Eviction.answER. to Complaint.2 | Cause Of Action | Lawsuit

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


9 10SUE MUDROVICH, a woman ) No. 12 2 07346 3 11KATHY CARTWRIGHT, a woman ) 12 ) DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNWARRANTED 13 PLAINTIFFS, ) CIVIL COMPLAINT…FOR 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 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE 4 DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM. Page 1 of Eight
Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West

without waiving objections to 4improper service (on Friday August 30th 2012).4 With regards to paragraph 1. Defendant must 23deny the accuracy of all of Plaintiffs’ statements. defective subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Defendant agrees. and has 25Carlson admits that she was and is a resident of Snohomish County at all times material.2 of the Complaint.1 With regards to pertinent allegations contained in the Complaint. Defendant denies 2.1 & 1. Plaintiffs lack sufficient 22grounds for anything let alone ejectment under any statute or claim.2 With regards to paragraph 1. except that he notes that an apparent fatal 19defect is evidenced within the Plaintiff’s Complaint papers (infra).n. 17 2. located at 15832 18th Place 2West. AND COUNTERCLAIM. 12 Formerly identified as STEVE (LAURENCE) KNUDSEN (and “SARA” l. Page 2 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . speaking in 3unison with and on behalf of his associate. 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). (hereinafter “Defendant”). Therefore. or mistaken identity. 24 26 2. hereby seeks to place upon the record in this Court. 2. Defendant McKay agrees. Based on a direct 180° conflicting error in Plaintiffs’ filing.) in the 2previous Superior Court case # 11 2 06491 1 3 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. Defendant Peggy 2. Defendant must deny the 16accuracy of these statements based on Plaintiffs erroneously held claims below. 8 9 10 11 12 14 II.u.1 1 COMES NOW. (Lot 2) Lynnwood (98087).u. ANSWER. in Unit 1 of the 2 unit Condominium thereon. AFFIRMATIVE 4 DEFENSES. his 6Answer to the Complaint in the above entitled action.3 With regards to paragraph 1. and his 7counterclaim for compensatory and punitive damages.4 of the Complaint. Peggy Carlson. 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. The contractual evidence that 20could make Plaintiffs the tenant-in-common fee owners of said real property remains in question 21(infra). his affirmative defenses. 15proof and knowledge of Plaintiffs’ statements contained there-under.n.3 Defendant Steven McKay2 lacks sufficient proof and 18knowledge of the statements contained there-under. Defendant lacks sufficient 13and admits as follows. 5or timely appeal.3 With regards to paragraph 1. And “CHRIS” l. Steven McKay.5 of the Complaint.

5 With regards to paragraph 1. 12 14 b. husband and wife For and in consideration of Ten Dollars and Other Good and Valuable Consideration In hand paid.6 With regards to Section II. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION. a condominium and use of limited common elements.6 of the Complaint. A true and correct copy…is attached hereto as Exhibit B. along with Peggy A.” “Void in part. who was not properly listed in 9Part I. 4matter appears VOID ab initio.” 30 31 2. thus 3denying this court subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as stated therein. “THE GRANTORS Paramjit Singh and Parmjeet Singh.… The following described real estate… Unit 1. and warrant to Linda Lee Snyder and Peggy A. Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s 32statement that “Defendant Carlson leased the Subject Property” in that both Peggy Carlson and 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. who are assumed to be the predecessors-in-interest. void in toto. First. it plainly states thereon: 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 . It was signed by Paramjit Singh c. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES.7 With regards to paragraph 2. as follows: 8 a. Plaintiff attorney failed to note who issued said Deed. namely one Linda Lee Snyder.…” d.” 17Upon cursory reading of said Deed. Carlson on the STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 11(Plaintiff’s Exhibit B). Defendant denies in its entirety because the Plaintiffs’ Attorney has blatantly 7misconstrued the material Facts and basis of the acquisition of the subject premises. Page 3 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . who was listed as the 10Primary Party. conveys.1 of the 6Complaint. 15conveyed the Subject Property to Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest pursuant to a Statutory 16Warranty Deed. paragraph 2. Carlson. 27 28 29 MAXIMS OF LAW: “The end of litigation is justice. Defendant agrees that venue is The instant 2proper.2 of the Complaint. Plaintiff attorney introduces a new integral party. Facey-Merkle. AND COUNTERCLAIM. 5 2. Plaintiff attorney fails to identify or supply any proper commercial paperwork 23(emphasis added) 25showing the nexus between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs.1 2. BACKGROUND FACTS. Then Plaintiff attorney states (¶ 2.1) that: “Defendant Carlson and Linda Lee Snyder 13and Parmjeet Singh. but denies with substantive evidence that subject-matter is properly in place. husband and wife.

8 of the Complaint.1 of the Complaint. 17CARTWRIGHT does have some relationship(s) with a Peggy Lopez. 11 2. since the notice 12to quit was not from the people who were on the contract. Notary Linda Robards and 16Windermere Real Estate Agent Robert Slattery.13 With regards to paragraph 2. 18 2.8 With regards to paragraph 2.12 With regards to paragraph 2. until 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. 9was with the Option to buy.” 6 8 2. et al.9 With regards to paragraph 2.5 of the Complaint. 27 2. Defendant admits with sufficient 23substantive evidence to show legal ownership.1Steven McKay are listed on the 6 month Lease Agreement that they both signed on January 22. AND COUNTERCLAIM. the Singhs. but from a new lady named KATHY CARTWRIGHT from KING COUNTY who has 14no lease agreement contract in evidence with the Defendants. living in Unit 2. Complaint forms available upon written request.WASHINGTON” 5[EXHIBIT: LEASE] that has terminology respecting any “attorneys’ fee and cost provision.” Defendants’ affirmative defenses will show the Plaintiffs to have mistaken the deed with 25the Richmonds (infra) for 15902 18th Place West (. 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. Defendant denies since the Lease 7he has lived on the property since he signed the original lease agreement on January 22. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES.. Defendant denies. Defendant states for clarification that 2. 2005. after notification and at present. the Singhs who sold the property 7 13years ago. 22 2. Unit 1) upon which relief can be granted.14 With regards to Section III CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE paragraph 283. Lynnwood.10 With regards to paragraph 2.4 of the Complaint.3 of the Complaint.6 of the Complaint.Lot B) and failed to state or verify a legal 26claim against neighboring Defendants (15832 – Lot 2. Defendant is with copies of 2 15complaint forms for fraudulent filing activities with CARTWRIGHT.7 of the Complaint. Defendant cannot agree to Plaintiffs’ statements therein. and that the Plaintiff has “knocked on the wrong 24door. Defendant admits to retaining 19possession of the property at 15832 18th Place West. except to stipulate 29that Plaintiffs’ statements of Complaint have been superseded by these Answers herein.11 With regards to paragraph 2. Page 4 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . Defendants deny in that they fail to 4see any such language on the “RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT . 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. 3 2. 22005 as agreed to by their Landlords.

Defendant claims that no relief is due. 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. Punitive sanctions and disciplinary action against the inept attorney 17Mark S. and was satisfied with the purchase agreement of that property being finalized in November of 2005. Page 5 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . 31 32 On or about January 22. Defendants individually and jointly signed a LEASE AGREEMENT for the property (LOT 2) 15832 18th Place West with the Singhs (EXH.16 Since a contract or a legal case loses subject-matter jurisdiction at its first (fatal) 9flaw. WSBA Bar member card # 35934. having pointedly answered mis-placed allegations made in the Complaint. and fees 15inflicted through their conspiratorial mistaken identification of the property and resultant. 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. since it was a lease to purchase. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Another party. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES. 3. husband and wife had leased or purchased the neighboring house (on LOT B) 15902 18th Place West several years earlier.] 3 2. and his barratrous attorney office of Inslee 18Best Doezie & Ryder should be in order. 16persistent contract fraud. 23propounds preliminary affirmative defense facts as follows: 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. and Vala Lou Richmond. 26 27 28 29 30B.1 Defendant. namely Daniel John Richmond. 2005.1substantively refuted in writing.15 With regards to paragraph 3. III. See EXHIBIT: PLAT 8 2. LEASE). and legal Unit 2 as Condo A. only 13ridicule. 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. AND COUNTERCLAIM. (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. 19 20 21 22 24 25A.2 of the Complaint. [The situation is rather convoluted by property descriptions and 2by the dual labeling of legal Unit 1 as Condo B. 12 With regard to Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief. Leen. No controversies have arisen from that Lease.

It is the Plaintiffs themselves 26who bear fault for this neighborly controversy. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 IV.] To Defendants’ knowledge. 10 11 12 13 14F. DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES. 3. [Lot B at 15902] have no interest or legal claim respecting Lot 2 at 15832 18th Place West. “Deed in Lieu of Forclosure(sic)” signed 11/10/10 and filed into Snohomish County records under File # 201105310678. Defendants live in Unit 1 of the Condominium on Lot 2. b. AND COUNTERCLAIM. denying the conspiratorial Plaintiffs the relief they seek. Defendants have clearly shown their good faith and willingness to respond as compelled to the Plaintiffs’ mistakenly issued notices and complaints. although in good faith. Defendant has substantially complied with all agreements pertinent to Lot 2. which is submitted as Plaintiffs’ EXHIBIT A. Those papers can be made available upon demand. Only Daniel and Vala Richmond have any contractual obligation to Plaintiff parties Kathy Cartwright and Susan Mudrovich. The continuance of this matter into renewed litigation based on mistaken property 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. Perhaps Unit 2 could be mistaken for Lot 2. dismissed. and a preceding lawsuit No 11 2 06491 1. if necessary. and justice is served only by immediately 27dismissing this action with prejudice.2 For each and all of these reasons. with a Legal Description of “Unit 2 of Facey-Merkle. and Defendants’ peace and tranquility was falsely jeopardized by the Plaintiffs’ zealously compounded confusion and barratrous counsel.2d 1334. 99 F. the Plaintiffs have no evidence to substantiate their 24mistaken CAUSE OF ACTION against these Defendants. [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.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. Any further contemplated action 25against the Defendants must CEASE and DESIST immediately. resides solely with the Defendants. 2 3 4 5 6 7D.1 4. is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign. a condominium…” but is. Page 6 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . could have even been commenced: a. Daniel and Vala Richmond. O’Conner. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendant is at a loss as to how this Complaint. evidence and belief. Defendants have sufficient papers to show that lawful chain of title for the property. 15 16 17G. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES. 8 9E. “There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully. Lot 2 at 15832 18th Place West.” Cooper v. their neighbors.1C. in actuality 15902 18th Place West – without evidence of a legal description on record.

000. Defendant claims real damages against the Plaintiffs and each of them in the amount of $100.). 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. B. et al. fair. 15832.2 Defendant feels such relief requested to be just. 6the Defendant has experienced undue actual hardships and emotional stress. 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. AND COUNTERCLAIM. (with whom CARTWRIGHT is an associate) in Unit 2. 15832. and also a misplaced 7substantial and intimidating (quasi-legal) threat to avoid potential but unwarranted homelessness.. Total damages claimed herein: $400. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES. Page 7 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . 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. For their deliberate act(s) of fraud and the subsequent damages resulting there-from. the Richmonds at 15902. 5 4.000.00 (U.2 Through continuance of this mistaken-property-identity fraud from case #11 2 06491 1. 33neighbors of Peggy Lopez.00 6. and as those amounts sufficiently 16amounts described below: 30incumbent upon the Plaintiffs / attorneys that they might exercise more discretion.000. 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. Unit 1. 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. 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 V. RELIEF REQUESTED. attorneys and Sheriff 10who commenced this and previous legal actions without due diligence or fact-checking.S. 5. Defendant claims significant damages against the Plaintiffs in the Relief sought: A.1identity causing harassment and harm to the Defendant is now starkly apparent.1 WHEREFORE.

CONCLUSION. and have 6. 12(supra).2 Defendant has shown the Plaintiffs to be the sole initiator and cause of the action. pro per 21 15832 18th Place West (Lot 2) 22 Lynnwood. by adhesion or otherwise. AND COUNTERCLAIM.3-419 19 ________________________ 20 Steven McKay Defendant. nunc pro tunc. 2012. 17 18 Not an Accommodation RCW 62A.1 Defendant has shown that the Plaintiffs are without a valid cause of action. 5therefore failed to state or verify any tangible claim upon which relief may be granted. Page 8 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . 13 14Defendants reserve all rights under the law. 6. 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.3 THIS COURT will find that the Defendants should not be subject to ejectment. 7their acts of negligence and deliberate fraud regarding improper property descriptions being the 8fabric for their claims. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. 9 6. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES. 15 16Submitted with respect for the law and justice this ___ of September. WA 98087 23Witness_______________________ 24 25Transmitted without prejudice.1 2 3 4 6 VI.

AND COUNTERCLAIM. 2012 19_________________________________ 1 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER. 17 18Submitted this ___of September.com ANSWER to Plaintiffs Complaint Lease Agreement Short PLAT MAP 15 16I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. Page 9 of Eight Steven McKay 15832 18th Place West . WA 98004-5144 Phone: (425) 450-4219 Fax: (425) 635-7720 TDD: Email: mleen@insleebest.1 2 3 Proof of Service 4On this 19th day of September 2012.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. I_________________________placed into the mail under 5U. AFFIRMATIVE 2 DEFENSES.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful