STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT

LOCATION SPRINGVALE

YORK, ss

CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-09-385

Debra J. Reagan
Plaintiff
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF SAIL 2006-3 TRUST FUND Et Al
Defendant
and
CitiFinancial , Inc
Party 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 are
to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria pleadings are not to be held to the same
high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594. Also see
Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995) and HALL v.
BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."

Page 1 of 25

FACTS
This 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 was
through USPS Certified mail September 21, 2010 (See Exhibit B). Third time was through a
motion to compel filed with this court on November 10, 2010 as well as a demand for the
original Deed of Trust/Security Instrument also being requested along with the wet ink
document (See exhibit C). As of this date, even though the defendants lawyers declared that the
defendant indeed has the original wet ink document, they have refused to produce it for this
plaintiffs inspection (See Exhibit D). And this honorable court, as of this date, has not moved on
the plaintiffs motion to compel to demand that the defendant do so. This honorable court also as
of this date, hasnt 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 this
plaintiff but to ultimately prove that the defendant is indeed the true holder in due course and has
standing 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 can
prove that the defendant is indeed not the true holder in due course and has no standing to
foreclose and has indeed committed frauds upon this court as well as this plaintiff and upon
others, as well as attempting theft and extortion upon this plaintiff in trying to acquire this
plaintiffs home through, and while knowingly, willingly and recklessly, committing these
frauds. Chief Justice Storey said it best: "You cannot Grant, Vest or Convey that which you are
not Granted, Vested or Conveyed." A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court
Page 2 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 App.3d 285-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d
722 (2008). Indymac Bank v. Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009), To establish a prima facie case in
an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existance of the mortgage and
the mortgage note. It is the laws policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit. The
following points will prove that MERS had no rights to grant/convey my mortgage to the
defendant as it had been sold into a trust fund 19 months prior and that the defendant is not the
true holder in due course. Beside the point that MERS had no standing to grant/convey
anything of its own accord, the fact is that they could not grant/convey something that hadnt
been rightfully granted/conveyed to them in the first place so the defendant has no real interest in
this 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. Hilalys signature attesting to the trueness of the copy (See Exhibit
AA). The only reason to submit a copy, attested by the original lenders officer to it being a
true copy is because that is all the defendant has. Otherwise, the defendant would only need
to make their own copy from the original that they possess! This is proof that they are lying
and they dont have the original because the original would not have the attestment from the
previous 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 never
informed of), why was I paying mortgage payments to Countrywide until 2008 and why was
Countrywide calling me and going to foreclose all the way up to February 2009 (See Exhibit
J). And why did Bank of America say that I owe them the money in 2008 and they are going
Page 3 of 25

to foreclose even up to today and sending me correspondence to see if I can qualify for help
in my default loan (See Exhibit G). And why did the defendant then assign the loan to
themselves again in 2009 (See Exhibit H) of which I was never informed of (Can a bank
assign a loan to themselves? Is that even legal? And why would a bank even want to assign to
themselves a loan which is, at the date it was assigned, 13 months in default? [See Exhibit
I]). And why did Countrywide in 2009 send me a loan modification (See Exhibit J) if Bank of
America had already bought them out and the loan had already allegedly been assigned to US
Bank in 2007? And how did Bank of America get put onto my State Farm Home Owners
insurance in 2006 as 1st Mortgagee when supposedly Countrywide was my mortgagee and
Bank of America still had two more years before buying them out? (See Exhibit K). Exactly
how many banks own my note? There is only one original loan note. So how is it possible for
three banks to all lay claim to it at the same time? Especially, when it clearly has been
securitized and sold as stock so the original loan note no longer exists (See point #6 on Pg. 8
for explanation)? This means that three banks are lying, and committing fraud. Now does
this honorable court see why the original note instead of a duplicate is much needed in this
case? Three banks are using duplicates to justify their standing to foreclose. Only one can do
so and only if they possess the original wet ink mortgage loan note and the original Deed
of Trust/Security Instrument! And since the defendant has not produced the original note and
security instrument, they have not offered any evidence for their claim that they indeed own
the originals. If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when
the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Wells Fargo
Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008).

Page 4 of 25

3. In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (See Exhibit L) was introduced which allowed banks
to package and securitize their loans onto Wall Street. Now, when a bank grants a loan
(which they dont loan anything, see next para for details), traditionally they receive 2.5% the
face value of the loan (in a 30 year mortgage loan) over 30 years. But when the banks saw
that they could receive 1.5% immediately (instead of over the course of 30 years) by
securitizing and selling these loans as stock, and also make money on the appreciation of the
stock because they were allowed to hold up to 10% of the security to qualify as a sale under
Financial Accounting Standards, they pooled their mortgages into a SPV (special purpose
vehicle) called a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) Trusts which then got
securitized and sold on Wall Street. When my loan got securitized into that trust it became
stock. That changed the state of the Negotiable Loan Note because once a loan is converted
to stock, it forever loses its security. Nowhere in my loan papers is it stated that they were
going to do this. Once my loan was securitized and sold as stock on Wall Street, the seller
lost control of it. FAS (Financial Accounting Standards) 140 governs the sale and
securitization of a negotiable instrument (See Exhibit M). It states that once an asset is sold,
the seller forever loses the ability to control the asset. So, they sold their right to enforce,
control, or otherwise foreclose on my property. They are no longer the real party in interest
because now it is the shareholders of the REMIC Trust who own the note. They (the bank)
are now just a servicer. They can not have their cake (the money from the sale of my note as
stock at 1.5% face value of my note plus 10% appreciation) and eat it too (getting money
from me for the promissory note that they sold). They have been paid in full for the loan.
4. At the signing of the promissory note and Deed of Trust/Security Instrument something very
interesting happens. Unbeknown to the borrow (but well known to the lender, thus having
Page 5 of 25

superior knowledge; see the end of this paragraph) that promissory note becomes a
negotiable note in the amount of what the borrower believes the lender is loaning to them.
The lender then deposits this negotiable note (just like you would a check) into their bank
under an account in the borrowers name which creates a positive deposit in that amount.
They then take that amount of money out of that account (without the knowledge or
permission of the borrower) and pay the seller. They then take the promissory note and either
sell it to another bank or through a SPV to a REMIC Trust Fund where the note gets
converted into stock and they get 1.5% of the face value of the note plus 10% appreciation of
the stock. Nowhere has the lender ever fronted anything of value towards this contract. But
yet, they have made money, thus being unjustly enriched. In a contract there is supposed to
be I give something of value, and in return you give something of value. Where is the
something of value from the lender? What has the lender given? Nothing! They created
money based upon the borrowers signature. It is the borrower whose credit/signature has
created the money of which the lender deposited into their account and paid the seller with.
The lender hasnt put a dime towards this loan, thus hasnt loan anything. It is the borrower
who has funded the loan. Thus, the loan is already paid for by the borrower. This plaintiff
demands that the defendant produces the bookkeeping records that proves that they loaned
this plaintiff anything and also a witness with first hand knowledge of that actual loan. The
Supreme Court of Hawaii in Pacific Concrete Federal Union (Plaintiff) v. Andrew J.S.
Kauaone (defendant) Appellant No 6362 July 17, 1980 says that the bank must produce the
the bookkeeping entries with an affidavit or the banks evidence is hearsay. One can not enter
hearsay in court as evidence. They accepted money from me (my signed promissory note)
and then told me (lied) that they loaned me their money, but it was that very same money that
Page 6 of 25

my promissory created. They knew this, I did not. They had superior knowledge and used
it without disclosing it to me to get me to contract with them (fraud in factum and fraud of
inducement). And then had the nerve to even charge me interest on it which had to be paid
mostly upfront before anything substantial was taken off the principle! I had to pay a sizeable
interest on the money created by my signature on a loan that was funded by me to the bank
that never put up any capital for it but yet got unjustly enriched by selling the very same
promissory note that my signature funded to a REMIC Trust Fund! This not only breaks
many state, federal, and contract laws but also breaks GAAP (Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices) rules which makes the contract an illegal contract. In Fina Supply, Inc.
v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says Party having superior knowledge who
takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or
misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct. In Deutsche Bank v. Peabody,
866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008) EquiFirst, when making the loan, violated Regulation Z of the
Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC 1601 and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15
USC 1692; intentionally created fraud in the factum and withheld from the plaintiff
vital information concerning said debt and all the matrix involved in making the loan.
5. Under the Uniform Commercial Code which governs negotiable instruments (See Exhibit N),
the right for a bank to enforce the instrument and to foreclose, is subject to being a real
party of interest or holder in due course. If the loan has been sold, as is the case of a
secured trust, then the bank can no longer claim that they are a party of interest or the holder.
They got paid for the loan twice already; the securitization of the trust and sold as stock and
then paid by the appreciation of that stock. So, in trying to collect again without being a real
party in interest or the holder and knowing they arent is Fraud #1. In filing this claim
Page 7 of 25

knowing that they are not a real party in interest, they have committed Fraud #2, upon the
court.
6. Once a loan has been converted into stock, it no longer is a loan. A negotiable instrument can
only be in one of two states when it undergoes securitization, but not both at the same time. It
can be either a loan and treated and governed as such, or as stock and treated and governed as
such. But once converted to stock, it is forever stock. When a promissory note gets converted
into stock, that promissory note no longer exists. Because a Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument, securitizes a promissory note and if that promissory note is destroyed or no
longer exists (as it is when converted into stock), then that trust is invalid. The trust secures
nothing. Mortgage is not a debt, but merely a security for payment of debt- Maine vs
Clack 33 P.2d 283, 43 Ariz. 492 (1934). And since the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is
what gives the bank the right to foreclose and that Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is
invalid, then the bank loses their right to foreclose. In order to enforce a debt obligation
secured by a mortgage and note, a party must be in possession of the note. See Premier
Capital, Inc. v. Doucette, 2002 ME 83, 7, 797 A.2d 32, 34 (describing a note associated
with a mortgage as a negotiable instrument). Once a REMIC is formed, its assets (my loan
pooled with many others) are declared a permanent fixture to the REMIC. This is registered
with the SEC. You can not register one thing with the SEC and stock market, and then after
the money is transferred, switch out the asset. This is called switch and bait. In other
words, once an asset is registered and traded as part of the security, you cant just switch it
out because it has become a permanent fixture of the traded asset. This is a permanent
conversion. And this is also why it is so very important for the original wet ink mortgage
loan note to be produced. If it got destroyed, by being converted into stock, then the loan has
Page 8 of 25

been paid for. It also breaks the chain of title. Because only the original promissory note has
the legally binding chain of title. When a loan goes into default, the REMIC writes it off.
Once that happens, the REMIC gets tax credits from the IRS. This means it is settled. The
note is gone and paid for. The only way the bank can now try to foreclose on a property is to
buy it back from the open market just like any other debt collector does. And since the debt
has been written off and is no more, the bank buys it for pennies on a dollar. They then try to
reattach the converted loan to the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument and try to say that they
are the real party of interest. In trying to foreclose on this plaintiffs property knowing this
(or should know as it is basic banking and trading practices under GAAP), the defendant and
their lawyer have committed Fraud #3 by submitting false documentation claiming that the
Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is valid thus being the real party in interest and holder in
due course. By reattaching the loan to the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument they have
deceived this court and plaintiff by adhesion, which this plaintiff objects to and both the bank
and their lawyer should be sanctioned for fraud by adhesion, Fraud # Four. Because my loan
was securitized, it destroyed the note, so anything brought into this court as evidence by the
defendant and their lawyer is prima facie evidence of counterfeit fraud, Fraud # Five. They
also are attempting to steal my home through these fraudulent means which is attempted
theft. They also have committed Fraud # Six, securities fraud. Because if the loan and the
stock exists at the same time (which the defendants lawyer admits in Exhibit D), it is known
as double dipping. And double dipping is a form of securities fraud. All of this is clearly
deceptive trade practices. "Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even
judgments" [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65]. Also, count 2 of securities fraud in

Page 9 of 25

submitting a COPY of a promissory note (security note) that has been sold and converted to
stock thus no longer exists.
7. The defendants lawyer has also admitted that the defendant is not the original creditor due to
their answer to my second demand for them to produce the original wet ink mortgage loan
note and Pg. 5, Notice of Important Rights of the defendants November 20, 2009 complaint
for foreclosure (See Exhibit D). Notice the bottom of their response letter. It states This
communication is from a debt collector. And Pg. 5 states the name of the original creditor
is. A company may sell the asset (my loan) to a debt collector who will do everything in
their power to collect on the debt. A debt collector is someone who (is not the original
creditor) buys an off-setted debt and tries to collect on it. Debt collectors use deception to
convince people (in this case, this court, the County Record of Deeds and this plaintiff) that
they were assigned the debt. (As proof by the assignments defendant is using as evidence in
this case).Once a debt has been written off for tax purposes, it is discharged. It cannot be
collected again. The individual shareholders of the REMIC are the real and beneficial interest
holders of my promissory note. Since they cannot individually endorse and assign their
portion of the loss, they have to write it off as a bad debt. The trustee of the REMIC cannot
do it either, because s/he is not the real and beneficial holder of the promissory note. The
only way the defendant can try to foreclose now is to rely upon the same deceptive practices
used by all debt collectors. They are only a debt collector now. This is why they need to put a
notice that they are attempting to collect a debt on their correspondence (the original creditor
doesnt have to do this), just as the defendants lawyer did in both the letter and the
complaint. So this is further proof that both the defendant and their lawyer are well aware
and knowingly, willingly and recklessly committing frauds upon this court and this plaintiff.
Page 10 of 25

8. Also, in that letter from the defendants lawyer, they state that the defendant has possession
of the original wet ink mortgage loan note. If this is a true fact then both the note and the
stock exists at the same time and they are admitting to security fraud. Federal Rules of
Evidence Rules 1002 and 1003 (See Exhibit O) state that the original document should be
produced in court when its terms are material to the argument and that a duplicate is NOT
admissible if there is a genuine question raised as to the authenticity of the original or in
circumstances that would be unfair to accept the duplicate in place of the original. So far, this
plaintiff has given enough proof to not only question the fairness of accepting the duplicate
filed in this case of my mortgage note, but also has given enough doubt as to whether the
original even exists anymore.
9. Under Carpenter v. Longan, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument MUST follow the promissory note (See Exhibit P). But if the promissory note
points to one party and the deed to a separate party, then the chain of title is broken.
Bifurcation has occurred. Since this plaintiff has shown that my loan was securitized through
Exhibit F, thus the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument being separated from the note, it is
proof that the chain of title has been broken. And since every Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument states specifically that it is subject to be applicable to state and federal laws, the
assignment of the promissory note without the corresponding Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument, violates state law. Sec. 109(b) of Revised Article 9 of UCC which was enacted
into law in every state provides in Comment 7, " [O]ne cannot obtain a security interest in
a lien, such as a mortgage on real property, that is not also coupled with an equally effective
security interest in the secured obligation." This is a serious breach of the terms of the Deed
of Trust/Mortgage. When a party to a contract breaches that contract or changes the terms of
Page 11 of 25

that contract without the other party signing agreement to changing the terms (as happened
when the bank securitized my loan and changed it to stock), it makes the contract
(promissory note) voidable. One of the terms I accepted was for a lender to be the holder in
due course of my promissory note. Nowhere in my loan does it state that the state of my
promissory note will be changed and sold as stock, thus also changing the holder in due
course to someone else other than a lender. This changes the terms of my contract. And since
I must give an unqualified acceptance to all the terms of an offer and knew nothing of all this,
the contract is not binding. (See Exhibit Q). If the terms of the Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument is shown to be in violation of state law, then it too is defective. If it is defective,
then it cannot be used to give the lender the due on sale clause. The terms of the Deed of
Trust/Security Instrument must be respected in whole and one cannot pick and choose which
part to respect and which part to ignore.
10. When a loan is changed into stock through the REMIC Trust, the shareholders of that trust
became the true holder in due course. This could be thousands of them. With that amount of
parties and with these parties changing hands literally daily, it would be impossible to track
them at the County Record. So, the bankers got together and created MERS (Mortgage
Electronics Registration Systems). Here is the fraud perpetrated on others I mentioned earlier.
In creating MERS, the banks could now circumvent county registration fees and not pay
taxes. The banks feel that they will be insulated from this fraud because the mortgages were
sold into the SPV/REMIC trust fund as a method of controlling their liability. The problem
was that because they never actually transferred the note (and if they did, why didnt they pay
taxes, hmmm?) as in my case, the transfer took place 19 months later, so the whole creation
of the SPV/REMIC trust fund was fraudulent. Banks are now looking at the choice of either
Page 12 of 25

tanking the entire portfolio back onto their books at massive losses (it would break the bank)
or explaining to the states and IRS why trillions of dollars of taxes were not paid, Fraud #7,
Tax Fraud. MERS functions as a registry much like the County Recorder. But what is unique
about MERS is that they are either named as beneficiary or a nominee (See Exhibit R) on the
Deed of Trust/Security Instrument. This causes several problems. The first being that to be a
beneficiary, one has to put up the money to fund the loan. MERS never fronted even a dime
for the loan. The second problem is MERS recordation is not official. The only legally
recognized recordation on public record is with the County. The third problem is that MERS
is never a true holder in due course as the promissory note was never assigned to them.
Thus, they do not have standing to assign it to anyone else. A recorder is just that, a recorder.
They do not have the authority to appoint anyone or assign anything to anybody. MERS is
not a real or beneficial party of interest and this has been validated in many Federal court
decisions to include MERS themselves in an appeal they filed in Nebraska (See Exhibit Z).
Also, by MERS own words in a foreclosure handbook they made (See Exhibit T). In this
handbook, they even describe how to get around the fact that they dont hold the promissory
note (they admit that the servicer holds it as well as being the record mortgage holder) by
having the servicers employees be certifying officers of MERS so there can be an in house
transfer of possession of the note so that MERS would be considered the note holder for
purposes of foreclosure! (See footnotes on page 46 of the MERS Foreclosure Handbook,
Exhibit T). And the fact that mortgage lenders, banks and lawyers went along with this is just
mindboggling and makes them as much of integral part of committing this fraud as MERS. In
fact, MERS admits such in their appeal case and handbook. In my loan it states that the
nominee may appoint one. If MERS can not assign it to anyone else, then they couldnt
Page 13 of 25

assign it to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is not the true holder in due course and does
not have standing to foreclose, as the law and many court cases say that the defendant must
have to file suit (See Exhibit S and Appendix C). When we have a situation where state law is
being violated through improper assignment, the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is made
invalid. When the trustee is being appointed by some party, in this case MERS, that is not
given the proper authority to do so, this also casts issue to make the Deed of Trust/Security
Instrument defective. In filing an assignment in the County Record where clearly MERS has
no right to assign anything and when the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is invalid or
defective, this is considered Felony Land Record Fraud, Fraud #8.
11. In March May 2006, my mortgage was pooled (with many other notes) and serviced into a
trust fund named SAIL 2006-3 Trust Fund (I was never informed of this transaction)(See
Exhibit W). My mortgage lender sold all rights to my promissory note in order for this trust
to be created as is evident by the discharge of mortgage dated January 20, 2006 (See Exhibit
V). SAIL 2006-3 Trust Fund never went to the York County Record of Deeds office and
recorded that transfer (once again the break in the chain of title). The next recording of
transfer (of which I was never informed of) was done by MERS to US Bank as Trustee to
SAIL 2006-3 Trust Fund on October 16, 2007, nineteen months after the promissory note
was transferred into the SAIL 2006-3 Trust Fund and seventeen months after the closing date
of that fund (See Highlight on Pg. 46 of Exhibit W). Which means it was not possible for the
promissory note to be assigned to that fund seventeen months after the fund closed and when
MERS assigned it to US Bank. Once a promissory note is transferred to a trust fund, it is
securitized and sold as stock. Once stock, forever stock. So how is it possible then for a
promissory note sold into a trust in March - May 2006 and converted into stock to then rePage 14 of 25

appear and be assigned to US Bank National on October 16, 2007 nineteen - seventeen
months later? And then be recorded in a public county record as a mortgage assignment? It is
stock, not a mortgage at this point, being recorded as a valid mortgage assignment by a party
who is not the true holder in due course because the original promissory note is gone and
converted into stock and is separated from the Deed of Trust/Security instrument. This is not
only felony land record fraud, but also"disparagement of title". A "disparagement of title"
suit can be pursued with merit in a variety of circumstances including, but not limited to, the
filing of an invalid lien against real property or virtually any type of recordable instrument
recorded against a property by one without privilege which is untrue.
12. For a contract to be valid, full and fair disclosure (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
[RESPA]) and a meeting of the minds or consensus ad idem must be in existence (See
Exhibit Q). I did not know that in signing the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument I was
creating a contract to let the lender securitized my note into a trust to be turned into stock.
And the lender did NOT disclose this at the signing. This is Fraud in Factum, Fraud #9. In
inducing me to sign the contract without disclosing this fact (since the lender knew that in
telling me this truth, that I most likely wouldnt have signed the contract) they committed
Fraud #10, Fraud of Inducement. Both are a misrepresentation of a material fact. So my loan
right from the very beginning wasnt valid and is voidable. "Any false representation of
material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by
another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles
party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam
Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817. In fact, I was under the impression that I would be doing
business with Countrywide for the next 30 years! But unbeknown to me, even that fact is not
Page 15 of 25

true. Because by law, a bank can only keep a loan for a maximum of five (5) years and then
must sell it (See Exhibit U). This too was not disclosed to me at signing and is another
misrepresentation of a material fact and 2nd count of Fraud of Inducement. They knew from
the start that they were going to sell my note because MERS is mentioned on page 2 of the
security instrument, thus having superior knowledge. Not all mortgages are registered with
MERS. Why? Because most loan originators dont use MERS when they dont intend to sell
the servicing rights.
13. If a promissory note is owned by thousands of parties, then no one party may lay claim on
the promissory note. If no one party can be named beneficiary or lender, then the promissory
note is defective. If no loan assignment was properly done, it cannot be fixed. A lender
cannot simple reverse engineer the title of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument or
promissory note to make it better. Once an instrument is defective, it cannot be used to
collect a debt. So, even as a debt collector, they can not collect on a defective instrument.
14. The Florida case that exposed that these banks trying to foreclose after securitization had
used robo-signers, alerted homeowners that something just wasnt right and they should
check their documents. Well, this plaintiff is no different and I did. I have found the
following:
1. On the Discharge of Mortgage form filed by MERS on February 2, 2006 the notarys
signature of Corey Kowalsky does not match other documents with His/her signature.
They are dramatically different (See Exhibit X).

Page 16 of 25

2. On the Assignment of Mortgage filed by MERS to US Bank National on November 2,

2007, I compared Kimberly Dawsons signature with other documents she allegedly
signed and they are different (See Exhibit X2).
3. Also on the above #2 Assignment, the notary signature Jorge Vargas is not only different
from other documents with his signature, but is dramatically different from his signature
on his application for appointment form which is on file with the Texas Secretary of State
(See Exhibit X3).
Note: Also please see that in one document X2, are the same two people on my assignment,
Kimberly Dawson and Jorge Vargas. What are the chances of these two peoples signatures
being different at the same time together, from mine?
4. On the Assignment of Mortgage filed by US Bank National on August 28, 2009 the
signature of the Vice President of US Bank National, Jill Wosnak is different from the
signature of the same person on Page 2 of the Certification of Plaintiff (now defendant)
filed in this court as evidence in this foreclosure suit. These two signatures are also
dramatically different from other documents purporting that Jill Wosnak signed it before
a notary (See Exhibit X4).
My questions to this honorable court are these:
1. How can we possibly know which signatures are the real ones (with the exception of the
one from the state of Texas for Vargas) of the people purported to have signed my
documents?

Page 17 of 25

2. How can such important documents conveying real property have standing of validity
with such a wide variety of signatures of the same persons?
3. How can we give any validity to the attestments of the notaries when, not only the
peoples signatures who allegedly came before them dont match, but the notaries
signatures are just as questionable?
Someone (Some people), somewhere is lying and perpetrating a fraud on a massive scale
here and unfortunately, my home is included in all this mess! And since the defendant and
their lawyer are including these forged instruments into this court case, they are a contributor
(at the very least), to the perpetuation of this fraudulent activity. Title 18 USC 474
Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records,
receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such persons control, custody, or possession,
an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security of the United States
is guilty of a class B felony. And since there have been many court cases showing this fraud
(some that includes this defendant), and its been all over the news media outlets for some
time, the defendant and their lawyer are well aware of it. (Otherwise, theyve been hiding in
an isolated cave deep in Siberia!). This means that they blatantly dont care about committing
fraud because they have filed this lawsuit anyways. I found all this out with just a wee bit of
investigation. Couldnt a knowledgeable law firm such as the defendants or even the big,
rich bank of US Bank National have found this out as well before entering these fraudulent
documents as evidence in order to support their claim of right to foreclose?
And since all of these frauds and violations of state and federal laws were done through
communications across state lines, this also falls under the RICO statute of violations (See
Exhibit Y).
Page 18 of 25

15. Also, should this defendant receive a favorable judgment when it is clear that the plaintiff is
not adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of claim by another bank
(such as Bank of America as included in Exhibit G) to enforce this duplicated promissory
note and security instrument? No one has the original documents, just duplicates. Who knows
how many duplicates have been distributed and how many will in the future come knocking
at my door saying I hold your note and deed, you need to pay me or Ill foreclose. Three
already have (at the same time) in my case, so far. If the original documents were indeed
destroyed when they were securitized and sold as stock, that means they were intentionally
destroyed. Shouldnt that act of intentional destruction discharge the obligation to pay?
Especially since it means that they got paid for the instrument through the sale of the stock?
Why should they then get a third bite (the sale of stock, plus the 10% interest plus ME) at the
apple? A fourth bite if you include the government bailout!
I dont know about you, your honor, but I think that this defendant (and parties in interest) have
already been paid enough for my loan. They got paid 1.5% of the face of my loan when they
securitized it and sold it as stock, a second time on the appreciation of that stock and a third time
with the government bailout given by President Obama (again, my money, as well as everyone
elses). Plus, I have personally paid over $145,000.00 in payments on an $83,000.00 loan! I have
proof that it has been paid in full by the SAIL Trusts own records (See Exhibit W). How many
more times are they going to get paid for this loan? A loan that not only has been paid several
times over, but also is defective and not valid right from the start! In HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS
CO. v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) it states there is no statute of limitations
on fraud. They have committed many frauds, lied, cheated and made a mockery of, and blatantly
thumbed their noses at, state and federal laws. And they have been doing this over a period of
Page 19 of 25

many years. They filed this suit full knowing about all this and hoped that neither this court nor
this plaintiff was wise to their frauds and misdeeds.
CONCLUSION
This has to stop your honor! And the banks as well as their lawyers must be held accountable for
this and sanctioned.
WHEREAS, to just give me clear title and dismiss this case with prejudice is not enough,
because they will not be punished as they lose absolutely nothing as they have already been paid
well for this loan.
WHEREAS, when fraud has clearly been shown to have been committed, then the injured party
may sue for treble damages. In this case, treble the amount of the loan the defendant says is due
($152,848.15 x3= $458,544.45).
WHEREAS, I submit, that even that is not enough as they have already made well over this
amount and so once again wont be punished in any way. If the defendant and their lawyer stand
accountable where it will be felt the most, in their wallet, then maybe they will think twice
before doing this again because this court will have set a precedent for others to be able to defend
themselves with and it would be very costly for this bank and lawyer (or any other bank or
lawyer, as well) to even attempt doing it again.
WHEREAS, in May, 2009, Mr. Arnold said in Mortgage Technology Magazine, Every system
in the mortgage industry can switch MERS registry on or off at will, referencing that both the
Obama administration and Congressional leaders are aware of this. Not until MERS became the
primary focus for challenges to legal standing in foreclosure courts as reported as the alternative
media, have the main stream media and the mortgage industry have begun to realize that
Page 20 of 25

property records cross the United States have become totally unreliable. It has taken more than a
decade for the courts to recognize that MERS has become a mortgage backfire system leaving
clouded titles in over 65 million loans since 1997.
WHEREAS, courts across the nation must comply with the law.
THEREFORE, I request of this honorable court, that to show the defendant and their lawyer that
the frauds and law violations that they have committed are so impugnant to the fair dealings and
practices in law, and to the sensibilities of this court in bringing forth such a fraudulent suit
before it, with full knowledge of the fraud, that punitive damages be assessed at treble the
amount of the loan to each count of fraud, violations of law and RICO statues and for the
attempted theft and for extortion , along with awarding this plaintiff complete and clear title to
my property, 11 Bennett Street in Sanford, Maine and dismiss this case with prejudice plus any
other relief this honorable court deems just, fair and appropiate.
LIST OF FRAUDS
This is a list of frauds that this plaintiff has found in her opinion has occurred and from her
conclusion of the facts. It is not to represent that this is a complete list as the plaintiff is not a
lawyer and may have missed some other frauds that she is not aware of.
1. Fraud #1 Trying to collect on a debt that the defendant knows that they are NOT the
real party in interest but declaring they are, when in truth are only a debt collector, with
deceptive trade practices.
2. Fraud #2 Knowingly, willingly and recklessly filing a claim to deceive this court by
saying they are the real party in interest when they are NOT and know they arent..

Page 21 of 25

3. Fraud #3 - Submitting false documentation claiming that the deed of trust is valid.
Because my loan was securitized, it destroyed the note and separated it from the deed of
trust making the deed of trust invalid so this evidence is prima facie evidence of
counterfeit fraud.
4. Fraud #4 - Submitting false documentation claiming that the promissory note is valid.
Because my loan was securitized, it destroyed the note so this evidence is prima facie
evidence of counterfeit fraud.
5. Fraud #5 - Submitting false documentation claiming that the discharge of mortgage is
valid. Invalid/forged signatures of bank officials and notary signatures.
6. Fraud #6 2 counts of submitting false documentation claiming that the assignments of
mortgage was valid. Invalid/forged signatures of bank officials and notary signatures.
7. Fraud #7 Falsely using notary stamps. If the signatures are forged, then the actual
person to whom that notary stamp belongs to didnt use it. Someone else did who isnt
authorized to.
8. Fraud #8 - Reattaching the discharged loan (promissory note) to the deed of trust which is
adhesion.
9. Fraud #9 2 counts of Security Fraud - Defendants lawyer states that defendant is in
possession of the original note as of September 30, 2010, thus admitting that the
promissory note and the stock exists at the same time which is double dipping and
securities fraud. And submitting a copy of the promissory note (which is a security note)

Page 22 of 25

after it has been destroyed by being sold and converted into stock and thus no longer
exists is security fraud.
10. Circumventing registration fees and taxes by using MERS instead of the County
Recorder violates state laws and is tax fraud, Fraud #10.
11. In filing an assignment in the County Record where clearly MERS has not right to assign
anything and when the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument is invalid or defective, this is
considered Felony Land Record Fraud, Fraud #11.
12. Fraud in Factum, Fraud #12 (See note 1)
13. 2 counts of Fraud in inducement, Fraud #13 (See note 1)
14. In securitizing my note, it separated the deed from the promissory note and in assigning
the note without the deed violates state and federal law under Revised Article 9 UCC
code Section 109(b) Comment 7.
15. Attempted theft of my home through fraudulent means.
16. Because this defendant threatened me with foreclosure if I didnt pay them what they say
is owed on my loan through filing in court a foreclosure suit even though they know they
have no standing to do so and have committed many frauds to accomplish this, they have
committed a felony, extortion.
17. Because these frauds and violations used communications over state lines, they have
violated Federal RICO statutes. 5 counts; 1. mail fraud, 2. wire fraud, 3. financial institute

Page 23 of 25

fraud, 4. racketeering and 5. engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from

specified unlawful activity.
Notes.
1. In not disclosing material facts and using superior knowledge to get me to enter into a
contract, the lender committed fraud in factum and fraud of inducement. Now, even
though the defendant was not the one at the original signing, the fact is, they took over
the contract assets and liabilities by buying it and saying that they are now the lender.
Thus, they took on the liability of what was or was NOT disclosed at the original signing.
Also, in the irreverseable act of separating the promissory note from the Deed of
Trust/Security Instrument, and causing bifurcation, it made the contract defective and
voidable before the defendant bought it. And because GAAP rules were broken by the
original lender, the contract is illegal. This amounts to caveat emptor and the onus is on
the buyer to have all the information about the contract before buying it! It is not
necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should
have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is
innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false
representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such
representations. [Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166]. But the whole fact is that this
defendant, being a big, major bank and being in the banking business for a long time, is
very well aware of all this information I have provided above and has elected to
knowingly, willingly and recklessly participate in this massive fraud in hopes to be

Page 24 of 25

unjustly enriched by this plaintiff. And have used this honorable court as the vehicle to
make it happen.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Debra J. Reagan, hereby certify that a copy of this COUNTERCLAIM was served on April 5,
2011 via US Certified Mail _________________________________________ to :

Shechtman Halperin Savage, LLP

1080 Main Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

And regular US Postal Mail to:

CitiFinancial, Inc.
647 US Route 1
Suite C1 BO1
York, Maine 03909

_____________________________

____________________

Debra J. Reagan

Date Signed

Page 25 of 25