Complaint Review: SUNOCO

Mr STEVE Maleys affidavits (SUN MANAGER)on (may/17/2005 and This sworn affidavit shows by clear and convincing
evidence that Mr Maley be half of the Defendant SUNOCO inc (r&m)acted with fraud, oppression, or malice. {S 210-15}

Because of this act,Defendant must have known that the representation was false when made.

{After those affidavit I understand Mr Maley must have made the representation with an intent to defraud me.

{Fraud would perhaps have made the contract and the Breach valid at this option.}

{I have been unaware of the falsity of the representation;} until I read his affidavit.

I believe in this case be half of the Mr Maley Sun REP
Sunoco inc (r&m) liable for all the damages. $ 68.000.00+dameges & 26%
interest, from-July/16 2002 (STAY IN Sunoco's ACCAUNT RIGHT NOW)
Finally Defendant Attorneys responsibilities about Mr Maleys Affidavit are false.
June/6/2006) are actual fraud or intentionally misconduct.
Kanat Arbay(pro se) V.Sunoco inc r+m Thirth District Court Great Neck Part
Case No: 00870-05

Kanat
FLORAL PARK, New York
U.S.A.