COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
AS TRUSTEE FOR SPECIALTY
)
UNDERWRITING AND RESDENTIAL )
FINANCE TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN )
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES,
)
SERIES 2006-BC1
)
8950 CYPRESS WATERS BLVD
)
COPPELL, TEXAS 75019
)
)
PLAINTIFF
)
)
Vs.
)
)
William Szekely. (PRO SE)
)
5667 Boneta rd.
)
Medina, Ohio 44256
)
)
DEFENDANTS
)
)

CASE NO.# 1 5 C I V 0 8 6 0
JUDGE JOYCE V. KIMBLER

ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

NOW COMES Defendant William Szekely, State as One of the

People of the Republic of Ohio Complains, and Stand as a Natural Free Man &
Woman in Honor under Common Law Jurisdiction as Provided by my Birth, with All
Privileges Intact, We Stand Here in Honor, And We Ask this Court What Jurisdiction
You Have, And Where You Gained the Jurisdiction to Proceed and What Remedy Does
This Court Offer The Living/Breathing Man
Now Comes the Defendant and Files this Answer against U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION in the above mentioned civil action.
Answers and Affirmative Defenses in this Case are being Filed by Defendant 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 Attorneys. 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 F2D 1106 (10th cir 1991).
Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint States as Follows;
ANSWERS
FIRST COUNT
PARAGRAPH 1

Defendant have Insufficient Knowledge to ADMIT or DENY at

this time, Therefore the Allegations are Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENIED and
Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof
PARAGRAPH 2

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 3

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 4

Defendant have Insufficient Knowledge to ADMIT or DENY at

this Time, Therefore the Allegations are Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENIED
Until Further Strict Proof is Elucidated, if a Breach of Agreement Occurred it gets Sets
Back to Prior the Breach
PARAGRAPH 5

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof,

SECOND COUNT
PARAGRAPH 6

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 7

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 8

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 9

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 10

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 11

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 12

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

PARAGRAPH 13

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

SUBPART A

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

SUBPART B

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

SUBPART C

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the

Material Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

SUBPART D

Defendant have Insufficient Knowledge to ADMIT

or DENY at this Time, Therefore the Allegations are Expressly, Directly and Explicitly

DENIED until Further Strict Proof is Elucidated, if a Breach of Agreement Occurred it is

Set back Prior the Breach.
SUBPART E

ACCEPT

SUBPART F

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

SUBPART G

Defendant Expressly, Directly and Explicitly DENY the Material

Allegations of this Paragraph and Strict Proof is Demanded Thereof

ANY ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAIT NOT EXPRESSLY ADMITTED
HEREIN ARE EXPRESSLY, DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY DENIED AND
STRICT PROOF IS DEMANDED THEREOF:
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE DEFENDANT (William and Frances Szekely) ARE THE TRUE AND
UNREFUTABLE, IN ACCORD AND SATISFACTION THE LEGAL OWNERS
AND HOLDERS IN TITLE AND DEED OF TRUST
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff cannot Produce the Original Promissory Note
1. In Order to Maintain a Mortgage Foreclosure, Plaintiff must either Present Original
Promissory Note or give a Satisfactory Explanation for Failure to do so, a Limited
Exception Applies for Lost, Destroyed, or Stolen Instruments, Where it is Shown that
The Person was in Possession of the Instrument and Entitled to Enforce it when a Loss
of Possession Occurred. Plaintiff has not Produced the Original Note Nor Sought to
Reestablish it. On Information and Belief, Plaintiff Cannot Prove the Terms of the
Instrument Nor Plaintiffs Right to Enforce the Instrument. The Court may not Enter

Judgment in Favor of the Person Seeking Enforcement unless it finds that the Person
Required to pay the Instrument is Adequately Protected Against Loss that might Occur
by Reason of a Claim by Another Person to Enforce the Instrument ( Adequate
Assurance under the Law). On Information and Belief, Defendants Specifically Denies
All Necessary Terms of the Note are provided in any NOTE Plaintiff may produce
And in the Photocopied Subject Mortgage and Note Attached to the Complaint.
Necessary Endorsements are Missing; as such, Essential Terms and Conditions
Precedent Are not provided by the Plaintiff. On Information and Belief, Defendants
Denies the Authenticity of All Signatures on the Subject Mortgage and Note, and
Demands Strict Proof Thereof, by Clear, Positive and Convincing Evidence.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff lacks standing, is not the real party in interest,
And has failed to plead a cause of action
2. Plaintiff is Neither the Original Oblige Identified in the Subject Note Nor the Original
Mortgage. Plaintiff has Failed to Allege Ultimate Facts as to How or Why it came to be
the Alleged Owner and Holder of the Subject Note and Mortgage. Further, Plaintiff Fails
to Allege Any Ultimate Facts Whatsoever Placing it within the Chain of Ownership of
the Subject Note and Mortgage. Therefore, Plaintiff has Failed to Plead a Cause of Action
Under Contract Law. On Information and Belief, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement of
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SERIES 2006-BC1 Contains no
Indication that the Subject Note was ever Securitized Thereby, or Included in, the Subject
Trust. Plaintiff is Required to Provide Support for its Contention that said Note is within
the Trust. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Plaintiff has Failed to Allege Facts to
Show that it ever Collected the Subject Note and Mortgage from the Custodian of the

Trust, when it was Collected, in What Manner it was Collected and Where it was
Secured Prior to this Action.if the Subject Note and Mortgage were Never Part of the
Pooled [res] and, Therefore not Trust Property, Plaintiff is Acting as a Trustee on Behalf
of a Trust that Never had Ownership of the Subject Note and Mortgage and Therefore
Lacks Standing to Sue as a Trustee.
3.

LACK OF JURISDICTION- The Purported Plaintiffs, U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, has not Alleged Facts Sufficient to Demonstrate that it Invoked and/or
could have Possibly Invoked Jurisdiction of this Court, to wit, Plaintiff U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION did not Satisfy and could not have Possibly Satisfied the
Required Conditions Precedent as Evidenced by the Alleged Complaint
4.

LACK OF STANDING- The Purported Plaintiff U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION can not give Clear and Positive Evidence as to the Fact they Own
and/or Hold any Genuine Original Unaltered Promissory Note and/or Mortgage
(XEROX COPIES)
5. LACK OF STANDING- U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has Failed in its
Burden to Affirmatively Establish with Clear and Positive Evidence they have Holder in
Due Course Status
6. LACK OF STANDING- the Plaintiff has Failed to State a Claim Upon which Relief
may be Granted, inasmuch as Plaintiff has not, and cannot Establish it is the Real Party
in Interest to Enforce the Mortgage and/or Promissory Note that is Subject of the Above
Styled Action
7.

LACK OF STANDING- this Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over this

Action inasmuch as Plaintiff has not and cannot Establish it is the Real Party in

Interest to Enforce the Mortgage and/or Promissory Note that is the Subject of the
Above Styled Action
8. LACK OF STANDING- the Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Pursue its Claims Against the
Homeowners (William Szekely) inasmuch, and/or Lacked Standing at the
Time this Action was Filed as the Plaintiff has NOT, and Cannot Establish it is the Real
Party in Interest to Enforce the Mortgage and/or Promissory Note that is the Subject of
the Above Styled Action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to State a Cause of Action
Plaintiff is NOT a Holder of the Subject Note
9. The Complaint States; the Plaintiff is the Holder of the Note and Mortgage or is the
Party Entitled to Enforce the Subject Note, the Prosecution of a Residential Mortgage
Foreclosure Action must be by Owner and Holder of Mortgage and the Note. Plaintiff
is NOT Entitled to Maintain an Action if it does Not Own and Hold the Title and the
Deed to the Subject Note Which is Purportedly Secured by the Subject Mortgage. (when
Plaintiff Files their Complaint, they must Necessarily Allege they are the Owner and
Holder of the Deed, and the Holder of the Note and Mortgage in Question); ( U.S.
BANK NATIONAL TRUST ASSOCIATION is Required to Establish, Through
Admissible Evidence, that it Held the Deed, and the Note and Mortgage and so had
Standing to Foreclose the Mortgage before it would be Entitled to Summary Judgment in
its Favor.)
10. However, the Plaintiffs Complaint Alleges they are Holder and Defined as
the Person in Possession of a Negotiable Instrument that is Payable Either to Bearer or
to an Identified Person that is the Person in Possession, since the Plaintiff does not have

Possession of the Deed, and the Ultimate Facts as Pled are Inconsistent with Plaintiffs
Bare Legal Conclusion that it is the HOLDER of the Subject Deed, the Subject Note
and Mortgage. Therefore, the Plaintiff has Failed to Sufficiently Plead the Ultimate
Facts as Required by Contract Law.
FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has Failed to Plead Capacity to Sue
11.

As a Threshold Matter, it is Unclear Exactly Who or What the Plaintiff is in this

Case because the Complaint does Not Properly Set-Off or Identify Plaintiff within the
Body of the Complaint. A Plaintiffs Name, [i.e]., U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING AND
RESIDENTIAL FINANCE TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-BC1, is Identified in the Caption, but Nowhere
else in Any of the Plaintiffs Pleadings is Plaintiffs Entity Status or Capacity even
Pleaded. Plaintiffs Failure to Properly Identify Itself and Thus Plead its Capacity,
Prohibits Plaintiff from Asserting that it has Established its Capacity and Prevents
Defendant from Properly Asserting Defenses to this Action which may Prevent Plaintiff
from Maintaining this Present Suit from the Outset.
12.

Capacity- it is Not Aver the Capacity of a Party to Sue or be Sued, the Authority of

a Party to Sue or Sued in a Representation Capacity, or the Legal Existence of an

Organized Association of Persons that is made a Party, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
REQUIRED TO SHOW THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. THE
INITIAL PLEADING SERVED ON BEHALF OF A MINOR PARTY SHALL
SPECIFICALLY AVER THE AGE OF THE MINOR PARTY, when a Party Desires to

Raise an Issue as to the ;Legal Existence of Any Party, the Capacity of Any Party to Sue
or be Sued, or the Authority of a Party to Sue or be Sued in a Representative Capacity,
that Party Shall do so by Specific Negative Averment which Shall include such
Supporting Particulized as are peculiarly within the Pleaders Knowledge.
13.

The Complaint Lacks Any Allegation of Where the Subject Trust was Created,

Whether it was and/or is Authorized to do Business in OHIO, or Exempt from

Registration under OHIO Law and the Basis for its Authority. No Allegation is Made
that Plaintiff Registered as a Trust in OHIO, and Clearly Requires that the Capacity of
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant be Alleged, to the Extent Required to Show the
Jurisdiction of the Court by the Clear Language of the Law, This Applies to Both
Plaintiffs Status and Defendants Status, [i.e]., Capacity of a Party to Sue or be Sued
, or the Authority of a Party to Sue or be Sued. The Law also Provides the Specific
Procedures that Defense Counsel Must Use to Challenge the Issue of the Plaintiffs
Status, [i.e]., by Specific Negative Averment. Defendant Specifically Asserts that
Plaintiff Cannot Claim it has Properly Invoked the Jurisdiction of this Court Within the
Four Corners of the Complaint.
14.

Capacity to Sue is an Absence of Legal Disability which Would Deprive Party

of the Right to Come into Court, This is in Contrast to Standing which Requires an
Entity have Sufficient Interest in the Outcome of Litigation to Warrant the Courts
Consideration of its Position, the Issue of Capacity to Sue may be Raised by Motion to
Dismiss Where the Defect Appears on the Face of the Complaint. Failure to Raise the
Issue of a Plaintiffs Capacity by a Specific Negative Averment has been Held to be a
Waiver of that Defense.

15. Plaintiff has Failed to Plead or Specify in What Capacity it Brings Suit and Failed to
Define or Identify Nature of its Legal Entity; Thus it has Not Pled Capacity to Sue.
Without such Capacity, Plaintiff Cannot Invoke the Jurisdiction of the Court and may
Not Pursue this Litigation.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Negative Averment as to Authenticity
16. The Purported Copy of the Subject Note Attached to Plaintiffs Complaint Bears what
Appears to be a, (Blank Indorsement). Defendant Hereby Specifically Denies the
Authenticity of, and the Authority to Make, Each and Every Signature and Indorsement
on the Subject Note and Subject Mortgage, Allonge or Any Assignments Thereof, Filed
by Plaintiff in Connection with this Case other than that of the Maker, There is no
Presumption that the Indorsement(s) of Any Prior Holder(s) of the Subject Note is/are
Genuine (Bona-Fide), and Plaintiff has the Burden of Proving the Validity of Any such
Indorsement(s)
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is Not a Holder in Due Course
17.

Upon Information and Belief, Plaintiff is Neither a Holder in Due Course Nor

Entitled to the Rights of such a Holder, Plaintiff did not Acquire the Subject Note for
Value or in Good Faith and/or Plaintiff had Express or Constructive Knowledge that the
Subject Note was in Default when it was Acquired by Plaintiff. It is Believed that
Plaintiff is Not in Possession of the Subject Note. Defendant is Not Obligated to Pay the
Instrument Unless Plaintiff Proves to be a Holder in Due Course
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Subject Note was NEVER Lawfully or Equitably Transferred to Securitized Trust
Lack of Capacity; Dissolved/ Inactive Trust
Alleged note assigned IN BLANK

18.

Is it True when Assigned IN BLANK, it makes this a Bearer Instrument, is it

also True when Assigned IN BLANK A Receipt of Delivery and Acceptance must
Accompany from and to Every Entity and Finally the Custodian of the Trust Must have
All of These Receipts and Acceptances Along with Original Note, Mortgage and Deed
of Trust to be Considered to be Owned by the Trust in Above Styled Action. It is
Believed that the Subject Trust is NO Longer an Active Trust and/or has been Dissolved.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Lack of Capacity; Ultra Vires Acts in Violation of Governing Trust Document
(Bifurication)
19.

As Mentioned Herein, appears in this Case Pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing

Agreement (the Agreement), the Trust Instrument that Sets Forth All of the Rights,
Powers, Obligations, Limitations and Duties of Plaintiff. The Four Corners of the
Agreement Bind the Subject Trust to the Only Actions which can Lawfully be Taken
with Respect to the Administration of its Alleged Assets and Establish the Only
Mechanism by which this Purported Corporate Trust may Acquire, Transfer, Dispose of,
or Sell Any Asset. The Agreement is Filed of Record with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and is a Matter of Public Record; it can be Found on the SECs
EDGAR ONLINE Website at (www.secinfo.com)
20.

The Terms of the Agreement are Filed Under Oath with the SEC and the Parties to

the Agreement have Represented Under Oath to the SEC and its Investors, Certificate
Holders, and Counter-Parties, that the Entire Agreement of the Entities, Parties, Agents,
Servants, with Respect to the Subject Trust are Contained within this Agreement and its
Exhibits.
21.OHIO Law, and the Following Uniform Commercial Code, Specifically Provides that

the Effects of Provisions of the Code may be Varied by Agreement, in the Instant Case,
the Express Terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Controlling the Subject
Trust, of which the Subject Note and Subject Mortgage are Allegedly a Part, have Varied
the Manner in Which these Instruments may be Transferred and Subsequently Enforced.
22.

The Subject Note and Subject Mortgage Cannot Become Part of the Pool Absent

the Plaintiffs Compliance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The Plaintiff has
NO Right to Enforce the Subject Note and Subject Mortgage, as they have not been
Transferred into the [Corpus] or [Res] of the Subject Trust and are not Part of the
Subject Trusts Pool of Assets. Additionally, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
Alters the Method by which the Subject Note may be Enforced and Renders Governing
Negotiable Instruments, Inapplicable to the Subject Note.
23.

Plaintiff Acted with [Ultra Vires] to its Powers Under the Subject Trust by which it

Acts, and is Without Authority or Capacity to Act as to [Res] in the Dispute. Plaintiff
and/or its Predecessors in Interest to the Subject Mortgage and Subject Note Failed to
Abide by the Subject Trusts Funding and Transfer Requirements and Restrictions in
Placing these Instruments within the [Corpus or Res] of the Subject Trust. Plaintiffs
Claim of Power, Authority or other Standing to Pursue this Action is an [Ultra Vires]
Act over the [Res] of the Subject Trust. Plaintiffs Attempt to Receive Assignment of the
Subject Mortgage and Transfer of the Subject Note is Well Outside the Scope of the
Subject Trust Specific Restrictions and is Void by Reason Thereof.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has Failed to Verify the Complaint
24.

Upon Information and belief, Plaintiff Filed the Complaint on August 27, 2015 but

Failed to Verify its Complaint Under Oath or Affirmation,

25.

(When Filing an Action for Foreclosure of a Mortgage on a Residential Real

Property THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE VERIFIED). When Verification of a

Document is Required. The Document Filed Shall Include an Oath, Affirmation, or the
Following Statement;
26.

UNDER PENALTY OF PREJURY, I Declare that I have Read the Foregoing,

and the Facts Alleged Therein are True and Correct to the Best of my Knowledge and
Belief;
27.

Additionally, the Complaint does not Contain an Affidavit of Diligent Search and

Inquiry, which Provides in Pertinent Part, that Any Party may Move for Dismissal of
an Action or of Any Claim Against that Party for Failure of an Adverse Party to Comply
with These Rules or Any Order of Court, Thus, Any Judgment Which is Not in
Compliance with the OHIO Rules of Civil Procedure is Null and Void, and Any
Mortgage Foreclosure Action Filed Must be Verified.
28. THE SUPREME COURT Noted that, (the Primary Purposes of this Amendment
are;(1) to Provide Incentive for the Plaintiff to Appropriately Investigate and Verify its
Ownership of the Note or Right to Enforce the Note and Ensure that the Allegations in
the Complaint are Accurate; (2) to Conserve Judicial Resources that are Currently being
Wasted on Inappropriately Pleaded Lost Note Counts and Inconsistent Allegations;
(3) to Prevent the Wasting of Judicial Resources and Harm to Defendants Resulting from
Suits Brought by Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Enforce the Note; (4) to give Trial Courts
Greater Authority to Sanction Plaintiffs who Make False Allegations.
29.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Lack of Capacity to Convey ( NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING)

Plaintiff has Attached Two Assignments of Mortgage to its Complaint. Both

Assignments were Prepared by (NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING INC.) the First
Assignment Purports to Convey the Subject Mortgage as the Original Creditor is
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems inc. as Nominee for Wilmington Finance , a
Division of AIG Federal Savings Bank, and Purports to Now be Held by U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE for SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING AND
RESIDENTIAL FINANCE TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-BC1, the First Assignment was Submitted to be
Recorded on April 6, 2015 and the Second was Submitted to be Recorded on April 23,
2015, and Alleged Assignments Due Diligence and Research was Completed by
(ERICKA LANCE) WHO WAS DISPOSED ALREADY BY AN UNATTACHED
ACTION AND DEPOSTION RECORDINGS WILL BE IN EXHIBITS
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Breach of Agreement/ Fraud in the Factum
30. FRAUD IN THE FACTUM- The Mortgage and/or Promissory Note in the Above
Styled Matter are Void AB INITIO for Lack of Compliance with the TRUTH IN
LENDING ACT (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601,et seq., and REGULATION Z, 12 C.F.R.
226.1,et seq, (REGULATION Z or REG Z) Specifically, Plaintiff Failed to Deliver
to the Homeowners (William Szekely) All Material Disclosures Required by
TILA and REGULATION Z,
31. FRAUD IN THE FACTUM- The Mortgage and Promissory Note in the Above
Styled Matter are Void for Lack of Compliance with the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT,15
U.S.C.1601, et seq., and the HOME OWNERSHIP PROTECTION ACT (HOEPA)

12 C.F.R. 226.32.
32.

PREDATORY PER SE- Any and All Claims Against Homeowners (William

Szekely) are Offset by the Damages Owed to Homeowners (William Szekely) by

Plaintiff in Connection with the Counterclaim Set Forth Herein
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
UNCLEAN HANDS
33.

Defendant Asserts and Alleges All Other Facts Referenced in the Previous

Affirmative Defenses and that Plaintiff comes to this Court with UNCLEAN HANDS
AND STANDS IN DISHONOR, Historically, Equitable Courts Developed to Provide a
Forum of Justice for Litigants when Law Courts, which Contained Rigid Principles and
Restrictive Technicalities, were Deficient. As such, Equity Courts were Created to do
Justice between the Litigants. Therefore, a Court of Equity is a Court of Conscience; it
should not be Shackled by Rigid Rules of Procedure and Thereby Preclude Justice being
Administered According to Good Conscience. With Respect to Foreclosures, the
General Rule in OHIO is that the Foreclosure must not be Unconscionable or
Inequitable.
As a Matter of Equity, this Honorable Court should Refuse to Foreclose the Subject
Mortgage because the Homeowners (William Szekely) HOLD LAWFUL
TITLE AND DEED,
34.

Plaintiffs Claims Barred by not Disclosing All Material Facts, as Full, Accord and

Satisfaction, Arbitration and Award, Waiver, Estoppel, Laches, Release, Failure to

Mitigate Damages
35.

DEFENDANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES AS DISCOVERY AND INTERROGATIONS BECOME

AVAILABLE AND BECOMES TO ELUCIDATE ITSELF

36.

Defendant Incorporates Herein; All of the Allegations Contained in Prior Counts

and that the Defendant may be Made Whole by this Honorable Court, With Relief Just
and Due and Equitable.
Respectfully Submitted
_____________________________________
William Szekely (PRO SE)
5667 Boneta rd.
Medina, Ohio 44256
Phone (234)248-4038
b.sz65@yahoo.com

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO
William Szekely (PRO SE)
5667 Boneta rd.
Medina, Ohio 44256
Plaintiff in Counterclaim
-vsU.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
FOR SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING
AND RESIDENTIAL FINANCE
TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES
SURF SERIES 2006-BC1
8950 Cypress Waters BLVD
COPPELL, TEXAS 75019
AND LIST FROM EXHIBITS
Defendants in Counterclaim
1.

)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.; 1 5 C I V 0 8 6 0
)
)
)
JUDGE: JOYCE V. KIMBLER, JUDGE
)
)
)
)
COUNTERCLAIM FROM ABOVE
)
LISTED
COMPLAINT
)
) PARCEL: 033-12A-16-011
)
)
)

Now comes the Plaintiff, the Homeowners (William Szekely) the True and Lawful

Holders of Title and Deed of Trust, ( EXHIBIT A) and Files this COUNTERCLAIM
against U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in the above Mentioned Civil Action.
2.

Pleadings in this Matter 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 Attorneys. See
Haines v. Kerner 92 sct 594., also see Power 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), and
in My Lawful Pleading We the Plaintiffs in This Counterclaim are Asking for Triple for

Each Offence Claimed,

3.

The Counterclaim Plaintiffs have asked Over 48 Forty Eight Times from All Parties

Thur Investigation having Named Entity Involved in Collusion. To Demonstrate with

Clear and Positive Evidence and not Heresay and/or (Xerox Copies), All Requests listed
have been Thur Certified Mail with the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AND
WILL SUBMIT RECIEPTS AS EVIDENCE ( EXHIBIT E ).
4.

The Reasons this Plaintiff is Demanding the Defendants Produce Any and All Legal

Original, Unaltered, and Marketable, Instruments, Documents and/or Evidence Proving

Any and All Standing, Interest, and Rights to Enforce, is because Thur Information and
Belief, 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 FRAUD on this
COURT, MEDINA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, MEDINA COUNTY CLECK
OF COURTS, and the Plaintiffs (William and Frances Szekely), as Well as Attempting
Theft and Extortion upon this Plaintiff in trying to Acquire this Plaintiffs Home thru
Willingly, Knowingly, Maliciously, and Recklessly with No Regard for Harm at Any
Level or Degree. ( Chief Justice Storey says 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 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 Existence 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, and/or has Any 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 Action.
5.

We are Questioning Virtually Every Aspect of your Claim of Transaction, because

there Appears to be Breach of Agreement Behavior on the Part of Multiple Parties in

Collusion with Every Phrase of the Alleged Loan Transaction and Your Documented
Proof of Subsequent Sale to Investors of Some Pool of Assets into Which you have
Stolen our Good and Honorable Name, Identity, and Reference to a Private Transaction
between the Alleged Original Lender (CREDITOR) (WHO DID NOT FUND THE
TABLE-FUNDED LOAN [i.e.] ALLONGE). And we (William and Frances Szekely)
Who Unknowingly (Without Full Disclosure of All Material Facts) Executed Documents
that Appear to be Part of a Intentional Breach of Agreement to Issue Unregulated
Securities under False Pretenses.
6.

Simply Stated, (William Szekely) is Demanding his Right to Know the Identity and

Contact Information of the True and Real Lender (CREDITOR) or True and Real Holder
in Due Course, if there is One. (William Szekely) as Natural People have Every Right to
Know Who, What, and Where and How Anything Happened to These (Their Personal)
Contract Documents and Additional Promises and/or Conditions were Placed Upon the
Alleged Original Agreement. In Order to make an Informed Decision as to Whether U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has Any Right to Collect, Enforce or Otherwise
Administrate or Communicate with Anyone Regarding the Subject Mortgage. ON THAT
ACCOUNT WE HEREWITH DEMAND THAT (U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER PARTY IN COLLUSION) Provide (William

Szekely) with Written Instruments Documenting Your Authority to Perform Any Act in
Connection with the Alleged Subject Mortgage and/or Note.
7.

If the Defendants Have and Are the True Holder of Mortgage and Note, Why do you

Keep Sending (William Szekely) Xerox Copies, Would it Not END All
Arguments with a Signed Affidavits with Attestment from a (C.F.O) Attesting Under
Penalty of Perjury, that Every and All Parts are True with Clean Hands in All Aspects of
Contract.
8. Who, What and Where is (U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and How did
they Gain Interest IN BLANK for Subject Mortgage and Note and Deed of Trust, with
Proof of All Transactions with Valuable Consideration to Bring you Legally into Interest
with Substance of Facts of All Book Keeping Entries,
9. Who, What Where is the True Creditor, and Who, What Where and How did They
Gain Interest with Clear and Positive Evidence to Prove Substance of Facts.
Is it True at the Signing of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust/Security Instrument,
Something Very Interesting Happens, Unbeknownst to the Borrower (but Well Known
to the Alleged Lender, thus having (Superior Knowledge) that the Promissory Note
becomes a Negotiable Instrument in the Amount of What the Borrower believes the
Lender is Purportedly Loaning to Them. (EXHIBIT F)
10.

Did you Not then Deposit this Negotiable Instrument (just like a Check) into Their

Bank Under an Account in (William Szekely) Borrowers Name, which Creates a Positive
Deposit in that Account. (EXHIBIT F)
11. Did you Not then take that Amount of NEWLY CREATED CHECKBOOK

MONEY out of that Account (Without the Knowledge and Expressed Written Permission
of (William Szekely) and Pay the Seller. (EXHIBIT F)
12.

Did you then take the Promissory Note and Either Sell it to Another Bank through a

SPV to a REMIC Trust Fund where the Note gets Converted into Stock, and was this
Disclosed at the Meeting of the Minds. Does that Not Equal Unjust Enrichment.
13. Did the Defendant Loan Anything of Valuable Consideration to (William and
Frances Szekely) or Was it Their Own Wealth you Acquired for Free Thus Loaning
Nothing Thus the Defendants say they Loaned Valuable Consideration for the
Subject Mortgage and Note, then they Must Prove it Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, by
Producing the Booking Entries with a Signed Affidavit Under Penalty of Perjury, or All
their Alleged Evidence is Heresay and Not Admissible in Court. (EXHIBIT J)
14.

Is it your Understanding that Under the Uniform Commercial Code which Governs

Negotiable Instruments, 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. (EXHIBIT B, C, D, )
15. Is it True you have Already been Paid Twice for Something you Didnt Invest Ten
Cents into, the Securitization of the Trust and Sold as Stock, and then also Paid by the
Appreciation of that Same Stock, so, in Trying to Enforce and Collect Again Without
Being a Real Party in Interest or the Holder and Knowing you Arent is Committing
Fraud, in Filing your Foreclosure Claim of Action, Knowing that you are Not a Real
Party in Interest, you have Committed a Fraud Upon this Court. (EXHIBIT C,D,F,H,)
16.

Is it Not True that 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. And When a Promissory Note gets Converted into Stock, that
Promissory Note No Longer Exists. Because a Deed of Trust/Security Instrument,
Securitized a Promissory Note and if that Promissory Note is Destroyed or No Longer
Exists (as it was Converted into Stock), then the Trust is Invalid. The Trust Secures
Nothing. Mortgage is Not a Debt, but Merely a Security for Payment of DebtMaine v. 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.
(EXHIBIT H,I,K,L)
17.

Is it True in Order to Enforce a Debt Obligation Secured by a Mortgage and Note, a

Party Must be in Possession of the Note,Mortgage and Deed of Trust. 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 (our
Alleged Loan Pooled with many Others) are Declared a Permanent Fixture to the
REMIC.
This is Registered with the SEC. you Cannot Register One Thing with the SEC and
Stock Market, and then After the Money is Transferred, Switch out the Asset. 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, Unaltered
Wet-Ink Signed Mortgage and Note and Deed of Trust to be Produced.

(EXHIBIT A,C,D,I)
18.

Is it True if the Original Wet-Ink Signed Mortgage and Note were Destroyed, by

Being Converted into Stock, then the Loan has been Paid for. It also Breaks the Chain of
Title. Because only the Original Promissory Note has the Legally Binding Chain of Title.
19.

Is it True 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 Back for Pennies on the
Dollar. Then they 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. (EXHIBIT G)
20. Is it True in Trying to Foreclose on this Plaintiffs Property Knowing This (or Should
Know as it is Basic Banking and Trading Practices Under G.A.A.P). The Defendant and
Their Attorneys have Committed [FRAUD #3] by Submitting False Documentation
Claiming that they hold the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument and fraudulent
assignments (EXHIBIT G, I, O)
21.

Is it True by Trying to Reattach 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 Attorneys Should be Sanctioned for Fraud by Adhesion.
[FRAUD #4] because the Subject Loan was Securitized, it Destroyed the Note, so
Anything Brought into this Court as Evidence by Defendants and Their Attorneys is
(PRIMA FACIE) Evidence of Counterfeit Fraud. [FRAUD #5] they also are Attempting
to Steal my Home Through these Fraudulent Means which is Attempted Theft. [FRAUD

#6] Securities Fraud, Because if the Loan and the Stock Exists at the Same Time ( which
the Defendants Attorney Admits in (EXHIBIT A,B,C,D,). (COUNT 1) THEY HAVE
KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY DOUBLE DIPPED IN VIOLATION OF
SECURTIES FRAUD. All of this is Clearly Deceptive Trade Practices and Clear Intent.
22. Is it true Fraud Vitiates the Most Solemn Contracts, Documents and Even
Judgments ( U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65). (COUNT 2) Securities Fraud
in Submitting a Copy of a Promissory Note (Security Instrument) that has been Sold and
Converted to Stock thus No Longer Exists.
23.

Is it True the Defendants Attorney has also Admitted that the Defendant is Not the

Original Creditor (Lender) Due to their Answer to my Demand for them to Produce the
Original Wet-Ink Signed Mortgage Loan and Note. As Witnessed on the Bottom of
Every Communication Stating they are a Debt Collector, a Debt Collector is NOT the
Original Creditor, and Buys an Off-Setted Debt and Tries to Collect on it. (EXHIBIT A)
24. Is it True the Defendants in Collusion with Other Entites are Using Deception to try
Convince the Plaintiffs (William Szekely) and in this Subject Matter this (COURT,
MEDINA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AND THIS PLAINTIFF), with Fraudulent
Assignments, the False Assignment Chain, have Tried to Allege the Proper and Lawful
Amounts Claimed Due; Have Not Attested to the Default Status of the Loan, or Date of
Default, have Not or Can Not Delineate the Chain of Title to the Promissory Note; have
Not Revealed the True Owner of the Note and Holder in Due Course
25.

Is it True there are No True Assignments of Mortgage and What Defendant Along

with Other Entities in Collusion have Perpetrated on the Medina County Recorders
Office Fraud. (EXHIBITS K,L)

26.

Is it True that Defendants and Their Attorney are Debt Collectors and are Well

Aware and Knowingly, Willfully and Recklessly Committing Frauds Upon this Court
and this Plaintiff.
27. Is it Stated in Defendants Attorney Complaint, that they have Possession and are
Holders of the Original Wet-Ink Signed Mortgage and Note. If this is a True Fact then
Both the Note and the Stock Exists at the Same Time and they are Admitting to
Securities Fraud. (FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULES 1002 and 1003) 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 the
Subject Mortgage and Note, but also has Given Enough Doubt as to Whether the Original
even Exists Any Longer.(Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code)
28.

Under Carpenter v. Longan, the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled that the Deed of

Trust/Security Instrument must Follow the Promissory Note. 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 ), thus the Deed of Trust /Security Instrument being Separated from
the Note, it is Proof that the Chain of Title has been Broken. SEC. 109(b) of the Revised
Article 9 of the U.C.C. which was Enacted into Law in Every State and Provides in
Comment 7, One 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. (EXHIBITS A,B,C,D,)
29.

Is it True that when a Party to a Contract Breaches that Contract or Changes the

Terms of that Contract Without the Other Party Signing an Agreement to Changing the
Terms (as happened when the Bank Securitized the Subject Mortgage and Changed it to a
Stock). It makes the Contract (Promissory Note) Voidable. One of the Terms I Accepted
was for the Creditor (Lender) to be the Holder in Due Course of Plaintiffs Promissory
Note. Nowhere in the Alleged Loan does it State that the State of the Plaintiffs
Promissory Note will be Changed and Sold as Stock, thus also Changing also Changing
the Holder in Due Course to Someone else other than Creditor (Lender). This Changes
the Terms of Plaintiffs Contract. (EXHIBIT F)
30.

Is it True I must give an Unqualified Acceptance to All the Terms of an Offer and

knew Nothing of All this, the Contract is not Binding. If the Terms of the Deed of
Trust/Security Instrument is shown to be a Violation of State Law, then it too is
Defective.
If it is Defective, then it Cannot be used to give the Lender (Creditor) 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.
31.

Is it True 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, and MERS/MERSCORP IS PRESENTED to Circumvent County
Registration Fees and County Taxes. And Fraud has also been Committed on the People

of Every County, and the Notes Never Actually Transferred the Note, and
MERS/MERSCORP is Named Nominee and Mortgagee, So what Valuable
Consideration did MERS/MERSCORP Deliver to Become Beneficiary, and if
MERS/MERSCORP were ever 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. (EXHIBIT A,H,I,K)
32.

How it Possible the Subject Mortgage was Allegedly Pooled and Serviced into a

Trust Fund Named ( SERIES 2006-BC1), Plaintiffs Alleged Mortgage Lender Sold
All Rights to Plaintiffs Promissory Note in Order for this Trust to be Created Under
Securitization Laws. (EXHIBIT H)
33.

How did MERS/MERSCORP Assign Any Right to U.S. BANK NATIONAL

TRUST ASSOCIATION, Once a Promissory Note is Transferred to a Trust Fund, it is

Securitized and Sold . Once Stock, Forever Stock, so how was it Sold into a Trust in 2006
Allegedly and then Converted into Stock to then Reappear and be Assigned to U.S.
BANK NATIONAL TRUST ASSOCIATION, ( AND RECORDED 9 NINE AND
HALF YEARS LATER) (EXHIBIT H,I,K,L)
34.

How has it Converted back to a Mortgage after being Sold into a Stock, it is not a

Mortgage, and then Fraudulently 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. (EXHIBIT H,I,K,L)
35. How is this Not only a 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. (EXHIBIT A,C,D,F,H,I,K,L)
36. Is it True 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 Existence [EXHIBIT F,H,J,L]]. I did not Know that in Signing the Deed of
Trust/Security Instrument I was Creating a Contract to let the Lender [ALLEGED
CREDITOR] to Securitized Plaintiff Note into a Trust to be turned into Stock.
37. How is it Legal that the Lender did not Disclose this at time of Signing. (this is Fraud
in the 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 mostly likely wouldnt
have Signed the Contract), they Committed (FRAUD#10) FRAUD IN INDUCMENT,
Both are a Misrepresentation of a Material Facts. So Plaintiffs Loan Right from Inception
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 Wilmington Finance, for the Next 30 Years, but
Unbeknownst to me, Even that Fact is Not True. Because by Law, a Bank can only Keep
a Loan for a Maximum of Five (5) Years and then must Sell it. (this also was Not
Disclosed to Me at Signing and is Another Misrepresentation of a Material Fact and 2nd

Count of Fraud of Inducement. (EXHIBIT F,H,J,)

38.

How is it Possible 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 Simply Reverse Engineer the
Title of the Deed of Trust/Security Instrument or Promissory to make it Better. Once an
Instrument is Defective. It Cannot be used to Collect a Debt. So, even as a Debt
Collector,
they Cannot Collect on a Defective Instrument. (EXHIBIT H)
39.

How is it Possible on the Assignments of Mortgages Filed (APRIL 6, 2015) and

(APRIL 23,2015) by NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING INC. that by their Own

Admission they have not Done their Due Diligence by Investigating AND Delineate the
Chain of Title and Documents that were Prepared by an Employee ERICKA LANCE,
and upon Investigation have Found her in a Deposition of Facts. How can we Possibly
Trust any Heresay Evidence and/or Fraudulent Signatures. (EXHIBIT A,C,D,F,H,I,K,L)
40.

How can we Give Weight of Validity to the Signatures when Deceptive Business

Practices are Evident and Intentionally Used. (EXHIBIT I,K,L)

41. How can we Give Weight of Validity on Important Instruments and Documentation
with such Wide Spread Corruption is Present How can we give Weight of Validity to the
Attestments of Notaries, Witnesses and/ Instruments Purported to be Perfected with Wide
Spread Deceptive Business Practices. (EXHIBIT F,G,I,K,L)
CONCLUSION
42.

Is it True in HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. 322 U.S.

238 (1944), it States There is No Statute of Limitations on Fraud. So if they have

Committed so many Frauds, Including but not Limited to, Unconscionable Acts,
Misrepresentations, Deception, Extortion, Collusion, Trespass, Forgery, Egregious
Willful and Malicious Behavior with Intent to Ignore Federal Law, State law, Common
Law, Uniform commercial code, Real Estate Law, Contract Law, Securities and
Exchange Law,
LIST OF ALLEGED FRAUDS
43. This is a List of Frauds that this Plaintiff has Found by Research and Investigation, in
which the Opinion and Belief that from the Conclusion of the Facts are;
1. FRAUD #1 By 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 Debt Collectors, with Deceptive and Willful, Malicious Intent and Questionable
Business Practicies.
2. FRAUD #2 Knowingly, Willfully, Maliciously and Recklessly Filing a Claim of
Foreclosure Action to Deceive this Court by Intentionally Saying they are the
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST When they are NOT and Know they Arent.
3. FRAUD #3 Submitting False Documentation Claiming that they Hold the Deed of
Trust,
4. FRAUD #4 Submitting False Documentation that Their Promissory Note is Valid.
Because if Subject Mortgage was Securitized, the Defendant has or Should have
Knowledge that the Note was Satisfied and Destroyed in Compliance with
Securitizing and Capitalization Default Rules, to be Discovered
5. FRAUD #5 2 Counts of Submitting False Documentation Claiming Assignments
of the Mortgage were Valid, Still Remains Invalid and/or Forged Signatures and
Notary Signatures
6. FRAUD #6 Reattaching the Discharged Loan (Promissory Note) to Plaintiffs
DEED OF TRUST which is ADHESION
7. FRAUD #7 2 Counts of Security Fraud, Defendants Attorney States that the
Defendant is the Holder of the Original Note as of August 27, 2015 When Defendant
though Their Attorneys Filed a Foreclosure Action, thus Admitting that the
Promissory Note and the Stock Both Exists at the Same Time, Which is a Securities
Fraud. And Submitting a Copy of the Promissory Note (which is a Security Note)
After it has Been Destroy by Being Sold and Converted into Stock and thus No
Longer Exists is Securities Fraud also.
8. FRAUD #8 Circumventing Medina County Registration Fees and Taxes by Using
MERS/MERSCORP Instead of the Medina County Recorder Violates Ohio State
Law and is Tax Fraud and Possibly Tax Evasion

9. FRAUD #9 2 Counts in Filing an Mortgage Assignment in the Medina County

Recorders Office Where MERS/MERSCORP has No Standing or Right to Assign
Anything or Any Part as they were Never a Holder with Any Interest, this is
Considered Felony Land Record Fraud
10. FRAUD #10 FRAUD IN THE FACTUM ( see note 1)
11. FRAUD #11 FRAUD IN THE INDUCMENT 2- COUNTS (see note 1)
12. RICO STATUTES Because the Defendants Actions and Violations Used
Communications Over State Lines, They have Violated Federal R.I.C.O. Statutes. 5
Counts; COUNT 1 Mail Fraud, COUNT 2 Wire Fraud, COUNT 3 Financial Institute
Fraud, COUNT 4 Racketeering, COUNT 5 Engaging in Monetary Transactions in
Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity
NOTES
1. Is it True in Not Disclosing Material Facts and Using Superior Knowledge Not
Available to (William Szekely) to get Them to Enter into a
Unconscionable Contract, the Lender (Creditor) Committed Fraud in the Factum and
Fraud in the 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, Thus
Causing BIFURCATION, it Made the Contract Defective and Voidable Before the
Defendant Bought it. And Because G.A.A.P. 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, in Being a Big Entity and in Collusion, A Major Bank and
Being in the Banking Industry for a Long Time, Is Very Well Aware of All this
Information I have Provided Above and has Elected to Knowingly, Willfully,
Maliciously and Recklessly Participate in this Massive Fraud in the Hopes to be
Unjustly Enriched by this Plaintiff. And have Used this Honorable Court as the Vehicle
to Make that Happen
PLAINTIFF IN COUNTERCLAIM WISHES JUDGMENT
FOR INJURIES AND DAMAGES
44. THE PLAINTIFFS (William Szekely) had a Reasonable Expectation of
Privacy in their Solitude and Seclusion, or Private Concerns or Affairs. And Claim to be
Damaged in a Concrete and Particulized Injury in the Form of; Extortion, Breach of
Agreement, Deception, Trespass on Our Vessel, Identity, Legacy, Life, Entity, Property,
my Estate, Misrepresentation, Fraud in the Fraud, Stolen Property, Fraud in the
Inducement, Fraud, Forgery of Signatures, the Actions by the listed Entities have caused
the Homeowners (William Szekely) Aggravation, Humiliation,
Embarrassment, Loss of Privacy, Strain on All Personal Relationships, Loss of
Enjoyment of Life, Stress, Sleepless Nights, Worry and Anxiety, by the Actions of;
45.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL TRUST ASOCIATION AND INCLUDING ALL

OTHER ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS IN AND OF THEMSELVES OR IN

COLLUSION WITH:
PRAYER FOR REMEDY AND RELIEF
46. William Szekely and Family were Injured and Damaged by These

Actions and Violations by U.S. BANK NATIONAL TRUST ASSOCIATION and

Along with All Other Entities and Named Individuals in Collusion to Commit or have
Committed are Entitled to Statuory Damages, Actual damages, Including Damages for
Emotional Distress,

We the Plaintiffs in this Action of Counterclaim Pray for

47.
of

Dismissal of Foreclosure with Prejudice and return of Any and All Documentation

William and Frances Szekely and Family said Property Located at; [5667 Boneta rd.
Medina Ohio 44256]
. Judgment for the Plaintiffs in the Counterclaim Awarding Three Times the Amount
Being Fraudulently Claimed Payable to William and Frances Szekely
108,451.98 x 3 = 325,355.94 for each Count of Fraud, and Attempted Theft
48.

Along with Any other Remedy and Relief this Honorable Court deems Just and

Fair
(i.e.)
49.

Attorney Fees x =

50.

Research Fees

51.

Mailing Fees

52.

Asking for Sanctions Against Entities and Attorneys who have Knowingly,

x =
x =

Willfully, with Malicious Intent and Utter Disregard as to Lawful Contract

and Misrepresentations of Fact

53.

PLAINTIFF (William Szekely) RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM AS DISCOVERY AND

INTERROGATORIES BECOMES AVAILABLE AND BECOMES TO ELUCIDATE
ITSELF
54.

The Plaintiff (William Szekely) Incorporates by Reference All Allegations

Including Previously Stated Answers and/or Affirmative Defenses Previously Pled Set
Forth.
Respectfully Submitted
________________________________________________
William Szekely
5667 Boneta rd.
Medina,Ohio 44256
Phone (234) 248-4038
b.sz65@yahoo.com