FILED

COURT OF APPEALS DIV I

STATE Of WASHINGTON
20J J OCT 26 PH~: 04

King County No 11-2-09592-4 SEA

Court of Appeals No 67440-4-1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK,

Respondent
v.
ZAAKERA R STRATMAN,
Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR KING COUNTY

THE HONORABLE THERESA B. DOYLE, WSBA # 12966

BRIEF OF PETITIONER

INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL

STATEMENT

This appeal is taken from the Superior court's decision to render

summary judgment against the defendant/appellant. The Appellate Court
of Washington has jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in this appeal
under authority of the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2.2.

Page 1 of 11
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
A. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2-3
B. ISSUES PRESENTED 3-4
C. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 4-6
D. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6-7
E. ARGUMENT 7-10
F. CONCLUSION 10-11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

15 U.S.C. section 1692 6,8

COURT RULES

Court Rule 4 6

Court Rule 804 3

Evidence Rule 602 4, 7

Evidence Rule 801 (a)(b)(c) 4, 7

Page 2 of 11
 Evidence Rule 802 4, 7

Evidence Rule 904 (c) 5, 7

Rule 1002 5

RCW

RCW 4.08.080 4

RCW 4.28.080 (15) 6

RCW 5.40.010 6

COURT CASES

Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 9

Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964,229 F. Supp. 647 7,9

ISSUES

1. The record will show that the complaint/information was not

properly before the court as the complaint was defective.

2. The record will show that the "witness" for the plaintiff was not

present in court to be cross-examined over the objections of the defendant

and did not qualify under Court Rule 804.

Page 3 of 11
3. The record will show that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

4. The record will show that there was no justiciable controversy

before the court.

5. The record will show that the alleged Plaintiff failed to state a

Cause of Action.

6. The record will show that the Superior Court Judge Theresa B.

Doyle violated the appearance of fairness doctrine.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The Superior Court erred when the defendant challenged the

authority of counsel to represent the plaintiff and counsel failed to provide

such documents. RCW 4.08.080 (see page 6 in Verbatim Report of

Proceedings, lines 16-17)

2. The Superior Court erred when the court accepted the declaration

of Paul Lavarta as testimony, over the objections of the defendant when

the witness was not present in court to be cross-examined in violation of

Evidence Rule 602, 801 & 802. (see page 5 in Verbatim Report of

Proceedings, lines 24-30, page 6 lines 1-2, 16-18)

Page 4 of 11
3. The Superior Court erred when the court accepted the counterfeit

documents as legitimate records, over the objections of the defendant in

violation Evidence Rule 904 (c). (see page 6 in Verbatim Report of

Proceedings, lines 16-18, page 7 lines 12-15)

4. The Superior Court erred when the Superior court issued a

summary judgment with facts in dispute.

5. The Superior Court erred when the defendant objected to the

counterfeit documents and the court allowed the documents into the

records in violation of Court Rule 1002. (see page 6 in Verbatim Report

of Proceedings, lines 16-19, page 7 lines 12-15)

6. The Superior Court erred when there was no competent testimony

before the court by the plaintiff and the court granted summary judgment.

7. The Superior Court erred when the plaintiff had no facts before the

court and the court granted summary judgment.

8. The Superior Court erred when there was no evidence before the

court and the court granted summary judgment.

9. The Superior Court erred when the Superior Court ignored the

Affidavit Denying Existence of Debt and the Objection to Motion for

Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss of the accused.

10. The Superior Court erred when the Superior Court ignored the

requirement for validating the alleged debt when demanded before

Page 5 of 11
pursuant to 15 USC § 1692 and all collection activities are to cease until

the alleged creditor validates the debt (including court action) or the

alleged creditor violates Federal Law.

11. The Superior court erred when the Superior Court ignored

plaintiffs violation of Court Rule 4 when serving the Summons &

Complaint as the Summons & Complaint were served to a female minor

who was 16 years old. RCW 4.28.080 (15)

12. The Superior Court erred when the court accepted the Plaintiffs

pleadings as proof in violation RCW 5.40.010

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff filed a claim against defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff moneys

allegedly owing on account. Defendant demanded verification of the

alleged debt and issued a general denial. Defendant objected to

declaration of Plaintiffs alleged witness and to the counterfeit

documentation. The Superior Court issued a summary judgment against

defendant. This case is about the ability of a defendant to be able to face a

witness allegedly testifying against them and to be able to determine the

accuracy of their statements presented in court, or to be able to determine

Page 6 of 11
that such a witness actually even exists by being able to cross examine

them in open court.

ARGUMENT

THIS APPELLATE COURT IS NOTICED: STATEMENTS OF

COUNSEL IN BRIEF OR IN ARGUMENT ARE NOT FACTS

BEFORE THE COURT. The court is further noticed: on the day of

the hearing that was had for determination on the summary judgment

motions, the plaintiffs declarant was not in appearance and unable to

be cross examined in violation of the Hearsay Rule, Evidence Rule

602, Evidence Rule 801(a)(b)(c), Evidence Rule 802, Evidence Rule

904(c): Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient

for motion to dismiss or for summary jUdgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro.

D.C. Pa. 1964,229 F. Supp. 647. The Accused is possessed of all rights

pursuant to the Constitution for the United States I United States of

America, the Constitution of Washington state, common law and the rules

applicable to civil procedure. The record shows that the Superior Court

was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction when there was no competent

witness to testify for the Plaintiff over the objections of the defendant (see

page 5 in Verbatim Report of Proceedings, lines 25-30 and page 6, lines 1-

2). Plaintiff is a National Lending Institution and is subject to Federal

Page 7 of 11
Law. Defendant has asked for validation of the alleged debt pursuant to 15

USC § 1692 and all collection activities are to cease until the alleged

creditor (Plaintiff) validates the debt (including court action) or the alleged

creditor violates Federal Law (refer to Debt Validation letter submitted to

King County Superior Court as a supporting document included with the

Objection/Opposition documents, Sub Number 17 on May 25, 2011) (see

page 5 in Verbatim Report of Proceedings, lines 25-30 and page 6, lines 1-

2).

The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that they represent anyone and

failed to have a competent witness to testify to the facts or issues before

the court, and the defendant was deprived of her due process rights to at

least face the witness and to cross examine him in open court if only to

determine the accuracy of his statements or even to determine if such a

person exists (see page 5 in Verbatim Report of Proceedings, lines 19-20,

25-30 and page 6, lines 1-2). It would appear that anyone can make any

statement, supply any counterfeit documents and present it to the court as

legitimate business records, and without the defendant able to investigate

or cross examine the declarant, for the court to accept them as true, even

without the witness present, and over the objections of the defendant. It

would appear at this rate that there is no reason to even have to go to court

to challenge a claim if a witness isn't necessary. Only statements of

Page 8 of 11
counsel appear necessary to win a case which is contrary to Trinsey v.

Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964,229 F. Supp. 647.

The standard of review for both dismissals and summary judgments is de

novo. Cite omitted. De novo review of 11-2-09592-4 SEA shows that

defendant proved her case by entering facts on the record. The only

testimony of record in support of Plaintiff is Plaintiffs declarant who was

not present to testify, WHICH DO NOT DISPUTE THE MATERIAL

F ACTS OF DEFENDANT'S CASE.

Appellant's first point on Appeal

Although all competent jurists understand appeal of summary judgment is

considered de novo, to an extent, the decision of the court below should be
reviewed for abuse of discretion as the record shows the court below: (l)
There were no material facts before the court as there was no competent
witness testifying before the court, only a declaration of Paul Lavarta
which was objected to and who admitted in his declaration that he did not
have any first hand knowledge, and at that point his declaration became
inadmissible hearsay. (2) Conducted a bench trial where the court
contravened United States Supreme Court authority regarding the
pleadings of pro se litigants Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 . (3) The
court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction for reason that the court's
misapplication of the rules of civil procedure denied Defendant!Appellant
of due process.

Appellant's second point on Appeal

Page 9 of 11
De novo review of the record made in the court below shows Defendant,

not Plaintiff, was entitled to summary judgment.

Appellant's third point on Appeal

Defendant had a motion to dismiss before the court (refer to Objection to

Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss, submitted to King

County Superior Court as part of the Objection/Opposition, Sub Number

17 on May 25, 2011) (see page 5 in Verbatim Report of Proceedings, lines

27-30, page 6, lines 18, 28-30) and the court failed to hear Defendant's

motion to dismiss on June 17,2011.

CONCLUSION

Judge Theresa B. Doyle should have denied the motions for summary

judgment due to facts in dispute. The only testimony in court and on the

record was the Defendants. The Plaintiff had no witness present in court

therefore the Plaintiff had no facts before the court to base a summary

judgment on and the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction.

Also statements of counsel in briefs or arguments are not a basis for

granting a summary judgment.

Page 10 of 11
Ideals of substantial justice and fair play, as well as proper administration

of the rules of court, justly require reversing the decision of the Superior

Court.

Zaakera R Stratman

31827 NE Big Rock Rd.

Duvall Washington 98019

Page 11 of 11