_____________________________________

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

Index No. 061458/2013  

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB                    APPENDIX 15, Efiled Doc 24 

    -v-                                       PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED

DANIEL M ROSENBLUM                            BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS ACTION

                  

attorney of record Zwicker & Associates action commenced July 2013 Amex card 371339213796009

________________________________

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK            

Index No. 100156/2011

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB                    APPENDIX 15, efiled Doc 24

    -v-                                       PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED

DANIEL M ROSENBLUM                            BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS ACTION

attorney of record Jaffe & Asher action commenced March 2011 Amex card 371339213796009

__________________________________

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER(S) IS HEREBY PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK COUNTY & NY COUNTY....

      ....AS AN APPENDIX TO MY INFORMATIONAL SUPPLEMENT IN ANSWER TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DANIEL M ROSENBLUM ("I", "ROSENBLUM" and "DMR" below.)

___________________________________

Given this is a preliminary information appendix filing, this filing is incomplete and needs to be further refined and edited. For purposes of efficiency, the foregoing list/ notes of some of the questions presented in the instant litigation is filed with the court, plaintiff, and opposing counsel:

  1. The present document is {DMR#18} Appendix 15 of 18 to DMRAMEX09152013 ¶31 et al DMRAMEX091513 ¶ 5- ¶¶. "PRELIMINARY RENDERING OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS ACTION", Efiled Document #24.
  3. Please cross reference to Appendix 2 of 18 to DEFENDANT PROPOSED "JUST RESULTS" PRESENTLY: JUDICIAL STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANT’S FUTURE MOTION OR STIPULATION BETWEEN PARTIES. , Efiled Document #10, {webpage : JustResultAmex.php} introduced and referred to in DMRAMEX09152013  ¶ 6 , ¶ 7, ¶ 4,¶ 10¶¶ as Just Results and Questions Presented are cross referenced.
  4. It is necessary to note that this is a very rough draft, and, is part of 21 separate documents generated for both web publication and Suffolk Efiling as an "Information" to both the Suffolk and New York Indices, where 'Discontinuances' have been filed by two separate firms on behalf of American Express, and, that this rough draft of Questions Presented is generated by Rosenblum simulataneously to generating the 21 files with the intention to file an RJI by Thanksgiving 2013 in the present matter, and, Efile in Manhattan within 6 weeks. Thus Rosenblum is of the mind that the foregoing will necessarily be edited and has simply just roughly generated the foregoing list for additional work forthwith. Note that Rosenblum is working full time driving a truck with overtime, and the 21 document 9/15/2013 filing was writ during evenings and weekends approximately 7/4/2013-9/15/2013 as time and resources permitted:
  6. a preliminary and imperative question presented by this filing is whether Zwicker and Associates and or Jaffe and Asher PC are qualified as attorney law firm to handle this matter.whether such firms are qualified and whether in their practice of law they have complied with standards of the legal profession in the state of NY.
  8. a question is presented as to what was the intent of the Zwicker firm in filing the Notice of Discontinuance
  9. a question is presented as to what was the intent of the Jaffe firm in filing the Notice of Discontinuance. a question is presented as to the request made by American Express to Jaffe prompting the filing of the instrument by Jaffe, and, whether the instrument could feasibly have as end result the request to the firm made by American Express to the law firm. Whatever request Amex made to Jaffe, the whole CPLR is available to Jaffe to effectuate the Amex request to firm prior to the filing of the instrument.
  11. a question is presented as to what was the intent of the Zwicker firm in filing the Summons and Complaint on behalf of American Express. a question is presented as to whether the Zwicker firm should have been knowledgable of the Jaffe Complaint on behalf of American Express.
  14. a question is presented as to what was the intent of the Zwicker firm in filing the Notice of Discontinuance
  16. Stephen Bann of Zwicker is not entitled to the discontinuance notice mechanism given the nature of the action.  Perhaps he was instructed by his client to terminate the action and instead of explaining to his client the accurate status of the case Steven Bann told his client that he would end the action and similarly informed his client, the bank, that the action had ceased in New York State Court. Perhaps Steven Bann has assuredly conveyed to his client the same on 1000, 5000, or 10,000 cases. If so, that is misinformation to the client. Or, perhaps the client understands that all the cases marked "disposed" are open actions- perhaps subject to statutes of limitations but the cases are unresolved resultant a Zwicker Notice of Discontinuance, even if the account holder has paid a sum of money back to American Express. Perhaps all such cases must be re-tried if Discontinuances were filed by Zwicker in New York State given that the negotiations with the Defendant by Zwicker misrepresented the significance of the Discontinuance  Notice to the Defendant in proximity to the settlement payment. To file an instrument in a  New York State Court action is to have an intent associated with utilizing such instrument by an attorney admitted to the bar.  Is the intent of filing the instrument an intent to mislead , or, is it an intent to discontinue? if the intent is to actually discontinue, an attorney firm hired by American Express  such have the knowledge and resources to understand the available manners to terminate an action, and should use an available, legitimate manner to terminate a case, not an instrument the firm should in all earnest understand to be a nullity.
  18. Rosenblum prefers the firm should not be permitted to be removed from the case until such time that such question has been resolved- whether removal by petition by the firm petition by the plaintiff or order of the court. as this case remains open, and prior to stipulation of discontinuance, this imperative question merits diligent examination and discovery in accordance with this filing. please bear in mind this filing is a communication/correspondence/information there is no motion made presently. Yet Rosenblum is of the impression mind that this information properly served to the court and the plaintiff  firm and the plaintiff is proper notice of the matters here presented and should bear significant weight as to whether the firm should be permitted to be removed from the case until such time that all matters here presented have been examined with diligence by the court and given the opening of the case by the Plaintiff  firm, Rosenblum is entitled to Discovery until such time that the matter is properly resolved as in any adjudication or matter in a court of law in the State of NY in the USA.
  20. Several other questions presented include
  22. as to whether a debtor has a valid recourse a stay in proceedings in collection of debt until such time that conditions interfering with payment of debt are reconciled;
  23. as to whether a lender necessarily has recourse to future income on consumer debt when such lender is engaged in receipt of revenues in non-banking services which revenues are being utilized to frivolously loan
  24. a question presented is as to whether the Jaffe and Zwicker Notices of Discontinuances n this matter or any matter that do not comply with the CPLR bears any weight whatsoever. Here, several problems initiated as a result of the Zwicker and Jaffe filing s in Amex v Rosenblum: if the Jaffe Discontinuance following 20 day period and after response by defendant is valid in any way, then, in the Zwicker case, the Summons and Complaint might be valid, but, therefore, the full file in the Jaffe NY file becomes valid in Suffolk, construed as a timely response in Suffolk, invalidating the Zwicker Discontinuance. If the Jaffe carries no weight, then, again, really, the Zwicker Discontinuance no weight, the Zwicker summons a harassment, and the answer in Jaffe valid to the extent it invalidates the Discontinuance  in Zwicker. In either event, as noted, the Zwicker commencement is very problematic, and in the end, the actions of these firms has caused the necessity of a lot of hours by Rosenblum to have the record reflect accurately
  25. as to whether the practices of these firms have impeded the development of certain innovations in data processing and in appropriate ajudication of consumer credit actions
  26. whether any of the above, and related questions presented, if substantiated, have bearing on Rosenblum's ability to remit payment to Amex
  27. {}
  28. {}
  29. {}
  30. {}
  31. {}
  32. {}
  33. Make no mistake about it: bottom line, I am a staunch believer in the power of the marketplace and of capital.I am also a staunch believer in of two very basic aspects of banking law: those two very basic aspects  are the two same  banking regulatory axioms I have written about in my business method patent,  law school, business school, trademark application, and in court filings in East Hampton NY Village Justice Court; Southampton NY Village Justice Court;  and, New York County Criminal and New York County Supreme Courts, and now also Suffolk Supreme Court: the  Permissible Activities axiom, and the Tying axiom as it relates to digital data processing using internet technologies by commercial companies also engaged, on a large scale, even are defined by providing the commercial services of : loans, discounts, deposits and trusts. It is certain the Federal Reserve Regulation presently permits commercial entities to have revenues from data processing in addition to revenues from loans, discounts, deposits, and trusts. A fundamental economic question which presents is as to whether the purpose of the axiomatic permissible activities in banking law for banks is as to whether the loan/discount/deposit/trust market is more efficient, is of more utility and more productive when the purpose of the permissible activities doctrine at root is actually the case in the marketplace. It shouldn’t matter if the commercial service rendered is in manufacturing or in data processing- is there a root purpose to even having a permissible activities axiom in banking? is that root purpose met  in the data processing industry if commercial entities engaged in loans/discounts/deposits/trusts may perform a service in the marketplace so long as revenue from such service does not surpass 49% of the company's annual revenue? When there are $68 billion in annual revenues in the US market for such product? So says Title 12: Banks and Banking Part 225—Bank Holding Companies And 2085 Change In Bank Control (Regulation Y) § 225.28 (b) (14) Data processing Section (i)A if the product is processing 'financial, banking or economic' data .

    {Note the foregoing paragraph, and this Paragraph 30 Series regarding "Questions Presented" in the Amex v Rosenblum Suffolk County 2013 and NY County 2011 litigation is, for those matters, here and now concerned with the practices of the law firms Zwicker Assoc and Jaffe and Asher insofar as abuses by those firms in the instant matter Amex v Rosenblum as such abuses pertain to CPLR 3317, diligent filings of Summons and Complaints, Attorney Supervision in a firm, etc...in light of the 21st Century Digital Critique; therefore here now part of Rosenblum's assertion is that the injustices crated by the abuses of debt collection law firms constitute an injustice which has a real, negative economic cost which is also a liability of such firms engaged continuaously in such practices. )

    A legitimate question pertains to whether the rest of the digital economy is effected. Rosenblum proposes that services related to nonfinancial data are effected, as are revenues in the marketplace associated with such revenues. Rosenblum is Sole Proprietor of a commercial entity which Rosenblum states is established in effort to provide services in the digital economy processing commercial data but that the industry is effected by the alteration both the permissible activities doctrine and the tying doctrine when it comes to the service of digital data processing, much the way that an automobile industry where only banks owned automobile  manufacturing plants  and sold automobiles might in turn be opened to the marketplace by disallowing the  largest companies in the nation engaged in loans/discounts/deposits/trusts) from owning automobile manufacturing plants. In such scenario, NO company  engaged in loans/discounts/deposits and trusts could also own an automobile manufacturing plant, which makes sense.

 

 

 

 

Affirmed and signed, (certificate of signature in Efile)

Daniel M Rosenblum September 15, 2013