Private Attorney General Ex Rel

United States District Court - District of Massachusetts

Pierre Richard Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel )
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 06-10368 (NMG)
)
DANVERSBANK, ET AL., )
Defendants )

Motion in Opposition to Chase and Ameriquest Motions’ with Memorandum
of Law Submitted to Support Motion To Revise And To Reconsider

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However,
when New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Honorable and Distinguish United States Federal Judge, Nathaniel M. Gordon, May The Lord Almighty Richly Bless You For Being A Dedicated Public Servant And Grant You More Wisdom, Knowledge And Understanding Of The Law In Order To Make Wiser Decisions On Behalf Of The People Of The Greatest Nation On Earth, The United States.

INTRODUCTION
Justice is a feeling that is born of a need for retribution. No amount of money damages can restore the loss of peace of mind and uncertainties that Plaintiff had to endure. Justice is an ideology to some degree because what is justice to the defendants could be an injustice to Plaintiff or vice versa. Thus, the notion of justice is complex. However, as the story below will illustrate, Plaintiff is truly a victim and can only seek redress with this court for the extraordinary circumstances that have evolved in relation to his case. For, if Plaintiff had committed allegations anywhere remote to what he had to endure from the defendants, he would have been front page story and in prison on allegations of mortgage fraud. Good must overcome evil. Right must overcome wrong. Justice must overcome injustice. Justice, despite being a myth, must prevail because the bank of [J]ustice in the United States of America is not bankrupt.

1. Facts Worth Thinking About That Illustrates Plaintiff’s Extraordinary Circumstances
Given the new evidences that the whole banking system greed and not enforcing their own rules of due diligences led to our financial troubles and massive foreclosures, does it mean if someone is convicted of murder then they later find out that the person is innocent, then oh well, it is too late to set the person free? That is what Ameriquest wants the Court to believe. However, if DNA evidences are presented or new information are available, just like a convicted person who has been in jail for life for a crime he did not commit should be set free, Plaintiff is demanding equal justice on that basis since irrefutable new evidences will show that he is victim of a civil conspiracy of mortgage fraud. This motion is based on the same legal principle.

2. Certification Statement
This is to certify that Plaintiff indirectly received the motions filed by Chase Home Finance and Ameriquest Mortgage’s Attorneys in his attempt to quash a subpoena Order (case #: 3:08-MC-11) by the Chief United States Judge, James R. Spencer for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division:

“Regarding Augustin’s Motion to Request Issuance of Notice of Deposition, Request to Produce Documents and Subpoena Duces Tecum, Mr. Augustin has requested a live telephone call for his method of deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) permits such method and the Motion filed by Augustin appears to have all the information required by the Federal Rules. Thus, upon payment of the filing fee, this court GRANTS Augustin’s Motion for a Subpoena for the deposition of Mr. Tedd Chambler, President, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, 5600 Cox Road, Glenn Allen, Virginia, 23060-9266. The Court also GRANTS the Motion for a Subpoena for the production of the documents outlined in Augustin’s Motion dated on the 24th day of November 2008”

Thus, neither Chase Home Finance and Ameriquest Mortgage’s Attorneys respected the last Order by the Court for them to send a copy of their filed motion to the Court in order to respond to preserve his legal right.

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ARGUMENT
1. The Constitution of the United States
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Plaintiff, as an outsider of courtroom litigation, ponders and reflects on the following oath that every federal judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

2. Article VI of the United States Constitution
The supremacy clause of the United States Constitutional Article VI declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” - Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust victim

3. Pro Se Parties
Likewise, ““parties appearing pro se are allowed greater latitude with respect to reasonableness of their legal theories (Patterson V. Aiker, 111 F.R.D. 354, 358 [N.D. GA 1986])”. Also, the court is supposed to judge the case based on its merits even if procedural errors are made. Thus, the Panel must give this Plaintiff, “every favorable inference arising from his pro se status” (Hall v. Dworkin, 829 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (ND NY 1993)). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants have a constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).”

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway , (151 F2d. 240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In Picking , the plaintiffs civil rights was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept." Nevertheless, it was held:

Where a plaintiff pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe plaintiffs pleading without regard to technicalities. In Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery 382 U.S. 172 (1965) it was held that in a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted." From this vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conlev vs. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41(1957).

In Puckett v. Cox , it was held that a pro-se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA) said Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson . 355 U.S. 41 at 48(1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to rule 8(f) FRCP all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice." The Court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.’’

It could also be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would itself be violation of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro-se litigant of equal protection of the law vis-a-vis a party who is represented by counsel. In a fair system, victory should go to a party who has the better case, not the better representation.

4. Private Attorney General
The U.S. Congress codified the ‘private attorney general’ principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws.

The term private attorney general is usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff. The private attorney general is entitled to recover attorney's fees if he or she prevails. The purpose of this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.

Most civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) - one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general". To date, there are over 60 federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.

5. Ex Rel
Ex Rel. conj. abbreviation for Latin ex relatione, meaning "upon being related" or "upon information," used in the title of a legal proceeding filed on behalf of the government, on the instigation of a private person, who needs the state or the federal Department of Justice to enforce the rights of himself/herself and the public. Governments typically accept applications and commence litigation for ex rel actions only if the interest advanced by the private party is similar to the interest of the government. The term can also be used when a relative or party in privity brings suit on another person's behalf. For example, the Terri Schiavo appeal to the United States Supreme Court was titled Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo.

6. Why Is Plaintiff Invoking The Private Attorney General and Ex Rel’s Legal Remedy?
Many of the acts and transactions that constitute violations of Federal Law included the dissemination to the public of untrue statements of material facts, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of national securities exchanges (Section 11 & 15) since many of the financial institutions acted with scienter, acting intentionally or with a deliberate reckless disregard of the true facts, in making or participating in the making of these misstatements and omissions that ultimately led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s property rights, violation of TILA, wrongful foreclosure and the civil conspiracy of mortgage/real estate fraud, predatory lending including forgery, federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud as well as the failure to enforce federal laws. Your Honors, the public has an interest in the orderly administration of justice. Public policy favors the full litigation of the ‘claims‘ on its merit, to broadly conduct discovery and to consolidate cases for ‘Judicial Economy‘. (See U.S. v. Premises and Real Prop. At 4492 S. Livonia Rd., F. 2d 1258, 1263 (2d Cir. 1989), see also U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 896, 902 (2d Cir. 1992) (a claimant’s interest in his home merits special constitutional protection). Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Society is composed of individuals. Protection of Mr. Augustin’s individual rights arguably becomes part of the public interest.

ARGUMENT
1. Private Attorney General
The ‘Private Attorney General’, made its first appearance in the legal literature in a 1943 decision by Judge Jerome Frank for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the decision’s key passage, Judge Frank concluded that Congress could authorize a private citizen to file suit even if the sole purpose of the case were to vindicate the public interest as opposed to some private interest of the litigant: “Such persons, so authorized, are, so to speak, Private Attorney Generals.” And thus the concept was hatched—sort of (quoting Assoc. Indus. of New York v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1943) (Frank, J.)).

The phrase is an integral part of the doctrine of standing and of the rules concerning attorneys’ fees. Any individual Lawsuit, even one seeking nothing more than compensation for a single private citizen--benefits the public as the compensatory damages realized in such a case help deter wrongdoing by the defendant (See, e.g. , Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401 (1968) (“When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law.”). The lawyer in such a case might be labeled a private attorney general under a very broad definition of the term, one that in essence turns every private attorney into a private attorney general. The point is that when anyone pursues a deterrent remedy, particularly one with wide application, it feels as if they are doing something public, while when anyone pursues compensation, it feels as if they are doing something private.

The “Private Attorney General” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorneys fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons (See, e.g., Michael L. Rustad, Smoke Signals From Private Attorneys General in Mega Social Policy Cases, 51 DPL. R. 511, 518 (2001) (reporting that “[P]rivate [A]ttorneys [G]eneral, not government regulators, discovered that Firestone Tires mounted on Ford Explorers caused hundreds of rollover accidents due to tread separation. . . . The NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] based its recall of 6.5 million tires on information provided by plaintiff’s counsel, rather than [by] in-house government investigators”). Thus, “Anyone,” or Plaintiff “can call himself a ‘private attorney general.’ ”

2. Supplemental Attorney Generals
The Private Attorney General as supplemental attorney general pursues public policies, but he does so incidentally to the pursuit of his private interests. Congress creates private attorneys general, but so do state legislatures, state courts, and state administrative agencies (See Harold J. Krent, Executive Control over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 A.U.L.R. 275, 290-303 (1989) (describing a variety of ways in which private citizens assisted in the enforcement of criminal laws throughout American history, including pre-False Claims Act qui tam actions)).

3. Substitute Attorney General
The Private Attorney General as Substitute Attorney General literally perform the exact functions of the attorney general’s office though they themselves are not attorneys general. First, occasionally the attorney general will hire a private attorney to do the work of her office. Two recent high profile instances of this practice occurred when in the Microsoft antitrust trial, Deputy Attorney General Joel Klein hired David Boies to try the United States’ case against Microsoft, and in the tobacco litigation, when state attorneys general hired plaintiffs’ counsel on a contingent fee basis to recoup state governments’ monetary losses attributable to smoking.

Special prosecutor laws accomplish a similar result—the replacement of a government attorney by a private lawyer—but through a different process (appointment by a panel of judges after referral by the Attorney General) and for a different reason (outsiders may be able to more fairly, not just more competently, prosecute government officials). In these instances, public officials privatize their functions, hiring private attorneys to perform as attorneys general, thereby creating, in essence, private attorneys general. A similar privatization can occur not when the attorney general delegates her function to the private sector but rather when the client —a public official—hires a private lawyer to represent him in his official capacity.

4. Qui Tam Action
A third form of attorney general substitution comes through the qui tam action. In the qui tam
case, private attorneys bring claims on behalf of the government. The qui tam lawyer is not hired by the attorney general or other executive department official. Rather, he is a self-appointed bounty hunter, pursuing government fraud where the government has not done so.

The qui tam relator substitutes for the attorney general, but only in what is arguably the most “private” of government functions: the recoupment of compensatory damages. The qui tam
relator feels quite close to this—he assists with the public policy of deterring fraud on the government by pursuing her own interest and he is seen as having standing derivative of the government’s standing, an assignee of the government’s interests (Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the qui tam action is essentially a form by which the government partially assigns its claims for damages to private parties (Vt. Agency, 529 U.S. at 773 & n.4; see also id . at 788 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment) (“I agree with the Court that the qui tam relator is properly regarded as an assignee of a portion of the Government’s claim for money damages”)).

5. Plaintiff’s Standing As Private Attorney General
The Private Attorney General as Supplemental Law Enforcer occasionally stand in for the public attorney general are not the only attorneys dubbed private attorneys general. Private attorneys, acting as Private Attorney General, whose work for private clients contributes to the public interest by supplementing the government’s enforcement of laws and public policies. Plaintiff deprivation of property rights and due process violations are sufficient to satisfy standing requirements (See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (stating that the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires that the plaintiff suffer an “injury in fact”), (See, e.g., Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772-74 (1999)(discussing how a qui tam relator’s bounty acts to confer standing upon him despite the fact that the actual injury was suffered by the United States)). Therefore, Plaintiff can vindicate public policies as part of his private suit.

6. Synthesis Of Supplemental Attorney Generals And Qui Tam Action Principle
Plaintiff invocation of the legal right of Private Attorney General is symmetrical to the principle of Supplement Attorney Generals and some key elements to the Qui Tam Action Principle. Plaintiff comes to enforce the law similarly as the supplemental attorney general represents public and private interests; when Plaintiff eventually prevails, the losing parties would have to pay his fees in recognition of the contribution his efforts have made to furthering public policy. Clearly, Plaintiff, in assuming the role of the supplemental attorney general, unlike the simulated attorney general, does not solely serve his interests, but also the public interest as well.

Like the qui tam lawyer, Plaintiff is not hired by the attorney general or other executive department official. Rather, Plaintiff appointed himself not with the purpose of a bounty hunter, but to assist in enforcing the public policy of deterring fraud on the government and other members of society whereby the civil conspiracy in given them a mortgage fraud loans which were then sold to Fannie Mae which the Government had to bail out, and in turn defrauded the U.S. government and $700 billion bailout to financial institutions that the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for.

If we reconceptualize the private attorneys general in the Microsoft antitrust case as supplemental attorneys general, we appreciate that they perform public as well as private functions. Their clients are not just the class members, but the public and the class members; their goal is not just compensation, but deterrence and compensation. Their fee is paid neither by the government nor by the plaintiffs, but rather by the defendants—in addition to the remedy they have already exacted from the defendants for their clients. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ counsel in the California Microsoft matter mixed public and private functions in ways that are distinct. For example, David Boies, a private attorney, becomes a private attorney general when hired by the Justice Department to litigate the Microsoft matter; however once he is operating as a private attorney general, he embodies and performs the duality synchronically.

7. Plaintiff as Supplemental Attorney
The supplemental attorney general is situated in the middle of the litigation spectrum. Plaintiff is clearly not being paid for his initiatives by the government or private clients, however, Plaintiff position is justified on the grounds that he pursues not just his own private interests, but the public interest as well. Plaintiff serves the public function of deterring wrongdoing and thereby supplement governmental law. Supplemental attorneys general serve both private and public purposes (See Ann K. Wooster, Annotation, Private Attorney General Doctrine – State Cases, 106 A.L.R. 5th 523 (“The private attorney general doctrine rests upon the recognition that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions and that, without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will as a practical matter frequently be infeasible.”).

8. Courts Should Not Forfeit Truth For The Sake Of Finality
The Court has held that if a party has used fraud to obtain a judgment, [an adverse party may, by
bringing a new proceeding, invoke the power of the courts to scrutinize the conduct of the parties in the previous action. See Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. at 599, quoting Johnson v. Waters, 111 U.S. 640, 667, 28 L. Ed. 547, 4 S. Ct. 619 (1884). (Where fraud is found, the party that used fraud should be deprived of the benefit of the judgment and any inequitable advantage gained and the courts should not forfeit truth for the sake of finality, nor let the technical intricacies of
the law governing attachments obscure their just administration.)

Before a court can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys – although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff (No one from the Banks ever testified in person or given an opportunity to rebut their legal theories) testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially). Plaintiff had NO HEARING and NEVER had the Opportunity to be heard on relief of stay motion which was rubber stamp in Plaintiff‘s Absence which propelled him to file this civil action. Plaintiff claim has never been rebutted or has the defendants ever provided any evidences that a Relief of Stay Hearing took place or provided verifiable bankruptcy court documents such as transcript that Plaintiff was ever notified of a Relief of Stay Hearing with Chase Home Finance or Deutsche Bank National Trust that led to the deprivation of his property rights.

In Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. 332, 336 (1807), Chief Justice Marshall said: that any fact which clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself in a Court of law; or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will justify an application to a Court of Chancery. Id. at 481-82. In Wetmore v. Karrack, 205 U.S. 141, 149 (1907), the Court held that “departures from established modes of procedure render judgment void,” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 282 (1876). Particularly when the procedural defects are of sufficient magnitude and “so unfair as to deprive the proceeding of its vitality.” Eagles v. United States, 329 U.S. 304, 314 (1946).

A common bill in equity to enjoin the operation of a void final judgment has long been available when ever a “party, through no fault of his own, has had no opportunity to present an otherwise meritorious claim or defense.” Plaintiff access to the court to file motion in opposition is not the same as opportunity to be heard and to conduct discoveries to let a jury of his peers decide the case based on the merit. In United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) the Court clearly recognized the availability of the equitable remedy such as in cases of connivance by the prevailing party in securing a final judgment. But there is an admitted exception to this general rule in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case.

Where Plaintiff has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by filing motion to dismiss, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party because STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL IN BRIEF OR IN ARGUMENT ARE NOT FACTS BEFORE THE COURT. This court is noticed: statute of limitations on fraud runs from the time fraud is discovered – these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and a fair hearing. United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. at 65-68 (1878).

In Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891) relying on Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80 (1878) extended Throckmorton. While, as a general rule, a defense can not be set up in equity which has been fully and fairly tried at law, and although, in view of the large powers now exercised by courts of law over their judgments, a court of the United States, sitting in equity, will not as-
sume to control such judgments for the purpose simply of giving a new trial, it is the settled doctrine that “any fact which clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself in a court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will justify an application to a court of chancery.” The leading case upon this subject is Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 83-85 (1878) 141 U.S. at 596-98.

As early as Magna Carta (see Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion), procedural norms were regarded as a valuable means of protecting the rights of litigants. In America, with the object of preventing an arbitrary government, procedural safeguards were guaranteed to all persons by the inclusion of “due process” clauses in the various federal and state constitutions. Few principles of law, applicable as well to the administrative process, are as fundamental or well established as “a party is not to suffer . . . without an opportunity of being heard.” Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Light Co., 11 Eng. Rep. 478, 484, 3 Adm. & Eccl. 433, 448-49 (K.B. 1836). Caritativo v. California, 357 U.S. 549, 558 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1988). Thus, Plaintiff has a constitutional right to have his claims fully adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).”

REQUESTED RELIEF
“For the preservation of justice contains in every federal employees oaths and the administration of justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, Plaintiff is demanding not just access to the court to write motions in opposition, but also, the opportunity to be heard in front of a jury of his peers like in the Federal Court of Delaware.

At Last, Plaintiff Is Demanding That The Rule Of Law Of Deciding Claims Based On The Merit Be Decided By The People. There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”

Respectfully Submitted,
Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel
Plaintiff, 3941 Persimmon Drive, #102
Fairfax, VA 22031 | 617.202.8069 | 703.584.5998

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of this Motion was served to the parties and attorneys.

Pierre R. Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel, 3941 Persimmon Drive, #102
Fairfax, VA 22031, Tel: 617-202-8069

VERIFICATION
I, Pierre R. Augustin, hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I am Pierre R. Augustin, represented by self.
2. I have read the foregoing Motion filed herein and knowing the contents thereof have found that the allegations of fact set forth therein are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to those allegations based on information and belief which I believe to be true.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this ________day of ____________2008.

X ________________________________

STATE OF ________________________COUNTY OF _____________________________

On this _____ day of __________, 2008, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally

appeared ___________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of

identification, which was __________________________________________, to be the person

whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he

signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
___________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)












United States District Court - District of Massachusetts

Pierre Richard Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel )
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 06-10368 (NMG)
)
DANVERSBANK, ET AL., )
Defendants )

Plaintiff Affidavit/Affirmation in Support

I, Pierre R. Augustin, affirm the following under penalty of perjury, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1) I am the Plaintiff in this action, and I respectfully submit this affidavit/affirmation.
2) I have personal knowledge of facts, which bear on this motion. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that this motion to reverse the order be granted.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to those allegations based on information and belief, which I believe to be true.

Dated: ______________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Pierre-Richard Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel
3941 Persimmon Dr, #102, Fairfax, VA 22031 617-202-8069

STATE OF ___________________________COUNTY OF _____________________________

On this __day of________, 2008, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared

_______________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which

was _______________________________________________________, to be the person

whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he

signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)

Addendum to Opposition to QUASH Subpoena

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
________________________________________________
)
Pierre Richard Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel )
Consumer Creditor )
)
V. )
) No. 07-10416
IN RE NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDING )
IN RE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE )
Debtor )
________________________________________________)

ADDENDUM TO MOTION TO OBJECT AND TO OPPOSE MOTION
TO SQUASH SUBPOENA BY US COMMISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
&
MOTION TO NOTIFY & INFORM THE COURT OF THE
RESOLUTION WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
& URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXHIBIT

[Our justice system is not perfect. Mistakes are inevitable. However, when
New evidences are presented, the will to do good must prevail over the status quo]

Honorable and Distinguish United States Chief Bankruptcy Judge, Kevin J. Carey, May The Lord Almighty Richly Bless You For Being A Dedicated Public Servant And Grant You More Wisdom, Knowledge And Understanding Of The Law In Order To Make Wiser Decisions On Behalf Of The Citizen Of The Greatest Nation On Earth, The United States Of America.

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” - Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust victim

The Constitution of the United States
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Consumer Creditor, as an outsider of courtroom litigation ponders and reflects, on the following oath that every federal judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
A federal court litigant can seek to obtain the production of documents from a federal agency by means of a federal subpoena, since the federal government has waived its sovereign immunity in federal court. In the context of discovery generally, a federal agency is not authorized to withhold documents from a federal court especially in the interest of the common and public good.

I. FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF LAW
1. Article VI of the United States Constitution
The supremacy clause of the United States Constitutional Article VI declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.

1. Proof Of Delivery Of Subpoena Within Less Than The 100 miles Limit
If Consumer creditor could drive a straight line from Washington DC to Delaware, the total drive time would be about 1 hours, 36 minutes. This assumes an average driving speed of 55 mph or 88.5 km/hr. Hence, the total distance from Washington DC to Delaware is 88 miles. 88 miles is less than the 100 miles limit in accordance with the rule of discovery, therefore, Consumer Creditor does not need prior Court approval for the issuance of subpoenas to Federal Agencies in Washington, DC. The hundred miles is measured by a straight line on a map. See Cook v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 816 F.Supp. 667 (D.Kansas, 1993).

Why Seeking For Justice?
Justice is a feeling that is born of a need for retribution. No amount of money damages can restore the loss of peace of mind and uncertainties that Consumer Creditor had to endure. Justice is an ideology to some degree because what is justice to the Debtors could be an injustice to Consumer Creditor or vice versa. Thus, the notion of justice is complex. For, if Consumer Creditor had committed allegations anywhere remote to what he had to endure from the Debtors and their agents and employees, he would have been front page story and in prison on allegations of mortgage fraud. Good must overcome evil. Right must overcome wrong. Justice must overcome injustice. Justice, despite being a myth, must prevail because the bank of [J]ustice in the United States of America is not bankrupt.

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ARGUMENT
1. The Constitution of the United States
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Consumer Creditor, as an outsider of courtroom litigation, ponders and reflects on the following oath that every federal judge takes to uphold the Constitution of the United States:

''I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

2. Article VI of the United States Constitution
The supremacy clause of the United States Constitutional Article VI declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” - Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust victim

3. Pro Se Parties
Likewise, ““parties appearing pro se are allowed greater latitude with respect to reasonableness of their legal theories (Patterson V. Aiker, 111 F.R.D. 354, 358 [N.D. GA 1986])”. Also, the court is supposed to judge the case based on its merits even if procedural errors are made. Thus, the Panel must give this Consumer Creditor, “every favorable inference arising from his pro se status” (Hall v. Dworkin, 829 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (ND NY 1993)). In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than bar licensed attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway , (151 F2d. 240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In Picking , the plaintiffs civil rights was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept." Nevertheless, it was held: Where a plaintiff pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe plaintiffs pleading without regard to technicalities.

4. Private Attorney General
The U.S. Congress codified the ‘Private Attorney General’ principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws.

The term private attorney general is usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just the Consumer Creditor. The private attorney general is entitled to recover attorney's fees if he or she prevails. The purpose of this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.

Most civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) - one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general". To date, there are over 60 federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.

5. Ex Rel
Ex Rel. conj. abbreviation for Latin ex relatione, meaning "upon being related" or "upon information," used in the title of a legal proceeding filed on behalf of the government, on the instigation of a private person, who needs the state or the federal Department of Justice to enforce the rights of himself/herself and the public. Governments typically accept applications and commence litigation for ex rel actions only if the interest advanced by the private party is similar to the interest of the government. The term can also be used when a relative or party in privity brings suit on another person's behalf. For example, the Terri Schiavo appeal to the United States Supreme Court was titled Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo.

6. Why Is Consumer Creditor Invoking The Private Attorney General Legal Remedy?
Many of the acts and transactions that constitute violations of Federal Law included the dissemination to the public of untrue statements of material facts, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the United States mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of national securities exchanges (Section 11 & 15) since many of the financial institutions acted with scienter, acting intentionally or with a deliberate reckless disregard of the true facts, in making or participating in the making of these misstatements and omissions that ultimately led to the deprivation of Consumer Creditor’s property rights, violation of TILA, wrongful foreclosure and the civil conspiracy of mortgage/real estate fraud, predatory lending including forgery, federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud as well as the failure to enforce federal laws. Your Honors, the public has an interest in the orderly administration of justice. Public policy favors the full litigation of the ‘claims‘ on its merit, to broadly conduct discovery. (See U.S. v. Premises and Real Prop. At 4492 S. Livonia Rd., F. 2d 1258, 1263 (2d Cir. 1989), see also U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 896, 902 (2d Cir. 1992) (a claimant’s interest in his home merits special constitutional protection). Ronald Dworkin regards law as an interpretive process under which individual rights are paramount. Society is composed of individuals. Protection of Consumer Creditor’s rights arguably becomes part of the public interest.

ARGUMENT
1. Private Attorney General
The ‘Private Attorney General’, made its first appearance in the legal literature in a 1943 decision by Judge Jerome Frank for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the decision’s key passage, Judge Frank concluded that Congress could authorize a private citizen to file suit even if the sole purpose of the case were to vindicate the public interest as opposed to some private interest of the litigant: “Such persons, so authorized, are, so to speak, Private Attorney Generals.” And thus the concept was hatched—sort of (quoting Assoc. Indus. of New York v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1943) (Frank, J.)).

The phrase is an integral part of the doctrine of standing and of the rules concerning attorneys’ fees. Any individual Lawsuit, even one seeking nothing more than compensation for a single private citizen--benefits the public as the compensatory damages realized in such a case help deter wrongdoing by the defendant (See, e.g. , Newman v. Piggie Park Enter., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401 (1968) (“When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad compliance with the law.”). The lawyer in such a case might be labeled a private attorney general under a very broad definition of the term, one that in essence turns every private attorney into a private attorney general. The point is that when anyone pursues a deterrent remedy, particularly one with wide application, it feels as if they are doing something public, while when anyone pursues compensation, it feels as if they are doing something private.

The “Private Attorney General” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorneys fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons (See, e.g., Michael L. Rustad, Smoke Signals From Private Attorneys General in Mega Social Policy Cases, 51 DPL. R. 511, 518 (2001) (reporting that “[P]rivate [A]ttorneys [G]eneral, not government regulators, discovered that Firestone Tires mounted on Ford Explorers caused hundreds of rollover accidents due to tread separation. . . . The NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] based its recall of 6.5 million tires on information provided by plaintiff’s counsel, rather than [by] in-house government investigators”). Thus, “Anyone,” or Consumer Creditor “can call himself a ‘Private Attorney General.’ ”

2. Supplemental Attorney Generals
The Private Attorney General as supplemental attorney general pursues public policies, but he does so incidentally to the pursuit of his private interests. Congress creates private attorneys general, but so do state legislatures, state courts, and state administrative agencies (See Harold J. Krent, Executive Control over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 A.U.L.R. 275, 290-303 (1989) (describing a variety of ways in which private citizens assisted in the enforcement of criminal laws throughout American history, including pre-False Claims Act qui tam actions)).

3. Substitute Attorney General
The Private Attorney General as Substitute Attorney General literally perform the exact functions of the attorney general’s office though they themselves are not attorneys general. First, occasionally the attorney general will hire a private attorney to do the work of her office. Two recent high profile instances of this practice occurred when in the Microsoft antitrust trial, Deputy Attorney General Joel Klein hired David Boies to try the United States’ case against Microsoft, and in the tobacco litigation, when state attorneys general hired plaintiffs’ counsel on a contingent fee basis to recoup state governments’ monetary losses attributable to smoking.

Special prosecutor laws accomplish a similar result—the replacement of a government attorney by a private lawyer—but through a different process (appointment by a panel of judges after referral by the Attorney General) and for a different reason (outsiders may be able to more fairly, not just more competently, prosecute government officials). In these instances, public officials privatize their functions, hiring private attorneys to perform as attorneys general, thereby creating, in essence, private attorneys general. A similar privatization can occur not when the attorney general delegates her function to the private sector but rather when the client —a public official—hires a private lawyer to represent him in his official capacity.

4. Qui Tam Action
A third form of attorney general substitution comes through the qui tam action. In the qui tam
case, private attorneys bring claims on behalf of the government. The qui tam lawyer is not hired by the attorney general or other executive department official. Rather, he is a self-appointed bounty hunter, pursuing government fraud where the government has not done so.

The qui tam relator substitutes for the attorney general, but only in what is arguably the most “private” of government functions: the recoupment of compensatory damages. The qui tam
relator feels quite close to this—he assists with the public policy of deterring fraud on the government by pursuing her own interest and he is seen as having standing derivative of the government’s standing, an assignee of the government’s interests (Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the qui tam action is essentially a form by which the government partially assigns its claims for damages to private parties (Vt. Agency, 529 U.S. at 773 & n.4; see also id . at 788 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment) (“I agree with the Court that the qui tam relator is properly regarded as an assignee of a portion of the Government’s claim for money damages”)).

5. Consumer Creditor’s Standing As A Private Attorney General
The Private Attorney General as Supplemental Law Enforcer occasionally stand in for the public attorney general are not the only attorneys dubbed private attorneys general. Private attorneys, acting as Private Attorney General, whose work for private clients contributes to the public interest by supplementing the government’s enforcement of laws and public policies. Consumer Creditor’s deprivation of property rights and due process violations that resulted from the civil conspiracy of mortgage fraud are sufficient to satisfy standing requirements (See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (stating that the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires that the plaintiff suffer an “injury in fact”), (See, e.g., Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772-74 (1999)(discussing how a qui tam relator’s bounty acts to confer standing upon him despite the fact that the actual injury was suffered by the United States)). Therefore, Consumer Creditor can vindicate public policies as part of his private suit in the Bankruptcy Court of Delaware.

6. Synthesis Of Supplemental Attorney Generals And Qui Tam Action Principle
Consumer Creditor invocation of the legal right of Private Attorney General is symmetrical to the principle of Supplement Attorney Generals and some key elements to the Qui Tam Action Principle and that of a Substitute Attorney General. Consumer Creditor comes to enforce the law similarly as the supplemental attorney general represents public and private interests; when Consumer Creditor eventually prevails, the losing parties would have to pay his fees in recognition of the contribution his efforts have made to furthering public policy. Clearly, Consumer Creditor, in assuming the role of the supplemental attorney general, unlike the simulated attorney general, does not solely serve his interests, but also the public interest as well.

Like the qui tam lawyer, Consumer Creditor is not hired by the attorney general or other executive department official. Rather, Consumer Creditor appointed himself not with the purpose of a bounty hunter, but to assist in enforcing the public policy of deterring mortgage and security fraud on the government and other members of society whereby the civil conspiracy in given them fraudulent mortgage loans which were then sold to Fannie Mae which the Government had to bail out, and in turn defrauded the U.S. government and $700 billion bailout to financial institutions that the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for.

If we reconceptualize the private attorneys general in the Microsoft antitrust case as supplemental attorneys general, we appreciate that they perform public as well as private functions. Their clients are not just the class members, but the public and the class members; their goal is not just compensation, but deterrence and compensation. Their fee is paid neither by the government nor by the plaintiffs, but rather by the defendants—in addition to the remedy they have already exacted from the defendants for their clients. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ counsel in the California Microsoft matter mixed public and private functions in ways that are distinct. For example, David Boies, a private attorney, becomes a private attorney general when hired by the Justice Department to litigate the Microsoft matter; however once he is operating as a private attorney general, he embodies and performs the duality synchronically.

7. Consumer Creditor as Supplemental Attorney
The supplemental attorney general is situated in the middle of the litigation spectrum. Consumer Creditor is clearly not being paid for his initiatives by the government or private clients, however, Consumer Creditor position is justified on the grounds that he pursues not just his own private interests, but the public interest as well. Consumer Creditor serves the public function of deterring wrongdoing and thereby supplement governmental law. Supplemental attorneys general serve both private and public purposes (See Ann K. Wooster, Annotation, Private Attorney General Doctrine – State Cases, 106 A.L.R. 5th 523 (“The private attorney general doctrine rests upon the recognition that privately initiated lawsuits are often essential to the effectuation of the fundamental public policies embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions and that, without some mechanism authorizing the award of attorneys fees, private actions to enforce such important public policies will as a practical matter frequently be infeasible.”).

REQUESTED RELIEF

How the Production of Document Would Affect the Interest of The United States/Public?
The Constitution of The United States not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" by taking the following Attorney’s oath:
“I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God”

For the preservation of justice contains in every federal employees oaths and to “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same” in the Attorney‘s oath; Consumer Creditor, having invoked his legal right of Private Attorney General, Ex Rel, has, as a matter of facts, aligned his interest with that of the government overarching policy since he is seeking to vindicate a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." (see In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968)), that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just Consumer Creditor.

Now that Consumer Creditor and the Department of Justice interests are the same, therefore, there should be an open line of communication to facilitate Consumer Creditor with factual information that will promote the public interest. Thus, an opposition to Consumer Creditors’ Subpoena will be viewed as an obstruction to justice or denial access to critical information for the public good. Therefore, If requested documents are within the control of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights upon whom a valid request is made, It must obtain and produce those documents. Pleasant v. Pleasant, 632 A.2d 202, 97 Md.App. 711 (1993). Thus, the Court must instruct Counsels for the Department of Justice to produce and honor the subpoena requested for the production of documents. At last, [G]ood must overcome evil; [R]ight must overcome wrong; [J]ustice must overcome injustice. Justice, despite being a myth, must prevail because the bank of [J]ustice in the United States of America is not [B]ankrupt. May God Richly Bless You And Bless America.

Respectfully Submitted,

Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel
Plaintiff, 3941 Persimmon Drive, #102
Fairfax, VA 22031 | 617.202.8069 | 703.584.5998





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of this Emergency Motion was mailed to the parties and attorneys above.

Pierre R. Augustin, MPA, MBA, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel

VERIFICATION
I, Pierre R. Augustin, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. I am Pierre R. Augustin, represented by self.

2. I have read the foregoing Motion filed herein and knowing the contents thereof have found that the allegations of fact set forth therein are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to those allegations based on information and belief which I believe to be true.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this ________day of ____________2009.

X ________________________________

STATE OF ________________________COUNTY OF _____________________________

On this _____ day of __________, 2009, before me, the undersigned notary

public, personally appeared ___________________________, proved to me

through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was __________________________________________________, to be the person whose name is

signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he signed it

voluntarily for its stated purpose.

______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
________________________________________________
)
Pierre Richard Augustin, Private Attorney General, Ex Rel )
Consumer Creditor )
)
V. )
) No. 07-10416
IN RE NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDING )
IN RE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE )
Debtor )
________________________________________________)

AFFIDAVIT / AFFIRMATION
I, Pierre-Richard Augustin, affirm the following under penalty of perjury, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1) I am the Consumer Creditor and a Party In Interest in this action, and I respectfully submit this affidavit/affirmation.
2) I have personal knowledge of facts which bear on this Motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, except as to those allegations based on information and belief which I believe to be true.
Dated:_______________________________________________________
Pierre-Richard Augustin, Pro Se, Consumer Creditor and a Party In Interest
3941 Persimmon Drive, #102, Fairfax, VA 22031 (617) 202-8069

STATE OF _______________________________COUNTY OF_________________________
On this _____ day of __________, 2009, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared ___________________________, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was ________________________________________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that s/he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)