Court Opinion

ID: 4068495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:00:32.525971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:49.344126
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                          04-14-00357-CV
                                                                              FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                   SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
                                                                                     8/25/2015 9:50:13 PM
                                                                                           KEITH HOTTLE
                                                                                                   CLERK

                                04 -14   -00~.37   CV

                                                                         FILED IN
                                                                  4th COURT OF APPEALS
                          Jn 'filbe QCourt @f ~ppeal~              SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
                     jfor 'filbe jfourtb jj0i~trict ®f 'filexa~   08/25/2015 9:50:13 PM
                               ~an §ntonio 'filexa~                   KEITH E. HOTTLE
                                                                           Clerk

                                BURTON KAHN
                                    APPELLANT

                                          V.

                     HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY INC.
                                    APPELLEE.

    On Appeal From The 224 Judicial District Court Of Bexar County, Texas
                         Trial Court, No. 2013-CI -18355
                          Hon. Margret Tanner Presiding

     ArrELLANT'S 1\-'IOTION FOR EN DANC RECONSIDERATION

Burton Kahn pro se
1706 Alpine Circle
San Antonio, TX 70240
210-408-9199
glentrail(W,vahoo. com

                      ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
                  IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

      Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties,
attorneys and any other person who has any interest in the outcome of this lawsuit:

Attorneys for Appellant:         Burton Kahn Pro-se
                                 1706 Aloine Circle
                                 San Antonio, TX 78248
                                  Tel (210) 408-9199
                                 gkall1 ail lilly ul1uu. l.:0111

Attorneys for Annellee:           Rlizaheth Conry Davidson
                                   Attorney at Law
                                   926 Chulie Drive
                                   San Antonio, Texas 7821 t5
                                  (210) 380-4899 telephone
                                  (? 10) //')_/1()()      far.~1m11P.

                                  conrydavidson@gmail.com

                                 Resigned
                                 Haynes and Boone LLP
                                 Lisa .t>arkley
                                 112 E. Pecan St. Suite 1200
                                 San Antonio, TX 78205 - 1524
                                 Tel (210) 978-7427
                                 Fax (210) 0427
                                 Lisa.Barkley@haynesboone.com
                                Resigned
                                 u~ynP<;;;!   J& °Rl'lrmP, TT p
                                 Werner A. Powers
                                 Natalie DuBose
                                 Sr.ott FvP.rP.tt
                                 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
                                 Dallas, Texas 75219
                                 lel (Ll4) b)l-)4~/
                                 Fax (214) 200-0468
                                 U l P rn P r PAurP r <;;;!@h~ ynP <;;;! h l'll'ln P c>l'lm

                                               11
                                     Puc;1tv Vc;11.k Ltu. (Dalrnrniau)

For Appellee Real Party of Interest                  Puerto Verde Ltd. (Bahamian)
For Appellee

 Trial Judge:                        Hon. Martha Tanner
                                     224 th Judicial District Court
                                     Bexar County, Texas
Provioua .l \.ttornoy iA..ppollunt   iA..ppollunt hua roproaontod himaolf pro ao ainoo
                                     December 14, 2013. His previous counsel was:
                                     L. Terry George died on June 2'), 2014.
                                     Fort Worth, Texas

                                     Jay R. Petterson
                                     Jay R. Petterson, Attorney at Law, PLLC
                                     12274 Da11uc;1a Rvau, Suite; 210
                                     Helotes, Texas 78023

                                     Kathleen A. Cassidy Goodman
                                     Law Office of Kathleen Cassidy Goodman
                                     lLL 14l:5andera .Koad, :suite Ll u
                                     Helotes, Texas 78023

                                     Richard H. Sommer
                                     8610 N. New Braunfels Ave., Suite
                                     JU9   ~an   Antomo, Texas "/82.l'/

                                     P_obert \V. \Vachs;lmuth
                                     Zachary J. Fanucci
                                     Robert Wachsmuth & Associates
                                     9311 San Pedro~ Suite 707
                                     San Antonio, Texas 78216
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                          Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES ........ . .. .......... . .... ....... ............. ......... ..... ......... .ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. .iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................... vi

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT............................................                                            x

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1

WHY IS KAHN PERSECUTED? ...... . .. .......... . .......... . .. ..... . .. ............ 2

ACTIONSBYKAim ................................................................... 3

ACTION BY APPELLEE .. . .......... . . ... ...... . .. ........ . .. ......... ... .. . ......... 6

CONCLUSION OF WHY IS KAHN PERSECUTED? ...... . .. ........ . .. .... . ... 9

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ............................................................. I 0

POINT 1 ......................................................................................................... 10

A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT REGISTERED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE CANNOT MAINTAIN A LAWSUIT
IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

CONCLUSION OF POINT 1 .......................................................................... 13

POINT 2 ......................................................................................................... 13

CONSTITUTION

CONCLUSION OF POINT 2 .......................................................................... 15

POINT 3 .......................................................................................................... 15

                                                            iv

                                                           lV
DENIAL OP lvIOTION POR LEAVE TO PILE APPELLANT' 3
3 RD AMENDED BRIEF

CONCLUSION OF POINT 3 .......................................................................... 17

POil\fT 4 .......................................................................................................... 17

CT,FAR AND CONCTSF TSSTTFS

CONCLUSION OF POINT 4 .......................................................................... 19

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 19

PRAYER ......................................................................................................... 20

V.ER1FlCA'l1UN ............................................................................................... 20

C£P_TIFIC _A._T£ OF           CO~APLLAJ\TC£ ................................................................ 21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................... 21

APPENDIX ................. . ....................... . .................................... 22

EXHIBIT 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION: IN RE PURPORTED LIEN OR
                   CLAIM AGAINST HELVE TIA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.

EXHIBIT 2 IN APPELLATE CASE 04-14-00569-CV, APPELLANT'S REPLY

                   BRIEF EXHIBIT C ON PAGE 67
                                     INDEX OF AUTIIORITIE3

                                                  CASES

Aluminum Chems. (Bolivia) Inc. v. Bechtel Corp
2~   .S.W.3d 64   (Tex.App.-TexarK.ana 2000, no peL.) ................................. 16

Aluminum (!hems. (Rnlivio) Tnr:. v. Rer:htel r:nrp ..
28 S.W.3d 49, 50 (Tex.App.-Texarkana) ............... ... .................. ... ...... 16

liaxter v. r'atmzgzano1
425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) .................................................................. 3
Bradf. v. Vento,
48 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) ................................................................ 3

Burnaman v. Heaton,
2110 S.\V.2d 2gg, 291     (T~x .   1951) ..... . . . .......... . . . ..... . ......... . . . ..... . .... . ..... 5

Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Gonzalez,
820S.W.2d121, 121(Tex.1991) ..................................................... 1.16

Din v. Kerry,
13-1402 (U.S. 6-15-2015) ............... . .. ............. . .. ................. . .. ......... 14

El Paso Natural Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc.,
8 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999) ........ . .................... . ................. . ........... 2

Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, L.P.,
246 S.W.3d 653, 664 (Tex.2008) ......... .......... ........... .......... ........... ...... 15

Gianetti v, Cross,
09141 v (U.S . .J-18-2010) ............................................................... 13

In Af!ricultural Bank ofMississiJJJJi ETA 1. v. Rice ET AL.
45 U.S. 225 (1846) ................................................... ... ................. 13

In fiJ! Cervanres,
300 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.-Waco 2009, orig. proceeding) (op. on reh'g) .......... 16
In     JIB Oun,,;;,ul1::,,;;,,
04-14-00485-CV (Tex.App.-San Antonio 10-1-2014) ......... ... ....... ........ ..... 12

Interstate 35/chisam Road, L.p. v. Moayedi,
377 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012) ............................................... 15

Jay-Lor Text V Pacific Compress Warehouse Company et al,
:S47 ~ W 2d 7:iR (Tex C1vArm.-Corrms Chr1st11977 ,wr1t re~d nre). . .. . . .. . .                                                                                                                  11

Kalkowski v. Neb
              .
                 National Trails Museum Foundation,
                                 '.l
.L~U      Ne b .    /~~\LU               1)) ... ................................................................. 14

 Vonlo1J Phnrrnnry                     ,.e.   Unww l'nro ·"onJiro, inr ,, Wnigroon l'n ,
  539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982), judgment affd
  761F.2d345 (7th Cir. (1985) ........................................................... . 14

Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc.,
;J;J   S .\.V.3d 5!J!J, 553 (Tex.2001) ... . . . ... . . . .... . ..... . ....... . . . .... . .. . .... . . . ... . . . ..... 15

Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390,399 (1923)                           Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill    Ill    Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill   Ill. Ill   14

~Vat/.1 v.      Children 1s llospital
 375 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
                                          '
                                                2012 ...... ... ....... ........... ... 17

Nguyen v. Kuljis,
414 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.App.-Houston [l st Dist] ...................................... . ... 16

Perry v. Cohen,
272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) .......... ........ ............. ........ .......... ........... ... 2

Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.,
v.'.34 s.w.2u 442, 444 (Tt::x. 198:3) ......................................................... .'.3

Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex. Inc ..
  150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex.2004) ........................... ... ....... .............. ..... 19

fi..oberrs v. fi..oberrs,
999 S.W.2d 424, 438 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, no pet.) ............ ... ................ 16

                                                                                            , 711
Ru~A Stut~       lfu;)p.   11.   Dluc.;A,
 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) ... . .. .......... . ....... . .. .......... . ....... . .. .......... . .... 12

Taub v. Aquila S. W Pipeline Corp.,
93 S.W.3d 451~461 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]                                 2002~    no pet.) .............. 13

Tex. Ass'n ofBus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd.,
~:')2 ~ W 2d 44() (Tex 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . .              .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ..... .. ... ... ...... .. .... 12

Verburgt v. Dorner,
'-JYJ   ~.W.LC1bl),blb,\lex.                1'7'71) ........................................................ L

T/inoynrFl l l    Wil~nn,

597 S.W.2d 21, 23 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1980, no writ) .................. ... .... .... 5

                                                      RULES

Rule 34.6(d) ......... ... ....... ........... ... .......... ........ ... .................. ... ..... 16

Rule 11 Agreement .............................................................. 5, I0, 13, 15

Rulo 3'1 .6(d) ......... . . . .......... . ....... . . . .......... . ....... . . . .................. . . . ..... 16

Tex.App, R 34.6 (f) .... ....... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........ ....... ... 16

Tex.R.App.P. 38.1 .......................... . .................... . ....... . ......... 1i 1Oi 17

Tex.R.App.P .. 39.1 ....................................................................... ix

Tex.R.App.P. 41.2 ............. ........... ... ....... ........... ... ....... ........... ... ....... 1

Tt::x.R.A!J!J.P. 49.7 ............................................................................ I

                                                    STATUTES

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States .............. 14~15
TEX. CONST. art. I, § 16 ....................... . .................... . .................. 15

                                                          ,,,,,
§ .J 1 . 903 .................................................................................... 1 8

S 9.051 BUS. ORG .......... ........... ............. ........... .................. ........ 11

Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.051 (2)(b ) .............................................. 11

Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.051(b) .............................................. 10,12

Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.251. ........ ... .......... ........ ... ....... ........ ..... 12

lex. Liv, t'rac.    &   Kem. Lode S 1U.UU4\d.) .......................................... l /

                                                ARTICLES

'J'he Hestatement (l'hird) ofl<..estitution & Unjust Hnrichment:
 Some Introductory Suggestions,
6g V.fa;:ih. 9t. Lee L. P_ev. goo, 000(2011) . . .... . . . ... . . . ....... . ....... . . . .... . ....... H

                                                        1V
                     REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUI"t'IENT

      Pursuant to Tex.R.Aoo.P. 39.1 Aooellant Kahn requests to oresent oral

argument in this proceeding to clarify any questions on Appellant's Brief.

                                         v
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

      The panel erred in concluding that the issues in the appeal were not clear and

concise. Appellant files his motion, pursuant to Tex.R.App.49.7 and respectfully

asks the Court to grant this motion to reconsider the case en bane. Appellant would

respectfully show the court as follows:

                                            r·'
                                 INTRODUCTION

      Appellant is Burton Kahn ("Kahn") seeks en bane review of the judgment

and opinion in this case issued on August 12, 2015. The panel that rendered

judgment in this case consisted of Sandy Bryan Marion, Chief Justice, Rebecca C.

Martinez, Justice and Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice. The opinion was authored by

the Honorable Patricia 0. Alvarez. A copy of the opinion is attached as Exhibit 1.

This court has the authority to grant this motion and submit the case to the full

court sitting en bane   Tex.R.App.41.2~   49.7.

      The dismissal for want of prosecution is a death penalty decision based on

FORM and that the full Court should review the opinion that absolute conformity

(although not defined) should rule in this case. The opinion states that the issues

presented were not in accordance Tex.R.App.38.1. However they should be

liberally construed and/or lenient as per Texas Supreme Court See Crown Life Ins.

Co. v. Estate ofGonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121, 121(Tex.1991) (percuriam) (former

Rule 55 was "to he liberally construed so that the decisions of the courts of appeals

                                             1
turn on substance rather than procedural technicality");. See Perry v. Cuhen, 272
S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) Simply stated, appellate courts should reach the merits of

an appeal whenever reasonably possible. See Verburgt, 9 59 S.W.2d 615, 616,

(Tex. 1997); See El Paso Natural Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309,

316 (Tex. 1999).

      There are additional issues regarding standing of the Appellee and Kahn's

constitutional rights that are being violated with the panel's decision that the full

court should review.

                                    II
                         WHY IS KAHN PERSECUTED?

      Kahn entered a contract, invested over $100,000; did all work and never

received compensation; supplied all financial data to Appellee (of which

$161,388.07 was taken out by Appellee and Kahn is owed $77,825.52; Exhibit 2 a

copy of summary sheet filed in Appellate case 04-14-00569-CV, Appellant's

Reply I3riefExhibit Con page 67. The accounting was never controverted. Kahn

placed funds held into the registry of the court. (2RR42) Kahn spent over $75,000

on attorneys fees of which one was sick and died, two where bribed and were fired

and two that could not be continue due to lack of funds. Kahn was forced to

proceed in these lawsuits prose, which meant the purchase of Justice O'Connor's

books, other Law Books, trips to library, connection to the Internet and thousands

of hours studying trying to get the rules, precedents and fonns correct. Kahn

                                           2
needed to be secretary, proofreader, researcher and other tasks normally done in an

attorney' s office. (Note, Kahn is defending.for his LIFE and it is unfair.for any

prejudiced against him.) Based on the actions of Appellee (see below) Kahn was

has been stripped of all his possessions. Unlike the Appellee, Kahn has done no

wrong yet Courts have rewarded Appellee for his cunning, fabrications and actions

which are based on a bribed, unauthorized Rule 11 Agreement. (1CR288-291) The

accusation that Kahn's attorney Petterson was bribed was never contradicted

regarding the signing of the Rule 11 Agreement. Nor did Appellee have any

testimony that the Rule 11 Agreement was anything but a 100% for Appellee and

0% for Kahn. This failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is

unfavorable to Appellee, Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001): Baxter v.

Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

                                ACTIONS BY KAHN

      Kahn contracted with John Ripley to form Joabert Development Company

("Joabert") to build the Royal Crest Subdivision, where Kahn owns 1/3 of the

stock. (3RR 82) John Ripley supplied the funds by selling some of his properties in

ur-Jer to supply furn.ls for Joabert. Kahn' s responsibilities were to purchase

properties, secure funds, design subdivisions infrastructure and roadways,

constructed the infrastructure and did all the necessary paper work including

dealing with local authorities. Kahn never got any compensation for the eight

                                           3
years that he worked. Kahn had invested approximately $100, 000 of his own

money. Kahn was selling lots from the Key Largo Subdivision to provide Joabert

with construction funds.

       A dispute arose on August 26, 2013 (5RR 751) Kahn was holding

approximately $340,000 slated for Joabert less expense to be approximately

$290,000. This was placed into the registry of the court. The shares of Helvetia

were never purchased and to protect Helvetia/ Joabert from Robert Ripley, Kahn

purchased the 1000 shares on September 7, 20131. (5RR408-410) The property

would become Joabert but due to the controversy was in Kahn's name only.

      Kahn on November 1, 2013 hired Jay R. Petterson, Attorney at Law, PLCC

("Petterson") to represent him in the several cases pending in Bexar County,

Texas. (5RR 284)

      On November 5, 2013, Kahn claiming 100% stockholder Helvetia filed a

lawsuit 2013-CI-18394 , in the style of "Action on Fraudulent Lien on Property.

Motion (lCRl),, Order (lCR 76) In that Motion signed by Petterson. (lCR 1-95)

+(5RR 6-12), (5RR 210,) Pl Ex 1, claims that the documents included in 2013-CI-

17516 are forgeries.

      On November 15, 2013 Kahn's attorneys and Peterson signed a Rule 11

Agreement without Kahn's, consent to any of the details (5RR 442). Rule 11

agreement was 100% for Appellee and 0%for Kahn. (5RR 451) Kahn testified and

                                         4
claimed that Petterson was bribed but that was never controverted. (5RR 448)

Kahn fired Petterson and Goodman. (5RR 444), At the injunction Judge Pozza

stated that she could not enforce the Rule 11 Agreement 5RR 661. Although

Kahn's contract with Petterson did not allow legal decisions without Kahn's

consent. The Supreme Court said that "A party may withdraw his consent at any

time prior to the time of rendition,, Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288, 291

(Tex. 1951); Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex.

1983); Vineyardv. Wilson, 597 S.W.2d 21 , 23 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1980, no

writ).

         Kahn supplied Appellee the financial statements and records as of June 1,

2013 together with two large garbage filed with receipts.(5RR 486) At Kahn's

deposition December 6, 2013, supplied Appellee all financial statements and

records which updated June 1 submission. Kahn later compiled a complete

financial record which is located in, Appellate case 04-14-00569-CV.Appelants

Reply Brief Exhibit C. Summary of the financial records show that Appellee has

taken out $161,388.07 and Kahn is owed $77,825.52. on page 67 of Reply Brief

Exhibit 2.

         A motion for sanctions for filing the 2013-CI-18394 case was filed against

Kahn but not his attorney Petterson was filed by Puerto Verde Ltd. (a foreign

                                           5
corporation not registered in Texas. The Court Ruled that Kahn pay Puerto Verde

Ltd. and Helvetia $253, 416 (3RR229)

                           ACTION BY APPELLEE

      In an effort to prove that Puerto Verde Ltd. a Bahamian Corporation("PVL")

owned Helvetia Asset Recovery Inc. ("Helvetia") Robert and John Ripley went to

Randolph Brooks to takeover Helvetia's accounts with documents and were denied

access on September 16, 2013.

      When the Bank takeover failed they filed a lawsuit in the name of Helvetia

2013-CI-17516, Order (5RR 128-139), Motion, (5RR 315-340) on October 23,

2013. The documents submitted to the court as proof of ownership were Minutes

Of The Organizational Meeting Of The Board Of Directors Of Helvetia Asset Inc.

A for-profit Corporation dated August 17, 2015 ("Original Minutes") (5RR 322)

designating Kenneth Moore as president and a stock certificate 001 with 3

signatures of Moore dated August 20, 2007. (5RR 327).

      The form of the stock certificate was not the correct form. (5RR 10),

(5RR68) Ripley did not contact Terry George ("George") the organizer and

aU01ney fur Helvetia fur the proper form of certificate. (5RR 536,738) George

testified that he never provided any copies of the minutes to anyone but Burt Kahn.

(5RR 544) How did Ripley get a copy of the minutes in Canada, the weekend after

minutes were completed ? Ripley stated he did not have the form of the stock

                                         6
certificate so he made one up and faxed the certificate to his brother John Ripley

from Toronto, Canada. (5RR 797). There are no fax markings on the certificate so

that faxing is questionable. Ripley never contacted George until September 2013,

(5RR 738).

      Most of the above facts were disputed in case In Re Helvetia Asset

Recovery, Inc. 2013-CI-18394 filed with Kahn as Owner and President. Motion

(1 CRl ,), and Order (1 CR 76). Ripley provided at the injunction a copy of an

email the Title Company sent Kahn as wiring instructions for the $1.2 million

money trail exchange. Robert Ripley took this document and crossed out sender

and in his own handwriting that stated "Please transfer 1.2 million USD to my

Escrow Agent as outlined in these instructions. The funds will be used to capitalize

a Texas Holdco and in return Puerto Verde will receive 1000 shares."(5RR 227)

Robert testified that this document was a receipt from the title company however

Robert crossed out the name of the Title Company's sender. (5RR 831) Ripley

testified that the funds for the transfer came from the Ripley family trust. (5RR

571) There are no Bank records of this transfer and there are no records of the title

company that this document was in existence and was given or received.     lf the

shares were bought on September 17. 2013 by Ripley, What about the shares

purported issued by Moore on August 20, 2013?

                                          7
      Robert testified that Scott Morrison ("Morrison" ) was the trust officer for

the Bahamian bank (5RR 705) and as of October 22, 2007 he did not have any

documentation on the ownership. (5RR 704-705) These instructions were never

sent to Morrison but Morrison sent the transfer funds. The transfer was from

Helvetia and Maple Bush Holding LTD. ("Maple Bush:). Ripley testified that he

owns both Maple Bush and PVL (5RR 799) Ripley testified that the funds used to

purchase the notes were from computer company he closed down. (5RR 746) On

February 8, 2008, Ripley's sent email to Kahn again questioning ownership (5RR

573) Ripley does not have the original stock certificate (5RR 801) nor the receipt

from the Title Company nor the minutes of the original meeting, that he claimed in

his affidavits and testimony previously cited above.

      Ripley submitted to the court Exhibit 39 (5RR 840) DF Ex 10 which he

called a kit.(5RR844) Ripley claimed that was provided by Mr. Terry George.

(5RR743) George testified that he never provided any copies to anyone but Burt

Kahn. (5RR 544) Exhibit 39 was comprised of transmittal and instruction letter,

By laws and the Minutes Of The Organizational Meeting Of The Board Of

Diredors Of Helvetia Asset Inc. A for-profit Corporation dated of August 8,

2,007.(" August 8, 2007 minutes") The transmittal does not have any information

on who has sent it nor is there a signature but it does state to review and call if

there are any changes. (5RR 851-882) The By laws and August 8, 2007 has

                                           8
George's signature on dated August 8, 2007 as of these documents are final.

George testified that he never provided any copies to anyone but Burt Kahn.

(5RR544) George testified that he Exhibit 39 was not his work. 5RR 549-557 The

shares to be issued to Puerto Verde, Inc. are written in pencil. (5RR 553) Also per

August 8, 2007 minutes state that George resigned on August 8, 2007. Ripley

testified that he received Exhibit 3 9 by courier in Canada but does not have any

envelope that it came in. (5RR 738) Ripley testified that this document was

specially flown in to San Antonio from Canada for the injunction hearing. 5RR

711 Who sent them? Ripley was in San Antonio testifying. The bylaws state in

pencil the offices to be 6751 Walzem which is different from the original minutes

of August 17, 2007 which has George's address.( 5RR 393) George's final

statement was "I'm starting to wonder about- about some criminal activity myself'

(5RR557)

              CONCLUSION OF WHY IS KAHN PERSECUTED?

      Appellee's action of fabricating and forging a stock certificate, within a

weekend after the Initial Meeting Minutes were completed; then handwriting over

an e-mail :sent to Kahn, daiming again he bought the :same :stoL:k from a man who

never sold   stock~   then presenting a Initial Meeting Minutes of a different date and

fill-ins in PENCIL, than the one Appellee initially swore was correct in his filing

of 2013-CI-17516, that the author attorney George stated, that the signature on that

                                             9
document was not George' s. Appellee' s acts are gross misconduct, but instead of

having the Appellee's pleadings struck gets awarded with rulings because of a

Bribed Rule 11 Agreement and Kahn is pro-se. The discretion of this Court to

reward Appellee and find that Kahn' s Brief is in violation of Tex.R.App.38. is a

miscarriage of Justice.

                      ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

                                     POINT 1
      A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT REGISTERED WITH THE
       SECRETARY OF STATE CANNOT MAINTAIN A LAWSUIT
                   IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

      This case 2013-CI-18394 was filed by Helvetia Asset Recovery Inc.

("Helvetia") and signed by Jay R. Petterson. At the time of the filing, the

ownership of the shares of Helvetia had not yet been determined. Burton Kahn

("Kahn") claiming ownership of the shares and was president of the corporation

listed with the Secretary of State. (5RR365) Puerto Verde Ltd. ("PVL") as an

Intervenor filed a Motions P or Sanctions (2CR 35) and filed the Pirst Amended

Motion for Sanctions (2CR 121) PVL also signed a Rule 11 Agreement(lCR 418-

421) .PVL is a Bahamian Corporation not registered with the Secretary of State as

testified by Robert Ripley. (5RR799)

      The Appellee, PVL according to Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.05l(b)

cannot maintain a suit in Texas. The Intervenor is a foreign corporation and in

                                         10
order for it to maintain a suit he must get a certificate of authority. Tex. Bus. Org.

Code Ann. § 9.05l(b).

      The Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.051 states:

             § 9.051 BUS. ORG. Transacting Business or Maintaining
             Court Proceeding Without Registration

               (a) On application by the attorney general, a court may
             enjoin a foreign filing entity or the entity's agent from
             transacting business in this state if:

              (1) the entity is not registered in this state; or

              (2) the entity's registration is obtained on the basis of a
             false or misleading representation.

              (b) A foreign filing entity or the entity's legal
             representative may not maintain an action, suit, or
             proceeding in a court of this state, brought either directly
             by the entity or in the form of a derivative action in the
             entity's name, on a cause of action that arises out of the
             transaction of business in this state unless the foreign
             filing entity is registered in accordance with this chapter.

      The issue in this case is who owns the stock of Helvetia, Puerto Verde Ltd.

or Kahn. PVL has brought this Sanction action. This is in direct violation of Tex.

Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.051(2)(b) because Puerto Verde Ltd. is a foreign

cmporntion without a certificate of authority. In Jay-Lor Text V Pacific Compress

Warehouse Company et al, 547 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1977

,writ ref d n.r.e) Pacific Compress Warehouse Company ("Pacific")was awarded

judgment against Jay-Lor Tex. Pacific was a foreign Corporation that did not have

                                           11
a certificate of authority. The Appellate Court found that Pacific Compress

Warehouse Companies was not allowed to maintain a suit and judgment was

reversed.

      Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. § 9.251 lists activities not constituting transacting

business in this state for purposes of this chapter,. Puerto Verde Ltd. does not fall

under any of these activities because it initiated the motion so that was not

defending.

        Puerto Verde Ltd did not obtain a certificate of authority from the

Secretary of State and has no standing, according to Tex. Bus. Org. Code Ann. §

9.05l(b). A foreign filing entity or the entity's legal representative may not

maintain an action, suit, or proceeding in a court of this state, brought either

directly by the entity or in the form of a derivative action in the entity's name, on a

cause of action that arises out of the transaction of business in this state unless the

foreign filing entity is registered in accordance with this chapter.

      Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, and can be raised for

the first time on appeal. Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a

court to Jeciue a case. Stanuing is implicit in the concept of subject matter

jurisdiction.. Tex. Ass'n ofBus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.

1993), Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012), In RE Gonzalez, 04-

14-00485-CV (Tex.App.-San Antonio 10-1-2014)

                                           12
         "An absence of standing deprives the trial court of subject matter

jurisdiction and renders any trial court action void., Taub v. Aquila S. W Pipeline

Corp., 93 S.W.3d 451, 461 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.)). Thus

the Sanction Order in this case is void.

                            CONCLUSION OF POINT 1

         By not complying with the laws of registration, taxes are avoided and illegal

activities such as money laundering and terrorist activities are enabled._PVL should

have all its pleadings and motions voided including the Final Judgment and Sanction

Order.

                                    POINT 2
                                  CONSTITUTION

         A. Kahn has a Constitutional Right to withdraw from a unauthorized Rule 11

Agreement in which his lawyers were bribed to sign, that was I 00% for Appellee

and 0% for Kahn. (Although Courts find that the Rule 11 Agreement is not

enforceable, yet Courts ruled as per agreement except for date of trial and jury.)

    The Rule 11 Agreement was 100% for Appellee and 0% for Appellant.

Appellant has the right to act with Free Will, not to allow or enter this agreement.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the issue of rights to contract

for many years. In Agricultural Bank ofMississippi ETA 1. v. Rice ET AL, 45 U.S.
225 (1846) stated "she exercises that free will which is of the essence of all

contracts." In Gianetti v, Cross, 091416 (U.S. 5-18-2010),

                                           13
                   "Libe1iy to contract is a basic, fundamental and highly
              important right. The principle, by and large, is that the
              making of contracts shall be free of governmental
              interference ('Kealev Pharmacy & Home Care Service, inc.
              v. Waigreen Co., 539 F. Supp. 1357 (W.D. Wis. 1982),
             judgment affd 761F.2d345 (7th Cir. (1985).-

        In Din v. Kerry, 13-1402 (U.S. 6-15-2015) states:

             For example: "Without doubt, [the liberty guaranteed by
             the Due Process Clause] denotes not merely freedom from
             bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to
             contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of
             life, to acquire useful knowledge, to many, establish a
             home and bring up children, [and] to worship God
             according to the dictates of his own conscience" lvfeyer v.
             Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,399 (1923)

       The right to contract is a Fourteenth Amendment right. Appellant is claiming

the antithesis of the right to contract, that he has the right to reject a contract that is

not in his favor. The Court infers that right. The Nebraska Supreme Court

expressed that inferred right, In Kalkowski v. Neb National Trails Museum

Foundation, 290 Neb. 798 (2 20 15) stating:

              "concept that the parties should usually be free to enter or
              not enter into contracts according to their own free will.
              lti124 J.. · lth24 J See Michael ·l 'raynor, 1'he He statement
              (Ihird) ofRestitution & UnjustEnn·chment: Some
             Introductory Suggestions, 68 Wash_ &. Lee L Rev_ 899,
              900(2011 ). II

       The Texas Constitution protects the freedom to contract, and the Texas

Supreme Court has long recognized a strong public policy in favor of preserving

the freedom of contract. Interstate 35/chisam Road, L.p. v. Moayedi, 377 S.W.3d
791(Tex.App.-Dallas2012)See TEX. CONST. art. I,§ 16; Fuirfleld In:s. Cu. v.

Stephens Martin Paving, L.P., 246 S.W.3d 653, 664 (Tex.2008\ Lawrence v. CDB

Servs., Inc., 44 S.W.3d 544, 553 (Tex.2001),

      The trial Court has sanctioned Kahn for not agreeing with a contract that was

100% for Appellee and 0% for Appellant..

                          CONCLUSION OF POINT 2

      The Final Judgment and Sanction Order violates Appellant's Rights of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and TEX. CONST.

art. I, § 16 based on freedom to contract. Kahn has the right to act with Free Will

not to allow or enter this agreement. Thus withdrawing the Tex Rule 11 is not

sanctionable and this Court cannot allow Collateral Estoppel of the Sanction Order.

                                     POINT 3
      DENIAL OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPELLANT'S
                    3RD AMENDED BRIEF

       The panel erred in denying Appellant' s 3rd Amended Brief because their

was good cause to file the 3rd Amended Brief to correct an error.

      Alternatively the panel should Grant Kahn a new trial on the Motion for

Sandiuns baseu un an irn.:umplete repurters recuru.

      The memorandum stated "record citations do not comport with what

Appellant contends or any pages contained within the appellate record." This was

an Appellant /Reporter error due to Appellant only received the Reporters record

                                         15
on a CD disc which was 880 pages of exhibits and not the 5 pages of transmission.

Appellant filed a Motion for Leave to File it 3rd Amended Brief which corrected

the error. The Court is required to allow supplementation Based on Tex.App. 34.6

(d) and (e) and is to be lenient In RE Cervantes, 300 S.W.3d 865 (Tex.App.-Waco

2009, orig. proceeding) (op. on reh'g) states:

             Although the rules are worded differently.[fn6] they all
             reflect a generally permissive approach to
             supplementation of the record. See Crown Life Ins. Co. v.
             Estate of Gonzalez, 820 S.W.2d 121, 121(Tex.1991)
             (per curiam) (former Rule 55 was "to be liberally
             construed so that the decisions of the courts of appeals
             tum on substance rather than procedural technicality");
             Aluminum Chems. (Bolivia) Inc. v. Bechtel Corp., 28
S.W.3d 49, 50 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, order) ("new Rule
             34.6(d) is even more lenient"), disp. on merits, 28
S.W.3d 64 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.); Roberts
             v. Roberts, 999 S.W.2d 424, 438 (Tex.App.-El Paso
             1999, no pet.) (similarly describing Rule 34.6(d) as
             "more lenient")

      A motion for leave should be granted when Appellant shows good cause.

Nguyen v. Kul:fis, 414 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.App.-IIouston [l st Dist]. IIere an error of

the 5 transmission pages was not sent to Kahn and the 3rd Amended Brief corrects

the error. This error was done in good faith.

      Alternative under Tex.App, Rule 34.6 (f) without the Appellant's fault of a

significant portion of the court reporters notes were not sent to Appellant but sent

to the appellate court. If the Appellate Court finds this error significant then the

Appellate Court should give Appellant a new trial on the Motion for Sanctions.

                                           16
                          CONCLUSION OF POINT 3

      The 5 pages not sent to Kahn by Reporter was not Kahn's fault and he has

shown that there is good cause to file an amendment.

                                POINT 4
                        CLEAR AND CONCISE ISSUES

      The panel erred in concluding that Appellant did not do provide a clear

and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record as

required by Rule 38.l(i). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.l(i).

       Appellant Issue I states:

             "Kahn Cannot Be Charged Monetary Sanction Under
             Tex. Civ, Prac. & Rem Code§ 10:1004(D) When The
             Party Is Representative By Counsel."

       The appellant brief of Nath v. Children's Hospital 375 S.W.3d 403

(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012 stated as the issue of Represented by Counsel.

             "Judge Kirkland abused his discretion in ordering Dr. Nath
             to pay $726,000.00 in monetary sanctions and other relief
             to Texas Children's Hospital because the conduct
             complained of by Texas Children's Hospital was that of
             Dr. Nath' s attorneys and not that of Dr. Nath himself
             CR034 at 6183-85"

      There is only a slight difference and Kahn notes the statute where the Nath

brief does not. Kahn's issue is very clear and more concise than Nath's brief.

Kahn presented appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Kahn requests

this Court to review the issue, "if a represented party can be sanctioned ."

                                          17
      Appellant Issue 2 states:

             "Appellant Filed Under The § 5 1. 903 Because He Was up
             President And Owner Of Helvetia Kahn's Filing Under
             §51 903 Is Not Sanctionable."

       Kahn presents evidence that he was President and presents evidence that

Puerto Verde Ltd was not. § 5 1. 903 is statute that does not establish ownership but

sanctions a party for a fictitious filing. The issue is clear and concise. Kahn

presented appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. Kahn requests this

Court to review the issue "Can a President and Owner be Sanctioned."

       Appellant Issue 3 states:

             "Court Did Not Have Authority To Impose Sanctions On
             Unenforceable Rule 11 Agreement"

       Kahn presents evidence that the Rule 11 Agreement was not enforceable per

Judge Pozza and as such cannot be used to be Sanction Kahn for not obeying it.

The issue is clear and concise. Kahn presented appropriate citations to authorities

and to the record. Kahn requests this Court to review the issue "Does a Court have

Authority to impose Sanctions for not agreeing to a unenforceable contract."

      Appellant Issue 4 states:

             "Court Abused Its Discretion Because It Lacked
             Jurisdiction To Rule On Ownership Of Stock."

       Kahn presents evidence that the Court was not to litigate the ownership of

the shares of Helvetia and that was not in Judge Tanner's jurisdiction. Yet the

                                           iv

                                           18
findings stated that Puerto Verde Ltd was the Owner. The issue is clear and

concise. Kahn presented appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.

Kahn requests this Court to review the issue "Can a Court decide on ownership

without any jurisdiction."

                             CONCLUSION OF POINT 4

      Kahn presented for issues in his brief that were clear and concise with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. There is no specific form in

the Rules to emulate. The Appellate Court is to construe briefing liberally

Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W .3d 423, 427 (Tex.2004)

(construing Texas "Rules of Appellate Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that

the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to

effect the purpose of a rule"). Kahn believes that his forms are in substantial

compliance in accordance Tex.R.App.38.1.

                                     CONCLUSION

          The full Court should review this case because of the special issues that

have arisen by virtue of memorandum opinion and the jurisprudence of the State of

Texas. Puerto Ver-Je Ltd. The Intervenor does not have standing in U1is and any

other Court in Texas. Kahn's constitutional rights have been violated and that this

Court should look liberally and leniently that Kahn will have his case heard on the

merits.

                                            19
                                       PRAYER

       Appellant, Burton Kahn is an American Citizen, born in Brooklyn, New

York in 1933 from parents that were both born in Brooklyn, New York in 1904

and served his country in the United States Army for two deployments moved to

Texas in 1977 and desires justice and his rights as an U.S. Citizen, which has been

deprived. For the reasons above Appellant prays that this Appellate Court grants

this motion for an en bane reconsideration and alternatively reverse the Final

Judgment and Sanction Order.

                                  Respectfully Submitted

                                  Is/Burton Kahn
                                  Burton Kahn Pro-se
                                   1706 Alpine Cir.,
                                  San Antonio, TX 8248
                                  glentrailyahoo.com
                                  Tel (210) 408-9199

                                         VERIFICATION

       State of Texas             §
       County a/Bexar             §     Tex. Civ. Prac. &Rem, Code §132. 001

       My the is Burton Kahn 'I. am over the age of 18 and am fully competent to make

this unswom declaration My date of birth is in August 1933 and my address is 1706

Alpine Circle; San Antonio, Texas 78248 . I declare under penalty of perjury that the

                                            20
foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Bexar County, State of Texas on the 251h day of

August, 2025.

                                           Is/Burton Kahn
                                           Burton Kahn

                       CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.R.App.P.

32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 4,777 words excluding the parts of the

brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) (iii) and is in Times Roman 14

point and 21 pages in length.

                                           Is/Burton Kahn
                                           Burton Kahn

                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I certify that a copy of this Motion was served on Appellee Helvetia Asset
Recovery Inc. through counsel of record on August 25, 2015 by

                                           Is/Burton Kahn
                                           Burton Kahn

Via Email
Elizabeth Conry Davidson, Attorney at Law
926 Chulie Drive
San Antonio, Texas 78216
(210) 380-4899 telephone
(210) 225-2300 facsimile
conrydavidson@gmail.com

                                            21
APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION: IN RE PURPORTED LIEN OR

           CT,ATM AGAINST HRT,VETTA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.

EXHIBIT 2 IN APPELLATE CASE 04-14-00569-CV, APPELLANT'S REPLY

           BRIEF EXHIBIT C ON PAGE 67

                               22
EXHIBIT 1
                                           JfuurttJ     (!uurt u( appt:ttlS
                                                    ~an ~ntonio, m:exa%

                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                                        NO. 04-l"f-003J7-CV

                                        IN RE A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM
                                  AGAINST HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.

                               From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                            Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18394
                                      Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:                Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice

Sittinp:                   Sandee Rryan Marion_ Chief Justice
                           Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
                           Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

DI8MI88ED POil \VANT                      or Pll08 E CUTION

                  Following Appellant's filing of his first prose brief, this court notified Appellant that the

brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.

1:'.   j~.   l.    uur order stated,

                  The brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 in that it does not include
              record citations in the statement of facts and in the remaining portions of the briet~
              there are but few citations to the record. Instead, appellant has included hyperlinks
              to documents included in the appendix to his brief. Although these documents may
                  be part of the record, the rules require appellant to include citations to the clerk's
                  record and any reporter's record. Moreover, the few citations included in the record
                  are confusine. and there is no 1eeend to exo1ain the method of citation used bv
                  appellant.

                  App.,,Jbnt mrn:t inrh1flp, rp,fp,rp,nrp,i;: to thp,   ~flfl"'lbt"'   rp,rorrl in hi<:   d~tp,mp,nt   of fork
                  and in the remaining portions of his brief; hyperlinks are insufficient. Although
                  substantial compliance with Rule 3 8 is sufficient, this court may order a party to
                  amond, oupplomont, or rodra'.v a brio£ if' it flasrantly violatoo P_ulo                   ~2. S:oo   Tc:<:. P_.
                                                                                            V'f- 1'f-VV .D I-\.; V

         A.PP. P. 3g_9(a). \Vo oonoludo thut tho f'ormul dof'oofo doooribod ubovo oonotituto
         flagrant violations of Rule 38.

listed deficiencies and fully complied with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1; see

also Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007, no pet.) (explaining that

pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all

applicable rules of procedure). We warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply

with our order, we could "strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another." See TEX. R.

APP.   P. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appellant's case if appellant fails to

comply with reauirements of Texas Rules of Annellate Procedure or order of court).

         After Appellant filed an amended brief, Appellee filed a motion to strike Appellant's brief,

a brief in support of the motion to strike Appellant's brief, a motion to dismiss the appeal, and

A.ppolloo 'o brief'. \V <> ordered thut A.ppcllcc 'o motiono ·would be curried '>vith the nppcul. A.ppcllunt

subsequently filed a Second Amended Brief of Appellant and Reply Brief of Appellee's Brief.

         Appellant's second amended brief identifies the parties, includes a table of contents, and

secuons unea rssues, sraiemem orine case, Kequesi ror oral Argumem, Maiemem or .Facis, ana

Prayer. Although the brief appears to include citations to exhibits and the reporter's record, the

exhibits are not a part of the appellate record and the record citations do not comport with what

Appellant contends or any pages contained within the appellate record. Appellant also failed to

correct the improper use of hvoerlinks to cite to documents in his appendix as opposed to the

appellate record.     Appellant's appendix and section entitled "Bookmarks, Hyperlinks, and

Abbreviations of the Record" provides no assistance in clarifying incorrect, insufficient, irrelevant,

                                                    -2-
                                                                                                                    V'f- 1'f-VV .D I-\.; V

roquirod by nulo   '.H~.   l(i). S:oo T c"l'r.   P~.   A.r>r>. P .   '.H~.   l(i ) ( r oquir i ng "oloa.r a.nd oonoioo a.rgumont f'or

the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record").

       Even liberally construing Appellant's second amended brief, we conclude it is wholly

tna<.lequaLe LO presem any quesLtons ror appellaLe review. See za.; ItepuDllc unaerwruers I ns. C o.

v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004) (construing Texas "Rules of Appellate
Procedure reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements

not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of a rule"). Accordingly, we strike Appellant's non-

conforming brief, and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See                                   T EX.   R. APP. P. 38.8(a),

38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c); Johnson v. Dall. Hous. Auth. , 179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005,

no pet.) (per curiam).

                                                                        Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice

                                                                     -3-
EXHIBIT 2
                  -                                 ~ALANCC ~MC
                                                                                                                                  -                                                                                                                           --···'-    -c . . -   - --• -

                                                                                                  ----~ -                                                                                                                                  -·-~ ---

                                                CONTOUR                                 I HELVETIA                                                                    !JOABERT                                                       TOTAL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -~-----

  ;:>AU:;:>                                                          00, I 13.00                                   1,302,332..39                                                                    20,0T 1.2.0                                  1,40 1,0 1 T.2.0
                                                     .
                               ·-··                                                                                 --.----                                                                                  • -+ ·W •   • • •       -··-

~-··      -----                                                                  -·-·                                                                                                 -- ..-.            -
                  ------ --      -·-                                                                                                                           ---·                -----
  TAX                                                              17,528.78                                            178,744.49                                                                  72, 1~0.34                                            268,40~.61
  JR                                                               82,303.01                                             55,085.06                                                                  24,000.00
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            - ···     .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1tfi~388.07
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        - -- - ~ --- -

  OK                                                                                                                    oss,sso.oo                                                                                                                                      ------·-------
  UNKNOWN                                                                                                                      4,866.86'                                                                5,959.19                                                  -~__0,_?26.05.
  SAVINGS                                                                                                                                                       -                                                                                ... .              -
  JUAl:ll!l'ff 37 i!.. I
                                                                                                                                                          .    -· ..                                                                                                    - - -~ - -

  CONTOUR 2918                                                                                                                           -·                                                                                                          - --     ---·· - · - - -
  CONTOUR RBFCU-                                    ----------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I

   __ COLD 7:'.>10
._.HEL
                                                                                                                                                              ---             --                                                                                                                  ·-
; HEL RBFCU                                 I
                                                                                                                                                          ·-·-·--             ..                                                                                                              ····--·--·
14412 HEL
' OONOTl1UOTl0~~                                               -450,200.00                                                    23,052.53                                                                                                                       -492 I 3--4-o .-4 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ·-
  OFFICE EXPENSE                                                        4,018.81                                              10,809.37                                                             62,515.25                                                     77,343.43 '
  TRAIL 7318                                                                                                            123,000.00                                                                                                                            123,000.00
   DANI"< 01 IAl10CO                            ------ - ---               ·:520~40
                                                                                        ..   - -- - ~- -~ - ---- --- - - -

                                                                                                                                        100.00 '                                                               201.70                                                       77S-.2o:

   PROFESSIONAL                                                         5,060.00'                                                                                                                        1,765.10
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ------                      ·- ~---
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        6,825.10
   ENG                                                                  7}73.70                                                                                                                          1,129.03                                                       9,00~.23
             ------···- -                                --                                                                                                                                                                                               -       ·- · - - - - - - · · · · · - -

                                                    -- - -----sB4. is
   l~~OUrlAHOC                                                         30,0SS.-40                                       .. . ..                                                                                                                                    30,0SS.-40
                                                                                                   ------.                            ····-                                                                                                                   ·---------···--- -
   AUTO                                                                                                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                                                                                                                         7,692.30                                                       8,277.05
   IDEAL                                                                                                                240,000.00                                                                                                                            240,000.g.9__
                                       --
   TOTAL                                                        606 ,0S0.03                                        1,:236,7'\3.31                                                               176,063.60                                       1,'11Q,7Q:2.7'1
                                                                                                                                                                              SALES                                                              1,461,017.25
                                                                        ···--'
   DIFFERENCE                                                                                                                                                                  DIFF                                              I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (42,234.51
: lf.IT                                 ---·--·
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                __ ...-1eaA..t.~s -           ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -- -~

                                                                                             CONTOURS FEE                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         10%         48234.94:
                              ~~~~
                                                                                        !    CONTOURS OH                                                                                                                 10%                                         48234.94

                                                                                                                                                                               DUE
                                                                                                                                                                                ---
                                                                                                                                                                                   BK                                                                                77625.52
                                                                                                                                          ·-·--···                    .       - - --- -- ~ -   --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 '
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     I

                                                                                                                                                                                        --- -··     -     - - -- -~- -

                                                I                                                                                                                                                                                         -~- - --

 1------- -------+--                                                                                                                                                - ---·                              --~- --

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         +' --- -·                 - --
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           !