2

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

NOW COMES Defendants/Counterclaimants HOROWITZ and KANE (“H&K”) Opposing real

party of interest PAUL J. SULLA, JR.’s Motion titled “PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT JASON HESTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS FILED ON

AUGUST 21, 2014 BY DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS LEONARD G.

HOROWITZ AND SHERRI KANE [pursuant to Rules 7, 9(b)(g); 11(c)(B); 12(b); 13(a)(g)(h)(i);

and 19(a)(1-2)(b)]; for fraud upon the court in contriving excuses to delay and multiply

processes, by falsely filing [pg. 2] “that the statute of limitations for all claims but for the claim

for Quiet Title have been exceeded and therefore are not the proper subject of a Counterclaim

by Defendants.”

I. ARGUMENT A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS RAISED BY SULLA ARE MOOT. A-1. “HESTER” is not the real party of interest. SULLA is the concealed surety—a

malpracticing attorney violating, inter alia, RCCH Rule 26(b) as proven by Exhibit “BB.” (See

also: Separate required RICO Exhibits Binder). Said act is also a violation of ethics rules

HRPC 3.3, 4.1 and 8.4, among others.

A-2. Under these prohibited circumstances and pleadings, contrived to defraud the honorable

Court, SULLA fraudulently claims HOROWITZ cannot defend THE ROYAL BLOODLINE OF

DAVID (“RBD”) in Propria persona; when, in fact, SULLA knows very well that the “body

corporate” of a Corporation Sole, in this case, HOROWITZ, unlike any other kind of

corporation under the laws of the State of Hawaii, requires HOROWITZ’s standing, not

prohibitively-costly counsel, to defend against “HESTER’s” malicious prosecution, pursuant to

exaction, extortion, and superseding federal law 42 U.S.C. § 1981, that grants HOROWITZ

his civil right to defend RBD and the subject Property.

3

A-3. Moreover, the honorable Third Circuit Court of Hawaii holds no jurisdiction to adjudicate

an action against RBD in violation of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution that requires

disputes over “lands under grants of foreign states” to be heard in federal courts.

A-4. Relatedly, MEDICAL VERITAS INTERNATIONAL, INC. is not a real party of interest in

this Quiet Title action. It is the beneficiary of a gift lease of “lands under grants of foreign

states” requiring Article III court jurisdiction to be prosecuted for trespass.

A-5. The premature addition of Counterclaim Defendants is no valid cause for striking the

compulsory Counterclaim.

A-6. The Counterclaim is adequately clear, concise, and comprehensible to any reasonable

person; and SULLA’s claim to the contrary is transparently contrived in bad faith.

B. SULLA’S FRAUDULENT “STANDARD” SUBVERTS JUSTICE IN LAW AND EQUITY. B-1. SULLA’s claim that Defendants failed to state claims for which relief may be granted is

typical of “above the law” prosecuting, and reckless, criminal, diversionary, and detached

reasoning—a “condition of mind” SULLA has repeatedly demonstrated in this Court.

Defendants filed twenty-two (22) counterclaims (i.e., twenty-four (24) in federal court First

Amended Counter Complaint filing of Sept. 18, 2014), not one of which SULLA demonstrably

controverted in his frivolous and fraudulent pleading(s).

B-2. SULLA pleaded similarly, recklessly, deceptively, and unsuccessfully in his Motion for

Summary Judgment in SLAPP lawsuit Civ. No. 12-1-0417.

B-3. Given the above three-year history before this honorable Court, and the hard, cold,

material evidence presented by Defendants in their pleadings and exhibits to defeat SULLA’s

torts and crimes in this instant case, coupled with SULLA’s repeated incivility openly resented

by the Court, it is astonishing and unreasonable that the Court has not already sanctioned

4

SULLA, arrested him, and secured the Defendants’ damages by seizure of SULLA’s person

and/or property, sua sponte!

B-4. SULLA misrepresents Rule 9(b) “Standard,” since that rule requires pleading fraud “with

particularity” that SULLA has failed to provide.

B-5. How, prey tell, could SULLA plead with particularity when he claims he doesn’t

understand the charges the Defendants have filed against him and HESTER?

B-6. SULLA’s “bad faith” assertion, thus, raises an inconsistent defense against the

Counterclaims, only “incompressible” to people with conflicting interests, purposely

neglecting and/or aiding-and-abetting the Counterclaimed crimes by “willful blindness.”

C. SULLA’S TWO ARGUMENTS ARE LAME and RECKLESS.

C-1. SULLA brings two reckless Arguments against Defendants’ Counterclaims. He falsely

claims the Counterclaims are:

(1) “untimely” (i.e., beyond the six (6) year cut off date required under HI Rev Stat §

657-1 (2012) , or beyond the twenty (20) year cut of date pursuant to this matter of unlawful

non-judicial foreclosure and theft of real property/title, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31;

and

(2) “incomprehensible,” and depriving “HESTER” of “fair notice.”

C-2. SULLA fraudulently wrote (page 9), “Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant JASON HESTER

(“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Hester”) filed his Complaint on February 27, 2013 (“Complaint”). In

response, Defendants Leonard G. Horowitz and Sherri Kane (“Defendants” or “Mr. Horowitz”

and “Ms. Kane,” respectively) filed “Defendants/Counterclaimants Answer, Affirmative

Defense, and Counterclaims to Paul J. Sulla, Jr. and Jason Hester’s Conspiracy to Commit

Theft Under Color of Law” on August 21, 2014 (Counterclaims”). . . .”

5

C-3. In fact, said Complaint was stamped by the Court on August 11, 2014, and served August 26, 2014. SULLA’s factual error pursuant to the Complaint filing date evidences the

severe recklessness and fraudulent pleadings characterizing this malicious prosecution with

which SULLA extends his pattern of abusing processes for organized crime and theft. By

similar ploys committed by SULLA in the related SLAPP lawsuit (Civ. No. 12-1-0417), the

Court granted SULLA: a) a Constitutionally-prohibited Preliminary Injunction on Defendants’

publications; and b) Motion to Strike all the Defendant’s counterclaims in that action, severely

prejudicing the Defendants and damaging them over 2.5 years, financially and emotionally.

C-4. The following are significant dates in this action: a) HOROWITZ and RBD’s

Warranty Deed was issued on January 15, 2004; and illegal foreclosure actions were

commenced by SULLA’s “client,” Seller “Lee,” virtually immediately, extending a pattern of

organized crime and deprivation of citizen’s rights and property rights to this time; b) March

thru June, 2009, SULLA/HESTER et. al., failed to Release the Mortgage following payment

in full was made and many Notices were served; c) May 15-28, 2009, SULLA/Lee

fraudulently transferred $375,000.00 of false debt into a sham “church” SULLA incorporated

at the same time in order to extort the Defendants, evade five (5) judgment creditors; and

steal the Property by means of bringing a foreclosure under color of law; d) March 19, 2010,

SULLA commits consumer fraud by publishing Mortgagee’s Notice of Public Sale,

fraudulently advertising foreclosure action under color of law; e) April 20, 2010,

SULLA/HESTER commits fraudulent foreclosure by “mock auction” using the sham “church”

SULLA incorporated (on May 28, 2009); f) May 11, 2010, SULLA slanders title by issuing

Quitclaim Deed to said sham (fraudulent conveyance) “church;” g) June 9, 2011, SULLA

further slanders title to the subject property by issuing: i) a Mortgage to HESTER (illegally

secured by the Property) issuing claimed debt as Lee’s lawyer, estate fiduciary, trustee, and

co-beneficiary with HESTER, as well as HESTER’s lawyer; and ii) a second Quitclaim Deed

transferring color of title from the “church” to HESTER (really SULLA); h) On-or-about,

October 1, 2012, HOROWITZ discovers conspiracy to deprive citizen’s rights by Property

theft and extortion involving judicial officers SULLA, Gary Dubin, Benjamin Brower, John S.

Carroll, Glenn S. Hara, and Robert Ibarra, each of whom concealed “The Hara File” (i.e.,

6

evidence tampering) providing prima facie proof of fraud in the sale of the Property by Lee,

organized criminal conspiracy to deprive citizen’s rights, evidence tampering, and witness

tampering by said attorneys and Glenn Hara during trial in Civ. No. 05-1-0196. (See “Flow

Chart” in Exhibit “1”)

C-5. As stated above, this Quiet Title action issues from SULLA’s slandering of title on May

11, 2010. This date signifies that the Counterclaims falls well within the time limits permitted in HI Rev Stat § 657-1 (2012) , and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31.

C-6. Another example of SULLA’s abuse of process and diversionary recklessness is

evidenced by his total neglect of Counterclaim “Background” page 10, that states (in

paragraph 12), “In March, 2010, SULLA, JR. committed consumer fraud in violation of HRS

§480D-3(2)(3)(6)(8)(11) and HRS §480D-4(a)(b)]; and for unlawful consumer debt collection

on a contested Mortgage, HRS §480D-4(a)(b); HRS §480-13(a), by publishing his ‘NOTICE

OF MORTGAGEE’S NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE UNDER POWER OF SALE’.” This

pleading, evidenced by Exhibit “Y” is crystal clear, as is paragraph 1 under Counterclaim III

for Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices that “incorporate by reference” the

aforementioned acts and practices of consumer fraud that carries a six (6) year statute of

limitations.

C-7. Regarding SULLA’s second “ARGUMENT,” that said Counterclaims are

“incomprehensible,” he should stop: a) clouding his “condition of mind” with hallucinogenic

drugs--“DMT” (ayahyasca) and “THC” (marijuana)--to comprehend Defendants’ clear and

concise pleadings; and b) misrepresenting that his misperceptions of dates, rules, laws, and

liability for continuing a pattern of fraud, white collar, and organized crimes, is somehow the

Defendants’ fault, inter alia, from claimed “incomprehensible” pleadings.

C-8. In fact, said abuses of process compounds evidence in support of COUNTERCLAIM VI: TORT OF CONVERSION/THEFT in CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE RIGHTS & PROPERTY, in Defendants’ September 18, 2014, filing of DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED COUNTER COMPLAINT entered in federal Court case Civ. No. 14 00413 JMS/RLP; Counterclaim XVIII

7

for Tortious Interference with Prospective Business (Economic) Advantage pursuant to

SULLA’s false filings with the State and courts to compete unfairly on behalf of his

“churches;” and Counterclaim XIII for Defamation by SULLA and members of said competing

“churches,” recklessly publishing false statements about the Defendants.

C-8. Defendants have made their points, and cannot continue this waste of everyone’s time

in good conscious. Thus, for efficiency, economy, and out of respect for the Court’s integrity,

this Opposition to SULLA’s reckless Motion stops here.

D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

D-1. The “Preliminary Matters” raised in SULLA’s instant Motion are moot; his “STANDARD”

containing misrepresentations of rules, laws, and inconsistent defenses, subverts justice in

law and equity.

D-2. SULLA’s claim that Defendants failed to state, among twenty-two (22) counts, claims for

which relief may be granted is “incomprehensible” and absurd.

D-3. SULLA’s arguments pursuant to statutes of limitations in this real property (title) dispute

recklessly neglects HI Rev Stat § 657-1 (2012) , Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31, and omits

multiple other Counterclaims being brought under a six (6) year statute of limitation, such as

HRS § 480D violations.

D-4. The Defendants plead for the honorable Court to Dismiss “HESTER’s” Complaint claims

I thru III, that were obviously filed with “unclean hands,” in “bad faith,” and in violation of, inter

alia, RCCH Rule 26(b) disqualifying attorneys for concealing conflicting surety interests.

D-5. The mere fact that title was slandered by SULLA, not HESTER, by fraudulent transfers

of false debt in the name of the “GOSPEL OF BELIEVER’s CHURCH,” yet this indispensible

Party was neglected by SULLA as his “front” and necessary co-Plaintiff, strongly evidences

9

LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, Pro Se and SHERRI KANE, Pro Se P. O. Box 75104 Honolulu, HI 96836 808-946-6999; Email: SherriKane@gmail.com

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII JASON HESTER, an individual Plaintiff, v. LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, an Individual; SHERRI KANE, an Individual; MEDICAL VERITAS INTERNATIONAL, INC. a California non-profit corporation; THE ROYAL BLOODLINE OF DAVID, a Washington Corp. Sole; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive Defendants /Counter Claimants and LEONARD G. HOROWITZ, an Individual; SHERRI KANE, an Individual Counterclaimants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIV. NO. 14-1-0304 (Other Civil Action: Quiet Title/Summary Possession; Counterclaim RICO) DECLARATION OF LEONARD G. HOROWITZ and SHERRI KANE Judge: Honorable Elizabeth A. Strance Hearing: November 3, 2014 Hearing Time: 11:30 a.m. Trial Date: No Trial Date Set

DECLARATION OF LEONARD G. HOROWITZ AND SHERRI KANE

Sulla

’s 6

-Ste

p Sc

hem

e to

Acq

uire

Hor

owitz

’s P

rope

rty

by T

heft

Und

er “

Col

or o

f Law

” in

Crim

inal

Con

tem

pt o

f 3 C

ourt

s#1

: Ev

ade

Mor

tgag

e Re

leas

e &

5 Ju

dgm

ent C

redi

tors

from

Civ.

No.

05-

1-01

96

and

Civ.

No. 0

1-01

-044

4; M

ay 1

5-28

, 200

9 by

Frau

d-ul

ent

Tran

sfer

s of

“Fa

lse

Deb

t”

into

Sha

m “

Chu

rch”

a)

Afte

r Hor

owitz

pay

s Fi

nal B

allo

on P

aym

ent

as O

rder

ed b

y th

e C

ourts

, Su

lla fi

les t

o A

ppea

l $2

00K

Jur

y Aw

ard

to

Hor

owitz

(No.

298

41)

(5-2

1-09

)

b)

Sul

la m

anuf

actu

res:

1)

sham

Lee

/GO

B

“chu

rch”

(5-2

8-09

);

2) $

375K

in “

Fals

e D

ebt”

by

Prom

is-

sory

Not

e Ass

ignm

ents

to

GO

B (5

-28-

09)

c)

Sul

la fi

les I

llega

l M

ortg

age A

ssig

nmen

t to

GO

B (9

-28-

09)

#2: S

ULLA

Cer

tifies

New

Fak

e G

OB

“Chu

rch”

“M

ortg

agee

” Us

ing

Fals

e Bu

sine

ss A

ddre

ss a

t RIT

KE’s

Hou

se,

811

Mal

ama

Stre

et, P

ahoa

, HI.

a) S

ulla

inco

rpor

ates

“G

OSP

EL O

F BE

-LI

EVER

S” (G

OB)

C

orpo

ratio

n (5

-28-

09)

b) S

ulla

/Lee

use

R

ITK

E’s p

riva

te re

si-de

nce

to in

corp

orat

e G

OB:

1) G

OB

rece

ives

$3

75K

in “

Fals

e D

ebt”

Tr

ansf

ers b

y Ill

egal

Pr

omis

sory

Not

e Ass

ign-

men

ts to

GO

B (5

-28-

09)

c) R

ITK

E de

nies

G

OB

’s E

xist

ence

(2-2

5-14

)28-

09)

#3:

SULL

A Ex

torts

HO

ROW

ITZ

to

Pay

$375

K Fa

lse

Debt

on

11-6

-09,

or

Oth

erw

ise

Thre

aten

s (b

y M

ail)

Fore

-cl

osur

e in

Con

tem

pt o

f Iba

rra

Cour

t Ju

dgm

ents

Den

ying

For

eclo

sure

.a)

Sul

la n

egle

cts A

p-pe

llate

pro

cess

re:

$200

K C

onte

sted

Jur

y Aw

ard

and

Ibar

ra

Cou

rt F

inal

Jud

gmen

ts

Den

ying

For

eclo

sure

an

d D

eman

ds P

aym

ent

of $

375K

of f

alse

deb

t. (1

1-6-

09)

b) H

orow

itz a

nd A

t-to

rney

Car

roll

repl

y to

SU

LLA

incr

edul

ous t

o ex

tort

ion

and

crim

inal

th

reat

.

#4: S

ULLA

Con

duct

s “M

ock A

uctio

n”

4-20

-10,

Fra

udul

ently

Sel

ling

Prop

er-

ty to

Shi

ll G

OB

“Chu

rch”

“O

vers

eer”

JA

SON

HEST

ER W

ho B

ids

the

Con-

trive

d De

bt a

nd P

ays

$10

for D

eed.

a)

Sul

la A

dver

tises

and

C

ondu

cts A

uctio

n in

vi

olat

ion

of C

onsu

mer

Fr

aud

law

HR

S §4

80D

.

b) A

fter a

uctio

n,

Sulla

Dee

ds P

rope

rty

to

GO

B fo

r $10

(5-3

-10)

c) A

yea

r lat

er, S

ulla

Tr

ansf

ers D

eed

from

G

OB

to H

ESTE

R (6

-9-

11),

conc

ealin

g Su

lla’s

is

suan

ce th

at sa

me

day

of $

50,0

00.0

0 M

ortg

age

“loa

n” to

HES

TER

, ill

egal

ly se

cure

d by

the

prop

erty

.

#5: J

une

9, 2

011,

SUL

LA Is

sues

HES

-TE

R a $

50,0

00.0

0 Mor

tgag

e “Lo

an” f

or

“Leg

al F

ees”

Ille

gally

Sec

ured

by

the

Prop

erty

in

his

Sche

me

to F

orec

lo-

sure

for H

este

r’s F

ailu

re to

Pay

Taxe

s.

a) S

ulla

pos

ition

s him

-se

lf to

cla

im “

owne

r-sh

ip”

of th

e en

tire

esta

te

for H

ESTE

R’s

failu

re to

pa

y pr

oper

ty ta

xes.

b) S

ulla

dire

cts H

ESTE

R

to fi

le “

pro

se”

Civ

No

3RC

-11-

1-66

2 (6

-21-

11)

Ejec

tmen

t Act

ion

in th

e “w

rong

cou

rt” (D

is-

mis

sed

2-13

-12)

.

c) 7

-20-

12 S

ulla

file

s SL

APP

law

suit

(Civ

No

12-1

-041

7) to

cen

sor

Whi

stle

blow

ers K

ane

and

HO

RO

WIT

Z (D

is-

mis

sed

8-26

-14)

#6:

Conc

eale

d Su

rety

SUL

LA F

iles

Mal

icio

us

Pros

ecut

ion

in

Crim

inal

Co

ntem

pt o

f 3 C

ourts

(Civ.

No.

3RC

-14-

1-46

6; 4

-25-

14;

thru

Co-

coun

sel C

arey

) to

Ejec

t HO

ROW

ITZ b

y “Su

mm

ary P

osse

ssio

n.”

a) S

ulla

com

mits

crim

inal

co

ntem

pt o

f cou

rt fo

r pr

oper

ty th

eft,

refil

ing

the

sam

e Co

mpl

aint

in th

e sa

me C

ourt

that

Dism

issed

th

e sam

e cas

e 2-y

ears

ea

rlier

, on

2-13

-12.

b) 8

-11-

14, J

udge

Fre

itas

dire

cts S

ulla

/HES

TER

to

file

Qui

et T

itle

in th

e co

rrec

t Cou

rt, c

ompe

l-lin

g Su

lla to

file

Civ

No

14-1

-304

the

sam

e da

y.

c) Ju

dge

Stra

nce

Dis

-m

isse

s Sul

la’s

SLA

PP

law

suit

8-26

-14.

Exhibits pg. 173Exhibits pg. 183

Exhibits pg. 174Exhibits pg. 184

Exhibits pg. 199

Exhibits pg. 200

Exhibits pg. 201

Exhibits pg. 202

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of September, 2014, we served a true and correct copy of the foregoing OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS by the method described below to: PAUL J. SULLA, JR. (5398) ___X___ U.S. Mail Attorney at Law for JASON HESTER 106 Kamehameha Ave. Suite 2A _______ Hand Delivery Hilo, HI 96720 808-933-3600 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, HILO DIVISION, STATE OF HAWAII _____X__ U.S. Mail Hale Kaulike 777 Kilauea Avenue ____X___ Hand Delivery Hilo, Hawai`i 96720-4212 Ex Officio HONORABLE JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _______ U.S. Mail FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII 300 Ala Moana Blvd # C338 ______ Hand Delivery Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541-1300

__________________________________ LEONARD G. HOROWITZ Defendant/Counterclaimant in Pro per

__________________________________ SHERRI KANE Defendant/Counterclaimant in Pro per