Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,

v.

Plaintiff,

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN, et al.

Defendants.

/

CASE NO. 08 000 937 - GCS

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO "MOTION FOR HEARING BY TELEPHONE," "MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY PLAINTIFF" and DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

The Defendants, Jeremiah and Laura Ammann, OBJECT to: 1) attorney, Katherine M.

Tilka's non-compliant appearance in the "Motion for Hearing by Telephone" served on 26 July

2011 (hereafter "Phone Motion"); and to 2) "Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff" served on 28

July 2011 (hereafter "Party Motion"). Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Phone Motion

as a nullity. Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Party Motion and order Plaintiff to submit

the requested documents before the Court makes a decision as to whether or not to allow the

requested substitution of Plaintiff. As grounds therefore, Defendants state:

OBJECTIONS TO THE PHONE MOTION

1. Brian Hummel ("Mr. Hummel") signed the initial Complaint filed herein as the initial

attorney of record for Plaintiff. He has not filed a notice of withdrawal. He has not filed a notice

of substitution of attorney. Thus, he remains the Plaintiff's attorney of record.

2. The Phone Motion is signed by "Katherine E. Tilka," Florida Bar No. 70879 ("Ms.

Tilka"). Ms. Tilka has not filed a notice of substitution of attorney. Ms. Tilka has not filed a

notice of appearance as co-counsel.

Helpful comments or questions send to: robchaney@yahoo.com

3.

The Judicial Rules of Administration, Rule 2.505(e)(3) states, in pertinent part: "An

attorney may appear in a proceeding [as co-counsel]

all parties a notice of appearance."

By filing with the court and serving upon

4. As the Second District Court of Appeal ruled:

Additional attorney was required to file notice of appearance before or

contemporaneously with his initial pleading, and thus [additional attorney's]

motion

filed before notice of appearance was a nullity. [Emphasis added.]

The court must be able to rely on representations of attorneys because such representations bind the client.

Notices of appearance for attorneys who come upon the scene at later dates have a similar effect on the court and other parties. The court and parties must know with whom they must deal. 1

5. Ms. Tilka is a non-compliant attorney and her Phone Motion appears to be a nullity.

When a judges fails to enforce the established rules of court as to one party, it is prejudicial to

the other party.

6. Attached hereto, as Exhibit A, is a copy of a "Notice of

Change of Attorney of

Record Within Firm" [emphasis added] which was filed in this Courthouse on 9 June 2011

under case number 2010-CA-000849. The attorney filing said Notice appears to be a "compliant"

attorney. Law firms DO file a notice when there is a change of attorney "within" the firm.

7. We do not object to a telephonic appearance by an attorney of record, who has

complied with the rules. We do object to any non-compliant attorney making any appearance for

anyone at any time.

OBJECTIONS TO THE PARTY-SUBSTITUTION MOTION

8. On the electronic docket, the Plaintiff's name has, erroneously, been changed to

JPMorgan. Defendants object to this. First, no "change of plaintiff" has been approved by the

Court, and second, "The names of the parties in the caption are never changed

"

2

1 Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Properties, Inc., 693 So.2d 82 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1997) at 82 and 83.

2 Trawick, Fla. Pract. and Proc. § 6:2, at page 94 (2010 Edition) Emphasis in original.

9. The Party Motion is signed by "Matthew Marks," Florida Bar No. 524336 ("Mr.

Marks"). Mr. Marks has not filed a notice of substitution of attorney. Mr. Marks has not filed a

notice of appearance as co-counsel. Thus, he appears to be a non-compliant attorney and his

motion is a legal "nullity" as mentioned above.

10. Again, if the Court does not enforce the rules, it is prejudicial to Defendants.

11. The Party Motion makes a misstatement of fact. At paragraph 1, it says "The

undersigned counsel [Mr. Marks] initiated this action

"

Contrary to this allegation, the record

shows that Brian Hummel was the attorney who "initiated this action."

12. Said paragraph 1 contains a second misstatement of fact when it says: JPMORGAN

CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (hereafter "JPMorgan") "holds the loan

documents sued upon in this action." Contrary to this allegation, the purported original "loan

documents" are in the files of this Court's records. For the sake of argument, JPMorgan may own

said documents, but it, clearly, does not "hold" them. Usually, ownership of a note does not

occur until it is delivered.

13. Said paragraph 1 contains a conclusion of law which is not supported by any pertinent

paperwork or other admissible evidence. It alleges that JPMorgan "is now the correct

Plaintiff

"

Defendants object to this unsupported conclusion. If the Court accepts such a

conclusion without any admissible evidence thereof, it would be prejudicial to Defendants.

14. Without laying any foundation, without any evidence and without any affidavit,

paragraph 2 of the Party Motion makes two more unsupported conclusions that JPMorgan is the:

1) "real party in interest;" and 2) the "proper Plaintiff in this action."

15. If the Court grants such unauthenticated motion, without any supporting evidence, it

would be prejudicial to Defendants.

16. Plaintiff's attorneys have filed certificates of service that were contradicted by

testimony from Co-Defendant, Laura Amman, and Co-Defendant Highlands County's attorney at

hearings in this case.

17. A law suit in New York has named JPMorgan as one of several defendants and it says

in its opening paragraph: "While numerous financial institutions enabled Madoff's fraud, JPMC

was at the very center of that fraud, and thoroughly complicit in it." 3

18. Fraud is rampant in the news regarding the home mortgage industry and the Court

should not take a bank's word, alone, as it would be prejudicial to Defendants.

19. The instant case is a pending action in Highlands County.

20. The alleged merger between Chase Home Finance, LLC and JPMorgan is relevant to

the instant case, because it involves the possibility of a change in the identity of the Plaintiff.

21. The alleged merger may affect the substantive rights of Defendants in the subject

property. There should be no "privilege" which would prevent Defendants from viewing such a

document.

22. If there is a "merger," as alleged, then there must be a written agreement between the

two parties and, as such, it should be in the care, custody or control of JPMorgan.

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

23. In light of the foregoing, Defendants move the Court to order JPMorgan to provide a

true and accurate copy of the original agreement whereby "A merger has occurred between

CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION." Defendants ask for an affidavit to support said agreement.

24. Defendants seek, especially, that certain agreement (or any material part thereof)

which supports JPMorgan's allegation that it is, now, the "correct Plaintiff" and, also, that certain

agreement (or any material part thereof) which supports JPMorgan's allegation that it "holds the

3 Irving Picard v. JPMorgan Chase, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-04932 (BRL), 2 December 1010

loan documents sued upon in this action." (Note: the use of the singular "affidavit," "agreement"

and "part" includes the plural.)

WHEREFORE, the Defendants move the Court to strike the Phone Motion as a nullity.

Defendants MOVE the Court to strike the Party Motion and order Plaintiff to submit the

requested documents to the Court and to the Defendants for their review before the Court makes

a decision as to whether or not to allow the requested substitution of Plaintiff. Defendants move

the Court to have the Court Clerk correct the Court Docket as to the name of the original Plaintiff

herein, Chase Home Finance LLC. Defendants move the Court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and for such other, further and different relief as the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted by Co-Defendants, Self-Represented:

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN

and

LAURA U. AMMANN

1820 IRIS AVENUE - SEBRING, FL 33875-6090 - (863)-385-3138

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the parties listed

below on the 1st day of August 2011 as indicated below:

by U.S. mail:

BRIAN HUMMEL HIGHLANDS COUNTY

FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L.

P O BOX 25018 TAMPA FL 33622-5018

by hand delivery:

c/o ELIZABETH V LENIHAN 2543 US HWY 27 SOUTH SEBRING FL 33870-2125

Certified by: Laura U. Ammann

1820 Iris Avenue Sebring, FL 33875-6090 Telephone: (863) 385-3138

***************

25. Our point is that banks and loan companies have been charged with fraud all across the

United States. Banks securitize homeowners' promissory notes without disclosing this fact and

without sharing any of the profits with the homeowners. They sell mortgage-backed securities

filled with notes they believe will be defaulted while paying a credit-rating agency to put a AAA-

rating on the securities. The securities warn investors that they could lose all the money they

invest in these securities. The banks "hedge their bets" by purchasing so-called "insurance" that

will pay them off if the notes are defaulted as they are convinced they will. Big insurance

companies like AIG sold this so-called insurance without putting away any reserves to pay for

eventual claims. (The law did not require them to put away any reserves.) Then, when the notes

begin to default, The banks and insurance companies go to Congress to get the financial burden

dumped upon the taxpayers/homeowners who have been kept in the dark and fed a lot of manure

just like a bunch of mushrooms!