COUNTY OF TOMPKINS

----------------------------------------x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greetings,

 

That is understood that any false statements or  alligations made by a defendant are never favorable to any existing court.  Thus all comments made were guarded by all statements made in the initial ANSWER, date Aprill 22, 2008 - possibly even to the point of being over cautious.

 

Both the United States Constitution and the State of New York in all its legal preceedings all agree on the necessity of law and its practice to be kept simple and more open to the understanding of all its citizens.

 

1. Payment Protection is a business partner of Capital One Bank [ exhibit A ].

 

2. Payments were made to Payment Protection, the payment isurance provider - as per ANSWER, April 22, 2008 for 18 months [ exhibit B - see items in red ].

 

3. As per ANSWER sent in April 22, 2008 --- " Then at a time and need arose, after a measure of insurance payments were already made " --- there were two provable causes for need which are related to income loss and disability.

 

4. Payment Protection was notified and applied to.

 

5. Capital One Bank was notified - both by phone and in writing, the disputed cause - as per recommendations and specifications.

 

 

Whereas, as per attorney brief [ Affirmation of John Reinhardt, Esq.] dated November 6, 2008,  the statements and views written and asserted by both Capital One Bank [ as per -Affidavit of J/Pamela ( spelling was not clear ) Singletary ] and its attorneys have chosen not to recognized enclose billing documents' fact the payments which were made to Payment Protection [ the payment insurance provider ] as initiated, then facilitated and approved by its business partner, as per enclosed document, Capital One Bank.

 

Whereas, such assertions, views, and written statements as they are " now documented " [ exhibit C ] before the court, an adjudicative authority, shows real cause of similar attitudes which were confronted by the defendent, Mr. Roger M. Christian which has demonstrated they are still in default of service by the buisness partnership of Payment Protection, and Capital One Bank.

 

Whereas, the proceedures to apply for Payment Protection to acquire benefit period were applied for, and by further recommendation all parties were contacted. Subsequent to application though initiated - recieved, as per ANSWER, dated April 22, 2008, were  delayed, lasped and then lost.  This caused default of service which should have included:

 

 

Whereas, the need and coverage could have been for a four to a six month period only - in which after such period a timely payment schedule then could have been arranged - as per the comments made in ANSWER, April 22, 2008.

 

Why a continuance ?

 

Whereas, in both Internet and legal searches - even though limited by short fall of funds to pay for additional fees required to make additional timely discovery and to obtain sworn in affidavites - have indicated that additional complaints, and possible additional documentations of default of service by Payment Protection, such as occured in this brief, when it had shortages in funds, and lack of affirmative action by its business partners which includes Capital One Bank are nation wide. Moreover, additional documentation being requested by such searches and limited investigations are still actively being sought, as well as additional legal searches and once obtained will be added to this petition - ANSWER, dated November 25, 2008 as an admendment of additional discovery. This is a timely process.

 

Wherefore and therefore, as the " documented fact remains "  that payments to Payment Protection were made and that a business partnership does exist between Payment Protection and Capital One Bank a benefit period should have been confirmed, as per specifications for Payment Protection, and that presently charged penalities should be cancelled which were made by the Plaintiff as listed  ' Pay no perodic finance, charge of late fees, or over limit fees to Capital One Credit Card  account ( s )' - including present attorneys' fees. 

 

Whether there exist possible cash penalities  to which should be applied against the remaining cash amount is unknown and should be - in addtional - be sought and adjudicted by what ever the court seems to be fair.

 

Possible, or requested Motion suggested. Continuance.

 

Moreover, a continuance should be also be examined as well as formulating local public hearings to acquire for the public well being, information that such service - as to the Payment Protection porgram, is being lawfully conducted within the city of Ithaca, New York and within the court's full jurisdication of Tompkins county.  The requested continuance is needed, when in a time an International credit crises now exist, as well as a court appointed investigator to examine both the relationship between Payment Protection and Capital One Bank as I, the Defendent, have had server limited recourse of actions in which take and have confronted barriers to make full discovery  as well as a very limited purse to pay for investigative actions and subsequent taking and payment of sworn in avidavits.  this is to further validate initiated the clause " then facilitated and approved by its business partner " meaning Capital One Bank, as per enclosed document This is to prevent potential further abuse, and needed accumilation of legal adjudicated and subsequent discovered facts. The question now exist how many other card holders are presently vulnerable to the potential of abuse in a time of International financial crises ?

 

All I, as Defendent, Mr. Roger M. Christian, needed then was /  is a four to six months coverage benefit period - which I already payed for; this was /  is  supercritical.

 

It is requested that this case be transmitted, as an court advised alert, to the Department of The Treasury, United States of America, The Federal Trade Commission, and the Attorney General of The United States, and all courts who have jurisdication over these department

 

Once it is recognized that Payment Protection should have serviced its obligations, as then as well as now, then the debth as it is presently described will only then be clearly understood by all parties concern, and should have not been allowed to acquire the present advesarial legal disposition as it exist now. 

 

It is in the best interests of Capital One Bank to likewise enjoined in actions to prompt Payment Protection to fulfill its obligations and thus Captial One Bank should review its present relationship with Payment Protection and its affect upon all present card holders of Capital One Bank and cancel its present legal actions - with the observeration of the court.  There is every indication that Capital One Bank's partnership with Payment Protection should be immediately severed.  Payment Protection [ Is its funding base is in crisis ? ] has had problems in its capital base then as in now and this has may have furthered pressured additional default of service to other card holders of Capital One Bank and other business financial partners.

 

Yours Truely,

 

Mr. Roger M. Christian

November 25, 2008