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 A
pp.3d 285-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d722 (2008). Indymac Bank v. Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009), To establish a prima facie case inan action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existance of the mortgage andthe mortgage note. It is the la
w’s policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit.
Thefollowing points will prove that MERS had no rights to grant/convey my mortgage to thedefendant as it had been sold into a trust fund 19 months prior and that the defendant is not thetr
ue “holder in due course”
. Beside the point that MERS had no standing to grant/conveyanything of its own accord, the fact is that they could not grant/convey
something that hadn’t
been rightfully granted/conveyed to them in the first place so the defendant has no real interest inthis case.1.
If the defendant has the original “wet ink” mortgage loan note and security instrument, then
why did they submit a copy of the security instrument with a Countrywide/Full Spectrum
Loans officer, Raashed A. Hilaly’s sign
ature attesting to the trueness of the copy (See ExhibitAA).
The only reason to submit a copy, attested by the original lender’s officer to
it being atrue copy is because that is all the defendant has. Otherwise, the defendant would only needto make their own copy from the original that they possess! This is proof that they are lyingand
they don’t have the original because the original would not have the attestment
from theprevious bank of it being a true copy on it!2.
If the defendant was allegedly assigned my loan in 2007 (See Exhibit F) (which I was neverinformed of), why was I paying mortgage payments to Countrywide until 2008 and why wasCountrywide calling me and going to foreclose all the way up to February 2009 (See Exhibit