As you read the attached documents, you will discover that the Florida judgment for nearly $10,000,000

was obtained as a result of extrinsic fraud, intrinsic fraud, fraud upon the court, violations of the United States Constitution, violations of federal laws, and many other assorted violations. And despite the judgment having been obtained by fraud, Lester Kalmanson Agency Inc., offered to settle the matter by asking the defendant, Do you have insurance [to pay the $10,000,000 judgment]? Most, if not all observers, would classify that question as attempted insurance fraud. This is an excellent example of the mastery and conspiracy of completely twisting a perfectly legal incident that is also protected by federal anti-trust laws into a crime and a $10,000,000 judgment. And people who dont understand the laws and the facts have been misled to believe the Florida court documents should be relied upon. But after careful review, the fraud and/or conspiracy of fraud is unmistakable.

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG LESTER KALMANSON AGENCY, INC Plaintiff, v. } } } } } } } }

Case No.: Judgment No.:110000869

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, et al., Defendant.

AMENDED MOTION OF CHASE CARMEN HUNTER TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

COMES NOW Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se, pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:8, as amended, and in response to the Exemplification Certificate, Final Summary Judgment, Affidavit, and Notice of Filing in this case states in this amended motion as follows: 1. Defendant Chase Carmen Hunter, individually, appears before this Court for the purpose of moving for relief from this court's docketing of a foreign judgment as contemplated by Va. Code 8.01-428(A), as amended. 2. This case arises under the Virginia Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Va. Code 8.01- 465.1 et seq. The underlying original judgment was issued on April 12, 2011, by the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida 3. This foreign judgment was filed in this Court on or about June 7, 2011.

COUNT I 4. Chase Carmen Hunter, individually, and D/B/A Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance, and D/B/A Chase Financial Services, were not served with process

in the underlying Florida state civil action, nor did they appear in the Florida state action and an Order of Default was entered on December 7, 2010. 5. As a matter of Florida law; the Florida default judgment is void ab initio, as to Chase Carmen Hunter, individually; D/B/A Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance; and D/B/A Chase Financial Services, because none were served with process in the case, as Florida law required. 6. Because the Florida state judgment is void ab initio, this court has no power to docket it or enforce it under the Virginia Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.

COUNT II 7. The documents in the underlying case are so fatally defective as to constitute fraud. 8. Florida law states that any judgment obtained through fraud or duress is void. 9. Because the Florida state judgment is void ab initio, this court has no power to docket it or enforce it under the Virginia Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.

COUNT III 10. To docket or enforce a foreign default judgment of nearly $10,000,000 raises constitutional concerns of due process. 11. While the underlying Florida state court documents show that most of the foreign judgment is for compensatory damages, there is no evidence of a trial that was conducted to determine this amount. 12. Without such a trial, the amount is per se excessive and functionally punishing

to Hunter. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from imposing a grossly excessive punishment.

COUNT IV 13. The court documents and the absence of court documents in the underlying Florida state case are evidence of numerous significant violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, Florida common law, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 14. Hunter was robbed of her Fourteenth Amendment right.

COUNT V 15. Hunter, if served, would have considered the option to move the matter to a federal court. 16. She would have affirmatively asserted multiple defenses. 17. Hunter would have filed a countersuit. 18. But because Hunter was not served, she was robbed of her Fourteenth Amendment right; and neither Hunter nor this Court will ever know if this matter would have been non-suited, dismissed or otherwise disposed of in Hunters favor.

WHEREFORE, Chase Carmen Hunter, individually, prays that this honorable Court order that the docketing of the filed foreign judgment be set aside as to Chase Carmen Hunter, individually; D/B/A Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance; and D/B/A Chase Financial Services; that any attempt of the enforcement in Virginia of the filed foreign judgment be stayed; that Chase Carmen Hunter, individually, be awarded all costs in defending this action; and that this Court grant such other relief as it

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG LESTER KALMANSON AGENCY, INC Plaintiff, v. } } } } } } } }

Case No.: CL11-0358 Judgment No.: 110000869

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, et al., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION OF CHASE CARMEN HUNTER TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT COMES NOW Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se, pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:15(c), as amended, and files her memorandum in support in this case and states as follows:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND :: GENERAL 1. Chase Carmen Hunter (Hunter) is a Virginia resident and has never been a resident of Florida. 2. The plaintiff is a Florida corporation. 3. The matter comes before this Court under the Virginia Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (VUEFJA), Va. Code 8.01- 465.1 et seq. 4. The underlying Order of Default was entered on December 7, 2010. (Exhibit A) 5. The underlying Final Judgment (default) was entered on March 14, 2011. (Exhibit B) 6. Defendants Exhibit B is fatally defective on its face for many reasons. For the sake of brevity, a discussion on this will be reserved unless a memorandum is requested by this Court.

7. The Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs was entered on March 29, 2011. (Exhibit C) 8. The underlying Summary Judgment was entered on April 12, 2011, by the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida. 9. The Fifth Judicial Circuit in Florida does not serve Orange County, Florida. 10. This foreign judgment was filed in this Court on or about June 7, 2011.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD ARGUMENT :: INTRINSICALLY AND EXTRINSICALLY FRAUDULENT AND A FRAUD UPON THE COURT 11. The Summary Judgment, by definition, implies jurisdicational findings. 12. But upon further review, this Court will discover that the Summary Judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction and was obtained by fraud. 13. Black's Law Dictionary (2007) defines fraud as: all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprise, trick, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. 14. This Court may inquire into the Florida courts jurisdiction without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Bloodworth v. Ellis, 221 Va. 18, 21-22 (1980). 15. Indeed, when it is alleged that a judgment was obtained by fraud or is otherwise void, a Virginia court should so inquire. [O]therwise a foreign judgment would bear greater protection than a judgment obtained and docketed by a citizen of the Commonwealth. Johnson v. Neimela, 19 Cir L199813, 58 Va. Cir. 199 8 (2002) (Wooldridge, J.)

(citing Bloodworth). Moreover, a Virginia court may make such inquiry even when a foreign courts order or judgment contains recitation of jurisdictional findings (such as the validity of service of process). 16. The Order of Default in the underlying Florida state case states that the defendants
did not appear and did not file any papers. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.500 (a). (Exhibit D contains all relevant rules)

17. This Final Judgment in the underlying Florida state case states the following:
The Court finding that a Default was due and entered against the Defendantsafter notice and the Defendants have failed to file any pleading or paper as required by law, and the Plaintiff having filed an Affidavit in Support of a Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment

18. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.500 (e) states that final judgments after
default may be entered by the court at any time.

19. Once an Order of Default and a Final Judgment are entered, the matter is no longer
within the courts jurisdiction after 10 days have passed and no party can seek to recover again upon that same claim in that same court. (Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.530)

20. An Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs was entered March 29, 2011 (Florida Rules
of C ivil Procedure, Rule 1.525)

21. This Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs shows the fees and costs in the underlying Florida state action terminated in March 2011, before the Summary Judgment was entered in April 2011. 22. This Summary Judgment was entered in violation of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530. (www.FloridaBar.org) 23. This Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs states that the fees and costs arise from unfair and deceptive trade practices against Hunter. See paragraph seven (7) of this

Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs. 24. Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Florida Statute 501.201 et seq., (2010), is consumer protection law. 25. The plaintiff was and is not a consumer of the defendants business. 26. Enforcement under FDUTPA is permitted only by an enforcing authority. Florida Statute 501.201 et seq. (2010) 27. The plaintiff had no enforcement authority over Hunter, a business competitor, under the FDUTPA. 28. Section 501.202 et. seq. (Purposes; rules of construction) provides: The provisions of this part shall be construed liberally to promote the following policies: (1) To simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing consumer protection, unfair methods of competition, and unconscionable, deceptive, and unfair trade practices. (2)To protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. (3)To make state consumer protection and enforcement consistent with established policies of federal law relating to consumer protection. 29. Section 501.211(2) (Other individual remedies) provides: (2) In any action brought by a person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of this part, such person may recover actual damages, plus attorneys fees . . . . 30. Section 501.212 et. seq. (Application) provides: This part does not apply to: (3) A claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction.

31. Clearly, damages under the FDUTPA require a business-to-consumer transaction and are restricted to actual damages arising from a business-to-consumer transaction. Florida Statute 501.201 et seq. (2010) 32. The FDUTPA essentially adopts federal antitrust precedent, and it is relatively clear that damages are measured by the amount of unlawful overcharge extracted from the consumer. Florida Statute 501.201 et seq. (2010) 33. Because there never existed a business-to-consumer transaction between the adverse parties, no actual damages under FDUTPA can exist. 34. Section 501.212 et. seq. (Application) provides: This part does not apply to: (4)Any person or activity regulated under laws administered by: (a)The Office of Insurance Regulation of the Financial Services Commission; Florida Statutes 2010 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us) 35. Section 501.212 et. seq. (Application) provides: This part does not apply to: (1) An act or practice required or specifically permitted by federal or state law. 36. The adverse parties in this Florida state case are competitors in the insurance industry and both are regulated under laws administered by The Office of Insurance Regulation of the Financial Services Commission. 37. Florida Statute 626.951 et. seq. sets forth the Florida insurance regulation regarding unfair insurance trade practices. 38. The underlying dispute arose due to plaintiffs objection to Hunters comparison advertising which is permitted by the United States Constitution and federal law and

protected by federal anti-trust laws. (Exhibit E, part 1) 39. One real-life comparison was posted on the internet. It revealed that Hunter sold an insurance policy to a Texas resident for about $300 and within the same week, the plaintiff later sold the same consumer a policy with substantially less coverage for about $2000. (The reason the consumer bought two policies within the same week essentially arose from her inability to fully understand English and external duress.) 40. In fact, the plaintiff filed about ten (10) complaints against Hunter with various state insurance regulators in 2009 and 2010. (Exhibit E, part 1) 41. These complaintes caused about twelve (12) investigations by insurance regulators into Hunters insurance business in 2009 and 2010 and no investigation resulted in any action, discipline, warning, penalty, or fine against Hunter. 42. But when the insurance regulators took no action against Hunter, the plaintiff had no standing to pursue Hunter under FDUTPA. 43. This Summary Judgment entered for nearly $10,000,000 is instrinsically and extrinsically fraudulent and a fraud upon the Florida court and this Court for these foregoing reasons and as further stated below. 44. Florida Law is consistent with the United States Supreme Court which has made clear that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any judgment for damages being imposed without first conducting a trial so that the amount of damages can be determined. 45. There was no trial in this underlying Florida state case. 46. A court document in the Florida state case was filed in the Lake County court on February 26, 2010. (Plaintiffs Exhibit B).

47. A court document in this same Florida state case was filed in the Orange County court on February 3, 2010. (Exhibit E, part 2) 48. Defendants Exhibit E, part 2, is fatally defective on its face for many reasons. For the sake of brevity, a discussion on this will be reserved unless this Court requests a memorandum. 49. It appears that the underlying Florida state case was ongoing simultaneously in two separate Florida county courts. 50. Plaintiffs Exhibit A reads as if the underlying Florida state matter is a divorce proceeding. 51. Hunter has had no marital ties with the plaintiff. ALL COURT ORDERS WERE OBTAINED BY FRAUD

ARGUMENT :: NO SERVICE OF PROCESS IN REFERENCE TO CHASE CARMEN HUNTER ONLY 52. An Order of Default and Final Judgment of default were entered in the Florida state case. 53. Hunter relies upon Va. Code 8.01-428(A)(i) and (ii), as amended, in her defense of this default judgment. 54. As further detailed below, Chase Carmen Hunter, individually was not served with process in the underlying Florida state action. 55. By Florida law, the underlying Florida Final Judgment of default is therefore void. 56. Va. Code 8.01-428(A)(ii) provides that a void judgment may be set aside at any time, and this provision comprises foreign judgments docketed under the UEFJA. See Lifestar

Response of Maryland v. Vogosen, 267 Va. 720, 725 (Va. 2004); Johnson v. Neimela, 19. Cir. L199813, 58 Va. Cir. 199 7 (2002) (Wooldridge, J.); Empire Beauty School v. Bell, 13 Cir. CV54OI, 58 Va. Cir. 32 (2001). 57. Due process requires that proper service be effected upon a defendant in order for a court to have personal jurisdiction over him. Moreover, under Florida law, strict compliance with service of process procedures is required. Boatfloat, LLC v. Central Transport International, Inc., 941 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla 4th DCA 2006). 58. The Florida courts have held that the requirements that govern service of process are to be strictly construed to insure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings.[T]he burden of proving the validity of the service of process is on the plaintiff. Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Associates, P.A., 906 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 2005), quoting Carter v. Lil Joe Records, 829 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th Dist. App 2002). Absent strict compliance with the statutes governing service of process, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Associates, P.A., 906 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 2005), quoting Sierra Holding v. Inn Keepers Supply, 464 So.2d 652 (Fla 4th Dist. App. 1985). 59. Floridas laws regarding service of process are well-established and the Affidavit of Service, (plaintiffs Exhibit A) on its face, is legally defective for several reasons. 60. The plaintiff committed a fraud upon the Florida court when it relied upon the legally defective Affidavit of Service to pursue the underlying Florida state case against defendants who had never been served with process.

FIRST LEGAL DEFECT

61. The Affidavit of Service repeatedly uses the word we. 62. This affidavit is a statement about what the affiant believes to be someone elses knowledge of events and fails to contain key elements of first-hand knowledge. 63. This affidavit of service does not contain facts sufficient to meet the legal definition of an affidavit as described above in State v. Johnson 553 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and Youngker v. State, 215 So.2d 318, 321.

SECOND LEGAL DEFECT 64. It is notarized by Theresa C. Abel on June 25, 2010. Her commission had been expired for nearly five (5) months as of the date shown of this affidavit which is 1/31/2010 65. Florida law holds that if the return is defective on its face, it cannot be relied upon as evidence that the service of process was valid. Re-employment Servs., Ltd. v. National Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (5th DCA 2007), citing Klosenski, 116 So. 2d at 769; and Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 472 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). When there is an error or omission in the return of service, personal jurisdiction is suspended and it lies dormant until proper proof of valid service is submitted. Klosenski, 116 So. 2d at 769; Schneiderman, 546 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Tetley v. Lett, 462 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

THIRD LEGAL DEFECT 66. In Florida, one of the applicable statutory provisions that govern return of service are found in section 48.21, which specifically provides:

Each person who effects service of process shall note on a return-of-service form attached thereto, the date and time when it comes to hand, the date and time when it is served, the manner of service, the name of the person on whom it was served and, if the person is served in a representative capacity, the position occupied by the person. A failure to state the foregoing facts invalidates the service, but the return is amendable to state the truth at any time on application to the court from which the process issued. On amendment, service is as effective as if the return had originally stated the omitted facts. A failure to state all the facts in the return shall subject the person effecting service to a fine not exceeding $10, in the courts discretion. 48.21, Fla. Stat. (2010). (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes, 2010). 67. The Affidavit of Service (plaintiffs Exhibit A) does not comply with section 48.21 of Florida Statutes because it failed to state the date and time when it came to hand. 68. In Florida, the standard for personal service upon an individual defendant outside of the State of Florida is set forth in Fla. Stats. 48.194(1) which requires such service to be made in the same manner s service within this state by any officer authorized to serve process in the state where the person is served.

FOURTH LEGAL DEFECT 69. Further, Fla. Stats. 48.031, which provides, in part:

Service of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode. Fla. Stats. 48.031(1)(a) (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes, 2010). 70. As is stated on the face of the Affidavit of Service (plaintiffs Exhibit A), rather than delivering service to the person to be served, the papers were put under a windshield wiper blade of a motor vehicle at an unstated address known only as McDonalds parking lot. The affiant states that he did not believe that this McDonalds parking lot was

10

Hunters usual place of abode.

FIFTH LEGAL DEFECT 71. The Affidavit of Service appears to reflect an alleged service of process date that exceeds the apparent 120-day time limit for returning service. (Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 (j), www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit D) 72. Plaintiffs Exhibit B indicates that service of process was first attempted on December 11, 2009. 73. There is no evidence that the plaintiff in this Florida state action complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 (j) 74. As a matter of Florida law, the Florida default judgment is void ab initio as to all parties named in that legally defective Affidavit of Service since none were served with process in the case, as Florida law required. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) See Dept of Transp. V Bailey, 603 So2d 1384, 1386-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (If it is determined that the judgment entered is void, the trial court has no discretion, but is obligated to vacate the judgment.); Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v Gonzelez No 3D06-1489 FastCase (Fla. 3d DCA 3/8/2007) (Process left with defendants mother quashed when defendant had not lived at service address for five years; not usual place of abode; actual receipt of summons did not cure defect.) 75. The Courts attention is also directed to Boatfloat, LLC. V. Central Transport International, Inc. 941 So.2d 1271 (Fla 4th DCA 2006), which contains extensive analyses of various Fla. Stats. 48.031 (1)(a) service-of-process cases. The District Court of Appeals noted in Boatfloat, LLC that [S]trict compliance with service of process

11

procedures is required. 941 So. 2d at 1273 (citations omitted): and that the burden of proof of valid services is on the party invoking the courts jurisdiction. Id. 76. If the default judment is void, then all court orders, including the subsequent Summary Judgment, must also be void. 77. The Florida default judgment is void ab initio and Virginia law permits this Court to set it aside and to set aside the subsequent, fraudulently-obtained Summary Judgment.

ARGUMENT :: NO SERVICE OF PROCESS

IN REFERENCE TO THE THREE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS SHOWN ON THE NOTICE OF FILING, ORDER OF DEFAULT, AND/OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 78. As further detailed below D/B/A Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance, D/B/A Chase Financial Services, and D/B/A Chase Financial Services, a Florida corporation, were not served with process in the underlying Florida state action. 79. D/B/A Chase Carmen Hunter Insurance is non-existent. 80. D/B/A Chase Financial Services is not shown on the Order of Default, Final Judgment of default, or the Summary Judgment. It is shown only on the Notice of Filing. 81. The underlying Florida state Order of Default, Final Judgment, and Summary Judgment are against D/B/A Chase Financial Services, a Florida corporation 82. D/B/A Chase Financial Services is non-existent in Virginia and D/B/A Chase Financial Services, a Florida corporation is non-existent. (Exhibits F & G) 83. By falsely naming a non-existent Florida corporation as one defendant, the plaintiff fraudulently circumvented Floridas Long Arm Statute 48.193 which would have given

12

the Florida trial court good cause to short-circuit this underlying Florida state case. 84. The plaintiff admits that Hunters only tie to Florida is via a website and this website is the sole focus of the plaintiffs complaint against Hunter. (Exhibits B & E) 85. In determining whether personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of Florida is offensive to due process as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, a "minimum contacts" test is used. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). 86. Under International Shoe, personal jurisdiction may exist only if the court determines that the defendant has "sufficient minimum contacts" with the forum state such that "maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Id. 87. Due to plaintiffs fraudulent use of a Florida corporation, the Florida trial court was misled to believe that there was no question of personal jurisdiction. 88. Florida public records show one active D/B/A registered for Chase Financial Services a. Document ID G08077900259; owner named Colon, of Sunrise, Florida (Exhibit H) 89. The Affidavit of Service (Plaintiffs Exhibit A) in the underlying Florida state case does not reflect service of process having been made upon this D/B/A located in Sunrise, Florida. 90. As further detailed above, because the Affidavit of Service is so fatally defective, any defendant named on it, whether in existence or not, was not served with process in the underlying Florida state action.

ARGUMENT :: FRAUD, DURESS, AND WRONGFUL ACTS IN ALLEGED SERVICE OF PROCESS

13

91. Florida law states that any service of process, effected by fraud or duress is defective and any judgment obtained through such fraud or duress is void. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937).

FIRST ACT: FRAUD, DURESS, WRONGFUL 92. The Affidavit of Service depicts the affiant as one who fraudulently disguised himself as a police officer conducting a traffic stop. He detained the occupants of a motor vehicle without suspicion of criminal activity or violations of law. 93. This meets the definition of fraud and the definition of duress. 94. Blacks Law Dictionary defines duress as follows: duress . Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with the demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent. Head v Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So. 2d 516, 519. Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another. Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W. 2d 2,6 95. Under the modern view, any wrongful threat which actually puts the victim in such fear as to compel him to act against his will constitutes duress. Gallon v Lloyd-Thomas Co (CA8 Mo) 264 F2d 821, 2 FR Serv 2d 231, 77 ALR2d 417 (fear of deportation) Rizzi v Fanelli (Mun Ct App Dist Col) 63 A2d 872; Fox v. Piercey, 119 Utah 367, 227 p2d 763. [American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress and Undue Influence, Section 13]

14

SECOND ACT: DURESS AND WRONGFUL 96. The Affidavit of Service depicts the affiant as one who boldly violated the Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution to allegedly effect service of process. 97. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

98. Article I Section 12 of the Florida Constitution states the following:

Searches and seizures.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. History.Am. H.J.R. 31-H, 1982; adopted 1982. 99. This affidavit of service contains statements outlining the unlawfully seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in which stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure within the meaning of [the Fourth] Amendment[]. Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979) If a police officer has

15

reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is engaging in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity, the officer may detain the suspect to conduct a brief investigation without violating the persons Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. McGee, 25 Va App. At 202, 487 S.E. 2d at 263. 100. The affiant made no statement that he suspected any criminal activity or

traffic or equipment regulation violations.

THIRD ACT: DURESS AND WRONGFUL 101. Further, given that this was a traffic stop in Virginia, Virginia Codes 15.2-

1704 and 15.21726, as amended, apply and hold that this affiant had not authority to conduct a traffic stop even if he had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of law because he is not a police officer. 102. This Affidavit of Service contains no statement regarding probable

cause or a search warrant obtained. 103. This Affidavit of Service is legally defective on its face because it

boasts of allegedly effecting service of process as a result of violating these constitutional protections and meets the definition of duress.

FOURTH ACT: DURESS AND WRONGFUL 104. The Affidavit of Service describes a continuum of violations of

constitutional rights and false arrest of the passengers of this subject motor vehicle by yelling, DONT MOVE THE CAR. when there was no valid reason to give this command. The operator of the motor vehicle quickly put the gear in

16

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG LESTER KALMANSON AGENCY, INC Plaintiff, v. } } } } } } } }

Case No. CL11-0358 Judgment No.:110000869

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, et al., Defendant.

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE AND OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION TO SET ASIDE COMES NOW Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se, pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:15(c), as amended, and in response to the plaintiffs Memorandum of Motion To Strike and Opposition To Amended Motion of Chase Carmen Hunter to Set Aside Judgment (Motion to Strike and Opposition) in this case and states as follows:

1. Hunter opposes the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and Opposition in its entirely. 2. Hunters Motion and Amended Motion of Chase Carmen Hunter To Set Aside Judgment constitute a collateral attack on the Foreign Judgment. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937). 3. This Virginia Court relies, in part, upon the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution in considering whether or not to set aside this Foreign Judgment. 4. If the first state did not have jurisdiction, well-established Virginia law and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constituion prohibit a sister states foreign judgment from being enforced. 5. If a judgment is void at the place of rendition, it is also void where it is sought to be enforced. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Vhaley, 173 Va. 11, 3 S.E. 3d 395 (1939) See also Washington v. Anderson, 236 Va 316, 373 S.E. 2d 712 (1988).

6. Jurisdiction can be disproved by extrinsic evidence or the record itself. Orchard Management Co. v Soto, 250 Va. 343, 350-51, 463 S.E.2d 839, 843 (1995). 7. The jurisdictional question can be collaterally attacked when the original judgment entered against the defendant was entered by a court that did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937). 8. A much less doubtful case involving a Florida foreign judgment was recently decided in Virginia in favor of the defendant. Jose Gosp, et. al. v. Joseph C. McAuliff, Jr. CL20086665 in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, Fairfax County. (Exhibit A) 9. In Gosp v. McAuliff Jr. service of process was alleged to have been effected when the process server dropped the papers at McAuliffs sons feet. 10. Since this did not comply with Florida laws regarding service of process, the court found in favor of McAuliff, Jr. 11. The overwhelming facts in the matter before this court prove that the underlying Florida case is void ab initio. 12. Florida law makes no distinction in the setting aside of judgments; default, summary or otherwise; when a judgment is obtained by fraud or is void as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (b). (www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit B) 13. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (d) (3) states that a court may relieve a partys legal representaive from a final judgment for the following reasons: fraud (whether heretofore denominted intrinsic or extrnisc), misrepresentation, or other midconduct of an adverse party. This rule allows a motion for relief under this provision to be filed within one (1) year after the judgment was entered. (www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit B) 14. This rule further states: [t]his rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceding to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court. (www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit B)

15. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (d) (4) states that a court may relieve a partys legal representative from a final judgment for the following reasons: that a judgment or decree is void. There is no time limit under this provision. (www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit B) 16. Therefore, if the underlying Florida court allows for the setting aside of a final judgment for fraud, fraud upon the court, and/or because the judgment is void, this Virginia Court will not offend the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution if it inquires into allegations alleging the same. 17. Indeed, when it is alleged that a judgment was obtained by fraud or is otherwise void, a Virginia court should so inquire into the allegation. [O]therwise a foreign judgment would bear greater protection than a judgment obtained and docketed by a citizen of the Commonwealth, Johnson v. Neimela, 19 Cir L199813, 58 Va. Cir. 199 8 (2002) (Wooldridge, J.) (citing Bloodworth), and otherwise, a defendants Fourteenth Amendment right to due process would be foresaken.

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

18. Relitigation of the merits of the underlying case is precluded by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, res judicata and estoppel. United States Constitution Article IV, Section 19. An erroneous judgment may be attacked collaterally. Wyman v. Newhouse, 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937). 20. Regarding plaintiffs argument related to an appeal of the Florida action: since a judgment entered by a court without jurisdiction is not entitled to Full Faith and Credit under the Constitution, a defendant may elect to disregard the first litigation and save the attack for the time of enforcement. Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 (1877) 21. Hunter is not required to appeal the Florida state case as a prerequisite to asserting her rights afforded by the United States Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

22. Paragraph seven (7) of plaintiffs Opposition To Motion To Set Aside Judgment and all content related to evasion of service are irrelevant since establishing whether or not a person tried to evade service and a waiver has occurred in any give situation is generally a question of fact. Hill v. Ray Carter Auto Sales, 745 So.2d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). 23. Res judicata prohibits relitigation of the same cause of action, or any part thereof which could have been litigated between the same parties and their privies. Bill Greever Corp. v. Tazewell Natl Bank, 256 Va. 250, 504 S.E. 2d 854 (1998); See also Scales v. Lewis, 261 Va. 379, 541 S.E. 2d 899 (2001). 24. No facts regarding evasion of service were established in the underlying Florida state case. 25. No facts in the underlying Florida state case established that Hunter waived her right to service of process. 26. Plaintiffs exhibit A contradicts plaintiffs assertion that it believed that Hunter waived her right to service. 27. The plaintiff uses Anthony v. Rotella to fake support for its position that Hunter waived her right to personal service as a result of her alleged attempt to evade service. Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Associates, P.A. 906 So.2d 1205, 1208 (2005). 28. The only question before the court in Anthony v. Rotella was whether or not the defendant had waived his right to be served personally only because an employee accepted service on behalf of the defendant. Id. 29. The court held that the defendant had not waived his right to be served personally. 30. Any reference the plaintiff makes to Virginia laws regarding personal service is irrelevant to this Florida Foreign Judgment. The matter before this Court is a question of Florida jurisdiction only. 31. Paragraphs ten (10) and twelve (12) are false and constitute a fraud upon this court. 32. Plaintiffs exhibit C is not a pleading, as is evident on its face. 33. The Order of Default and Final Judgment in the underlying Florida state case are dated

after the date shown on plaintiffs exhibit C and they state that Hunter filed no papers in the case. (Exhibits C & D) 34. Paragraph thirteen (13) states, in part, that the underlying judgment was not a default judgment but rather a summary judgment. This is a false statement and Virginia Code 8.01 428(A), et. seq., as amended, applies. 35. But if paragraph thirteen (13) contained only true statements, Florida law states that a final judgment for fraud, fraud upon the court, and/or because the judgment is void, shall be set aside. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 et. seq. (www.FloridaBar.org) (Exhibit B) 36. Therefore, this Virginia Court may apply this Florida law to this underlying Florida Foreign Judgment without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause. 37. While Virginia Code 8.01 428(A), et. seq., as amended, applies to default judgments, it specifically permits a Virginia Court to set aside a judgment that is void and/or obtained by fraud. 38. It is reasonable to assert that when the general assembly drafted Virginia Code 8.01 428(A), et. seq., as amended, it had not contemplated the possibility that a foreign summary judgment could be collaterally attacked for jurisdicational findings only because, by definition, a summary judgment, if not obtained by fraud, is possible only when a defendant is under the jurisdiction of the foreign court. 39. Virginia Code 8.01 428(A), et. seq., as amended, is unequivocal in its intent which is that foreign judgments that are void or obtained by fraud shall be set aside. 40. Virginia Code 8.01 271.1, as amended, states: every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any