This morning, I received an e-mail from Gil Kreiter, the man against whom a criminal complaint was filed with the (worthless) Manhattan D.A.'s office for practicing law without a license [see CRIME | Supreme Court refers bogus attorney complaint to NY D.A.'s office]. Apparently, he thinks is litigating a collections suit that was abandoned in 2011. Nevertheless, what he had to say overrode those concerns:
What's odd here is that only the plaintiff can file this paperwork, and I didn't; I'm assuming Mr. Kreiter didn't either based on his question to me in his e-mail (above).
The first question is, then, who on behalf of the defendant filed fraudulent court paperwork? The second, why was it granted, especially since it is a suit for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, which must first be satisfied in the originating state, i.e., California?
As the docket for the originating case shows, a satisfaction of judgment has not been filed in that court (below), and doing so is (or should be) a prerequisite for satisfying a foreign judgment in an Indiana court:
All of this means that now there are two criminal cases arising from this collections suit: one against Mr. Kreiter, and the one now pending against whoever filed the paperwork.
The court docket attached to this e-mail seems to confirm that a satisfaction of judgment was not only filed, but granted:
What's odd here is that only the plaintiff can file this paperwork, and I didn't; I'm assuming Mr. Kreiter didn't either based on his question to me in his e-mail (above).
The first question is, then, who on behalf of the defendant filed fraudulent court paperwork? The second, why was it granted, especially since it is a suit for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, which must first be satisfied in the originating state, i.e., California?
As the docket for the originating case shows, a satisfaction of judgment has not been filed in that court (below), and doing so is (or should be) a prerequisite for satisfying a foreign judgment in an Indiana court:
All of this means that now there are two criminal cases arising from this collections suit: one against Mr. Kreiter, and the one now pending against whoever filed the paperwork.
NOTE | A third criminal case could also arise against the officer of the court that granted it, if it appears to be an intentional act. That is only a probability due to the demon factor; otherwise, it would not even be suspected.The only party-at-interest in the filing of a satisfaction of judgment is the defendant, whose bank account was frozen last week by Mr. Kreiter (without my consent or foreknowledge, by the way); and, also, the father of the child whose bank account was inexplicably frozen, as well [see CRIME | Bogus attorney freezes mother's, crippled nephew's bank accounts].