Document list and Filing Recepits for the 21 Items filed 9/15/2013 by Daniel M. Rosenblum in NY State Supreme Court Index # 061458/2013 American Express FSB v Rosenblum
21 Documents electronically "Efiled" on 9/15/13 in NY State Supreme Court, Suffolk County. NY State Court Filing was PDF format (21 PDFs).
The same 21 Documents are written in HTML therefore the links below are active to the HTML materials version. Note the 21 documents listed below are representative of 21 (twenty-one) HTML links in Dan Rosenblum's main 9/15/2013 filing, which bears the title "DMRAMEX09152013. The 21 documents are : two (2) 'Answer' documents, eighteen (18) Appendices, and 1 Notice of Discovery = 21 documents Efiled in Suffolk by Dan 09/15/2013. Previous to Dan's 9/15 filing, the firm representing American Express had E-filed six (6) documents.
Therefore Dan's first Efile Document # below is Efiled Doc # 7, through Efiled Doc # 28:
Efiled Doc # 11 includes consideration of CPLR including as per Paragraph 4 of DMRAMEX091513:
CPLR §§ 3217 (d) {"All notices, stipulations, or certificates pursuant to this rule shall be filed with the county clerk by the defendant."} CPLR §§ 8008 CPLR §§ 8020(d) {"Filing a stipulation of settlement or a voluntary discontinuance……..pursuant to §§3217 (d), defendant shall file and pay $35 in supreme court and county court."} CPLR §§ 2104 Stipulations {"terms of stipulation shall be filed by the defendant with the county clerk."}.
Here, Rosenblum is stating as well that the Zwicker firm may be misleading its client by claiming to have 'resolved in the eyes of the State' the countless cases which are marked as disposed but are active under the Rosenblum analysis above. Or, perhaps Amex is aware of the Zwicker practice described (and other such firms similar to Zwicker doing the same thing), and in such scenario Amex is aware and believes the Zwicker practice pertaining to 'disposed' cases and CPLR §§ §§ 8008 CPLR §§ 8020(d) §§3217 (d), and CPLR §§ 2104. Perhaps Amex General Counsel would argue that the contracted firms' interpretation and use of CPLR §§ 8008 CPLR §§ 8020(d) §§3217 (d), and CPLR §§ 2104 is legitimate and should cause the status of the case to move to disposed from active- and that all Zwicker's settlement negotiated and related release and waivers are valid.
For the reasons stated above, and variously throughout this filing, the cases 061458/2013 and 100156/2011 are not disposed. And, if the Zwicker firm had led one or three or even 10 litigants over the course of a significant time period to believe that the 3317 Notice filed by Zwicker following 20 days or after any responsive pleading terminated the case, perhaps such error might be excusable as a law firm error. However, the bottom line is that Zwicker has made an operational decision to misrepresent the CPLR and the weight of their repeated filing to litigant after litigant; the practice is a tactical strategy, and is reprehensible in the industry under analysis in particular given the Rosenblum analysis including 21st Century Digital criticism taking into consideration Permissible Activities and Tying Law for commercial entities, namely banks, engaged presumably primarily in the commercial, regulated, banking activity of loans, discounts, deposits, and trusts- and utilizing the canon of law associated with such status to utmost advantage in the marketplace.
And, the same Efiled doc 11 is referred to in the pages surrounding Page 24 of 55 in 9/15/2013 Main filing; Paragraph 17; re: Sanctionable Actions by Zwicker and Jaffe; New York Office of Court Administration :
Here, the firms are Zwicker Associates or Jaffe and Asher filing Summons and Complaints and using the authority of the State to profit from default judgments but the same genre of legal actions are in sum not being reviewed by the Authoirty of the State, which purpose of review by the state in the judicial sytstem is to have an end sum "just result" politically and economically in the market where such actions are being brought before the court. In this type of action, Consumer Credit, these firms are not litigating to the benefit of the US economy but to the detriment of progress in the data processing market. That is to say, Rosenblum is of the understanding that proper legal adjudication of the sum of cases in which Zwicker, for example, used a 'null instrument CPLR §§ 3217' and paid a fee in contravention to the intents and purposes of the CPLR including CPLR §§ 3217 (d) {"All notices, stipulations, or certificates pursuant to this rule shall be filed with the county clerk by the defendant."} CPLR §§ 8008 CPLR §§ 8020(d) {"Filing a stipulation of settlement or a voluntary discontinuance……..pursuant to §§3217 (d), defendant shall file and pay $35 in supreme court and county court."} CPLR §§ 2104 Stipulations {"terms of stipulation shall be filed by the defendant with the county clerk."}.
.
www.twenyfirstcenturydigital.com/EducationalEssays21stCenturyDigitalDescription.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTS16YearsAgenciesUSPTOTrademarkfile21.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TwentyFirstCenturyDigitalTrademarkRegistration.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTS16YearsAgenciesUSPTOpatentfilenonfinal.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TwentyFirstCenturyDigitalTrademarkRegistration.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSJULY2000OCC.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TitleI.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TitleIPartI.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/Amex09152013DocList.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSLawEnforcement.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSWiborg.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSOldTownBeachSH.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/Beach2000-2005.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/AffidavitofServiceJanuary2015.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/January2015NYHESCFinancialSupplement.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/December032014SeriesI.php
Please note, today in 2015, my most contemporaneous related filings to the unresolved matter which displaced me to the Pier are my December 3 2014 filings in Amex v Dan, and, aff of service January 2015 and financial statement to NYHESC in the matter of Student Loans of DMR:
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/January2015NYHESCFinancialSupplement.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/AffidavitofServiceJanuary2015.php
www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/December032014SeriesI.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/ThursdayDecember51996.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSMay1996toMay2012.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/December_9_1996_Twenty_First_Century_Digital.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/MondayDecember9199621stCenturyDigitalestablished.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/amex.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/Amex09152013DocList.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/DMROriginalApril142011answer.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/April51999.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TheLawTheBankAndTheBeach.php
http://www.twentyfirstcenturydigital.com/TTSDocket19961997.php
21st Century Digital ™ is both a common law and statutory trademark. Common law rights in the Mark inhere with the establishment of Sole Proprietorship Twenty First Century Digital by Proprietor Daniel M Rosenblum December 9th 1996 New York New York and continued use to date. Please see above and below for more information on common law trademark use and rights.
21st Century Digital® has four (4) USPTO Trademark Registrations:
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,007,885 Registered Aug. 9, 2011 USPTO International Class 35: Advertising and Business
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,051,315 Registered Nov. 8, 2011 USPTO International Class 36: Financial Services
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 4,051,315 Registered Nov. 8, 2011 USPTO International Class 38: Telecommunications
USPTO ®™ Registration Number 3,626,967 Registered May 26, 2009 USPTO International Class 42: Computer/Internet R & D
A patent application for a "21st Century Digital™ Network" was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 26, 2008 and published on October 1, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Publication Number US 2009/0248536 Al; USPTO Publication US 2009/0248536 Al is five (5) pages in entirety including the drawing of the invention and can be viewed on the USPTO website Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. No patent for a "21st Century Digital Network" product granted to date, nor is one pending. The status of the patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office is "abandoned" as of March 23rd, 2012, for applicant failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action Notice of Final Rejection September 9 2011. Applicant's most recent filing on USPTO patent application for a "21st Century Digital™ Network", USPTO Publication Number US 2009/0248536 Al, one hundred and fifty two pages regarding the 21st Century Digital Network product was filed July 2011 and is also viewable on the USPTO website Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Public Notice January 15, 2015 21st Century Digital ®