Anda di halaman 1dari 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


9 10SUE MUDROVICH, a woman ) No. 12 2 07346 3 11KATHY CARTWRIGHT, a woman ) 12 ) DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO UNWARRANTED 13 PLAINTIFFS, ) CIVIL COMPLAINTFOR EJECTMENT, 14 ) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, 15 vs. ) AND COUNTERCLAIM 16 ) 17Steven McKay1, a single man, and ) 18Peggy Carlson, as single woman ) 19 ) 20 DEFENDANTS, ) 21 In propia persona ) 22 _____________________________________________________________________ 23 24 THE ONE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF [the] LAW IS TO MAKE BUSINESS FOR ITSELF. 25 (Charles Dickens, Bleak House) 26 27 COURT SHALL NOT DENY FOR WANT OF FORM 28 "AS ANY REASONABLE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND" 29

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

"The poorest, weakest most hapless or illiterate defendant1 standing before an American court, is entitled to exactly the same respect, rights and hearing as would be the Chief Justice of the United States standing before the court and similarly accused." In re Yengo, 72 N.J. 450 (NJ Supreme Court's Chief Justice Hughes)

Affirmati, non neganti incumbit probation The proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him/her who denies.


11 Since I am not that learned in the law or court rules, any curative instruction or correction of any prima 2facie error(s) hereon is earnestly requested so that I may better understand the law / procedures to obey. 3 DEFENDANTS ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE 4 DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM. Page 1 of Eight
Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

COMES NOW, Steven McKay, (hereinafter Defendant), located at 15832 18th Place

2West, (Lot 2) Lynnwood (98087), in Unit 1 of the 2 unit Condominium thereon, speaking in 3unison with and on behalf of his associate, Peggy Carlson, without waiving objections to 4improper service (on Friday August 30th 2012), defective subject matter or personal jurisdiction, 5or timely appeal, or mistaken identity, hereby seeks to place upon the record in this Court, his 6Answer to the Complaint in the above entitled action, his affirmative defenses, and his 7counterclaim for compensatory and punitive damages. 8 9 10 11 12 14

2.1 With regards to pertinent allegations contained in the Complaint, Defendant denies 2.2 With regards to paragraph 1.1 & 1.2 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient

13and admits as follows. 15proof and knowledge of Plaintiffs statements contained there-under. Defendant must deny the 16accuracy of these statements based on Plaintiffs erroneously held claims below. 17 2.3 With regards to paragraph 1.3 Defendant Steven McKay2 lacks sufficient proof and 18knowledge of the statements contained there-under, except that he notes that an apparent fatal 19defect is evidenced within the Plaintiffs Complaint papers (infra). The contractual evidence that 20could make Plaintiffs the tenant-in-common fee owners of said real property remains in question 21(infra). Based on a direct 180 conflicting error in Plaintiffs filing, Plaintiffs lack sufficient 22grounds for anything let alone ejectment under any statute or claim. Therefore, Defendant must 23deny the accuracy of all of Plaintiffs statements. 24 26 2.3 With regards to paragraph 1.4 of the Complaint, Defendant agrees. Defendant Peggy 2.4 With regards to paragraph 1.5 of the Complaint, Defendant McKay agrees, and has 25Carlson admits that she was and is a resident of Snohomish County at all times material. 27voluminous proper commercial paperwork (including a verified 3 page LEASE Agreement) to 28substantiate all of Defendants interests in the property for over 7 years (since January 2005). 29Defendant admits that he was and is a resident of Snohomish County at all times material and 30admits he was residing on the premises at the time of acquisition.
12 Formerly identified as STEVE (LAURENCE) KNUDSEN (and SARA l.n.u. And CHRIS l.n.u.) in the 2previous Superior Court case # 11 2 06491 1


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

2.5 With regards to paragraph 1.6 of the Complaint, Defendant agrees that venue is The instant

2proper, but denies with substantive evidence that subject-matter is properly in place, thus 3denying this court subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as stated therein. 4matter appears VOID ab initio. 5 2.6 With regards to Section II, BACKGROUND FACTS, paragraph 2.1 of the 6Complaint, Defendant denies in its entirety because the Plaintiffs Attorney has blatantly 7misconstrued the material Facts and basis of the acquisition of the subject premises, as follows: 8 a. First, Plaintiff attorney introduces a new integral party, who was not properly listed in 9Part I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION, namely one Linda Lee Snyder, who was listed as the 10Primary Party, along with Peggy A. Carlson on the STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 11(Plaintiffs Exhibit B), 12 14 b. Plaintiff attorney failed to note who issued said Deed. It was signed by Paramjit Singh c. Then Plaintiff attorney states ( 2.1) that: Defendant Carlson and Linda Lee Snyder 13and Parmjeet Singh, husband and wife, who are assumed to be the predecessors-in-interest. 15conveyed the Subject Property to Plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest pursuant to a Statutory 16Warranty Deed. A true and correct copyis attached hereto as Exhibit B. 17Upon cursory reading of said Deed, it plainly states thereon: 18 19 20 21 22 24

THE GRANTORS Paramjit Singh and Parmjeet Singh, husband and wife For and in consideration of Ten Dollars and Other Good and Valuable Consideration In hand paid, conveys, and warrant to Linda Lee Snyder and Peggy A. Carlson, The following described real estate Unit 1, Facey-Merkle, a condominium and use of limited common elements, d. Plaintiff attorney fails to identify or supply any proper commercial paperwork

23(emphasis added) 25showing the nexus between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs. 27 28

The end of litigation is justice. Void in part; void in toto.

30 31

2.7 With regards to paragraph 2.2 of the Complaint, Defendant disagrees with Plaintiffs

32statement that Defendant Carlson leased the Subject Property in that both Peggy Carlson and


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1Steven McKay are listed on the 6 month Lease Agreement that they both signed on January 22, 22005 as agreed to by their Landlords, the Singhs. 3 2.8 With regards to paragraph 2.3 of the Complaint, Defendants deny in that they fail to 4see any such language on the RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT - WASHINGTON 5[EXHIBIT: LEASE] that has terminology respecting any attorneys fee and cost provision. 6 8 2.9 With regards to paragraph 2.4 of the Complaint, Defendant states for clarification that 2.10 With regards to paragraph 2.5 of the Complaint, Defendant denies since the Lease 7he has lived on the property since he signed the original lease agreement on January 22, 2005. 9was with the Option to buy, and was satisfied on or about November of 2005 when Defendants 10terms to purchase unit 1 of the entire house / a 2-unit condominium (Lot 2) became final. 11 2.11 With regards to paragraph 2.6 of the Complaint, Defendant denies, since the notice 12to quit was not from the people who were on the contract, the Singhs who sold the property 7 13years ago, but from a new lady named KATHY CARTWRIGHT from KING COUNTY who has 14no lease agreement contract in evidence with the Defendants. Defendant is with copies of 2 15complaint forms for fraudulent filing activities with CARTWRIGHT, Notary Linda Robards and 16Windermere Real Estate Agent Robert Slattery. Complaint forms available upon written request. 17CARTWRIGHT does have some relationship(s) with a Peggy Lopez, et al., living in Unit 2. 18 2.12 With regards to paragraph 2.7 of the Complaint, Defendant admits to retaining 19possession of the property at 15832 18th Place West, Lynnwood, after notification and at present, 20Plaintiffs statement that their notice to the Defendant is to the proper party on the proper 21property requires a conclusion at law and therefore Defendant denies until otherwise determined. 22 2.13 With regards to paragraph 2.8 of the Complaint, Defendant admits with sufficient 23substantive evidence to show legal ownership, and that the Plaintiff has knocked on the wrong 24door. Defendants affirmative defenses will show the Plaintiffs to have mistaken the deed with 25the Richmonds (infra) for 15902 18th Place West (- Lot B) and failed to state or verify a legal 26claim against neighboring Defendants (15832 Lot 2, Unit 1) upon which relief can be granted. 27 2.14 With regards to Section III CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE paragraph 283.1 of the Complaint, Defendant cannot agree to Plaintiffs statements therein, except to stipulate 29that Plaintiffs statements of Complaint have been superseded by these Answers herein, until


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1substantively refuted in writing. [The situation is rather convoluted by property descriptions and 2by the dual labeling of legal Unit 1 as Condo B, and legal Unit 2 as Condo A.] 3 2.15 With regards to paragraph 3.2 of the Complaint, the innocent Defendant denies 4unequivocally each and all claims restated therein since Plaintiff has mistaken the wrong 5property and house! Plaintiffs have no explicit interest in the property at 15832, (which is Lot 62) but do have contractual interest at 15902 18th Place West (which is Lot B) calls for a 7conclusion at law and therefore Defendant denies. See EXHIBIT: PLAT 8 2.16 Since a contract or a legal case loses subject-matter jurisdiction at its first (fatal) 9flaw, there is no need for Defendant to belabor this matter to ANSWER Plaintiffs other points 10(which are now moot of no legal effect) further unless a judicially written finding of facts and 11conclusion of laws proves otherwise. 12 With regard to Plaintiffs prayer for relief, Defendant claims that no relief is due, only 13ridicule. The Plaintiffs actually now owe the Defendant a small fortune for this second meritless 14attempt to foreclose on what is not contractually theirs and for the undue stress, time, and fees 15inflicted through their conspiratorial mistaken identification of the property and resultant, 16persistent contract fraud. Punitive sanctions and disciplinary action against the inept attorney 17Mark S. Leen, WSBA Bar member card # 35934, and his barratrous attorney office of Inslee 18Best Doezie & Ryder should be in order. 19 20 21 22 24 25A. 26 27 28 29 30B. 31 32 On or about January 22, 2005, Defendants individually and jointly signed a LEASE AGREEMENT for the property (LOT 2) 15832 18th Place West with the Singhs (EXH. LEASE). No controversies have arisen from that Lease, since it was a lease to purchase, and was satisfied with the purchase agreement of that property being finalized in November of 2005. Another party, namely Daniel John Richmond, and Vala Lou Richmond, husband and wife had leased or purchased the neighboring house (on LOT B) 15902 18th Place West several years earlier.


3.1 Defendant, having pointedly answered mis-placed allegations made in the Complaint,

23propounds preliminary affirmative defense facts as follows:


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1C. 2 3 4 5 6 7D. 8 9E. 10 11 12 13 14F. 15 16 17G. 18 19 20 21 22 23

Defendant is at a loss as to how this Complaint, and a preceding lawsuit No 11 2 06491 1, dismissed, could have even been commenced: a. [Perhaps the property sub-division or description caused confusion as to which house or condominium is the right Unit 2 Facie Merkle legal property description. Defendants live in Unit 1 of the Condominium on Lot 2. b. Perhaps Unit 2 could be mistaken for Lot 2.] To Defendants knowledge, evidence and belief, their neighbors, Daniel and Vala Richmond, [Lot B at 15902] have no interest or legal claim respecting Lot 2 at 15832 18th Place West. Only Daniel and Vala Richmond have any contractual obligation to Plaintiff parties Kathy Cartwright and Susan Mudrovich, which is submitted as Plaintiffs EXHIBIT A, Deed in Lieu of Forclosure(sic) signed 11/10/10 and filed into Snohomish County records under File # 201105310678, with a Legal Description of Unit 2 of Facey-Merkle, a condominium but is, in actuality 15902 18th Place West without evidence of a legal description on record. Defendants have sufficient papers to show that lawful chain of title for the property, Lot 2 at 15832 18th Place West, resides solely with the Defendants. Those papers can be made available upon demand, if necessary. Defendant has substantially complied with all agreements pertinent to Lot 2. Defendants have clearly shown their good faith and willingness to respond as compelled to the Plaintiffs mistakenly issued notices and complaints, and Defendants peace and tranquility was falsely jeopardized by the Plaintiffs zealously compounded confusion and barratrous counsel.

3.2 For each and all of these reasons, the Plaintiffs have no evidence to substantiate their

24mistaken CAUSE OF ACTION against these Defendants. Any further contemplated action 25against the Defendants must CEASE and DESIST immediately. It is the Plaintiffs themselves 26who bear fault for this neighborly controversy, and justice is served only by immediately 27dismissing this action with prejudice, denying the conspiratorial Plaintiffs the relief they seek. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35


There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. OConner, 99 F.2d 1334.1 4.1 Defendants have suffered substantial real and emotional damages from the Plaintiffs

36and their counsel now mistakenly being used against them as a quasi-legal appearing basis for 37ejectment. The continuance of this matter into renewed litigation based on mistaken property


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1identity causing harassment and harm to the Defendant is now starkly apparent. The re-filing of 2this prima facie unwarranted matter indicates conduct on the part of the Plaintiffs to be 3possessive of all essential elements of conspiracy and fraud with the aim of an unjust enrichment 4through intimidation and the appearance of justice through litigation. 5 4.2 Through continuance of this mistaken-property-identity fraud from case #11 2 06491 1, 6the Defendant has experienced undue actual hardships and emotional stress, and also a misplaced 7substantial and intimidating (quasi-legal) threat to avoid potential but unwarranted homelessness. 8 4.3 Defendant has experienced a significant loss of peace and stability with a 9commensurate waste of emotional energy through the acts of the Plaintiffs, attorneys and Sheriff 10who commenced this and previous legal actions without due diligence or fact-checking.

12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

5.1 WHEREFORE, Defendant claims significant damages against the Plaintiffs in the Relief sought: A. For their deliberate act(s) of fraud and the subsequent damages resulting there-from, Defendant claims real damages against the Plaintiffs and each of them in the amount of $100,000.00 (U.S.). B. With all the sloppy mortgage securitizations and illegalities manifest in the national disgrace of the home-foreclosure feeding frenzy: for Punitive Damages for the barratry now caused twice by the incompetent attorneys and the foreclosure-mill law firms should be in the amount of $300,000, Total damages claimed herein: $400,000.00 6.2 Defendant feels such relief requested to be just, fair, and as those amounts sufficiently

16amounts described below:

30incumbent upon the Plaintiffs / attorneys that they might exercise more discretion, inspection and 31forethought in the deliberate mis-construing and manipulating of facts and affairs so directly 32impacting the very lives of those who are legitimate property owners of 34and just neighbors of their contracted targets, the Richmonds at 15902. Unit 1, 15832, 33neighbors of Peggy Lopez, et al., (with whom CARTWRIGHT is an associate) in Unit 2, 15832,


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1 2 3 4 6

6.1 Defendant has shown that the Plaintiffs are without a valid cause of action, and have 6.2 Defendant has shown the Plaintiffs to be the sole initiator and cause of the action;

5therefore failed to state or verify any tangible claim upon which relief may be granted. 7their acts of negligence and deliberate fraud regarding improper property descriptions being the 8fabric for their claims. 9 6.3 THIS COURT will find that the Defendants should not be subject to ejectment. 10Instead Plaintiffs continued callous neglect of the facts and the law has imposed unwarranted 11legally-abusive conditions upon the Defendant that justify the punitive damages sought for such, 12(supra). 13 14Defendants reserve all rights under the law, by adhesion or otherwise, nunc pro tunc. 15 16Submitted with respect for the law and justice this ___ of September, 2012. 17 18 Not an Accommodation RCW 62A.3-419 19 ________________________ 20 Steven McKay Defendant, pro per 21 15832 18th Place West (Lot 2) 22 Lynnwood, WA 98087 23Witness_______________________ 24 25Transmitted without prejudice. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 DEFENDANTS ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM. Page 8 of Eight
Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

1 2 3

Proof of Service

4On this 19th day of September 2012, I_________________________placed into the mail under 5U.S. Mail Certified Cover #7008 3230 0000 6583 6553 a true and correct copy of the: 6 7 8 9 10And sent to Mark S Leen 11WSBA Member card # 35934 12Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder PS 13777 108th Ave NE Ste 1900 14Bellevue, WA 98004-5144
Phone: (425) 450-4219 Fax: (425) 635-7720 TDD: Email:

ANSWER to Plaintiffs Complaint Lease Agreement Short PLAT MAP

15 16I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action, 17 18Submitted this ___of September, 2012 19_________________________________


Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West