JOHN DOE,

AND DOES 1-10,

12345 MAPLE STREET
ANYWHERE, USA 17766 c/o:

Help R Homeowner
P O BOX 987654
ANYWHERE, USA 17766
As Power of Attorney for and
in behalf of JOHN DOE

I am the Defendant/Respondent

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF SUMMIT COUNTY, USA

FIRST NATIONAL BANKSTERS, A

DIVISION OF FIRST TRUST-NO-ONE, ANSWER
NATIONAL ASOCIATION

Plaintiff, Case No. 10-25874196

-vs- Judge: Notso Sharp

JOHN DOE,
AND DOES 1-10,

Defendant(s)

COMPLAINT FOR EVICTION

Comes the Defendant, JOHN DOE, and for his answer to the Complaint filed herein
against him states as follows:

1. Defendant is currently out of town performing duties in training as mandated by

his employer. See exhibit “A”

2. Defendant is therefore responding under duress to complaint of Plaintiff.

3. Defendant reserves the right to further state his answer to said Complaint.
4. Agent of Counsel committed a criminal trespass in the serving of said Complaint

and Defendant believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

5. Agent of Counsel attests through Affidavit of Service to delivering said Complaint

to incorrect location, and Defendant believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

6. Defendant therefore was not properly served with complaint and believes there is no

lawful proof to the contrary.

7. Claim in Paragraph 1 of Complaint is Hearsay and Defendant believes there is no

lawful proof to the contrary.

8. Claim in paragraph 3 of Complaint is Hearsay and Defendant believes there is no

lawful proof to the contrary.

9. Defendant lawfully removed and revoked alleged Trustee on 02/22/2010 and

Defendant believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

10. Defendant lawfully removed and revoked original Power of Attorney on

02/22/2010 and Defendant believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

11. Claims in paragraph(s) 2, 4, and 5 of complaint are therefore based on Hearsay

and were unlawfully conducted by Plaintiff through Counsel and Defendant believes

there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

12. Defendant has seen no lawful proof of claim that Plaintiff is damaged and Defendant

believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

13. Plaintiff through Counsel is attempting a fraudulent presentment of a Counterfeit

Security Instrument as their proof of claim before the Court and Defendant believes there

is no lawful proof to the contrary.

14. Defendant believes that alleged Note has been sold by Plaintiff and that there

is no lawful proof to the contrary.

15. Plaintiffs claim in paragraph 8 is based on Hearsay and Defendant believes there

is no lawful proof to the contrary.

16. Plaintiffs standing in paragraphs 6 and 7 of complaint is based on Hearsay, and

Defendant believes there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

17. Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs request(s) to the Court for relief as noted in

paragraphs number 1, 2, and 3 is entirely based on Hearsay, and Defendant believes

there is no lawful proof to the contrary.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, after multiple requests to Plaintiff, has yet to see any lawful

proof of claim and standing by Plaintiff. That the alleged Note Plaintiff is citing as being in

default, is a unilateral contract with no Duty or Performance signature by Plaintiff to provide

any consideration whatsoever to Defendant. Until such a time that Plaintiff comes forth with

proof of damages by providing original wet ink contract, and agrees to provide such lawful

proof under oath, Defendant believes Plaintiffs demand(s) is entirely based on Hearsay, and

that there is no lawful proof to the contrary, and therefore no controversy whatsoever before

the Court.

DATED this ____ day of March 2010

X______________________________
Help R Homeowner as Power of Attorney for and in behalf of JOHN DOE