THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, Plaintiff Vs.

JOHN L. REED_______________, Defendant Case No. CA 0231236 Judge:

Amended Motion To Appeal Ruling of The Lower Court and to Rule on the Following:
Part I. INTRODUCTION 1. Now comes Defendant John A. Reed pro se to enter this Motion to Appeal the Ruling of the Lower Court and to ask the Court to Rule on the Following. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank and/ or their assigns (hereinafter Bank and/or Plaintiff), while lacking Legal Standing to initiate suit, and that same lack of standing having been previously identified to the court (() Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's
Motion For Summary judgment" August 15th, 2008 line 1 & sect. 1, 2, & 3 ), did cause to be filed against an alleged Defendant John L. Reed a

foreclosure suit on February 27th, 2008 ultra vires. Defendant John A. Reed, son of an alleged Defendant John L. Reed, was enjoined within this foreclosure action only for reason of his total and complete ownership of his residence, the subject property referenced within the alleged Mortgage and note. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA., claims to have become the alleged possessor or Holder of the alleged Note and Mortgage through an assignment see (exhibit A) ( 9/26,2008 1

Plaintiff's Notice of Filing of Assignment & Assignment 1st Copy)

which is dated after their initiation of this foreclosure action. Plaintiffs exhibit 11, the assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo, which was received from a questionable Holder in Due Course, who allegedly received it from a questionable holder in due course who allegedly received it from questionable holder in due course and on and on. Explained more fully below, see below Tracking The Mortgage Chronology. 2. Upon Plaintiffs Counsels discovery of their own inconsistent and invalid documentation and improperly perfected alleged Mortgage and Note used to foreclose against the wrong Defendant, Plaintiffs counsel did then act mens rea to set out to prove that the real owner of the property, Defendant John A. Reed, was the actual creator of the aforesaid alleged Note and Mortgage, and not the alleged John L. Reed evidenced upon the Note & Mortgage. it is a well known canon of
contract construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the party who drafted said contract. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990).

3. Defendant John A. Reed neither affirmed nor denied his position as creator of the alleged Note and/or Mortgage, instead relying upon his rights of Burden of Proof of Plaintiff to prove Defendants ownership of the Note & Mortgage. 4. Defendant John A. Reed affirmed that the Principal named on the alleged Note and Mortgage as the Creator of the alleged Mortgage 2

and Note, alleged Defendant John A. Reeds Father, Defendant John L. Reed, was in fact not the property owner at the time of the alleged Mortgage and Note creation nor the creator of the alleged Mortgage and Note. 5. Plaintiffs Counsel, within his privileged position, has stated in Pleadings (libel per se) (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary
Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JARs Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24), and

Defendant has denied, that Defendant John A. Reed altered any Federal Documents. These same allegations carry imputations and aspersions of criminal conduct and allegations injurious to defendant. As is evidenced on all of Plaintiffs alleged loan creation documentation, all documents were created at H&R Block Offices located in Tampa Florida (yet they are notarized in Ohio?) to which Defendant had no access . No one has found, that Defendant John A. Reed had broken into the Lending Agents facility in Tampa Florida, and/or altered any documents. This claim, is entirely unsubstantiated, libelous, and was created and committed with malice, entirely in an attempt to lower the value of the Defendant in the Courts eyes and have served only to defame the good name and character of the Defendant.

6. Plaintiff, again acting within his privileged position and with intentional malice, Plaintiffs Counsel has averred and Defendant has denied the above claim, and no one has even proffered a reason why Defendant John A. Reed would substitute his Fathers name on the alleged mortgaged property note for his own name, as would be necessary to substantiate Plaintiffs next libelous per se claim, as statement of fact, (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary
Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JAR Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24),) of Defendant John A. Reeds alleged forgery (libel per se 2nd count).

These claims are also entirely unsubstantiated, libelous, created and committed intentionally with malice and without cause and created entirely in an attempt to again lower the value of the Defendant in the Courts eyes. 7. During the course of these pleadings Plaintiffs Counsel did cause defamation of the character and/or did libel per se, mens rea, Defendant John A. Reed on numerous occasions, and in the most public manner, in writing (per se), that has since been disseminated irretrievably and globally, stating, as fact, that Defendant John A. Reed had forged his Fathers signature and altered Federal documents. And, as Defendants viability in his chosen and previously distinguished 4

profession, of Microsoft & Novell Networking Consultant (hourly rate $100 per hr.), requires a Top Security Clearance to perform, Plaintiffs Counsel has effectively stripped Defendant of any chance of employment within his profession, in perpetuity. Plaintiffs Counsel committed this offense mens re, attempting only to alter the Courts opinion of the Defendant to one of a lesser value and in so doing attempting to prejudice the Court against Defendant. In so doing, Plaintiff did cause to be published onto the Internet the charges indicated above and in the information technology age we now live in, that same information was almost instantaneously disseminated globally by data mining companies world wide, ie. Lexis-Nexus and many others. As is witnessed by Montgomery Countys own Pro Legal websites (changed weeks AFTER Defendants submitted brief referencing Data Mining as being problematic) new opening page disclosure with data mining reference, and their own new site admission requirement (type in these 3 characters). Defendant's record is now global, and is now, unalterable. Plaintiffs Counsels libel, and defamation of character of Defendant, which carry imputations and aspersions of criminal conduct and allegations, are not only injurious to Defendant in his chosen and established profession, they were also his studied Professions death sentence. These same site admission requirements were incorporated AFTER Defendants pleadings had been reviewed by the Courts, thereby bringing the attention of the Courts to this matter in the first place, and 5

as such adds not only to Defendants credibility as to his abilities within his chosen Profession as Network Administrator. Along with these examples of a few of the distinctions earned above and beyond his exemplary performance of his regular tasks, attendance and duties while employed as Consultant to ODHS/BNS, such distinctions earned include being the very 1st person to ever identify and stop this States first computer virus infection (Ameritech Bldg., 1995 (Neuroquila
virus)), of his identifying the need for and then becoming the sole

Creator of this States File backup and Restoration Dept. (all 35,000 PCs
and 255 servers), of his identifying the need for and then being the sole

author of this States first Intranet site and subsequently creating the Department resulting in the States Intranet Site Construction and Maintenance Department and of also being the driving force which instigated the formation of (and becoming a founding member of) this States Disaster Resumption Team & Plan. This is to name but a few of Defendants past accomplishments) but they do also solidify the validity to Defendants position of Plaintiffs intentional and malicious Global Defamation of Defendants Character per se. That same good character was earned at a time BEFORE formal education was even available and earned only through self educating involving hundreds, if not thousands of hours of constant study, constant research, extensive monetary investments, hundreds of hours of actual hard work and which collectively show and prove through accomplishment, Defendants exercise within his own chosen profession of PROPER DUE DILIGENCE. 6

Further, although it is the act of Defamation of Character per se by libel, Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, No. 06-1458 (4th Cir.)., it is also equivalently identity theft as it changes my identitys good character to one of an individual with ulterior motives and actions and as such is in violation of the PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007; which calls for penalties under section 4 which reads; The bill also contains strong civil enforcement provisions. The bill authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to bring a civil enforcement action for violations of the data security program requirements in the bill and to recover a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per violation, per day and a maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation. 14 In addition, the bill authorizes State Attorneys General, or the U.S. Attorney General, to bring a civil enforcement action against violators of the notice requirements in the bill and to recover a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 per individual, per day and a maximum penalty of $1,000,000 per violation, unless the violation is willful or intentional. Double penalties may be recovered for intentional or willful violations of this provision. 8.Subsequent with the lower Court's finding that Defendant John A. Reed was the Creator of the Note & Mortgage; they did then, in violation of the U.S. Statute of Frauds, the U.S. Law of Contracts and Civ.R. 17(A), and with Judicial fiat, the Court then altered the alleged Mortgage & Promissory Note, effectively destroying the original Mortgage and Note and their representations of fact, to represent that 7

Defendant John A. Reed was the true owner and responsible party for the alleged Mortgage and Note. Then, without any formal notice of suit against Defendant John A. Reed, as Court proceeded to collectively and summarily change Ownership of the Note & Mortgage, they also immediately foreclose on same, effectively denying Defendant John A. Reed of any proper recourse through Due Process. "Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." CivR. (17(A) A real party in interest is one who is directly benefited or injured by the outcome of the case. Please see attached Authorities 1 & Authorities 3 9. Based primarily upon testimony of the Plaintiffs paid handwriting witness, who fails the required Daubert test (no statistical rate of success/failure) for admissibility (please see attached authorities
7 and filed transcript of Plaintiffs Hand Writing Expert witness Vickie

Willard under cross examinations testimony concerning her rate of inaccuracies see transcript lines 1275-1278 ), and goes directly against CivR 1002 by her use of only copies to identify Defendants signature. Plaintiffs other only witness, Mr. Dale Sugimoto, President of Option One Mortgage Co., testified himself that he was NOT employed by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. NOR the TRUST (see transcript lines
808 811), NOR Barclay's Bank, NOR MortgageRamp corp. and as such

could only offer hearsay testimony supposedly laying some sort of a foundation that Plaintiff's own documentation proves is false. Mr. Sugimoto also testified that the Plaintiff's Settlement statement (trial
exhibit 12) took place in Tampa, Florida (transcript line 709) yet was

notarized by an Ohio Notary (transcript line 728) and also to not being present at Mortgage creation (transcript lines 887 - 888), and as such, same testimony is in it's entirety hearsay and should be stricken from the record. Plaintiffs counsel then did proceed to foreclose against Defendant John A. Reed, seeking the property sold at Public Auction and unspecified damages, which the Court did award. II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND ISSUES PRESENTED 10. Defendant John A. Reed states Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank did act ultra vires to initiate this foreclosure suit and that the Court erred in judging this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to whit; Wells Fargo Bank NA. Brought the foreclosure action against Defendant John L. Reed, naming Defendant John A. Reed only as true owner of the property, on February 27th, 2008 , yet Assignment of Mortgage from Option One Mortgage Corp. to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. As Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2006-OP1 (see exhibit A or Plaintiffs exhibit# 11), did not occur until March 7th, 2008 and as such Plaintiff lacked Legal Standing to initiate suit (Transcript line 109 - 115). Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Civ.R. 17(A). A real party in interest is one who is directly benefited or injured by the outcome of the case. Please see Authorities 1 & 2.

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT 11. Defendant, the State of Ohio, and its Citizens interests are best preserved by assuring that the parties to the action are the proper parties. According to the Supreme Court of Ohio a judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. Patton v.
Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941. As a result, if the

Court were to enter judgment without jurisdiction or without proper parties, the State of Ohio would be prejudiced by having to participate in judicial proceedings to set aside the sale and then re-litigate hundreds, even thousands of foreclosures. it is a well-known canon of contract construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the party who drafted said contract. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins,
558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990). ambiguities in a contract are to be

construed against the party who drafted the contract. Pursue Energy
Corp. v. Perkins, (Miss. 1990).

IV. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE 12. The Holder in Due Course Defense is well-established in bankruptcy practice. To quote (and incorporate as if my own) Bert Ely, a longtime analyst of the financial services industry and a scholar at the conservative Cato Institute who was among the first to predict the S&L scandal of the 1980s, this is well-established in bankruptcy practice, that you have to properly perfect the security interest, and if you havent, youre screwed.

10

Securitization ostensibly provides a source of capital so that more home loans are available to borrowers. However, the series of corporate and banking transactions that make up securitization cannot be permitted to avoid liability by those who are actually providing the funding _ and often controlling the transaction. See Kurt Eggert, Held
up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503 (2002).

Both when the Plaintiff filed its Complaint and when the Court granted judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, the documents before the Court demonstrate that an entirely different party was the holder of the note. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA was not the holder of the note, had no interest in the note, suffered no injury from any nonpayment on the note, and had no standing to pursue foreclosure. The Courts judgment in favor of a party without standing is void as a matter of law because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. 13. If such basic legalities arent adhered to, a homeowner could pay his or her way out of a foreclosure jam only to wind up in another when a new plaintiff emerges claiming to own the debt. Mortgage lending and servicing is a matter of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Thats what puts the discipline in the process. Bert Ely. 14. Plaintiff attaches documents to its complaint and documents produced through discovery conflict with the allegations of material facts in the complaint in which the plaintiff claims that it owns the Note and Mortgage by virtue of a post-created and post-recorded 11

assignment. These allegations conflict with the alleged mortgage and note attached to the complaint that identifies Option One Mortgage Corporation, as the lender with the original security interest. These allegations therefore constitute serious misrepresentations and should be construed as a fraud brought upon the court. 15. Plaintiffs own exhibits, fully scrutinized, purportedly show multiple transference occurrences BEFORE and/or after an alleged transfer has allegedly already taken place of the Note & Mortgage, and also show many instances of no actual legal transference of the Mortgage and Note at all. Also, the transference dates purported could not have existed within the Timeline represented. Upon a complete Mortgage Document scrutinization, this is easily seen. Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990. V. TRACKING THE MORTGAGE CHRONOLOGY Please carefully notice all dates! 16. H&R Block originates the alleged Mortgage Dated; June 9th, 2005 Plaintiff ERROR #1 Here is where the

confusion/obfuscation begins. 17. Document titled CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF OPEN-END MORTGAGE exhibit B dated June 9th, 2005 purports, along with the 1st Allonge, to transfer the alleged Mortgage & Note from H&R Block to 12

Option One Mortgage Corp., yet fails in its requirement to display just WHERE it recorded same, reading and recorded as Document No. _________ on, ________ day of __________ in book _________, page __________, of Official Records and attested to by a one Kristi Canizio (the Lady of many hats) and Roseann Infusio . Clearly in violation of U.C.C., true sale obligations and other SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations, and Contract & Securities Laws stated elsewhere within this pleading. 18. Later, in an Assignment (of note and mortgage? Or just the note?) dated 10/27/05 and recorded? on 11/22/05 Plaintiff wants us to believe it again transfers the very same Note & Mortgage?? from the very same entity (H&R Block) to the very same above mentioned entity (Option One) AGAIN! When exhibits are inconsistent with the plaintiff s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. 19. On June 9th, 2005, the same day of the creation of the alleged mortgage & Note we see the first appearance of one Ms. Kristy Canizio. Ms Canizio does sign the following documents, acting in many different positions, wearing many different hats, and acting on behalf of, and of necessity to positions held, employed by both H&R Block & Option One Mortgage Corporation. She signs first ; 6/9/05 Allonge (exhibit K1) to Note as Assistant Secretary for Option One Mortgage Corp.(INVESTORS) 6/9/05 Allonge (exhibit K2) to Note as Assistant Secretary for H&R Block (HRBMC) 13

6/9/05 Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage as duly authorized attestor exhibit B 6/9/05 as Funding/Closing Department Contact exhibit K4 6/13/05 (my personal favorite) Employment Verification Funder/AM Signature (4 days AFTER loan closing!) exhibit K9 6/14/05 as Reviewer/Closer on HDMA Audit Sheet exhibit K5 6/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit sheet 1 exhibit K6 6/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit Sheet 2 exhibit K7 6/14/05 Document preparer for 049-8566 Wiring Instructions exhibit K8 20. Probably most interesting is that Ms Canizio holds the position of Assistant Secretary to two separate Corporate Entities and also lets pass, until 4 days AFTER the alleged Mortgage Loan closing, the alleged verification of the income of the Defendant. The same Defendant who had no income. see attached exhibit K9! The very same employment verification purportedly taking place 3 days AFTER the below titled Execution Copy has already purportedly sold the alleged, but now certified as properly vetted by Option One Mort. and Ms. Canizio, as good and fraud free, Mortgage and Note to Barclays Bank 21. Plaintiff introduces as evidence Plaintiffs exhibit no 25, Titled EXECUTION COPY RE: Purchase Price and Terms Agreement Dated As of June 10, 2005 One day after the alleged Mortgage 14

creation! Purporting to explain how Barclays Bank has bought(?) the alleged Mortgage Note and debt from Option One after Option One had combined that same note and debt into the not yet created Trust. Yet next, you will notice that the alleged Mortgage has yet to be assigned to Option One in the 1st place. That will not occur for another 140 days (over 4 months!), (its either that or Plaintiff has brought fraud into the Courts with its Assignment of Mortgage to Option One from H&R Block! ) It should also be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 25 (exhibit E) lacks any signatures or authentication (indorsement ads per RC 1303.24) by either Buyer or Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws presented elsewhere within this pleading and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted. Plaintiff ERROR #2 Plaintiffs exhibit 26 (exhibit G) titled EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT Dated August 15th, 2005 (2 Months and 5 days after the above referenced Plaintiffs exhibit 25 and which lacks any reference to the TRUST Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OP1, and is dated months before the Assignment from H&R Block (alleged Mortgage Originator) to Option One. Plaintiffs exhibit 10(exhibit F)

15

22. This document catalogs the purchase of the Trust from the Company & Seller Option One Mortgage to the Purchaser, Barclays Bank, PLC. 23. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 26 lacks proper signatures or authentication (indorsements) (see exhibits G2 thru G7) by Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws presented elsewhere within this pleading and as such fails to represent a legally binding Contract. 24. That said, the conclusion so far is that the alleged Note & Mortgage could not have been included into the Trust nor into the ownership of Barlays Bank PLC until at least the day of or after the day of the Assignment from H&R Block to Option One Mortgage Corporation dated November 22nd, 2005 and still over a month before the Trust was even created. 25. Plaintiffs ERROR # 3 plaintiffs exhibit 27 titled EXECUTION COPY ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE (defendants exhibit H) dated August 19th, 2005. 26. This document does purportedly represent the Assignment and Conveyance of the Trust from Option One to Barclays Bank PLC. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 27 lacks any proper signatures (indorsements) (see exhibits H2 thru H4) or authentication by either Buyer or Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC, O.R.C., and Contract & Securities Laws as stated elsewhere within this pleading and 16

as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted. Also, Assignment from H&R Block to Option One does not happen until October 27th, 2005, nearly 2 months AFTER the alleged assignment and conveyance of the Trust that Plaintiff would have us believe already contained the mortgage, yet they submit proof it could not have had. NOTICE ALL OF THE ABOVE OCCURRED BEFORE THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT DATE to OPTION ONE! H&R Block Assigns Note & Mortgage to Option One see assignment dated: October 27, 2005 & Recorded November 22nd, 2005 plaintiffs exhibit 10-Defendants exhibit F Plaintiffs ERROR # 4 Plaintiffs exhibit 28 ( attached exhibit I) titled EXECUTION COPY BILL OF SALE dated January 26th, 2006. 27. Here we have a Bill of Sale that represents that BARCLAYS BANK PLC (the Seller), in consideration of (i) the sum of $1,214,208,.30 Let me write that out. One Million, two hundred and fourteen thousand, two hundred and eight dollars (I guess) then a coma(!) and then a decimal point (I guess) and 30 cents (I guess) dollars. This NOT a typographical error on my part (see Plaintiffs exhibit 28). Naming Option One as the Servicer, Mortgage Ramp, Inc. as loan performance advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association , as trustee as of January 26, 2006. to be paid to it in immediately available funds by SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC (the Purchaser) and (ii) the Class X, Class P and Class R Certificates issued pursuant to a 17

Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006 (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) (Plaintiffs exhibit 18) , (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement is incorporated herein), among the Purchaser, as Depositor, Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and responsible party, MortgageRamp, Inc., as loan performance advisor, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee, does as of January 26, 2006, hereby sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Purchaser without recourse, all the Sellers right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, including al interest and principal received by the Seller on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans.. if this were a check I had to cash, it wouldnt be cashable and it is signed and/or endorsed and/or authenticated (indorsed) by NO ONE! 28. In Summary; Barclays Bank PLC supposedly resells the Mortgage Loans from the Trust to SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC as Purchaser & Depositor, to Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and responsible party, to MortgageRamp, Inc., as loan performance advisor, and to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee, as of January 26, 2006 for an undecipherable amount and for Class X, P & R Certificates issued pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (they dont specify which one) and

18

then divides ownership between the four in some ethereal undisclosed manner .. as again, it does not specify. 29. Please note this next, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement document is accompanied by an unspecified signature page (does it belong to this document?) which is signed by one Paul Menefee Director from SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC, and one John Cuccoli (probably misspelled but close!), Managing Director of BARCLAYS BANK PLC, and that there is no indorsement, authentication given for either signatures power to enter into this contract and also no Power of Attorney Stamp and Seal accompanying this document and no signature date, clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws as previously stated elsewhere within this pleading and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract. 30. Please note also the date of January 26th, 2006 as the day of this transaction. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement. On occurrence of a Credit Event Trust Transfers Mortgage BACK to Option One 31. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 2:03 (d) attached exhibit J, Plaintiffs exhibit 18; (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement is incorporated herein) Within 30 days of the earlier of either discovery by or notice to the Responsible Party that any Mortgage Loan does not 19

conform to the requirements.of any breach of a representation or warranty.that materially and adversely affects the value of any Mortgage Loan the Responsible Party shall.. remove such Mortgage Loan (a Deleted Mortgage Loan) from the Trust and substitute in its place a Substitute Mortgage Loan.. 32. So, contractually, according to the alleged Pooling & Servicing Agreement supplied by Plaintiff ( exhibit J) , 90 (it says 30, but Im using 90 because of any delay in notification between the servicer and the Trust (with todays computing power, there should be none)) days after the alleged default which occurred September, 2007 as of Plaintiffs exhibit 20 (Payment History) , otherwise stated as January 2008, Option One contractually regained sole possession of the Note and Mortgage (with no assignment or any other authentication or recordation provided) and supplied a substitute Note & Mortgage to take its place as is evidenced by Plaintiffs own sworn evidentiary production of the Assignment from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Plaintiffs exhibit 11) dated March 3, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008, such date being AFTER recordation of Foreclosure action and as such voiding Plaintiffs argument of singular Note holdership at time of foreclosure initiation and also voiding Plaintiffs standing in this action! 33. It should also be noted that the signatory page(s) given at the rear of the Pooling & Servicing Agreement, each contain only but ONE signature, with empty signatory spaces for each other and that there is 20

no one Signatory page containing all signatures, no authentication, or indorsements of any signatures, no dates of signatures and no certification of any signatures by Power of Attorney clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws previously stated elsewhere within this pleading, and as such represents NOT even a legally binding Contract. Please note date of Re-Possession of Mortgage Note to Option One as January 2008. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 203(d). February 27th , 2008 Foreclosure Action is filed 34. Option One then assigns Note & Mortgage to Wells Fargo to act as Foreclosure Special Servicer. But we must remember, as per the Trust's Pooling & Servicing Agreement and all supplied documentation from Plaintiff, Wells Fargo is supposedly the Servicer for "The Trust" NOT for Option One! See Assignment (exhibit A) Plaintiffs exhibit 11 dated; March 7th, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008. Signed by a Ms Topaka Love who purports herself as assistant Secretary, and who personally appeared for signature somewhere in Minnesota, and that the document was prepared by Plaintiffs Counsel LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Also, the alleged Mortgage & note was allegedly assigned from Option One to Wells Fargo Bank for NO CONSIDERATION. Contract Law states there is no value established unless there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is passed, so once again, no legal contract is established, as no value has been 21

established because no consideration has been passed. Again we see, there is no valid Legal Contract. 35. Also of special Interest is the date the TRUST is Legitimized, January 1st, 2006. This is many months AFTER the Mortgage Companies have supposedly sold, dissected, securitized, and transferred the subject mortgage in and out of the TRUST, and sold securities based on its presence and quality, that hasnt yet even been created! Hmmmmmm Organized Crime! 36.In Conclusion, while keeping in mind that in each and every step of this alleged Mortgage & Note transference, each and every entity bears the requirement by law of proper Due Diligence. And realizing that all of the alleged loan origination papers, including the Credit report, bear a Social Security number that does not correspond with the stated name on the Mortgage Document, and that the inconsistencies within almost all of the loan origination documents are easily identified, with minimal effort, especially by schooled and learned professionals, Plaintiffs own exhibits prove only so many irregularities and illegalities that unless each and every one is proved, and proved within a chronology that actually CAN exist, then the Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank can NOT ever be deemed the Holder in Due Course of the subject Mortgage and Promissory Note and in fact, shows not only that Plaintiffs have a near total disregard for US Federal, State & Local Law, Rules and Regulations, as previously indicated, as they apply to Securities Transfer and documentation, but also that they didnt ever 22

have the proper documentation to bring this case to court in the first place so they threw a bunch of documents into a pile and hiring willing Counsel to do their bidding, they laid them upon the Court, with Counsel testifying under oath as to their validity, hoping the Courts would allow them to steam roll right over the Defendant and use the Court as they deem fit. 37. Concurrently, they also demonstrate the sales of securities based on NO underlying Securitized assets actually held, and/or utter incompetence, and/or criminal intention and execution. 38. To Defendants belief and knowledge, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. has foreclosed on tens of thousands of properties within the borders of Ohio and the United States using these same tactics and practices on a regular basis (see authorities 4 ) even despite previous court sanctions for these very same actions (see authorities 5 ). The Plaintiffs have demonstrated, in the case at bar, and created by exhibits provided, a well-documented and clear history of violating every aspect of Due Diligence AND the Clean Hands Doctrine. Plaintiffs own exhibits prove not only Plaintiffs Lack of Standing in the subject case at hand, but also their eager willingness to bring fraud, greed and incompetence to the Courts in their attempts at unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs Counsel also clearly demonstrates his own lack of performance of Due Diligence in Representing Plaintiff before a thorough investigation of same.

23

39. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Na. brings fraud into the Court with its allegations of ownership of alleged Mortgage & Note as per Legal requirement which states U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) which reads;Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. 40. As stated in Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Assn v. Garlinger (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315 (stating promissory notes are negotiable instruments under R.C 1303.3(A). According to Ohio Revised Code, in order for a negotiable instrument to be properly transferred, it must be negotiated. R.C. 1303.21(B). Negotiation includes not only the physical transfer of the instrument but also the indorsement, U.C.C 3-201, RC 1303.24, by the holder to transferee, which of course, must be in writing. Id.; R.C. 1303.22. The Assignments and other documentation submitted by the Plaintiff fails to establish the necessary link between the original lender and the Plaintiff. In just one instance of this case, Plaintiff submitted an Assignment of the alleged Mortgage (assigned to Plaintiff post foreclosure initiation) which allegedly transferred the alleged Note from Option One Mortgage Corp. to Plaintiff, but documentation obtained through discovery proves no legitimate transfer of the alleged Mortgage and Note from Originating 24

Broker (H&R Block) to Lender (Option One Mort.) until several months after Lender (Option One) purports to have already sold the alleged note and mortgage to Barclays Bank, gotten it back, deposited it within a Trust, that had not yet been created, used it as collateral for the sale of asset backed securities, and then, at time of default, the Lender (Option One) takes back the alleged Mortgage & Note (contractually through the Pooling & Servicing Agreement) and then, post foreclosure initiation, the Lender purportedly assigns that alleged Note & Mortgage to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A.. However, there is no evidence that in each and every occurrence of transfer of the alleged note & mortgage that there was ever ANY proper recordation, indorsement, OR proper negotiation for the alleged Note & Mortgage as per R.C. 1303.22, therefore, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. not only lacks Legal standing to initiate suit for reason of post assignment of note, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. also lacks standing to initiate this suit because Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Na. is not the rightful holder in Due Course of the alleged Note & Mortgage. Lower courts decision fails to acknowledge the missing links of negotiation, ie., lack of indorsements R.C 1303.24 and lack of Assignments of the Note at issue prior to Plaintiff initiating suit and lack of proper assignment and/or transference of the alleged Mortgage & Note through each and every purported step of this alleged Note & Mortgages entire chronology, from birth to death. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as defined by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3), was detrimental and 25

damaging to Defendant as found in Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4), (6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e), and subsequently, while it may be true that an unrecorded mortgage can be an effective transfer; the assignment must be executed in writing, from the true holder in Due Course of the alleged Mortgage & Note prior to filing the Complaint and before the Plaintiff can establish that it has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Standing is a necessary prerequisite to establish a courts jurisdiction to hear a case. Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176). see Authorities 6 Negotiable instruments 41. Therefore, as raised by Defendant in each and every pleading and from the initial proceedings ( ANSWER OF DEFENDANT John A. Reed, sect. 11, line 8., sect 13, sect 14, ), the appropriate time to establish that the Plaintiff is the holder of the alleged Note and Mortgage is at the time of filing the Complaint, not at the time of judgment rendered on the Complaint. Merely alleging it is the holder of the alleged Note and Mortgage is insufficient where there is no written proof of the alleged interest in the Note and supplying post documentation representing a falsity is fraud. VI. PLAINTIFF SHOWS LACK OF STANDING 42. Plaintiffs allege, through documents provided by Discovery, that the alleged Mortgage and Note, after its creation on June 9th, 2005, had been sold by Option One to Barclays Bank and there was 26

disassembled, without permission of the Defendant, separating all risk associated with the mortgage & note from all interest proceeds gained through ownership of same, without Defendants permission and in violation of any contractual agreement as is represented upon the alleged Note. The alleged Mortgage and Note was then repackaged, with interest income proceeds being re-directed to the Securitized Trust Shareholders, but with all risk still owned by Option One Mortgage Co., (thereby, without insurance licensure, or even the ability to obtain insurance licensure, insuring the Note) and with 2/3rds of all other ownership responsibilities divided equally between Mortgage Ramp Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank. Documentation provided by Plaintiff through Discovery proves that not only through lack of signatures, dates, authentication and indorsements on each document (per Section R.C. 1335.04, 1303.21, 1303.22, 5301.01 ORC (A), 5301.25, 5309.79 and UCC Article 3 & S.E.C. true sale obligations and others 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4),6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e)) & SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3) 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204. (See Authorities 1 On Standing & Due Process and Authorities 3 Parties In Interest Case Law ) purporting to transfer the alleged Mortgage & note from one entity to another, but also, the chronology and/or timeline of Plaintiffs documentation of the alleged Mortgage & Note does not evidence a viable sequence of events that would support Plaintiffs allegations of Holder in Due Course by a proper transfer of the alleged Mortgage and Note. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is attempting through subterfuge, deception, fraudulent 27

misrepresentation, and outright fraud, to confuse the Courts. But once fully scrutinized, Plaintiffs documentation clearly demonstrates their lack of Standing to initiate this suit from its inception (see below Tracking the Mortgage Chronology). When exhibits are inconsistent with the plaintiff s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. R.C. 1335.04. Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of R.C. 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400i (interpreting the former statute, G.C. 8543). Thus, with regards to real property, before an entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to receive a distribution from the sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio law. In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing Pinney v. Merchants National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1

43.Information contained on most of the rest of Plaintiffs alleged transferences of the alleged Mortgage and Note in their entirety (see below Tracking the Mortgage Chronology), has only unsigned places for signaturesno datesno authenticationand no proper indorsements upon them as required by U.C.C, S.E.C Rules and Regulations and Ohio Revised Code R.C. 1303.21(B) & 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204. Consequently, no legal transference took 28

place of the alleged Mortgage and/or note between Plaintiffs named entities and/or co-conspirators. Plaintiff demonstrates near total disregard for UCC and SEC Rules and Regulations and Ohio Revised Code, as they apply to Securities Transfer and documentation. They also demonstrate the sales of securities based on NO underlying Securitized assets actually held, and/or utter incompetence, and/or criminal intention and execution. To Defendants belief and knowledge, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. has foreclosed on tens of thousands of properties within the borders of Ohio and the United States using these same tactics and practices on a regular basis (see attached authorities 2 ) 44.Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association As Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2006-OP1 is, as its name implies, merely a conduit, and a conduit can never suffer a loss or injury as is required by the Real Party In Interest Rule. A Conduit can never suffer a loss or be injured as it must immediately pass gains or losses to Investors who are (if there are to be any at all) the true injured partynot the Servicer, not the Trustee and not the Pass-Through Trust itself, and as such, not the Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. Plaintiff fails to satisfy the U.S. Constitution Article IIIs standing requirements that a plaintiff must show: (a) it has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (b) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the

29

defendant; and (c) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. 45. The minimum constitutional requirements for standing are: proof of injury in fact, causation, and redress ability (Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472). In addition, the plaintiff must be a proper proponent, and the action a proper vehicle, to vindicate the rights asserted. [Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494, quoting Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commn, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991)]. To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the defendant (emphasis added) (Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472). In each of the above-noted complaints, the named Plaintiff alleges it is the holder and owner of the alleged Note and Mortgage. However, the attached alleged Note and Mortgage identify the alleged mortgagee and promisee as other than Defendant John A. Reed, and the original lending institution as other than the named Plaintiff. When exhibits are inconsistent with the plaintiff s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Once again Plaintiff demonstrates their Lack of Standing to initiate this foreclosure action. See Authorities 6 Negotiable instruments 46. Because Plaintiffs did not demonstrate, nor could they demonstrate, that their members have suffered or were likely to suffer an injury in fact, they fail to meet Article III standing requirements. Without standing, the Court did lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Lack of 30

jurisdiction may not be waived and may be raised, by a party or sua sponte by the court, at any time. Without jurisdiction, the court must grant Defendants Motion and dismiss this case. 47. Further, Plaintiffs wish the Court to believe that it does in fact have possession of the Original Note and Mortgage. When confronted with request of delivery of each Black ink, ball point pen signed, original, Plaintiff brings only a copy (against EvidR 1002 of Best Evidence) of the Note and a forged Mortgage Document. Upon inspection of the alleged Original Mortgage Document, and the signature which it bears, the signature appears to have been placed on the document, or copy & pasted, using a computer and ink jet printer. This red signature is in direct opposition to every other document produced by Plaintiff through Discovery, which are all allegedly signed at the same place and time with a black ink ball point pen and such red signature is in direct violation of Plaintiffs own Closing Agents explicit instructions that all closing documents must be signed with a black ink ball point pen. See Exhibit K4c. 48. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as defined by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2) (3), was detrimental and damaging to Defendant as found in Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4), (6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e), and subsequently, while it may be true that an unrecorded mortgage can be an effective transfer; the assignment must be executed in writing, from the true holder in Due Course of the alleged 31

Mortgage & Note prior to filing the Complaint and before the Plaintiff can establish that it has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Standing is a necessary prerequisite to establish a courts jurisdiction to hear a case. Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176). 49. Having failed to establish that it holds an interest in the alleged Note and/or Mortgage before suit inception (and actually afterward s too) , the Plaintiff has failed to show that it suffered an injury in fact; therefore, Plaintiff once again shows their lack of standing to initiate this action as do the Court for their lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not invoke the jurisdiction of the court. State ex rel. Dallman v Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 176, 178, 298, N.E.2d 515. Therefore, Plaintiffs action should be dismissed accordingly 50. The Lower Courts decision fails to incorporate prior rulings of this Court on identical issues. In fact, several of Ohios District Court Judges have all ruled on numerous cases in favor of this Defendants position within the past 16 months (see authorities 1, 2, 3, 4). This Court should not ignore precedent from this very Court in nearly identical cases. 51. Conversely, should this Court find that in fact Wells Fargo Bank DOES have the right (even lacking standing) to foreclose on Defendant John A. Reed, then Defendant must bring attention to the Mortgage, 32

Note and loan creation documents which contain many fraudulent and actionable misrepresentations and much fraudulent information upon them, to whit; (A) John L. Reed is represented as the party in interest upon the alleged subject Mortgage and Note. Lower Courts have held and Plaintiff has agreed that Defendant John A. Reeds Father, John L. Reed, had no interest or involvement in the creation of the alleged subject mortgage & note. (B). Option One Underwriter's Worksheet and both of the Universal Residential Loan Application HMDA Audit Sheet (exhibit K5) are all misrepresenting Defendant's fraudulent income to be $3,300.00 per month (see exhibit "P" and "Q") 2 separate residential Loan Applications. (C) Universal Residential Loan Application (see exhibit P) contains multiple other misrepresentations of information; (1) year house built is not 1990, it is actually 2000 (2) was sub-contractor, which Defendant has never been (3) lists a completely blank employment history (4) lists Defendants base income as $3,300 per month. Defendant, in years 2001-2005 was only sporadically, part time employed, instead he was spending the entirety of his working hours gathering materials and constructing the subject property. (5) No Interviewers signature (6) U.S. Citizen? Says NO! Defendant is a natural born U.S. Citizen 33

(7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Plaintiff had knowledge of Defendants three child support obligations until 2006. Information provided by Plaintiff shows 0- obligations despite documents provided from Plaintiff in Discovery (see Exhibits L1, L2, L3, O Child Dependants & Defendants Credit Report.) proving Plaintiff had knowledge. see O.R.C. 1322.07(A),(B),(C),(E),(H) 52.Defendant states that a full scrutinization of Mortgage and Mortgage creation documentation also clearly shows many violations in regard to Rules & Regulations as set forth in The Truth In Lending Act (TILA), The Homeowners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), The Fair Debt Collections Act (FDCPA), RESPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), U.C.C., Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, O.R.C. 1345.0, U.S Constitution Article III

VIII. DEFENDANT HAS MET HIS BURDEN. 75. a. The Burden is on Defendant to Prove Invalidity of Courts Previous Judgment In seeking to set aside a void judgment, the Defendant must show the invalidity of Courts judgment. Defendant clearly has the burden of demonstrating how, exactly, the judgment is void. Fortunately for the Defendant, this can be quickly and easily shown using Plaintiffs own documents and pleadings. These documents 34

demonstrate Plaintiff never had standing to pursue foreclosure. Where a Plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case and any judgment entered is void. b. Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff was Not the Holder of the Note; 76. Negotiation is the mechanism by which one holder conveys its interest in a promissory note to another party (who then becomes the holder).Without a negotiation (indorsement and transfer of physical possession) from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Plaintiff, Plaintiff had no interest in the note that rests at the foundation of this case. Without an interest (that is, without the right to be paid each month according to the terms of the note), Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue foreclosure. 77. Standing requires a judicially recognizable interest in subject matter. The interest may not be remote and speculative, but must be a present and substantial interest in the subject matter. That is, Plaintiff had to be the holder of the notehave a present and substantial interestin the subject matter at the time the suit was filed. Plaintiffs own documents and Plaintiffs counsels representations to the Court show without a doubt that not only had negotiation not occurred in this case at the time the suit was filed, negotiation had not occurred at the time judgment was entered against Defendant.. 78. Indeed, the Court need look no further than the pleadings (Plaintiff is the holder of a note) and the Note itself (no indorsement as 35

per 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204) to find that the P was not, in fact, the holder and had no interest in the note at the time Plaintiff filed suit. 79. Showing this lack of standing is Defendants burden and Defendant has met that burden. Where the Plaintiff lacks standing, any order entered in that case is void from the start and Courts may review such questions /sua sponte/. A void judgment is no judgment at all, and no rights are acquired by virtue of its entry of record. The court may, in a proper proceeding, vacate it at any time. The Courts November 13, 2008 Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank was void and should be vacated. 80. Defendant has shown that Plaintiff brings fraud into the Court, gross (proven) examples of Negligence, a propensity (proven) for Lack of Due Diligence that borders on the extreme, and some of the filthiest (unclean) hands imaginable, while Plaintiff's Counsel represents these same lies as truth and adds his own special touch by bringing libel & innuendo into the Courts in his own attempt at unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Because Plaintiff was not the real party in interest on the date this action was commenced, it is not shown to be authorized to bring this action and because the Plaintiffs exhibits attached to their pleading are inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations as to ownership of the subject note and mortgage, those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiffs complaint is rendered objectionable. Plaintiff has failed to establish itself as the real party in interest and therefore the Court did lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear same. Defendant John A. Reed 36

does request this Court to (1) dismiss this case with prejudice in its entirety, (2) sustain Defendants expressed defamation and libel charges, stated elsewhere within this pleading, (3) award Defendant any actual and punitive monetary reward the Court deems fit and proper for loss of employment (since foreclosure inception in perpetuity) in his stated profession, any and/or all amounts renderable under TILA, HOEPA and RICO charges stated above, plus an award for emotional, physical and psychological pain & suffering as well as any and all costs associated with the defense of this suit, and (4) order Plaintiff, with prejudice, to immediately cause to be released its alleged mortgage and/or any interest it may have or have obtained against the subject property and return the property in whole to Defendant John A. Reed with damages, and award any and all cost and Legal Fees (in their entirety) that Plaintiffs Attys should/would have collected in the case to. Defendants demands the Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for fraud on the court, and for their attorneys fees and costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants entitled. Respectfully, _____________ John A. Reed pro se 7940 Guilford Dayton, Ohio 937.890.2576 Yotraj @Yahoo.com

Dr. 45414

37

i. List of Exhibits

Exhibit A Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo plaintiffs exhibit 11 3/7/2008 Exhibit B Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 1st Assignment from H&R Block to Option One plaintiffs exhibit 10 6/9/2005 Exhibit C Allonge from Option One to Blank plaintiffs exhibit 8 6/9/2005 Exhibit D Allonge from H&R Block to Option One plaintiffs exhibit 7 6/9/2005 Exhibit F 2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Opt One plaintiffs exhibit 10 10/27/2005 Exhibit E EXECUTION COPY Purchase Price and Terms Agreement plaintiffs exhibit 25 6/10/2005 E2 EC/PP&TA signature page Exhibit G EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT plaintiffs exhibit 26 8/15/2005 Exhibit G2 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement Exhibit G3 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership Exhibit G4 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence Exhibit G5 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 1 Exhibit G6 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2 Exhibit G7 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3 Exhibit H Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Exhibit H2 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 1

38

Exhibit H3 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature Page 3 Exhibit H4 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 4 Exhibit I Barclays Bank Bill of Sale Exhibit J Pooling and Servicing Agreement Sec. 2.03 Exhibit K Kristy Canizio the Lady of many hats

signature Exhibits

1. Allonge from Option One to Blank (Investor) 2. Allonge from H&R Block to Option One 3. Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 4. Instructions to Closing Agent b. Instructions to Closing Agent c. Instructions to Closing Agent 5. HMDA Audit Sheet 6. Data Integrity Audit 7. Data Integrity Audit 8. Wiring Instructions 9. Employment Verification Exhibit L1 Child Support L2 Child Support L3 Child Support Exhibit M TILA Statement 1 Exhibit N 2nd TILA Statement Exhibit O Credit report 39

Exhibit P Universal Residential Loan Application 1 Exhibit Q Universal Residential Loan Application 2 Exhibit R Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Re3lease 7/5/05 Exhibit S Loan Disbursement Worksheet 1 Exhibit T Loan Disbursement Worksheet 2 Exhibit U Itemization of Amount Financed Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 Exhibit W Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1

Exhibit A Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo

40

Kristy 9 Exhibit K Employment Verification Kristy 9 Exhibit K

Kristy 3 Exhibit B Assignment from H&R Block to Option One 6/9/2005

41

Kristy 3 Exhibit B Assignment from H&R Block to Option One 6/9/2005

42

Kristy 1 Exhibit C Allonge from Option One to Blank

43

Kristy 2 Exhibit D Allonge from H&R Block to Option One

44

Kristy3 Exhibit E Corporation Assignment of Open-End Mortgage

45

Exhibit F

2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Option One

46

Exhibit E

Purchase Price & Terms Agreement

47

Exhibit E2

Purchase Price & Terms Agreement signature page

48

Exhibit G EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT (ECFAARMLPAWA)

49

Exhibit G2 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement

50

Exhibit G3 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership

51

Exhibit G4 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence

52

Exhibit G5 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 1

53

Exhibit G6 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2

54

Exhibit G7 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3

55

Exhibit H Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

56

Exhibit H2 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 1

57

Exhibit H3 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature Page 3

58

Exhibit H4 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 4

59

Exhibit I Barclays Bank Bill of Sale

60

Exhibit J Pooling & Servicing Agreement 2.03

61

Exhibit K4. Instructions to Closing Agent

62

Exhibit K4b. Instructions to Closing Agent

63

Exhibit K4c. Instructions to Closing Agent

64

Exhibit K5. HMDA Audit Sheet

65

Kristi Canizio 6 Exhibit K6 Data Integrity Sheet

66

Kristy Canizio 7 Exhibit K7 Data Integrity Audit

67

Kristy Canizio 8 Exhibit K8 Wiring Instructions

68

Kristy Canizio 9 Exhibit K9 Employment Verification

69

70

Child Support 1 Exhibit L1

71

Child Support 1 Exhibit L2

72

Child Support 1 Exhibit L3

73

Exhibit M TILA Statement #1

74

Exhibit N TILA Statement #2

75

Exhibit O Credit Report

76

77

78

79

80

Exhibit P Universal Residential Loan Application 1

81

82

83

84

Exhibit Q Universal Residential Loan Application 2

85

86

87

88

Exhibit R Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Release

89

Exhibit S Loan Disbursement Worksheet 1

90

Exhibit T Loan Disbursement Worksheet 2

91

Exhibit U Itemization of Amount Financed

92

Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 page 1

93

Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 page 2

94

Exhibit W Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2

95

Exhibit W Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2 page 2

96

ii. Authorities 1 referenced to pages

on standing & Due Process pages 6, 7, 20, 24, 31 on Indorsement pages pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34

On Standing, Due Process & Indorsement

Civ. R. 17A Article III, Section (4)(B) of the Ohio Constitution Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515 Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472 Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494, Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commn, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991) Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176). Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos. 2002A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004- Ohio-1529, at 17 Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R. L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-014 Discover Bank v. Brockmeier, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-07078, 2007-Ohio-1552, at 7 Highland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240, 273 N.E.2d 903 First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 679-680 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008Ohio-4603 58 See, e.g., Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc., 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1312 (D.S.C. 1994) (applying the HDC defense in a commercial context to hold that: Article 97

Three of the UCC controls transfers of negotiable instruments, and the mortgage notes are clearly negotiable. If UCC Article Three should not apply in this case and the holder in due course doctrine is no longer warranted, then any abolishment of that body of law should come from the legislature, not the court). See also Eggert, supra note 12, at 560-70 (discussing cases where the HDC doctrine was applied against consumer mortgage borrowers). Indorsement RC 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204. see pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 (A) (1) Indorsement means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for any of the following purposes: (a) To negotiate the instrument;

(b) To restrict payment of the instrument; (c) To incur the indorsers liability on the instrument. (2) Regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument. (B) Indorser means a person who makes an indorsement. (C) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument. (D) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holders name or both, but signatures in both names may be required by 98

a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection. Effective Date: 08-19-1994 Jurisdiction State ex rel. Dallman v Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 176, 178, 298, N.E.2d 515 Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941

Authorities 2 see pages 7, 21, 24, 31

Previous Ohio Judgments on Lack of Standing only; Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176).

US Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist. Of Ohio, Hamilton Co. Appeal No. C-070889 JUDGE: DINKELACKER Since plaintiff-appellant Wells Fargo was not a real party in interest at the time it filed suit in this foreclosure action, the trial court properly dismissed the case.

7th District Court of Appeals of Ohio, Mahoning County DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177 Decided on March 13, 2008

Cole v. Am. Industries & Resources Corp. (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 546, 552, 715 N.E.2d 1179 DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177 Separating and distinguishing between standing and Diversity; US District Court of SW Ohio, W. Div. 99

07CV049, 07CV085, 07CV138, 07CV237, 07CV240, 07CV246, 07CV248, 07CV257, 07CV286, 07CV304, 07CV312, 07CV317, ,07CV343, 07CV353, 07CV360, 07CV386, 07CV389, 07CV390, 07CV433. JUDGE: THOMAS M. ROSE Federal courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the United States Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). As a result, a plaintiff must have constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction. Id. This Court is well aware that entities who hold valid notes are entitled to receive timely payments in accordance with the notes. And, if they do not receive timely payments, the entities have the right to seek foreclosure on the accompanying mortgages. However, with regard the enforcement of standing and other jurisdictional requirements pertaining to foreclosure actions, this Court is in full agreement with Judge Christopher A Boyko of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio who recently stressed that the judicial integrity of the United States District Court is Priceless. JUDGE: THOMAS M. ROSE

US District Court, N. Ohio, E. Div. 07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

Based on Article III requirements and standing,

There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is driven by money. And the [*9] legal work which flows from winning the financial institution's favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit -- to the contrary , they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. 100

Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate. The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: "Fluidity of the market" -- "X" dollars, "contractual arrangements [*10] between institutions and counsel" -- "X" dollars, "purchasing mortgages in bulk and securitizing" -- "X" dollars, "rush to file, slow to record after judgment" -- "X" dollars, "the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court" -- "Priceless." JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO With Diversity but ruled for of lack of standing US District Court of Ohio, S.D.,E. Div 07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv-423, 07cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-706, 07-cv-727, 07-cv-731, 07-cv-963, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv-1150 JUDGE: John D. Holschuh Dec. 27, 2007 Weighing the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that they in fact owned the notes and mortgages in question at the time these respective complaints were filed. Because Plaintiffs apparently did not own the notes and mortgages at the time the complaints were filed, Plaintiffs suffered no injury in fact from the debtors' default. Plaintiffs thus do not have standing to bring these actions, and these cases should be dismissed for lack of standing. JUDGE : John D. Holschuh Lack of Standing Positions Held (precedents) Against Wells Fargo Bank NA. In Bold
Dismissals Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing Ameriquest Funding II REO Subsidiary LLC v. Bat; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02726; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN CitiMortgage, Inc. v. North; Filed 10/30/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03376; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stout; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03280; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Glass; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00963; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awad; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv01703; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

101

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Black; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03074; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bradford; Filed 7/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02144; Disposed 12/5/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. DeFrati; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03276; Disposed 12/10/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hall; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00731; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Henders; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03069; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jackson; Filed 9/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02753; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jones; Filed 4/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01186; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lewis; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02903; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mays; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02334; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. McFarla; Filed 7/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02042; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nashe; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02994; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Squires; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03076; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Harper; Filed 10/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03052; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. EMC Mortgage Corporation v. Washington; Filed 3/16/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00226; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH GreenPoint Mortgage Funding v. Cook; Filed 2/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00166; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Household Realty Corporation v. McCord; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01150; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hilty; Filed 3/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00279; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. King; Filed 10/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01047; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

102

Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB v. Castleberry; Filed 7/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00642; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH LaSalle Bank National Association v. Claypoole; Filed 7/24/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00706; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH LaSalle Bank National Association v. Lyons; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02733; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Merrit; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00536; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH MidFirst Bank v. Deem; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03260; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Nelson; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00423; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Washington Mutual Bank v. Clark; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03177; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603 2:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Authorities 3 see pages 6, 20, 24

Real Party in Interest Case Law References
58 See, e.g., Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc., 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1312 (D.S.C. 1994) (applying the HDC defense in a commercial context to hold that: Article Three of the UCC controls transfers of negotiable instruments, and the mortgage notes are clearly negotiable. 103

If UCC Article Three should not apply in this case and the holder in due course doctrine is no longer warranted, then any abolishment of that body of law should come from the legislature, not the court). See also Eggert, supra note 12, at 560-70 (discussing cases where the HDC doctrine was applied against consumer mortgage borrowers).

Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24. The purpose behind the real-party-in-interest requirement is " 'to enable the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.' " Id. at 24-25, quoting In reHighland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240.

In foreclosure actions, the real party in interest is the current holder of the note and mortgage. Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v. Smith, Hamilton App. No. C-061069, 2007-Ohio-5874, at 18;

Kramer v. Millott (Sept. 23, 1994), Erie App. No. E-94-5 (because the plaintiff did not prove that she was the holder of the note and mortgage, she did not establish herself as a real party in interest).

A party who fails to establish itself as the current holder is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 679-680.

Thus, in Hufford, the Third District No. 07AP-615 5 Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment where a purported mortgagee failed to produce sufficient evidence explaining or demonstrating its right to the note and mortgage at issue. In that case, the record contained only "inferences and bald assertions" and no "clear statement or documentation" proving that the original holder of the note and mortgage transferred its interest to the appellee. Id. at 678. The failure to prove who was the real party in interest created a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. Id. at 679-680. Similarly, in Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Green (2004), 156 Ohio App.3d 461, the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial 104

court's finding of summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to prove that it was the holder of the note and mortgage. There, the defendant executed a note and mortgage in favor of Check 'n Go Mortgage Services, not Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Although Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. submitted an affidavit alleging an interest in the note and mortgage, it did not state how or when it acquired that interest. Id. at 467. The court concluded that this lack of evidence defeated the purpose of Civ.R. 17(A) by exposing the defendant to the danger that multiple "holders" would seek foreclosure based upon the same note and mortgage. Id. Authorities 4 see pages 17, 24, 31

Previous Ohio Cases Ruled against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. for Lack of Standing
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-46032:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Authorities 5 (A.)

see pages 17, 31

Previous Sanctions Against Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

US Bankruptcy Court, Dist. Of Mass., Case No. 02-46025-JBR Adversary Proceeding. No. 04- 4517 and No. 07-4109 Lack of Standing no mention of diversity, They seek to bind the Debtor to one standard and themselves to a much lower one. Moreover the attorneys and law firms argument 105

that notes and mortgages frequently change hands multiple times, often with written documentation executed later, which they offer as explanation as to why it reasonable for them to rely on the representations of their clients should provide little shelter when they insist that the Debtor should have known better than to take their pleadings literally. This Court will not countenance creditors and creditors attorneys holding themselves to a different and clearly lower standard than what they expect of the Debtor. It will not tolerate a lenders or sevicers disregard for the rules that govern litigation, including contested matters, in the federal courts. It is the creditors responsibility to keep a borrower and the Court informed as to who owns the nte and mortgage and is servicing the loan, not the borrowers or the Courts responsibility to ferret out the truth. Wells Fargo Bank sanction amt. $250,000.00 Dated April 25, 2008 JUDGE: JOEL B. ROSENTHAL

Authorities 5 (B.) see pages 17, 31

On July 31, a civil jury in Montgomery County, Maryland, Kimberly Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 279370-V, rendered a verdict for $1,250,000 in damages ($250,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for defrauding a home buyer who was seeking a mortgage loan. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., made an excessive loan at a higher than promised interest rate to Ms. Kimberly Thomas. In the course of the loan approval, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was found to have engaged in fraudulent activity by misrepresenting income and assets of Ms. Thomas in order to justify a loan that she could not afford and could not repay in order to earn a commission on the transaction. In conducting its deliberations, the jury was provided evidence from which it could find that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., did not comply with its own consumer mortgage loan policies, its own ethical standards and requirements and abused its position with respect to commonly used banking practices governing loan standards in the consumer area.

Authorities 6 see pages 19 & 2 Negotiable Instruments & Due Diligence

Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Assn v. Garlinger (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315 (stating promissory notes are negotiable instruments under R.C 1303.3(A). R.C 1303.3(A),(B),(C),(E),(H) 106

R.C. 1303.21(B). pages 17, 20, 21 R.C. 1303.22 pages 18, 20 R.C. 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204 pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 R.C. 1335.04 Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of R.C. 5301.25. page 20 R.C. 5301.01 page 20 R.C. 5301.25 page 20 R.C. 5309.79 page 20 U.C.C 3-201 & Article III page 18 U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) page 17 S.E.C. true sale obligations page 20 Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400 Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) Pinney v. Merchants National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1

Due Diligence
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3) page 20 Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4),6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e)

Authorities 7

see page 6

Handwriting Analysis
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. No. 01-4953 PATRICK LEROY CRISP

Authorities 8 see page 26 FRAUD Defined

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. 107

Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 8 Contract can be avoided if it was induced by fraud, duress or misrepresentation. Goldman v. Bequai, 19F3d 666 (DC Cir. 1994).

If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise. Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559, 572; 132 NW 1122 ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the party who drafted the contract.. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, (Miss. 1990).

Authorities 9 see pages 25, 26, 28 TILA

A. Pursuant to regulations promulgated under Truth in Lending Act, violator of disclosure requirements is held to standard of strict liability, and therefore, borrower need not show that creditor in fact deceived borrower by making substandard disclosures. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601-1667(e); Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section 226,8(b-d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1700 Soils v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983,

108

B. Any violation of the Truth in Lending Act, regardless of technical nature, must result in finding of liability against lender. Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z Section 226.1 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1700; Truth in Lending Act Section 130 (a, e), IS U.S.C. Section 1640 (a, e). In Re Steinbrecher. 110 BR. 155, 116 A.L.R. Fed. 881. C. Question of whether lender's Truth in Lending Act disclosures are inaccurate, misleading or confusing ordinarily will be for fact finder; however, where confusing, misleading and inaccurate character of disputed disclosure is so clear that it cannot reasonably be disputed, summary judgment for plaintiff is appropriate. Truth in Lending Act Section 102 et seq; Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section 226.1 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1700. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. 503 F, Supp 246, appeal dismissed 672 F.2d 903, appeal after remand 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct, 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 E2d 642.

Authorities 10 see page 29 HOEPA

A. Truth in Lending Act was passed to prevent unsophisticated consumer from being misled as to total cost of financing. Truth in Lending Act, Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 F.2d 642. 2. Purpose of Truth in Lending Act is for customers to be able to make informed decisions. Truth in Lending Act Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed,2d 225, on remand 699 F,2d 642, B. Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of anothers ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987. 109

Authorities 11 Federal & Ohio State Code, Rules & Regulations

U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.

As stated in Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Assn v. Garlinger (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315 (stating promissory notes are negotiable instruments under R.C 1303.3(A)

According to Ohio Revised Code, in order for a negotiable instrument to be properly transferred, it must be negotiated. R.C. 1303.21(B). Negotiation includes not only the physical transfer of the instrument but also the indorsement, U.C.C 3-201, by the holder to transferee, which of course, must be in writing. Id.; R.C. 1303.22.

section 3-305(b) of the Revised Article Three of the Uniform Commercial Code Securities Exchange Act of 1934

SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3),

SEC. 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4), (6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e),

Ohio Revised Code

110

R.C 1303.3(A) pages 17, R.C. 1303.21(B). pages 17, 21, R.C. 1303.22 page 18 R.C 1303.24 pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 CivR 17(A) page 5, 6, 7 CivR 1002 page 6

U.S. Statute of Frauds page 5 US Law of Contracts page 5

111