filed in clerk's office - get out of debt · case 2:09-cv-00082-rws document 1 filed 05/1...

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS D o cument 1 Fi l ed 05/1 2/2009 P age 1 of 8

FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY I 2 Z009FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TIMOTHY M. THOMAS (now )Timothy M. Thomas steward©) )

)Plaintiff, )

)Vo ) CIVIL ACTION

) NO • 0"-~r-1>~5JIMVIY MUNOZ, SHEILA )ZUCKERMAN, AND ADRIENNE )ELY, )

)Defendants. ) -CAN

)

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Jimmy Munoz, and Adrienne Ely

(collectively, the "Defendants" ), by counsel and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. gg 1331,

1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446, hereby remove this case to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division. Defendants state

the following grounds in support of removal:

1. On M arch 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court

of Banks County, Georgia that was captioned Timoth M. Thomas now Timoth

M. Thomas steward© v. Coun i d e Home Loans VIP Jimm Munoz Sheila

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS Document 1 Filed 05/12/2009 of 8

Zuckerman Adrian El, Case No. 09CV196. True and correct copies of the

Complaint and other documents filed in that case are attached as Exhibit A.

2. 28 U .S.C. g 1446(b) provides that the "notice of removal.. . shall be

filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or

otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon

which such action or proceedings is based." A party is not a "party officially," and

is not required to "take action," including but not limited to filing a notice of

0, l l l l h p l ' h f f h *ff* lM P 9 * f p . M~ h B

Inc. v. Michetti Pi e Strin in Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-49 (1999). Countywide,

Mr. Munoz and Ms. Ely were not properly served with process in this case. As

evidenced by the Certificate of Service, attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs

merely sent a copy of thecomplaintto Countrywide, Mr. Munoz, and Ms. Ely via

hlf'M l . • ~7 1 . BM , B . 706CV7 729TWT, 2006 WL 3191103,

at *1 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2006) (explaining that sending a copy of complaint to a

corporation or an individual defendant via certified mail is an improper service of

process attempt under federal and Georgia law). Removal is therefore timely.

3. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

Gainesville Division, embraces Banks County. Removal to this Court is therefore

proper under 28 U.S.C. g 1441(a).

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS Document 1 Filed 05/1 2/2009 of 8

4. I t a ppears that Defendant Sheila Zuckerman, who is a former

employee of Countrywide, has not been properly served with process in this case.

See Certificate of Service, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint (certifying that

Plaintiff mailed a copy of the complaint to Ms. Zuckerman at a Countrywide office

in California). Accordingly, Ms. Zuckerman is not required to consent to the

removal of this action. Jones v. Houston Inde . Sch. Dist., 979 F.2d 1004, 1007

(5th Cir. 1992) (holding that a defendant need not join in a notice of removal

without receipt of formal service); Harris v. Pacificare Life 4 Health Ins. Co., 514

F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1286 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (same); see also Mu h Bros. Inc. v.

Michetti Pi e Strin in Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-49 (1999) (holding "that a named

defendant's time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons

and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, 'through service or otherwise'"); B~iaile

v. Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., 536 F.3d 1202, 1208-09 (11th Cir. 2008) (adopting

last-served defendant rule which recognizes that a defendant is not required to take

any action, "whether seeking removal or otherwise," until he or she is properly

served).

5. P r omptly after filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants will provide

written nonce thereof to Plaintiff and also will file a copy of the Notice of Removal

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS Document 1 Filed 05/1 2/2009 of 8

with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Banks County, Georgia in accordance with

28 U.S.C. g 1446(d).

FEDERAL- UESTION URISDICTION

6. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. g 1331

because Plaintiff's Complaint plainly implicates questions of federal law.

7. Pla i n ti ff 's Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C.A. g 1692 et seq., see Compl. at 5, and the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C.A. g 2601 et seq., id.

at 7, Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Countrywide violated "Article 1 Section

10 of the United States Constitution." Id. at p. 2.

8. Thu s, a federal question appears "on the face of the plaintiff s properly

pleaded complaint" and jurisdiction is proper. Smith v. GTE Co ., 236 F.3d

1292, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001).


DIVERSITY URISDICTION

9. Thi s Court also has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. g 1332(a) because this is a suit between citizens of

different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of

interest and costs.

10. C omplete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff and all

Defendants in accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 1441(b).

11 • Plaintiff appears to reside in Maysville, Georgia. See Copy of

Envelope sent to Countrywide, attached as Exhibit B. Therefore, Plaintiff appears

to be a citizen of the State of Georgia for purposes of determining diversity of

citizenship.

12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. g 1332(c), Countrywide is a citizen of the states

of California and New York. Countrywide is, and was at the time of the

commencement of this action, a corporation with its principal place of business in

the State of California. Countrywide was incorporated in the State of New York.

13. Defendants JimmyMunoz and Adrienne Ely are residents of

California. Ms. Zuckerman's last known address is in Palmdale, California.

14. P l aintiff's Complaint demands damages in the amount of

$8,000,000.000. Id. at pp. 11-12.


15. T h erefore, this case meets the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C.

g 1332(a).'

SUPPLEMENTAL URISDICTION

16. T h is Court has supplemental and pendant jurisdiction over all state

law claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. gg 1367 and

1441.

WHEREFORE, Countrywide prays that this Court assume jurisdiction over

this action from the Superior Court of Banks County, Georgia, and that this action

shall proceed as removed under this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

$$ 1331, 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446.

' Defendants deny that Plaintiff's claims have any merit or that Defendants oweany amount of damages to Plaintiff. The test for determining whether diversityjurisdiction exists is the amount Plaintiff has placed in controversy, without regardto whether claims have such merit.


Respectfully submitted this '4 day of May, 2009.

La rence J. Bracken IIGeorgia Bar No. [email protected] M. WheelerGeorgia Bar No. [email protected]. Thomas HowellGeorgia Bar No. [email protected]

HUNTON 4 WILLIAMS LLPBank of America Plaza600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4100Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216Telephone: (404) 888-4000Facsimile: (404) 888-4190

Counsel for DefendantsCountrywide Home Loans, Inc.,Jimmy Munoz, and Adrienne Fly


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL

on the Plaintiff herein, who is proceeding pro se, by causing a copy of the same to

be deposited in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid and properly

addressed as follows:

Mr. Timothy M. Thomas134 Remedy Drive PVTP.O. Box 362Maysville, GA 30SS8

(s T'This 'l 4 day of May, 2009.

J. o mas Howell

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS D o cument 1-2 Fi l ed 05/1 2/2009 P age 1 of 15

EXHIBIT A


ol%o 4 L1S. Cade

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OIi' RANKS COUNTY

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS )VIP — OFHCE OP THE PRHSIDBÃf JIMIZiP )

MUNOZ )CUSTOMER CARE SPHCM.IST SHEER )

ZUCKHGQbf )OHiICE OP THE PRESIDENT ADRIAN SLY ) CASE No.

)) IN) ADMIRALTY/

V. } MARlTMB)

YMOYHY M. THOMAS© ))

DR~ANTS )Panbaltow v, Doan's hdminlabnt¹s Q US S4, 1 Lil S7.3 UaM S4)

lba S lo Srntor'e Clans USC2M3$lg)

medi %rodTmothy M. Thomas(now Timothy M. Thomas. steward©),

) ) ) ) ) ) ~ p

Third Party PlaintifKs r l"."

(1 USCS II 12) ~ c/r

Comman4nri Asliag) ) m Stltc@ogrt~

Goimtrywide Home Loins PO

VIP Jimmy Munoz ) )SheBa ZuchemmnAcbmin Ely

T.bird Party Defendants) ) ) )

REGJSTI'RED MQL No. I qw lNKR ~ b albnvv, Does'a hdeiaharst¹s Q Ue 54, 1 L Ed s7,3 Ml 54$ arns alsndrnek Ssprorns Qwrt oaso of 17N, wbiehanerdnedy de5ned Snrennn¹n¹ "governn¹nts so oorporsdons". brsnnoeh ss aaay~rrennnent is sn ¹tlthdal p¹soa (1 USCS g I 3tbrn 11 snd 13 4,14$ en sbatraodon, aod a ereanno of the rnbd only; e Nnrarnnrantoan hnarteee on+ with alber ceryorare, ail capilal1etr¹s rrinnn, ertitlebd yew'

1of14


AIRE)AVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERhKXT,

OPPORTUlQTY TO CURE, AND COUI'AXRCLAIM

This compulsory Counterclaim arises out of Claixn of Ccnmtrjrwide Horne

LoaxLs where act of lending CREDIT isunlawfully comxnitted in violation ofArticle 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which in part states: "No State

(or Statefaational chartered Bank] shall ... emit Bills of Credit; ..." State ex

rel. Birnamwood Oil Co.. Shou es 243 % a 306, 10 NW 2d 292, 295

Comes now Timothy M. Thomas. steward, Third Party Plaint', by special

visitation and not appearing generaHy, before this honorable court seehng a

remedy in Admiralty as is provided by 'The Saving to the Suitors Clause" at

USC 28 -1333g).

JURISDICTlON

Third Party "Plaintifrmay elect to bring suit either as admiralty action in

federal court or as state common-law action in state court ..." T.N.T. Marine

Sexvice Inc. v.%'eaver Shi ds 4 Docks Inc (1983 CA 5 Tex) 702

P2nd 585, 36 FR Serv 2d 293, cert den (US) 78 P IM 2d 141, 104 S Ct 151".

Ehnphasis added.

In 1938 (Septmnber 16) in Schlaefer v. Schlaefer 71 App DC 350, 112 P2d

177, the United States Government {US Govt) supplanted the Bquitjj Rules of

Pm~ce with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and in Erie v. om lans

304 US 64, 58 S Ct 817, 82 L Hd 1188 overruled Swift v. o n 4 1 US 1, 16

2ofi4


Pet 1, 10 L M 865, which held that there was a body of federal general

common law to be applied, As a result, the corparate United States

Ooveannent (19 CJS $ 884), and its &anchised states and local governments,

now adjudicates cases in Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction. I believe that the

U.S. Govt. merged law and equity in federal courts providing for only one

rezoning action, which embraces all actions formerly S'IYLBD suits m equity

and actions at law. This admiralty/marithne jurisdiction in a State Republic

~ p r oceeds in a common-law jurisdiction as provided for in T.N.T. Marine

ervice . v . ttVea Sh i ds 8 h Do Inc su pra.

I am standing in my unhmlted commercial liabfhty as a Secured Party

Creditor . and request that the Third Party Defendants do the same, and waive

all of their imnmmities in accordance with principa1 of parity (all are equal

under the Law). I respectfullyrequest the indulgence of %is court as I am not

schooled. in law. This is provided by the precedent set by Haines v. Kerner at

404 US 519.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

"State court may not deprive party with Maritime claim of

fedcmHy created rights by applying limiting principles of state law

to claim." Case v. Palmer Johns c . (1 981, HD Vfis) 506 P

Supp 1361.

"Admiralty and marithne jurisdiction is con&txed on courts of

United States by Art. 3 $ 2 of Constitution and cannot be enlarged

3 of14


or restricted by [STATE] legislation; ... 'Ihe $$. Rumbell (1893)

148US1,37LEd345, 13 S Ct498."

En that Admiralty/iV4mtime Jurisdiction embrace all actions (i.e. Civil andGerminal), I am reserving all our U.S. and Georgia Republic Rights, speci5caHy

Rights set forth in Paragraph XI of Georgia's Bill of Rights.

"XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and

compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shaH remain

inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the

verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is Red

and where a jury is not demanded. m writmg by either party. In

criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial

by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law

and the facts." Emphasis added.

AS TO COUNT 1: I, Timothy M. Thomas steward©, the Third Party Plaintiff,

Secured Party Creditor, a Natural Man, created by God (Genesis 2:7), Demand

that the Countrywide Horne Loans, 3immy Mano', Sheila Zuckerrnan and

Adrian Hly produce their Proof of Claim I demand to inspect the "Original

Mortgage Note", with wet ink signatures, along with the Title Page that shows

whether or not the mortgage has been satis6ed. I believe that the

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS has sold the odginal note and failed to give

credit to my account per Fed. Res. Bank of Chicago's 1992 publication Modern

Money Mechanics page 6, 'which in part states:

4of 14


"What they [bauks] do when they make loans is to accept

promissory [e.g. mortgage] notes m exchange for credits to

borrowers' transaction accounts [of Timothy M. Thomas]."

Emphasis added.

This note was created on my credit and signature (12 USC 1819(L)(1), and was

not sn asset of Conntrywide Home Loans until I gave it to the Countrywide,

Title 12 USCS g 1813(L)(1) is FDIC regulations referencing the term "deposit".

Xn part, the terxn "deposit" means "the unpaid balance of money oz its

equtvalent received or held by a bark in the usual course of business and for

which it has given or is obligated to give credit, ... When Countrywide Home

Loans accepted my mortgage "Note in exchange fox credits to [my] borrower's

transaction account", it became obhgated to me, the Third Party Plaintiff.

Section (L)(1) goes on to state, "... That, without Eimithg the generality of the

term " money or its equivalent [e.g. a Mortgage Note]", any such account or

[mortgage note] instnunent must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the

erpivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drys or

%or a proroissory [mortgage] note."

I believe that Countrywide Home Loans having soM my mortgage note has not

beau damaged and has no legal right to a clahn. As you well 1mow, Proof of

Claim must be established by law (PDCPA IS USC g 1692). Only the Original

Mortgage Note will be accepted as proof of claim. Jf the Third Party

Defendants have the original mortgage note, let tbem bring it forth and affix

their Proof of Claim for my mspection. I believe the Third. Party Defendants


DO NOT have lawful Proof of Claim, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is Dishonor in commerce, Thek, Fraud, CcsMpiracy, and Racketeering.

AS TO COUNT 2: The Agreement" (UCC 1-201(3)) upon which

Countrywide is relying does not meet "Course of Performance" required by

VCC 1-303. Zxe "Agreement" did not provide the Plaintiff with knowledge of

the nature of the transaction. It concealed the fact that Centrpvide exchanged

our Note [which eras my Asset] for a credit to the Qrrowers transaction

Account i.e. the account of Timothy M. Thomas. In light of this conceabxant, I

5led a UCC Financing Statement, claiming my original Note $152348874 of

$147.,613.00 and a Tenant-Life Estate of $77,000.00. E Third Party Plainti T'

believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of claim to rebut

the LawM nature of my Counteretaim as set forth in Count 2. Kahthtt 1t.

A8 TO COUNT 3: l, Timothy M. Thomas, tendered a lawM offer to

Countrywide Home I oans to settle their ["alleged"j daim. Countrymde

Home Loans has chosen to dishonor my lawM oQer and has refused to zero the

account, This is a Dishonor in Conmmrce, Fraud, Theft of Public Punds,

Racketeering, and. Conspiracy, and I believe there is no evidence to the

cantrery. I also believe that once tender of payment of an obligation to pay an

instnnnent is made to a person entitled. to coforce the instrument and the tender

is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender. UCC 3

603.

I believe that the Third Paxty Defendants cannot provide proof of Claim to

substantiate that my tender of ofFer and their real to accept the o8er does not

constitute a discharge of the alleged debt.

60f14


AS TO COUNT 4: I Third Party Plaint''believe that COUN'.lXYtiVIDH HAS

NOT satisfactorily complied with RBSPA 12 USC $ 2605; (1) Duty of loan

servicer to respond to borrower inquiries; to 12 USCS $ 2605; (2) relating to

Action with respect to inquiry nor to (3) Protection of credit rating. I have sent

documentation dated June 20, 2008, August 14, 2008, November [18, 19, 24

and 25] 2008 and January 6, 2009, and COVNTRYlVIDB has failed to address

the issues in the documentation, whichacquiesced is an estoppel. Window v.Burne 47 NM 29, 132 P2d 1048, 1050. 1 have extaateted adndnietrative

procedures required to invoke the judicial power of this Court. I believe that

the Third Party Defendants cannot provide proof of claim to rebut Count 4.

AS TO COUNT 5: 1 Third Party Plamtiff believe that constitutional Law

prohibits the emission of bills of credit (U.S. Constitution Article I Section 10).

I believe that the Third Party Defendants can pxoduce no proof of claim that

they loaned anything hut credit end that their "alleged loan" waa not an ultra

vires act outside Countywide's govexmnent granted corporate charter.

'The doctrine of ultra vixes, by which a contract made by a

corporation beyond the scope of its corparate powers is unlawful

and void and will not suppoxt an action, rests, as this court has

often recognized and ai%xmed, upon three distinct grounds: The

obligation of any one contracting with a corporation to take notice

of the legal limits of its powers; and interest of the stockholders not

fo be subject to risks which they have never undertaken; and,

above all, the interest of the public that t he o r a t ion 1 not

transcend the owers conferred u i t law . " QUOTING De

7af 14


La Ver e Co.v . Sa s Inst i tuti 175 US 40, 58o, 2Q

S Ct 20, 2S, 44 L Ed 65. Pirst National Bank v. Monroe 69 SB

Rep 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126 (1911).

ULTRA VIRES CONTRACTS (and ) ARH %HOLLY VOID

"A contract of a corporation, which is ULTRA VIRES, in the

proper sense — that is to say, outside the object of its creation as

defined in the law of its organization, and therefore beyond the

powers conferroi upon it by the Legislature — is not voidable only,

but wholly void, and of no less effect."

"But, when the contract is beyond the powers conferred upon it by

existing laws, neither the corporation, nor the other party to the

contract, CAN BE ESTOPPED, by assenting to it, or by acting

upon it, to show that it was prohibited by those laws."

'%%en. the contract if once declared ultra vixes, the Get that it is

executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it

the basis of suit or action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel

apply." QUOTING — F 4 R Co. v. Richmond Frederick;sbur 4

Potomac d R i ond 8 'c Petersb R a i l road Cojmection 145

Va 266, 133 SE 188. Emphasis added.

I believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot substantiate proof of claim that

Countrpvide Home Loan's Agreement/Contract is not wholly void.

8 of14


"The provisions referred to Co not give power to a national bask

fo guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for

their benefit, nor is such power incidental to the transaction of

ban3mg. A bank can lend its money, but not its credit."

QUOTING — Pirst National Bank v. Monroe 135 Ga 614, 69 SB

1123, 32 LRA (NS) SSO. Emphasis added.

I, the ThM Party Plaintiff, believe that the Third Party Defendants cannot

provide probative evidence to establish proof of Claim that Countrywide Home

Loans in servicing a loan can guarantee payment. I also believe that the

Uniform Commercial Code, which is the governing law for

contracts/agreements, in Section 1-3lo SubordhLated Obligations, in part,

states:

"Subordination does not create a security interest as againsteitherthe common debtor or a subordinated ueditor."

AS TO COVNT 6: I Third Party Plaint%believe that I have the Right to

xequire that Countryvride admit into evidence document 83 registration

statement that Countrywide 61ed when it sold my Note. No. 1S2348874. I

beHeve that Countrpmde is subject to PRCP Rule 36. I also believe that I have

a Right to a compulsory Counterclai1n and under FRCP Rule 13a (to which

Couatrpmde is subject) a "... claim fto] relief exceeding in amount ... that

sought ... Pry Countryvvide]. I believe that the 3ldzd Party Defendants cannot

provide proof of claim to rebut Count 6.

9 of14


OPPORTUNITY TO CURE,

The Third party Defendants have 21 calendar days to cure their Dishonor by the

Following:

1. Dismiss any and all claims against the Third Party Plaintiff, with

prejudice, Notice Banks County that the Mortgage Note has been

satisfied, remove security deed &om County records, clear my credit with

all credit agencies, and provide me with the payment of $147,613.00

Countrywide received when it sold my Note and did not give me the

credit it exchanged for my Note, OR,

2. Pay all damages as mdicated by the counterclaim coxitained hereh with

Real Money, Surrender any and all Public Hazard Bonds, other Bonds,

Insuauice Policies, 801K, CAFR Funds, etc. as needoI to satisfy

counterclaim herein, ...OR,

3. Prove your claims against me by providing me with lawfully documentedevidence that is cartMed true and corxect, by (Of5cers of the Court), in

their unlimited commercial liabQity, while Under Oath, On and Por the

OKcial Record, under penalties of the law including Perjury. This

evidence must prove your case by a preponderance or the greater weight

of evidence and must answer each and every averment, Point by Point

individually. If any and all points are not answered Rlly and

acconxpamed by lawfully documented evince, as provided hereiri, that

will be De&rult on the part of the Third Party Defendants (estoppel by

10 of 14


Acquiesence Sherlock v. Greaves 106 Mont 206, 76 P 2d 87, 91). Non

Response according to the conditions herein will be default. Incomplete

answers and/or hck of documented evidence as outlined herein will be

Default. If the Third Party Defendants fail to respond as outlined herein,

within 21 calendar days, tMs vill be Dealt. Silence is consent. Non

Res onse will be a Self Executin Confession of Judgment by all ThirdParty Defendants, and will be complete agpmnent with all the

statements, terms, and conditions of this coatract. This is a contract m

Admiralty. Any of5ccr of the court that mtederes or involves

him/herself with this claim will be added to this claim and become a

Thhd Party Defendant. All Third Party Defendants are individually and

severally liable for this claim

COUXTERCUMlN

THE FOLLOWING D&4IAGHS HAVE BHEN ASSESSED AGAINST YOU

SHOULD YOU PAIL TO MBHT THE RBQUIIKlUKNTS AS PROVIDED IN

THB OPPORTUNITY TO.CURB CONTAINED HEI&IÃ:

1. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted $1,000,000.00

(One Million US Dollars) per count Per Thirit Party Defendant.

2. Pailure to respond as outlined herein $1,000,000.00 (One Mllion US

Dollars) per count Pcr Thrd Party Defendant.

11 of14


3. Default by non response or incomplete response $1,000,000.00 (One

Million Us DoHars) per count Per Third Party Defendant.

4. Dishonor in Carmnerce - $1,000,000.00 (One Mlhon US Dollars) per

count per Third Party Defendant.

5. Praud - $1,000,000.00 (One MHion US DoHars) per count herein.

6. Racketeering - $1,000,000.00 (One Million U3 Dollars) per count per

Third Party Defendant.

7. Theft of Public Funds - $1,000,000.00 (One Million US Dollars) per

count per Third Party Defendant

8. Failure to pay Counterclaim in full within (30) Thirty Calendar Days ofDefault as contained herein. $1,000,000.00 (On.e MiHion US Dollars),

per month, and interest of 1.5'Yo per month compounded daily for the Grst

(30) Thirty Days Rom the date of default. After (30) Thirty Days

beghtning an the {31") ThhtJJ-Pixst Day after Default, the penalties for

Failure to pay will increase by $100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand US

Dollars Per Day) for each calendar day that this counterclaim is not paid

in M, plus interest. AAer (90) Ninety calendar days of the date of

Default, the penalties fox Pailure to Pay Counterclaim wiH increase by

$1,000,000.00 (One Million VS Dollars) per calendar day, that the

Counterclaim is not paid in Rll, plus in~ a s indicated herein.

12 of 14


9. All Claims are stated in US DoHars whichmeans that aUS Dol!sr willbe

defined, for the puqxees of this counterclaim as, a One Ounce Silver

coin of .999 pure silver, or the equivalent par value as established by law

or the exchange rate I set by the US ~ w h ichever is the higher

amours, for a certified One Ounce Silver Coin (US Silver Dollar) at the

time of the 6rst day of default as outlined herein, if the claim is to be paid

in Pederal Reserve Notes, Federal Reserve notes wiH eely be accepted at

Par Value as indicated above.

10. Total Damages will be assessed as the total amount of the damages as

outlined herein times three {3) for a total of all damages as outlined in

items 1-5 added to three (3) times the damages, for Punitive, or other

additional damages.

(-so8 m~~geTimothy M. Thomas steward,

SecmA Party Creditor

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS D o cument 1-2 Fi l ed 05/l 2/2009 P age 15 of 15

Certmficate of Service

Seemities Ihchange CcrumissionAtlanta District CH5ce3475 Lenax Road, NB, Suite 1000Atluuh, Georgia 30326RHQIS'BSKD MAIL No. RH 441 273 177 US

Cramtqnside Horne LoansMtul Stop, SV-314BP. 0, Box 5170Simi Valley, California 93062CHRTIFED MAX No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9198

VIP ZhnmyMunomCountrywide Horne LoansSupervfscr, Hxeeutive ResearchVlp -Of6ce of the President ?aDocutnent Control Dept.P. 0. Box 10266 CFl

Ven Nuys, California 91410 UCHRTIP&D MAIL No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9204 I7

Sheila Zurkeamrn rnCountrywide Borne LoansCustrsner Gue Speciehrt400 Countrywide Way, MS SV-314ami Ualley, Cali&rIna 93065CHRTPED MAlL No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9211

Adrian KyGf6ee of the PrescientCNnrtp+Plde Hmrje LoansP.0. Bcx 10266Van Ãnys, CalNnma 91410CBRIIPIHD MAIL No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9228

Saxiks County144 Yauah-Konlr Road, Suite 1Bomer, Georgia 30547CHRTlPIBD MAlL No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9235

Chdc of the Superior Court Tim HaperBenlcr CountyI44 jonah-Zomer Road, Suite 1Boaer, Georgia 30547CEiQ'IFIHD MAIL No. 7006 2150 0002 3311 9A2

14of 14


EXHIBIT B

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS o cument 1-3 Fi led 05/1 2/2009 P a 2 o f 2

Timothy M. Thomas134 Remedy Drive PVTP. O. Box 362Maysville, Georgia 3055S 7OOb Z>Za aOne a~u, s27~

eooo93065

P~gRI %CHFI'r;.cQERTQ

CA

QUA

RSheila ZuekernnuCountrywide Home LosnsCustomer Cato Speejalist400 gountrywide%ay, MS SV-314

C3 Sirni Valley, California 93065

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS D o cument 1-4 Fi l ed 0/12/ P e 1 of 2JS44 (Rev. 1/Ss NDGA) CIVIL COVER SHEET j 0-1 5The JS66 civa cover chem aad the brformsthrn coatalaed herein senhor replace nor sapplemeat thc aaaa and serrate of pleadlnas or other pspcn as reanrred by Imr, exprovided by local rahs of ceart This form Is reanlrcd fsr tbe ase ef tbe Clerk of Coart for the parpesc of aiastlaa thc eMI docket record. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED)

I. (a) PLAINTII IF(S) DEFENDANT(S)

TIMOTHY IIFL THOMAS COUNIRYWIDE HOME LOANSVIP JIMMY MUNOZSHEILA ZUCKERMANADRIAN ELY

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTEDPLAINTIFF Banks DEFENDANT

(KXCKPr IN U JL PLAINTIFF CASKS) ON U JL PLAINTIFF CASKS ONLY)

NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USK TBK LOCATION OP TBK TRACT OFLAND INVOLVED

(C) AT T O R N E Y S ( FIRM NAME,~ TELKPIIONE NUMRKR,AND ATTOR N EY S Ui KNowN)E.MAIL ADDRESS) Lawrence J. Bracken 11, Esq. (Ibfacken(lhhunton,corn)

Timothy M. Thomas Charlotte M. Wheeler, Esq. (cwheelerlh)mton.corn)134 Remedy Drive PVT J. Tholnas Howell, Esq (thowellohunton.corn)P. O. Box 362 HUNTON 4 WILLIAMS LLPMaysville, GA 30558 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4100Telephone Unknown Atlanta, GA 30308-2216

Telephone: 404-8884000

IL BASIS OF JURISDICTION IH. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(PLACKAN "X INONKDOXONLY) (PLACK AN "X" IN ONE DOX POR PLAINTIFF AND ONK SOX POR DKFKNDAIrn

(FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

DEF PLF DKF

Q I UX.GOVERNMENT QJ 3 FEDERAL uuaSTION I Q I clTIzKN QFTBMKTATR Q 6 Q 6 INCORPORATED OR PRINCIPAL(US. GOVERNMENT NOT A PARTY) PLACE OF SUSINESS IN TBIS STATE

Q 1 UJI.GOVERNMENT Qg6 DIVERSITY 1 Qg1 CITIZEN OPAIrOTNKRSTATK Q 5 Q 5 INCORPORATED AND PIUNCIPALDEPENDANT UNDICATK CITIZENSBIP OF PARTIES PLACE OF EUSINESS IN ANOTBER

IN ITEM Bl) STATE3 ~ 3 CIT I ZEN OR SUBJECT OF A

PORKIGN COUNTRY Q 6 Q 6 FOREIGN NATION

IV. O R I G I N ( PLACK AN "x "m oaa DoxoNLY)

0 I ORIGINAL QIf 1 REMOVED saosl Q3 aKMANDED FROM 0 6 RKINSTA'ran OR LJ 5 ANOTBERDISTRICr LJ 6 MULTIDISTRICT LJ 7 FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGETRANSFERRED PROM ~ APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE

PROCEEDING STATE COURT APPELLATE COURT REO PENED (Sprvar Inerica LlllGATION JUDGMENT

Ve C A U S E O F A C T I O N (Cr r a TBE US. CIVIL arATUTK UNDER wBICB YOU ARE FILING AND wRITE A DRIKF STATEMENT OF CAUSE - DO NOT CITEJURISDICnoNAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

28 U.S.C. Section 1332

(IF COMPLEX, CHF~ REASON BELOW)

Q I. Unusually hrge number of parties Q 6 Problems locating or pfeservmg evidence

Q 2. Unusually large number of claims or defenses Q 7. Peudmg parallel investigations or actions by govenuueut.

Q 3. Factual issues are exceptionally complex Q 8. Multiple use of experts

Q 4 Greater than normal volume of evidence, Q 9. Need for discovery outside United States bouudsnes.

Q 5. Extended discovery penod is needed. Q 10. Existence of highly technical issues aud proof.

CONTINUED ON REVERSEIFONOFFICF.IJSEitggLY

ngtTilP'f d fLsdfseafx

Cc 6

Case 2:09-cv-00082-RWS Document 1-4 Filed 05/1 2/2009 Page 2 of 2VI. NAT UR E O F S U I T (FIACK AN "X" IN ONE SOXONLY)

CONTRACr - "0" DISCOVERY TRACK' CIVIL RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DIS VERY TRACK SOCIAL SECURI - o0" MONTHS DISCOVERY150 aacovKRY op ovaapAYMENT 4 441 VOTING TRACK

ENFOECEMEIW OF JUDGMENT 442 EMPLOYMENT 8 061 HIA (tssstt)152 RECOVERY OF DKFAIJLTKD STUDENT 443 HOU$INGI ACCOMMODATION8 062 SLACK LUNG (523)

LOANS(astL Veusess) 444 WKLFARK 863 DIWC (40$($))~ 1 53 aacovaav GF ovaaFAYMKNT ot 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS 061 DIWW (40$(8))

4i5 AMERICANS tutb DISASH JTIKS - ~ x cat 064 SSID TITI K ZVI446 AMERICANS «Itb DISAEILITIKS - Otbcr 065 asl (4M($))

CONTRA - "4" MONIHS DISCO RY TRACKC3 ns INSUEANca IMMIG T I ON - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY 111ACK FED TAX S TS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY~ 120 M ARJNE 462 NATIJRALIZATION AFPLICAT1ON ~ CK~ 1300 HLLKEACI • 63 HAESAS COItUS- Aaea Dctetoee • 10 TAXES (UJL Ptolaaa or Dcfcadat)

(40 NKGOTIARIH INSTR(i MENT • 65 OTHER ISLlHGRATION ACTIONS 07 I IRS - THIRD PARTY 26 U8C 741SC3 1st MKDlchaahcrC3 1608TocKIHHJMES'surrs PRISON R PETITIONS - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY OTHER STA S - "4" Mo DISC OVERYC3 PM mltsacoNTRAcr TRACK CK

15$ CONTEACT PHQDUCI LIADILITV ~ S10 M OTIONS 10 VACATE SENTENCE 41$ STATE EKAPFORTIONMKNTC3 106 FEANcHMK M 5 3 0 HAKKAS cOEFUS 430 DANKS AND EANKING

C3 s3s HAEEAS coaFUS DEATH FENALTY e 450 COMMKRCEIICC RATKSIKTC.REAL PROPERTY- "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY C3 540 MANDAMUs*OTHKR 450 DEPORTATIONTRACK S50 CIVIL RIGIIT8 - Ftlsl tco ec 470 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CONRUFI'

C3 210 LAND CONDEMNATION S5S PRISON CONDITION(8) - FSca Pro oe ORGANIZAlloNSC3 220 toaacLosURE 4$0 CON81JMER CEKDII

405 CASLKISJ TEL( ITE TV230 RENT LEASE 4 KIECI'MKNT PRISONER PEITI1ONS - e4" MONTHS D Y El$10 8ELECTIVK 8KRVICE240 To ala To LAND TRACK

Cg 24$ TORT PSGDUCT IlAEHJTV $75 CU8TOMKR CHALLENGE 12 USC 3410550 CIVIL EIGHTS- Flue by Coaaect

200 ALL OTHER REAL I'ROFERTV 8 051 AGRICULTURAL ACIS55$ FRL$ON CONDITION(8) - Filed by Ceasel 052 ECONOMIC STAEKIZATION ACT

003 KNVIRONMSNTAI MATIKESTORTS - PERSONAL INJURY - "4" MONTHS FORFEITURE/PENALTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY 054 ENERGY ALMCATION ACIDISCOVERY TRACK TRACK 8 MS FREEDOM OF INFQRMATION ACT

310 AIRPLANE 610 AGRICIJLTIJEK 500AFFEALOFFKK DaraabUNATION UNDaa315 AIRPLANE PHOHUCf LIASILITV 620 FOOD 4 DRUG EQUAL ACCESS TO JIJ8TICE

H 320 ASSAULT, IJEEL 4 SLANDER 625 DRIJG RELATED salzUEK oF FRQPERTY 550 CON8TITUTIONALITY OF sTATK EIATUTK8330 FEDERAL EMFLOVKas' LIAMLIIV 21 USC001 $50 OTHKR8TATUTORY ACTIONS

C3 340 MARINE 630 LJ()UOE LAWSC2 341 MARINE PRODUcf LIAEHJTY 640 ILIL 4 TRUCK OTHER STA S - "8" MONTHS DISCO RYC3 ssa MOTORY83Haa 6M AIRLINE EKGL TRACKC2 35$ MQTQR YFJHcLE PSQDUcf I.IASILITY 6M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY I HEALTH

350 OTHER PKESONAL INJURY~ 410 AN T ITRUST

El 650 QTHKR 050 8KCURITIKS I COMMODITIES / EXCHANGE362 FKN8ONAI. INJURY - MEDICAL

MALPEACfICK LABOR - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK OTHER STATUTES — "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY8 365 PERSONAL INHJRY - PRODUCT LIANLITY 110 FAIR LASOR STANDARDS ACI TRACK360 ASEK$7128 taasONAL INJURY PRODUCT 720 LADOEIMGMT. RELATIONSLIAEILIIY ~ AR EI IRATION (Coaarx I Vacate I octtx I Me58y)

130 LADON/MGMT REPORTING 4 DISCMSURKACI

TORTS - PERSONAL FROPERTY - "4" MONTHS (Note: Mark aadertytua Nature ar Suit as wca)DISCOVE Y TRACK 8 140 RAILWAY LABOR ACI

7%I OTHER LASOR LITIGATION370 OTHER FRAUD 751 KMPI RET. INC. SECURITY ACf

K3 371 TRUTH HI LENDING300 OTHER PKRSINIAL PEOPKRTY DAMAGE PROPERTY RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY305 PROPERTY DAMAGE PHODUCI LIAKILITY

* PLEASE NOTE DISCOVERYBANKRUFICY — "0" ~ DISCO VERY TRACK FOR EACH CASE TYPE.1RACK 422 AFFKAL 20 IJSC 15$ PROPERTY RIGHTs - "8" MONTHs DIS(X)VERY SEE LOCAL RULE 26.3

TRACK423 wITHDRAwAI. 2$ U8c Isl $30 PATENT

VIL REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:Q CHECK IF CLASS ACTION UNDER F JLCiv.P. 23 DEMAND S L000~000 00

JURY DEMAND QZ YESP NO (CHECK YES ONLY IF DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT)

Vm. RELATED/REFILED CASE(S) IF ANYJUDGE DOCKET NO.

CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELATED IF THE PENDING CASE INVOLVES: (caaca AFFHDFEJATE aox)1. PROPEHIY INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED FENDING SUIT.

2. SAME ISSUE OF FACT OR ARISES OUT OF THE SAME EVENT OR TRANSACTION INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NIJMBERED PENDING SUIT.3. VALIDIIY OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK INCLUDED U% AN EARLIER NIJMBERED PENDING SUlT.

4. APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME BANKRUPTCY CASE AND ANY CASE RELATED THERETO WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE SAMEBANKRUPTCY JUDGE,

CJ s. REPETrnvE cases FILED BY PRO sE LI TIGANTS.6. COMPANION OR RELA'TED CASE TO CASE(S) BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED gNCLUDE ABBREVIATED STYLE OF OTHER CASE(SJ)t

Marlybeth Thomas and Timothy Mark Thomas v. Countrywide et al.— Superior Court of Bank County -Case No. 09CV195B

1. EITHER SAME OR ALL OF THE PARTIES AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE WERE PREVIOUSLY 13(VOLVED IN CASE N(L • WHICH WASDISMISSEIL TMI case~ I S ~ IS N OT (check aac kaa) SUBSTANITALLY THE SAME CASL

SIGN RE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

filed in clerk's office - get out of debt · case 2:09-cv-00082-rws document 1 filed 05/1...

Documents