Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

1

DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND


2 COUNTY OF BALTIMORE
3
4 )
Todd Wetzelberger CASE NO. 0804-41155-2008
5 )
Counter-plaintiff
6 )
v.
)
7 VICTORY VILLA LLLP
) VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM FOR
8 VICTORY VILLA LLP
) FRAUD AND ABUSE OF PROCESS
9 VICTORY VILLA LLC
)
BRUCE I. LEVINE
10 )
MARC R. DONATY, ESQ
11 )
Counter-Defendant(s)
12
13 VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM FOR FRAUD AND ABUSE OF PROCESS
14
1. Fraud
15 2. Abuse of Process

16 COMES NOW, Todd Wetzelberger, one of the people in this court of record, hereinafter Counter-
plaintiff, per MD Rules 3-331 and 3-306 and brings this counterclaim for judgment as there are
17 no material facts in dispute:

18 SUMMARY OF ACTION

19 This is a case involving fraud, and abuse of process by Counter-defendants. By the complaint
Counter-Plaintiff seeks monetary and statutory damages for Counter-defendants violation of state
20 and federal criminal codes, monetary damages for Counter-defendant’s fraud upon Counter-
Plaintiff and restitutionary relief for Counter-defendant Marc R. Donaty’s violation of the
21 attorney code of professional conduct.

22 PARTIES

23 Counter-plaintiff is an individual domiciled in Baltimore County, Maryland

24 Victory Villa LLLP is a non-existent Defendant, however non-existent Defendant filed suit and
was awarded judgment in the instant case.
25
Victory Villa LLP is a non-existent Defendant, however non-existent Defendant is named in the
26 instant case where judgment was awarded to Victory Villa LLLP, a non-existent entity.

27
28
Page 1of 13
1
Victory Villa LLC is a Maryland Limited Liability Company domiciled in Maryland formed on
2 April 30, 2010.
3 Defendant Marc R. Donaty, Esq. upon information and belief is a person residing and doing
business in Baltimore County, Maryland
4
Defendant Bruce R. Levine upon information and belief is a person residing and doing business
5 in Baltimore County Maryland.
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 The events which form the basis of this complaint occurred in Baltimore County, State of
Maryland and within the jurisdiction of this court.
8
Jurisdiction is proper in this court because at least one of the Counter-defendants are located in
9 this judicial district, Counter-defendants upon information and belief do business within this
judicial district and the amount in controversy is less than $30,000.
10
STATEMENT OF FACTS
11
1. Defendant Marc R. Donaty Esq. filed suit for alleged breach of contract and alleged
12
damages on behalf of VICTORY VILLA LLLP, a non-existent MD entity on December 3,
13 2008.

14 2. Defendant Marc R. Donaty Esq. violated MD Rule 3-308. Victory Villa LLLP is a non-
existent entity therefore lacks the capacity to bring suit.
15
3. Void judgment in favor of Victory Villa LLLP (a non-existent entity) was entered in error
16
on or about March 17, 2009.
17
4. Non-existent entity Victory Villa LLLP lacked standing and the court lacked jurisdiction
18 to enter said void judgment.
19 5. Public record evidence shows Counter-defendants failed/refused to produce any
20 admissible evidence to support a proof of claim as the basis for the judgment entered
against Counter-plaintiff.
21
6. Per MD Rule 2-324(b) “Whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
22 subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”
23 7. Said judgment is void ab initio as Victory Villa LLLP is a non-existent entity in
24 MD, pursuant MD Rule Civ. P 3-201, 3-202.

25 8. Marc R. Donaty violated MD Rule 3-201- “Every action shall be prosecuted in the name
of the real party in interest…”
26
27
28
Page 2of 13
1
9. There is no real party in interest since the 3 different entities named in the complaint
2
Counter-defendants filed (Victory Villa LLP, Victory Villa LLC, Victory Villa LLLP) were
3 non-existent at time of filing suit or forfeited MD entities with no legal authority to do
business or file any suit in Maryland courts.
4
10. Victory Villa LLLP, (a MD entity forfeited in 2003) was the alleged entity that filed the
5 fraudulent suit and was named in the Application and Affidavit in Support of Judgment
against Counter-plaintiffs by and through its agent Marc R. Donaty, Esq. #6816. (Exhibit 1)
6
7 11. Victory Villa LLC (non-existent entity at time of filing of complaint) was named on the
Return of Service, dated August 28, 2009 signed by Process Server Ed Cihlar and attached
8 to the Request for Show Cause Order for Contempt naming Victory Villa LLP as Plaintiff
(non-existent entity). (Exhibit 2)
9
10 12. Counter-plaintiff noticed the person who was presumably Ed Cihlar (he would not
identify himself) at the time that he has the wrong parties and that the entity he serving
11 process for does not exist in Maryland, the suit is not valid and that he is participating in a
fraud.
12
13. The person, presumably Ed Cihlar, chose to ignore this notice, despite prima facie
13 evidence that the entity named on the Return of Service, Victory Villa LLC (non-existent
14 MD entity) was not the same as Plaintiff named on the Request for Show Cause Order For
Contempt, Victory Villa LLP (forfeited MD entity).
15
14. There is no record of a substitution of parties nor is there any notice in the record per the
16 following rules.
17 15. Per MD Rule 3-241(a)(4) Substitution.- The proper person may be substituted for a party
18 who: If a corporation, dissolves, forfeits its charter, merges, or consolidates.

19 16. MD Rule 3-241(b) Procedure.- “Any party to the action, any other person affected by the
action, the successors or representatives of the party, or the court may file a notice in the
20 action…”
21 17. Counter-plaintiff is of the belief that before a claimant would be permitted to bring suit,
22 the clerk of court and/or the judge in said case would confirm that plaintiff had a
sufficiency of pleadings; (that the court had subject matter jurisdiction) and that alleged
23 plaintiff is the real party in interest.

24 18. Neither Marc R. Donaty Esq, Bruce R. Levine, Victory Villa LLP, Victory Villa LLLP or
Victory Villa LLC have ever possessed, do not now possess, nor ever will possess any
25
validated, substantiated, and authenticated proof of claim.
26
27
28
Page 3of 13
1
19. Since Counter-defendants do not possess an enforceable original, genuine, wet ink
2
signature contract with Counter-plaintiffs, they did not comply with MD Code Courts
3 and Judicial Proceedings 4-401 (1), therefore the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to render said void judgment.
4
20. Counter-defendants failed to comply with MD Rule 3-303(e) Construction of pleadings.-
5 All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. Fraud does not equate with
justice.
6
7 21. Since no contract existed between the parties there was no breach of contract.

8 22. Since there is no contract and no breach, neither Bruce I. Levine, Victory Villa LLP,
Victory Villa LLLP or Victory Villa LLC have suffered any injury or damages.
9
10 23. Counter-defendants offered no credible, admissible evidence other than copies, that are
inadmissible per MD Rules of Evidence 5-1002- Requirement of Original and MD Rule of
11 Civ.P 3-308 Demand for Proof.

12 24. Counter-defendants offered no competent fact witness with first hand knowledge as to
any alleged facts in Counter-defendants’ sham complaint.
13
14 25. Counter-plaintiff has entered public record fact evidence that clearly shows the fraud
upon the court brought by Counter-defendants in an attempt to illegally extort money from
15 Counter-plaintiff through abuse of process, abuse of Donaty’s role as an officer of the
court, and an abuse of the courts to further Donaty’s own ends.
16
26. The ends Counter-defendants sought were to mislead this court and to illegally extort
17 money from Counter-plaintiffs through threat, duress, intimidation and coercion and illegal
18 acts, including false arrest based upon a void Order for Contempt through use of the courts
and Baltimore County Sheriffs Department.
19
27. Counter-plaintiff is the document custodian of the original wet ink signature documents
20 written to the public record as evidence.
21 28. Counter-plaintiff has personal first hand knowledge of the facts in this case and will
22 provide the original wet ink signature documents for inspection and copying by the court at
hearing if necessary.
23
29. On or about March 1, 2010 Counter-plaintiff entered “Defendant’s Answer to
24 Court’s Order to Show Cause” into Case# 0804-41155-2008.
25
30. It is common knowledge that crooked “debt” collectors will routinely collect on
26 alleged judgments and fail/refuse to report the “debt” as satisfied.

27
28
Page 4of 13
1
31. It is due to this fact that a neutral third party escrow agent is employed to collect
2
and exchange Defendant’s tender of payment upon alleged “debt” collector’s
3 validated, substantiated and authenticated proof of claim, as is Defendant’s right, per
MD Rule 3-308 Demand For Proof.
4
32. On March 4, 2010, Donaty, named in Counter-plaintiff’s administrative remedy
5 “Conditional Acceptance of Your Offer/Claim/Judgment Order charging me to pay
$4,863.13 or face possible body attachment (ARREST WARRANT); the Terms of
6
Contract” was duly served by USPS Express Mail # EB 377455681US, with notice to
7 collect the funds held in Escrow and to produce the original wet ink signature contract
allegedly held by Victory Villa LLP as required by law. (Exhibit 3)
8
33. Marc R. Donaty was Noticed “.. that once the notary/escrow agent is in receipt of my
9 tender of payment in the amount of $4,863.13, if VICTORY VILLA LLP should fail to
10 immediately produce the original purported contract, and the sworn testimony of your
competent fact witness, you agree to immediately release your claim for $4,863.13 due to
11 your fraud. Moreover, you also agree to immediately pay me treble damages: That
would be three times the original amount tendered. So, if I tender $4,863.13 and you fail to
12 produce the original purported contract and/or fail to collect said tender within 10 days of
your receipt of notice from the Escrow Agent, or if you attempt to collect but fail to
13 produce the original purported contract, and testimony, you agree to immediately pay me
14 $14,589.39. Should you fail to immediately pay me $14,589.39 you agree to grant me
Power of Attorney to handle this business for VICTORY VILLA LLP, and its senior
15 officers as well as grant me a lien against all property held by you and the senior officers of
VICTORY VILLA LLP. You agree that I may collect by selling off your property and
16 VICTORY VILLA LLP’s property without your protest and without further notice to you.”
17 34. On March 11, 2010 Donaty was served a second notice by Escrow Agent Jan Schieberl,
18 via Certified Mail # 7009 0820 0001 5470 7332, Re: Funds in the amount of $5,735.60 to
include costs and fees held in Escrow for VICTORY VILLA LLP to settle Case Number
19 0804-41155-2008; Original Contract Requested and Required for Release of funds; Funds
Available until March 19th, 2010. (Exhibit 4)
20
35. Said Notice set forth terms, inter alia, that Donaty (as agent for Victory Villa LLP)
21 would collect $5,735.60 held in escrow and return Defendant's genuine, original
22 contract, or else stipulate that it did not have said contract (the basis of its claim),
and had no right to collect.
23
36. That 3 days for Donaty (as agent for Victory Villa LLP) to withdraw the complaint and/or
24 demand for payment and refuse Todd-NMN: Wetzelberger’s self-executing contract expired
on March 8th, 2010.
25
26
27
28
Page 5of 13
1
37. That 10 days to collect the $5,735.60 (alleged judgment amount plus costs and fees) and
2
produce the original genuine wet ink contract held by Victory Villa LLP, concluded on
3 March 20th, 2010.

4 38. Donaty (as agent for Victory Villa LLP) failed to withdraw its/their offer, and agreed
to be bound by the terms of the agreement , i.e. to produce the original genuine wet
5 ink contract, or else agree that it did not have the contract, had no right to collect,
and was engaged in a fraud against Counter-Plaintiff.
6
7 39. A NOTICE OF FAULT was mailed by Escrow Agent Jan Schieberl via Certified Mail #
7009 3410 0001 3816 5842 to Donaty on or about March 30, 2010. (Exhibit 5)
8
40. That the evidence from the USPS shows that respondent Donaty failed/ refused to accept
9 NOTICE OF FAULT. Said notice was returned to Escrow Agent Jan Schieberl on or about
10 April 24, 2010.

11 41. On or about May 10, 2010 Donaty was served said NOTICE OF FAULT via USPS first
class mail due to Donaty’s failure/refusal to receive said notice via Certified Mail.
12
42. On or about May 20, 2010 Donaty was served via USPS First Class Mail by Notary
13 Public Jan Schieberl a NOTICE OF COUNTERFEIT SECURITY/ NOTICE OF
14 CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE PENDING PROOF OF CLAIM (Exhibit 6) with 10 days
to respond “Your failure to respond, within 10 days, as stipulated below, and rebut, with
15 particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and
binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true,
16 correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without
your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your
17 acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification
18 of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel,
550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral
19 duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
(Exhibit 6)
20
43. That 10 days to respond to Counter-plaintiff’s NOTICE OF COUNTERFEIT
21 SECURITY/ NOTICE OF CONDITIONIAL ACCEPTANCE PENDING PROOF OF
22 CLAIM expired on June 5, 2010 with 3 days allowed for mailing. Said notice is public
record evidence.
23
44. Donaty (as agent for Victory Villa LLP) had Notice and Opportunity on four separate
24 occasions to collect Counter-plaintiff's tender of payment of $5,735.60 and to
produce Counter-plaintiff’s original genuine wet-ink signature contract with Victory
25
Villa LLP (a non-existent MD entity) as required by law.
26
27
28
Page 6of 13
1
45. Donaty failed to collect and failed to produce the original alleged contract, thereby
2
agreeing that neither Victory Villa LLP (a non existent MD entity) nor Donaty is in
3 possession of any original genuine wet ink signature contract with Counter-
defendants, and therefore had no right to file any action in any court, and is engaged
4 in a fraud against Counter-plaintiff.
5 46. Jan Schieberl, escrow agent, executed a sworn affidavit that Donaty as agent for
Victory Villa LLP (a non existent MD entity), failed to collect the funds and failed to
6
produce the original genuine contract and is in default. Said notice of default is
7 public record evidence. (Exhibit 7)

8 47. Donaty’s failure to collect said funds and produce the original genuine, wet ink signature
contract with either Donaty or Victory Villa LLP (a non existent MD entity) as is his duty,
9 is prima facie evidence of Donaty and Victory Villa LLP’s fraud against Counter-plaintiff.
10
48. Donaty and Victory Villa LLP failed to rebut its/their default per the sworn
11 affidavit of Jan Schieberl, and failed to rebut Counter-plaintiff’s Notice of
Counterfeit Security, thereby admitting to committing fraud against Counter-
12 plaintiff. Said documents are both public record evidence.
13 49. After repeated notices and opportunities for Marc R. Donaty, Esq. to withdraw his
14 fraudulent claim he continued to threaten incarceration/ body attachment if Counter-
plaintiff did not pay his extortion demand through use of the Baltimore County Sheriff’s
15 Office and Baltimore County District Court in direct violation of his oath of office to bring
no false claim. (Exhibit 8)
16
50. Judge Alexandra N. Williams and Sheriff J. Ray Fisher were duly noticed of the crimes
17 committed by Marc R. Donaty, Esq via certified mail on August 17, 2010 and August 19,
18 2010 respectively and had a duty to investigate or report those crimes under Title 18 USC
Sec4 Misprison of Felony. (Exhibit 9)
19
51. Said Notice laid out in explicit detail with public record evidence compiled from March
20 1, 2010 to July 19, 2010, the crimes committed by Marc R. Donaty, Esq., an officer of the
court, against Counter-plaintiff.
21
22 52. D. Crosby signed the certified mail card addressed to Judge Williams on August 17,
2010.
23
53. The Attachment for Contempt/ Arrest Warrant for Counter-plaintiff was signed by Judge
24 Chester on August 17, 2010, the exact same day Judge Williams was noticed.
25
54. Counter-plaintiff believes the inference can be made from the evidence of repeated prior
26 extortion threats by Counter-defendant Marc R. Donaty, that it is not a coincidence that the

27
28
Page 7of 13
1
Attachment for Contempt was signed the same day as the Notice by Affidavit of Felony
2
Crime was signed for by D. Crosby on behalf of Judge Williams.
3
55. Counter-plaintiff believes that based on the evidence of prior extortion threats, Counter-
4 defendant Marc R. Donaty was notified of the criminal charges reported against him, and
filed the body attachment as retaliation against Counter-plaintiff for exposing Donaty’s
5 fraud.
6
56. Baltimore County Sheriff’s Deputies Scott Simmons and Harry Klapaska served the
7 arrest warrant/ body attachment on August 20, 2010 at approximately 11a.m.

8 57. Deputy Simmons and Deputy Klapaska were noticed by Counter-plaintiff of the fact that
the body attachment was a mistake, and an unlawful and illegal retaliation against Counter-
9 plaintiff.
10
58. The deputies were given the original wet ink signature Notice by Affidavit of Felony
11 Crime to review along with supporting public record fact evidence as proof of Counter-
plaintiff’s statements.
12
59. Deputies Simmons and Klapaska were noticed to correct their mistake or they would be
13 involved in false arrest of Counter-plaintiff.
14
60. Deputy Simmons appeared to contact whom he said to be his sergeant and was told the
15 Attachment for Contempt was to be carried out.

16 61. Sheriff’s deputies have sworn an oath of office to uphold Counter-plaintiff’s rights under
the MD Constitution and have violated Counter-plaintiff’s rights after notice and
17 opportunity on two separate occasions not to do so.
18
62. Counter-plaintiff believes Deputies Simmons and Klapaska were unwitting accomplices
19 in Defendant’s fraud and attempted extortion of Counter-plaintiff.

20 63. Counter-defendants, came into court with unclean hands and brought a fraud upon
the court, and upon Counter-plaintiff with no legal authority to do so, resulting in the
21 illegal arrest and kidnapping of Counter-plaintiff based upon a void court order.
22
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 FRAUD

24 Counter-plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1


through 63 inclusive, of this complaint.
25
Counter-defendants owed Counter-plaintiff a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to not bring a
26 false suit. In the case of Marc R. Donaty, Esq, as an officer of the court, he had a duty to conform
to a higher standard of care to bring no false suit.
27
28
Page 8of 13
1
Litigants are expected to “investigate their claims before filing a complaint so that they have a
2 basis at the outset to make particularized factual allegations in the complaint.” White v. Panic,
783 A.2d 543, 555-56 (Del. 2001).
3
Donaty breached his duty by failing to investigate Counter-defendants’ claim, filing a false suit,
4 where multiple named Counter-plaintiffs were non-existent or forfeited entities, and no contract
existed between the named parties.
5
Counter-plaintiff has lost several productive hours (at least 50 hours) defending against the
6 fraudulent suit brought by Counter-defendants, suffered economic loss, hardship, emotional
distress, and has suffered a strained relationship with Counter-plaintiff’s spouse as a result of
7 Counter-defendants’s fraud.
8 Counter-defendants made multiple false statements that are public record prima facie evidence of
Defendant’s fraud against Counter-plaintiff and fraud upon the court.
9
Counter-defendants false statements are material in that the false statements resulted in a
10 fraudulent judgment being entered against Counter-plaintiff, which resulted in the illegal
incarceration of Counter-plaintiff when Counter-defendants knew their statements were false at
11 the time they were made.
12 Counter-defendants intended the court, the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Department, and Counter-
plaintiff to act in reliance on the false statement.
13
Counter-plaintiff exposed Counter-defendants’ fraud, noticed Counter-defendants on multiple
14 occasions to withdraw its/their fraudulent claim, yet Counter-defendants continued to pursue
their fraud in willful disregard for Counter-plaintiffs rights and violation of the law.
15
The court and the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Department did act on those false statements
16 resulting in the illegal incarceration of Counter-plaintiff.
17 Counter-defendants false statements were made in bad faith with reckless disregard for the law,
and Counter-plaintiff suffered damages as a direct result of Counter-defendants’ fraud.
18
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ABUSE OF PROCESS
20
Counter-plaintiff incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, Paragraphs 1
21 through 63 inclusive, of this complaint.
22 Counter-defendants illegally perverted the legal system against Counter-plaintiff for personal
gain.
23
Counter-defendants had the ulterior motive of extorting money based on a sham complaint where
24 the party named as Counter-defendant (Victory Villa LLLP) in Counter-defendants’ suit did not
exist.
25
Counter-defendants were warned on multiple occasions to withdraw their fraudulent claim.
26
27
28
Page 9of 13
1
Counter-defendants failed and refused to withdraw and continued to abuse the legal system for
2 their personal gain.
3 Marc R. Donaty, Esq, as an officer of the court, abused his position, perjured his oath to bring no
false claim, and violated multiple criminal statutes resulting in the illegal incarceration of
4 Counter-plaintiff.
5 Counter-plaintiff suffered loss of income, humiliation, and emotional distress due to his 3 year
old daughter witnessing Counter-plaintiff and Counter-plaintiff’s wife being illegally arrested
6 and kidnapped by two sheriff’s deputies armed with guns and handcuffs.
7 Due to the discovery of various elements of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
8 extortion resulting in the deprivation of our property by Counter-defendants’ wr ongful
actions, Counter-plaintiff was injured as a direct and proximate result of Counter-
9 defendants’ actions.

10 There are no issues of material fact in dispute.


11 This matter has been well settled with ample evidence.
12
Counter-defendants are estopped from uttering any oral or written objection, statement, motion
13 or any other writing in this matter due to their failure/refusal to answer Counter-plaintiff’s
repeated demands for proof of claim.
14
Silence is acquiescence where there is a legal duty to answer. (Donaty is an officer of the court
15 with a duty to answer). See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391.
16 Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v.
Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral
17 duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

18 Bean v. Steuart Petroleum Co., 244 Md. 459, 1966 Md. LEXIS 454 (Md.,
November 17, 1966, Decided) “…It would appear that this Court relaxed its view
19 that mere silence is insufficient to create an estoppel and that other misleading
action coupled with the silence on the part of the party to be estopped is needed in
20 order to find estoppel in pais..”

21 WISER v. LAWLER. No. 174. 189 U.S. 260; 23 S. Ct. 624; 47 L. Ed. 802; 1903
U.S. LEXIS 1349 Argued February 25, 26, 1903. April 27, 1903, Decided. “To
22 constitute an estoppel by silence there must be something more than an
opportunity to speak. There must be an obligation. This principle applies with
23 peculiar force where the persons to whom notice should be given are unknown.

24 The authorities recognize a distinction between mere silence and a deceptive


silence accompanied by an intention to defraud, which amounts to a positive
25 beguilement.

26 In all of the cases holding a party to be estopped by his silence, the silence
operated as a fraud and actually itself misled. In all there is both the specific
27 opportunity and apparent duty to speak. And, in all, the party maintaining silence

28
Page 10of 13
1
knows that some one else is relying upon that silence, and either acting or about to
2 act as he would not have done had the truth been told. These elements are essential
to create a duty to speak.”
3
Ganley v. G & W Ltd. Partnership, 44 Md. App. 568, 1980 Md. App. LEXIS 211
4 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., January 11, 1980, Decided )
5 “Estoppel is cognizable at common law either as a defense to a cause of action, or
to avoid a defense. There may be an estoppel to prevent a party from relying upon
6 a right of property or contract, or of remedy both at law or in equity. Equitable
estoppel operates as a technical rule of law to prevent a party from asserting his
7 rights where it would be inequitable and unconscionable to assert those rights. It
is essential for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel that the party
8 claiming the benefit of the estoppel must have been misled to his injury and
changed his position for the worse, having believed and relied on the
9 representations of the party sought to be estopped. Mere silence will generally
not raise an estoppel against a silent party. The doctrine is only applicable when
10 there is a duty imposed upon the party remaining silent to speak. Whether an
estoppel exists is a question of fact to be determined in each case.”
11
12
Per MD Rule 3-519(b) “When a motion for judgment is made under any other circumstances, the
13 court shall consider all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the party against
whom the motion is made.”
14
Considering the overwhelming, un-rebutted, public record fact evidence, and that Counter-
15 defendants are estopped from uttering any oral or written response, it is proper for the court, with
regard for Rule 3-519(b) to award judgment in favor of Counter-plaintiff sua sponte, with no
16
need for a hearing on this matter.
17
WHEREFORE, Counter-plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
18
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 For general damages according to proof of Counter-defendants’ fraud;
20 For punitive damages;
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

22 For general damages, including treble damages of $14,589.39 according to proof of Counter-
defendants abuse of process;
23
For punitive damages;
24
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
25 For the costs of suit incurred herein; and
26
27
28
Page 11of 13
1
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper up to the maximum
2
amount of $30,000 allowed by this court for the injuries suffered by Counter-plaintiff as a direct
3
and proximate result of Counter-defendants unconscionable acts and reckless disregard for the
4
law.
5 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
6 ______________________________
Todd Wetzelberger
7
8
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
9
STATE OF __________________
10 COUNTY OF ____________________

11 BEFORE ME personally appeared Todd Wetzelberger who, being by me first duly sworn
and identified in accordance with Maryland law, deposes and says:
12 1. My name is Todd Wetzelberger.
2. I have read and understood the attached foregoing complaint filed herein, and each fact
13 alleged therein is true and correct of my own personal knowledge.
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
14
________________________
15 Todd Wetzelberger, Affiant
16
SWORN TO and subscribed before me____________________________, Notary
17 Public, this ___ day of _______________ 2010.
18 ___________________________
Notary Public
19 My commission expires:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 12of 13
1
2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, I, Todd Wetzelberger hereby certify that a copy of the
3 foregoing documents listed below have been filed in the District Court for Baltimore County
Maryland, and mailed via USPS Certified Mail in a sealed envelope on or about this ____ day of
4
__________________, 2010 to the following recipients:
5 1. Countercomplaint for Fraud and Abuse of Process
6 Marc R. Donaty, Esq
6401 Edenvale Road
7 Baltimore MD 21209 Cert Mail # 7009 0960 0001 1054 7443

8 Bruce I Levine
6611 Deancroft Rd
9 Baltimore, MD 21209-2712 Cert Mail # 7009 0960 0001 1054 4343

10 Victory Villa LLLP


Bruce I. Levine, Agent
11 Leo M. Storch Management
25 Hooks Ln # 312
12 Pikesville, MD 21208-1620 Cert Mail # 7009 0960 0001 1054 4350

13 Victory Villa LLP


Bruce I. Levine, Agent
14 Leo M. Storch Management
25 Hooks Ln # 312
15 Pikesville, MD 21208-1620 Cert Mail # 7009 0960 0001 1054 4367

16 Victory Villa LLC


Registered Agent-Abramoff, Neuberger and Linder, LLP
17 Richard S. Lehmann
Suite 800 250 W. Pratt Street
18 Baltimore, MD 21201 Cert Mail # 7008 1300 0000 9075 3331

19
_______________________________
20 Todd Wetzelberger
21 State of Maryland )
) ss. JURAT
22 County of Baltimore )

23 On this ___ day of _____, 2010, before me, _________________________, a Notary Public in and for the above
state and county, personally appeared __________________________, who proved to me on the basis of
24 satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who attested and subscribed to the within document, as true, correct,
complete and not misleading. Witness my hand and seal this ____ day of ________, 2010.
25
Notary Public Seal
26
27
28
Page 13of 13