STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT WAUKESHA COUNTY______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

vs.

Amy Jo Brown15945 Ridgefield CourtBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005

Unknown Spouse of Amy Jo Brown15945 Ridgefield CourtBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005

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

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

Purported Defendants______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, NOTICE OF INTENT TO AMENDANSWER AND FILE INITIAL COUNTERCLAIMS UNDER WIS. STATS. SEC. 805.09 OR

BY LEAVE OF COURT WITH RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND STANDING OBJECTIONTO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO GRANT ANY RELIEF ON

THE COMPLAINT_____________________________________________________________________________

NOW COMES the purported Defendant (hereinafter for convenience and withoutwaiving her status as the purported Defendant, “Defendant”) Amy Jo Brown, and, without

1

waiving her claim that the putative Plaintiff (hereinafter for convenience and, “Plaintiff”) cannotestablish its standing to bring this action, answers, affirmatively defends, brings her initialcounterclaims, and brings her third party complaints in this matter [without waiving her rights toseek leave to amend the affirmative defenses, amend and/or bring additional third partycomplaints within the time allowed by Wis. Stats. sec. 805.09(1) or subsequently upon leave ofcourt upon further discovery through formal or informal means during the pendency of thisaction or as may conform to the proofs at trial under Wis. Stats. sec. 805.09(2)] and shows theCourt:

1. Denies paragraph 1 and, affirmatively alleges, that Bank of America, N.A. is not thethe “servicer” for a loan under which she is obligated to make payment to any party. Uponpersonal knowledge, affirmatively alleges that she signed a mortgage note in favor of America’sWholesale Lender. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that the mortgage notetaken by America’s Wholesale Lender is not an enforceable instrument because (a) America’sWholesale Lender has no capacity to enter into a contract and is a “doing business as name” forthe former Countrywide Financial, Inc. Further affirmatively, upon information and belief, alleges that America’s Wholesale Lender, lacking the capacity to sue, was a business namecreated to avoid the laws requiring the regulation of mortgage lenders. Further affirmativelyalleges that a party without legal capacity to enter into a contract has no legal capacity to have abank account in any state in the United States nor can it loan money, sue to collect money orenforce any contract. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that America’sWholesale Lender did not loan the purported Defendant any money which she is obliged to repayand that the copy of the mortgage note attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A is a sham and afraud. Further affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that she viewed the purported“original” mortgage note after the proceedings held before the Honorable Judge Donald A.Hassin in Waukesha County Circuit Court, at the Courthouse in Waukesha County, Wisconsinon February 23, 2012 at approximately 2:00 p.m. and that the mortgage note in the possession ofcounsel for the (purported) Plaintiff is a forgery to which her signature has been reproduced by some form of technology generally called “Photoshop” technology from the original populartechnology, just as the original technology for photocopying was originally known as Xeroxmachines. Document inspection and expert testimony is required to attempt to determine themost likely type of technology used to create the forgery, but, upon information and belief, theforgery was created with Acrobat Illustrator, the current most popularly used document creationsoftware. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that the “endorsement inblank” purportedly affixed to the reverse side of the mortgage note is a forgery, being acomputer-generated “photoshopped” imported image of the a known robo-stamp used on Bankof America instruments to make it appear that the document was touched by human hands andreviewed by a person with authority to endorse notes on behalf of BAC Home Loan Servicing,LP, which recently merged with its previously concealed parent company, Bank of America,N.A., the purported Plaintiff herein. Affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that thepurported Plaintiff’s attorney, Christina Demakopoulus of BLOOMER PETERMAN, S.C., aWisconsin lawyer and a Wisconsin professional services corporation, stated that the“endorsement in blank” on the reverse side of the mortgage note was the reason why the

2

photocopy of the note attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B did not display the “endorsement inblank” on the second page of “Exhibit B.” Upon information and belief, affirmatively allegesthat the black computer printer ink stamp on the reverse side of the bright white paper andinappropriately aged (newly printed) paper was visible to her when her attorney was initiallyexamining the note and may have been printed in dark enough ink to “bleed through” as a reverseimage on the face of the second page of the computer generated forgery in the hands of herattorney. Affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, could see the black image on thereverse side of the computer-generated note when she was looking at the front of “Exhibit B.” Affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that she observed her attorney, in the course ofexamining the note, applied her moistened finger to test the black ink purported “endorsement inblank” apparently printed with computer ink and that the ink did not bleed onto the page. Observing this preliminary examination, she heard Ms. Demakopoulus state to her attorney thatthe reason that the ink imprint did not react to the moisture test was that “the document is old.” Affirmatively alleges, that the purported Defendant has a banking, real estate and securitiesbackground, has worked in the financial industry since 1983 (with periodic leaves of absence tocare for her children) and is presently a commercial lender. The purported Defendant hashandled countless financial instruments and can state to a certainty that Exhibit A, whichpurports to be an “original” mortgage note purported executed in 2004 and on bright white paperlegal sized paper (8 ½ inches by 14 inches) is not appropriately aged and was not folded as wouldbe required to mail the instrument in a conventional envelope (at most 9 inches by 12 inches.) The forgery was either transmitted to the firm electronically and printed there or, it is hard toaccept but possible, created at the law firm itself, under instructions from the purported“servicer.” All employees of the firm are identified as possible participants in the receipt and/orcreation of the forged mortgage note and some of them are, therefore, material witnesses, alongwith Ms. Demakopoulos who had the forged note in her hands (this is called “uttering” a forgeryas a genuine instrument. She believes, from observing Ms. Demakopoulos’ reaction to herattorney’s statement that the mortgage note as not “the original mortgage note” that Ms.Demakopoulos was unaware that she was and may still be unaware that she is holding a forgeddocument in her case file because Ms. Demakopoulos appeared to be genuinely surprised.. Aforgery (in this case with a face value of $383,200.00) not only has no value, but the intentionaland knowing creation, possession and uttering thereof is a serious felony and poses a risk to thepublic if it not immediately surrendered to law enforcement. The (purported) Defendantdemands the immediate surrender of the forged document from which the copy of Exhibit B wasmade to the Waukesha County Sheriff’s custody pending scientific examination and testing at thedirection of the Wisconsin Department of Justice-Division of Criminal Investigation (DOJ-DCI.) The purported Defendant declines to provide the smoking “gun” evidence of machine known toher for fear that the computer generated forgery will be modified to conform to her proof, andwill seek a protective order from having to provide that information until “Exhibit B” isproduced for scientific examination and inspection. She will state, at this time, that she willknow immediately if the computer generated forgery displayed to her attorney and in her plainview on February 23, 2012 has been modified or altered to conform to her statements uponpersonal knowledge herein. Because Ms. Demakopoulos is a chain of custody witness, she andBLOOMER PETERMAN, S.C. must be disqualified from acting as counsel for the purported

3

Plaintiff in this matter under the Wisconsin Code of Professional Conduct SCR 20:3.7. Further,the law firm of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is disqualified because one of the lawyersassociated with the firm created the mortgage assignment from MERS to the “Bank of NewYork” (Exhibit D attached to the Complaint) The name of “Attorney J. Timothy Lovett” appearson the assignment of the mortgage (Exhibit D) with what appears to be a Wisconsin Bar number.Exhibit D shows that it was returned from the Waukesha County Register of Deeds toBLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. which further makes employees and attorneys at the firmmaterial witnesses to the creation, production or receipt of the void mortgage assignment whichmay also be a forgery or false business record which was publicly recorded and returned to Bankof America, N.A.’s law firm. The mortgage assignment is Exhibit D attached to the Complaintand is one of the documents upon which the Plaintiff(s) rely in attempting to create theappearance of standing before the Court. (See paragraphs 2., 5. and 8., below.) Continuouslyreserving her objection to the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court for the lack of standing ofpurported Plaintiff for all the reasons stated above, the purported Defendant states unequivocallythat standing to sue cannot be founded upon a forged document, a business name without legalcapacity has no standing to enter into contracts, loan money, receive payments or sue forperformance. Bank of America, N.A., therefore, has falsely claimed that it “collects and trackspayments, distributes collection and pursues legal action when necessary” because it has notpleaded that it owns or holds the specific instrument identified as Exhibit B and the mortgageassignment (Exhibit D to the Complaint) is void as pleaded herein.

2. Denies paragraph 2 and affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that TheBank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York does not appear on its own behalf “astrustee for the certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative loan trust 2004-35T2 mortgage pass through certificates, series 2004-35T2.” It appears through its purported “servicer” on thecase caption and if it is a party to this action, it is either not represented by counsel or isrepresented by counsel additionally disqualified for conflict of interest under the Wisconsin Codeof Professional Conduct SCR 20:1.7 because it is facially obvious that the Trustee would eitherbe a party to the crime of forgery, for which it would have to waive conflict of interest for theattempt at dual representation in this paragraph, or is unaware of the forgery, in which case theconflict of interest cannot be waived by a party claiming to have a fiduciary responsibility asTrustee for the Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 Further, affirmatively alleges upon personalknowledge, that a fiduciary is prohibited as a matter of law from attempting to administer a trustasset which is founded upon a fraudulent transaction and a forged mortgage note because to do sowould be an ultra vires act and a breach of its fiduciary duty and creates unwaivable conflict ofinterest for dual representation under the Wisconsin Code of Professional Conduct SCR 20:1.7. Further affirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that an additional unwaivable conflictof interest arises between it and its purported “servicer,” who has no asset to administer, becausethe Trust known as the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 is required, as a matter of law to operate as a Real EstateMortgage Investment Trust (REMIC Trust) and is governed by 26 U.S.C. sec. 860D and the Trustee for the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through

4

Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 cannot accept assets into the trust which are not transferred within90 days of the closing date of the trust or such additional grace period as is allowed by law forproper transfer of the asset. According to the trust prospectus, the mortgage note must beendorsed in favor of the trust or “endorsed in blank” but Exhibit B is a recently created forgerywhich demonstrates that the original mortgage note was never transferred to the trust. Furtherdiscovery would be necessary to ascertain whether or not The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/aThe Bank of New York ever authorized the purported “servicer” to bring this action or retain thisconflicted and now material witness counsel to represent it in this action, but that is anunnecessary expense to the victim of the forgery and fraud being perpetrated upon this Court bythe putative Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A., at this time. The (purported) Defendant reservesher right to engage in discovery, should this case not be dismissed with prejudice for theattempted fraud upon the purported Defendant this Court, its own counsel and the investors inthe CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates,Series 2004-35T2. Not to put too fine a point on the actual relationship between the purportedservicer and the purported Trustee of the CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2 for purposes of this allegation purportingto bolster the “servicer’s” standing, but REMIC Trusts have proper names which conventionallyare capitalized and do not use the redundant language “Trustee for the Certificateholders” (sic,they are “certificate holders” or more properly “holders of beneficial interests in the trust) and theprocess created by conflicted, material witness counsel does not capitalize the proper name of thealleged trust and did not use its legal name suggests that disqualified counsel probably has neverseen the name of the trust on any document, such as a consent to dual representation, retaineragreement, prospectus or trust agreement. The (purported) Defendant acknowledges that themajority of jurisdictions have held that defendants in otherwise lawful foreclosure do not havestanding to assert the rights of the investors under REMIC trust instruments because thepurported defendant are generally not held to be third party beneficiaries of the trusts upon whichthe loan funds are created. That is not the case here. This answering (purported) Defendant isasserting her own rights not to be sued on a note executed in favor of a party with the capacity toenter into a contract, to transact banking whereby funds could have been transmitted to the makethe loan, had no capacity to loan money, has no capacity to enter into a transaction whereby hernote could be transferred by signed endorsement or “endorsement in blank,” could not contract tobe a member of Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee forpurposes of the purported trust’s purported acceptance of the mortgage security, which could notown an interest in lands or hold a mortgage thereon in Wisconsin or in any other state in theUnited States following the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence by statute or common law1

or assign any interest in land by nominee or otherwise. Were the Trustee of the CWALT, Inc.Alternative Loan Trust 2004-35T2 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2004-35T2. Inaddition to requiring that a REMIC trust accept only lawfully endorsed and properly secured

She does not know the Napoleonic Code, which is followed by Louisiana, but assumes1

that French law of the 18 Century from which it was derived and as it developed in the Unitedth

States of America would not permit a nonexistent entity to engage in conduct for which Anglo-American jurisprudence requires “legal capacity.”

5

mortgage loans, the timing of the transfer here would require the Trustee to reject the asset ashaving been assigned too late in time (if it was ever received) or, being an unlawful and voidmortgage note and mortgage, would have rejected the same were the Trustee not itself engagingin a void and ultra vires act. Upon the discovery of the true facts of this transaction asunderstood by the (purported) Defendant, the Trustee would be required to locate the partyresponsible for transferring the void note and mortgage to the trust under the pleaded “commonform of ownership” or, the trust instrument, require that party to “buy back” the void attemptedtransfer and refer the party responsible for making the transfer for criminal fraud. Further, uponher own knowledge, she does not owe any money to America’s Wholesale Lender, its “servicing”agent or the purported REMIC trust. When the fraudulent asset transfer is set aside by thepurported Trustee, acting in its fiduciary capacity, by identification of the party responsible forthis fraudulent sale, if it ever took place, the (purported) Defendant will raise the defenses andclaims against that party. As a banker, she cannot even be sure that the closing check was everpaid to her the title company’s bank for distribution under the closing statement. She knows thatit is possible that the instrument could have been a site draft and returned to the issuer of theinstrument for payment and the title company’s bank may never have been paid in clear funds. This could have resulted in a loss to the capital of whichever bank received the unpaid site draftand could have resulted in a write-off against its capital reserves. The bank taking that losswould then be the real party in interest to recover the funds from her, but the statute of limitationshas expired for that recovery, but for an allegation that she participated in the fraud herself,which she did not, having only recently become aware of the frauds in this transaction and havingseen the forged mortgage note presented to her counsel in support of the allegation of standing byMs. Demakopoulus on February 23, 2012. There may be a jurisdiction somewhere on the planetwhich monetized the mortgage note and is circulating it through the international bankingsystem, perhaps as security for a derivative, but she has no experience in international bankingand is incapable of researching international banking fraud. She cannot be required to pay anymore on the void mortgage note or lose her home to an international bank fraud scheme. Whatever payments she made on the mortgage note and to whomever those payments wereultimately sent, in the approximate amount of $150,000.00, those payments were procured byupon her and the local bank and should be disgorged by the party responsible for the fraud. Shedoes not know the identity of that party and the Trustee, if it is acting in a fiduciary capacity, hasa duty to discover and disclose the fraud to the holder of certificates of beneficial interest. Sheaffirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,Inc. (MERS) is a sham organization and front for securitization trusts. Further alleges uponpersonal knowledge that the mortgage in which MERS was nominated (Exhibit C attached to theComplaint) was made in favor of a party without legal capacity to lend her money, did not lendher any money and could not record an interest on Wisconsin lands, either in its own name or by“nomination of MERS” as its “mortgagee of record.” Further affirmatively alleges, uponpersonal knowledge, that America’s Wholesale Lender is not a member of the MERS system(because it cannot be, having no legal capacity.) Further, she affirmatively alleges, as a matter oflaw, that the operation of a parallel private recording system is to the duly-elected andconstitutionally authorized Registers of Deeds for counties in the State of Wisconsin (cf. Chapter59 of the Wisconsin Statutes, particularly at Wis. Stats. sec. 59.49, et seq. which preempt the

6

operation of a private recording system for lands in the state of Wisconsin. Further, sheaffirmatively alleges that MERS violates the sovereignty of the State of Wisconsin and its lawsand is further not authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin as a private corporationand, therefore, cannot hold even a nominal interest in lands in the State of Wisconsin, even if itsmortgage interest was created by contract between the (purported) Defendant and a party withlegal capacity to enter into a contract, which America’s Wholesale Lender did not have. Therefore, the mortgage interest for which MERS was purportedly “nominated” is void and theassignment of the mortgage interest is, likewise, void and without any force and effect.

3. Admits paragraph 3.

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

5. Denies paragraph 5 and affirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, thatMortgage Electronic Registrations System, Inc. (MERS) is a sham organization and front forsecuritization trusts, the mortgage in which MERS was nominated was in favor of a partywithout legal capacity to loan money and could not have been and never was a member of the“MERS system.” Further affirmatively alleges, as a matter of law, that the operation of a parallelprivate recording system is to the duly-elected and constitutionally authorized Registers of Deedsfor counties in the State of Wisconsin (cf. Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes, particularly atWis. Stats. sec. 59.49, et seq. which preempts and preclude the legal effect of private recordingsystem for lands in the state of Wisconsin. MERS violates the sovereignty of the State ofWisconsin and its laws and is further not authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin as aprivate corporation. The mortgage interest purportedly held by MERS is void and theassignment from MERS is, likewise, void and without any force and effect.

6. Denies paragraph 6. and affirmatively alleges, as a matter of fact and law, that MERSis a sham organization and front for securitization trusts. Further affirmatively alleges, uponinformation and belief the mortgage in which MERS was nominated was in favor of a party,Secured Funding Corporation, which was without legal capacity to do business in the State ofWisconsin (its lending license had been revoked in the State of California at the time this loanwas made) and is not and never was a member of the “MERS system” and the operation of aparallel private recording system is to the duly-elected and constitutionally authorized Registersof Deeds for counties in the State of Wisconsin (cf. Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes,particularly at Wis. Stats. sec. 59.49, et seq. which preempt the operation of a private recordingsystem for lands in the state of Wisconsin. MERS violates the sovereignty of the State ofWisconsin and its laws and is further not authorized to do business in the State of Wisconsin as aprivate corporation. The mortgage interest purportedly held by MERS is void and theassignment from MERS is, likewise, void and without any force and effect.

7. Denies paragraph 7. and affirmatively alleges that Exhibit A is hearsay. Furtheraffirmatively alleges, upon information and belief, that HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. did notloan her any money as and for a second mortgage on her home.

7

8. Denies paragraph 8. and reincorporates her Answer the Complaint herein atparagraphs 2. and 5., as if fully set forth herein.

9. Denies paragraph 9. and reincorporates her Answer the Complaint herein at paragraphs2., 5. and 8., as if fully set forth herein.

10. Denies paragraph 10. its entirety, affirmatively alleges, upon personal knowledge, that she owes nothing to the putative Plaintiff whatsoever and that paragraph 10 of the Complaintis a fraud upon her and before this Court. In support of this allegation, she reincorporates herAnswer the Complaint herein at paragraphs 2., 5. 8. and 9. as if fully set forth herein.

11. Admits that she received correspondence from Bank of America, N.A., purporting tobe a debt collector and made a qualified written request under the Real Estate Settlement PracticeAct, 12 U.S.C. sec. 2601, et. seq., to which Bank of America, N.A. responded that it had sent thedebt collection letter to her “by mistake.” Thereafter, she was served with the Summons andComplaint in this matter.

12. Admits paragraph 12 and affirmatively alleges that she admits only that she resides ather homestead located at 15945 Ridgefield Court in Brookfield, Wisconsin and that the legaldescription of her homestead appears to be correct, without admitting or denying that the legaldescription is, in fact, correct. She does not admit that the real estate is subject to this action inanyway, continuing to object to the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court to decide any matterrelated to the putative Plaintiff (or both putative Plaintiffs) by its (their) Complaint for lack oftheir standing. Both parties have legal capacity to be sued, however, and the purportedDefendant accepts their choice of forum and brings her counterclaims limited to the issues raisedin the Answer she was required to file in this Court, without accepting the jurisdiction of theCourt to grant any remedy to the putative Plaintiffs, because they have voluntarily invoked the“in personam” jurisdiction of this Court and the purported Defendant accepts the in personamjurisdiction over the matters which she has standing to raise and chooses to raise because thePlaintiff(s) have wasted the time of the Court and her resources by this action bringing false andfraudulent claims against her. There is precedent for this Court to reject subject matterjurisdiction over the claims of the Plaintiff(s) and grant the purported Defendant the limited reliefshe requests herein, reserving her other claims as allowed by the Wisconsin Rules of Civil2

Procedure, allowing for permissive joinder of claims. Wis. Stats. sec. 803.02. In the alternative,if the Court finds that it must dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that

Although voluntarily dismissed, prosecution of improperly venued actions violated the2

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

8

proceeding on the counterclaims could, in any way be deemed to be a waiver of the continuingobjection to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to provide relief to the Plaintiff(s) [which theDefendant does not believe to be the case because even subject matter jurisdiction may bewaived if not preserved by motion to dismiss before filing an answer] the Defendant consents tothe simultaneous dismissal of her counterclaims to be brought as a Complaint in a new or newactions, subject to her demand for attorneys fees for the commencement and continuation of anaction in violation of Wis. Stats. sec. 802.05.

13. Neither admits or denies the statement in paragraph 13 and re-alleges andreincorporates by reference each and every allegation of the foregoing Answer, except forparagraphs 6. and 7. (which are not relevant to the statement in paragraph 13.) as affirmativeallegations in the Answer to this paragraph 13., as if fully set forth herein.

14. Denies paragraph 14., lacks sufficient knowledge as to whether the “otherdefendants” have been served with process to make them subject to the personal jurisdiction ofthis Court, affirmatively re-alleges and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation ofthe all of the foregoing paragraphs in this Answer, as if fully set forth herein, except for theAnswer to paragraph 13., which is irrelevant to the Answer to this paragraph 14.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

15. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief to the Plaintiff(s) becausethey do not have standing to sue the (purported) Defendant as described in paragraphs 1-12 andparagraph 14, above and this case must be dismissed.

16. Counsel for the (putative) Plaintiff(s) counsel, BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. isdisqualified from representing the Plaintiff(s) because the law firm Attorney ChristinaDemalopoulos of BLOMMER PETERMAN, S.C. is a material witness to the production of the forged mortgage note and the void assignment of mortgage upon which the (putative) Plaintiffrelies in attempting to establish its standing to sue, a prerequisite to the Court having subjectmatter jurisdiction in this case was returned from the Waukesha County Register of Deeds Officeto BLOMMER PETERMAN. Furthermore, the copy of Exhibit B attached to the Complaint,which is a copy of the forged mortgage note, was transmitted to the law firm for its production atthe February 23, 2012 hearing or (may have even been created at the law firm) and the employeesof the law firm will be identified through discovery as to their knowledge of the creation,production, receipt, filing, maintenance and other management of Exhibits B and D. Plaintiff(s)counsel is disqualified under Code of Professional Conduct of the Wisconsin Supreme CourtSCR 20:3.7. A corporation cannot appear in Wisconsin courts without qualified counsel andthis case must be dismissed.

17. Counsel for the (putative) Plaintiff(s) also has a unwaivable conflict of interestunder the Wisconsin Code of Professional Conduct SCR 20:1.7 as described in paragraph 2.,above. If members of the law firm or employees of the firm are parties to the crime of forgery

9

and filing false public records, a conflict of interest exists between the law firm and the putativePlaintiff(s). A corporation cannot appear in Wisconsin courts without qualified counsel and thiscase must be dismissed.

18. The putative Plaintiff(s) have unclean hands based upon the conduct described in theforegoing paragraphs 1-12, and 15-17, of the Answer, incorporated by reference as if fully setforth herein and cannot avail itself of any equitable remedies in these proceedings, including, butnot limited to foreclosure on real estate, equitable assignment of mortgage interests, or equitablerevision of contract and the case must be dismissed.

19. America’s Wholesale Lender does not exist, has no legal capacity to engage in anybusiness transaction whatsoever and the lack of legal capacity cannot be cured by substituting areal party in interest in these proceedings under Wis. Stats. sec. 803.01, without equitableassignment or equitable revision of the contract, which are not available remedies in this case, asset forth in paragraph 18, above, and the case must be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the purported Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaintwith prejudice as a sanction for fraud upon her and upon the Court, for her actual attorney’s feesand costs of defending this action which is founded upon fraud upon her and upon the Court, andfor such other relief as may be just and appropriate in these premises.

[RIGHTS TO PLEAD COUNTERCLAIMS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY TIMELYAMENDMENT OF THIS PLEADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH

WIS. STATS. SEC. 805.09(1) OR BY LEAVE OF COURT]

WHEREFORE, the purported Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaintwith prejudice as a sanction for fraud upon the her and upon the Court, for her actual attorney’sfees and costs of defending this action which is founded upon fraud upon her and upon the Court,or for such other relief as may be just and appropriate in these premises.

JURY TRIAL BY A JURY OF TWELVE PERSONS WILL BE DEMANDED

SAFE HARBOR NOTICE TO QUALIFIED COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S): YOUARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT IF YOU DO NOT VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THISACTION WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, DEFENDANTSWILL BRING THEIR MOTION FOR REASONABLE ACTUAL ATTORNEYS FEES,COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO WIS. STATS. 802.05(3)IN ADDITION TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED ABOVE.

10

Dated this 15 day of March, 2012.th

/s/ Wendy Alison Nora _____________________________________

Wendy Alison Nora

Main Office mailing address: 210 Second Street NE

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

accesslegalservices@gmail.comWI BAR # 1017043

11

AUTHENTICATION AND VERIFICATION

STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ssCOUNTY OF WAUKESHA)

Amy Jo Brown, being first duly sworn on oath, states that she performed the originalresearch into the claims of the Plaintiffs’ standing in these proceedings and that she has read,conducted independent investigation and assisted in the preparation of the foregoing answer,affirmative defenses, counterclaims and third party complaints in this matter. She states, uponher own knowledge, that facts stated in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct, to the best ofher current personal knowledge, where stated, and according to her information and belief, whereso stated. Where answers and affirmative defenses have been interposed are based upon factsand not law, except to the extent that she states that knows banking law and securities law aspracticed in the United States of America, she states that the factual statements and statementsof lawful practice in securities and banking law are true upon her current knowledge or, wherestated upon, information and belief, are believed by her to be true and that this pleading is madein good faith in an effort and by no means to delay these proceedings or to harass or intimidateany party hereto or the attorneys for those parties. In responding to this pleading, she does notwaive her right to continue to object to the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the court toproceed on the Complaint of the putative Plaintiff(s), but where the putative Plaintiff hasvoluntarily subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Court by filing this Complaint against her,despite its failure to obtain the jurisdiction to the Court for the relief it requests, asserts that thevoluntary submission to this Court’s jurisdiction by the Plaintiffs constitutes the right to pleadcounterclaims against it (them) by timely amendment of this pleading in accordance with Wis.Stats. sec. 805.09(1) or by leave of Court and to conform her pleading to the proofs at trial asallowed by law.

____________________________________Amy Jo Brown

Subscribed and sworn to before me this15 day of March, 2012.th

___________________________________Notary Public. My commission expires:_________________.

12