PA Under Siege

I have just filed a civil action against PA for a number of causes but mostly for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices here in Martin County Florida.

One of the problems I faced in establishing my suit was not knowing what actions had been filed by others against PA, and so what grounds were successful.

The Action is public record now in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Martin County Florida case # 08-589-CA You will only be able to see the docket record on the internet but if anyone wants a copy of the complaint as a study I am willing to provide one by email. If you are able to make a donation to my legal effort it would be appreciated but not required.

If you would like a copy of my book "EXODUS 2020" please use my website [exodus2020.com]

It is my hope to encorage all "...25,000 happy authors..." to sue PA all at once.

good luck to you also
John W. DeVore
[email protected]

The arbitration clause will only apply to performance of the contract. The suit I filed is based on not only breach of the contract but also fraud and deceptive trade practices that are violations of Florida Law.

PA came to Florida "Constructively" when they sent their contract here by us postal service to be signed and consumated in Florida. The violations of Florida Law are sufficient to invoke Subject Matter Jurisdiction here.

PA will necessarily come here to defend against the suit. This principle should work in every state where there is a statute against Deceptive Trade Practices which are usually based on the Federal Statute.

Thanks for asking
John

PA SIEGE UPDATE

An Angel of the Frederick County Sheriff's Department indicated that PA et all have received Process in the case and now we wait to view their reply. By Florida Rules of Court they have 20 Days from the date of service of process plus five days for mail delivery to have their response posted in the Circuit Court in Martin County, Florida

If there is interest expressed I will post a summary of their response when I receive it.

I expect that VC may first deny the jurisdiction and attempt to have the case dismissed, that is typical. But such a move in this case will only serve to delay their inevitable response to the fraud and deceptive practices violations, which the Florida Court is unlikely to surrender jurisdiction of. Also the court may take offense to such an act and forward a memo to the States Attorney General, who may have more than a passing interest in the significant deceptive practices charges. The state can demand $10,000.00 per offense for such practices. If the States attorney decides to investigate and finds cause to bring criminal charges in cases besides my own, PA could end up owing many millions to the State of Florida in addition to my meager damages.

This really could be interesting.

John D.

PA SIEGE REPORT

Angel at the Frederick County Sheriff's Office told me that Victor, Ryan and PA have received service of process. The count is on. They now have 20 days to answer and or otherwise defend. If their response is not filed on or before Monday 14 April 2008, this court will find Default against them and the matter will be brought to Frederick on a foreign judgment for execution.

Seige Update:

An Amended Complaint has been filed, but the rules in Florida require a hearing and leave of court or written consent of the opposing party.

The amended complaint includes a few items that have come to light during the process on the original complaint, including addition of the names of the principals, in PA Inc.

The grounds of the complaint have shifted further away from the substance of the contract and now aim directly at the initial validity of the contracting party.

There are seven grounds provided for the cause of action. All seven relate in one way or another to Fraud and Deception, in the inducement and in the execution of the contract.

The fact that the entity did not legally exist when the contract was made in its name invalidates not only the contract with me , but every contract entered in the name of that entity since 24 August 2001.

There is also substantial evidence to establish that, the signature for the purported General Partner, on the contract, with me, at least, ,may, for several reasons be a Forgery.

The signatures on the contracts are people authorized to sign on behalf of Publish America, Inc., (which could be anyone the corporation authorizes just to sign the contracts) so you won't be suing the individuals. You'll be suing the corporation. The corp is the general partner for Publish America, LLLP. So when you sue PA, you will be suing the LLLP, which protects its partners' personal assets from being touched if they lose the suit. (In most cases.) [originally posted by brianm]

Those signatures MAY be of people who MAY HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN for PA Inc. but then again, to take anything for granted in this mess may be to loose an opportunity for effective attack of this fetid enemy.

In my complaint I have stated seven grounds upon which to declare the contract void. I can tell you now that PA has not rebutted a single one of them. They cling to the hope that the court will find a stipulation in a contract binding when the contract is not proven to legally exist.

The test will come soon, VEC and PA-LLLP have entered a new Motion to Dismiss, which looks very similar to the first one. If that is all they have, they will not likely prevail here.

This is my advice as a friend to those fellow authors caught in this putrid mass with me, Do not limit your own options, except to that which is within the law. I have found since becoming connected with this band of robbers that there is much hidden in their squalid corruption. There are many loose ends that could prove effective against them. Look at every detail you can find in their
scam and think about what you are looking at. Ask the question, "Should this be like this?" Check out the Law. It is a fact that State Statutes are essentially the same thing as Contractual Stipulations, and require specific performance. If PA says they obey a particular law, check that law and compare their performance to the requirements of that statute. You may find new and wonderful paths to attack this nauseating beast.

PS: If you find a cause of action in your contract, you will of necessity be suing the individual who signed it, in his personal capacity, as well as PA, because that person who signed is required to know that what he was signing was flawed.

If you discover for instance that Ryan Tuccinardi signed both as the Officer of PA Inc. and as the witness of his own signature, that constitutes both a forgery and a perjury. He is not an officer of PA Inc, and therefore cannot sign for that entity. To witness his own Forgery is also Perjury.

Anyone who signs for the Corporation must be duly authorized to do so. These entities are creatures of paper and ink, and therefore an act of that creature must be made with paper and ink.

If there is no certificate of authorization or delegation of authority to sign, he is not authorized; the signature is therefore a forgery, and the contract is necessarily void for lack of a bona fide signature.

This is only one example, I challenge us all to set our minds to finding other possible attacks, points of weakness in the scaley hide of this disgusting puffed up dragon.

The Siege is Broken, the Beast is Free again. Sorry Friends it was beyond my talent.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA
19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY
John W. DeVore
Plaintiff
vs.
PublishAmerica INC.
Victor E. Cretella III
Willem Meiners
Lawrence A. Clopper CASE NO. 08-589 CA
Ryan Tuccinardi


PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE

THE PURPORTED ORDER DATED 24 JULY 2008


Plaintiff, John W. DeVore, as Affiant herein, duly sets forth that, I am the Affiant herein and that this Affidavit is given to support the Motion to Strike the Purported “Order” entered and dated on 24 July 2008 in this above captioned case. Affiant, being duly sworn, does hereby state, declare, depose and affirm that the facts provided herein are true and given of my own personal knowledge, and that I am in all ways competent to provide the same.


1. This Affidavit is given as evidence before this above named court, entered in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Purported, “ORDER”, dated, “24th day of July 2008”, entered in the above captioned case, which purports to “VACATE THE DEFAULT AGAINST TUCCINARDI”.

2. The Motion before the court on 24 July 2008 was Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike”, the “Defendants Motion for Relief from Judgment”.

3. The “Motion for Relief from Judgment” had been entered by Kip A. Davis, of Stuart, Florida, to set aside a judgment, alleged by Kip A. Davis, to have been entered on 16 June 2008, against Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi.

4. Affiant informed the court that no Judgment had been entered against Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi on 16 June 2008, or at any other time to that date.

5. Upon Notice that the Judgment alleged by Kip A. Davis, had not been entered, Mr. Robert R. Makemson, acting for the court, declared the “Motion for Relief…”, entered by Kip A. Davis, to be Moot.

6. Mr. Kip A. Davis then requested that the court set aside the Default of Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi.

7. Mr. Makemson then inquired of Affiant whether there would be any objection to altering the nature of the proceeding to allow Mr. Davis to bring a Motion to Set Aside Default, without Notice.

8. Affiant declared that Mr. Kip A. Davis was NOT AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT Defendant Tuccinardi, before the Court in this case.

9. Mr. Makemson indicated that he was personally satisfied that Mr. Davis had authority to represent defendant Tuccinardi.

10. Plaintiff on that date, 24 July 2008, Demanded documentary Evidence that the Attorney, Kip A. Davis esquire FBN 148921, had in truth been hired by, retained by, employed by, and authorized by, Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi, in this case.

11. Mr. Makemson then asked this Affiant whether this Affiant had a copy of a law which provided for a right on the part of the Plaintiff to documentary evidence of the legal authority of an attorney to represent a specific opposing party.

12. Affiant informed the court that it was a Common Law and unalienable right of a party to demand documentary proof of the legal authority and standing of a person purporting to represent any opposing party.

13. Mr. Makemson then inquired whether Affiant had a copy of some law that included provisions for that alleged right.

14. Affiant informed Mr. Makemson that Affiant did not have a copy of that law in hand.

15. Affiant then requested that the Hearing be Continued until Affiant could obtain a copy of the law which included provision for the right of a party to know by documentary evidence, the authority and legal standing, of a person purporting to represent an opposing party.

16. Mr. Makemson then inquired of Mr. Davis as to whether he knew of any law that provided for a right in a party to demand documentation of the right in an attorney to represent an opposing party.

17. Mr. Davis informed the court that he knew of no law that provided for any duty on his part to provide documentary evidence to support his claim of authority from Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi in this case.

18. Mr. Robert R. Makemson then also stated that he knew of no law or rule, that provided for any duty on the part of Mr. Davis to show any documentary evidence of his authority and standing to represent Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi in this case.

19. Mr. Kip A. Davis, did not state or testify that he was in fact employed or authorized by the Defendant, Ryan Tuccinardi in this case.

20. The “Motion for Relief From Judgment” which Mr. Davis, claimed was entered in behalf of Defendant “RYAN TUCCINARDI”, does not at any place assert that, “No service of Process has occurred… ” upon Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi.

21. Mr. Davis did not claim, at any point in the hearing, that “No service of Process has occurred…” with respect to Defendant Tuccinardi.

22. No evidence of any form was entered by any party to the effect that, “No service of Process has occurred…” with respect to Defendant Tuccinardi.

23. The Return of Service filed by the Sheriff of Frederick County, Maryland, together with the supplemental return of service set forth that, Service of Process, for Defendant Tuccinardi, had been accepted by an authorized officer of Defendant Publish America LLLP, with respect to the Original Complaint.

24. Process was accepted in behalf of, Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi, by the officers of Defendant Publish America LLLP, with respect to the Amended Complaint.

25. That Process, accepted by the officers of Defendant PublishAmerica LLLP, in behalf of Defendant, Ryan Tuccinardi, was never returned to this court or to this Affiant/Plaintiff, by the officers of Defendant Publish America LLLP.

26. The officers of Defendant Publish America LLLP, never provided any notice either to this Plaintiff or to this court, that they were unable or unwilling to forward the Service of Process, which they had accepted from the Sheriff and from the United States Postal Service, to Defendant Tuccinardi.

27. Defendant Victor E. Cretella personally accepted responsibility for insuring the due completion of service of Process in behalf of Defendant Tuccinardi in this case with respect to the Original Complaint, which had been delivered to his Office by the Sheriff of Frederick County, Maryland.

28. Defendant Victor E. Cretella personally accepted responsibility for insuring the due completion of service of Process in behalf of Defendant Tuccinardi with respect to the Amended Complaint, which had been delivered to, and accepted by his office, by Certified Mail.



29. If process was not duly served on Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi, then it was the knowing and intentional act of Defendant Victor E. Cretella acting in his personal capacity by gross negligence, to interfere with and prevent the service of process upon Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi in this case.

30. Mr. Kip A. Davis in his Motion for Relief From Judgment/to Set Aside Default, did not state that, “No Service of Process had occurred…” to Defendant Tuccinardi.


31. Mr. Kip A. Davis in his arguments before the court on 24 July 2008 did not state that, “No Service of Process had occurred…” to Defendant Tuccinardi.

32. Mr. Kip A. Davis in his arguments before the court on 24 July 2008 did not state or set forth the time and date upon which he had been contacted by Defendant Tuccinardi and requested by Defendant Tuccinardi, to represent him in this matter.

33. Mr. Kip A. Davis at no time has stated or set forth the time or date upon which Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi did receive Service of Process.

34. Mr. Kip A. Davis has never stated or set forth that, Service of Process on Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi was not completed timely.

35. Mr. Kip A. Davis has never stated or set forth that, Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi was for any reason unable to answer or otherwise duly and timely respond to the Complaint, or to the Amended Complaint.

36. There has never in this matter been any affidavit or any evidence of any kind submitted by Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi in his own behalf.

37. Mr. Kip A. Davis has also claimed to represent Defendants Meiners and Klopper in this case.

38. Defendants Meiners and Klopper are former employers of Ryan Tuccinardi.


39. Defendants Meiners and Klopper through another of their employees have claimed that they fired, Defendant Tuccinardi, on 1 February 2008.


40. Affiant at the hearing held on 24 July 2008, informed the court that Mr. Kip A. Davis by claiming to represent parties with adverse and divergent interests in this case had adopted a conflict of interests which necessarily voided all the pleadings which he had allegedly filed for all those defendants.



41. The court did not find on 24 July 2008 that,

“No service of Process has occurred therefore the default entered on
June 16, 2008 and April 16, 2008 are vacated.”

42. No default was entered on June 16, 2008 in this case.

43. Robert R. Makemson stated that he had adjudged that, “…both of the Defaults of Defendant Ryan Tuccinardi…” should be set aside.

Further Affiant sayeth naught at this time.

The above facts are given by this Affiant, of my own certain knowledge and good faith belief under penalties of perjury, before a qualified witness this; ____ day of August 2008 for the purpose of standing as evidence in the above captioned case, in witness whereof, I set my signature here below.
____________________________
John W. DeVore, Affiant

The above affiant known to me personally or by sufficient evidence, did appear before me, a Notary Public of the State of Florida on the above written date and did take an oath, and did depose and state that this document is his own free will act made for those purposes set forth herein to which oath and signature I bear testimony by my signature and seal here below.
Affiant provided the following as Identification ___________________________________________________________

My Commission Expires _________________ __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public or Clerk of Court

__________________________________
Notary or Clerk Name Printed
Seal…

Maybe someone with a greater talent can finish them off?
John DeVore

2d ed the Broken Siege

THE STATE OF FLORIDA
19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY
John W. DeVore
Plaintiff
vs.
PublishAmerica LLLP
Victor E. Cretella III
Willem Meiners
Lawrence A. Clopper CASE NO. 08-589 CA
Ryan Tuccinardi


PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE

THE TWO PURPORTED ORDERS DATED 25 JULY 2008


Plaintiff, John W. DeVore, as Affiant herein duly sets forth that I am the Affiant herein and that this Affidavit is given to support the Motion to Strike the two Purported “Orders” entered and dated on 25 July 2008 in this above captioned case. Affiant, being duly sworn, does hereby state, declare, depose and affirm that the facts provided herein are true and given of my own personal knowledge, and that I am in all ways competent to provide the same.

1. This Affidavit is given as evidence before this above named court, entered in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the two Purported, “ORDER’s” dated, “25th day of July 2008”, entered in the above captioned case, which purport to “DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT” as to Defendants, “PUBLISH AMERICA, &CRETELLA and also as to “Willem Meiner and Larry Clopper”.

2. The Motion before the court on 25 July 2008 was Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint”.

3. The Defendants joined and represented in that said Motion to Dismiss were, Publish America LLLP, Victor E. Cretella III esq., Willem Meiners, and Lawrence A. Clopper.

4. The “Motion to Dismiss…” had been entered by Howard Conklin and later joined by Kip A. Davis, in behalf of the above said Defendants.

5. At the hearing, held on 25 July 2008, on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint”, Affiant informed the Court and all present by duly Sworn Affidavit that Plaintiff had demanded pursuant to Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of Florida, a trial of all material questions in this case by an UNBIASED JURY.
6. Affiant also and further informed the court on that occasion, that because the court was without jurisdiction to determine any question of the validity and enforceability of the contract in this case, that it could not determine the validity or enforceability of the Contract, except upon the convening of an Unbiased Jury.

7. Affiant also and further informed the court on that above said occasion, that because the stipulations of the contract, formed the entire and exclusive basis of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the court was necessarily estopped and without authority to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

8. Mr. Robert R. Makemson, stated that he had adjudged and found the Contract to be valid and the stipulations relating to Arbitration and Forum Selection included in that contract to be enforceable based upon the wording of paragraph twenty of the Amended Complaint

9. Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint is here quoted verbatim:


“20. Defendant Tuccinardi, on the occasion set forth in paragraph 19. above, did, without any duly or lawfully delegated authority, Fraudulently, pretend to endorse and execute, the purported Contract, for “Publish America LLLP”, which is the subject matter of this action. [see Plntf. Exbt. “A”]”

10. None of the Defendants presented any evidence whatsoever in support of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Further Affiant sayeth naught at this time.

The above facts are given by this Affiant, of my own certain knowledge and good faith belief under penalties of perjury, before a qualified witness this; ____ day of August 2008 for the purpose of standing as evidence in the above captioned case, in witness whereof, I set my signature here below.
____________________________
John W. DeVore, Affiant

The above affiant known to me personally or by sufficient evidence, did appear before me, a Notary Public or Clerk of Court of the State of Florida on the above written date and did take an oath, and did depose and state that this document is his own free will act made for those purposes set forth herein to which oath and signature I bear testimony by my signature and seal here below.
Affiant provided the following as Identification ___________________________________________________________

My Commission Expires _________________ __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public or Clerk of Court

__________________________________
Notary or Clerk Name Printed
Seal…




John DeVore

Judge Robert R. Makemson the chief judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida, did upon the arguments entered by Howard Conklin of Fort Pierce Florida and Kip Davis of Stuart Florida, attorneys for PA et al, find and adjudge that, based upon the statement in paragraph "20." of the Amended Complaint, which reads as:


“20. Defendant Tuccinardi, on the occasion set forth in paragraph 19. above, did, without any duly or lawfully delegated authority, Fraudulently, pretend to endorse and execute, the purported Contract, for “Publish America LLLP”, which is the subject matter of this action. [see Plntf. Exbt. “A”]”


The Contract is valid and enforceable and that the matter must therefore be transferred to Arbitration in Maryland.

Please read this qoute and try to grasp the logic of that ruling.

John D.