Callier v. Bauer objection to motion for injunctive relief

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

)BRANDON CALLIER, Pro se, ANA CALLIER, Pro se,
)CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, Pro sec
)Plaintiff,
) COMPLAINT

) v. CIVIL ACTION NO. EP07CA0226

)

)BILLIE E. BAUER
)Defendant

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

Comes now the Defendant, Billie Bauer, Pro Se and hereby objects to the

Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and incorporated

memorandum of law for the following reasons.

2. Plaintiffs claim to have served this instant motion for temporary

restraining order by inclusion with their original motion and complaint. The

envelope containing their original motion and complaint as received by the

Defendant contained exactly seven (7) sheets as shown to have been filed on

Pacer as of June 19^th 2007. This instant motion is four (4) pages long by itself

and did not show up on Pacer until June 26^th 2007. If the original service had

actually

contained this instant motion as claimed by the Plaintiffs the original service

envelope would have contained eleven (11) pages not seven (7). Additionally,

Plaintiffs did not serve the papers as claimed but rather had the papers

mailed to the Defendant by a company using the name CCH CONSULTING,

a company not registered with the Texas Secretary of State according to a

certified statement of no registration issued to the Defendant by the office of

the Secretary of State in and for the State of Texas. Since the fictitious name

CCH CONSULTING is not registered to do business in the State of Texas

it could not have legally served the Defendant. Furthermore, it therefore has

no legal capacity or standing to take any part in this instant case nor can the

present Plaintiffs legally represent the interests of a Corporation.

Corporations are not natural persons and are unable to speak for themselves

and therefore must be represented by competent legal counsel authorized to

practice law before this Honorable Court. Therefore this Defendant, acting

pro se wishes to state that he believes that the Plaintiffs may possibly be

practicing law without license or permission of the Court to do so. They may

also be committing other offenses of which the Defendant is unaware.

3. Even if the Plaintiffs had included this instant motion in their original

complaint and summons as falsely claimed they have still violated several

Rules of Procedure including but not limited to violation of Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 11(a) which states that each paper shall state the signer's

address and phone number, if any.

Each and every document submitted to this Honorable Court and to the

Defendant has violated this Rule. Therefore this Defendant respectfully

suggests that the Court may wish to sanction the Plaintiffs in such a manner

as the Court deems reasonable and proper. Defendant also notices this

Honorable Court that Federal Rules of Procedure 65(a)(1) precludes this

Court from issuance of preliminary injunction without notice to the adverse

party. Defendant is the adverse party and has not been notified by the

Plaintiffs in any way, shape or form or by any method whatever.

6. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs FACTS STATEMENTS number four (4)

because Plaintiff acting Pro Se attempts to protect the business interests of a

company but fails to explain in any document submitted to date exactly what

it's business does or what it's products consist of.

In order that this Honorable Court might be more fully informed this

Defendant wishes this Court to be advised that the business to which the

Plaintiffs allude provides what is commonly known as“seasoned tradelines”

to consumers wishing to improve their poor credit scores in order to obtain

financing their current poor scores would not otherwise allow them to enjoy.

As this Honorable Court is most likely well aware, those who purchase or

have purchased this so called product, have their credit scores artificially

elevated by the advertised 100 or more points and then apply to a lender who

relies on the accuracy of the received credit reports to make the decision to

extend credit based on them. That would be providing false and/or

misleading information to a lender which is a federal felony offense. Anyone

who might be providing false or misleading information to a lender would

likely become a convicted felon, be forced to do time in a federal penal

institution and have their lives ruined all because they were gullible enough

to believe the Plaintiff's allegations that their products are in fact expressly

permitted by law and that the Federal Trade Commission has stated that

Plaintiff's business practices are legal which is false and misleading both to

consumers and to this Honorable Court. What the Plaintiff refers to is the

fact that the Federal Trade Commission has probably stated that it is not

illegal for someone to add another person to their credit card accounts as

authorized users but obviously the Federal Trade Commission did not

envision that the authorized user provision would be utilized in such a

fashion that people with extremely high credit scores might be paid large

amounts of money to add numerous persons with poor credit scores unknown
and unrelated to them to their credit cards.

Credit bureaus are now revising their software to take care of this problem.

All credit bureaus and FICO having to upgrade their software will

undoubtedly be a great expense and the final result may well be that even

the ability of parents to help their children will be severely affected and all

because of unscrupulous persons attempting to make a fast buck off of

gullible people.

7. Defendant also believes that Plaintiffs have furthermore violated Federal

Rules of Procedure 11(b)(2) which states that the claims, defenses, and

other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law.

Defendant maintains that the plaintiffs have failed to meet the

requirements of Rule 11(b)(2). Defendant also believes and maintains

that the Plaintiffs have furthermore violated Federal Rules of Procedure
11(b)(3) which requires that allegations and other factual contentions

have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified are likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery.

8. Defendant contends that his denials are in compliance with Federal Rules

of Procedure Rule 11(b)(4) because they are warranted on the evidence

presented in these arguments.

9. Plaintiffs only purpose in bringing this instant action is to silence the

truthful statements of the Defendant and deny him his Constitutional

right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States of America. When citizens become aware that an

unlawful act is being purpetrated upon an unsuspecting public

they have a civic duty to speak out in order to protect the public. This

Defendant did not speak out until he had found such reputable publications

as The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other such news sources also

speaking about this practice and the harmful effects it has had upon the

American public and the nation's economy. The Defendant has spoken the

truth, did not act irresponsibly and did not exceed the bounds of

Constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Truth is an absolute defense against

a charge of libel and defamation.

8. Plaintiffs have a blog at http://angryconsumerdiary.com on which they

regularly engage in the exact same practices against others including

but definitely not limited to the Defendant of which they complain here.
Thus they are before this Honorable Court with unclean hands.

9. For all of the above reasons the Defendant hereby respectfully motions this
Honorable Court to deny Plaintiffs demands for temporary restraining

Motion for injunctive relief page 1

Motion for injunctive relief page 2

Motion for injunctive relief page 3

Motion for injunctive relief page 4

Bauer's motion for more definite statement

Bauer's objection to motion for injunctive relief

Defendant's motion for order of the court demanding a more definite statement

Callier vs Bauer order of the court(2)