Recovar Grouip Llc
Class action suit deceptive trade practices orginized crime

In the circiut court of montgomery county, maryland

the recovar group llc,

Plaintiff
v.

Dca no. 7190-d
robert mcdonald / a/k/a robert d.
Mcdonald i/a/d/b/a / celltex

Defendant %)

Defendant-appelle memorandum in answer in agreeance to the 7/30 decision of the district court for montgomery county

Defendant-Appellee Robert McDonald hereby agrees to the July 30 decision of the District Court for Montgomery County, in Civil Action No. 0601-0020187 (District Court Lawsuit) to DENY Plaintiff - Appellant The RecovAR Group LLCs (RecovAR) Motion for Reconsideration and Reinstatement of the Judgment (Motion for Reinstatement) filed on June 8th.in support thereof, Robert McDonald states as follows:

1 STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 18 Robert McDonald i/a/d/b/a / Celltex (McDonald) and Plaintiff-Appellant Recovar entered into a payment agreement VIA Anthony Roysters entered in to a Payment Agreement to settle an original outstanding Non-Commercial Debt in the amount of 9750.00. McDonald Agreed to pay the discounted Balance of 7000.00 in monthly installments, and in consideration, RecovAR agreed to sign all title and ownership of one Anrtisu cable analyzer to defendant with the understanding if this did not happened all agreements would be void. RecovAr agreed not to take immediate legal action for the original balance of $9750.00. (Motion for Reinstatement Exhibit 1 and ex B. Attached thereto.) This Agreement is attached to civil suit 0601-0011694 that was dismissed for non-service.

Recovar claims McDonald failed to make his October 1 payment but a bad turn of event was happening when Germaine Boyd contacted McDonald told him he was in breach of his agreement and informed him he would have to sign a stipulation of settlement agreement to too cease all further legal action when he was holding McDonalds Check in his hand. After the Stipulation was signed the check was processed within hours. This is very close to extortion. RecovAR filed a breach of contract lawsuit in the District Court for Montgomery Count (District Court) Civil Action No. 0601-0020187.
The parties then agreed to enter a stipulation of Settlement While Germaine Boyd was holding Defendants Check. This Stipulation was for 5200.00 and does not mention Attorney fees court cost or Jurisdiction and is not the same suit 0601-001694 (exhibit 1) filed the first time. RecovAR agreed to have the District Court Lawsuit returned to files pending Completion of his obligation under the Stipulation of Settlement. (Exhibit 2) also again RecovAr was to turn over all rights and title to the test equipment. Since this Stipulation of Settlement was faxed to and signed in Texas and does not give designate or give RecovAR Jurisdiction in Maryland. Further more Defendant Believed when this contract was faxed to him under advisement of his Texas Attorney the Jurisdiction is and always will be Texas. This Debt is originally between a company out of California and a Resident of Texas. Recovar purchasing these debts from all over the country does not give them automatic jurisdiction. The original agreement between Bayside test equipment and Robert McDonald states he would only be responsible for the fair market value or the equipment (Exhibit 3).
In April McDonald filed suit against RecovAR. When the May payment was made RecovAr deliberately held the check and claimed McDonald was in Breach of Stipulation of Settlement. This was done in out of spite of the upcoming suit filed against Recovar and Bayside test Equipment. RecovAR demanded 9000.00 plus dollars to settle the debt. When asked about the 2900.00 that was paid to RecovAr they claimed that this was free money and would not be taken into account. RecovAr filed a motion to enter Breach of Stipulation of Settlement on May 11.
On May 21 McDonald filed a Motion of Opposition in response to the Original Petition filed by RecovAR and properly suggested that the District Court dismiss the matter with prejudice. And on June 1, RecovAr filed its Opposition in response to the issues raised by McDonald.

However on May 24, the District Court granted RecovArs Motion to Enter Judgment for Breach of Stipulation Of Settlement entered judgment in error in the principal amount of 8512.31, plus pre-judgment interest of $151.20 plus cost of $60.00, Plus attorney fees of $2128.08, plus post judgment interest at the legal rate. If we examine the Stipulation of Settlement (Exhibit 2) Paragraph 1 Defendant will pay $6124.99 in 20 monthly installments, beginning 10/6 and continuing on the 6th day of each month Subsequent month for a total of $5,833.40 and then one installment of $291.50 on 6/6. This clearly shows RecovAr was holding Defendants check and forced McDonald to Sign another Agreement. $6124.99 minus 291.50 equals $5833.49. Very interesting this transaction took place on the same day. Sign a new agreement while we hold the check and we wont seek litigation against you. This is not borderline extortion this is criminal extortion.
Paragraph 3 of the stipulation of Settlement state and I quote, In the event Defendant fails to make any payment when due or if any payment in returned unpaid for any reason, including but not limited to bank draft, or money order it will constitute a default of the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.in such an event Plaintiff upon application to the court shall be entitled to judgment as prayed for in the Complaint, less credits for payments made hereunder. Defendant starting balance on 10/06 was $5833.49. Defendant made 6 payments totaling $1749.00. This would leave a balance of $4084.49. Defendant after making his May and RecovAR illegally holding his funds due to suit being filed upon his did not make any more payment Due to this Mafia Extortion Behavior. Also let it be known in the Stipulation of Settlement in does not state jurisdiction although Anthony Roysters was informed that Jurisdiction was Texas. The Agreement was faxed to Texas Signed in Texas The Defendant resides in Texas and holds no Real estate employment or rental property in The State of Maryland And has only been there once July 30 For a Motion Hearing in which Counsel although ordered to be present due to the fact that her continuances were denied FAILED TO APPEAR. This now becomes a violation of Due Process.
How RecovAR is coming up with these dollar figures is beyond me. If counsel is referring to the first agreement which was attached to civil suit 0601-0011694 when the new agreement was signed not agreed upon ref Civil suit 0601-0020187 this document supersedes the first one. RecovAR has to realize it cannot have multiple agreements to bounce back and forth from.
When RecovAR purchased the debt from Bayside Test Equipment April 17 (Exhibit 4) Paragraph 4 states Bayside Test Equipment Inc. Wishes to sell and RecovAR wishes to purchase the Debt. Paragraph 5 States NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which and hereby acknowledge, Bayside Test Equipment Inc. Does hereby irrevocably assign, set over and transfer to RecovAR all rights, TITLE and interest to the debt. Signed William Toten RecovAr Patrick Reed Bayside Test equipment. This agreement between Bayside and RecovAr transferred the ownership of the said equipment. The same equipment McDonald has been seeking ownership and RecovAR refuse to give to this date. McDonald cannot use, Trade Sell or give away. Since RecovAr refuse to give McDonald ownership McDonald seeks $7000.00 in Damages from this court just on income lost due to RecovARs ignorance. Lets review the American Webster Dictionary on the following terms:

Sell 2 a (1): to give up (property) to another for something of value (as money) (2): to offer for sale
Purchase 1 a archaic: GAIN, ACQUIRE b: to acquire (real estate) by means other than descent c: to obtain by paying money or its equivalent: BUY d: to obtain by labor, danger, or sacrifice
2: to constitute the means for buying
intransitive verb: to purchase something

Irrevocably: not possible to revoke: UNALTERABLE

Revoke 1: to annul by recalling or taking back: RESCIND
2: to bring or call back

Recind 1: to take away: REMOVE
2 a: TAKE BACK, CANCEL b: to abrogate (a contract) and restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had there been no contract
3: to make void (as an act) by action of the enacting authority or a superior authority

Transfer 1 a: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another: MOVE, SHIFT b: to cause to pass from one to another: TRANSMIT c: TRANSFORM, CHANGE
2: to make over the possession or control of: CONVEY

Rights 2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property — often used in plural (2) plural: the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature
3: something that one may properly claim as due
4: the cause of truth or justice

A letter sent to RecovAr dated March 28 (Exhibit 5) caused RecovAr to Spitefully held Defendants check to place him in breach of Stipulation os Settlement

When the Original agreement was signed between McDonald And Bayside Test Equipment Dated July 12 (Exhibit 3) paragraph 1 Customer responsible for full market value of unit if not returned and any repair costs if damaged. This is the original agreement and full market vale of equipment is $6000.00. Bayside test equipment owes Defendant $3000.00 in credits plus $3494.00 exceeds the fair market value of the equipment by $494.00. Therefore Bayside is a California Company and Defendant is a resident of Texas and the contract was signed in Texas RecovAr purchasing the Debt does not give them Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is California or Texas.

Later on May 29 the Honorable Eugene Wolf entered the correct decision on the tremendous weight in evidence entered an order denying RecovARs Motion to Enter judgment for breach of Stipulation of Settlement, Specifically finding that Defendant has raise issues of jurisdiction as to proper place to seek judgment. Thus, on May 29, the District Court properly and respectively vacated RecovARs judgment entered on May 24 against Defendant. (Exhibit 6)

On June 8th RecovAr filled a Motion for Reinstatement. On July 30th the Honorable Cheryl McCally denied RecovAR Motion for Reinstatement.

Ii questions presented for review

Did the District Court correctly deny, against the lack of the evidence contained in the record, RecovARs Motion for Reinstatement?

III Did RecovAr erroneously and with malice Violate Defendants Right to due process?

IV Did RecovAr cause great financial damage to Defendant?

V statement in fact of.

A. Jurisdiction is not proper in the District Court Pursuant to the governing law and choice of form clause in the Stipulation of Settlement CASE NO 06011-0020187. The payment agreement which RecovAR is referring to was dismissed. This agreement belonged to CASE NO. 0601-0011696 and was dismissed on June 30th pursuant to Maryland Rule 3-506. RecovAR can not toggle between agreements to satisfy their own needs. When the Stipulation of Settlement was signed October 6th while Jermaine Boyd (RecovARs Account Manager) it was clear to him and his company that the Jurisdiction would be Texas. This is why Jurisdiction was excluded from The Stipulation of Settlement. Also take into account RecovAR Agreed to, and now denies, turning over the ownership of the Test equipment to the Defendant.in Texas verbal agreement are binding. RecovAr faxed the Agreement to Texas and the agreement was signed in Texas. Therefore Jurisdiction is the State of Texas. The original Agreement was between a California company (Bayside Test Equipment) and a Texas Resident both which have no ties to the State of Maryland. RecovAr purchasing the debt from out of State does not give them automatic jurisdiction.
McDonald Stated in his Motion of Opposition that the District Court lacked jurisdiction for the following reasons: 1 He is an out-of State Resident (Texas) 2 The debt is between a California Company and a Texas Resident, 3 Stipulation of Settlement Civil No. 0601-0020187 Does not Specify Jurisdiction and Defendant made if Verbally clear to RecovAr that jurisdiction would be Texas or he would not have signed the Agreement. On May 29 after the District Court initially entered judgment in favor of RecovARs for breach of Stipulation of Settlement, the District Court then carefully considered his evidence and correctly vacated the judgment ob basis of jurisdiction. Later on June 8th RecovAR filed its motion for Reconsideration and Reinstatement of the Judgment, in which it erroneously requested that the District Court consider Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion of Opposition which addressed the issue of jurisdiction and provide no evidence that jurisdiction in the District Court was proper. On June 27th The Honorable Eugene Wolfe of the District Court ordered a motion hearing to be heard by the motions Judge (The Honorable Cheryl A. McCally) On July 30th. On June 29th attorney Linda Aikens filed for a continuance with no supporting documents. On July 17th a court order was entered DENYING Plaintiffs motion for continuance for no good cause shown (Exhibit 7). This was due to the fact Ms. Aikens did not state a reason for the continuance and again was ordered to appear July 30th. On July 20th Plaintiffs Counsel filed a Motion to Reconsider Continuance late (Exhibit 8). None of the supporting documentation was filed with the first motion as Defendant already made plans to attend the Motions hearing. This Motion to Reconsider a Continuance was filed late, was never granted was attached to the jacket for the Hearing Judge. This documentation should have been attached to the first Motion for Continuance. On the July 21st 2007 Counsel Linda Aikens legal assistant (Jamie Resurrection) contacted Defendant and ask if he would agree to a continuance. Defendant declined and stated he had made travel arrangement and would be at the motions hearing July 30th. Again on July 27th Counsel Linda Aikens legal assistant again contacted the defendant and requested a continuance in which Defendant respectively declined due to the fact a Court hearing was Scheduled and thought if you are ordered to appear in court then you need to make every effort to show up. Counsel for the RecovAR group, Linda Aikens, with fair warning ignored the court order set on June 27th to appear to the motions hearing and set about her own agenda.

Looking at the case information timeline on July 30th Defendant respectively appeared for the motions hearing.

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v4;pln's counsel no in court-corp. Officer was in

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v4;court as was def-motions pending-pln's motn to

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v4;reinstate judgment-judge wolfe ordered hrg to

Type: COURT ORDER ENTEREDComplaint No.: 001
Date: 07/30Comment: 9V4;SET ON 6/26/07 AND DEF'S M/DISMISS & FOR SJ

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v4;pln's m / to reconsider continuance hrg filed late

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v4;note pro se here fm texas-ready to proceed-did

Type: COURT ORDER ENTEREDComplaint No.: 001

Date: 07/30comment: 9v4;not receive m/consider-court denies motion to

Type: court order enteredcomplaint no.: 001
date: 07/30comment: 9v6;to reinstate judgment-did not reach def's

Type: COURT ORDER ENTEREDComplaint No.: 001
Date: 07/30Comment: 9V6;M

This clearly shows RecovARs counsel Linda Aiken did not appear But the Corp. Officer Bryan Barts did appear. The Honorable Cheryl A. McCally advised Mr. Barts that she could not take testimony from Mr. Barts in lieu of the fact the amount was greater than $5000.00 and his company was a Corporation. Judge McCally gave Mr. Barts an opportunity to seek counsel and moved the motions hearing to the end of the Docket. According to the RecovARs website www.RecovAR.com Mr. Barts is a Chief Legal Officer is a member of the Maryland Bar Association and Possess a Juris Doctorate degree From Howard University Law School and his BA from University of Maryland. Mr. Barts is a member of the Maryland State Bar. This means RecovARs attorney was in court and could ask for a continuance or plead the case. After research and contact with the Maryland Bar Association for some strange reason Mr. Bryan K. Barts is not a member or the Maryland State Bar. Mr. Barts is not ever a member of the Client protection for the Court of Appeals which is mandatory to practice law in the State of Maryland. This is not civil no more this is criminal and practicing law without a license is very serious and clearly violates Defendants right to due process. According to RecovARs web site this is Deceptive and deceiving and RecovAr is totally liable for his actions. Also Ms. Aikens 20 plus years of law would know that this is criminal and should be accountable. So what is the Defendant to believe? (Exhibit 9) See below.

BRYAN K. BARTS
Chief Legal Officer
Mr. Barts joined the RecovAR legal team early on and has been instrumental in developing the policies and procedures that guide our legal activities. As the CLO, he oversees all legal operations and serves as our chief legal strategist and lead negotiator. Bryan personally directs RecovAR's team of staff attorneys and paralegals in the crafting of the Litigation Files sent to outside and staff litigation counsel for all lawsuits filed by RecovAR. His hands-on involvement from the inception of each case assures that our high standards for the quality and effectiveness of our litigation are maintained. He received his JD from Howard University Law School and his BA from University of Maryland. Mr. Barts is a member of the Maryland State Bar.
If Mr. Barts is a member of Maryland State Bar he had full opportunity to ask for a continuance or plead the motion due to his Legal status. If he is not a Member of the Maryland State Bar he is misrepresenting himself as Lawyer and practicing law without a license and therefore anyone of these three scenarios violated Defendant right to Due Process and therefore must be sanctioned and pay Defendants time, travel, and invoice in the Amount $26500.00.

Defendant asks the court to remove Ms. Aikens from the case due to her erroneous disregard for a court ordered hearing. If Ms. Aikens could not attend the hearing she had every opportunity to retain counsel in the State of Maryland. Furthermore if a Hearing is ordered Defendant requests RecovAR to post a bond 118 percent of monies sought to guarantee the appearance of council Due to the fact they have demonstrated their total lack and disregard for the Maryland Courts. Time and money spent on the motion hearing is $16500.00 $12500.00 in time 71 Hours at a reasonable rate of $175.00 per hour plus the airfare hotel car rental and two days time to attend the motion hearing RecovARs council reluctantly attended or did they?

Also Defendant makes motion to be admitted to Maryland State Bar to continue with his defense so he can access case law, hand have all the benefits and chance of equality RecovARs Attorney has to mount a fair defense.

When McDonald agreed to the Stipulation of Settlement The first Agreement became null and void. Recovar cannot work off multiple agreements.
What Ms. Aikens and RecovAR need to realize if you deliberately miss your court ordered hearing you do not get a do over through the Appeals Court

McDonald entered into the Stipulation of Agreement due to the fact RecovAr was holding his payment. The terms of the stipulation of Settlement makes it somewhat clear that if McDonald satisfied his payment obligations there under and RecovAR verbally agreed to turn over ownership of the equipment then RecovAr would dismiss the District Court lawsuit with Prejudice. However, if McDonald breached the Stipulation of Settlement then Recovar would be entitled to judgment as prayed for in the District Court lawsuit LESS CREDITS FOR PAYMENTS MADE THEREUNDER. Which lawsuit is RecovAR referring to? Civil Case No. 0601-0011694 which was dismissed pursuant to Maryland Rule 3-506 for non service or 0601-002-187 Stipulation of Settlement Dismissed May 29th?
McDonald agreed to the Stipulation of Settlement but did not sign anything. As you can tell the signature on this answer is Robert McDonald the one on the Stipulation of Settlement is not. Compare the signatures. And admits he did make seven monthly payments totaling 2041.69 and when RecovAr deliberately withheld his May payment to deliberately put him into default due to the fact a civil case was pending against recover in Texas This put RecovAr into Breach of agreement and ALL CONTRACTS ARE NOW VOID. This is pure extortion.
The District Court correctly denied reinstatement of RecovARs judgment against McDonald. McDonald did not expressly agree to the jurisdiction of the District Court in the Stipulation of Settlement (that is why it was omitted) thus it was Stated to Anthony Roysters Jurisdiction is Texas. This was made very clearly and if Defendant had any inclination jurisdiction would be Maryland Defendant would not have entered into any such agreement.
App. 602,726 a. 2d 818 (1999) (one is under the duty to learn the contents of a contract before signing it. (If) he fails to do so, he is presumed to know its contents.)
McDonald did not sign this contract and only learned of its contents in February when he returned home for work out of state.
VI CONCLUSION

The Circuit Court must review the case on both the law and the evidence on record. MD Rule 7-113 (f) Moreover the Circuit Court should uphold the District Court judgment of the evidence since the factual determination of the lower Court is Clearly Justified and Correct and all claims by The RecovAR Group through its council Linda Aikens are erroneous and misrepresented, The Circuit Court must take into account Defendant clearly attended the court ordered motions hearing July 30th. Plaintiff Attorney Linda Aiken who was an employee of RecovAR and was ordered by the Honorable Eugene Wolfe to attend the motions hearing. Both Motions for continuances were denied Defendant informed council legal assistant twice he would be there. Ms, Aiken was warned 4 times to be there and since no on could give evidence The Honorable Cheryl A. McCully made the right decision in denying the motion for Reinstatement of Judgment. Council had this day July 30th to plead her case and since she disregarded the orders of the court she is not entitled to a DO OVER. Maybe next time she will attend the hearing when she is ordered.

RecovAR has provided very little evidence in its pleadings and docket entries to demonstrate that McDonald agreed to the jurisdiction in the District court. The District Court was clearly correct in vacating the judgment initially entered against McDonald and then in later denying to reinstate said judgment. The Circuit Court should deny the erroneous Appeal of RecovAR and its Council Linda Aikens. Thus the Circuit Court Should Respectively uphold the District Courts Order Denying RecovARs Motion for Reinstatement and deny any alternative IE remand to the District Court since lack of jurisdiction was correctly determined twice. If you look at the Court transcript it shows RecovAr and its counsel Linda Aikens were not present and had no intentions of being present since she was on a trip to Hawaii, she well informed her motion date was July 30 and her continuances were denied, she intentionally did not appear

McDonald asks that a counterclaim settlement be awarded to him in the amount of $16500.00 for his time expenses. He also asks this court to place an injunction upon RecovAr So that no other frivolous suit cannot be brought against him

Respectfully submitted

Mr barts is not lawyer nor is a member of the maryland bar association, nor did he graduate from john howard university they will take your money and when the final payment is due they will hold the check and put you in breach of comtract. They file thousands of lawsuits. Check for yourself. Mdcourts. Gov type company recovars name clik on the calenders and do a broad check, carfull you dont make it to broad or it will take days to down load there are so many cases. If a lawyer is reading this i will pay you 5000.00 to start a class action suit against these people

Company: Recovar Grouip Llc
Country: USA
State: Maryland
City: ROCKVILLE
Address: 11821 PARKLAWN DRIVE SUITE 310
Phone: 8008244401

  <     >