AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

Comes now the undersigned Vincent and Sophie Germano Affiants, husband and wife, having personal knowledge of the matters and facts set forth in this affidavit, under oath and attest to their truth as documented by the court records in our possession:

SUMMARY

Irrevocably documented by the court records in our possession are the facts detailed below in which a succession of lawyers of nine (9) Oklahoma law firms who undertook our cause in the below bank’s foreclosure; disregarded our grievances and criminal complaints of violations of our right to due process, in refusing to close the (Tinker Commitment obtained at a cost of $19,500.00 to pay-off its mortgage) while moving the court to defeat our Appeal and CH II reorganization - through bankruptcy crimes, for possession of our motel (by three default) summary judgments; joined by corrupted bankruptcy Trustees they filed our legal actions (omitting their felony conspiracy and slander of Affiants and charging us with abusing the legal system to extend their fraud, fraud on the court, to strike our legal actions in Oklahoma, Huston Federal Court and U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana. Lawyer Peter G. Pierce III, is now a majority stock owner of the expanded bank. Thus, propelling Affiants into a never ending search for ethical legal representation and struggle for justice from January 4, 1985 to present date.
 

“The Criminal Fraud, Fraud on the Court, And All Taxpayers Who Paid the Cost of Such Injustice”
 

FACTS
 

Vincent and Sophie Germano, residents of Texas, at all times pertinent, as we had done many times during our successful business career since our marriage in 1948, we obtained an appraisal by the Oklahoma Appraisal Company of a parcel of land at Interstate 40, Oklahoma City, OK, next to Mc Donald’s to develop into a motel.

June 25, 1981-We paid $112,762.00 by Cashiers Check-(Exhibit “1”)-Guarantee Bank No. 47956. The seller conveyed clear title to one acre of land, and took back a mortgage on the remaining parcel. Together with an additional investment of $263,000.00 of our own money and Guaranty Bank's construction loan, we contracted construction of the first of a planned two section motel consisting of fifty-four rooms, complete with a rental office, manager’s apartment, laundry and hot water system to service 43 additional rooms.

Named American Inn, and opened for business December 16, 1981, the motel achieved an occupancy in excess of similar motels and was appraised for $1,500,000.00. The take out lender, (Siscorp) refused to honor its agreement to payoff Guaranty Bank’s construction loan and kept the $30,000.00 fee. Paid on its officer’s agreement. Guaranty Bank accommodated us far beyond its one year loan agreement before calling for payment of its note/mortgage – Letter by Guaranty Bank regarding AI’S account and its agreement to fund the construction loan for the additional rooms to complete the motel project.

March 29, 1983 - for a consideration of $9000.00, First National Bank of Bethany, OK, paid-off Guaranty Bank pursuant to its letter approving our loan application stating in part: “the Customer has been in the single family and multi family construction business for years and has a lot of experience in management. We have talked with several bankers and they all rate him #1 in credit, cooperation and ability.”

Pursuant to Pierce senior’s instructions during Affiants good faith negotiations in the prior months, Vincent Germano went to Pierce senior’s office on the bank’s second floor and handed him a payment and notified him that Tinker Investment & Mortgage Corporation had approved our mortgage loan application and would issue its commitment to pay-off its note and mortgage “after Christmas.” Pierce stated not to make any more interest payments and to bring the commitment to him when issued.

Affiants, however, were unable to construct the additional rooms and completed the first section of the motel.

January 4, 1985 - as shown by the court records, the bank, without notice and with knowledge of the Tinker agreement to pay-off its note and mortgage, Pierce III disregarded Pierce senior’s agreement with Affiants, filed bank’s lawsuit in foreclosure of its mortgage in violation of bank law, Case CJ-85-0095. The Bank alleges, in part: "default of its mortgage; there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact; American Inn has an equity of redemption; the foreclosure suit is in accord with the June 11, 1984 joint statement of the Comptroller of the Currency and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."

January 28, 1985 - Tinker Investment & Mortgage Corporation issued its written commitment with a March 31, 1985 closing deadline, which we promptly hand delivered to Pierce senior, who stated he would cease the foreclosure and tender the documents to the title company for closing by our legal counsel. A $19,500.00 consideration was paid to Tinker, a subsidiary of the Federal Credit Union of employees of U. S. Tinker Air Force Base.

February 14, 1985 - Lawyer Alan M. Reaves, filed a (One Page Answer) in which he failed to demand a trial by jury and assert an affirmative defense and move the court for a Temporary Restraining Order to cease prosecution of its foreclosure. That, the June 11, 1984 joint statement of the Comptroller of the Currency and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, clearly advises member banks against foreclosure “in cases in which the note is secured and in the process of collection,” as true in our case.

FBI agents who came to our motel to investigate another of Siscorp’s victims, expressed their regret for refusing to investigate our complaint against the Siscorp Company and stated they were not authorized to investigate our complaint.

March 15, 1985 - Pierce filed his bank’s Motion For Summary Judgment on its foreclosure, Statement Of Undisputed Facts, and Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment. Lawyer Reaves, (with 16 days left of Tinker’s March 31 closing deadline) lawyer Reaves failed to file our Answer.

March 21, 1985 - letter response to Vincent Germanos request by Ed Phelps, Tinker’s mortgage officer, extending its mortgage commitment to April 30, 1985, to permit financing alternatives.
April 4, 1985 - On our demand lawyer Reaves obtained leave to file AI'S Counterclaim (out of time) in banks foreclosure, in which he claimed, in part: "$1,000,000.00 in actual damages; $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages for Plaintiff's fraudulent conduct; costs of this action; reasonable attorneys fees; interest at the rate of 15% per annum”.

April 5, 1985-Lawyer Reaves asked Vincent Germano and My son Wayne Germano, to wait in the courthouse hall, while he went into a courtroom. We later discovered that Reaves had "secretly" filed a Journal Entry of Judgment dismissing AI'S Counterclaim. The Journal Entry was signed by Judge Blevins and filed in court records (without consent of client and affidavit of attorney in violation of Oklahoma Statute).

April 5, 1985 - DAILY OKLAHOMAN article, "Order Blocks Motel Auction" paper officials refused our request to publish a correction of the false, misleading statements that covered up the truth outlined herein that prejudiced us in the legal system in the years that followed. (The article included a statement by bank’s lawyer Peter Pierce III, who conspired with lawyer Alan Reaves in refusing to close the Tinker loan since issued January 28, now states "If he's got the money, why doesn't he go ahead and pay it.").

April 5, 1985-Vincent Germano and our son Wayne complained of the bank's fraudulent legal actions to the U.S. Attorney (Bill Price). On assistant E. Thompson’s advice to hire Alan C. Durbin stating "he had given her a hard time in defense of a client and would defend your rights." We went to the large law firm of Andrews, Davis, Legg, Bixler, Milsten & Murrah. (The Federal Building in Oklahoma City is named after Judge Murrah).

In his law office, Alan C. Durbin corruptly told us he didn't have a conflict of interests with the bank or other parties involved in our case, and accepted our case advising that he would move the court to vacate the (default) foreclosure judgment, and close the Tinker loan and pay - off bank's note -Thompson's office card and Durbin's Detail of Service, revealing their phone contact regarding our case and bank’s.

April 8, 1985 - Answer to the AI Counterclaim.

April 8, 1985 - Lawyer Durbin letter to Tinker's Ed Phelps, one of his numerous letters to parties involved in our efforts to close the Tinker loan and pay-off of the bank’s note/mortgage.

April 8, 1985 - Pierce, (having acted with Reaves and Durbin in refusing to close the Tinker loan since January 28), filed Bank's Motion For Summary Judgment on the bank’s foreclosure. Pierce, deceitfully stated, in part: "the Commitment was issued January 28, 1985 and expired March 31, 1985".

April 8, 1985 - Durbin letter to Tinker mortgage officer, Ed Phelps.

April 9, 1985 - Three days after Durbin undertook our case, Vincent Germano and our son Wayne went to Alan Reaves' law office, picked up and signed a receipt for case files at which time Reaves handed us his Motion To Withdraw from our case, and asked us to give it to Durbin with case files.

It was later discovered that lawyers Reaves and Durbin conspired in altering dates of their Motion to Withdraw and Entry of Appearance in our case as follows:

Reaves, dismissed April 5, 1985, gave his receipt for case files April 9; Alan Durbin undertook our case April 5 in his law office, and dated his employment letter April 8, 1985. Acting together, they POST-DATED Durbin’s Entry of Appearance in our case to April 30, 1985, and Reaves' Motion To Withdraw as Attorney Of Record, from April 5, to May 6; put a line through April, and Post-Dated the Motion's Certificate of Mailing to May 3, 1985. (This was to appear that Reaves was still counsel during the issuance of the (default) foreclosure judgment and time for its appeal).

Durbin, recommended by the U.S. Attorney, also refused to correct his employment letter of April 8, 1985, in which he stated, in part: he was hired in the "proposed lending transaction with Tinker Investment & Mortgage Corporation for the end loan financing of a motel project (TO BE) located in Oklahoma City, OK; "in the event the subject loan does not close for reasons other than any omission by this firm, our fees and expenses will be due on billing and we will expect payment from the client."

Lawyer Durbin, was initially informed AI’S first section was completed, and doing business since December 1981, and that the Tinker commitment was obtained for $19,500.00 and was in full force and effect since January 28, 1985.

April 16, 1985 - Durbin letter to Tinker’s Ed Phelps was unauthorized negotiation.

April 21, 1985 - On our request by letter, Tinker extended its commitment to April 30, 1985, to permit sufficient time to select financing alternatives.

April 23, 1985 - Durbin letter to Tinker's Ed Phelps inquiring if we, (his clients) had paid the $19, 500.00) commitment fee.

April 23, 1985 - Ed Phelps (Tinker mortgage officer) letter addressed to Alan Durbin, in part; We offered to extend the commitment based on our discussion with Vincent Germano relative to selling the property to a qualified buyer or bringing into the project an additional guarantor, in addition to return our fee if he was unable to restructure his project.

April 30, 1985 - With knowledge Pierce had refused to cooperate in closing the Tinker commitment from January 28, to March 31, deadline for its closing; Lawyer Durbin’s letter to bank's Pierce, in part: "We are steering to close with Tinker within the next ten days", "otherwise we will have to submit a request to the Court to hear our request".

May 1, 1985 - Bank, Pierce’s letter to Durbin, who, without discussion of its contents with us and authorization, signed it.

May 3, 1985 - At Durbin's request by phone, Vincent and Sophie Germano, with our six-year-old grandson, went to his law office (wherein he withheld from us Reaves’ secret filing of the Journal Entry of Judgment dismissing our counterclaim in bank’s foreclosure suit, and asked us to sign a Journal Entry Of Judgment.

We declined however anxious to resume our business, on Durbin's assurance he would keep it until he (closed Tinker's loan that week) and repay AI'S debt to the Bank, Vincent Germano, believing that Durbin was recommended by the U.S. Attorney Bill Price and would not deceive us into granting the foreclosure based on the above facts of its perjury by banks lawyer’s and Reaves’. And on reading its first page limited to Journal Entry of Judgment, thinking it was a replacement for Reaves’ (secretly filed) J. E. of Judgment on our Counterclaim (filed without our signature or consent of client and affidavit of attorney pursuant in violation of O.S., Affiant signed the J. E. of J. dated May 3, 1985.

It was later discovered that morally corrupted lawyer Alan C. Durbin deceived Affiants into granting the bank Judicial Foreclosure and gave it to Pierce and continued refusing to close the Tinker loan to cause its cancellation. Acting in concert, Judge James B. Blevins signed the J. E. of J.

May 10, 1985 - Bank’s lawyer Pierce III, (after conspiring with Durbin and our legal counselors’ in moving the court to block closing the Tinker commitment to pay-off Bank’s mortgage since issued January 4, 1985 to purposefully cause its cancellation, inquired by U.S. Mail to coconspirator lawyer Alan C. Durbin, “Please let me know at your earliest convenience of the status of putting the Tinker deal together, if anything on this end that can be done to expedite, please let me know”.

April 5, 1985 - Lawyer Durbin letter to Tinker’s Ed Phillips seeking (without consideration) to deed American Inn to another client (Allan Garland) along with the Tinker loan.
May 28, 1985 - Affiant’s excellent credit ruined, we tried to recoup some of our investment pursuant to Tinker’s restructured loan agreement requiring a second guarantor. His treachery still unknown, Durbin drafted the (33 page) General Partnership Agreement. Executed by our son Wayne Germano and Juanita Anne Rorem who paid $105,000.00 into a bank escrow account for one-third interest in the AI. Durbin also violated that agreement and refused to close the restructured loan.

May 28, 1985 - Durbin letter to Tinker mortgage officer Ed Phelps regarding the General Partnership Agreement.

June 3, 1985 - We received Tinker letter canceling its commitment to pay-off bank’s note with its refund check for $19,200.00 paid on its commitment issued five months earlier. Though we didn’t receive it until after the Temporary Restraining Order hearing below. We had no knowledge of the cancellation until Pierce (who with our legal counsel, blocked its closing since issued 1/28) deceived the court by submitting it in the T.R.O. hearing to prove it had expired.
June 4, 1985 - AI lawsuit, case #CJ-85-5070: Our third legal counsel, Charles Rouse filed the suit, amended it June 6 & obtained Temporary Restraining Order, staying Sheriffs Sale of AI. Lawyer Rouse alleges, in part: "The Defendant herein perpetrated fraud upon the Plaintiff herein, knowing that the same would work irrevocable hardship on the Plaintiff herein and at the same time cause a windfall to the Defendant."

"That the Defendant has conspired with person or persons currently unknown to defraud the Plaintiff of its real property for a sum of less than one half the actual value of the said property." "The fraud of the Defendant entitles the Plaintiff to actual damages of $2,000.000.000.00, $1,000.000.000.00 punitive damages and recovery of exemplary damages as an example to others similarly situated in the sum of $150,000,000.00.

Due to Rouse's failed to oppose Pierce's motion-as he had also advised was essential, assigned to judge Parr, the case was re-assigned to judge James B. Blevins (whose void judgments the suit sought to set aside under Oklahoma Statute and settled legal precedent).

June 7, 1985 - TRO HEARING, on (ONE) of the Four counts of AI’S lawsuit: As shown on the Transcript of the hearing also in our care, bank’s Pierce and co counsel Joel Carson filed copies of the Tinker letter canceling its commitment with the check of $19,200.00 fee, (before we learned of the cancellation or received it in the mail on our return to the motel after the hearing).
As shown by the transcript also in our care Pierce and co council Joel Carson, posed trick questions to writer Vincent Germano (on the witness chair) to cover up-suppress the extraordinary fraud, fraud on the court outlined above. Vincent attempted to controvert such deception, but Judge Blevins stopped me stating "you are represented by counsel."
Lawyer Durbin, still AI’S counsel of record, (subpoenaed by the bank as its witness!!) Judge Blevins asked him to take the witness chair, stating, "you need not swear an oath, you are an officer on the court." Durbin REMAINED SILENT, until Rouse (visibly intimidated by judge Blevins' obvious bias toward the bank and Durbin), failed to question him and excused Durbin who wrongfully stated "he was not involved in the judgment."

Judge Blevins allowed Pierce and co counsel Joel Carson to testify as to what witnesses-summoned and seated in the courtroom, would say if called to the witness chair to testify. Then, displaying anger, judge Blevins stated it was a hearing on the merits, and in violation of court rules granted Pierce's Motion for Summary Judgment on ALL FOUR COUNTS, and ended the court stay.

Following cancellation of the Tinker loan, we released $105, 000.00 paid by Mrs. Rorem into a bank escrow account contingent on the Tinker loan closing by lawyer Alan Durbin.

June 10, 1985 - Revealing his moral depravity, in his letter to Affiants, lawyer Durbin stated, in part, "We regret that we were unable to convince you that the litigation posture that you chose to pursue lacked a reasonable expectation of success." "It is unfortunate that the events of the past few days have not proved successful." Durbin further states, "you must remit to us the sum of $11,533.90, for fees and expenses within 39 days of your receipt of this letter".

June 13, 1985 - Lawyer Rouse filed the Petition In Error-Preliminary Statement and withdrew form our case, stated In part: "Trial court erred in prevented plaintiff from presenting evidence relevant to the temporary restraining order, and permitted defendant to present argument, cross examination, and authority on all aspects of the case.

June 14, 1985 - Bank, Pierce Motion To Settle Amount Of Attorney’s Fees, Oklahoma County, OK, Dist. Court, case# CJ-85-5070.

August 16, 1985 - Pierce’s letter to Tinker's mortgage officer Ed Phelps, in part: "As you probably know, American Inn, Inc. jumped into a reorganization proceeding under CH -II, bankruptcy Code".

June 19, 1985 - Pierce law partner Joel Carson's letter to Charles Rouse.

June 19, 1985 - Pierce letter to lawyer Rouse with his motion and court order reassigning coconspirator Judge James B. Blevins to preside over the (attorney fee hearing). Pierce, continuing his fraud on the court, states, in part: "the adverse publicity that the plaintiff generated," "the novelty of questions presented in this case, the skill required to completely defeat this action in THREE DAYS," "Mr. Carson's and Mr. Pierces experience in commercial litigation," "The quick reaction by Defendant's counsel, and prompt successful termination of this litigation should have served TO SET AN EAMPLE that FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Pierce seeks a court order for legal fees based on the attached "Defendant counsel's DETAILED TIME RECORDS for the period in question".
Tony Blazer, lay employee of the Oklahoma Bar Association, on receipt of Pierce’s TIME RECORDS filed with his Response to one of our many Grievances, informed Vincent Germano by phone that Pierce RE-WROTE, OMITTED INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE from his TIME RECORDS that he had filed in court records with this MOTION TO SETTLE THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES.

We promptly informed the OKLAHOMA BAR of Mr. Blasier's revelation of Pierce's felony perjured Time Records filed as a part of his Response to our Grievance. The State Bar ignored such outright fraud and permitted Pierce to continue violating its rules of conduct outlined below. The bar denied a total of ten (10) Grievances in collusion with the lawyers to evade discipline.

December 10, 1985 - Oklahoma Supreme Court, case #64,709: AI’S fourth attorney, Jerome Blumenthal, received a $2500.00 fee and filed the opening brief-(absent claims arising in the above facts). The appeal was taken over by Pierce for his bank and continued his outrageous, indefensible criminal conduct to defeat AI’S appeal and CH II bankruptcy reorganization as follows.

June 26, 1985 - AI’S CH II Bankruptcy Petition, case #Bk-85-2221-A, staying Sheriff Sale: Assigned to judge Berry, the case was reassigned to Chief judge Richard Bohanon-who was seated from (chose in action) Alan Durbin's large (Andrews, Davis law firm) which was paying him for stock sold-back to the law firm. Luther Bohanon (Sr.) was a senior judge in that same federal court district, a violation of 458, 28, U.S. Code. This conflict of interests fueled the Striking of our petitions in the federal and state courts.

WITNESS AFFIDAVIT lawyer Charles R. Rouse November 6, 1985 attesting: "I was attorney for the Debtor in possession of American Inn, Inc. and as such, attended the hearing conducted pursuant to 11, U.S.C., Sec. 2004. During an off the record recess from this proceeding, Peter G. Pierce III, Alan Durbin, Vincent Germano and I were talking informally among ourselves." "During the conversation Mr. Pierce looked at Vincent Germano and stated, "We could have had the Tinker loan closed in one week if you hadn't filed your lawsuit against the Bank." Mr. Durbin responded, "that’s right." (Lawyer Rouse had filed our lawsuit).

Upon Rouse’s refusal to have the court reporter record Pierce and Durbin’s gloating confession of their fraudulent prosecution of the bank’s foreclosure suit which caused AI’S bankruptcy, Vincent Germano left the hearing and went to the office of Court Administrator Steve Liveshee, who was out of his office. All other court officials were also out to lunch. On my return to the hearing, on lawyer Charles Rouse's assurance he would provide the above affidavit, Vincent Germano relented.

Judge Bohanon, based on applications and (Affidavits appointed the lawyers who drove A.I. into bankruptcy in positions in full criminal control of A.I’s. Appeal and Bankruptcy proceeding: Alan C. Durbin, appointed to Chair the Unsecured Creditor’s Committee and Committee counsel; Michael Rolinaitis Trustee and counsel for himself who with his wife had troubled loans at the same bank and an attorney-client responsibility to the A.I. and Affiants, (he had agreed to prosecute an Adversary suit against the bank and lawyers Reaves, Durbin, and Pierce. Mrs. Rolinaitis was appointed bankrupt estate’s accountant; Peter G. Pierce III, bank’s officer and stockholder of the bank, a defendant in the bankrupt A.I’s. lawsuit on appeal and chose in action himself, was corruptly hired as counsel for the Trustee to prosecute an adversary suit against Affiants.

Attorney David Dunlop (prior member of Trustee Michael Rolinaitis’ law firm) submitted his affidavit attesting to Rolinaitis and his wife’s troubled loans with Piece’s bank.
 

July 23, 1985 - Order by the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, "directed that all parties show cause why all proceedings in this appellate matter (arising from the summary dismissal of our lawsuit, case 5070, above) should not be stayed immediately.

August 2, 1985 - In the ongoing fraudulent bankruptcy proceeding, Pierce, corruptly acting as counselor for his bank (defendant in the bankrupt estate’s lawsuit on appeal) and Trustee’s legal counsel, filed the five page, Appellee’s Response As To Why Proceedings Should Not Be Stayed. For the reasons discussed below, and based upon authorities cited, the Appellee respectively submits that there is no impediment to continuation of this proceeding, and should not be stayed

Peter Pierce, in conspiracy with Alan Durbin and Trustee Rolinaitis, filed their Plan of CH 11 Reorganization stating, in part, their intent to DISMISS AI’S Appeal, and to DISREGARD it if GRANTED. The failure of lawyers of the four (4) law firms who undertook AI’S CH II bankruptcy and our personal objections, they withdrew their sham plan, but defeated the bankrupt estate’s appeal and reorganization as follows:

August 15, 1985-Pierce letter to Rouse and Reaves regarding the 2004 bankruptcy examination (knowing) Reaves was dismissed on April 5, 1985.

August 16, 1985-Pierce’s letter to Tinker's mortgage officer, Ed Phelps, in part: "As you probably know, American Inn, Inc. jumped into a reorganization proceeding, CH -II, bankruptcy Code".
 

September 19, 1985-Letter by Charles Rouse (second appearance in our cause) to Bank's Pierce, the only secured creditor, regarding missing Touch Ross (AI'S accountant) work papers taken from case files while in Pierce's possession in the bankruptcy case.
 

October 4, 1985-Charles Rouse, Motion, Objection To Appointment Of Trustee, response (filed by Susan Manchester) to Pierce and Alan C. Durbin's joint-motion for Trustee McDonald to take over management of AI from Affiants (then debtor in possession) -Manchester’s Motion filed for trustee MacDonald, Transcript of the bankruptcy court hearing and Court Order.
(See Federal case below: Manchester’s and Floyd Taylor’s fraudulent cover-up, of their appearance for trustee Mc Donald to deceive us into hiring them; how they filed our petition (absent prepetition and bankruptcy crimes and withdrew alleging we changed their agreement and kept our unearned $5, 000.00 fee).
 

February 6, 1986 - Durbin and Pierce, in full, control of AI'S bankruptcy proceeding, filed a Motion For Issuance Of Order To Show Cause & For Contempt Order, against Vincent and Sophie Germano, and seeking an order to seize the $19,200.00 refunded by Tinker to Affiants.
 

May 2, 1986 - Pierce letter (no letterhead) to Bankruptcy Trustee Rolinaitis (his bank’s troubled creditor) seeking to defeat AI’S Appeal of the district court ruling granting bank summary judgment.
 

May 4, 1986 - Office Card of FBI special agent Michael Puskus who took our complaint and supporting (court instruments) of pre-petition and bankruptcy, fraud, corruption. The head agent of the Oklahoma City FBI office, didn't respond - Office Card of FBI Special agent Michael Puskus.
 

May 8, 1986 - Waiver Of Oral Argument, signed by Trustee Rolinaitis and Pierce.
Shammed Adversary suit against Vincent and Sophie Germano, Case -86-423-A, by Appellee bank's Pierce, Trustee Rolinaitis and Durbin alleging unauthorized payments as debtor in possession.
 

Affiants paid for a grandson’s mission fee of approximately $200.00 for attending United States Space Camp (NASA). John is an electrical engineer.
 

August 4, 1986 - On our complaint of the failure to prosecute the ongoing bankruptcy fraud, lawyer David Pepper (one of four law firms whose law firms appeared in our motel’s bankruptcy, failed to cease the ongoing bankruptcy fraud, corruption, then withdrew from our case and (required Affiants to sign a hold harmless) agreement before refunding our fee.
We filed pro se, Defendant 's Motion In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion To Strike and supporting Affidavit. To no avail, Oklahoma City Municipal Counselor Howard Haralson filed a motion, 9/17/86, objecting to our pro se motion to remove Pierce, Trustee Rolinaitis and Durbin from positions in fraudulent control of AI’S bankruptcy proceeding. (Pierce had been a member of the Oklahoma City Counsel, and Pierce Sr. was well connected in politics).
 

September 17, 1986 - Pierce letter addressed to us and mailed to our home in Kingwood, TX, seeking to collect on the fraudulently begotten Default bankruptcy judgments) threatening to have "professional Collection Attorneys in Houston TX who literally will pursue the debts the rest of your lives".
 

These are the default judgments levied against us in the facts outlined above, which R.W. Abbott corruptly drafted for judge Richard Bohanon and mailed to our home in Texas. Bohanon allowed Abbott to keep $3700.00 of the $5000.00 fee paid him on his agreement "to do a CRAM DOWN against the bank and coconspirator lawyers. Abbott is one of the lawyers of the four law firms who undertook and acquiesced to the ongoing fraudulent bankruptcy and adversary proceedings proceeding.
 

As is also shown in the federal case below, Taylor and Manchester removed the void judgments from case files delivered to their Oklahoma City law office to cover up lawyer Abbot’s bankruptcy fraud and corrupt conduct in drafting the Default judgments against Affiants, his ex clients.
 

Lawyer Charles R. Rouse (who gave his affidavit attesting to the bank, Reaves’ Durbin’s foreclosure fraud in the bankruptcy case) filed our Response Brief in Opposition to Motion To Remove Trustee, To Remove Attorney For Trustee And To Reinstate Debtor In Possession. Rouse filed with this motion; Affidavit of proposed attorneys, Trustee's Motion to Employ Professional Person For a Limited Purpose, Debtor's Brief, and Objection by AI, Inc, and allowance of Claim and Confirmation of Plan.
 

November 19, 1986 - Lawyer Rouse letter to Affiant withdrawing from the case to be called as a witness (regarding Pierce and Durbin’s admission of their fraudulent prosecution of the bank foreclosure attested to on his affidavit). Lawyer Rouse was never called to testify by his successor lawyers who covered up/suppressed affidavits by lawyers Charles R. Rouse, David Dunlop and Affiants.
 

September 19, 1986 - abandoned by another lawyer again, we filed pro se, a Combined Response to Pierce's Response to the above Motion (by attorney Rouse) to Remove Trustee Rolinaitis and Pierce-acting as his counsel in a severe conflict of interests, objecting to such fraud, including, comparing us to Tax Protesters.
 

January 5, 1987 - Reply by Chief Judge Richard Bohanon denying our motion demanding Rights Sua Sponte. As show herein, Bohanon took reassignment despite his severe conflict of interests and allowed lawyers of four (4) (of a total of nine (9) law firms who appeared in our cause) to conspire in open court to defeat AI’S Appeal & reorganization, now advised that we "retain a competent attorney".

Upon filing our motion (pro se), Trustee Michael Rolinaitis resigned (6 days before the hearing) and was appointed "estate administrator."

January 8, 1987 - Pierce's (4 page) letter submitted in the Settlement Conference before Federal Magistrate Pat Irwin, on January 14, Reveals his bank’s wielding of political power to manipulate the legal system to perfect the virtual theft of our American Inn.

January 9, 1987 - Orders by Judge Bohanon Converting AI’S CH II, to CH 7, And The Appointment of L. Win Holbrook Interim Trustee And Approving Standing Bond for the American Inn, Inc. estate, case #86-2221-A-.

Vincent and Wayne Germano lodged a complaint with Holbrook of violation of AI’S bankruptcy and appeal (by the bank and lawyers whose prepetition fraud caused A.I’s, bankruptcy), supported by court records, affidavits by lawyers Charles R. Rouse, David Dunlop an ours, Holbrook moved the Oklahoma Court of Appeals for Rehearing of AI’S Appeal (below):
 

January 12, 1987 - Court Of Appeals For The State of Oklahoma, Div. No. 3, L. Win Holbrook, Entry Of Appearance, as attorney for Trustee L. Win Holbrook, of American Inn, Inc.
 

January 12, 1987 - Order by the Court Of Appeals For The State of Oklahoma, Div. No. 3, granting Trustee Holbrook until February 2, 1987 in which to Petition for Rehearing (AI’S Appeal, case # 64,709) and Brief in support there of.
Interim Trustee Holbrook, however, joined the bank’s ongoing conspiracy and abandoned the criminally bankrupted (American Inn estate).
 

January 12, 1987 - Bankruptcy Court Order For Meeting Of Creditor etc. As shown on the Order (bottom left) W. Rogers Abbott, who appeared in AI'S bankruptcy case and joined bank, Pierce, Durbin and trustee Rolinaitis in covering up the ongoing fraudulent proceeding, withdrew from the case and moved the court to keep unearned $3700.00 of $5000.00 paid on his agreement to do a "cram down" against the bank and coconspirators.
 

January 23, 1987 - Judge Bohanon granted Rouse's motion to withdraw-leaving US SEATED ALONE AT THE TABLE with interim Trustee Holbrook, Durbin, Pierce and others, seated at the other table. Microphone in hand, Pierce verbally supported his previously submitted motion for default summary judgment over the P.A. System.

Judge Bohanon granted his bank Default Judgments against Affiants, converting the case to CH-7. Pierce, thus, perfected bank's criminally fraudulent foreclosure. Abbott, as AI'S ex-attorney, DRAFTED (for Chief judge Richard Bohanon), the fraudulently begotten default judgments against Vincent and Sophie Germano and mailed them to our home in Texas. Though the original judgments were removed from case files by lawyers Susan Manchester and Floyd Taylor, this Exhibit consists of the Court Order.

February 24, 1987 - Pierce took possession of our American Inn for his Bank at Sheriff Sale for a fraction of his bank’s mortgage, and as lawyer Charles Rouse, stated in his pleadings to the court in the 5990 case (above) the bank made a "windfall." On information and belief, Pierce parlayed its ill gotten windfall by claiming a loss on the Bank's IRS Income Tax Returns.
 

February 29, 1989-We mailed a complaint, with a three page summary of the above outlined bankruptcy fraud to Assistant U. S. Trustee Michael Freemen, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 201 Dean A. McGee, Okla. City, OK, 73102, Freeman didn’t bother to respond.

On our complaint of the bankruptcy fraud, corruption: John Green, assistant U.S. Attorney, OK City office, an African American, started writing our complaint, but on hearing judge Richard Bohanon's name, stopped writing and stated "I will not embarrass Luther Bohanon” (his father), a senior judge in that same federal district because “he integrated the schools in Oklahoma." A violation of Sec. 458 FRCP) that fueled the STRIKING of our Petitions in the state and federal courts in Oklahoma City and Houston Texas as shown below.

We personally lodged a complaint of the bankruptcy fraud committed in bankruptcy court in Oklahoma, with Assistant U.S. Trustee, Nancy Holley of the Houston, Texas, bankruptcy court. She gave us her card and ignored our pleas for help. Shortly thereafter, her boss (Trustee Head), resigned amid charges of his wrongdoing. Complaints to the U.S. Office of U.S. Trustees, Washington were to no avail.

NEWS RELEASE by Congressman Jack Brooks: Due to complaints of ours and other victims of such bankruptcy fraud, corruption suffered by us, Congressman Brooks moved General Accounting Office to investigate the Justice Department’s U.S. Bankruptcy Program. No response was received, however, Judge Bohanon was removed as Chief judge, but is still a judge in that bankruptcy court.

U.S. District Court, case CIV-87-525-T: Affiants and son Wayne, drove (8 hours) to the law office of Miskovsky, Sullivan, Taylor & Manchester, Oklahoma City, OK. Informed of the above facts, they deceived us stating they didn't have a conflict of interests with parties involved in our cause, and that they would include in our petition a referral to the (17-Page Paper) that Pierce had presented at the April 3, 1987 Banking Law Institute, Oklahoma City University, titled, Bank's, Lawyers And Liability Revisited.

Based on their written agreement to "prosecute the parties who caused the financial collapse of the American Inn--through appeal," our son Wayne and Affiant Vincent Germano, handed them a $5000.00 check and the "original default bankruptcy judgments.
IN HIS PAPER Peter G. Pierce III, reveals the psyche of a corrupt banker-lawyer in small part: "the traditional "Plaintiffs Bar" does not know very much about financial regulation but, they are certainly experts in common law and tort theories. And most of them can pronounce, if not expound upon, RICO." There is a decided inclination on the banker's part to act now and worry about ramifications later.” “Keep a clean file, assume that everything in a credit or customer file will be read to a jury. A good paper trail can prevent a debtor from getting to a jury. Communicate if the bank thought the borrower was a sufficiently astute businessman to justify credit initially, does it have reason to consider him inept today?” "Likely Not…"

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Ralph Thompson: Lawyers Taylor and Manchester, filed our Petition omitting mention of the Paper and claims arising in the facts touched on above. We later learned that Taylor and Manchester deceive us into hiring them, Affiant Vincent Germano, unbeknown to us, Susan Manchester appeared for Trustee McDonald (to replace us as debtor in possession in AI'S bankruptcy case).

Taylor and Manchester, removed from case files the original Judgments levied against us (by default) received in an envelope of the law firm of R.W. Rogers Abbott, 414 Park Harvey Center. Okla. City, OK, 73102. Abbott is one of the lawyers of four law firms who appeared in AI'S bankruptcy (above) and covered up, suppressed the bank’s and coconspirator lawyers prepetition and ongoing bankruptcy criminal fraud. Abbott drafted the default judgments for Chief Bankruptcy Judge Bohanon, after he granted his motion to withdraw from our case and keep $3700 of $5000.00 paid on his agreement to prosecute what Abbot stated was a "Cram Down" against the Bank and conspiring attorneys.

April 7, 1987-We received an Affidavit and cover letter by U.S. Mail from the Oklahoma City, OK, law office, by Susan Manchester, advising us to sign the enclosed Affidavit. Her appearance for trustee Mc Donald to take over management of the AI still unknown to us, after her refusal to add all of our claims from the affidavit only touched-on herein, by phone, we refused to sign the affidavit.

Chief Federal Judge Thompson granted Taylor and Manchester's motion to withdraw from our case, alleging that we insisted on changing their employment agreement to keep $5000.00 paid on their written agreement to "prosecute the parties who caused the financial collapse of American Inn--through appeal".

Chief Judge Thompson, stating "certain claims are viable and appropriate," reassigned the case to Judge Lynn Phillips (whose wife) was associated with Alan Durbin's chose in action Andrews, Davis, law firm.

May 27, 1987 - Pierce filed Defendant's Brief in Support Of Motions For Entry Of Judgment And Imposition Of Sanctions against the Germanos, citing facts and legal precedent having no record support.

June 5, 1987 - We wrote to Bill Price, the then U.S. Attorney, in Oklahoma City, who had recommended Alan Durbin, inquiring about our previously filed criminal complaint against bank's Peter G. Pierce III. No response was received.

June 31, 1987 - Motion, Response of Counsel by trial lawyer Richard Denney and letter by Dallas attorney L.S. Kaplan, who, in his Dallas law office, recommended Denny to Vincent Germano and son Wayne. Mr. Denny discussed filing a federal Civil Rico action, filed an entry of appearance, then withdrew because of a possible conflict of interests.

With the pending deadline for filing our Amended Petition, we Wayne, drove (8 hours) to meet lawyer Craig Dodd (of Enid Oklahoma) at Sullivan’s restaurant in Oklahoma City. Upon confirmation of his phone agreement and to mail his written agreement to amend our Petition with all our claims-through appeal, we paid him $5000.00. Dodd, however, didn't mail his written agreement and compounded Manchester and Taylor’s felony fraud, fraud on the court.
Lawyer Craig Dodd filed an Amended Petition-omitting claims arising in the extraordinary facts only touched on herein. Dodd's associate David Vorwald, expressed amazement over evidence learned in deposing lawyer Alan C. Durbin, but refused to provide the transcript of the deposition. In a fit of remorse, Vorwald stated the reason for omitting our claims from our Amended Petition and refusal to provide a copy of the transcript, could be found by obtaining the name of the daughter of a high official to one of the parties involved in our case.
Due to the high profile persons involved, one Oklahoma City investigator, returned our fee, and the other firm accepted then abandoned our case. Having uncovered certain of the conflict of interests on our own initiative that caused the lawyers of the nine (9) Oklahoma law firms who undertook our cause throughout the years and violated our right to due process, we have yet to uncover the names of the parties alluded to by lawyer David Vorwald.

July 21, 1987 - Judge Layn Phillips' Order denying our pro se motion to disqualify him because we did not question his impartiality. Thus, despite the fact that his wife was associated with a main chose in action conspirator law firm, our efforts to defend our right to an impartial judge and constitutional due process, came to naught once again.
 

July 27, 1987 - Our Reply Brief (filed by our son Wayne) In opposition Pierce’s Motion To Dismiss And Motion For Summary Judgment, with two pages of case law and facts having no relationship to the extraordinary fraud, corruption, fraud on the court outlined herein.
Based on lawyer Craig Dodd’s In Camera Affidavit, alleging wrongdoing by Affiants (clients) Judge Phillips STRUCK our lawsuit and granted Dodd's motion to withdraw and to keep our un-earned $5000.00 fee.

Late one evening Craig Dodd phoned Affiant Vincent Germano and stated "if he had pleaded the truth of our case in the Amended Petition, he would have had to appeal all cases thereafter." Dodd further stated his son was disabled and couldn’t afford to appeal all cases. I expressed my sorrow for his son’s disability and stated the court records in our possession documenting systemic violations of due process were grounds were inexcusable.
Notified by phone of a hearing in Federal district court by clerk Mr. French, Affiants drove (eight hours) to Oklahoma City only to see a dark Courtroom. Chief Judge Thompson's secretary, on hearing our inquiry, exclaimed "my god you were prejudiced," but Judge Thompson, told her he wasn't allowed to speak with us ex-parte. We drove another eight hours back to our apartment in Kingwood, Texas.

September 1, 1987 - Bankruptcy Trustee L.W. Holbrook, following his and trustee Michael Rolinaitis defeat of AI’S CH II bankruptcy in the extraordinary facts briefly outlined herein above, trustee Holbrook filed another false sworn affidavit in support of Pierce's motion for summary judgment on which Judge Phillips, Struck our lawsuit in the CIV-87-525 Case
 

November 20, 1987 - Pierce, by Subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, served on our family in Texas, deposed our daughters Deborah Speaks, Pamela and John Kutchback and son Wayne Germano, at the law office of Eikenburgh & Styles, 1100 First National Bank Building, Houston, Texas.
 

January 7, 1988 - Affiants filed the Affidavit by Dr. David Nickeson in Support of a Motion For Continuance," Case #CIV-87-525-P. Attesting to Vincent Germano’s physical condition following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, performed at the V.A. hospital, Houston, Texas.

January 19, 1988 - U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, case -88-1244, USDC case#: CIV-87-525: Vincent Germano and son Wayne, pro se, appealed the striking of our lawsuit and filed a series of compelling motions and briefs opposing Pierce's pleadings designed to cover up his, our counsels' and bankruptcy Trustee's fraud, corruption touched on herein. During a phone inquiry, the court clerk stated to Vincent Germano, "what's the matter, don't you like the justice you received"?.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Order affirming the district court order; denied en banc rehearing and motion to stay issuance of mandate pending application to U.S. Supreme Court.
 

February 20, 1989 - We submitted a four-page complaint to Assistant U.S. Trustee of that district, Michael Freeman regarding bankruptcy fraud outlined herein, no response was received.
 

January 28, 1988 - Pierce filed his Affidavit In Support Of Attorney Fees.
 

March 8, 1989 - Response by Philip M. Zeidner, Executive Office of U. S. Trustees, U. S. Department of Justice, to our complaint of bankruptcy fraud. He expressed his outrage over the phone and moved C. P. Wood (Kansas Trustee) to investigate our complaint. Though judge Bohanon was removed as Chief judge, and allowed to remain in that federal bankruptcy court, Ms. Wood allowed the bankruptcy fraud to continue to defeat our motel reorganization and appeal from bank & our counselors’ prepetition felony fraud, fraud on the court.
 

March 9, 1989 - Summoned to appear at an asset hearing (by Pierce) in Federal Court in Oklahoma City, we drove eight hours to the hearing presided over by Magistrate Robin Cauthron. Pierce questioned Affiant Vincent Germano and lied to goad me into objecting: He stated in part: "This is in 1987 after you were kicked out of management of the American Inn." "Mr. Germano, after the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Oklahoma removed you as manager".

Though the Transcript of the hearing shows I answered "yes" to one statement, the court record proves both statements were false and done to provoke me into objecting and calling Pierce a liar. Magistrate Cauthron stated “(LYING) wasn’t relevant to the hearing,” and by Order of June 29, 1989 she certified a finding of Contempt of Court to federal Judge Layn Phillips. (Magistrate Cauthron had granted Pierce's motion for legal fees in the CIV-87-626-P case, wrongfully stating "Incurred as a result of (Germano’s) bad faith institution and pursuit of this lawsuit). Coauthor was rewarded, she was appointed Judge in that federal court district!
 

June 28, 1990 - Page 33 of transcript of Contempt Hearing, attorney J. W. Coyle received a $700 fee to present the document which shows we had sold the Motel to (Faust) based upon an irrevocable letter of Credit, only to have his lender refuse to honor it and our legal counselors did nothing. Coyle (remained seated, and failed to present the document in my defense at the hearing before judge Layn Phillips (whose wife was associated with bank main coconspirator, Alan Durbin law firm and (recommended by the U.S. Attorney) Judge Phillips denied my offer to show him the document on the witness stand).
 

Judge Phillips called a federal marshal into the courtroom and sentenced me to five (5) days in the Oklahoma County Jail (to punish me for defending our rights). Instructed to take me to the Oklahoma County Jail, the federal marshal, now retired, stated he wasn’t going to shackle me and to sit in the front seat with him for the trip to the jail. I thanked the Marshal for his kindness. Judge Phillips released me the next day.

May 23, 1989 - I filed a Common Law Affidavit in Real Property Records of Oklahoma County, OK, Clerk, file # 000446557. It declared in part, Sheriffs Deed of the American Inn, is fraudulent: Fraud lies in the fact that said instrument is being used in a continuing criminal episode and in an endless chain scheme of fictitious sales and is a forgery. Said instrument is perjures, in constituting fraud, and fraudulent use of process being invalid from its inception as a direct trespass without due process of law and a deprivation of all rights. The affidavit cites the Supreme Court ruling in Rich vs. Braxton, 158 U.S. 375, 376, 1985, specifically forbidding Judges from invoking equity jurisdiction to remove common law liens or similar "clouds of title." Our legal counselors, failed to cite this ruling and the facts stated, in part above.
 

June 28, 1989 - Petition, First National Bank of Bethany, case # CJ-85-5990: Filed by Peter G. Pierce III to expunge the Affidavits also named Oklahoma County as defendant. The case was assigned to Judge Owens. Pierce Amended the Petition August 37, 1989.
Robert Mitchell, Assistant Oklahoma County Attorney, who was shown the supporting court records by Affiant Vincent Germano, filed an Answer for the county July 7, 1869, stating in part. "Plaintiff petition fails to state a claim which relief may be granted as to the defendant.” “Plaintiff requests an order from this court which would prevent him from carrying out statutory duties of his office in the manner prescribed by law, and injunctive relief sought against this defendant is not authorized or appropriate under the facts of the case."

July 25, 1989 - Following denial of our cause by several Oklahoma law firms, we filed an Entry of Appearance pro se until Lawyer Charles Rouse induced us to hire him (a third time) based upon his personal knowledge of the facts, his affidavit and letter of May 25, 1989, in which he states, in part: "I have received your chronology and note that on its face, you appear to have an excellent 1983 action against numerous parties that have actively conspired against you; As you can imagine, several of the defendants, including (bankruptcy) Judge Bohanon, Alan Durbin, Peter Pierce and the Rolinaitis' (trustee) are looking at disbarment in the event that we prevail.
“As you know, Peter Pierce has a nasty habit of launching a paperwork blizzard when one is not required. I do not believe that each of the above listed Defendants would leave no stone unturned in their attempts to win this suit because of the disastrous professional and financial ramifications should you win."

As in each prior action, pursuant to Pierces motion, the case was reassigned to his favorite judges; in this case judge James B. Blevins, whose void judgments this suit sought to set aside under OK Statute, shown to have violated our constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury and due process in each prior judicial hearings.

August 18, 1989 - Letter by attorney Charles Rouse addressed to our home in Texas, stating, in part: "Enclosed please find our Very Rough First Draft of the Answer and Cross Petition that we have furnished for review in your case." "Prior to finalizing this matter, it will be necessary to document the violation of E.C.O.A. and review a copy of the Cross Petition in CJ-85-0095, and the retaliatory suit that I filed in CJ-95-5070 Case".

…"The reason for this is that res judicata on anything filed in the counterclaim which the judge gave judgment to the bank on our petition (CJ-85-5070) to vacate earlier upon which the judge gave judgment on, -- all sustained as per fraudulent Appeal (case # 64,709) prior to finishing this matter." "Additionally, we are intending to bring a cause of action for Damages, mental Duress, Loss of Credit Standing etc. on your behalf." "This has not been added to the rough draft, BUT WILL BE ADDED IN THE FUTURE" 23

Lawyer CHARLES R. ROUSE, however, FILED THE SAME "VERY ROUGH FIRST DRAFT" as our Answer and Cross Petition.

September 1, 1989 - Reply To (our) Counterclaim, by Pierce for his bank, he lied, part: "claims are barred by statutes of limitations, and the doctrines of issue preclusion and claims preclusion.

September 1, 1989 - U.S-Bankruptcy Court Trustee L.Win Holbrook once-again filed his perjured Affidavit extending his bankruptcy fraud into this state court action case # CJ-89-5990.
 

September 26, 1989 - Our cover letter submitted with our Affidavit, mailed to Robert Macy, Oklahoma County District Attorney, requesting a Grand Jury investigation into our complaint involving violations of our civil rights and criminal laws perpetrated under color of law in the state-federal courts, above. The OK County District Attorney didn't respond.
 

January 8, 1990 - Our letter to attorney Rouse requesting him to perform discovery and other services-he advised were vital to our case. As in his prior appearances, he failed to conduct discovery beginning in Plaintiff Bank's foreclosure suit.
 

January 12, 1989 - Our letter in response to attorney Rouse's letter containing Pierce's Requests For Interrogatories Admissions And Documents THREE (3) DAYS before they were due in Pierce’s Oklahoma City office, knowing we couldn’t complete them in time.
 

January 22, 1990 - AS IN EACH PRIOR ACTION, Pierce filed his bank’s Motion For Summary Judgment And Notice Of Hearing.
 

January 27, 1990 - Our son Wayne FedExed this letter to attorney Rouse with our Discovery drafts and Admissions and request that Rouse demand a trial by jury and that answers to Pierce's discovery requests will be delivered to you by Monday February 5, 1990.
 

January 30, 1990 - Our Grievance filed with the Oklahoma Bar, asking Dan Murdock not to discipline Charles Rouse, but to have him cease neglecting duties and legal actions which he advised were critical to our legal defense and cross petition.
 

January 30, 1990 - Our letter to Rudolph Hargrave, Chief Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, outlining case history of violations of due process with a copy of our grievance to the Okla. Bar Association, requesting him to order Rouse to perform legal services. The justice didn’t respond to our pleas for help.
 

February 7, 1990 - Lawyer Rouse following his failure to move the court for judge Blevins’ recusal, as he had advised was vital, we filed an application for his recusal.
 

February 8, 1990 - Order and Judgment, U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the District Court Ruling Striking our lawsuit; “two orders” denying en banc rehearing and stay issuance of the mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court rules of our motion. The Orders cite facts and legal precedent having no record support of case history of violations of constitutionally protected due process and trial by jury touched on herein.
 

March 14, 1990 - Motion To Withdraw by attorney Charles Rouse, asserting, in part; that we refused to cooperate in discovery required by statute. That we have filed pleadings in this matter having no merit; Vincent Germano’s overwhelming fixation with this matter appears to be psychogenetic in nature obstructing his rational analysis of the situations faced in the course of this litigation".
 

With the probable granting of Plaintiff Bank's Motion For Summary Judgment, Affiant, Vincent Germano underwent a psychiatric examination by Dr. Jose Carranza and mailed the finding to Judge Blevins asking that he deny Rouse's motion, as a replacement attorney was not available to us in Oklahoma.

March 25, 1990 - Our letter to attorney Rouse (Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested), in part: That he move the court to vacate its Order granting Defendant's Motion For Imposition Of Sanctions, by DEFAULT following his failure to attend the hearing.
 

April 2, 1990 - Plaintiff' Bank Pierce's motion, Concurrence With (Rouse's) Application To Withdraw As attorney Of Record.
 

April 9, 1990 - Letter by lawyer Rouse to us, in part: Upon ORAL MOTION the court vacated sanctions, then re-imposed sanctions after learning that you refused to Verify the Answers, and admonishes Affiants for "claiming injuries that don't exist." Rouse withheld from the court that we requested him to replace Verifications that he had mailed to us because they were "illegible copies" and would have been rejected by Pierce.
 

May 3, 1990 - Our letter sent by Certified Mail to Robert L. Mitchell, Assistant D. A. Oklahoma City, OK, complaining, in part, of bankruptcy Trustee Holbrook's false sworn Affidavit submitted in support of Pierce’s motion for summary judgment. No response.
 

June 10, 1990 - Our one page cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, with three supporting instruments attached thereto.
 

July 17, 1990 - Affidavit Of Judgment, and Journal Entry Of Judgment on bank's lawsuit, case #CJ-89-5990, dismissing our Cross Petition, and PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED us from filing legal action against the Bank, its parent, Devonshire Investment Company, and American Inn Motel Of Oklahoma City, Inc. (our motel) and VERY ROUGH FIRST DRASFT OF OUR CROSS PETION which named only the bank.
Pierce mailed to our home in Texas, letters addressed to us and Robert Mitchell, Assistant D.A., Oklahoma County, OK, with the Appellee 's Journal Entry of Judgment, by judge Blevins filed July 17,1990.

August 9, 1990 - Agreement by Jerome Blumenthal to prosecute our appeal, in part: "I will prepare the petition in error and file same. I will prepare and file a brief to all issues and facts of this case regardless of implications to parties in high office." Like his predecessors, he omitted the fraud, corruption by his predecessors briefly outlined above.
 

September 25, 1990 - Order, Oklahoma Supreme Court, denied our (pro se) Writ of Mandamus to disqualify Judge Blevins, which states "adequate remedy by appeal". The Order was signed by Chief justice (Hargrave) who failed to respond to our letter and copy of our bar grievance dated January 30, above, asking to prevent Rouse from abandoning our cause.
 

May 21, 1991 - We filed pro se, Motion and Brief To Sanction Peter G. Pierce III, in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Blumenthal didn't controvert the facts and case law asserted by Pierce, having no relationship to his and our legal counselors litany of fraud, corruption shown in part herein.
U.S. Supreme Court: following our legal counselors’ systematic refusal to move the court to disqualify Judge Blevins and demand a trial by jury since January 4, 1985, our son Wayne drafted our Corrected Combined Motion To Disqualify And Sanction Peter G. Pierce III And Strike Brief In Opposition To Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. It was filed stamped May 1 and June 10, 1991.

July 4, 1991 - U.S. SUPREME COURT: Our Brief In Support Of Plaintiff's Combined Motion To Reconsider And Vacate The Related Orders etc. and the Order by Judge Phillips of July 21, 1987. The "Constitutional Court" denied a total of FIVE pleas for appellate relief from violations of constitutionally protected due process in each and every case at the hands of the lawyers of the nine (9) Oklahoma law firms who undertook our cause since 1985.
 

January 18, 1993 - Oklahoma Supreme Court-This is one of the pleadings filed by us pro se: Appellants’ Amended Petition For Writ of Certiorari. The justices also ignored the ten page petition of a compelling overview of the extraordinary history of violations of every element of Constitutionally protected Due Process-through which judges seized our motel for the bank and ended a successful family business.

October 18, 1994 - Attorney Charles Rouse stated in his letter to us, "Thank you for a copy of your disillusioned diatribe. As you are aware, it contains numerous slanderous and false statements. Only your poverty prevents me from seeking remedy. I hope you get the help you need".

October 15, 1999 - U.S. District Court, Houston, TX: Our lawsuit filed pro se against First National Bank of Bethany, OK, Now First Bethany Bank & Trust, N.A., case #H-98-CV-2688, demanding a trial by jury. It also named its officers, directors and privies, jointly, individually and severally. The suit was supported by our (15 page) Affidavit listing the cases in Oklahoma state and federal courts of the Western District of Oklahoma. The suit listed the cases (all limited to sham judicial proceedings by judges with defrauding conflicts of interests who granted bank summary judgment.

Docketed a Civil Rights case by the filing court clerk, the case was assigned to Judge John D. Rainey. The Houston, TX, law firm filed bank’s Answer, absent demand for a trial by jury. Judge Rainey, informed of the omission of the Adversary suit case#86-0423 from the rendition of cases listed on the Affidavit filed with bank’s fraudulent Answer - which actually states our suit stems from history of judicial foreclosure and summary dismissal of our efforts to adjudicate our claims in the courts in Oklahoma State.

And that Peter G. Pierce III, omitted the Adversary case to deceive the court by covering up that he prosecuted the Adversary case (# 86-0423) in his felony conspiracy with our legal counselors and trustees in full felony control of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Together, the lawyers prosecuted the Adversary suit moving bankruptcy court to award the bank two (default) judgments, void on their face against Affiants to convert our motel’s CH II filing to CH 7. Thus, another fraud on the court and all taxpayers who paid the cost of the open court criminal conspiracy, as Pierce and our legal counselors had done in each of the prior cases of sham hearings by concert acting judges.

September 29, 1999 - Judge Rainey, ignored settled precedent, issued a Memorandum and Order granting Pierce’s Motion for Summary Judgment – wrongfully striking our Civil Right suit. The Order consists of a (7 page ruling and legal precedent) having no record support of violations of due process and trial by jury through Pierce’s and our legal counselors’ fraud, corrupt conduct, fraud on the courts, in each prior legal actions.
 

December 27, 1999 - Affiants appealed the ruling in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, case # 99-20969.

November 16, 1999 - Clerk letter notifying us, in part, the appeal was docketed, and included a caption for the appeal and instructed Affiants to use it on any briefs you file with this court. Affiants notified the Clerk the caption was not correct, that our prior legal counselors and the judges were named bank's co-conspirators-not defendants as stated, the Clerk failed to correct the caption severely prejudicing Affiants.

Affiants filed numerous pleadings in the Appeal, however, our concern for its defeat arose with Deputy Clerk Janne Winne's directives by phone and U.S. Mail that deceived us into canceling our timely filed motions for en-banc rehearing of court rulings denying our motion to supplement the record, in defense of the false facts and repeated slander of our integrity and probable defeat of our appeal.

Thus, the Deputy Clerk deprived us the right of reconsideration by the full court of such wrongdoing and slanderous pleadings pursuant to court rules governing en bank rehearing.
July 13, 2000 - Appellee Bank's Louisiana counsel filed bank's Original Brief, replete with false history facts and three pages of Authorities having no record support and crossed the line of common decency: The lawyers slandered and accused us of abuse of process and waste of tax resources, which the court records prove themselves to be guilty of.

The bank’s counsel further stated, in part: "Blinded by Ignorance and Obsession, the Germanos filed suit in the Southern District of Texas in July 1999, asserting the same claims based upon some FAUX conspiracy." "The Germanos have abused the civil court system for nearly a generation. They have plagued First Bethany, forcing it to defend claims wholly lacking in merit. Unable to respond in damages or monetary sanctions, living on exempt income with relatives in Houston's luxurious Kingwood addition,”“the Germanos approach the courts with impudence and contempt."

"First Bethany respectfully submits that the District Court order dismissing the Germanos' case (and in the alternative entering summary judgment should be affirmed with sanctions against the appellants).” The order is legally correct and furthers the policy that frivolous Complaints ought not vex either those called to defend or an overtaxed judiciary, or the third party in all Litigation, the Taxpayers whose money the Germanos have repeatedly squandered."
 

November 10, 1999 - Letter by Meredith Ann Pierce notifying us to direct correspondence to her at the Jones, Walker law firm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ms. Pierce, an Oklahoma resident is the grand-daughter of Peter Pierce Sr., Appellee bank's President, majority stockholder and board chairman.

Appellants motioned the court complaining about attorneys, E.S. Wilson's slanderous language and Meredith A. Pierce's conflict of interests. Apelles’s Louisiana counsel responded stating that Wilson and Ms. Pierce were dismissed and replaced.

February 9, 2000 - Appellants petitioned the Senate Judiciary Committee, with supporting exhibits stating our concern for the likely defeat of our appeal and asked the committee, having oversight powers of such legal system corruption, to bring finality to a gross miscarriage of justice and civil rights violations that have devastated our lives since 1985.
 

August 1, 2000 - Appellants filed a comb-bound Appellant's Motion To Supplement The Record consisting of (15) pages of text defining the (42) key court records included therein. How the lawyers of nine (9) law firms conspired with bank's insider-lawyer to move the courts to evade a trial by jury and due process by awarding bank (summary judgments) in each case to take possession of our AI and dismiss and strike our legal actions.
 

August 31, 2000 - Appellee bank’s (3 page) Motion, response to our Reply to Apelles’s Original Brief asking the court to strike our Response, stating in part: "The Germanos are persistent in their attempt to supplement the record with offensive allegations of professional misconduct, unethical, and illegal behavior of the Appellee and its officers, directors and lawyers. Appellant's response to Apelles’s Motion To Strike is insulting to the Court and ignores the significance of the Appellate Rules of Appellate procedure ("FRAP") and federal precedent."

"Furthermore, the Germanos seek to remand this case to the district court for a trial by jury on the merits, and have been litigating this issue and harassing the Appellee for over fifteen years. The District Court properly granted Apelles’s motion for summary judgment. The Germano appeal is frivolous and a continuous waste of time and resources. The Court should not allow pro se litigants to ignore the rules that our federal system has in place for its judicial process.
 

September 7, 2000 - Our motion "Complaint Regarding Appellee Counselor's Disregard For The ABA'S Model Rules Of Professional Conduct," in part: Apelles’s Louisiana counsel, rather than submit evidence to disprove our claims, persists in slandering our integrity and alleging our pleadings are insulting to this Court. Appellants ask the Court to protect us from further abuse and require Apelles’s Louisiana counsel to withdraw from representing Appellee and to grant our motion to supplement the record and for what other relief this court deems justifiable under the extraordinary facts of our case.” The Motion is also not listed on the Docket.
 

September 13, 2000 - Court issued its Order denying Appellant's motion to supplement the record, and granted Apelles’s motion to Strike our Motion to Supplement the record. Had the court approved our motion to supplement the record, the interests of justice would have compelled remanding our case to the district court for a trial by jury on the merits, a right denied us since January 4, 1985.
 

September 22, 2000 - Appellants timely filed Appellants Motion For En banc Reconsideration Of The Court Order Denying our Motion To Supplement The Record, docketed August 1, 2000 (above). Due to concern for the likely defeat of our appeal, due to a court clerk’s misleading phone and written directives, February 9, 2001, Appellants petitioned Senator Leahy, Chairman, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to invoke congressional oversight powers to defend the constitutionally protected right to trial by jury and due process.

The court, however, disregarded settled precedent, ruled to uphold the lower court order Striking our lawsuit docketed a civil rights case. Though, no written response was received from the Senate Judiciary Committee to our petition, a court clerk (by phone) informed us that that our appeal was reopened. The case was dismissed a second time shortly thereafter.

Thus, the cabal of lawyers and concert acting judges named/pictured on our website, www.predatorybankers.com have employed the legal system through felony enterprise of violations of constitutionally protected due process to conduct its predatory lending scheme to take our motel representing all that we worked for since our marriage in 1948, and drive us out of a successful business and only source of income. If not for our children we would be homeless.

Affiants, having obeyed the laws that govern our society and as shown on our website, www.predatorybankers.com , Vincent Germano and eight brothers, record for one family, did our part in military service in defense of our government against rogue governments of good people in WW2. Brother Charles Germano, Pilot, U.S. Army Air Force, Veteran, D-day, Berlin Airlift, Korea and Viet Nam, is interred in Arlington National Cemetery, Washington, D. C.
 

In honor of those who lost their lives, and the good men, and now women, in military service risking life and limb to defend our government, Affiants implore congressional representatives of the house or senate to pass a Congressional Reference resolution, like in the “Inslaw case” (of similar government wrong doing suffered by Affiants through the past 23 years). The enabling statute for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims includes the provision whereby either the House or Senate, acting alone, can pass a Congressional Reference resolution for the plaintiff. Such resolution automatically waives technical defenses that may be available to the government, such as statutes of limitation and sovereign immunity and orders the U.S. Court of Appeals to hold a hearing on whether the United States owes the plaintiff compensation neither as a matter of law or of equity. The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Congressional Reference resolution, submits an Advisory Report to the House or the Senate on the results of the hearing. The House or the Senate then, as a matter of its discretion, can pass a private bill to compensate the plaintiff at whatever level deems appropriate, if any level, in light of the Advisory Report. The private bill, however, must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.

Affiants, having suffered violations of due process in the courts, and denial of grievances and complaints by the Oklahoma Bar, law enforcement and regulatory systems of state/federal government. Petitions for congressional reference resolution were denied by Congressional Representatives during four administrations of both major-political-parties. Several representatives (officers of the court of the judicial branch themselves) denied our petitions wrongfully citing Constitutional Separation of Powers Doctrine.

The cabal of morally corrupted attorneys, judges and bankers named herein and on our website, are fully aware that “injunctive relief” awarded bank in the above cases in violation of court rules, based on perjured facts and legal president in the criminal conspiracy of our legal counselors and bank’s Peter G. Pierce III, outlined herein and documented by the court records in our care, are “void on their face,” have no force or effect.

“There is no more crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under color of law, and with the color of justice …” U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F. 2d 578, 614 (3d Cir.1982) .
See our web site at www.predatorybankers.com

FURTHER affiants sayeth not.


_____________________________________________________
VINCENT J. GERMANO



_____________________________________________________
SOPHIE T. GERMANO



Subscribed and sworn to before me on the ______ day of _______________ , 2009.


_______________________________
Notary Public