Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Debra J. Reagan Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND Et Al Defendant

Debra J. Reagan Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND Et Al Defendant

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by Richie Collins

More info:

Published by: Richie Collins on Mar 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 Page
1
of 
25
 
STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT LOCATION
 – 
SPRINGVALEYORK, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-09-385Debra J. ReaganPlaintiff v.U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ASTRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND Et AlDefendantandCitiFinancial , IncParty In Interest
COUNTERCLAIM
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Debra J. Reagan, and files this COUNTERCLAIM against U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in the above mentioned civil action.Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings areto be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria pleadings are not to be held to the samehigh standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594. Also seePower 914 F2d 1459 (11
th
Cir1990), Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995) and HALL v.BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."
 
 Page
2
of 
25
 
FACTSThis plaintiff has asked three (3) times for the defendant to
 produce the original “wet ink”
mortgage loan document. First time was on May 17, 2010 (See Exhibit A). Second time wasthrough USPS Certified mail September 21, 2010 (See Exhibit B). Third time was through amotion to compel filed with this court on November 10, 2010 as well as a demand for theoriginal Deed of Trust/Security Instrument also being
requested along with the “wet ink”
document (See exhibit C). As of this date, even though the defendant
’s lawyers declared that
thedefendant
indeed has the original “wet ink” document
, they have refused to produce it for thisplaintiff 
’s inspection
(See Exhibit D). And this honorable court, as of this date, has not moved onthe plaintiff 
’s motion to compel
to demand that the defendant do so. This honorable court also asof this date,
hasn’t moved for a show cause hearing
requested by this plaintiff on November 10,2010 to demand that the defendant not only produce the original documents requested by thisplaintiff but to ultimately prove that the defendant is indeed the true holder in due course and hasstanding to foreclose
 
(See Exhibit E).The reason this plaintiff is demanding for the defendant to produce both
the original “wet ink”
mortgage note and the original Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is because this plaintiff canprove that the defendant is indeed not the true holder in due course and has no standing toforeclose and has indeed committed frauds upon this court as well as this plaintiff and uponothers, as well as attempting theft and extortion upon this plaintiff in trying to acquire thisplaintiff 
’s home through, and while
knowingly, willingly and recklessly, committing thesefrauds. Chief Justice Storey said it best: "You cannot Grant, Vest or Convey that which you arenot Granted, Vested or Conveyed."
“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court
 
 Page
3
of 
25
 
unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject
matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio A
pp.3d 285-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d722 (2008). Indymac Bank v. Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009), To establish a prima facie case inan action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existance of the mortgage andthe mortgage note. It is the la
w’s policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit.
Thefollowing points will prove that MERS had no rights to grant/convey my mortgage to thedefendant as it had been sold into a trust fund 19 months prior and that the defendant is not thetr
ue “holder in due course”
. Beside the point that MERS had no standing to grant/conveyanything of its own accord, the fact is that they could not grant/convey
something that hadn’t
been rightfully granted/conveyed to them in the first place so the defendant has no real interest inthis case.1.
 
If the defendant has the original “wet ink” mortgage loan note and security instrument, then
why did they submit a copy of the security instrument with a Countrywide/Full Spectrum
Loans officer, Raashed A. Hilaly’s sign
ature attesting to the trueness of the copy (See ExhibitAA).
The only reason to submit a copy, attested by the original lender’s officer to
it being atrue copy is because that is all the defendant has. Otherwise, the defendant would only needto make their own copy from the original that they possess! This is proof that they are lyingand
they don’t have the original because the original would not have the attestment
from theprevious bank of it being a true copy on it!2.
 
If the defendant was allegedly assigned my loan in 2007 (See Exhibit F) (which I was neverinformed of), why was I paying mortgage payments to Countrywide until 2008 and why wasCountrywide calling me and going to foreclose all the way up to February 2009 (See Exhibit

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->