IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

MERRICK BANK CORP. CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff
FILE NO.: 10-M-844169
vs.

JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
Defendant

DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED:
ANSWERS, RESPONSES, DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT;
DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM;
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW, James B. Stegeman, named Defendant in the above listed

Civil Action and files his Defendant’s Verified Answers, Responses, Defenses to

Complaint; Defendant’s Counterclaim; and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

With Prejudice.

I. ANSWERS, RESPONSES AND DEFENSES

1. Defendant denies the debt in it’s entirety.

2. Plaintiff’s attached document does not show Defendant’s name, address, or

proposed account number anywhere on the attached documents.

3. Had Plaintiff followed the rules of FDCPA, Defendant would have received in

the mail a letter allowing thirty (30) days to dispute the debt and ask for
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 1
 validation of the debt.

4. Defendant was not allowed such leisure of opportunity to write the Plaintiff’s

attorneys and request validation.

5. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant is associated in any way with the claim

or the attached evidence1.

6. Plaintiff has not provided adequate evidence2 to show that there exists a valid

debt between Mr. Stegeman and Plaintiff.

7. The only way to show satisfactory evidence of such debt, Defendant in the

request for validation letter, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1692; Title 18

U.S.C. §802 et. seq.; and 15 U.S.C. 1601 et., seq. would have made requests

not limited to the following information along with an Affidavit signed in

Accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. §1746 within thirty (30) days:

(1) A copy of any signed agreement alleged debot/claimant has

made with debt collector, or other verifiable proof that
debtor/claimant has a contractual obligation to pay debt collector.
(2) A copy of the Original promissory note/agreement, the
original for my own, and a judge’s inspection.
(3) Account and general ledger showing the full accounting of
the alleged obligation, such as: FR2046 balance sheet (OMB #s
2046, 2049, 2099), 1099 OID report, S-3/A registration statement,

1
“must be proven to a ‘preponderance of the evidence’
2
Plaintiff attaches a document on which MERRICK BANK is handwritten in on
one end, and has three (3) columns, in which the document is set up in landscape
fashion, with ¶ 1 starting on the far right hand side of the document, ¶ 22 in the
middle column, and ¶16 in the left hand column. Plaintiff has never seen this
document, or one like it at anytime during his lifetime.
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 2
 424-B5 prospectus, RC-S & RC-B call schedules; as well as a
complete payment history documented from original creditor. 3
(4) Verified specifically, name(s) of person(s) assigned as
Trustee to handle Corporation’s affairs and to be held accountable
for the actions of the Corporation. (CFO & subordinates
responsible for debt collections)
(5) Verification that as a third party debt collector, you have
not purchased evidence of the alleged debt and are proceeding with
collection activity in the name of the original maker of the not.4

8. Plaintiff does not show the dates in which there was supposed to be a

relationship, contractual or otherwise between the plaintiff and Defendant.

9. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can granted

10. Defendant objects to sufficiency of process.

11. Defendant objects to personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction

12. Defendant objects to venue; and claims the court lacks jurisdiction.

Rule 35. Objections to process, jurisdiction or venue.

Objections to sufficiency of process, service of process, personal
jurisdiction or venue must be raised at the time of filing the
answer or are waived. Where a valid objection to personal
jurisdiction or venue was not raised when the answer was filed
and thus is waived, the court may nevertheless in the interest of
justice transfer the case to another Georgia court having
jurisdiction if the present court is an inconvenient forum and the
transfer would not unduly prejudice the opposing party.
Objections to subject matter jurisdiction are never waived.
3
This requirement established by Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber,
and Kenneth Wilber USCA-02-C-007, (7th Cir. 2004).
4
The responses to a letter such as the one that Defendant would have sent had the
Plaintiff followed the debt collection laws, and sent him a letter before filing suit,
the responses by the collecting attorney, would have had to be a Verified Response
to be valid.
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 3
 No special formula shall be required to raise an issue of
jurisdiction or venue. In addition to answers explicitly raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction or venue, any motion to transfer or
answer stating that the action was filed in the wrong court or
asking that the case be transferred to another court, or words to
that effect, shall be sufficient to raise an objection to jurisdiction
or venue.

13. Improper Venue

Rule 36. Transfer/change of venue.

In all cases where it is determined by the court that the court in
which a case is pending lacks jurisdiction, or venue, or both, that
court shall transfer the case in accordance with Article VI, Sec.
1, Paragraph 8, of the 1983 Constitution of the State of Georgia,
or where this rule is not applicable, dismiss said case without
prejudice.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

14. Defendant Moves for an immediate Order dismissing the case(s) with

prejudice.

15. Pursuant to URMC Rule 38. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, would postpone

a hearing on the merits of the case, because Defendant’s claims show the case

has no merit. It is the duty of the trial court to Rule on Motion to Dismiss at the

earliest convenience.

Rule 38. Motions and request for relief under the Civil
Practice Act.
No party or attorney shall be required to respond to a motion, …
prior to a scheduled hearing unless otherwise directed by the
court. … Where a party contends that the grant or denial of the
motion may require postponement of the hearing on the merits,
the motion should so state.

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 4

13. URMC Rule 40. Shows that Magistrate Courts do not favor pre-trial

discovery, and Plaintiff has produced nothing to show that Defendant ever had a

contract with Plaintiff. Without the required proof 5, there is no case.

Rule 40. Pre-trial discovery.

Use of O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-26 through 9-11-37 for purposes of
pre-trial discovery in the magistrate court is not favored…

14. Although Defendant realizes that Magistrate Court does not operate under the

same Rules and statutes as the Civil Practice Act; Defendant understands that when

a frivolous complaint has been filed, with the intent to intimidate, harass, and for

which there has been no sufficient evidence provided, and for which there is in fact

no claim, the Defendant may Move to have the case against him dismissed.

15. Furthermore, Defendant is 100% federally disabled and receives only

Supplemental Security Income to live on. “Exhibit 1”

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

16. Plaintiff, without actual knowledge or proof of a debt, filed a frivolous action

against defendant.

17. Plaintiff, has subjected Defendant to a malicious, bad faith complaint seeking

unjust enrichment.

18. The acts of the Plaintiff have caused Defendant harm, and unjustified costs.

19. The Law Firm of Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. have a notorious
5
“must be proven to a ‘preponderance of the evidence’
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 5
reputation for attempting to collect on debts that don’t exist 6:

“The Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs has been

4investigating …the debt collection firm of Frederick J. Hanna &
Associates … unscrupulous tactics …abusive tendencies and
deceit to collect money that is owed …intimidate consumers
who don't have anything owing.”
“Consumer Affairs is investigating the firm's consumer disputes,
collection practices, and has inquired as to the procedures in
place for the validation of outstanding debts. Frederick J. Hanna
& Associates has refused to co-operate”
“According to Hanna, he would be willing to allow the consumer
office to review only some specific files…”
“While the FTC said timely payment of debts is important, it said
the law needs changes to better ensure that collectors are going
after the right people for the right amounts of money. The law
also needs to mandate that collectors give consumers better
information about their legal rights.”

90. The Law Firm of Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. has a notorious

reputation for abusive collection practices7

“…some of the tactics firms use are already illegal, Cloud said.
“A lot of them are buying up ‘zombie debt.’ It’s old debt you
cannot collect anymore by normal means,” Cloud said. “It’s
essentially debt renewal. To get you back on the hook they try to
intimidate and try to berate you.”
“The firm has an “F” rating with the BBB because of its
complaint history, including failing to respond to consumer
6
See Legal Daily News Feature Debt Collection Firm's Collection Tactics Under
Scrutiny by Christine Cristiano published March 19, 2009, attached as “Exhibit
A”
7
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article: SPOTLIGHT WATCHING OUT
FOR YOUR SAFETY AND POCKETBOOK Complaints pile up against debt
collectors By ALISON YOUNG March 15, 2009, attached “Exhibit B”

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 6

 concerns, according to BBB records

21. Defendant has suffered by virtue of Plaintiff’s actions, and inactions.

22. Plaintiff has subjected Defendant to: embarrassment, humiliation, irritability,

anxiety, nervousness, fear and worry;

23. Defendant has violated Georgia Fair Business Practices Act

24. Defendant has violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

25. Both Acts allow One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each occurrence to be

granted the party who the violations harmed.

26. Both Acts also allow for court costs and attorney’s fees; although Defendant is

proceeding pro se, he should be entitled to the costs of legal assistance obtained

before filing his answer, and costs for the time it took him to appear at the hearing.

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM

27. Defendant reiterates and incorporates sections 1 thru 26 above, and any

unnumbered paragraphs, or general paragraphs, as fully as if completely restated

herein.

28. Defendant is a disabled adult, thereby protected under O.C.G.A. 30-5-1

through 30-5-10 Georgia’s Disabled and Elder Persons Protection Act.

29. Exploitation, is considered a form of abuse8.

8
O.C.G.A. §30-5-3 (1) 'Abuse' means the willful infliction of …mental anguish, …
or the willful deprivation of essential services to a disabled adult or elder person.
O.C.G.A. §30-5-3(8) 'Essential services' means…legal services necessary to
safeguard the disabled adult’s …rights and resources and to maintain the physical
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 7
30. Plaintiffs brought a frivolous, vexatious action against the defendant, thereby

exploited and caused Defendant harm, embarrassment, humiliation, unjustified

time and expense.

COUNT ONE VIOATIONS OF FDCPA §1692

31. Defendant reiterates and incorporates sections 1 thru 30 above, as fully as if

completely restated herein.

32. The Summons and Complaint is the first communication Plaintiff’s

representative has had with the Defendant.

33. Plaintiff failed, within five days of the first communication to comply with

Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.9

34. One of the most important rights conferred by the FDCPA is the debtor's

right to "validation" or "verification" of a debt under § 1692g. "This provision will

eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or

and mental well-being of such person.

O.C.G.A. §30-5-3(9) 'Exploitation' means the illegal or improper use of a disabled
adult or elder person or that person’s resources for another’s profit or advantage.
9
If the initial communication to the debtor is a summons and complaint, it must
comply with 1692g. Thomas v. Simpson & Cybak, 354 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2004);
Sprouse v. City Credits Co., 126 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1089 n. 8 (S.D.Ohio 2000)
(finding that a summons and complaint served in a state court action constitute
"initial communications" under the FDCPA); Romea v. Heiberger & Associates,
163 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1998) (statutory five-day notice is “communication”);
Mendus v. Morgan & Assoc., P.C., 994 P.2d 83 (Okla. App. 1999)(summons is
“communication”); contra, Vega v. McKay, 351 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003);
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 8
attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." 10

Under 15 U.S.C. §1692g:

(a) Within five days after the initial communication .., a debt
collector shall, …send the consumer a written notice containing -
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor …owed;
(3) a statement that unless …, within thirty days …, disputes the
validity of the debt, …the debt will be assumed to be valid …;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies… in writing within
the thirty-day period that the debt, …is disputed, the debt
collector will obtain verification … will be mailed to the
consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within
the thirty-day period, …will provide the consumer with the name
and address of the original creditor….

35. Plaintiff violated §1692 by failing to provide Defendant with an address in

the initial communication.11

36. It has been held that A single violation is sufficient to support judgment for

the consumer.12

10
Sen.R. No. 95-382, 95th Cong., 1st. Sess., p. 4, reprinted in 1977 USCCAN
1695, 1698.
11
A debt collector violates §1692g by failing to provide its address so that the
debtor can exercise his right to validate the debt. Failure to include the collector's
address violates §1692g even if the complete text of the §1692g notice is provided
and nothing requires action in less than 30 days. Cortez v. Trans Union Corp., 94
C 7705, 1997 WL 7568, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 1997);
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. v. Scrimpsher, 17 B.R. 999, 1014 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.
1982) ("The absence of a return address on a debt collector's notices effectively
nullifies the consumer's rights set out in 15 U.S.C 1692g, which arise from a
consumer's written notification to the debt collector"; emphasis in original)
Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F.Supp. 502, 505 (D.Conn. 1990); Supan v. Medical
12

Bureau of Economics, Inc., 785 F.Supp. 304, 305 (D.Conn. 1991).

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 9
37. A debt collector who has violated any provision of the FDCPA is liable for

actual damages, 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1).

38. Actual damages include emotional distress. The debt collector may be held

“liable for any mental and emotional stress, embarrassment, and humiliation.

Kleezy v. First Federal Credit Control, Inc., 21 Ohio App.3d 56, 486 N.E.2d, 204,

207 (1984); Venes v. Professional Service Bureau, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 671 (Minn.

Ct. App. 1984); Baez-Martinez v. PMS, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3314 (D.P.R.

1997); McGrady v. Nissan Motor Accep. Corp., 40 F.Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D.Ala.

1998); Carrigan v. Central Adjustment Bureau, 502 F.Supp. 468 (N.D. Ga.

1980); Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle Mtge, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 1156 (M.D.Ala. 1999)

39. State law requirements regarding the proof of intentional or negligent

infliction of emotional distress are not applicable to actual damages under the

FDCPA. Smith v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, 124 B.R. 182, 185 (D.Del.

1991); Howze v. Romano, 92-644, 1994 WL 827162, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

20547 (D.Del. Dec. 9, 1994); Crossley v. Lieberman, 90 B.R. 682 (E.D.Pa. 1988),

aff'd, 868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989); Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery, 851

F.Supp. 61, 68-9 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Donahue v. NFS, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 188, 193-4

(W.D.N.Y. 1991).

40. The consumer is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and

attorney’s fees (15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)).

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 10

38. The use of prior illegal acts has been held admissible to show knowledge

and intent.13

39. Defendant demands a judgment against the Plaintiff for Five thousand

Dollars ($5000.00) each time Defendant has to appear in Court for this matter

A. Actual Damages

40. Defendant reiterates and incorporates sections 1 thru 39 above, all

unnumbered paragraphs and general paragraphs, as fully as if completely restated

herein.

41. “A debt collector who has violated any provision of the FDCPA is liable for

actual damages”. (15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1)).14

42. Because Defendant is disabled, and is a member of a protected class of

13
Joseph Taylor Coal Co. v. Dawes, 122 Ill.App. 389 (1905), aff'd. 220 Ill. 147, 77
N.E. 131 (1906); _Edgar v. Fred Jones Lincoln-Mercury, 524 F.2d 162, 167
(10th Cir. 1975; Eaves v. Penn, 587 F.2d 453, 463-4 (10th Cir. 1978)(in civil
action for breach of fiduciary duty, evidence of breaches of fiduciary other than
one for which recovery was sought properly admitted to show intent); Welch v.
Barnett, 34 Okla. 166 125 P. 472 (1912) (that five Indians willed property to the
same unrelated white men in different transactions is convincing proof that undue
influence and fraud were practiced on all); Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J.
57, 494 A.2d 804, 814 (1985).
14
Actual damages include emotional distress. The debt collector may be held
"liable for any mental and emotional stress, embarrassment, and humiliation
caused" by improper debt collection activities. Kleczy v. First Federal Credit
Control, Inc., 21 Ohio App.3d 56, 486 N.E.2d 204, 207 (1984); Venes v.
Professional Service Bureau, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Baez-
Martinez v. PMS, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3314 (D.P.R. 1997); McGrady v. Nissan
Motor Accep. Corp., 40 F.Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D.Ala. 1998); Carrigan v. Central
Adjustment Bureau, 502 F.Supp. 468 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle
Mtge, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 1156 (M.D.Ala. 1999).
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 11
persons, and lacks the ability to recover from damages done to him by the Plaintiff

and their counsel, Defendant further demands judgment in his favor in the amount

of the purported credit limit of the account, plus interest and fees.

43. Three times the alleged claim amount of Twelve Thousand One Hundred

One Dollar and seventy-three cents ($12,101.73) x 3 = Thirty Six Thousand, Three

Hundred Five Dollars and nineteen cents ($36,305.19).

44. “State law requirements regarding the proof of intentional or negligent

infliction of emotional distress are not applicable to actual damages under the

FDCPA”.15

B. Statutory Damages

45. Defendant reiterates and incorporates sections 1 thru 44 above, any

unnumbered paragraphs, and general paragraphs, as fully as if completely restated

herein.

46. “In addition to actual damages, the consumer may be awarded ‘such

additional damages as the court may allow’” (15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)); and the

“consumer need not show any actual damages in order to recover statutory

15
Smith v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, 124 B.R. 182, 185 (D.Del. 1991);
Howze v. Romano, 92-644, 1994 WL 827162, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20547
(D.Del. Dec. 9, 1994); Crossley v. Lieberman, 90 B.R. 682 (E.D.Pa. 1988), aff'd,
868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989); Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery, 851 F.Supp.
61, 68-9 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Donahue v. NFS, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 188, 193-4
(W.D.N.Y. 1991).
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 12
damages”. 16

C. Punitive Damages

47. Because of Defendant’s protected class status, and the injuries he has been

subjected to by Plaintiff’s failure to follow protection statutes, Defendant is

entitled to punitive damages.

48. Defendant demands punitive damages in the amount of Eighteen Thousand

One Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars and fifty-nine cents ($18,152.59); or an amount

set by the Court which the Court considers fair and just.

CONCLUSION AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, is notoriously known for abusive practices, including attempting to

collect on non-debts, as well as harassing innocent consumers about debts they do

not owe. Plaintiff filed a frivolous, complaint against the Defendant, there is no

valid debt.

In order to prevent manifest injustice, this Court must find in favor of

Defendant’s Counterclaim in the amount of Fifty-Four Thousand Four Hundred

Fifty Seven Dollars and seventy-eight cents ($54,457.87) for the suit filed against

Defendant, plus whatever this Court feels is fair and just compensation for the time

16
Bartlett v. Heibl, supra; Baker v. G.C. Services Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 780-81 (9th
Cir. 1982); Harvey v. United Adjusters, supra, 509 F.Supp. 1218 (D.Or. 1981);
Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 783 F.Supp. 724, 725 (D.Conn. 1990); Cacace
v. Lucas, 775 F.Supp. 502 (D.Conn. 1990); Riveria v. MAB Collections, Inc., 682
F.Supp. 174, 177 (W.D.N.Y. 1988); Kuhn v. Account Control Technol., 865
F.Supp. 1443, 1450 (D.Nev. 1994).
Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 13
taken to prepare the Defendant’s filings, and to appear at the hearing.

Further, this Court must Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice against the

Defendant so that the Plaintiff will never be able to resurrect this false claim

against her again.

Respectfully Submitted, this 13th day of July, 2010,

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782

VERIFICATION

I, James B. Stegeman, under the penalty of perjury, state that I am over the
age of twenty-one (21), competent to testify in this matter, and attest to these
matters from first hand knowledge.
I have prepared, read, and caused to be Verified the foregoing Answer,

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 14

Motions, and Counterclaim and they are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, and belief.
_____________________________
James B. Stegeman
Sworn to and Subscribed Before me,
this 13th day of July, 2010

Seal

______________________________
JANET DIANE MCDONALD,
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Georgia

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have this 13th day of July, 2010 served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Verified Answers, Responses, Defenses
to Complaint; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice; and Defendant’s
Counterclaim upon the Plaintiff by causing to be deposited with USPS First Class
Mail, proper postage affixed, addressed to the legal counsel on record as follows:
Dennis E. Harvey
Frederick J Hanna & Ass., P.C.
1427 Roswell Rd
Marietta, GA 30062 _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782

Answers, Responses, Counterclaim, & MTD 15