Debby Reagan’s Foreclosure Saga Against US Bank and BoA Continues

This is the continuation of her foreclosure story.

“The Springvale District Court saga:
In the Springvale District court, I gave proof that the bank’s lawyers showed TWO sets of originals of my note and mortgage deed. But, Judge Michael P. Cantara said it was just a different copying method. Now, how can an “original” deed be stamped that it’s an accurate and true copy of the original, and NOT be a copy? Then, magically, when at the hearing, they give what they say is the original deed WITHOUT that stamp and say that this is what they showed me when I gave the judge an exact copy of what they showed me and he says…it’s just a different copying method? Lie #1 and judge biased towards the bank.”

“I pointed out that the copy of the note filed at the commencement of litigation wasn’t endorsed and the one showed to me and entered into evidence at the hearing 2 years later was. And even though the Maine Supreme court, the Prospectus and Security Agreement and Maine’s foreclosure statute 14-6321 says that ALL endorsements MUST be included at the commencement of litigation, Judge Cantara ignored this and scheduled the case for trial even though the bank didn’t have standing. Judge Cantara never questioned how or when the endorsement appeared on the note two years after the un-endorsed copy of that note was filed into the court. Judge biased towards the bank #2.”

Read more HERE.

Debby is dealing with a former corrupt York County District Attorney. Former Governor John Baldacci elevated “one of his kind” to the bench. D.A. Cantara covered up bank fraud back in the early 1990’s. A complaint was brought to him against Attorney Michelle Robert and her cohort Judge Robert E. Crowley regarding their concerted efforts with bankers/city officials to steal property. He refused to take action because Atty. Robert was “his friend and colleague.” Atty. Robert ended up in the Attorney General’s Office when Angus King became governor. (He had put a freeze on hiring..hmmmm!) Cantara also covered for a corrupt sheriff department! Debby’s is yet another case of “Maine justice.” “Musical Chairs” and “Revolving Doors” yield the same result. As the swill turns!


Debby Reagan’s Letter To James Frechette, Investigator In Maine’s Office of Securities, click here.


Published in: on July 20, 2014 at 7:23 pm  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    I have been reading some court cases where some people have sued mortgage companies for violating the “original” mortgage agreement.

    See these cases:

    Linza v PHH (2014 (awarded $16 million)

    Pestana v Bank of America (2014)

    Glaski v Bank of America (2011)

    Brown v Quicken Loans (West Virginia)

    They became the “plaintiffs,” and all of them had expertise lawyers
    regarding the fraudulent ways of the mortgage industry who were willing to fight for the homeowners.

    “Fake” judges here in Maine most likely do not like or appreciate “pro se” litigants so your chances of winning are very much unlikely.

    What the expertise lawyers did was to “attack” the original mortgage agreement and NOT the “secondary” foreclosure process. If the mortgage agreement is violated, then that becomes a breach of contract, fraud, unfair business practices and more that can be attacked as it relates to federal and state laws.

    Become plaintiffs to show violations of law and “harm.” Defendants lose in most cases.

    Some of the issues raised were:

    1. Unconscionable and substantively unconscionable – contract “too”
    one-sided to obtain absurd and fraudulent results.

    2. Appraisal statute violation

    3. Unfair practices – unfair competition and unfair business practices –
    will suggest “in house” products and services rather than what is
    appropriate for the customer driven by profit motives.

    4. Fraud – statute and common law fraud; fraudulent intent

    5. False representation; pure lies; no intent of following through with
    the original agreement

    6. Last minute “added” features to the contract; taking advantage
    of customers.

    7. Breach of promise

    8. Failing to properly disclose; put through a rush closing.

    9. Violating laws – federal and state laws such as truth in lending act and

    10. Making suggestions to cause a default in order to foreclose

    11. Etc.

    Here is a law firm that deals with attacking the mortgage agreement and not foreclosure procedures.

    They “show harm” that was manipulated by the mortgage companies to enhance their profit margins at the detriment of their customers.

    This law firm claims that they have won 4 cases so far regarding the above-mentioned and more.

    Suggestions: Read and study these court cases as they reveal plenty.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • I already have Lise…and I am already in the process of doing just that…I’m now the plaintiff in Federal Court…and am putting my case together on just the very issues you’ve mentioned. TY Lise for your comments….it’ll help others as well.

  2. Hi Debbie,

    You are very welcome.

    Read the court cases and get ideas from them. I learned plenty from them.

    Also, read and study both state and federal laws regarding mortgages.

    Use the law to attack for any violations, if any.

    Suggestion: You could called that law firm that I mention above (some law firms offer “free” first time consultations to see if there is a cause of action) and set up a session by phone and ask if the “first” session is free, if you want, of course.

    It’s your choice.

    The said law firm may even suggest a law firm here in Maine who could take the case on a “contingency” basis.

    Who knows?

    Remember that some so-called judges don’t like or don’t appreciate “pro se” litigants here in Maine and perhaps elsewhere.

    Some homeowners are winning “millions” of dollars (see the said court cases as above-noted).


    Because they become “plaintiffs” suing for “breach of agreement” issues as above-referenced or more.

    Hope this helps.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Hi!

    Remember the “real” issues:

    1. Breach of agreement

    2. “Harm” done by the breach.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. Hi!

    Keep in mind, “no harm” = no cause of action.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: