MOVEANTMOVINGPARTYPLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COUNTY OF BERKS

PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

INTRODUCTION

The PLAINTIFF demands a jury trial for being prejudiced by multiple tortious and harmful acts by DAVID OPPERMAN. PLAINTIFF engaged in a contract with DAVID OPPERMAN to lease space for commercial and private use with DAVID OPPERMAN. DAVID OPPERMAN willfully violated said contract, Pennsylvania statute via executing a self-help eviction and removing all commercial and private items of PLAINTIFF. DAVID OPPERMANS actions resulting in the loss of all of MACEO REMY business material items, harm to his person and harm to his offspring, interference with known commercial activity, being intimidated et. al. DAVID OPPERMAN achieved in seizing property from PLAINTIFF by engaging in self-help eviction, misleading public officers to trespass and remove moving PLAITNIFF’s property, intimidation of the PLAINTIFF. The PLAINTIFF makes claims under multiple sections of the Unfair Trade Practices, Consumer Protection Law of Pennsylvania et al. PLAINTIFF has been prejudiced by recently receiving unreasonable denial of service by County of Berks Prothonotary to file initiating WRIT OF SERVICE for this matter.

 PLAINTIFF lost all of his business equipment, inventory for manufacturing products, personal possessions, family heirlooms, possessions of belonging to MOVING PLAINTIFF’s offspring, ability to participate in his chosen trade, loss of home, loss of reputation and suffered severe mental and emotional damage and resulting in loss of home for PLAINTIFF.

TOLLING

1. The PLAINTIFF requests tolling on the statute of limitations for TWELVE months or a minimum of FOUR months due to the Judicial Emergency declared by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Judicial Administration Docket Nos. 531 and 532. The Statute-of-Limitations for this case would not have expired for this according to 42 PA Cons Stat § 5525 (2016) and the PLAINTIFF was outside of the UNITED STATES before the Judicial Emergency was declared and only able to enter the country due to restrictions on travel and force major harm from the economic impact of the COVID 19 pandemic. A hearing was scheduled and plaintiff unable to attend due to incapacitation of his body.
2.  

TIMING.

• This motion is timely as (A) there was a commencement-of-action by a Praecipe for Writ of Summons according to Pennsylvania’s Rule 1007(1) in April 2019 properly served, (B) an ORDER AND DECREE was awarded to the MOVEANT August 24, 2017, and (C) 42 PA Cons Stat § 5525 (2016) (5) provides four (4) years for an action upon any decree and four (4) to twenty (20) years to bring civil action. Harm became known later after verification from Constable in August 2019 see, 13 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. § 2725(a) (2020); 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 5525(7) (2020), (8); 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 5529 (2020), 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 5525(3) (2020). (D) There is no statute of limitations on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 as PLAINTIFF seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (D) a WRIT OF SUMMONS was presented with required funds and documentation to COUNTY OF BERKS PROTHONOTARY APRIL 10 and 11, 2021, allegedly the prothonotary refusing documentation from the agent and finally receiving the WRIT OF SUMMONS from another contracted service agent on APRIL 14, 2021, less than 4 years after first portion of the tortious acts.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction is proper for County of Berks Court of Common Pleas or UNITED STATES district court as a violation of 42 USC 1943. DAVID OPPERMAN the DEFENDANT, resides is County of Berks at David Opperman located at 65 Opperman Ln, Birdboro PA 19508, the location of the actions is dispute are in County of Berks. The PLAINTIFF is a resident the Republic of Haiti and foreign national and may exercise any proper and available rights for transfer of jurisdiction.
• I petition the court for change of venue according to Pa. R.C.P. 1006(d)(2) for this claim demand for trial-by-jury to Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the current venue is oppressive. This court of initial filing is to maintain jurisdiction and proceed with administrative process of this claim until certification from the Supreme Court on change of venue.
• This action is timely as ORDER AND DECREE was awarded to the MOVEANT on August 24^th, 2017.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

• PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT commenced negotiating lease to engage his commercial activities at ___________, Reading PA in August 2016.
• The business owned by the PLAINTIFF at the time of occupying the space was a registered disadvantaged entity with the US Government, Pentagon and Navy.
• DEFENDANT wrote his position in negotiations that PLAINTIFF engage in a long-term lease consisting of a three (3) year term, which was counter to initial terms and wishes presented for a one (1) year lease by PLAINTIFF.
• PLAINTIFF wrote in specific terms to counter risk of long-term lease at a new location and a new business. Those terms were (a) payments for the lease commenced only after 30 days from the acquisition of all legal binding permits both Federal and State of Pennsylvania. (b) it was verbally acknowledged by DAVID OPPERMAN Federal Firearms License could take six (6) months to receive even if all went well. 
• PLAINTIFF presented in writing and DAVID OPPERMAN-agreed clause requiring rent payment being due only after acquisition of all permits was the only reason PLAINTIFF would consider to execute a three (3) year lease. The location may for reasons and events un-known at time of execution of contract, may not be feasible for permits required to engage in business and one (1) year was all PLAINTIFF would commit to, unless clause of rent being due 30 days after the acquisition of all business permits was agreed to.
• On September 23^rd, 2016 during three meetings PLAINTIFF and the DEFENDANT with: agent: trustee :Craig-:Barker for DEFENDANT executed a lease with DEFENDANT receiving first-months-rent and security-deposit from PLAINTIFF. All parties came to multiple: subsequent-agreements at the-lease-execution. After lease-execution DAVID OPPERMAN and PLAINTIFF, over a period of four (4) months came to multiple verbal subsequent agreements which PLAINTIFF acted on.
• The first subsequent agreement is PLAINTIFF removed invalid-clause from prior lease draft to last lease draft allowing suspension of due process in eviction and seizure of PLAINTIFF’S private assets by DAVID OPPERMAN if DAVID OPPERMAN claims distress for lack of payment. PLAINTIFF has never waived rights to due process of law, public policy in this contract past or present and a fundamental right may not be waived. CRAIG BARKER acting in agency for DEFENDANT stated that the removed clause was not a “valid part of the lease” and should have been removed with intention of inducing PLAINTIFF’S signature on lease. 
• CRAIG BARKER statement that waiver of rights to due process was not a “valid part of the lease” was and is considered Notice. Notice to agent is notice to principle, notice to principle is notice to agent.
• PLAINTIFF took possession of property lawfully within contractual terms in September 2016
• The floor above PLAINTIFF, at location another individual natural person resided in a unit who also was an employee for the DEFENDANT.
• Through no fault of PLAINTIFF, permit acquisition time for business was delayed and DEFENDANT was notified October 24, 2016.
• PLAINTIFF was required to obtain Federal Firearms License Permit, a City of Reading business permit and a county permit.
• PLAINTIFF began residing in the location approximately November 2016 and the DEFENDANT knowing this fact visited PLAINTIFF at the location multiple times.
• DEFENDANT acknowledged notice of expected delays in acquisition of lease from PLAINTIFF in October and had continued notification multiple times between October 2016 and April 2017. 
• MACEO-REMY commercial-activity at the location was primarily retail sales and manufacturing ammunition products, manufactured at location firearms, law-enforcement supplies,  firearms accessories installation and marketing off location training for above clients as well as development agricultural manufacturing projects utilizing hops.
• The lease-space became infested with roaches which migrated from the above apartment. DAVID OPPERMAN was notified of infestation by PLAINTIFF and tenant above PLAINTIFF.
• The rule of law and public-policy must obtain through the legal process a Writ-of-Possession and/or an Alias-Writ-of-Possession before any eviction actions may proceed.
• DEFENDANT on April 9, 2017 through April 10, 2017 executed a self-help-eviction without evidence of a writ-of-possession at the time of DEFENDANT self-help-eviction. The DEFENDANTs actions led to the alleged by DEFENDANTs disappearance of all of PLAINTIFF’s commercial-equipment, commercial-inventory, complete cessation of his commercial-activity at, rejection of credit commercial credit applications, slander, and discarding of all Remy’s personal possessions. A lease-contract and multiple subsequent agreements were executed between PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTs.  David-Opperman actions in PLAINTIFF’s unit at location demonstrate property that public-policy and contract law do not apply to this controversy, himself and his agents.
• The lease included: Clause-23 titled: Additional-Provisions stating that first payment of rent was due 30 days after the acquisition of all business permits.
• :Clause-23 mentioned a timeline for acquisition of licenses causing the :second-:subsequent-agreement at time of lease execution was that federal permit acquisition-time was not in the control of PLAINTIFF hence he could not be held responsible to penalty of action for arbitrary timeline of 60 days for permits which are not in his control and usually require six-months from federal government and could be held up by local zoning board appeals.
• All permits required by lease were acquired in March 2017.
• November 2016 another subsequent agreement was created and acted on that location was residence and space for commercial activity for PLAINTIFF.
•  DAVID OPPERMAN committed theft-of-security-deposit being the unit was the residence of PLAINTIFF.
• The DEFENDANTs were notified multiple times and inspected the location.
• The infestation of roaches rendered the space uninhabitable.
• Multiple requests by PLAINTIFF and tenant above for removal of the infestation were ignored by the DEFENDANTs.
• Delays in federal permit acquisition no-fault of the PLAINTIFF as he took all necessary action required.
• PLAINTIFF made federal permit acquisition from the ATF on February 23^rd, 2017
•  Local county of Berks permits were acquired around end of March 2017.
• PLAINTIFF consistently updated the DEFENDANT via phone, in person and email as to the timeline for acquisition and DEFENDANT acknowledged that the delays were no fault of PLAINTIFF and
• DEFENDANT agreed to wait for permits according to lease and subsequent agreement.
• During the delay in federal permitting process PLAINTIFF notified the DEFENDANTs his intention acquire employment separate from commercial activities at location to expedite payment of rent to DEFENDANT and acquired employment in March 2017. to beginning of April 2017.
• DEFENDANTs had knowledge of the value of PLAINTIFF commercial equipment and value equipment-utilization for ammunition production at PLAINTIFF lease space.

•  The PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT mutually explored engaging each other for investment by DEFENDANT in MACEO-REMY commercial-activity at location in February and March of 2017

• MACEO REMY presented a business prospectus to the DEFENDANT for DEFENDANT’S investment which illustrated in detail the private usage tactics of MACEO REMY equipment and resulting profit of those business usage tactics by email and a hard copy to DEFENDANT. 
• DEFENDANT verbally stated he would invest $50,000 to MACEO-REMY and DEFENDANT verbally stated to PLAINTIFF a minimum of $50,000.00 United States Dollars would be the appropriate minimum financial investment needed according to his research.
• The business prospectus communicated the existing equipment the company would earn $500,000-gross-revenue-annually profiting 40% or approximately profiting-$200,000 or more annually.
• Business prospectus did not include other services being offered by PLAINTIFF such as safety-tactical arms training courses, trauma-medical-training courses, government contracts for the supply of ammunition and firearms and development of firearms accessory products. DEFENDANT had complete knowledge of the business revenue potential from PLAINTIFF’s business.
• The DEFENDANT provided no eviction notice to PLAINTIFF 
• DEFENDANT with help of Craig Barker executed a self-help eviction on the night of April 9, 2017 by changing the locks on the residence and commercial space belonging to PLAINTIFF sometime after 6PM while
• PLAINTIFF was at work. PLAINTIFF discovered the changed locks upon returning from work at approximately midnight April 10, 2017.
• PLAINTIFF called the DEFENDANT immediately after discovering the changed lock April 10, 2017 and sent a message to the DEFENDANT’S phone requesting access to his residence and business, and called again the following morning being told by DEFENDANT’S secretary that he would only allow PLAINTIFF to arrange a time to retrieve some clothes and few personal items.
•  The time arranged was approximately April 10^th, 2017 at 9AM. PLAINTIFF took video footage of the location central room with some equipment for record and retrieved items being escorted by David Opperman and Craig Barker through the location.
• PLAINTIFF engaged a business associate Dwight West of  Boston Group Co-LLC (BGC) to participate in of the financing of PLAINTIFF commercial activities due to negative effect of controversy on commercial-activity.
•  Dwight West witnessed all communication via email with DEFENDANTs and began to negotiate with DEFENDANT’S secretary and DEFENDANT during and after the self-help eviction for access to residence and business.
• PLAINTIFF and Dwight West repeatedly attempted to engage DEFENDANTs for a solution and DEFENDANT refused to negotiate directly with PLAINTIFF and communications with Dwight West on most occasions by DEFENDANT and secretary were belligerent.
• Secretary at one time had to leave conversation to acquire alcohol for DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF and Dwight West notified DEFENDANTs of existing liens on some equipment.
• DEFENDANT was belligerent with PLAINTIFF causing plaintiff to utilize Dwight West for communication.
• June 2017 PLAINTIFF filed for emergency relief in County of Berks Court of Common Pleas and was granted relief by ORDER and DECREE docket number. 17-16456 from the court.

• Several constables were contacted to execute the order of relief by the court. At least one constable-service refused to engage the job of retrieval of items after becoming aware of who the DEFENDANT was and speaking with him.

• DEFENDANT is a successful land excavation entrepreneur owner of Opperman-Excavating-Inc.
• DEFENDANT filed a police report stating that PLAINTIFF’s unit had been broken into and property was stolen.
• DEFENDANT did not notify PLAINTIFF of the alleged break in and when DEFENDANT discarded remainder of PLAINTIFF’s possessions.
• The DEFENDANT filed the report of theft and met the police at 630 S 9^th St Reading PA in the morning and entered PLAINTIFF unit and proceeded to throw out remaining items that DEFENDANT claimed to police were stolen.
• There is a police report on this event.
• During May 2017 and after PLAINTIFF and Dwight West continued to contact DEFENDANT to resolve the matter.
• DEFENDANT never notified PLAINTIFF or Dwight West of alleged theft of equipment, inventory, police report and then throwing out remaining property of PLAINTIFF.
• PLAINTIFF learned of property allegedly being stolen and remainder discarded to trash after filing for and being granted emergency relief in county of Berks Court of Common pleas to obtain his property from location.
• DEFENDANT had received several calls during and after the alleged theft of property from PLAINTIFF and did not communicate situation to PLAINTIFF. This shows knowledge, malice

• Police witnessed DEFENDANT remove items from property and then proceed to throw items in trash and the Reading-Police-officer who created the police report of David Opperman’s call confirmed this fact speaking directly to PLAINTIFF at Reading-City-Hall.
• PLAINTIFF obtained constable-services and attempted to inspect location with witnesses where Opperman again claimed PLAINTIFF space was empty. The constable refused to allow PLAINTIFF in property to inspect for items until he paid him in advance a violation of Pennsylvania law.
• Specific action was taken by PLAINTIFF regarding subsequent verbal agreements with DEFENDANT. Specifically, PLAINTIFF agreed to and then engaged in work to earn revenue to pay for rent before all permits for commercial activity were acquired.
• DEFENDANTs presented a document stating an amount that was possibly owed by PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF did not agree to any terms or accept-for-value the document and its contents which PLAINTIFF stated were not included in lease-contract or any subsequent agreements.
• PLAINTIFF was eventually denied several working capital credit opportunities ranging up to $75,000 from $10,000 for ammunition manufacturing.
• These working capital loans would have been utilized for inventory and manufactured and sold bi-weekly at 40% minimum profit margin.
• This rate of manufacturing and profit would earn PLAINTIFF reasonably between $200,000 to $400,000 per year for ammunition with existing equipment.
• Loans would be utilized to acquire new equipment and increase automation of that equipment with mechanical drives to create greater production increasing profit.

• Because of the fact PLAINTIFF could gain access to his equipment and lease-space for lenders to review equipment for their due-diligence, PLAINTIFF was denied the loan.
• PLAINTIFF was being blocked from creating commercial activity and revenue due to his equipment being in the possession of DEFENDANT.
• CAUSE OF ACTION
• DEFENDANT willfully and knowingly wrongfully denied the PLAINTIFF access to the property.
• DEFENDANT willfully and knowingly wrongfully caused the PLAINTIFF to be evicted from the premises without prior service of Writ-of-Possession and/or an Alias-Writ-of-Possession.
• DEFENDANT failed by law to give any prior notice to the parties to collect and gather their belongings prior to disposing of the same.
• DEFENDANT intentionally caused loss of income at the expense of the PLAINTIFF.
• DEFENDANT caused loss of investment by denying PLAINTIFF access to the business thereby causing the PLAINTIFF to lose out on a loan facility.
•  

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

• PLAINTIFF makes a claim for treble damages of nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000.00) to the PLAINTIFF from DEFENDANT for the above claim. Claim demand amount is calculated utilizing at the time of changed locks by DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF’s existing equipment, reasonably expected acquisition of automation equipment, inventory turnover, United-States-government contract acquisition and additional training courses and business. Loss of First-year estimation of $100,000 profit, second-year $150,000 and third-year $200,000 profit in PLAINTIFF’s commercial activities at location also relief for trespass, slander, intimidation to PLAINTIFF person with demand for treble damages creates lawful claim for $900,000 to PLAINTIFF.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

• Investors including Dwight-West due to harm and loss of material items caused by DEFENDANTs actions. Total equipment, inventory and personal items financial value is presented at $35,000. Many items were antique riffles, traded machining parts, antique heirloom furniture. Records and receipts were thrown away by DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF was unable to engage in small transactions, obtain records for engaging in commerce and had his reputation slandered as he became homeless and members of the community doubted his ability to ability to engage in commercial activities.
• PLAINTIFF seeks remedies under the law for loss of revenue from commercial-activity, trespass, theft of property, slander to the name PLAINTIFF, intimidation creating undue-influence. Harm and damage to PLAINTIFF causes this claim-demand for wrongdoing and actions by DEFENDANTs for a claim-demand of $900,000.00.
• Award the PLAINTIFF for loss of earnings in an amount to be determined at trial;
• Award the PLAINTIFF punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
• Award the PLAINTIFF interest on lost earnings, compensation, and damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest and an upward adjustment for inflation;
• Costs of filing and pursuing this suit against DEFENDANT David Opperman.

BY:____________________________

Remy, Maceo Saunders dba

MACEO-REMY

All rights reserved

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )