NO.

10-CI-403927 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION SEVEN (7)
JUDGE AUDRA ECKERLE

______________________________________________________________________________
CITIBANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR THE Plaintiff
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF STRUCTURED
ASSET MORTGAGE INVESNENTS II, INC.,
BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, MORTGAGE
PASS-TROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-4

vs.

MIKHAIL LIPSKIY Defendant(Pro Se)

MIKHAIL LIPSKIY Counter-Plaintiff

vs.

CITIBANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR THE Counter-Defendant

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF STRUCTURED
ASSET MORTGAGE INVESNENTS II, INC.,
BEAR STEARNS ALT-A TRUST, MORTGAGE
PASS-TROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-4
_______________________________________________________________
Jury Demand on all counts

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEFENSE, REINSTATMENT OF COUNTERCLIMES

________________________________________________________________

NOW COME the above-named Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Mikhail

Lipskiy (hereinafter “Defendant”) file the REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
DEFENSE, REINSTATMENT OF COUNTERCLIMES.

I. Plaintiffs’ defense fails against Defendant/Counter-

Plaintiffs’ claims.

1
 1. The Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating standing.
Plaintiff clearly has no Standing, Lack of subject matter
Jurisdiction and Lack of personal Jurisdiction to pursue
this action. Copy of the mortgage attached to original
complaint clearly indicated that plaintiff is Not the Real
Party in Interest. (“real party in interest,” Kentucky CR.
17 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 17- “Parties Plaintiff and Defendant;
Capacity.”)

2. Mortgage note attached to original complaint clearly states

that the lender is CENTURY LENDING COMPANY.

3. On October 25 of year 2010. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff

checked legal records in Jefferson County Clerks office and
find out that CENTURY LENDING COMPANY still mortgage holder
of the record.

II. Plaintiff denies violation of Truth in Landing, however;

4. Defendant fined out that multiple violations of Truth in

Lending (TILA) were committed at origination of the loan. No
disclosures were made to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff regarding of
trough lender nether disclosure of multiple parties involved in
securitization process receiving multiple fees and payments. was
made to Defendant. If Defendant would know all of hidden from him
information, Defendant would make informed decision that it could
cost him less to apply for a loan with direct a lender.

Since TILA specifically remedial in nature, its provisions

must be strictly construed. A creditor must comply with TILA in
all credit transactions and “misleading disclosure is as much a

2
violation of TILA as a failure to disclose at all.” Smith v.
Chapman, 614 F.2d 968, 977 (5th Cir. 1980). It is not sufficient
to attempt to comply with the Act, but rather, creditors are
required to strictly comply with all the requirements of the Act.
There is no need to show that the consumer was misled or deceived
by ambiguous credit terms in order to prevail. Noel v. Fleet
Finance, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

5. As per U.C.C. § 1641 (a). Liability of assignees (a)

Prerequisites Except as otherwise specifically provided in this

subchapter, any civil action for a violation of this subchapter
or proceeding under section 1607 of this title which may be
brought against a creditor may be maintained against any assignee
of such creditor only if the violation for which such action or
proceeding is brought is apparent on the face of the disclosure
statement, except where the assignment was involuntary. For the
purpose of this section, a violation apparent on the face of the
disclosure statement includes, but is not limited to

(1) a disclosure which can be determined to be incomplete or

inaccurate from the face of the disclosure statement or other
documents assigned, or

(2) a disclosure which does not use the terms required to be used
by this subchapter.

III. Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff owns the mortgage, however;

6. The “Trusts” coming to Court are actually Mortgage Backed

Securities (“MBS”). The Servicers, are merely administrative
entities which collect the mortgage payments and escrow funds.
The MBS have signed themselves up under oath with the Securities

3
and Exchange Commission (“SEC,”) and the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS,”) as mortgage asset “pass through” entities wherein they
can never own the mortgage loan assets in the MBS. This allows
them to qualify as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit
(“REMIC”) rather than an ordinary Real Estate Investment Trust
(“REIT”). As long as the MBS is a qualified REMIC, no income tax
will be charged to the MBS. For purposes of this action, “Trust”
and MBS are interchangeable

7. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with

this particular action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax
status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from
investors, who bought into the REMIC, the “Trustee” or the more
properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of
ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges
and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of
title. None were presented at the time of initiation of this
particular action.

8. Most importantly for this action, the “Trustee”/Custodian

MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the
beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed.”

9. Only the beneficiaries — the investors who advanced the

funds — can claim ownership. And the mortgages had to have been
recorded in the name of the beneficiaries the year the MBS
closed.

10. To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United

States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he(she) has
personally suffered some actual injury as the result of the

4
illegal conduit of the defendant. Coyne, 183F. 3d at 494; Valley
Forge, 454U.S. at 472.

11. Who ARE the beneficiaries who advanced the funds? Which
investors could be said to have put up the money for a particular
home? The losses are taken collectively by the pool as they hit.
But the “pool” is the trust; and to qualify as a REMIC trust, it
can own nothing and trust can not suffer actual injury. Investors
covered by multiple insurances were paid full or partly and only
specific holder of the specific certificate may claim some
damages.

12. In original Complaint Plaintiff states that Plaintiff is

holder of the Note but somehow a trough and accurate copy of
the Note is not available despite that it supposedly must be
hold in secured volt by Trustee as per Trust Agreement.

13.If the Party, at a later date, attempts to claim that the

original documentation was somehow “lost,” the Note will never
be enforceable, as made obvious by official comments to the
UCC § 355.3-203, that read as follows: “ X signs a document
conveying all of X's right, title, and interest in the
instrument to Y. Although the document may be effective to
give Y a claim to ownership of the instrument, Y is not a
person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains
possession of the instrument. No transfer of the instrument
occurs under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y.”

14. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff states that Note was

deliberately destroyed because it would reveal TILA

5
 violations. Defendant attached copy of the Note (Exhibit A).
Note clearly shows that names of Valery and Maya Guralnik not
present on it.

15. Real estate law dating back hundreds of years requires

that to foreclose on real property, the foreclosing party must
produce signed documentation establishing a chain of title to
the property. Plaintiff fails to show that. No chain of proper
assignments and documents establishing ownership were
presented to the court by the Plaintiff at the time of
initiation of this action in violation of Kentucky and Federal
rules of civil procedures and Real Estate Law.

16. Defendant believe there was Fraud in Factum since

securitization was involved. The Securities and Exchange
Commission fillings (SEC) shows interconnected and affiliated
parties that aided and abetted a pattern of fraud by the
originating lender and, thus trust cannot acquire the rights
of a holder-in-due-course per U.C.C. § 3-203 (b). (England v.
MG Investment, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 2d 718 (S.D.W. Va 2000)).

Therefore Plaintiff is liable for all TILA violation and relief

demanded by Plaintiff must be dismissed and can not be granted,
and;

Above-named Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff reinstates all

original Counterclaims and demands relief and Judgment as
follows:

JURY TRIAL AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF

6
 WHEREFORE, the above-named Defendants respectfully demand the
judgment as follows:

1. Plaintiffs complaint dated 10-05-2010 shall de dismissed

with prejudice and costs against the above-named
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants; and

2. Order to Law Firm representing the Plaintiff/Counter-

Defendant, Reisenfeild & Associates, LPA LLC. To submit
“proof that their client is, in fact, a Real Party in
Interest at the time of the filing” of any future
foreclosure complaints that the firm might file; and

3. Whatever climes the above-named Plaintiff/Counter-

Defendants may have against the above-named
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff be declared void; and

4. Rescind the loan and return all of the payments to the

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff; and

5. An award of actual and compensatory, statutory and

punitive damages as permitted by law and equitable relief
as to the clearing and quieting title to relation of the
filling of erroneous or fraudulent complaint while knowing
that Plaintiff Lacks Standing to sue.

Please note that the above-named Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

is hereby demands a trail by jury on all counts.

Dated this Answer on this 25 day of November, 2010.

Respectfully submitted by,

Defendants, in Propria Persona

7
 BY:__________________________
Mikhail Lipskiy

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of foregoing REPLY TO

PLAINTIFF’S DEFENSE, REINSTATMENT OF COUNTERCLIMES has been
furnished via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to David C
Nalley (85637) Attorney for Plaintiff, Reisefeld & Associates, LPA LLC
3962 Red Bank Road Cincinnati, OH 45227
Ph: (513)322-7099

Mikhail Lipskiy__________________