IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) AS TRUSTEE FOR SPECIALTY )

UNDERWRITING AND RESDENTIAL ) CASE NO.# 1 5 C I V 0 8 6 0 FINANCE TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN ) ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, ) JUDGE JOYCE V. KIMBLER SERIES 2006-BC1 )

8950 CYPRESS WATERS BLVD )

COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 )

) PLAINTIFF ) ) Vs. )

) William Szekely. (PRO SE) )

5667 Boneta rd. ) ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE Medina, Ohio 44256 ) DEFENSES ) DEFENDANTS ) ) 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 Note1. 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 havePossession of the Deed, and the Ultimate Facts as Pled are Inconsistent with PlaintiffsBare Legal Conclusion that it is the HOLDER of the Subject Deed, the Subject Noteand 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.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

29. 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 HANDS33. 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 )

)

-vs- ) CASE NO.; 1 5 C I V 0 8 6 0 )

)

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ) JUDGE: JOYCE V. KIMBLER, JUDGE ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE )

FOR SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING )

AND RESIDENTIAL FINANCE )

TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN ) COUNTERCLAIM FROM ABOVE ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES ) LISTED COMPLAINT SURF SERIES 2006-BC1 )

8950 Cypress Waters BLVD ) PARCEL: 033-12A-16-011 COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 )

AND LIST FROM EXHIBITS )

Defendants in Counterclaim )1. 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 WithoutBeing 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 Debt- Maine 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 tryConvince 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 Course25. 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 areHolders 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/SecurityInstrument. (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 OwnAdmission 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 ADHESION7. 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 Evasion9. 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 DAMAGES44. 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 RELIEF46. 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. Dismissal of Foreclosure with Prejudice and return of Any and All Documentation of

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 x =

51. Mailing Fees x = 52. Asking for Sanctions Against Entities and Attorneys who have Knowingly,

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