IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

Response to Defendant's Response and Request for Denial of
Plaintiff's Resistance to Motion for Order of Dismissal and
Request for Sanctions for Fraudulent L.L.C.

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff Frederick Shaddock and by way of resistances to the above mentioned motions brought by the Defendant, states to the Court as follows:

1. Trial in this matter was completed on October 12, 2010.

2. On October 20, 2010, Millard Elston filed a "Response and Request for Denial / Dismissal of Plaintiff's Resistance of Motion for Order of Dismissal and Request for Sanctions for Fraudulent L.L.C.".

3. His response was not timely, and should not be considered.

4. Defendant did not send Plaintiff his original Motion for Dismissal until 2 business days before the trial.  Thus he should not complain that my response was provided him at the trial. Defendant made no motion for discovery of Plaintiff's evidence prior to the trial.

5. Had the Defendant been reminded that his L.L.C. was Inactive, he probably would have quickly taken steps to reactivate it.

6. Even though the Defendant has had 10 days since the trial, he STILL has not gotten the L.L.C. in to an Active status, according to the web site and a call today to the Iowa Secretary of State (515-281-5204).

7. In response to Defendant's point 1, according to the State receptionist, Millard's L.L.C. originally went Inactive in 2008, and was inactive during the business transaction in question.

8. In response to Defendant's point 2, according to the State, when the main L.L.C. expires, so do the Fictitious name corporations, despite saying "Active" on the web site.  Why use Fictitious names?

9. In response to Defendant's point 3, acceptance of a check for $100 with his L.L.C. on it does not establish Plum Grove as a legal entity.  The Defendant is duplicitous and misleading the Court.

10. In response to Defendant's point 4, the Defendant received a letter saying his L.L.C. was administratively dissolved on August 6, 2010.  But he also received a similar letter in 2009, and 2008.

11. In response to Defendant's point 5, the Defendant's "unintentional oversight" is irrelevant, as is a driver's "unintentional" oversight to renew his Drivers License.  If the Defendant finally sent the required report and fees to the Iowa Secretary of State, that must have been in the last day or two, because the State has not received them as of today, October 22 at 10:00am.  Regardless, the L.L.C. was not active during the business transaction nor during the trial date.

12. During the trial, the Defendant stated under oath that he agreed to refund the unearned money.  Yet, by his recent letter about his L.L.C., he is again attempting to get out from this debt.

13. Defendant alleged that there were "material costs" such as gravel, but failed to bring any evidence or receipt to the trial.  That is not the fault of the Court that he was unprepared.  Regardless, Plaintiff should not have to pay for any expense for which there was no receipt, for gravel that the Defendant can simply sell to his other customers, or return to his vendor for a refund.

14. During the trial, Defendant informed the court that his wife, Leslie Lane, handles all business matters.  Therefore, Plaintiff requests that her name be added to the Court's record for this case.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests the Court to deny the Defendant's Motion for Dismissal, as well as his recent response.  Plaintiff further requests sanctions for the Defendant's submission of false information, a referral to the Iowa Attorney General, and such other relief as is just and equitable.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock
Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of October 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via certified first-class postage prepaid to Millard Elston, 3411 Jackson Avenue, Fairfield, Iowa 52556.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock