Not resolved
0 comments

STATE OF NEW YORKTOWN OF AMHERST COURT: COUNTY OF ERIE____________________________________________

Shane ChristopherTown Justice Geoffrey K. Klein-v- Docket # 16030472Friday, May 6, 2016 9:30 AM

Brandi Williams-LA FitnessNegligent-misrepresentation__________________________________________

MANDITORY JUDICIAL NOTICE FEDERAL RULE 201 & BREACH OF CONTRACT AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BY LA FITNESS AND FALSE STATEMENTS OF Brandi Williams

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Town of Amherst Court under authority of the supremacy and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the common law authorities of Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25, and Anastasoff v. United States,223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000) relying on *** v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 135 (1992), "United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 856 (1996), quoting Payne v.Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,842 (1991) (Souter, J., concurring).Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647, American Red Cross v. Community Blood Center of the Ozarks, 257 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 07/25/2001).In re Haines: pro se litigants (Plaintiff is a pro se litigant) are held to less stringent pleading standards than BAR registered attorneys. Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant (Plaintiff is a pro se litigant) without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. In re Anastasoff: litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants have a constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of precedent. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000). Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, § 247"As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]"SWORN AFFIDAVIT Shane-Christopher, being duly sworn, deposes and says:1.) I, Shane-Christopher pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. (subsection) 1746 (1), hereby affirm and submit this Affidavit of Facts that neither Brandi Williams without proper notice nor any legal authority in a racially derogatory and discriminatory matter revokes his membership without consent from Shane Christopher. LA Fitness used unfair terms in its contract that unlawfully prohibits "fraudulent and unconscionable scheme for club’s negligence. LA Fitness is GUILTY of membership contract which violates New York state law, including the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the Health Club Services Act and the Consumer Fraud Act. New York state laws protect consumers from unfair membership agreement provisions "whose mere inclusion in a consumer contract would violate the rights of consumers or deceive them into thinking such illegal provisions were valid and thereby, they would not even try to enforce their rights." violations of other state laws regarding the disclosure of total payment obligations in the contract and that the gym’s "misrepresentations, predatory, deceptive and unconscionable sales practices," also violate various state laws.2.) Fitness International, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness ("LA Fitness") does not have a right to terminate Shane Christopher membership for any reason. America is not located in Germany aka Nazi Germany Ms. Williams does not understand you cannot revoke a membership based on his support of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump!I, Shane-Christopher, declare under the pain and penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. (subsection) 1746 (1).

Dated April 14, 2016

By: _______________________________Shane Christopher All Rights ReservedWaving done-Without Recourse

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, Shane-Christopher, certify that I have served this on this 14 day of April, 2016 MANDITORY JUDICIAL NOTICE FEDERAL RULE 201& BREACH OF CONTRACT BY LA FITNESS AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION Fraud, Misrepresentation, & Deceptive Trade Practices to Clerk of the Court Clarence Town Court One Town Place Clarence New York [14031] and Brandi Williams-LA Fitness 3040 Sheridan Drive Amherst New York [14221] by United State First Class mail pre-paid

Submitted, on this 14th day of April, 2016

By: ______________________________________

CC:Torts BranchCivil DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DC 20530P: 202-502-2600 Public Affairs DivP: 202-616-4400 Torts DivisionF: 202-616-5200

La Fitness Pros: Being taken advantage of, Brandi williams.

Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review

Comments

You will be automatically registered on our site. Username and password will be sent to you via email.
Post Comment