You are on page 1of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GERORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ARCHIBALD COPELAND, Petitioner, CASE CIVIL

NO: 1:13-CV-00787-CAP

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED VS. WILMINGTON FINANCE, a Division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20, Inclusive Respondents, _____________________________________________________________ OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK TO MOTION TO REMOVAL ______________________________________________________________ COMES NOW, Archibald Copeland, Petitioner in the above style action challenges the removal and asks the court to deny Respondent's removal pursuant to with the following: Pursuant to Fed.R.Civil P. Rule 12 (b)(6), FDCPA 15 USC 1692(a) and OCGA 7-6A and Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706. The
1

Petitioner having a Constitutional right to Redress any Grievance also known as the Right to Petition under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I.

BACKGROUND / CONCLUSION

On March 13, 2013 the Respondents AIG FSB filed a notice of filing of notice of removal, in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. {Ex.A notice of removal}. On March 22, 2013 the Petitioner filed an objection to that removal {Ex. B} being that the removal would be unconstitutional and relief would be excessive and erroneous with respect to the Petitioner under the DUE PROCESS CLAUSES 5th, 6th ,7th, 14th and 8th Amendments Due Process. While the Respondents wish to invoke arbitration pursuant to contractual agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act, this violates the Petitioners Constitutional Right To Trial. {See Butler v. Perry, 240 US 328, 36 S Ct. 288. Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust v. Hill, 281 US 673, 50 S Ct 451}. The 5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution providing that no person shall be required to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous offense unless on indictment or presentment of a grand jury except in military cases; that no person will suffer double jeopardy; that no person will be compelled to be a witness against himself; that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and that private property will not be taken for public use without just compensation.{Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall 36. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 US 60, 38 S Ct 16. Liggett Co. v. Baladridge, 278 US 105,49 S Ct 57.} The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; forbids the making or enforcement by any state of y law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; and secure all persons against any state action which results in either deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or, in denial of the equal protection of the laws. {Tracy v. Ginzberg 205 US 170, 27 S Ct.461. Wagner v. Leser, 239 US 207, 36 S Ct. 66} The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees The Right to a Public Trial: The right to a public trial ensures the individual that the proceedings are not conducted in a corrupt or unjust way. This clause ensures the delivery of a sound and fair trial through the observance of the public. Gannett Co. v.
2

DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 406 , 411-33 (1979) (Justice Blackmun concurring in part and dissenting in part); Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 564 -73 (1980) (plurality opinion of Chief Justice Burger); id. at 589-97 (Justice Brennan concurring); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 -07 (1982).

II. BACKGROUND (CONCLUSION) 1. Archibald Copeland is the rightful owner of property known as 1639 Roger Crossing Drive, Lithonia, Georgia 30094 with the legal description of: ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING IN LAND LOT 158 OF THE 16TH DISTRICT, DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, BEING LOT 141, BLOCK D OF ROGERS CROSSING SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 123, PAGE 107, DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA RECORDS, WHICH PLAT IS INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY REFERENCE. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER, (A.P.N.): 1613103032(hereinafter, the (subject Property). {See Exhibit A Certified Plat} 2. Petitioner is the Grantor on a Warranty Deed recorded on November 09, 2005, with the County Recorders Office, under Document Number 2005-0216769. {See Exhibit B Warranty Deed} 3. Petitioner is also the Trustor on a Security Deed recorded on November 09, 2006, with the County Recorders Office, under Document Number 2005-0216770. {See Exhibit C Security Deed} 4. That same Security Deed, recorded on, November 09, 2006 named WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK as Lender, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM as the nominee beneficiary, and No Entity as Trustee. 5. Respondent, named WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL
3

SAVINGS BANK, the lender and the listed payee on the Petitioners Promissory Note and Security Deed contracts. Respondents divested itself of legal title to the subject Property via its nomination of MERS as the beneficiary of record on the Security Deed securing the Subject Property to the Petitioners obligation to pay in the Promissory Note. 6. According to O.C.G.A. 14-2-1510(b) Respondents, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20, are Foreign Corporation and are aliens that are incorporated under the laws of the United States/ Delaware, Virginia, New York and Michigan. But the condition of status of all Respondents is of alien jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) (2), (a) (3); See Karazanos v. Madison Two Assocs. 147 F.3d 624, 626-27 (7th Cir. 1998). 7. Complete Diversity of Citizenship exists between Petitioner, Archibald Copeland and Respondents, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20, in accordance with 28 US.C. 1441 (b). {See Petitioners Federal rules, "Alienage jurisdiction," ch.4a,5.4, p.256} I. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Petitioner perfected Proper Service of Process on HSBC and MERS 8. The Respondents, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20" were served with the Complaint to Quiet Title on February 11, 2013. Subsequently, a Motion for Default was filed on March 12, 2013, the Respondents failed to acknowledge the Complaint and/or the Motion for Default in a timely matter in accordance with Georgia Law. 9. Respondents, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20, were served on March , 2013 with the Motion for Default , accordingly to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys. V. Nippon Tel & Tel. Corp., 478 F.3d 274, 278(5th Cir.2007). Respondents, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20, filed this Notice of Removal 37 days
4

after receiving the Motion for Default.

10. The Petitioner demands that the court compel the Respondents arbitration pursuant to contractual agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act, alleging the existence of such an arbitration agreement that would bind Petitioner and Respondents parties. See Briarwoods Farm v. Lexington Funding Group, 2010 NY Slip Op 31483(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange County, June 14, 2010 11. November 09, 2005, the Petitioner entered into a purported Mortgage loan with "WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK ". The "purchase transaction was opposed to a "Refinance" loan. The transaction was evidenced by a Promissory note (hereinafter, "note") and a Security Deed ("SD"). {See Exhibit D Note & Security Deed} 12. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC (MERS) as nominee, for WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK. There are no documents on record which evidence Respondent "MERS" having any interest whatsoever in Petitioner's Note. The bare transfer of the Security Deed without the corresponding transfer or sale of the underlying Promissory Note is insufficient for the assignee of the Security Deed to claim any interest whatsoever in the Title to the real property described in that Security Deed. 13. On or about November 17, 2005, a warranty deed was recorded in DeKalb County Recorder's Office under Book No. 18132 pg.5. Archibald Copeland is listed as the Grantor. The warranty deed granted, conveyed and transferred to the Petitioner full and clear legal, equitable and recorded title to the subject Property. To date, there has not been one CERTIFIED copy of an a legitimate assignment, transfer or sale associated with the property located at 1639 Rogers Crossing Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30058 therefore precluding Respondents no standing to said Property. Only the documented lender/holder, which is the petitioner, of the note can have conveyances to said property. {See Exhibit E Acknowledgment and acceptance}
5

14. Failure to prove service does not affect the validity of service . The court may permit proof of service to be amended. When the service of the summons is defective, a court may dismiss the suit or quash the service. See Adams v. AlliedSignal Gen. Aviation Avionics, 74 F.3d 882, 886(8th Cir. 1996). However, this is not the case in which the court should do so.{See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Responses," ch.3-G, 3, p.205} In this case, the service of the summons is not defective, the Respondents have refused the summons and Complaint{ See Exhibit F ..Returned to sender} Summons and Complaint were sent to last known address and Principal address, also sent to Registered Agent, as reflected by the summons and Acknowledgement served on respondents, attached to this response. 9-10-94 Service A person subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state under Code Section 9-10-91, or his executor or administrator, may be served with a summons outside the state in the same manner as service is made within the state by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession, or country in which service is made or by any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister, or the equivalent in such jurisdiction. (Ga. L. 1966, p. 343, 3.) 9-11-4 Process Summons Issuance upon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons and deliver it for service. Upon request of the plaintiff separate or additional summons shall issue against any defendants. (By whom served) Process shall be served by the sheriff of the county where the action is brought or where the defendant is found, or by his deputy, or by the marshal or sheriff of the court, or by his deputy, or by any citizen of the United States specially appointed by the court for that purpose or by someone who is not a party and is not younger than 18 years of age and has been appointed as a permanent process server by the court in which the action is brought. Where the service of process is made outside of the United States, after an order of publication, it may be served either by any citizen of the United States or by any resident of the country, territory, colony, or province who is specially appointed by
6

the court for that purpose. When service is to be made within this state, the person making such service shall make the service within five (5) days from the time of receiving the summons and complaint; but failure to make service within the fiveday period will not invalidate a later service. Summons (Personal service) the summons and complaint shall be served together. The plaintiff shall furnish the clerk of the court with such copies as are necessary. Service shall be made by delivering a copy of the summons attached to a copy of the complaint as follows: 1. If the action is against a corporation incorporated or domesticated under the laws of this state or a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in this state, to the president or other officer of the corporation, secretary, cashier, managing agent, or other agent thereof, provided that when for any reason service cannot be had in such manner, the Secretary of State shall be an agent of such corporation upon whom any process, notice, or demand may be served. Service on the Secretary of State of any such process, notice, or demand shall be made by delivering to and leaving with him or with any other person or persons designated by the Secretary of State to receive such service a copy of such process, notice, or demand, along with a copy of the affidavit to be submitted to the court pursuant to this Code section. The plaintiff or his attorney shall certify in writing to the Secretary of State that he has forwarded by registered mail such process, service, or demand to the last registered office or agent listed on the records of the Secretary of State, that service cannot be effected at such office, and that it therefore appears that the corporation has failed either to maintain a registered office or appoint a registered agent in this state. Further, if it shall appear from such certification that there is a last known address of a known officer of the corporation outside the state, the plaintiff shall, in addition to and after such service upon the Secretary of State, mail or cause to be mailed to the known officer at the address by registered or certified mail a copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint. Any such service by certification to the Secretary of State shall be answerable not more than 30 days from the date the Secretary of State receives such certification;
7

2. If the action is against a foreign corporation or a nonresident individual, partnership, joint-stock company, or association, doing business and having a managing or other agent, cashier, or secretary within this state, to such agent, cashier, or secretary or to an agent designated for service of process; 3. If against a minor, to the minor, personally, and also to his father or his mother or his guardian or his duly appointed guardian ad litem (unless the minor is married, in which case service shall not be made on the minors father or his mother or his guardian); 4. If against a person residing within this state who has been judicially declared to be of unsound mind or incapable of conducting his own affairs and for whom a guardian has been appointed, to the person and also to his guardian and, if there is no guardian appointed, then to his duly appointed guardian ad litem; 5. If against a county, municipality, city, or town, to the chairman of the board of commissioners, president of the council of trustees, mayor or city manager of the city or to an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process. If against any other public body or organization subject to an action, to the chief executive officer or clerk thereof; 6.If the principal sum involved is less than $200.00 and if reasonable efforts have been made to obtain personal service by attempting to find some person residing at the most notorious place of abode of the defendant, then by securely attaching the service copy of the complaint in a conspicuously marked and waterproof packet to the upper part of the door of the abode and on the same day mailing by certified or registered mail an additional copy to the defendant at his last known address, if any, and making an entry of this action on the return of service; or 7. In all other cases to the defendant personally, or by leaving copies thereof at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the summons
8

and complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process. 15. Homeowner, Archibald Copeland is attempting to narrow down issues regarding her Mortgage, by filing a Complaint to Quiet Title that is supported by his right to file a Complaint to Quiet title is a lawsuit filed to establish ownership of real property (land and buildings affixed to land). The petitioners in a quiet title action seeks a court order that prevents the Respondents, WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK from making any subsequent claim to the property. Quiet title actions are necessary because real estate may change hands often, and it is not always easy to determine who has title to the property. A quiet title suit is also called a suit to remove a cloud. A cloud is any claim or potential claim to ownership of the property. The cloud can be a claim of full ownership of the property or a claim of partial ownership, such as a lien in an amount that does not exceed the value of the property. A title to real property is clouded if the plaintiff, as the buyer or recipient of real estate, might have to defend her full ownership of the property in court against some party in the future. A landowner may bring a quiet title action regardless of whether the respondent is asserting a present right to gain possession of the premises OR NOT. Action under the Quiet Title Act of 1966 is a proceeding taken directly against property to establish title to the land. Recognizing the sometimes impossible task of determining the identity or residence of all possible adverse claimants due to title irregularities spanning many years, the legislature made the proceeding in rem against the entire world. OCGA 23-3-61. As an in rem proceeding, the case is instituted by "filing a petition in the superior court of the county in which the land is situated." The legislature enacted the 1966 Act to create an efficient and effective way to adjudicate disputed title claims. Heath v. Stinson, 238 Ga. 364, 365 (233 SE2d 178) (1977). The purpose of the act is to: a.) create a procedure for removing any cloud upon the title to land, . . . and for readily and conclusively establishing that certain named persons are the owners of
9

all the interests in land defined by a decree entered in such proceeding, so that there shall be no occasion for land in this state to be unmarketable because of any uncertainty as to the owner of every interest therein. b.) OCGA 23-3-60. Any person who claims an interest in land may bring a proceeding to establish title to the land, determine all adverse claims, or to remove clouds on his title. OCGA 23-3-61. The act shall be liberally construed. c.) The legislature intended the act to serve as an additional remedy to other legal and equitable claims. Heath v. Stinson, 238 Ga. at 365. Under the conventional quiet title action, for example, the general rule was that a person had to prove actual possession of the land to bring a petition to cancel an instrument that cast a cloud on the title. See Hale v. Turner, 183 Ga. 593, 595 (189 SE 10) (1936); OCGA 23-3-40 to 23-3-42. In contrast, the 1966 Act eliminates the requirement of possession. See OCGA 23-3-61. Similarly, we reject the companies' argument that the Quiet Title Act requires the same proof of title as an ejectment action. See OCGA 44-11-1. Their proposal would defeat the legislature's purpose in enacting the 1966 Act and providing for its liberal construction. II. RESPONDENTS CLAIMS OF RES JUDICATA A. MOTION TO COMPEL 16. There was no barring by doctrine for the State of Georgia, this release shall be governed by and enforced under the laws of Delaware, as applied to contracts made and to be wholly performed within that State. The facts of the Original Complaint , which Respondents AIG were allege to allow wholesale mortgage brokers to charge African American borrowers higher direct broker fees for residential real estate-related loans than white borrowers, which is Discrimination, is moot. {See Exhibit F Release and Consent order) The parties were of The United States vs. AIG Federal Savings and Wilmington Finance, INC., Under Georgia law, [a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until judgment is reversed or set aside. The doctrine of res judicata in Georgia is set forth at OCGA 9-12-40 and 912-42.
10

In order for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three elements must be present: " '(1) identity of parties (, including their privies); (2) identity of the cause of action; and (3) adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.' Barnes v. City of Atlanta, 186 Ga. App. 187, 188 (1) (366 SE2d 822) (1988) (quoting Firestone Tire &c. Co. v. Pinyan, 155 Ga. App. 343, 345 (2) (270 SE2d 883) (1980). {See Exhibit G Release and Consent order) 17. Although Respondents AIG asserts no claims relating to the subject loan or property, still they are not excused from refuting the arguments made by the Petitioner. Respondents have failed to prove or provide any documentation accordingly WITH RESPECT TO LAW. For this reason the Motion should not be granted. III. JURISDUCTION __ 18. This Court has Jurisdiction in this case as it involves: a) A party's consent to the jurisdiction of a court allows the court jurisdiction over that party. This consent can happen through contract or agreement. National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964). Even if a party consents to jurisdiction through contract or agreement, such consent may not be valid. The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled that consent clauses will be presumed valid only in the absence of fraud, overreaching, grave inconvenience, or violation of the forums public policy. See Shell v. R.W. Sturge, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1227 (6th Cir. 1995 ). Unequal bargaining power between parties is a factor that may render the consent ineffective. 1) Under FRCP Rule 12, a Respondent normally has 20 days after being served with the summons and complaint to file an answer or to object to jurisdiction. Respondents never included objection to personal jurisdiction in their original answer. b) The United State Supreme Court has held that a petitioner, by virtue of filing the complaint, consents to personal jurisdiction over any counterclaims filed against it. See Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 (1938). c) FRCP Rule 4(k) authorizes federal courts, in particular situations, to exercise personal jurisdiction over certain persons within 100 miles of the courthouse, regardless of whether those 100 miles cross state lines. 19. This Court has jurisdiction over Respondent because the acts complained of constituted "Lender" doing business for profit within DeKalb County.
11

20. Petitioner asserts that Respondents have taken actions and engaged in conduct and asserted claims which themselves are adverse to the Petitioner claims of possession and title of the subject Property, and which have caused records to be recorded in the DeKalb County Recorders which are adverse to the petitioners claims of possession and title to the subject Property. 21. Respondents refusal to provide the proper verification has been denied, replace with threats and/or harassments, embarrassment, and created an uncertain harm and violated her right to a lawful discovery. Proper and lawful recording of the sales, transfers, assignments, regarding the property would aid this lawful right to discovery. 22. The Court does have jurisdiction over the Petitioner, Archibald Copeland who resides at 1639 Rogers Crossing Dr. Lithonia, Georgia 30058. Petitioner is located within the territory to exercise authority. It would be proper for the court to consider the merits of this case accordingly. 23. Petitioner signed a Security Deed with which was recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court of DeKalb County. To date, there has not been one CERTIFIED with the assignment, transfer or sale associated with the property located at therefore precluding Respondents any standing to said Property. Only the documented lender/holder, which is the petitioner, of the note can have conveyances to said property. 24. Under Title 9, Chapter 11, Section 13(9-11-12) (a) A defendant shall serve his/her answer within 30 days after the service of the summons and complaint upon him/her, unless otherwise provided by statue. A Certificate of mailing service provides evidence that mail has been presented to the Postal Service for mailing. And Certified mail provides delivery information regarding your item. This information can be accessed online using a unique tracking number. KELLOGG COMPANY et al. v. PINKSTON et al. (253 ga. App. 190) (558 SE2d 423)(2002) 25. The Respondents, WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; GMAC MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
12

SYSTEM; HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES; and Does 1-20" were served with the Complaint to Quiet Title on February 11,2013. Subsequently, a Motion for Default was filed on March 12, 2013, the Respondents failed to acknowledge the Complaint and/or the Motion for Default in a timely matter in accordance with Georgia Law. Petitioner served Respondent and Registered Agent as in accordance with the law, February 11, 2013, with the original complaint, the Petitioner requested that the Honorable Court enter into a Final Default Judgment Quieting the Title. Under Rule 34 (a) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. Proof of Service was perfected according to O.C.G.A. 44-14-231(a):
a) When the petition provided for in Code Section 44-14-231 is made, the judge,

the magistrate, or the clerk shall grant and issue a summons as prescribed in this Code section to the sheriff, his deputy or marshal, or any lawful constable of the county where the debtor resides or the secured property is located. Service shall be made by the officer by delivering a copy of the summons attached to a copy of the petition to the defendant personally; or, if the officer is unable to serve the defendant personally, service may be had by delivering the summons and the petition to any person sui juris residing on the premises; or, if no such person is found residing on the premises after reasonable effort, service may be had by tacking a copy of the summons and the petition on the door of the premises and, on the same day of the tacking, by enclosing, directing, stamping, and mailing by first-class mail a copy of the summons and the petition to the defendant at his last known address, if any, and making an entry of this action on the petition filed in the case .

b) While it may be of no conveyances who actually sends the notice, and that task may be properly delegated to a servicing agent, the amendments of sections, O.C.G.A. 44-14-162.2 in 2008 make clear that the identity of the secured creditor conducting the sale is a material element of that notice, to date the Petitioner is still receiving correspondence about who her servicing agent or who is the original title holder. See Northern District of Georgia in Stubbs v. Bank of America, No: 1:11-cv1367-At, 2012 WL 516972, at*1, 5(N.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2012). c)Not one of the Respondents has provided any Official verification of their standing as agents, attorneys, debt collector, lender, note holder, services, investors, trustee, attorney-in-fact or otherwise in this matter which would provide petitioner
13

with evidence of the respondents lawful standing in this matter and determine who is the rightful lender/mortgage note holder. Respondents refusal to provide the proper verification has been denied, replace with threats and/or harassments, embarrassment, and created an uncertain harm and violated her right to a lawful discovery. Proper and lawful recording of the sales, transfers, assignments, regarding the property would aid this lawful right to discovery. 26. The Respondents should show proper evidence of the chain of title on this property and show respect for Georgia statute O.C.G.A. 44-14-162.2 with certified, documents that have been notarized in Georgia by a legal notary, designed to protect the rights of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. 27. The Petitioner never knowingly or willingly waivered His rights to Respondents. There are no signatures from anyone who can be called on in a court of law. Respondents are believed to be fraudulent third. These Respondents knowingly, willingly, wantonly, fraudulently and illegally continued to pursue the Sale Under Power in direct violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 809(b)[15 USC 1692g]: (a) statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. 28. As for lacking Personal Jurisdiction, even where allowed by the law governing the court, must not violate the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. "Procedural due process" requires that the defendant receive adequate notice of the pending action and an opportunity to be heard. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).
14

29. Petitioner DEMANDS that the court "dismiss" a debt owed by Petitioner to Respondents and See Complaint at upon information and belief, the debt referred to by the Petitioner and thus the amount put in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00. The Original principal amount is $158,800.00. 30. Petitioners Complaint specially invokes the Truth and Lending Act (TILA), 15 USC 1601, et seq. See Complaint title paragraph (referencing Truth and Lending Laws, and 14 (referring to truth in lender laws). 31. On the first page of Petitioners' pleading entitled Notice of Lis Pendens, to which the complaint is appended, petitioners allege a "deprivation of rights under truth in lending laws along with Regulations"Z" violations. This allegation apparently refers to TILA and TILA's primary Authorized regulation, which is entitled"Regulation Z" See generally, 12 C.F.R. 226.1, et seq. {See Exhibit G Lis Pendens} See Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008), Respondent violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Truth in Lending Act 15 USC 1601 and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC 1692; "intentionally created fraud in the factum" and withheld from petitioners...."Vital information concerning said debt and the entire matrix involved in making the loan". No lawful consideration tendered by original Lender and/or Subsequent Mortgage and/or Servicing Company to support the alleged debt. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note" and demand under TILA full disclosure of any such consideration.{See Anheuser-Busch Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558(1980)}. 32. All conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred as required by {O.C.G.A. 13-3-4:13-3-4. Effect of conditions precedent or subsequent upon rights of parties under contracts. {See Fed.r.Civ.P.9(c); OConnors Federal rules, Conditions Precedent,ch.2-b, n11,p.80.} BILL AT LAW: (COMPLAINT) Against Truth in Lending Violations
15

With Jury Demanded Pursuant to FRCVP Rule 39 and Rule 17(b) governing Capacity By Judicial Notice and all oaths of Office Now Comes the Petitioner under grace whereby domiciled the compliant of the defendant and state the following being civically dead and no longer infliction: All Respondents are entities, associations and/or sub-corporations of the several unified under The United States, Inc., and doing business in commerce within the State of Georgia, which gives the court personal jurisdiction over the Respondents and Parties. 33. The Contract, i.e. promise to pay promissory note issued by the Petitioner did accompany a deed of trust among the parties, which gives the court jurisdiction over the subject matter. {See HP 128, LD 145 An act to protect homeowners subject to foreclosure by requiring the foreclosure entity to provide the court with Original Documents}. 34. The Petitioner herein complains in the complaint that all the Respondents alleging to hold the Note failed to disclose all. Namely the demand deposit made as a direct result of the Petitioners execution of the wet ink. 35. It is well settled that there was at no time constitutional dollars issued in party with any of the transactions connected to the alleged loans. {See HJR192} based upon information and belief, the Defendant altered the contract(note)voiding the enforcement of any remedy it any may have had prior to such alteration whereby Petitioner demands to inspect the Original Note as well as the check issued to the closing attorney. Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a Banks business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid
16

paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics Indeed, lending credits is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of banks, for a while the latter creates a liability in favor of the banks, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Bank and banking 5th ed. Sec 65; Magee, banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172, 194 NW 427(1923). I demand under TILA full disclosure and proof to contrary. 36. Respondents had a direct duty to preserve the note in its original condition. National Banks and/or subsidiary Mortgage companies cannot retain the note, Among the assets of the state bank were two notes, secured by mortgage, which could not be transferred to the new bank as assets under the National banking Laws. National Bank Act, Sect.28&56 national Bank Of Commerce v. Atkinson, 8 Kan. App. 30, 54 P. 8(1898). 37. Respondents failed to issue (loan) constitutional dollars in the transaction, issuing credit which was unconstitutional at best. 38. Respondents failed to disclose a material fact concerning the demanded deposit of the not pledge which caused the Petitioners to be the true lender in the transaction. 39. Federal Law requires promulgations to be enacted under Truth in Lending Laws. The Respondents failed to such information under disclosure and is secret continues to collect on contracts which must be altered from its original conditions. When a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it ratified, so as to make it the bases of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppels applies. F & PR v. Richmond, 133 SE 898; 151 Va 195. 40. Moreover, the Respondents have received credits without disclosure and notice from the note, and Respondents have refused to share those credits with Petitioners
17

under any circumstances whatsoever. In accordance with Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, sec.706, Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow DUE PROCESS LAW. Violation of Due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019(1938); Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willow brook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962) To acknowledge and so rule that this court and no other court and no judge in Georgia has jurisdiction over or can issue a court order against an American Citizen if that court and/or judge: (a) do not provide due process of law; (b) do not provide equal protection under the law; (c) do not respect and uphold the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens, and in the instant action, American Citizen, pursuant to the Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Georgia; (d) act with sufficient force so as to deny the powers of the National and state Constitution. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of prediction as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sect 594. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civil P. Rule 12 (b)(6), A Complaint should not be dismissed for "failure to state a claim " unless it appears beyond a doubt that the Petitioners o set of acts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Rule 12(b) (6) does not countenance dismissals based on a Judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. Petitioner is entitled the relief demanded and the relief or any part of the relief consists in restraining the continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually; violations of the Plaintiffs rights, respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual; the Respondents moved to dispose of the Plaintiffs' property with intent to defraud the Plaintiffs. OCGA 44-14-162.2 Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by the secured creditor no later than 30 days before the date of the proposed foreclosure. Such notice shall be in writing, shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or entity who shall have full authority to
18

negotiate, amend, and modify all terms of the mortgage with the debtor, and shall be sent by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, to the property address or to such other address as the debtor may designate by written notice to the secured creditor. The notice required by this Code section shall be deemed given on the official postmark day or day on which it is received for delivery by a commercial delivery firm. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a secured creditor to negotiate, amend, or modify the terms of a mortgage instrument. FDCPA 15 USC 1692 (a) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Respondents intentionally created fraud in the factum" and withheld from petitioner "Vital information concerning said debt and the entire matrix involved in making the loan" as required by Law. OCGA 7-6A-2, Creditor" means a person who both regularly extends consumer Credit that is subject to a finance charge or is payable by written agreement in more than four installments and is a person to whom the debt arising from the home loan transaction is initially payable. Creditor shall also mean any person brokering a home loan, which shall include any person who directly or indirectly for compensation solicits, processes, places, or negotiates home loans for others or offers to solicit, process, place, or negotiate home loans for others or who closes home loans which may be in the person's own name with funds provided by others and which loans are thereafter assigned to the person providing the funding of such loans, provided that creditor shall not include a person who is an attorney providing legal services in association with the closing of a home loan. A creditor shall not include: (A) a servicer; (B) an assignee; (C) a purchaser.

19

JURY TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioner own behalf, request this court to enter cost and any other relief the court or jury may deem just and proper on behalf of the Plaintiff in this action as follows: (a) Fraud upon the court. (b)That Respondents Dismissal be dismissed with prejudice (c)For a judgment forever enjoining said Respondents, and each of them, from claiming any estate, right, title or interest in the property; (d)That all cost for this action be charged against Respondents (e)That all Respondents prayers for relief be denied (f) For such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. (g)Issue Default Judgment (h) A Trial by jury. (i) For costs of suit herein incurred;

Respectfully submitted, By: _________________________


20

Archibald Copeland, Pro per 1639 Roger Crossing Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30083

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Archibald Copeland certifies that this pleading was served by US Mail of with adequate postage there upon the Respondents, by mailing a true copy to the Attorney of record at the address below as follows: WILMINGTON FINANCE, a division of AIG FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK Registered Agent: THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 ORANGE STREET WILMINGTON, DE 19801 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMSMERS Registered Agent: The Corporation Trust Company Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC (DELAWARE) Registered Agent: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY (GEORGIA) 40 Technology Parkway South, Ste 300 Norcross, Georgia 30092 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Alexandria J. Reyes Georgia Bar No. 428936
21

600 Peachtree Street, N.E., STE 5200 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 (404)885-3000 REGISTERED AGENT: CT CORPORATION 1201 PEACHTREE STREET, NE ATLANTA, GA 30361 This _____ Day of April 2013 ______________________ Archibald Copeland, Pro per 1639 Roger Crossing Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30083

22

VERIFICATION I, Archibald Copeland, Petitioner, in the above-entitled action. I have read the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

___________________________ Archibald Copeland, Pro per 1639 Roger Crossing Drive Lithonia, Georgia 30083

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by Archibald Copeland, Pro per on _________, ____, 20___.

_________________________ Notary Public in and for the State of Georgia

23