1 :John-Henry: Doe

One of the People of Idaho

2 2719 South Banner Ct,
Nampa, Idaho
3
4
In the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the
5 county of Canyon
6 John-Henry: Doe and Margie-Dawnell: Doe ) Case No.: _________________________
Plaintiffs, )
7 ) Re: CV 2011-12345
8 vs. )
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT:
9 IDAHO HOUSING AND FINANCE )
1. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY
ASSOCIATION dba Mortgage Services ) RESTRAINING ORDER AND
10 Group, and Ryan M. Fawcett, Esquire and ) PRELIMINARY INJUCTIVE RELIEF
11 Skinner Fawcett LLP and Gary D. DeMeyer ) 2. FOR DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
d/b/a JUDGE GARY D DEMYER ) 3. FOR FRAUD, and PERJURY OF
) OATH BY JUDICIAL OFFICERS
12 4. IN THE NATURE OF A
Defendants )
COLLATERAL ATTACK AND
13 )
PETITION TO VACATE A VOID
) JUDGMENT IN CASE CV 2011-12345
14 ) 5. IMPOSITION OF A CONTRUCTIVE
) TRUST
15 6. JUDICIAL NOTICE
)
16 )
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
17
18 COMES NOW, :John-Henry: Doe and Margie-Dawnell: Doe people of Idaho in this court of
19 record, hereinafter Plaintiff, and complains of IDAHO HOUSING AND FINANCE

20 ASSOCIATION d/b/a Mortgage Services Group (“IHFA”), and Gary D. DeMeyer d/b/a
JUDGE GARY D. DEMYER, et al., each individually, and in their official capacities as
21
officers of their respective companies named above (hereinafter "Defendants") for their
22
numerous acts of fraud upon the court and Plaintiff and for denial of due process to plaintiff,
23
inclusive of any and all judicial and/or non-judicial proceedings, including without limitations,
24 Defendants’ purposeful fraud in attempting to appear as JUDGE to the court. Defendant
25 DeMeyer is well aware that the court did not have jurisdiction, and lost jurisdiction (for denial
26 of due process) in case number CV 2011-12345; that GARY D DEMEYER vacated the bench,
and therefore was not authorized to issue any kind of ruling in case number CV 2011-12345 .
27
28
Page 1of 18
 1 Plaintiff hereby reserves ALL RIGHTS, including without limitations, the Right to join any

2 and all other parties including new parties that Plaintiff may discover at any time during the
proceeding. It is now incumbent on this court to query Defendants as to their lawful positions
3
in this instant matter.
4
5
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE
6 This court is noticed: (1). Party petitioning to vacate judgment is proceeding via collateral
7 attack, (2). Party collaterally attacking void judgment is invoking the ministerial side of the

8 court – the court is deprived of judicial discretion, (3). Party asserting that the court had
jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show on the record that the court had jurisdiction, and
9
(4). Where the face of the record verifies jurisdictional failings, the court has a non-
10
discretionary duty to vacate the void judgment. No mischief by this court such as dismissal of
11
this petition, sua sponte or otherwise or inappropriately setting the matter for hearing will be
12 tolerated.
13 Full Faith and Credit Clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of
14 the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states, within the United States have to

15 respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. 28 U.S.C. § 1738:
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the
16
same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as
17
they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they
18 are taken.
19 This court is noticed: IHFA, putative creditor in this case, had no standing to bring a
20 foreclosure action against Plaintiffs for the reason that IHFA has never offered credible

21 evidence it is the owner and holder of the obligation granting it authority to take any action
against Plaintiff contrary to Idaho Commercial Code Title 28-3-302 (a) (c) (e) and 28-3-
22
106(d), 28-3-104(A)(1)(2)(3)(a)(b)(c), 28-3-306 and specifically 28-3-104(a)(1)1 as IHFA has
23
had notice and opportunity to produce and prove ownership of John-Henry: Doe’s original
24 wet-ink signed Note on at least three different occasions and has failed to do so. Upon putative
25 sale of the subject property, IHFA had a mandatory duty to return to Plaintiff the original
26 note/security, which it had to have as its authority to foreclose. IHFA has refused to produce
1
27 See Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1-A page 2 attached

28
Page 2 of 18
 1 said note/security, thereby admitting it does not have said note/security, and had no authority

2 to foreclose.

3
SUMMARY OF ACTION
4
This is a case involving John-Henry: Doe’s special appearance as the Executor, Beneficiary
5
and Heir of the Legal Estate of JOHN HENRY DOE and, John-Henry’s challenge to
6 jurisdiction as to subject matter and in persona, in case number CV 2011-12345; due to fraud,
7 and wrongful foreclosure by Defendants IHFA, and entry of a void judgment by Gary D.

8 DeMeyer (“DeMeyer”). By the complaint Plaintiff seeks vacation of the void judgment,
monetary and statutory damages for DeMeyer’s violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights, as
9
well as his refusal to acknowledge John-Henry: Doe’s special appearance. DeMeyer denied
10
John-Henry due process by his refusal to acknowledge the fraud reported to him, by his refusal
11
to perform according to his accepted oath of office, and, by his refusal to acknowledge the
12 bank's default on the charges. DeMeyer ceased to be impartial and vacated the bench. DeMeyer
13 clearly ignored the fact that the original wet-ink signature note was required to be returned to
14 Plaintiff after the "sale" but was not returned. DeMeyer clearly ignored the fact that IHFA

15 never had the note (the basis for IHFA’s foreclosure action against Plaintiff).
Further, Plaintiff seeks restitutionary relief and monetary damages for IHFA’s fraud
16
upon Plaintiff; restitutionary relief from Defendants’ Ryan M. Fawcett, Esquire and Skinner
17
Fawcett LLP et. al., for violation of the attorney code of professional conduct; restitutionary
18 relief from Defendant DeMeyer for perjury of DeMeyer’s Oath of Office, for aiding and
19 abetting IHFA’s fraud and that of IHFA’s agents, namely Defendants’ Ryan M. Fawcett,
20 Esquire and Skinner Fawcett LLP et. al.

21 JURISDICTION
1. The events that form the basis of this complaint occurred in Canyon county, state of
22
Idaho and within the jurisdiction of this court. Jurisdiction is proper in this court because
23
at least one of the Defendants is located in this judicial district. Defendants, upon
24
information and belief, do substantial business within this judicial district and the
25 controversy involves real property.
26
27
28
Page 3 of 18
 1 2. This Court is vested with full authority to hear any and all claims asserted herein,
2 including Federal Claims, pursuant to the Reverse Erie Doctrine as set down by
3 the High Court in Offshore Logistics v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986). In

4 short even if the case is brought before the state court, the state court must follow

5 federal statutory and general maritime law: 2 & 3

6
PARTIES
7
3. Plaintiffs are each one of the people domiciled in Canyon County, Idaho.
8
4. Defendant Gary D. DeMeyer d/b/a JUDGE GARY D. DEMYER (“DeMeyer”) is an individual
9
and corporate entity domiciled in Idaho and upon information and belief appears to be
10 registered to do business in Idaho.
115. Defendant IHFA, alleged lender and alleged plaintiff in the eviction action No. CV
12 2011-12345, is a corporation, with a listed address of 565 W. Myrtle, Boise, Idaho 83701.

13 6. Defendant Ryan M. Fawcett (“Fawcett”) is an attorney of SKINNER FAWCETT LLP

and individual under oath to obey the professional code of conduct.
14
7. Defendant SKINNER FAWCETT LLP (“FAWCETT”) is a professional corporation
15
domiciled in Idaho, and upon information and belief appears to be registered to do
16 business in Idaho.
17 STATEMENT OF FACTS
18 8. The record shows Plaintiff (in this case), John-Henry: family of Doe, (“John-Henry”) third
19 party intervener, (in case no. CV 2011-12345), with authority as donor grantee executor
and beneficiary, with a superior claim against the estate DUANE K. DOE, was denied
20
due process during the Hearing conducted on 01/05/12. When John-Henry was invited to
21
speak by DeMeyer, John-Henry spoke just seven words before DeMeyer ordered John-
22
Henry to stop. Whereupon John-Henry, mindful of his right to be heard, attempted to
23
2
See generally Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc. 638 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir. 1981):
24 3
“We agree with the district court that Burleigh County District Court of the State of North Dakota, the
25 court before which the state cause of action is pending, is a court of competent jurisdiction under this
provision of the FDCPA. Hence, the FDCPA claim may be heard before that state court.”
26 See also Cooley v. Wachovia, Chase Manhattan et al., 365 BR 464 (March 13, 2007)
“State Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear TILA claims.”
27
28
Page 4 of 18
 1 continue, but was stopped when DeMeyer commanded him to “SHUT-UP!” Thus,

2 DeMeyer denied John-Henry his due process right to be heard. And, due to John-Henry’s
prior acceptance of DeMeyers oath of office, (i.e. to uphold the law and John-Henry’s
3
rights there under), DeMeyer’s refusal to hear John-Henry, or to accept John-Henry’s
4
Notice of Felony, constitutes a denial of due process, and is a perjury by DeMeyer of his
5
oath of office.
6 9. DeMeyer is not free to utterly ignore evidence on the Record, nor is he free to ignore
7 evidence of IHFA’s default in John-Henry’s wrongful foreclosure lawsuit4. DeMeyer’s
8 Oath of Office requires DeMeyer to “do substantial justice” and it does not permit

9 DeMeyer to wrongfully evict the true owner of the property, as evidenced by John-
Henry’s good title to the subject property. (See public record acknowledgment of the
10
Warranty Deed, and the public record default and dishonor by IHFA.)
11
10. DeMeyer had no basis to refuse John-Henry’s Notice by Affidavit of Felony crime. John-
12
Henry presented the signed, sworn and sealed Notice by Affidavit of Felony Crime5
13 which DeMeyer refused to accept. DeMeyer had a duty to accept said Affidavit pursuant
14 to USC 18 § 4. By DeMeyer’s refusal to accept said Affidavit, DeMeyer breached

15 Federal Law at USC 18 § 4 and became complicit in the crimes reported in said Affidavit.

16 11. The record shows John-Henry’s pending Wrongful Foreclosure suit against IHFA, filed on
11/17/11 with a scheduled hearing on 02/02/12.
17
12. Fawcett and FAWCETT knew, or should have known, that in order for him to comply
18
with the code of professional conduct and his oath of office, he was required to conduct a
19 diligent search to determine if IHFA was in fact the holder in due course with authority
20 and standing to foreclose. Nothing on the record shows that IHFA is the owner or holder
21 in due course of the note/security, now the property of Plaintiff.

22 13. It is public record fact that IHFA was given notice and opportunity to collect legal tender

23 funds from Gayle Sullivan, Notary Public and Escrow Agent, on 11/30/10, via certified
mail #7010 0780 0000 2196 3471 in exchange for Plaintiff’s original promissory note,
24
after Plaintiff agreed to accept IHFA’s contractual offer to collect $203,000.00 in
25
4
26 5
Exhibit 2-A Wrongful foreclosure suit Case # CV 2011-11495 filed 11/17/11 3rd Judicial District Idaho
Exhibit 3-A NOTICE BY AFFIDAVIT OF FELONY CRIME dated 01/04/12 & filed 01/05/12
27
28
Page 5 of 18
 1 November 2010.6 IHFA failed to do so and subsequently defaulted upon and dishonored

2 its own offer to collect and to return the original note/security, (the basis of their alleged
authority).
3
14. Plaintiff’s Plea in Abatement and Mandatory Judicial Notice in case no. CV 2011-12345
4
with all exhibits is incorporated as though fully stated herein.
5
15. The Record shows Plaintiff’s good title predates the defective title obtained by IHFA on
6 Plaintiff’s property and IHFA’s bad title is rendered void due to the clear record of
7 Plaintiff’s good title. 7
8 16. IHFA’s failure to comply with RESPA deprived IHFA of any authority to proceed with
9 the non-judicial foreclosure. IHFA’s failure to comply with the Real Estate Settlement
Procedure Act (“RESPA”) is a statutory violation and is prima fascie evidence that
10
IHFA’s conduct is in bad faith.8
11
17. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the concepts of fairness and equity for Defendant IHFA to
12
be allowed to kept the real property and all interest therein AND the Plaintiff’s genuine
13 wet-ink signed original promissory note (“NOTE”) and all interest therein and leave
14 Plaintiff with nothing:
15 See: JAMES F. JOHNSTON and SANDRA JOHNSTON, Appellants,
v. JEANNE HUDLETT, Appellee. No. 4D08-4636 [March 31, 2010]
16 DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
FOURTH DISTRICT, January Term 2010
17 “Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes,
they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be
18 surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes
the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so
19 that it cannot thereafter be negotiated. See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital
Corp., 888 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The judgment
20 cancels the note.”

21 18. More simply stated:

22 6
Exhibit 4-A 1st time Conditional Acceptance of IHFA’s offer dated 11/09/10;
7
Exhibit 5-A Certified copy of Acknowledgment of Warranty Deed that predates any Trustee’s deed
23 filed by purported agents for IHFA
24 8
Exhibit 6-A QWR accepted by IHFA on or about 11/15/10 with no verifiable response. The
25 available damages for violation under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 as follows:(1) Individuals: actual damages
plus $2,000; (The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law
26 on July 21, 2010.)

27
28
Page 6 of 18
 1
a. Defendant, IHFA, deposited Plaintiffs' Note as an asset of the bank, but,
2
failed to credit Plaintiff or provide a receipt, thereby converting Plaintiffs' note
3
to the bank’s profit and use; using Plaintiffs' funds to fund the putative loan.
4
Plaintiff never received a loan from IHFA.
5
b. Defendants are attempting to take back the real property from
6
Plaintiff;
7
c. Defendants MUST then return the NOTE to Plaintiff if Defendants are
8
successful in unlawfully converting Plaintiff’s real property to Defendants’ use;
9
d. Defendants cannot by law be allowed to have both the real property and
10
the NOTE, such is also inclusive of all copies, certified or not, of the NOTE;
11
e. Plaintiff cannot be stripped of all rights and possession of both
12
the real property and the NOTE;
13
f. The law of equity requires that neither party have both the
14
NOTE and the real property;
15
g. Defendants filed false and/or forged documents in a public office
16
in Idaho, each filing being a felony under Idaho law;
17
h. Title 28 of the Idaho Revised Statutes requires Defendants to
18
return the Genuine Original Promissory Note and all copies, certified
19
or not, to Plaintiff once Defendants foreclosed on Plaintiff’s real
20
property9 (provided Defendants can show authority to foreclose).
21
i. The foreclosure of the real property is not fully ‘completed’ nor
22
‘perfected’ nor consummated until such time as the Genuine Original
23
Promissory Note is returned to Plaintiff;
24
j. Defendants are currently in unlawful possession of the Genuine Original
25
Promissory Note and copies thereof, certified or not,;
26
9
27 See Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1-A page 2 attached

28
Page 7 of 18
 1
k. Plaintiff is currently in possession of the real property as the
2
True owner which is one aspect in relation to Defendants’ and
3
Plaintiff’s currency transaction;
4
l. There is no basis in law for either party in a “currency exchange”
5
and/or other transaction to achieve possession of all items in the
6
transaction even after default of a party;
7
m. There is no factual evidence that Plaintiff ever defaulted on
8
Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s transaction.
9
19. Plaintiff believes that Defendants jointly and/or separately have violated: Idaho Statutes §§
10
18-1001 et seq, 18-2601 et seq, 18-3101 et seq, 18-3203, 18-3601, et seq, 18-5401 et seq,
11 18-5701 et seq, 18-7801 et seq, 28-9-101 et seq, and/or other Idaho laws, and, if true,
12 Plaintiff believes Defendants have knowingly, intelligently and willfully, with full
13 knowledge of the consequences thereof, committed felonious acts to unlawfully foreclose

14 on Plaintiff’s real property and have failed to perfect the foreclosure by refusing to return
the genuine wet-ink signed original promissory Note.
15
16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
17 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18
20. Plaintiff reaffirms and restates the foregoing paragraphs herein above as if set forth more
19 fully herein below.
20 21. This is an action for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary
21 injunctive relief which is brought pursuant to applicable law.
22 22. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to seek TRO and preliminary injunctive relief as Plaintiff
23 lives and takes up housekeeping in the Property. Defendant IHFA is seeking, without
satisfying the necessary legal standing requirements, to evict the true owner, to take
24
possession, custody, and control of the Property and ultimately to remove the Plaintiff
25
from Plaintiff’s own home.
26
27
28
Page 8 of 18
 1 23. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm complained of, and the
2 eviction of Plaintiff from his own property, under the circumstances of record, is contrary
to equity and good conscience in that such eviction would deprive Plaintiff of his home to
3
which he has good title, and, possession of the property would be given to parties that
4
have no legal standing to take possession.
5
24. The specific facts set forth in this Complaint demonstrate that, unless an emergency TRO
6 and preliminary injunction are granted, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury, damage and
7 loss of their home and eviction therefrom.
8 25. Due to the non-judicial nature of foreclosure actions in Idaho, irreparable loss of the
9 Plaintiff’s home will result if the relief requested herein is not granted.

10 26. The granting of the relief requested herein is in the public interest, as the consuming
public, including Plaintiff, will continue to be harmed by the illegal and unlawful conduct
11
of the Defendant, IHFA et al., if the relief requested herein is not granted.
12
27. Under the circumstances where there is no harm to Defendants with the granting of the
13
requested relief, no bond should be required as a prerequisite to the granting of the relief
14 requested herein as there are no costs or other damages which could be contemplated on
15 the part of Defendants with the granting of the requested relief for which a bond would
16 otherwise be necessary.

17 APPLICABLE PERSUASIVE AND CONTROLLING LAW 10

18 In this situation it is fair to say that someone losing the sanctity and possession of their
19 most cherished possession of a lifetime – their home – is on stronger footing than

20 someone losing crops and trees. As the other elements including substantial likelihood of
success are met in the face of the rampant Fraud involved throughout this proceeding,
21
the Requested Relief must be GRANTED.
22
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23 DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
24
28. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every statement and allegation set forth above.
25
26
10
27 See Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1-A page 5 & 6 attached

28
Page 9 of 18
 1 29. The real party in interest has the right to be heard. Plaintiff was denied this right in the
2 hearing conducted on 01/05/12, wherein Plaintiff was invited to speak by DeMeyer.
Plaintiff spoke just seven words before DeMeyer ordered Plaintiff to stop. Plaintiff,
3
mindful of his right to be heard, attempted to continue but was stopped by DeMeyer’s
4
command to “SHUT-UP!” Plaintiff was denied his due process rights to be heard and to
5
impartial justice. Plaintiff objected but was forced to stand on his pleadings already
6 submitted. DeMeyer’s conduct demonstrates that he did not read (and completely
7 ignored) Plaintiff’s pleadings, including Plaintiff’s acceptance of DeMeyer’s oath of
8 office, which DeMeyer was, nevertheless, bound to honor.

9 30. DeMeyer repeatedly asked for evidence from John-Henry: Doe, yet refused to
acknowledge the evidence and exhibits contained in John-Henry: Doe’s pleadings.11
10
John-Henry: Doe attempted to submit his Notice by Affidavit of Felony Crime, yet
11
DeMeyer refused to acknowledge it; thereby cooperating with, and becoming complicit in
12
IHFA’s fraud. By DeMeyer’s sworn oath, which John-Henry accepted, DeMeyer had a
13 duty to accept Duane-Kevbin’s Affidavit of Felony Crime and to hear what John-Henry
14 had to say, as opposed to ordering John-Henry to “SHUT-UP!” Not only is DeMeyer’s

15 conduct a denial of due process, DeMeyer’s conduct willfully aided and abetted a fraud;
was a perjury of DeMeyer’s oath of office and constitutes rebellion against the
16
Constitution for the United States. DeMeyer has sworn an Oath to uphold the law and to
17
do substantial justice under the law. What law? The law of the land is the Constitution
18
for the United States; the Bill of Rights guaranteeing John-Henry’s rights thereunder.
19
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20 FRAUD BY DEFENDANTS UPON THE COURT

21 31. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every statement and allegation set forth above.
22 32. Defendants IHFA, Fawcett and FAWCETT owed plaintiff a legal duty to exercise
23 reasonable care to not bring a fraudulent foreclosure claim and a fraudulent unlawful

24 detainer action. Defendants FAWCETT and Fawcett, had a duty to conform to a higher
standard of care to bring no false claims that could subject them to sanctions.
25
26 11
Objection & Plea in Abatement 12/22/11, Mandatory Judicial Notice 01/03/12, Notice by Affidavit of Felony
27 Crime 01/05/12.

28
Page 10 of 18
 1 33. Litigants are expected to “investigate their claims before filing a complaint so that they
2 have a basis at the outset to make particularized factual allegations in the complaint.”
White v. Panic, 783 A.2d 543, 555-56 (Del. 2001).
3
34. FAWCETT and Ryan M. Fawcett, principal and attorney, abused his position, perjured
4
his oath to bring no false claim, and violated multiple criminal statutes resulting in an
5
illegal, void, foreclosure sale of Plaintiffs’ property; breached his/its duty to investigate
6 IHFA’s claim of authority, and by bringing a fraudulent foreclosure action, without
7 standing or authority, without a sufficiency of pleadings thereby injured Plaintiff.
8 35. Plaintiff has lost many productive hours (at least 200 hours) defending against the
9 fraudulent foreclosure claim brought by FAWCETT and Fawcett and IHFA; Plaintiff
suffered economic loss, hardship, emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ fraud.
10
36. Defendants made multiple false statements and filed false documents that are public
11
record prima facie evidence of Defendants’ fraud against Plaintiff. The fact that IHFA
12
and FAWCETT failed/refused to return the note/security to Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs’
13 tender of payment, and, again, after the putative “sale” of the subject property, shows
14 Defendants never had the note/security and cannot produce it, rendering the “sale” and
15 eviction “judgment” void.

16 37. Defendants’ false statements and false documents are material in that the false
statements and documents resulted in the scheduling of a fraudulent foreclosure sale on
17
November 18, 2011, and a void judgment for eviction in case CV 2011-12345.
18
Defendants knew their statements and documents were false at the time they were made
19
and recorded.
20 38. Defendants intended Plaintiff to act in reliance on the false statements and false
21 documents.
22 39. Plaintiff exposed Defendants’ fraud, noticed Defendants on multiple occasions to
23 withdraw its/their fraudulent claim, yet Defendants continued to pursue their fraud in
willful disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and in violation of the law.
24
40. Defendants’ false statements and fraudulent documents were made in bad faith with
25
reckless disregard for the law, and Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate
26
result of Defendants’ fraud.
27
28
Page 11 of 18
 1 41. The pending action in case no. CV 2011-11495, to which IHFA has defaulted and failed
2 to respond, proves Plaintiff’s charges of Wrongful Foreclosure and fraud to be true and
factual due to failure by IHFA to answer any of Plaintiff’s statements and verified facts
3
therein. The Record shows Defendant IHFA failed to timely Answer said case filed on
4
11/17/11 and has yet to file an Answer to case no. CV 2011-11495.
5
42. Consequently, IHFA has attempted to steal Plaintiff’s home without proof of claim
6
through the back door of the legal system.
7
8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 IN THE NATURE OF A COLLATERAL ATTACK AND
PETITION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT IN CASE CV 2011-12345
10
43. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every statement and allegation set forth above.
11
44. Defendants illegally perverted the foreclosure and eviction process against Plaintiff for
12
personal gain.
13
45. Defendants had the ulterior motive of extorting money based on a sham foreclosure and
14 eviction action where the Defendant IHFA is not the real party in interest.
15 46. Defendant IHFA was warned on multiple occasions to withdraw its fraudulent claim.
16 47. The evidence shows that Defendants IHFA failed and refused to withdraw and
17 continued to abuse the foreclosure and eviction process for its personal gain.

18 48. Defendants IHFA, and FAWCETT brought an action in CASE CV 2011-12345 to evict
Plaintiffs, without clean hands, without standing, having failed to return the original
19
note/security as required, thereby admitting it did not have the note; did not have the
20
standing or authority to foreclose or to deprive plaintiffs of their home.
21 49. DeMeyer perjured his oath of office to be fair, impartial and to uphold the law; denied
22 Plaintiffs their due process rights; vacated the bench and sided with IHFA and
23 FAWCETT.

24 50. Plaintiffs suffered loss of income, humiliation, and emotional distress due to the
attempted illegal foreclosure sale on Plaintiffs’ home.
25
26
27
28
Page 12 of 18
 1 51. Due to the discovery of various elements of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation,

2 and extortion, Plaintiff was injured as a direct and proximate result of

Defendants’ actions.
3
52. Idaho lags behind states like Utah in that it does not have a Wrongful Foreclosure
4
Statute per se. But the Court is free to apply the common sense tenets of such an
5
act when the provision relies on a power already inherent to the Court, to wit:
6 Utah Wrongful Foreclosure Act Section 57-1a-201(1)(b): a person who publishes or
7 posts a wrongful notice of sale is liable to the trustor (mortgagor) for any actual
8 damages proximately caused by the wrongful notice of sale.

9 53. Defendants are civilly liable for wrongful notice of default per Utah Wrongful
Foreclosure Act Section 57-1a-201(1)(a) that states a person who files a wrongful
10
notice of default for recording in a county recorder’s office is liable to the trustor
11
(mortgagor) for any actual damages proximately caused by the wrongful notice of
12
default.
13 54. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule §17(a)(1) specifically identifies the persons who
14 are entitled to enforce a security interest, such as instituting a foreclosure sale under a
15 Deed of Trust. The Rule is exclusive rather than inclusive in nature, and those who are

16 not identified do not have the right to enforce such an interest.

55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that no Defendants are in
17
possession of the original genuine Note and Deed of Trust, and are not otherwise
18
entitled to payment. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
19 that said Defendants are not “person[s] entitled to enforce” the security interest on the
20 Property.
21 56. The Complaint for Foreclosure on behalf of Idaho Housing and Finance by Skinner
22 Fawcett LLP, was a fraud upon the court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that

23 Defendants knew said Complaint was a fraud.

57. The Notice of Trustee Sale attempted by Defendants is a fraud. Plaintiffs’ are informed
24
and believes that Defendants knew said Notice was a fraud.
25
58. Said Defendants did not and do not have the right to foreclose upon the Property under
26
the law. Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendants did have some right to enforce the
27
28
Page 13 of 18
 1 security interest, the procedures used violated statutory requirements governing non-

2 judicial foreclosure sales.

59. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiffs has
3
suffered damages, including, but not limited to, direct monetary loss, consequential
4
damages, and emotional distress.
5
60. In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, said Defendants acted with malice,
6 oppression and fraud. Said Defendants' willful conduct warrants an award of exemplary
7 damages in an amount sufficient to punish the wrongful conduct and deter such
8 misconduct in the future.

9 61. Per Rules of Civil Procedure “When a motion for judgment is made under any other
circumstances, the court shall consider all evidence and inferences in the light most
10
favorable to the party against whom the motion is made.”
11
62. Considering the overwhelming, un-rebutted, public record fact evidence, and that
12
Defendants are estopped from uttering any oral or written response, it is proper for the
13 court, with regard for the rules to award judgment in favor of Plaintiffs sua sponte, with
14 no need for a hearing on this matter.
15
16 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Imposition of Constructive Trust
17 (Against Defendant Idaho Housing and Finance)

18 63. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.

19 64. Plaintiff is the rightful owner of legal title to the Property.

20 65. In contravention of Plaintiff s lawful rights, fiduciary duty and interests in the Property,
Defendant IHFA is attempting to obtain legal title to the Property by means of an
21
unjustified and fraudulent foreclosure action. IHFA refuses to acknowledge Plaintiffs
22
status as the rightful owner of the Property.
23 66. Defendant IHFA refuses to acknowledge Plaintiffs status or the rightful owner of the
24 Property.
25 67. Defendant IHFA holds whatever interest it claims in the Property, (if at all), in trust for
26 Plaintiff as fiduciary for the lawful owner.

27
28
Page 14 of 18
 1 SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING12

2 68. A complaint should not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff
3 can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief”.
4 (Housley v. U.S. (9th Cir. Nev. 1994 35 F.3d 400, 401)

5 69. There are no issues of material fact in dispute.

70. This matter has been well settled with ample evidence.
6
71. Defendants are estopped from uttering any oral or written objection, statement, motion
7
or any other writing in this matter due to their failure/refusal to answer Plaintiff’s
8
repeated demands for proof of claim.
9 JUDICIAL NOTICE #1
10 Gary D. DeMeyer was given Notice via John-Henry’s OBJECTION TO PROCEEDINGS
11 (in Case No.: CV11-12345) DUE TO PRIOR DEFAULT (by IHFA) IN CASE CV 2011-

12 11495, FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, WHICH IS NOW RES JUDICATA PLEA

IN ABATEMENT on December 22, 2011. John-Henry accepted DeMeyer’s sworn Oath of
13
Office. DeMeyer by his conduct and silence and failure to object, formed a binding contract
14
with John-Henry, and, therefore, DeMeyer was/is bound by contract to perform under
15 DeMeyer’s Oath of Office.
16 JUDICIAL NOTICE #2
17 Gary D. DeMeyer breached his Oath of Office by denying Plaintiff John-Henry, family of

18 Doe, Due Process, by ignoring John-Henry’s affidavit and Notice of Felony, making
DeMeyer complicit in said crime, and guilty of a misprision of felony under 18 USC Sect. 4.
19
JUDICIAL NOTICE #3
20
By Gary D. DeMeyer’s conduct on 01/05/12 during a Hearing of Case No.: CV11-12345,
21 DeMeyer knowingly and willfully aided and abetted the fraud of IHFA.
22 JUDICIAL NOTICE #4
23 This Court must take judicial notice of the Final Report made by the Permanent
24 Editorial Board of the Uniform Commercial Code, published on November 14, 2011,13
25 wherein the Board states they [laws re notes] fall squarely under the UCC.

26 12
See Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1-A page 6 & 7 attached
13
27 See Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1-A page 4 par. 5 attached

28
Page 15 of 18
 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3 The court enter an Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive

4 Relief expressly enjoining any execution on the judgment order related to eviction. For the
reasons set forth herein, and in Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Injunction, until the merits
5
of Plaintiff’s case can be heard at trial, and for any other and further relief which is just and
6
proper;
7
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Vacate the Void Judgment of DeMeyer due to perjury of his oath of office, and denial of due
9 process; due to his willful aiding and abetting of a fraud, and, utter rebellion against the
10 Constitution for the United States. For actual and punitive damages;
11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12 The record at (instrument No.) 2011045388 recorded on 11/15/1114 clearly shows that John-
Henry, family of Doe has “Good Title” to the property and DeMeyer had no basis to enter
13
judgment evicting John-Henry: Doe and Margie-Dawnell: Doe. Moreover, DeMeyer knew or
14
should have known the foreclosure proceeding conducted by agents for IHFA was wrongful
15
and void, when DeMeyer received notice via John-Henry’s OBJECTION TO PROCEEDINGS
16 filed on 12/22/11 and in a MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE filed on 01/03/12.
17 Wrongful Eviction;
18 For punitive damages;
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
Plaintiffs invoke the ministerial side of the court – the court is deprived of judicial
20
discretion. Having failed to show on the record that the court had jurisdiction, having failed to
21
prove jurisdiction (after challenge of same) Defendants, IHFA, FAWCETT and DeMeyer,
22 admit the court was without jurisdiction in Case CV 2011-12345, and where the face of the
23 record verifies jurisdictional failings, and denial of due process, this court has a non-
24 discretionary duty to vacate the void judgment in Case CV 2011-12345.

25 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26
14
27 Exhibit 5-A Certified copy of Acknowledgment of Warranty Deed

28
Page 16 of 18
 1 IHFA holds Plaintiff’s property in a Constructive Trust.

2
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
3
For the costs of suit incurred herein; and
4
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in Law and in Equity,
5
including but not limited to vacation of the void judgment; Injunctive Relief allowed by this
6 court for the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants
7 unconscionable acts and reckless disregard for the law.

8 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
9
______________________________
10 JOHN HENRY Doe
11
12 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
state of Idaho )
13
county of Canyon )
14
BEFORE ME personally appeared JOHN HENRY Doe who, being by me first duly
15 sworn and identified in accordance with Idaho law, deposes and says:
1. My name is JOHN HENRY Doe.
16
2. I have read and understood the attached foregoing complaint filed herein, and each fact
17 alleged therein is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
18
19 ________________________
JOHN HENRY Doe, Affiant
20 Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ___ day of January 2012, by
21 proved to me on

22 the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

23
Signature: Seal
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
25
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I, JOHN HENRY Doe hereby certify that a copy of the
26
foregoing complaint filed in the state of Idaho, county of Canyon was served by hand via
27
28
Page 17 of 18
 1 process server and/or by USPS Certified Mail in a sealed envelope on or about this ____ day of

2 January, 2011 to the following recipients:

3 1. Verified Complaint for Fraud and Collateral Attack to Vacate a Wrongful Foreclosure

4 Action and Void Judgment in case CV 2011-12345.

5
Gary D. DeMeyer By Process Server
6 1115 Albany St.
7 Caldwell, Idaho 83605

8 Ryan M. Fawcett By Process Server

And SKINNER FAWCETT LLP By Process Server
9 515 south 6th street
Boise, Idaho 83701
10
Gerald M. Hunter
11 Idaho Housing and Finance By Process Server
565 W. Myrtle
12 Boise, Idaho 83701

13
_______________________________
14 JOHN HENRY Doe
15
16
state of Idaho )
17 ) ss. JURAT
county of Canyon )
18
19 Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ___ day of January, 2012, by
JOHN HENRY Doe, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
20 person(s) who appeared before me.
21
Signature: Seal
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 18 of 18