answer.counterclaims.thirdpartycomplaint.verified.4.30.2012

1

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT WAUKESHA COUNTY BRANCH IX

______________________________________________________________________________

Bank of America N.A. as servicer for Case No. 11-CV-3333The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 7105 Corporate DrivePTX-B-209Plano, Texas 75024,

Putative PlaintiffsCase Codes: 30404, 30303, 30201, 30106, 30107

vs.

Amy Jo Brown15945 Ridgefield CourtBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

Purported Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff

and

Unknown Spouse of Amy Jo Brown15945 Ridgefield CourtBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

Nonexistent Party

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., asnominee for Secured Funding Corp1901 East Voorhees Street, Suite C Danville, Illinois 61834

Purported Defendant,

and

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.26525 North Riverwoods BoulevardMettawa, Illinois 60045

Purported Defendant.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2

Amy Jo Brown15945 Ridgefield CourtBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs.

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C.a Wisconsin Professional Corporation c/o Attorney Deborah Ann Blommer165 Bishops WayBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005

in its corporate capacity,

Attorney Deborah Ann Blommer165 Bishops WayBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005

in her capacity as an employee and shareholder of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and in her individual capacity,

Attorney James M. Peterman165 Bishops WayBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

in his capacity as an employee and shareholder of BLOMMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and in his individual capacity

Attorney J. Timothy Lovett ADDRESS TO BE DETERMINED

in his capacity as a former employee of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. only,

Attorney Christina Demakopoulos165 Bishops WayBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

in her capacity as an employee of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and in her individual capacity,

Attorney Russell J. Karnes165 Bishops WayBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005,

in his capacity as an employee of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and in his individual capacity,

Employees and Agents of Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. yet to be identified,

Or she may be referred to as “Amy Jo Brown,” from time to time, as may make this pleading1

easier to read.

Amy Jo Brown specifically does not waive her rights to seek leave to amend the affirmative2

defenses, amend and/or bring additional third party complaints upon leave of court upon furtherdiscovery through formal or informal means during the pendency of this action or as may conform to the

proofs at trial under Wis. Stats. sec. 805.09(2).

3

Other Employees of Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. yet to be identified,

and

Employees of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., yet to be identified

The Real Party or Parties in Interest in these proceedings, yet to be identified

______________________________________________________________________________

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, FIRST AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,INITIAL COUNTERCLAIMS AND INITIAL THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS (WITH

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND STANDING OBJECTION TO SUBJECT MATTERJURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO GRANT ANY RELIEF ON THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTAND INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PURPORTED

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT)

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOW COMES the purported Defendant (hereinafter for convenience and without

waiving her status as the purported Defendant, “Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff” ) Amy Jo1

Brown, maintaining her standing objection to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to enter

any decision on the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff(s) and without waiving her claim that the

putative Plaintiff (hereinafter for convenience and, “Plaintiff”) cannot establish its standing to

bring this action, and reserving her rights to plead and join other claims as defenses as allowed by

Wisconsin law, including, but not limited to her right to seek leave of the Court to amend the

pleading in the interests of justice and to have the pleadings amended to conform to the proof at

trial, brings her first amended answer, affirmatively defends this action, brings her initial2

counterclaims and her third party complaint in this matter and shows the Court:

ANSWER

1. Responding to the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and affirmatively

4

alleging, on personal knowledge or upon information and belief, as the case may be, and denies

paragraph 1 in its entirety, putting Plaintiff to its proof as to every element necessary to establish

its standing to proceed in this action:

a. Denies paragraph 1 and, affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief that Bank

of America, N.A. is not the “servicer” of any loan obligation owed to The Bank of New York

Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust

2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2.

b. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff and its Third-

Party Defendant law firm, BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., are debt collectors within the

meaning of 15 USC sec. 1962, et seq.

c. Affirmative alleges, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff is acting solely

and exclusively on its own behalf to attempt to collect a debt neither owned by Plaintiff nor owed

to Plaintiff by Amy Jo Brown in concert with Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN,

S.C. and its employees named and yet to be named herein.

d. Denies that Bank of America, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a

The Bank of New York Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2

Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 is located at 7105 Corporate Drive

PTX-B-209 in Plano, Texas 75024.

e. Denies that Amy Jo Brown is in default on any payments to the Plaintiff or the

entity for which it purports to be acting as “servicer.”

f. Denies that The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York

Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through

Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 has or even can authorize the debt collection attempted herein.

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York did not issue certificates of

beneficial interest in the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass

Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2. It may be the Trustee of a Real Estate Mortgage

Conduit (REMIC) named the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2, but its status as

Trustee is not alleged. Whether The Bank of New York Mellon is or is not the Trustee of the

CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2, the standing of the Plaintiff purporting to be

5

the “servicer” thereof is not established by Plaintiff’s pleading, which fails to identify The Bank

of New York Mellon as a Trustee for the Certificateholders. The Complaint alleges that the

Plaintiff is the “servicer” for the “certificateholders” of certain certificates issued by The Bank of

New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York. Amy Jo Brown categorically denies that

certificates were issued by The Bank of New York n/k/a (now known as)The Bank of New York

Mellon for the said Alternative Loan Trust. Certificates may have been issued by a Real Estate

Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) Trust, which may be named the CWALT, Inc.

Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T and for which The Bank of New York Mellon might be the

Trustee, but the entity for which Plaintiff claims to be the “servicer” is not properly identified as

a Trustee for a REMIC Trust.

g. Upon personal knowledge, Amy Jo Brown affirmatively alleges that she

signed a mortgage note in favor of America’s Wholesale Lender and she further affirmatively

alleges, upon information and belief, that the mortgage note taken by America’s Wholesale

Lender is not an enforceable instrument because America’s Wholesale Lender has no capacity to

enter into a contract and is a “doing business as name” for the former Countrywide Financial,

Inc. and does not exist as a legal entity and lacks the capacity to enter into contract, borrow and

lend money or sue and be sued; she further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief,

that America’s Wholesale Lender, lacking the capacity to sue, was a business name created to

avoid the laws requiring the regulation of mortgage lenders; she further affirmatively alleges that

a party without legal capacity to enter into a contract has no legal capacity to have a bank account

in any state in the United States nor can it loan money, sue to collect money or enforce any

contract. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that America’s Wholesale

Lender did not loan the purported Defendant any money which she is obliged to repay and that

the copy of the mortgage note attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A is a sham and a fraud.

h. Further affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that she viewed the

purported “original” mortgage note after the proceedings held before the Honorable Judge

Donald A. Hassin in Waukesha County Circuit Court, at the Courthouse in Waukesha County,

Wisconsin on February 23, 2012 at approximately 2:00 p.m. and that the mortgage note in the

possession of Third-Party Defendant Christina Demakopoulos of Third-Party Defendant

6

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., then acting as counsel for the (purported) Plaintiff is a forgery

on which her signature has been reproduced by highlighting her signature on an imaged note (as

only the imaged note is believed to have been retained) and selecting a blue font before the image

was transmitted for printing. This form of technology generally called “Photoshop” technology

from the original popular technology, just as the original technology for photocopying was

originally known as Xerox machines. Document inspection and expert testimony is required to

attempt to determine the most likely type of technology used to create the forgery, but, upon

information and belief, the forgery was created with Acrobat Illustrator, the current most

popularly used document creation software.

i. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that the

“endorsement in blank” purportedly affixed to the reverse side of the mortgage note is a forgery

and bearing the name of Third-Party Defendant David A. Spector, being a computer-generated

“photoshopped” imported image of the a known robo-stamp used on Bank of America

instruments to make it appear that the document was touched by human hands and reviewed by a

person with authority to endorse notes on behalf of BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, which

recently merged with its previously concealed parent company, Bank of America, N.A., the

purported Plaintiff herein, was lifted from an image of another document upon which the robo-

stamp had once been affixed and printed on the back of the mortgage note to make it appear that

the note had been endorsed at the time of the first attempted foreclosure commenced against

Amy Jo Brown.

j. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that the Third-Party

Defendant Christina Demakopolous of Third-Party Defendant BLOOMER PETERMAN, S.C., a

Wisconsin lawyer and a Wisconsin professional services corporation respectively, acting as debt

collectors for the Plaintiff, which is acting as a debt collector for an entity which does not own or

hold an enforceable debt obligation, stated that the “endorsement in blank” on the reverse side of

the mortgage note was the reason why the photocopy of the note attached to the Complaint as

Exhibit B did not display the “endorsement in blank” on the second page of “Exhibit B.” Upon

information and belief, Amy Jo Brown affirmatively alleges that the black computer printer ink

stamp on the reverse side of the bright white paper and inappropriately aged (newly printed)

This is called “uttering” a forgery as a genuine instrument and is a crime in Wisconsin if done3

with intent as described in Wis. Stats. sec. 943.38.

7

paper was visible to her when her attorney was initially examining the note and may have been

printed in dark enough ink to “bleed through” as a reverse image on the face of the second page

of the computer generated forgery in the hands of her attorney. Document inspection is

necessary to determine if the current version of the printed image of her mortgage note “bleeds

through” when copied.

k. Affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, could see the black image on

the reverse side of the computer-generated note when she was looking at the front of “Exhibit B.”

l. Affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that she observed her attorney,

in the course of examining the note, apply her moistened finger to test the black ink purported

“endorsement in blank,” apparently printed with computer ink and that the ink did not bleed onto

the page. Observing this preliminary examination, she heard Third-Party Defendant

Demakopoulus state to her attorney that the reason that the ink imprint did not react to the

moisture test was that “the document is old.”

m. Affirmatively alleges, Amy Jo Brown has a banking, real estate and securities

background, has worked in the financial industry since 1983 (with periodic leaves of absence to

care for her children) and is presently a commercial lender. In that capacity, she has handled

countless financial instruments and can state to a certainty that Exhibit A, which purports to be

an “original” mortgage note purported executed in 2004 and on bright white paper legal sized

paper (8 ½ inches by 14 inches) is not appropriately aged and was not folded as would be

required to mail the instrument in a conventional envelope (at most 9 inches by 12 inches.) Upon

information and belief, the forgery from which the copy of Exhibit B was made was either

transmitted to the firm electronically and printed there or, it is hard to accept but possible, created

at the law firm itself, under instructions from the purported “servicer.” All employees of the firm

are identified as possible participants in the receipt and/or creation of the forged mortgage note

and some of them are, therefore, material witnesses, along with Third-Party Defendant

Demakopoulos, who had the forged note in her hands on February 23, 2012 and Third-Party3

Defendant Russell J. Karnes, who acknowledged the firm’s continuing possession of and reliance

These BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. employees who have participated in the criminogenic4

business model and are yet to be identified will, upon discovery, be named among the co-faciliators JohnDoe 1-1000 and Jane Doe 1-1000, which designations are also place-holders for intentional, reckless andnegligent co-actors from the Bank of America, N.A.; the former BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., and includes, and will not be limited to, governmentaland private banking regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the Federal DepositInsurance Corporation and possibly, in addition to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the FederalReserve Banks of Dallas, Texas and Altanta, Georgia which may have been responsible for regulation ofthe enterprise.

8

upon the forged note on April 9, 2012.

n. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that other yet to be

identified employees of Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. have knowledge

of the receipt, processing and maintenance of the forged mortgage note in the Third-Party

Defendant law firm’s files. Amy Jo Brown believes, from observing Third-Party Defendant4

Demakopoulos’ reaction to her attorney’s statement that the mortgage note as “ not the original”

mortgage note, that Third-Party Defendant Demakopoulos was unaware that she was holding a

forgery in her hands and in her case file because Third-Party Demakopoulos appeared to be

genuinely surprised at Amy Jo Brown’s attorney’s statement, upon consultation with Ms. Brown,

that the note was “not the original.” A forgery (in this case with a face value of $383,200.00) not

only has no value, but the intentional and knowing creation, possession and uttering thereof is a

felony under Wisconsin law. The forged note poses a risk to the public if it not immediately

surrendered to law enforcement. Amy Jo Brown demands the immediate surrender of the forged

document from which the copy of Exhibit B was made to the Waukesha County Sheriff’s

custody pending scientific examination and testing at the direction of the Wisconsin Department

of Justice-Division of Criminal Investigation (DOJ-DCI..) Amy Jo Brown states that she will

know immediately if the computer generated forgery displayed to her attorney and in her plain

view on February 23, 2012 has been modified or altered.

o. Further affirmatively alleges as to Third-Party Defendant Demakopolous, her

failure to take remedial action to surrender the forged mortgage note after she was served with

the original Answer in this case on or about March 15, 2012 justifies her inclusion in these

proceedings as a Third-Party Defendant for participating in the continuation of this action to

9

collect a debt not owned by the Plaintiff or owed to it by Amy Jo Brown.

p. Affirmatively alleges that on April 9, 2012, Third-Party Defendant Russell J.

Karnes is an employee of the Third-Party Defendant law firm BLOOMER PETERMAN, S.C.

was directly confronted with a demand to surrender the forged mortgage note and he then and

there claimed, upon personal knowledge, that the note is not a forgery. Upon information and

belief, Third-Party Defendant Russell J. Karnes continues to rely upon a forged mortgage note as

the basis for continuing a debt collection action founded upon a forgery in this Court but he (1)

has proceeded in bad faith to attempt to intimidate Amy Jo Brown and her counsel by bringing an

unfounded motion to strike Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff’s verified pleadings filed on

March 15, 2012 in order to continue the efforts of the Plaintiff, its agents, employees and

attorneys to collect a debt not owned by the Plaintiff and to conceal the racketeering enterprise

described herein; (2) has proceeded in bad faith in an attempt to intimidate Amy Jo Brown and

her counsel by giving notice of demand to withdraw the verified pleadings filed on March 15,

2012 within twenty (21) days in order to suppress the truthful statement that the mortgage note

upon which the Plaintiff is attempting to proceed to establish its standing to collect a void debt,

which is neither owed to Plaintiff or the party for which it pretends to be acting as “servicer” nor

owned by it.

q. Third-Party Defendant Karnes, as an employee of the Third-Party Defendant

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has taken the actions set forth at 1.p., above, to further the law

firm’s debt collection efforts on behalf of the Plaintiff as “servicer” for Third-Party Defendant

Bank of NewYork Mellon, N.A. f/k/a The Bank of New York Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc.

Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2.

Third-Party Defendant Karnes knows or should know at this point in the proceedings that the

basis for the debt collection action is a forged mortgage note. There is no litigation privilege to

use the courts of the State of Wisconsin to collect a debt based upon a forged mortgage note.

r. Further affirmatively alleges that the debt collector Third-Party Defendant

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. engaged in the creation of a mortgage assignment to secure the

debt represented by the forged mortgage note. The name of “Attorney J. Timothy Lovett” appears

on the assignment of the mortgage (Exhibit D) with what appears to be a Wisconsin Bar number.

10

Exhibit D shows that it was returned from the Waukesha County Register of Deeds to

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C.

s. The mortgage assignment is Exhibit D attached to the Complaint was created

by the Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., by one of its employees, and

constitutes a false business record. The mortgage assignment attached to the Complaint as

Exhibit D was filed in the office of the Waukesha County Register of Deeds and constitutes the

filing of a false business record by the Third-Party Defendants J. Timothy Lovett and

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. The mortgage assignment is one of the two key documents

upon which the Plaintiff(s) rely in attempting to create the appearance of standing before the

Court, the other document being the forged mortgage note. (See paragraphs 2., 5. and 8., below.)

t. Continuously reserving her objection to the subject matter jurisdiction of this

Court for the lack of standing of purported Plaintiff for all the reasons stated above, Amy Jo

Brown states unequivocally that standing to sue cannot be founded upon a forged mortgage note

and a falsely created mortgage assignment. Furthermore, no debt can be claimed to be owed to

an entity without a legal existence, such as, in this case, an assumed name (America’s Wholesale

Lender), which has no legal capacity to enter into contracts, loan money, receive payments or sue

for performance or foreclosure.

u. Bank of America, N.A. asserts that it “collects and tracks payments,

distributes collection and pursues legal action when necessary” for certificateholders of The Bank

of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York Alternative Loan Trust Certificate Series

2004-35T2 which does not own or hold Amy Jo Brown’s mortgage note. Exhibit B is a forgery,

generated from a computer image and printed with a blue ink signature created by color computer

toner, when the original note was signed in black ink and corresponding mortgage assignment

(Exhibit D to the Complaint) is void as a falsely created and publicly filed business record for

purposes of creating the appearance of Plaintiff’s standing to sue for foreclosure of a secured

debt, the evidence of which is a forged mortgage note.

v. Amy Jo Brown believes that Third-Party Defendant Lovett, acting as

employee of the third party debt collector, BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. may not have known

that he was creating a false assignment of mortgage at the time he did so, but his acts were

11

reckless or negligent as done without verification of the legal status of America’s Wholesale

Lender, when it is a basic legal principle that any entity claiming to have a legal existence under

corporate law (including limited liability companies, limited partnerships or limited liability

partnerships) must identify themselves by using their organizational status in their name, such as

“corporation,” “inc.,” “ltd.”, “llc”, “lp”, “llp”) must use their entity designation on contracts,

such as mortgage notes and mortgages. The absence of any corporate or other entity designation

following the name America’s Wholesale Lender would demand further inquiry as to its

existence before the mortgage assignment from it to another entity could be created.





a. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that The Bank of New York

Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York does not appear on its own behalf in its proper status “as

Trustee” for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative loan trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage

Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2.” It appears through its purported “servicer” on the

case caption. If it is a party to this action or authorized this action to be taken on its behalf, it is

not properly identified.

b. Further, affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge and as a matter of

law, that a fiduciary is prohibited as a matter of law from attempting to administer a trust asset

which is founded upon a fraudulent transaction and a forged mortgage note because to do so

would be an ultra vires act and a breach of its fiduciary duty.

c. Denies that The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York has

or is able to authorize the commencement or continuation of these proceedings to collect a debt

for which part of the evidence is a forgery.

d. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that unwaivable

conflict of interest arises between it and its purported “servicer,” who has no asset to administer,

because the Trust known as the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass

Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 is required, as a matter of law to operate as a Real Estate

She does not know the Napoleonic Code, which is followed by Louisiana, but assumes that5

French law of the 18 Century from which it was derived and as it developed in the United States ofth

America would not permit a nonexistent entity to engage in conduct for which Anglo-American

12

Mortgage Investment Trust (REMIC Trust) and is governed by 26 U.S.C. sec. 860D and the

Trustee for the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through

Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 cannot accept assets into the trust which are not transferred within

90 days of the closing date of the trust or such additional grace period as is allowed by law for

proper transfer of the asset. According to the trust prospectus, the mortgage note must be

endorsed in favor of the trust or “endorsed in blank” but Exhibit B is a recently created forgery

which demonstrates that the original mortgage note was never transferred to the trust. Further

discovery would be necessary to ascertain whether or not The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a

The Bank of New York ever authorized the purported “servicer” to bring this action or retain the

Third-Party Defendant law firm BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. as a third party debt collector.

Amy Jo Brown reserves her right to engage in discovery, should Plaintiff’s Complaint not be

dismissed with prejudice for the attempted fraud upon Amy Jo Brown and the Waukesha County

Circuit Court.

e. Amy Jo Brown acknowledges that the majority of jurisdictions have held that

defendants in otherwise lawful foreclosure do not have standing to assert the rights of the

investors under REMIC trust instruments because the homeowners are generally not held to be

third party beneficiaries of the trusts upon which the loan funds are created. That is not the case

here. She is asserting her own rights not to be sued on a note executed in favor of a party with

no capacity to enter into a contract, to transact banking whereby funds could have been

transmitted to the make the loan, had no capacity to loan money, has no capacity to enter into a

transaction whereby her note could be transferred by signed endorsement or “endorsement in

blank,” could not contract to be a member of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc.

(MERS) as nominee for purposes of the purported trust’s purported acceptance of the mortgage

security. America’s Wholesale Lender, an assumed name, could not own an interest in lands or

hold a mortgage thereon in Wisconsin or in any other state in the United States following the

Anglo-American system of jurisprudence by statute or common law or assign any interest in5

jurisprudence requires “legal capacity.”

13

land by nominee or otherwise. In addition to requiring that a REMIC trust accept only lawfully

endorsed mortgage notes and properly secured mortgage loans, the timing of the transfer here

would require the Trustee to reject the asset as having been assigned too late in time (if it was

ever received) or, being an unlawful and void mortgage note and mortgage given to an assumed

name without legal existence, it would have to reject mortgage note and corresponding mortgage

instrument or be liable for engaging in void and ultra vires acts.

f. Upon the discovery of the true facts of this transaction as understood by Amy

Jo Brown, the Trustee of the REMIC Trust would be required to locate the party responsible for

transferring the void note and mortgage to the trust under the pleaded “common form of

ownership” or, the trust instrument, require that party to “buy back” the void attempted transfer

and refer the party responsible for making the transfer for criminal fraud.

g. Further, upon her own knowledge, she does not owe any money to America’s

Wholesale Lender, its “servicing” agent or the purported REMIC trust. When the fraudulent

asset transfer is set aside by the purported Trustee, acting in its fiduciary capacity, by

identification of the party responsible for this fraudulent sale, if it ever took place, Amy Jo

Brown would have the right to raise her defenses and plead her counterclaims against that party.

As a banker, she cannot even be sure that the closing check was ever paid to the title company’s

bank for distribution under the closing statement. She knows that it is possible that the

instrument submitted for payment could have been a site draft and returned to the issuer of the

instrument for payment and went unpaid. If that occurred, the title company’s bank may never

have been paid in clear funds. This could have resulted in a loss to the capital of whichever bank

received the unpaid site draft and could have resulted in a write-off against its capital reserves.

The bank taking that loss would then be the real party in interest to recover the funds from her,

but the statute of limitations has expired for that recovery, but for an allegation that she

participated in the fraud herself, which she did not, having only recently become aware of the

frauds in this transaction and having seen the forged mortgage note presented to her counsel in

support of the allegation of standing by Third-Party Defendant Demakopoulus on February 23,

14

2012. There may be a jurisdiction somewhere on the planet which monetized the original

mortgage note given to a nonexistent entity (America’s Wholesale Lender, an assumed name)

and is circulating it through the international banking system, perhaps as security for a derivative,

but she has no experience in international banking and is incapable of researching international

banking fraud, although she has recently become aware of such research being performed and

will seek to obtain that evidence in the course of these proceedings.

g. Amy Jo Brown has already paid $150,000.00 on a void mortgage note and she

should she lose her home for refusing to continue to pay on a void mortgage note, not owned by

or owed to the party for which the Plaintiff claims to be the “servicer,” the CWALT, Inc.

Alternative Loan Trust or its purported Trustee, The Bank of NewYork Mellon. Whatever

payments she made on the mortgage note and to whomever those payments were ultimately sent,

in the approximate amount of $150,000.00, those payments were procured by fraud upon her and

the local bank and should be disgorged by the party responsible for the fraud. She does not know

the identity of that party and the Trustee, if it is acting in a fiduciary capacity, has a duty to

discover and disclose the fraud to the holder of certificates of beneficial interest.

h. Amy Jo Brown affirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, that

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is a sham organization and front for

securitization trusts.

i. Amy Jo Brown further alleges upon personal knowledge that the mortgage in

which MERS was nominated (Exhibit C attached to the Complaint) was made in favor of a party

without legal capacity to lend her money, did not lend her any money and could not record an

interest on Wisconsin lands, either in its own name or by “nomination of MERS” as its

“mortgagee of record.” Further affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that America’s

Wholesale Lender is not a member of the MERS system (because it cannot be, having no legal

capacity.)

j. Amy Jo Brown affirmatively alleges, as a matter of law, that the operation of

the MERS parallel private recording system in place of the duly-elected and constitutionally

authorized Registers of Deeds for counties in the State of Wisconsin (cf. Chapter 59 of the

Wisconsin Statutes, particularly at Wis. Stats. sec. 59.49, et seq.) is illegal and void and any

15

mortgage containing the MERS as nominee provision is void as against public policy.

l. Amy Jo Brown further affirmatively alleges that MERS violates the

sovereignty of the State of Wisconsin and its laws.

m. Amy Jo Brown further affirmatively alleges that MERS is not authorized to do

business in the State of Wisconsin as a private corporation and that its nominal holding of record

title was deliberately created to allow for it to facilitate unlawful debt collection practices by a

variety of entities which sought to conceal their true identities from government regulators,

homeowners and the courts of the State of Wisconsin and is void as against public policy.

3. Admits paragraph 3.

4. Denies paragraph 4 and affirmatively alleges that she is an unmarried woman.





a. Affirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, that Mortgage Electronic

Registrations System, Inc. (MERS) is a sham organization and front for securitization trusts, the

mortgage in which MERS was nominated was in favor of a party without legal capacity to loan

money and could not have been and never was a member of the “MERS system.”

b. Further affirmatively alleges, as a matter of law, that the operation of a parallel

private recording system to the duly-elected and constitutionally authorized Registers of Deeds

for counties in the State of Wisconsin is illegal. Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes,

particularly at Wis. Stats. sec. 59.49, et seq. preempts and precludes the legal effect of private

recording system for lands in the state of Wisconsin.

c. MERS violates the sovereignty of the State of Wisconsin and its laws and is

further not authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin as a private corporation.

d. The mortgage interest purportedly held by MERS is void and the assignment

from MERS is, likewise, void and without any force and effect.

6. Responding to the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint and

affirmatively alleging, on personal knowledge or upon information and belief, as the case may

16

be, and denies paragraph 6 in its entirety, putting Plaintiff to its proof as to every element

necessary to establish its standing to proceed in this action:

a. Affirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, that MERS is a sham

organization and front for securitization trusts.

b. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief the mortgage in

which MERS was nominated was in favor of a party, Secured Funding Corporation, which was

without legal capacity to do business in the State of Wisconsin (its lending license had been

revoked in the State of California at the time this loan was made) and is not and never was a

member of the “MERS system.”

c. Further affirmatively alleges that the operation of a parallel private recording

system is to the duly-elected and constitutionally authorized Registers of Deeds for counties in

the State of Wisconsin is illegal. Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes, particularly at Wis. Stats.

sec. 59.49, et seq. preempts the operation of a private recording system for lands in the state of

Wisconsin is void as against public policy.

d. Further affirmatively alleges that MERS violates the sovereignty of the State

of Wisconsin and its laws and is further not authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin

as a private corporation.

e. Further affirmatively alleges that the mortgage interest purportedly held by

MERS is void and the assignment from MERS is, likewise, void and without any force and

effect.

7. Denies paragraph 7. and affirmatively alleges that Exhibit A is hearsay. Further

affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. did not

loan her any money as and for a second mortgage on her home and no money is owed by her to

it.

8. Denies paragraph 8. and reincorporates her Answer the Complaint herein at

paragraphs 2. and 5., as if fully set forth herein.

9. Denies paragraph 9. and reincorporates her Answer the Complaint herein at paragraphs

2., 5. and 8., as if fully set forth herein.

10. Denies paragraph 10. its entirety, affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge,

17

that she owes nothing to the putative Plaintiff whatsoever and that paragraph 10 of the Complaint

is a fraud upon her and before this Court. In support of this allegation, she reincorporates her

Answer the Complaint herein at paragraphs 2., 5. 8. and 9. as if fully set forth herein.

11. Admits that she received correspondence from Bank of America, N.A., purporting to

be a debt collector and made a qualified written request under the Real Estate Settlement Practice

Act, 12 U.S.C. sec. 2601, et. seq., to which Bank of America, N.A. responded that it had sent the

debt collection letter to her “by mistake.” Thereafter, she was served with the Summons and

Complaint in this matter.



paragraph 12 in its entirety, putting Plaintiff to its proof as to every element necessary to

establish its standing to proceed in this action:

a. Admits paragraph 12 only insofar as she admits that she resides at her

homestead located at 15945 Ridgefield Court in Brookfield, Wisconsin and that the legal

description of her homestead appears to be correct, without admitting or denying that the legal

description is, in fact, correct.

b. Denies that the real estate is subject to this action in any way, continuing to

object to the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court to decide any matter related to the putative

Plaintiff (or both putative Plaintiffs) by its (their) Complaint for lack of their standing. Both

parties have legal capacity to be sued, however, and the purported Defendant accepts their choice

of forum, without accepting the jurisdiction of the Court to grant any remedy to the putative

Plaintiffs, because it (they) voluntarily invoked the “in personam” jurisdiction of this Court and

the Amy Jo Brown accepts the in personam jurisdiction over the matters which she has standing

to raise and chooses to raise because the Plaintiff(s) have wasted the time of the Court and her

resources by this action bringing false and fraudulent claims against her.

c. There is precedent for this Court to reject subject matter jurisdiction over the

Although voluntarily dismissed, prosecution of improperly venued actions violated the6

consumer act, and the defendants were prevailing parties under s. 425.308 entitled to attorney fees.Community Credit Plan, Inc. v. Johnson, 228 Wis. 2d 30, 596 N.W.2d 799 (1999), 97-0574.Note: The Wisconsin Consumer Act provides that commencement of an action outside of the consumer’scounty of residence requires dismissal for lack of a subject matter jurisdiction. So it is here, but thesubject matter jurisdiction arises from lack of standing under the constitutional authority of theWisconsin courts.

18

claims of the Plaintiff(s) and grant Amy Jo Brown the limited relief she requests herein,6

reserving her other claims as allowed by the Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing for

permissive joinder of claims. Wis. Stats. sec. 803.02.

d. In the alternative, if the Court finds that it must dismiss this action for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and that proceeding on the counterclaims could, in any way be deemed

to be a waiver of the continuing objection to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to provide

relief to the Plaintiff(s) [which the Defendant does not believe to be the case because even

subject matter jurisdiction may be waived if not preserved by motion to dismiss before filing an

answer] the Defendant consents to the simultaneous dismissal of her counterclaims and third

party complaint, which claims will be brought as a Complaint in a new or new actions, subject to

her demand for attorneys fees for the commencement and continuation of an action in violation

of Wis. Stats. sec. 802.05 by the Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and

prosecuted by Third-Party Defendants Russell J. Karnes and Christina Demakopoulos on

evidence created by Third-Party Defendant J. Timothy Lovett, according to the patterns and

practices of the law firm.

13. Neither admits or denies the statement in paragraph 13 and re-alleges and

reincorporates by reference each and every allegation of the foregoing Answer, except for

paragraphs 6. and 7. (which are not relevant to the statement in paragraph 13.) as affirmative

allegations in the Answer to this paragraph 13., as if fully set forth herein.

14. Denies paragraph 14., lacks sufficient knowledge as to whether Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. and HSBC Bank have been served with process to make them subject

to the personal jurisdiction of this Court and affirmatively re-alleges and reincorporates by

reference each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-12 of the Answer, as if fully set forth herein

and excludes her Answer to paragraph 13., which is irrelevant this paragraph 14.

19

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

15. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief to the Plaintiff(s) because it

does not have standing to sue Amy Jo Brown as described in paragraphs 1-12 and paragraph 14,

above and the foreclosure Complaint must be dismissed.

16. Counsel for the Plaintiff(s), Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C.

is disqualified from representing the Plaintiff(s) because there is a conflict of interest between it

and the Plaintiff(s) based first on the law firm’s status as a material witness to forgery and its

own creation of an assignment of a void mortgage and then, upon its inaction to dismiss these

proceedings or withdraw as counsel herein for conflict of interest, which has made it necessary

for the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff to join the BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and its

employees, known and unknown, as Third-Party Defendants as now knowing participants in an

effort to use these court proceedings to collect a debt now known not to be owed to the

Plaintiff(s) and persisting in perpetrating a crime and a fraud in these proceedings.

17. The Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and certain of its

employees are Third-Party Defendants in this case. An unwaivable conflict of interest arises

between the Third-Party Defendant law firm and the Plaintiff. A corporation cannot appear in

Wisconsin courts without counsel and the Complaint must be dismissed. New counsel for the

Plaintiff must be retained to answer the Counterclaims.

18. The Plaintiff(s) have unclean hands based upon the conduct described in the

foregoing paragraphs 1-12, and 15-17, of the Answer and the conduct described below in

paragraphs 19-86, incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. It cannot avail itself of

any equitable remedies in these proceedings, including, but not limited to foreclosure on real

estate, equitable assignment of mortgage interests, or equitable revision of contract and the

Complaint must be dismissed.

19. America’s Wholesale Lender does not exist, has no legal capacity to engage in any

business transaction whatsoever and the lack of legal capacity cannot be cured by substituting a

real party in interest in these proceedings under Wis. Stats. sec. 803.01, without equitable

assignment or equitable revision of the contract, which are not available remedies in this case, as

set forth in paragraph 18, above, and the Complaint must be dismissed.

20

FACTS COMMON TO COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

20. The facts alleged in paragraphs 1-19 above are incorporated by reference as if fully

set forth herein.

21. Plaintiff is a debt collector as defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(FDCPA) 15 USC sec. 1692, et seq. insofar as it purports to collect debts owed to certain REMIC

Trusts of which it claims to be the “servicer.”

22. A “servicer” for a REMIC Trust “collects and tracks payments, distributes collection

and pursues legal action when necessary” as alleged by the Plaintiff in paragraph 2 of its

Complaint.

23. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is a Wisconsin professional

services corporation with offices at 165 Bishops Way in Brookfield, Wisconsin.

24. The registered agent for BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is Attorney Deborah Ann

Blommer at 165 Bishops Way in Brookfield, Wisconsin.

25. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant Deborah Ann Blommer is a

shareholder of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and has her offices at 165 Bishops Way in

Brookfield, Wisconsin.

26. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant Deborah Ann Blommer is

responsible for training, supervision and management of nonshareholder attorneys and

nonattorney staff.

27. Upon information and belief, Attorney James M. Peterman is a shareholder of

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and has his offices at 165 Bishops Way in Brookfield,

Wisconsin.

28. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant James M.Peterman is

responsible for training, supervision and management of nonshareholder attorneys and

nonattorney staff.

29. BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA

at 15 USC sec. 1692, et. seq.

30. Third-Party Defendant J. Timothy Lovett a/k/a Joseph T. Lovett, is a former

employee of Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and has engaged in the acts

21

complained of in paragraphs 2 above and the acts complained of below.

31. Third-Party Defendant Christina Demakopolous is an employee of Third-Party

Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and has engaged in the acts complained of in

paragraphs 1 and 2 above and the acts complained of below.

32. Third-Party Defendant Russell J. Karnes is an employee of Third-Party Defendant

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and has engaged in the acts complained of in paragraphs 1 and 2

above and the acts complained of below.

33. In furtherance of the effort to use the Waukesha County Circuit Court in its scheme

to collect a debt not owed to the Plaintiff(s), Third-Party Defendants Karnes, BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C., Bank of America, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. f/k/a The

Bank of New York, as (implied) Trustee of the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative

Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 have attempted

to intimidate counsel for Amy Jo Brown in attempt to have the verified pleadings in which the

forged note is essential evidence in the possession of the Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C. withdrawn.

34. It is obvious that Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is using

court processes to attempt to conceal the crimes of the Plaintiff, MERS and its own participation

therein.

35. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has engaged in continuing

effort to harass and intimidate Amy Jo Brown by mailing letters addressed to “Unknown Spouse

of Amy Jo Brown” after the Complaint was answered, knowing that she is represented, after

Amy Jo Brown verified under oath that she is unmarried and having no reason to believe in good

faith that such mailings are for a legitimate purposes and are an attempt to harass Amy Jo Brown

in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from

contacting parties known to be represented by counsel.

36. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has a business practice of

allowing its paralegals to engage in the unauthorized practice of law to increase its profits from

its activities as a debt collector.


22

having its paralegals contact represented parties.


fabricating documents it needs to attempt to establish standing to take homes in foreclosure.

40. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendants Deborah Ann Bloomer and

James M. Peterman encourage their employees to engage in violations of law to gain litigation

advantage or, in the alternative, fail to adequately train, supervise and manage the firm’s

employees to prevent violations of law.

41. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant James M. Peterman created and

promoted a business model in which he would execute mortgage assignments from MERS to his

own clients and would sign the mortgage assignments as a signing officer of MERS.

42. Upon information and belief, the Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN,

S.C. in its “foreclosure practice” is one of the key organizational components in the management

and control of the racketeering enterprise described below, in which Bank of America, N.A. and

MERS also perform essential management, control and direction toward the goal of taking

Wisconsin homes with fabricated and forged documents, making false claims for losses upon the

foreclosures to the United States Treasury in order to receive financial benefits from foreclosing

on Wisconsin homes.

43. Bank of America, N.A. neither owns nor holds the mortgage notes or lawfully holds

the mortgagee interests through MERS for the homes upon which it forecloses in Wisconsin and

MERS and BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., acting in concert with Bank of America, S.C.,

conceal this fact from regulators, benefactors (such as GSEs and the US Treasury) homeowners

and courts at all times in which BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has engaged in debt collection

practices for Bank of America, N.A.

44. BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has twice tried to take Amy Jo Brown’s home for a

debt it knows or reasonably should know is not owed by Amy Jo Brown to the Plaintiff and its

predecessor in interest, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP nor is it owned by either the current

Plaintiff herein or its predecessor.

45. BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has engaged in the practices described herein in an

effort to make it appear that Plaintiff and its predecessor in interest have the right to collect a

23

void debt.

46. 15 USC sec. 1692e provides generally:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means inconnection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of theforegoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: . . .

and 15 USC sec, 1692e(2) provides, in relevant part:

(2) The false representation of—(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt . . .

and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has engaged in numerous acts of

false, deception and misleading representation of the character, amount or legal status of the debt

it is attempting to collect, not just to the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, but to the

Waukesha County Circuit Court in two foreclosure actions (including in the currently pending

Complaint) and in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, as

well as courts and homeowners throughout Wisconsin.

47. Upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN,

S.C., and its shareholders, Third-Party Defendants Deborah Ann Blommer and James M.

Peterman have developed, engaged in and persist in following a business model of creating and

having employees of the firm create documents to create the appearance that debts it and they are

seeking to collect are valid and enforceable when those debts are, in fact, not supported by the

true documentary record.

48. In the alternative, upon information and belief, Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C., and its shareholders, Third-Party Defendants Deborah Ann Blommer and

James M. Peterman persistently fail to supervise the attorney and nonattorney employees of the

firm to assure that the debts which are being collected are valid and enforceable and not

fraudulent and/or void.

49. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has routinely filed false and

fabricated documents with the Wisconsin Registers of Deeds and files copies thereof in the

Circuit Courts of the State of Wisconsin and the Bankruptcy Courts for the Western and Eastern

District of Wisconsin.

Discovery of the number of these foreclosures on Wisconsin homes generated under the7

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. mortgage assignment document creation model will be sought, but it is

already known from preliminary research that the number exceeds 100 in Kenosha County alone.

24

50. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. has, for example, through

July, 2011, created over 100 mortgage assignments filed in the office of the Kenosha County

Register of Deeds upon which it sought to and, in most instances, successfully prosecuted

foreclosure actions against Kenosha County homeowners using mortgage assignments created

and/or executed by members of the firm, without sufficient diligence to assure that the mortgage

assignments were based on the existence of and ownership of an original mortgage note.

51. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., by Third-Party Defendant J.

Timothy Lovett, has, for example, in 2009, commenced and prosecuted a foreclosure action

before the Portage County Circuit Court based upon a mortgage assignment created by another

attorney at BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., Chaz M. Rodriguez.

52. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. uses unsupervised and under-

supervised paralegals to deal with the homeowners who it contacts in its debt collection practice

and who purport to have the direct authority from the Plaintiff to settle cases on debts not owned

by or owed to it.

53. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. allows its attorneys to create

mortgage assignments to be signed by persons in the employ of the assignees and not in the

employ of the assignors and executed in the presence of “captive” notaries who are in the employ

of the assignors.

54. The mortgage assignments created as described in paragraph 53 are void as without

lawful authority.

55. Where there is no valid mortgage assignment, equitable assignment of the mortgage

must be established in an action by the owner or lawful holder of the note with the right to

enforce the note.

56. In a large number of mortgage foreclosures commenced by Third-Party Defendant7

July 21, 2011 is the date upon which Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc.(MERS),8

a Delaware corporation, under severe stress from investigations and litigation throughout the nation,including several of the nation’s attorneys general, including Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden,informed its members, including the Plaintiff, that only the owner of the mortgage note could assign amortgage out of the name of MERS, which was always the law, but which law had not been followed byMERS members and faux authorized signers for MERS, of which Third-Party Defendant James M.Peterman claimed to be one.

25

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. prior to July 21, 2011, BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. created8

numerous mortgage assignments “in house” by signing for or obtaining signatures on mortgage

assignments from the assignors to the assignors, without regard to the ownership or validity of

the mortgage note.

57. Plaintiff has engaged in direct efforts to collect a debt which it does not own and

which Amy Jo Brown does not owe to it in violation of the FCDPA, by making false, deceptive

and misleading representation as to the character, amount, or legal status of the debt.

58. Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern and practice of violations of the FDCPA, from

which the Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, statutory damages and for which she is entitled

to recover her reasonable attorney’s fees under 15 USC sec. 1692k, which provides:

(a) Amount of damagesExcept as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with anyprovision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amountequal to the sum of—(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;(2)(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow,but not exceeding $1,000; or(B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recoveredunder subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members,without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percentum of the net worth of the debt collector; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action,together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the courtthat an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, thecourt may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended andcosts.

59. In June, 2011, before this second attempt to foreclose on Amy Jo Brown’s home

commenced, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP contacted Amy Jo Brown and instructed that the

26

“servicer” was going to change, which notice is required by the Real Estate Settlement Practices

Act (RESPA) at 12 USC sec. 2601, et seq.

60. Amy Jo Brown then sent a qualified written request under the Real Estate

Settlement Practices Act to the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff responded that the notice of

transfer of servicing rights had been sent to her by “mistake.”

61. The response provided to Amy Jo Brown is not a proper response to the qualified

written request she sent to it and entitles her to actual damages and her reasonable attorney’s fees

under 12 USC sec. 2605.

62. After the failure to respond to the qualified written request under RESPA, Plaintiff,

as debt collector for some unidentified party, commenced this action through the offices of the

Third-Party Defendant debt collector, BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. to collect payments on a

debt not owned by it or owed to any entity appearing before this Court or known by Amy Jo

Brown.

63. Despite the appearance of counsel for Amy Jo Brown, Bank of America, N.A., Bank

of America contacted Amy Jo Brown just before Christmas in 2011, who has been represented by

counsel since October, 2011, and told her she had to make arrangements to move out of her

home, in violation of the FDCPA.

64. “Bank of America Home Loans” has been contacting Amy Jo Brown in violation of

the FDCPA since she has been represented by counsel and informing her that if she will agree to

a short sale of her home, she can avoid foreclosure, in violation of the FDCPA.

65. Plaintiff is put on notice that it and the Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C. and the Third-Party Defendant attorneys and non-attorney staff have

committed numerous violations of the FDCPA, the specifics of each are too numerous to

mention at this time and the failure to specifically plead each and every violation of the FDCPA,

and by providing examples of the violations of the FDCPA at this time does not enumerate all of

the instances of FDCPA violations in this case.

66. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and their

employees have engaged in a pattern and practice of creating forged and false business records,

transmitting the false, forged and fraudulent documents by US mail in violation of 18 USC sec.

27

1341 and by wire in violation of 18 USC sec.1343, of which more than two predicate acts

occurred in this case alone, for which Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C. are civilly liable under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations

Act (commonly known as RICO) at 18 USC sec. 1964.

67. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is a corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which has operated a scheme to conceal the

identities of the owners of mortgage obligations by purporting to operate an electronic data base

in competition with the duly authorized public land registries in order to facilitate the debt

collection practices of its members.

68. Plaintiff is a member of the MERS electronic data base and used the data base to

conceal the true ownership of mortgage obligations by circumventing the statutorily created and

lawful recording offices of the Registers of Deeds in each Wisconsin county to permit the

fraudulent assignment of mortgages to be filed in the court actions to foreclose on debt which is

not secured by a lawful assignment of mortgage from the true owner of the mortgage note (the

assignor) to a party lawfully entitled to enforce the mortgage by foreclosure (the assignor.)

69. Plaintiff, Defendant MERS and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN,

S.C. acted in concert to create false business records and to facilitate the creation of false

business records, which were transmitted by US mail and by wire to Wisconsin county deed

registries and state and federal courts in the state of Wisconsin to make it appear to homeowners

and Wisconsin courts that they were engaging in lawful debt collection practices, when, in fact,

they were operating a scheme to take title to Wisconsin homes through foreclosure and by

bankruptcy court motions to lift the automatic stay and the filing of claims therein toward the

same goal without proof of lawful ownership of the underlying debt which being collected

through foreclosure, surrender and forced sale of Wisconsin homes.

70. The Plaintiff, Defendant MERS and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER

PETERMAN, S.C. each had management and control of an essential element of the racketeering

enterprise and none could not have effectively operated the racketeering enterprise without the

participation of the other.

COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

28

COUNT I. VIOLATION OF THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PRACTICES ACT

71. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Amy Jo Brown incorporates and re-alleges

paragraphs 1-61.

72. This Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the United States District Courts over the

Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) at 12 USC sec. 2601, et seq.

73. Paragraphs 59-60 above constitute a violation of RESPA for which Amy Jo Brown is

entitled to damages and her reasonable attorney’s fees upon successful proof of the violation of

federal law.

COUNT II. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT


paragraphs 1-70 as if set forth herein in their entirety.

75. This Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin to provide relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(FDCPA) at 15 USC sec. 1692, et seq.

76. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. have engaged

in numerous counts of attempting to coerce the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff to pay a void

debt and a debt not owned by it, under threat of taking her home, in violation of the FDCPA.

77. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. have a pattern

and practice of attempting to coerce homeowners in the State of Wisconsin into surrendering

their homes for invalid claims that the debt is secured by their homes, supported by falsely

created mortgage assignments out of MERS prepared by BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and

executed by persons acting at the direction and with the consent of Plaintiff, Third-Party

Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and Defendant MERS.

78. Pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1692, et seq., Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant

BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C., through their employees, have violated the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act and are liable to the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff actual damages, statutory

damages for each proven violation of the FDCPA and reasonable attorneys’ fees for the

successful prosecution of the FDCPA Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint.

Count III. VIOLATIONS OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT

29

ORGANIZATIONS ACT


paragraphs 1-78.

80. This Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the United States District Courts over the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) at 18 USC sec. 1964.

81. Unlike the United States District Courts, the Waukesha County Circuit Court lacks

nationwide service of process to enforce violations of RICO.

82. Plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to attempt to use its false and

forged documents in furtherance of its corrupt business plan to deceive Wisconsin courts and

take Wisconsin homes for debts not owed to it or owned by it and is properly before this Court.

83. Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and its employees named

herein, are engaged in business in the State of Wisconsin and are within the jurisdiction of this

Court for service of process.

84. Defendant MERS was joined by the Plaintiff in this action and the record does not

show that it has been served with a copy of the Complaint. MERS, however, has substantial ties

to the State of Wisconsin, having allowed itself to be the mortgagee of record on thousands of

Wisconsin land titles, having formerly used Wisconsin courts under the pretext that it was the

owner of Wisconsin mortgages and having done business in Wisconsin since at least 2002,

despite the fact that it was secretly acting as a debt collector for unidentified parties and never

registered to do business in the State of Wisconsin. MERS is properly before the Court.

85. Plaintiff, Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and its employees

and MERS acted in concert to engage in mail fraud and wire fraud to take Wisconsin homes with

forged and fraudulently created documents, including that of Amy Jo Brown and other

homeowners.

86. There are more than two predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud in Amy Jo

Brown’s case alone, without producing evidence of more that 100 other cases in which the

racketeering parties (Plaintiff, Third-Party Defendant BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. and

MERS) have acted in concert to defraud homeowners, the Wisconsin Registers of Deeds and the

Wisconsin courts.

30

WHEREFORE, the Amy Jo Brown demands the following relief;

1. Judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice for lack of standing of the Plaintiff;

2. Judgment for her actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for

violations of RESPA;

3. Judgment for her actual and statutory damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and

costs for violations of FDCPA;

4. Judgment for treble damages and her actual attorney’s fees and costs for violations of

RICO;

5. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

JURY TRIAL BY A JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS IS DEMANDEDJURY FEE TENDERED ON MAY 1, 2012

Dated at Minneapolis, Minnesota this 30 day of April, 2012.th

/s/ Wendy Alison Nora_____________________________________

Wendy Alison Nora ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES

Main Office mailing address: 210 Second Street NE

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413Central Office Voice (612)333-4144Central Office FAX (612) 886-2444

[email protected] BAR # 1017043

mailto:[email protected]

31

AUTHENTICATION AND VERIFICATION

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ssCOUNTY OF WAUKESHA)

Amy Jo Brown, being first duly sworn on oath, states that she performed the originalresearch into the claims of the Plaintiffs’ standing in these proceedings and that she has read,conducted independent investigation and assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answer,affirmative defenses, counterclaims and third party complaints in this matter. She states, uponher own knowledge, that facts stated in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct, to the best ofher current personal knowledge, where stated, and according to her information and belief, whereso stated. Where answers and affirmative defenses have been interposed are based upon law andnot facts, except to the extent that she states that she knows banking law and securities law aspracticed in the United States of America, she states that the factual statements and statements oflawful practice in securities and banking law are true upon her current knowledge or, wherestated upon, information and belief, are believed by her to be true and that this pleading is madein good faith in an effort and by no means to delay these proceedings or to harass or intimidateany party hereto. Where counterclaims and third-party complaints are pleaded, the claims aremade in accordance with existing law or a good faith effort to modify existing law.

In responding to this pleading, she does not waive her right to continue to object to thesubject matter of the jurisdiction of the court to proceed on the Complaint of the putativePlaintiff(s), but where the putative Plaintiff has voluntarily subjected itself to the jurisdiction ofthe Court by filing this Complaint against her, despite lack of standing to obtain the jurisdictionto the Court for the relief it requests, asserts that the voluntary submission to this Court’sjurisdiction by the Plaintiff(s) constitutes the right to plead counterclaims against it (them) bytimely amendment of this pleading now performed in accordance with Wis.Stats. sec. 805.09(1). She reserves her right to seek to amend her counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint by leave ofCourt as well as her right to have her pleading conformed to the proofs at trial as allowed by law.

____________________________________Amy Jo Brown

Subscribed and sworn to before me this____ day of May, 2012.th

___________________________________Notary Public. My commission expires:_________________.

answer.counterclaims.thirdpartycomplaint.verified.4.30.2012

Documents

qualified written request

americas wholesale lender

amy jo brown

35t2 mortgage pass

reasonable attorneys fees

hsbc mortgage services

private recording system

waukesha county register