hara during trial in Civ. No. 05-1-0196. (See “Flow
Chart” in Exhibit “1”)
C-5. As stated above, this Quiet Title action issues from SULLA’s slandering of title on May
11, 2010. This date signifies that the Counterclaims falls well within the time limits permitted in HI Rev Stat § 657-1 (2012) , and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31.
C-6. Another example of SULLA’s abuse of process and diversionary recklessness is
evidenced by his total neglect of Counterclaim “Background” page 10, that states (in
paragraph 12), “In March, 2010, SULLA, JR. committed consumer fraud in violation of HRS
§480D-3(2)(3)(6)(8)(11) and HRS §480D-4(a)(b)]; and for unlawful consumer debt collection
on a contested Mortgage, HRS §480D-4(a)(b); HRS §480-13(a), by publishing his ‘NOTICE
OF MORTGAGEE’S NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE UNDER POWER OF SALE’.” This
pleading, evidenced by Exhibit “Y” is crystal clear, as is paragraph 1 under Counterclaim III
for Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices that “incorporate by reference” the
aforementioned acts and practices of consumer fraud that carries a six (6) year statute of
limitations.
C-7. Regarding SULLA’s second “ARGUMENT,” that said Counterclaims are
“incomprehensible,” he should stop: a) clouding his “condition of mind” with hallucinogenic
drugs--“DMT” (ayahyasca) and “THC” (marijuana)--to comprehend Defendants’ clear and
concise pleadings; and b) misrepresenting that his misperceptions of dates, rules, laws, and
liability for continuing a pattern of fraud, white collar, and organized crimes, is somehow the
Defendants’ fault, inter alia, from claimed “incomprehensible” pleadings.
C-8. In fact, said abuses of process compounds evidence in support of COUNTERCLAIM VI: TORT OF CONVERSION/THEFT in CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE RIGHTS & PROPERTY, in Defendants’ September 18, 2014, filing of DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED COUNTER COMPLAINT entered in federal Court case Civ. No. 14 00413 JMS/RLP; Counterclaim XVIII
7
for Tortious Interference with Prospective Business (Economic) Advantage pursuant to
SULLA’s false filings with the State and courts to compete unfairly on behalf of his
“churches;” and Counterclaim XIII for Defamation by SULLA and members of said competing
“churches,” recklessly publishing false statements about the Defendants.
C-8. Defendants have made their points, and cannot continue this waste of everyone’s time
in good conscious. Thus, for efficiency, economy, and out of respect for the Court’s integrity,
this Opposition to SULLA’s reckless Motion stops here.
D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
D-1. The “Preliminary Matters” raised in SULLA’s instant Motion are moot; his “STANDARD”
containing misrepresentations of rules, laws, and inconsistent defenses, subverts justice in
law and equity.
D-2. SULLA’s claim that Defendants failed to state, among twenty-two (22) counts, claims for
which relief may be granted is “incomprehensible” and absurd.
D-3. SULLA’s arguments pursuant to statutes of limitations in this real property (title) dispute
recklessly neglects HI Rev Stat § 657-1 (2012) , Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31, and omits
multiple other Counterclaims being brought under a six (6) year statute of limitation, such as
HRS § 480D violations.
D-4. The Defendants plead for the honorable Court to Dismiss “HESTER’s” Complaint claims
I thru III, that were obviously filed with “unclean hands,” in “bad faith,” and in violation of, inter
alia, RCCH Rule 26(b) disqualifying attorneys for concealing conflicting surety interests.
D-5. The mere fact that title was slandered by SULLA, not HESTER, by fraudulent transfers
of false debt in the name of the “GOSPEL OF BELIEVER’s CHURCH,” yet this indispensible
Party was neglected by SULLA as his “front” and necessary co-Plaintiff, strongly evidences
9
LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, Pro Se and SHERRI KANE, Pro Se P. O. Box 75104 Honolulu, HI 96836 808-946-6999; Email: [email protected]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JASON HESTER, an individual Plaintiff, v. LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, an Individual; SHERRI KANE, an Individual; MEDICAL VERITAS INTERNATIONAL, INC. a California non-profit corporation; THE ROYAL BLOODLINE OF DAVID, a Washington Corp. Sole; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive Defendants /Counter Claimants and LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, an Individual; SHERRI KANE, an Individual Counterclaimants
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIV. NO. 14-1-0304 (Other Civil Action: Quiet Title/Summary Possession; Counterclaim RICO) DECLARATION OF LEONARD G. HOROWITZ and SHERRI KANE Judge: Honorable Elizabeth A. Strance Hearing: November 3, 2014 Hearing Time: 11:30 a.m. Trial Date: No Trial Date Set
DECLARATION OF LEONARD G. HOROWITZ AND SHERRI KANE
Sulla
’s 6
-Ste
p Sc
hem
e to
Acq
uire
Hor
owitz
’s P
rope
rty
by T
heft
Und
er “
Col
or o
f Law
” in
Crim
inal
Con
tem
pt o
f 3 C
ourt
s#1
: Ev
ade
Mor
tgag
e Re
leas
e &
5 Ju
dgm
ent C
redi
tors
from
Civ.
No.
05-
1-01
96
and
Civ.
No. 0
1-01
-044
4; M
ay 1
5-28
, 200
9 by
Frau
d-ul
ent
Tran
sfer
s of
“Fa
lse
Deb
t”
into
Sha
m “
Chu
rch”
a)
Afte
r Hor
owitz
pay
s Fi
nal B
allo
on P
aym
ent
as O
rder
ed b
y th
e C
ourts
, Su
lla fi
les t
o A
ppea
l $2
00K
Jur
y Aw
ard
to
Hor
owitz
(No.
298
41)
(5-2
1-09
)
b)
Sul
la m
anuf
actu
res:
1)
sham
Lee
/GO
B
“chu
rch”
(5-2
8-09
);
2) $
375K
in “
Fals
e D
ebt”
by
Prom
is-
sory
Not
e Ass
ignm
ents
to
GO
B (5
-28-
09)
c)
Sul
la fi
les I
llega
l M
ortg
age A
ssig
nmen
t to
GO
B (9
-28-
09)
#2: S
ULLA
Cer
tifies
New
Fak
e G
OB
“Chu
rch”
“M
ortg
agee
” Us
ing
Fals
e Bu
sine
ss A
ddre
ss a
t RIT
KE’s
Hou
se,
811
Mal
ama
Stre
et, P
ahoa
, HI.
a) S
ulla
inco
rpor
ates
“G
OSP
EL O
F BE
-LI
EVER
S” (G
OB)
C
orpo
ratio
n (5
-28-
09)
b) S
ulla
/Lee
use
R
ITK
E’s p
riva
te re
si-de
nce
to in
corp
orat
e G
OB:
1) G
OB
rece
ives
$3
75K
in “
Fals
e D
ebt”
Tr
ansf
ers b
y Ill
egal
Pr
omis
sory
Not
e Ass
ign-
men
ts to
GO
B (5
-28-
09)
c) R
ITK
E de
nies
G
OB
’s E
xist
ence
(2-2
5-14
)28-
09)
#3:
SULL
A Ex
torts
HO
ROW
ITZ
to
Pay
$375
K Fa
lse
Debt
on
11-6
-09,
or
Oth
erw
ise
Thre
aten
s (b
y M
ail)
Fore
-cl
osur
e in
Con
tem
pt o
f Iba
rra
Cour
t Ju
dgm
ents
Den
ying
For
eclo
sure
.a)
Sul
la n
egle
cts A
p-pe
llate
pro
cess
re:
$200
K C
onte
sted
Jur
y Aw
ard
and
Ibar
ra
Cou
rt F
inal
Jud
gmen
ts
Den
ying
For
eclo
sure
an
d D
eman
ds P
aym
ent
of $
375K
of f
alse
deb
t. (1
1-6-
09)
b) H
orow
itz a
nd A
t-to
rney
Car
roll
repl
y to
SU
LLA
incr
edul
ous t
o ex
tort
ion
and
crim
inal
th
reat
.
#4: S
ULLA
Con
duct
s “M
ock A
uctio
n”
4-20
-10,
Fra
udul
ently
Sel
ling
Prop
er-
ty to
Shi
ll G
OB
“Chu
rch”
“O
vers
eer”
JA
SON
HEST
ER W
ho B
ids
the
Con-
trive
d De
bt a
nd P
ays
$10
for D
eed.
a)
Sul
la A
dver
tises
and
C
ondu
cts A
uctio
n in
vi
olat
ion
of C
onsu
mer
Fr
aud
law
HR
S §4
80D
.
b) A
fter a
uctio
n,
Sulla
Dee
ds P
rope
rty
to
GO
B fo
r $10
(5-3
-10)
c) A
yea
r lat
er, S
ulla
Tr
ansf
ers D
eed
from
G
OB
to H
ESTE
R (6
-9-
11),
conc
ealin
g Su
lla’s
is
suan
ce th
at sa
me
day
of $
50,0
00.0
0 M
ortg
age
“loa
n” to
HES
TER
, ill
egal
ly se
cure
d by
the
prop
erty
.
#5: J
une
9, 2
011,
SUL
LA Is
sues
HES
-TE
R a $
50,0
00.0
0 Mor
tgag
e “Lo
an” f
or
“Leg
al F
ees”
Ille
gally
Sec
ured
by
the
Prop
erty
in
his
Sche
me
to F
orec
lo-
sure
for H
este
r’s F
ailu
re to
Pay
Taxe
s.
a) S
ulla
pos
ition
s him
-se
lf to
cla
im “
owne
r-sh
ip”
of th
e en
tire
esta
te
for H
ESTE
R’s
failu
re to
pa
y pr
oper
ty ta
xes.
b) S
ulla
dire
cts H
ESTE
R
to fi
le “
pro
se”
Civ
No
3RC
-11-
1-66
2 (6
-21-
11)
Ejec
tmen
t Act
ion
in th
e “w
rong
cou
rt” (D
is-
mis
sed
2-13
-12)
.
c) 7
-20-
12 S
ulla
file
s SL
APP
law
suit
(Civ
No
12-1
-041
7) to
cen
sor
Whi
stle
blow
ers K
ane
and
HO
RO
WIT
Z (D
is-
mis
sed
8-26
-14)
#6:
Conc
eale
d Su
rety
SUL
LA F
iles
Mal
icio
us
Pros
ecut
ion
in
Crim
inal
Co
ntem
pt o
f 3 C
ourts
(Civ.
No.
3RC
-14-
1-46
6; 4
-25-
14;
thru
Co-
coun
sel C
arey
) to
Ejec
t HO
ROW
ITZ b
y “Su
mm
ary P
osse
ssio
n.”
a) S
ulla
com
mits
crim
inal
co
ntem
pt o
f cou
rt fo
r pr
oper
ty th
eft,
refil
ing
the
sam
e Co
mpl
aint
in th
e sa
me C
ourt
that
Dism
issed
th
e sam
e cas
e 2-y
ears
ea
rlier
, on
2-13
-12.
b) 8
-11-
14, J
udge
Fre
itas
dire
cts S
ulla
/HES
TER
to
file
Qui
et T
itle
in th
e co
rrec
t Cou
rt, c
ompe
l-lin
g Su
lla to
file
Civ
No
14-1
-304
the
sam
e da
y.
c) Ju
dge
Stra
nce
Dis
-m
isse
s Sul
la’s
SLA
PP
law
suit
8-26
-14.
Exhibits pg. 173Exhibits pg. 183
Exhibits pg. 174Exhibits pg. 184
Exhibits pg. 199
Exhibits pg. 200
Exhibits pg. 201
Exhibits pg. 202
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of September, 2014, we served a true and correct copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS by the method described below to: PAUL J. SULLA, JR. (5398) ___X___ U.S. Mail Attorney at Law for JASON HESTER 106 Kamehameha Ave. Suite 2A _______ Hand Delivery Hilo, HI 96720 808-933-3600 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, HILO DIVISION, STATE OF HAWAII _____X__ U.S. Mail Hale Kaulike 777 Kilauea Avenue ____X___ Hand Delivery Hilo, Hawai`i 96720-4212 Ex Officio HONORABLE JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _______ U.S. Mail FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 300 Ala Moana Blvd # C338 ______ Hand Delivery Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541-1300
__________________________________ LEONARD G. HOROWITZ Defendant/Counterclaimant in Pro per
__________________________________ SHERRI KANE Defendant/Counterclaimant in Pro per