UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________________ FnDoomed, Pro Se ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Case Number: CV-260-JL J.P.

MORGAN CHASE N.A. and ) FEDERAL HOME LOAN ) MORTGAGE CORPORATION and ) HAUGHEY, PHILPOT & LAURENT P.A. ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) PLAINTIFFS SURREPLY TO DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to a prior order of this Honorable Court granting leave, the Plaintiff submits the following surreply to the Defendants reply to his objection to their motion to dismiss. RIGHT TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE 1. The Plaintiff has shown that the Defendants are strangers to the debt in every way. The Defendants are not holders of the Note and the Plaintiff is not in default to the holder of the note. The black-letter law of NH RSA 382-A:3-301(ii) shows that the Defendants have no right to enforce the note. The controlling case law in FDIC v. Houde shows that Defendants have no right to enforce the note. The Plaintiff has shown that in New Hampshire the mortgage follows the note as in Carpenter v. Longan, and therefore the Defendants have no rights to foreclose on the mortgage.

2.

The Defendants reference an affidavit in Plaintiffs bankruptcy case. The affidavit proves nothing beyond the fact that an affidavit exists in Plaintiffs bankruptcy case. That affidavit is not competent evidence in the instant case. The affidavit is self-serving to the Defendants. It was written by Defendant Chase on behalf of Defendant Freddie Mac and submitted to the bankruptcy Court by Defendant Haughey. The affidavit is inadmissible and should be disregarded in its entirety as competent evidence of anything.

3.

The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs bankruptcy schedules are the Plaintiffs admission of their entitlement to foreclose. The Plaintiff admits no such thing, and the Defendants reliance on Plaintiffs bankruptcy schedules is misplaced because they evidence no such thing.

4.

They point to "admissions" in the Veals' bankruptcy schedules and their chapter 13 plan, which both list AHMSI as a secured creditor with a lien on the Property. We disagree. What these writings evidence is far from clear on this record. In addition to the conclusion AHMSI advances, they might also tend to show: (1) that AHMSI was the current loan servicer, but not a "person entitled to enforce" the Note, (2) that AHMSI was the holder of the Note, (3) that AHMSI was the only entity currently dunning the Veals for payment on the Note, or (4) that someone had highjacked the payment stream, and up until the claims objection, the Veals had been duped. In re Veal, 450 BR 897 - Bankr. Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit 2011.

FDCPA CLAIM 5. The Defendants claim the May 4, 2012 letter (CHASE PAPERS, exhibit 12) was not deceptive conduct but as strangers to the debt the entire letter is a lie, and by its very nature violated the FDCPA. Lies are deceptive conduct.

6.

The Defendants do not argue the violations of FDCPA e(2)(A), e(10) and f(6)(A) in the May 30, 2012 letter (Id., exhibit 13) but only rely on Beadle to claim they are protected creditors. The fact they cannot dispute is that they are strangers to the debt, and as such cannot be protected creditors under the FDCPA. Beadle cant apply to these defendants.

7.

Notwithstanding that, the Defendants have not identified a single Court of Appeals case in support of Beadle because there are none. It is fair for this Honorable Court to assume that the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals would side with the majority six Circuit Courts of Appeals now against Beadle. The split decisions against Beadle within the 1st circuit also show that its time to retire the proposition propounded by Beadle.

8.

Notwithstanding that, the debt was allegedly in default when allegedly taken.

RESPA CLAIM 9. The phrase unavailable or proprietary is not enough in response to a QWR question. Explanations are required under RESPA (e)(2)(C)(i). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Prices have stated a claim under RESPA for ASC's failure to explain why it could not produce certain documents, and will schedule a hearing to determine the amount of Plaintiffs' damages In re Price, 403 BR 775 - Bankr. Court, ED Arkansas 2009. (Emphasis added). 10. The mismarked and incomplete loan reconciliation history is inadequate. Missing allonges (if an allonge ever existed) are inadequate. See Also Cf. Ricotta v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Colorado 2008 (For example, the Plaintiffs requested detailing of "every credit" and "every debit" that was posted to the account, information as to late fees and interest that had been charged to the account, copies of

certain records relating to their account, and so on. These appear to be types of information that a borrower is entitled to request under RESPA.). FRAUD CLAIM 11. The Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not cite any document attached to the complaint but ignores the Plaintiffs allegations and cites from his Amended Complaint 35-52 referencing Affidavit CHASE PAPERS exhibits 9, 10.05, 10.1, 10.2 and 11; and completely ignores the allegations and complaints in the QWR incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint at 45. The Plaintiff has adequately alleged Fraud and is entitled to discovery on the issue. APPLICATION OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 12. The Defendants use the OCC letter (CHASE PAPERS, exhibit 14,14a) as some sort of protection from the CPA but missed the entire point of the letter. The letter stated in no uncertain terms that the Plaintiff must pursue his remedies elsewhere. The OCC is nonjudicial and the CAG is a guidance office reporting to the OCC. The NH Attorney Generals Office referred the matter to Chase. The Plaintiff has exhausted all options and this Honorable Court is the Plaintiffs last line of defense against these Defendants. 13. The Defendants seek to avoid the CPA by virtue of NH RSA 358-A:3 but they are mistaken. Their activities were unlawful and subject to the CPA. The plain meaning of the exemptive section of the Consumer Protection Act is that if transactions are not permitted under other laws, either expressly or impliedly, then they are subject to regulation under the Consumer Protection Act. Therrien v. Resource Financial Group, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 322 - Dist. Court, D. New Hampshire 1989. (Emphasis added).

14.

The Defendants euphemistically contend they are bankers therefore exempt from the CPA but they are wrong. See Cf. State v. EMPIRE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., NH: Supreme Court 2011 (The defendant contends that because it is licensed under RSA chapter 361-A, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the bank commissioner and therefore its alleged conduct falls within the terms of the above statutory exemption. We disagree.).

15.

FDCPA violations, RESPA violations and Fraud all violate the CPA and none of these Defendants are exempt. Many of the claims mentioned in passing are blocked by Marley or time, and were only illustrating a long history of unlawful acts. The Plaintiff was not raising new claims in his Memorandum, but may do so in an amended complaint.

AMENDMENDED COMPLAINTS IN GENERAL 16. As litigation progresses the parties become more aware of their cases, their opponents cases, and the weight of the evidence in one legal theory over another. When determining whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a), a court should consider the following factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party Foman v. Davis, 371 US 178 - Supreme Court 1962. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant him the following relief: 1. Sustain his objection and deny the Defendants motion to dismiss. 2. Do not dismiss any claim with prejudice and grant leave to amend where justice so requires. 3. Other relief as is just and proper. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ FnDoomed, Pro Se FnDoomed 77 Any Road New Ipswich NH 03071 603-xxxxxx Dated: September 26, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this day September 26, 2012 I forwarded a copy of the foregoing SURREPLY TO DEFENDANTS REPLY TO OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS to all parties in the case electronically using CM/ECF including Peter G. Callaghan, counsel for Defendants JP Morgan Chase and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. /s/ FnDoomed, Pro Se FnDoomed, Pro Se