THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, 0231236 Plaintiff Vs. Case No.

CA

Judge:

JOHN L. REED________________________, Defendant Motion To Appeal Ruling of The Lower Court and to Rule on the Following: Part I. INTRODUCTION Now comes Defendant John A. Reed pro se to enter this Motion to Appeal the Ruling of the Lower Court and 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, 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”) dated after their initiation of this foreclosure action.
Plaintiff’s exhibit “11”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. See below, Tracking The Mortgage Chronology. 2. Upon Plaintiff’s Counsel’s discovery of their own inconsistent and invalid documentation and improperly perfected alleged Mortgage and Note used to foreclose against the wrong Defendant, Plaintiff’s 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. 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 Defendant’s ownership of the Note & Mortgage. 4. Lower Courts have found, and Plaintiff has agreed, that the Principal named on the alleged Note and Mortgage as the Creator of the alleged Mortgage and Note, alleged Defendant John A. Reed’s Father, Defendant John L. Reed, was in fact not the property owner at the time of alleged Mortgage and Note creation nor the creator of the alleged Mortgage and Note. 5. Plaintiff’s Counsel, within his privileged position, has averred in Pleadings (libel per se) (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment for just one example), 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 Plaintiff’s documentation, all documents were created at H&R Block Offices located in Tampa Florida to which Defendant had no access. No one has found, that Defendant John A.

2

Reed had broken into the Lending Agent’s facility in Tampa Florida, and altered 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 Defendant. 6. Plaintiff, again within his privileged position and with intentional malice, 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 Father’s name on the alleged mortgaged property note for his own name, as would be necessary to substantiate Plaintiff’s next libelous per se claim, as statement of fact, (see: Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion For Summary Judgment and previous Plaintiff’s pleadings) of Defendant John A. Reed’s 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 Plaintiff’s Counsel did cause defamation of the character and/or did libel per se, mens rea, Defendant John A. Reed on numerous occasions (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment for one instance), 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 Father’s signature and “altered” Federal documents. And, as Defendant’s viability in his chosen and previously distinguished profession, of Novell Networking Consultant (hourly rate $100 per hr.), requires a “Top Security Clearance” to perform, Plaintiff’s Counsel has effectively stripped Defendant of any chance of employment within his

3

profession, in perpetuity. Plaintiff’s Counsel committed this offense mens re, attempting to alter the Court’s 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, and is now, unalterable. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s 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 his studied Profession’s death sentence. 8. Subsequently the lower Court found Defendant John A. Reed to be the Creator of the Note & Mortgage; then did, 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 altered the alleged Mortgage & Promissory Note, effectively destroying the original Mortgage and Note and their representations of fact, to represent that 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 One”

4

9. Based primarily upon testimony of the Plaintiff’s paid witness, who fails the Daubert test (no statistical rate of success/failure) for admissibility (please see attached authorities “7”), and goes directly against CivR 1002 by using copies to identify Defendant’s signature, and Plaintiff’s witness of President of Option, who testified as to not being present at Mortgage creation, who’s same testimony is entirely hearsay, Plaintiff’s 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. 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 2006OP1 (see exhibit “A” or Plaintiff’s exhibit# 11), did not occur until March 7th, 2008 and as such Plaintiff lacked Legal Standing to initiate suit. “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 attached “Authorities “1” & “2”. 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 5

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 relitigate hundreds, even thousands of foreclosures. 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 haven’t, you’re screwed”.
“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).

13. If such basic legalities aren’t 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 I’s and crossing the T’s. … That’s 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 assignment. These allegations conflict with the alleged mortgage and note attached to the complaint that identifies Option One Mortgage Corporation, as the lender

6

with the original security interest. These allegations therefore constitute serious misrepresentations and could be construed as a fraud brought upon the court. 15. Plaintiff’s own exhibit’s, 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. 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 Option One Mortgage Corp., yet fails in it’s 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” 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). When

7

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) 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, but who does have witness’s who are willing to testify that they were present and heard (on speakerphone) Defendant tell Plaintiff’s Agent, of that fact of no income, during Defendant’s alleged Mortgage application…… 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

8

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” Plaintiff’s exhibit no” 25”, Titled “EXECUTION COPY” RE: Purchase Price and Terms Agreement” Dated “As of June 10, 2005” One day after the alleged Mortgage creation! Purporting to explain how Barclay’s 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. That will not occur for another 140 days (over 4 months!), (it’s either that or Plaintiff has brought fraud into the Court’s with it’s “Assignment of Mortgage to Option One from H&R Block! ”) It should also be noted that Plaintiff’s exhibit “25” (exhibit “E”) lacks any signatures or authentication 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s exhibit “10”(exhibit “F”) 22. This document catalogs the purchase of the “Trust” from the “Company & Seller” Option One Mortgage to the “Purchaser”, Barclay’s Bank, PLC.

9

23. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiff’s exhibit “26” lacks proper signatures or authentication (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. Plaintiff’s ERROR # 3 plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s exhibit “27” lacks any proper signatures (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 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. 27. 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

10

plaintiff’s exhibit “10”-Defendants exhibit “F” Plaintiff’s ERROR # 4 Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006 (“the Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) (Plaintiff’s exhibit “18”) ,, 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 Seller’s 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 wouldn’t be cashable and it is signed and/or endorsed and/or authenticated by NO ONE!

11

28. In Summary; Barklays 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 don’t specify which one) and 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 authentication given for either signature’s 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”

12

Trust Transfers Mortgage BACK to Option One 31. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 2:03 (d) attached exhibit “J”, Plaintiff’s exhibit “18”; “Within 30 days of the earlier of either discovery by or notice to the Responsible Party that any Mortgage Loan does not 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 I’m using 90 because of any delay in notification between the servicer and the Trust (with today’s computing power, there should be none)) days after the alleged default which occurred September, 2007 as of Plaintiff’s 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 it’s place as is evidenced by Plaintiff’s own sworn evidentiary production of the Assignment from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Plaintiff’s exhibit “11”) dated March 3, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008, such date being AFTER recordation of Foreclosure action and as such voiding Plaintiff’s argument of singular “Note” holdership at time of foreclosure initiation and also voiding Plaintiff’s standing in this action! 33. It should 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

13

for each other and that there is no one Signatory page containing all signatures, no authentication 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. See Assignment (exhibit “A”) Plaintiff’s exhibit “11” dated; March 7th, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008. Signed by a Ms Topaka Love who purports herself as “assistant Secretary”, who “personally appeared” for signature somewhere in Minnesota, and that the document was prepared by Plaintiff’s Counsel LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Also, Mortgage was 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 established because no “consideration” has been passed. 35. Of special Interest is the date the “TRUST” is Legitimized, January 1st, 2006. This is many month’s 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 it’s presence and quality, that hasn’t yet even been created! Hmmmmmm Organized Crime!

14

36. In Conclusion, keeping in mind that in each and every step of this Mortgage & Note transference’s, 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, Plaintiff’s 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 be deemed the “Holder in Due Course” of the subject Mortgage and Promissory Note and in fact, shows not only that Plaintiff’s 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 didn’t ever 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 laid them upon the Court, 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 Defendant’s 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

15

despite previous court sanctions for these very same actions (see authorities 5 ). The Plaintiff’s have demonstrated, in the case at bar, and created by exhibits provided, a welldocumented and clear history of violating every aspect of Due Diligence AND the “Clean Hands Doctrine”. Plaintiff’s own exhibits prove not only Plaintiff’s 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. Plaintiff’s Counsel also clearly demonstrates his own lack of performance of Due Diligence in Representing Plaintiff before a thorough investigation of same. 39.Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Na. brings fraud into the Court with it’s 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 Ass’n 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. 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

16

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 Broker (H&R Block) to Lender (Option One Mort.) until several month’s 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 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 court’s decision fails to acknowledge the missing links of negotiation, ie., lack of indorsements R.C § 1303.22 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 & Mortgage’s entire chronology, from birth to death. Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s Counsel’s 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

17

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 court’s 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). 41. Therefore, as raised by Defendant in initial proceedings, 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. Plaintiff Shows Lack of Standing 42. Plaintiff’s allege, through documents provided by Discovery, that the alleged Mortgage and Note, after it’s creation on June 9th, 2005, had been sold by Option One to Barclay’s Bank and there was disassembled, without permission of the Defendant, separating all risk associated with the mortgage & note from all interest proceeds gained through ownership of same, without Defendant’s 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

18

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) ………..
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. 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).

purporting to transfer the alleged Mortgage & note from one entity to another, but also, the chronology and/or timeline of Plaintiff’s documentation of the alleged Mortgage & Note does not evidence a viable sequence of events that would support Plaintiff’s 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 misrepresentation, and outright fraud, to confuse the Courts. But once fully scrutinized, Plaintiff’s documentation clearly demonstrates their lack of Standing to initiate this suit from it’s 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

19

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 Plaintiff’s alleged transferences of the alleged Mortgage and Note in their entirety (see below Tracking the Mortgage Chronology), has only unsigned places for signatures…no dates…no authentication…and 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). Consequently, no legal transference took place of the alleged Mortgage and/or note between Plaintiff’s named entities and/or coconspirators. 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 Defendant’s 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 two) 44. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association As Trustee For

Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OP1 is, as it’s 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 party—not 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 III’s 20

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 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 Comm’n, 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. 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

21

jurisdiction. Lack of 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 Plaintiff’s own Closing Agent’s explicit instructions that all closing documents must be signed with a black ink ball point pen. See Exhibit “K4c”. 48. Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s Counsel’s 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 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 court’s jurisdiction to hear a case. Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d

22

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, the Plaintiff has failed to show that it suffered an injury in fact; therefore, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this action. 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, Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction. 50. The Lower Court’s decision fails to incorporate prior rulings of this Court on identical issues. In fact, several of Ohio’s District Court Judges have all ruled on numerous cases in favor of the Defendant’s 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. Mortgage, Note and loan creation documents 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. Reed’s Father, John L. Reed, had no interest or involvement in the creation of the alleged subject mortgage & note. (B). Option One Underwriter’s Worksheet, the Universal Residential Loan Application and the Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs 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

23

(2) was sub-contractor, which Defendant has never been (3) lists a completely blank employment history (4) lists Defendant’s 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 (7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Plaintiff had knowledge of Defendant’s 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, to whit, Defendants Partial Counterclaims TILA Violations; 53. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and
foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendant’s answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint and his counterclaims in it’s and their entirety and from it’s inception to each and every violation listed.

54. Under the facts otherwise identified elsewhere within this action and at hand Defendant did correctly, reasonable and legally rely on the mortgage broker and the Plaintiff to act fairly with him. Defendant has been harmed by each and every below counterclaim listed and Plaintiff has patently violated not only the Truth in Lending Act, at all relevant times, but also the spirit of the Truth and Lending Act . The Plaintiff’s

24

broker, closing agent and the Lender/Bank each, in their own parts, has misled, obfuscated, shirked from their proper Due Diligence and attempted to confuse Defendant in their practice and pattern and pursuit of their own unjust enrichment, to whit; i. The Plaintiff did not provide appropriate disclosure as required
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 102186, 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,

by the Truth in Lending Act in a substantive and technical manner,

Given the ease of Plaintiff’s availability to verify Defendant’s actual income, or lack thereof, and Defendant’s lack of ability to alter any documentation it is obvious by fact that the Plaintiff did alter and falsify Application documentation to reflect elevated income levels for Defendant thereby falsely representing the material fact that Defendant was employed when in fact Defendant, had no full time employment at time of Loan creation, nor had any previous full time employment for a period extending approximately 4 years prior to mortgage loan creation, and exhibit 9, Employment Verification” clearly shows employment verification was not even accomplished (if ever!), (which again speaks to due diligence), until June 13, 2005, some four days AFTER alleged mortgage loan closing and payout date. Such action once again clearly demonstrates to the Court, Plaintiff’s conduct and character. Plaintiff also claim’s to have previously sold this same said Mortgage and Note on June 10th 2005, three days previous to loan verification, to Barclays Bank representing to same, and at that time, as fact, that the Mortgage and Note had already received review and that the required Due Diligence had already, previously been performed on it, when it is an undisputable fact, that it had not.
“Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 8

ii.

The Plaintiff did fraudulently represent to Defendant a,

“witnessed and with witnesses willing to testify to the fact of it”, promise of future refinancing of the same alleged loan to Defendant after prepayment penalty date 25

had elapsed and future additions and alterations to property were finalized (thereby increasing equitable value of property), which Defendant did complete, as incentive in making the loan and thereby assuring Defendant of a future income with which to make future payments attainable,
“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

iii.

The Plaintiff did supply Defendant with blank application
“It is not necessary for recession of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

documentation for signature and return, later filing in the amounts,

iv.

The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently, and with previous knowledge, did alter and/or change the documentation to reflect that Defendant had an ability to repay this alleged Note & Mortgage without future refinancing of same when in fact and to their knowledge he had none,
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.

v.

The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently alter the Loan Documents to represent the real party of interest to be Defendant’s Father in an attempt to obfuscate true ownership to force real holder of property to face additional burden of Defending his legitimate position at the time of intentional and pre-ordained foreclosure by Plaintiff,
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mutual. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

vi.

The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently misrepresent accurate amounts financed, percentage rates and finance

26

charges on the Truth In Lending Documents (2 separate ones). (See Exhibit “M” & “N”)
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.

vii.

Plaintiff’s closing Agent did rush Defendant through the

“closing process” with a claim of being late to “catch her plane”, thus depriving Defendant of any available time to review closing documents.
Once a creditor violates the Truth In Lending Act, no matter how technical violation appears, unless one of statutory defenses applies, Court has no discretion in imposing liability. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186 as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601-1667e. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co. 58 BR, 983.

Home Owners Equity Protection Act HOEPA Violations 55. In General -The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA or the Act) amended TILA by adding Section 129 of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1639, and has been implemented by Sections 226.31 and 226.32 of Regulation Z. 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.31 and 226.32. HOEPA was implemented to specifically curb the predatory lending practices of certain sub-prime lenders. Generally, the Act provides added protections to borrowers who obtain more high-cost loans in the sub-prime market. 56. In the course of offering and extending credit to Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank through their assigns, specifically Option One Mortgage Co., and H&R Block mortgage Corp. (now defunct) has caused injury to Defendant and

27

have violated HOEPA regulations by engaging in asset-based lending and including loan terms prohibited by HOEPA. Specifically: A. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by engaging in a pattern or practice of extending such credit to a borrower based solely on the borrower's collateral rather than considering the borrower's current and expected income, current obligations, and employment status to determine whether the borrower is able to make the scheduled payments to repay the obligation, in violation of Section 129(h) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(h), and Section 226.32(e)(1) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.32(e)(1), 226.34;
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. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "prepayment penalty" provision, in violation of Section 129(c) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(c), and Section 226.32(d)(6) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.32(d)(6); C. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did violate the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by misleading Defendant in the real costs of alleged Mortgage and Note as is evidenced by lower court’s own representation of erroneous and fraudulent amounts referenced in Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank (page 2) and purporting the entire loan amount totaling $93,445.92 which is $6,554.08 less than alleged mortgage amount. If the court’s can’t figure it out, how then can they expect the Defendant to?

28

D. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "increased interest rate after default" provision, in violation of Section 129(d) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § § 1639(c), and Section 226.32(d)(6) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.32(d)(6); and E. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by failing to provide Defendant required disclosure documented under Section 1639 (a) Disclosures(1)(A) & (B), (2) Annual percentage rate(B), (b) Time of disclosures(1), (2)(A), (3) Modifications, (c) No Prepayment penalty(1)(A)(B), (2)(A)(i)(ii), (B), (D), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k?), Section 1639(d), and
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 by making substandard disclosures. TILA, 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,

F. Plaintiff did violate and cause to initiate HOEPA protection rights and Defendants rights by requiring Defendant to pay an annual percentage rate at
consummation which did exceed an

interest rate “more than 8 percentage

points for fist lien loans”…based on the yield on Treasury securities having comparable periods of maturity”…….as is required by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R Section 226.32 (a)(1)(i)(ii), (see exhibit”R”) G. Plaintiff failed in their requirements under rules (c)(1)to provide Defendant proper documentation as required,(c)(2) ,(3),(4) in providing Defendant any and all proper notices as is required. (d)(1),(2),(4),(5),(6),(7)(i)(ii) (iii)(iv) . H. Plaintiff did violate Defendants rights by charging discount points in violation of State maximum limitation requirement of 2% by charging Defendant 3%. Violations of the Ohio RICO Act

29

Ohio RICO, R.C. § 2923.32 57. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendant’s answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint in it’s entirety and from it’s inception. 58. Defendant John A. Reed alleges that: A. Wells Fargo Bank NA., acting as trustee for holders of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, has filed thousands of foreclosure actions under false pretenses, without standing and without complying with Ohio law. B. Defendant alleges an improper taking of their real property through the Plaintiff’ use of intentional nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, and the creation of fraudulent loan documents in violation of the RICO Statute, and continuing injury and damages including the auction of their home and future overpayment of fraudulent charges. C. These activities are a pattern of corrupt and illegal activity and in violation of Ohio RICO law. 59. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., has received millions, maybe Billions of dollars in distributions from the sale of foreclosed properties without possessing properly perfected and recorded assignments/transference’s of the mortgages. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 's "pattern and practice of seeking and obtaining foreclosure judgments in state and federal courts without a duly perfected and recorded assignment, without a true and accurate evidence of a chain of assignment/transference of these alleged notes and mortgages, and without the right to engage in the trust business in Ohio" constitutes a "false, deceptive and/or misleading representation or means" in connection with the collection of a debt; a 30

violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as is referenced within the above two quotes, 15 USC Sec 1692e. 51. In addition, this suit alleges Wells Fargo Bank NA has failed to comply with Ohio requirements for a trust company or national bank to do business in Ohio. That the two named Ohio foreclosure law firms have also violated the FDCPA and RICO by acting on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank NA in the foreclosure process. 60. Defendant John A. Reed is seeking unspecified actual and statutory damages, including treble damages under Ohio RICO law, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant John A. Reed also seeks the appointment of a receiver to recover from Wells Fargo Bank NA all charges it has collected from Defendant John A. Reed and any interests in real property it acquired illegally, and to collect fees that Wells Fargo Bank NA.’s law firms obtained from illegal foreclosures. 61. The suit also names two Ohio foreclosure law firms as defendants: Plunkett Cooney 300 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43235 & Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201. 62. The action stems from foreclosure of Defendant John A. Reed’s property located at 7940 Guilford Dr., Dayton, Ohio 45414 whose alleged mortgage had been allegedly sold, securitized, divided and then pooled without Defendants permission. 63. Ohio RICO states that “No person, through a corrupt pattern of corrupt activity … shall acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in, or control of, any … real property.” R.C § 2923.32(A)(2). 64. “Corrupt Activity” includes engaging in a violation of section 2921.03 of the Revised Code which states “No person, knowingly and … by filing, recording, or

31

otherwise using a materially false or fraudulent writing … in a wanton or reckless manner, shall attempt to influence …. a public servant …in the discharge of the person’s duty.” 65. Defendant states the Plaintiff has violated Section 2921.03 by knowingly filing complaints which do allege Wells Fargo Bank’s ownership of promissory notes and mortgages when in fact it does not own the alleged notes or mortgages, and by knowingly filing multiple complaints (see authorities “1”, “2”, “4”, “5”) as trustee in reckless disregard of the fact that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank was not authorized to engage in such activities both as trustee in Ohio and for lack of standing. These filings were made in a wanton and reckless manner in an attempt to influence state and federal judges and judicial officers in Ohio to enter judgments against Defendant(s) on the alleged mortgage and Note, including for principal, interest, late fee’s, penalties, costs and attorney fees, and to foreclose on Defendant’s property in a wanton attempt at unjust enrichment. 66. The Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a pattern of corrupt activity, because they have maintained more than two lawsuits under the fraudulent and misleading circumstances described in the foregoing paragraphs. On information and belief, the defendants have filed hundreds of foreclosure complaints in violation of R.C. §2923.32 see see authorities “1”, “2”, “4”, “5”. 69. Through the filing of foreclosure actions under false pretense and in violation of U.S. Law, U.C.C., SEC and Ohio Law, and/or any other applicable and\or Local Laws, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, with the active assistance and participation of the plaintiff law firms herein named, has acquired an interest in real property, including obtaining a foreclosure action against Defendant’s property.

32

70. As a result of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel’s conduct, the Defendant has been injured in many various ways, including loss of time to conduct Defendant’s Profession of choice due to Defendant’s lack of ability to obtain knowledgeable and available Legal Counsel and Defendant’s forced placement into Defending himself pro se, through penalties and court costs and attorney fees charged against their account(s) on lawsuit(s) filed under false and misleading circumstances, and from other incidental and consequential costs and expenses attendant to the defending of his property. 71. Section 2923.34 of the Revised Code entitles Defendant John A. Reed who has established the elements of Ohio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo Bank NA of its interest in Defendant’s real property and to actual damages Defendant has sustained, which may be tripled if proved by clear and convincing evidence, and to costs and reasonable attorney fees. 72. The Defendant further states, and does move the Court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(B)(1) of the Ohio RICO Statute, to order Wells Fargo Bank NA divestiture in any interest in Defendant’s real property and also moves the court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(D) of the Statute, for an order of injunctive relief and a temporary injunction. 73. It is without dispute or issue that a claim under the Ohio RICO statute was not presented by Defendant John A. Reed or litigated in the civil-court foreclosure action, because of Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of both true owner AND of true maker of mortgage and note, Defendant could have not brought such claim in civil court. Defendants have properly brought the claim as part of their Appellate action herein pursuant to the doctrine of Pendent or Supplemental jurisdiction, 28 USC sec. 1367(a). The Ohio RICO statute is a state law, which authorizes the specific relief requested by the

33

Defendant. As such, Defendant’s claims which attack the foreclosure are not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith v Encore Credit 4:08-cv-1462 USDC, N. Oh. W. Dist Judge McHargh 74. Wherefore, because the Plaintiff’s exhibits attached to their pleading are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations as to ownership of the subject note and mortgage, those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiff’s complaint is rendered objectionable. Plaintiff has failed to establish itself as the real party in interest and court did lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear same. Defendant John A. Reed does request this Court to (1) dismiss this case with prejudice in it’s entirety, (2) sustain Defendant’s 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 all amounts render able 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 it’s 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 Fee’s (in their entirety) that Plaintiff’s Atty’s should/would have collected in the case to Defendant. 75. Defendant reserves the rights to bring charges under each and every other violation and actionable issue found, act’s such as those already discovered within RESPA, The Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, FTC,

34

FDCPA, FDRA, U.C.C., O.R.C 1345, Article III, and all others as they become apparent and, more importantly at this time, space will allow. 76. Finally, I sincerely thank Your Honor for his/her time and patience in reviewing this lengthy document and I ask you humbly and respectfully, not only for justice for myself, but for the necessary sanctions and/or injunctions and/or other actions that would serve to prevent further predatory practices, such as those used against me, to be utilized against other unsuspecting home owners. Your Honor, I’m nobody special, but I have lived though this before. Another financial Institution came after me 24 years ago, I searched for knowledgeable legal help then. I couldn’t find any then either. They not only stripped me of all my processions (9 houses I’d personally rehabbed including my own of 19 years), they then continued to ruin my Credit for another 11 years after I filed bankruptcy. I know what’s coming. I came out here destitute, moved here onto a vacant lot that had been for sale for over 15 years, nobody wanted it. I moved into a 60 year old rat, raccoon and spider infested shed and if it weren’t for an old childhood friend, I’d have starved and been dead long ago. It got cold and they were building McMansions close by and I started dumpster-diving for insulation and found lots. In the next 5 years I’d built most of this house, 99% of it out of the dumpsters. I worked every job I could find, still, my electric (and the well) has been turned off too many times. And still, I raised this property to it’s highest and best use. Respectfully, _______________ John A. Reed pro se 7940 Guilford Dr. Dayton, Ohio 45414 937-890-2576 Yotraj@Yahoo.com

35

i

Exhibits

Exhibit “A” Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo plaintiff’s exhibit 11 3/7/2008 Exhibit “B” Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 1st Assignment from H&R Block to Option One plaintiff’s exhibit “10” 6/9/2005 Exhibit “C” Allonge from Option One to Blank plaintiff’s exhibit “8” 6/9/2005 6/9/2005

Exhibit “D” Allonge from H&R Block to Option One plaintiff’s exhibit “7” Exhibit “F” 2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Opt One plaintiff’s exhibit “10”

10/27/2005

Exhibit “E” EXECUTION COPY Purchase Price and Terms Agreement plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 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 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

Exhibit “K” Kristy 9 Employment Verification

Kristy 3

Exhibit “B” Assignment from H&R Block to Option One 6/9/2005

Kristy 1 Exhibit “C” Allonge from Option One to Blank

Kristy 2

Exhibit “D” Allonge from H&R Block to Option One

Kristy3

Exhibit “E” Corporation Assignment of Open-End Mortgage

Exhibit “F” 2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Option One

Exhibit “E” Purchase Price & Terms Agreement

Exhibit “E2” Purchase Price & Terms Agreement signature page

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

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

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 & Servicing Agreement 2.03

“Exhibit K4”. Instructions to Closing Agent

“Exhibit K4b”. Instructions to Closing Agent

“Exhibit K4c”. Instructions to Closing Agent

“Exhibit K5”. HMDA Audit Sheet

Kristi Canizio 6

Exhibit “K6” Data Integrity Sheet

Kristy Canizio 7 Exhibit “K7” Data Integrity Audit

Kristy Canizio 8 Exhibit “K8” Wiring Instructions

Kristy Canizio 9 Exhibit “K9” Employment Verification

Child Support 1 Exhibit “L1”

Child Support 1 Exhibit “L2”

Child Support 1 Exhibit “L3”

Exhibit “M” TILA Statement #1

Exhibit “N” TILA Statement #2

Exhibit “O” Credit Report

Exhibit “P” Universal Residential Loan Application 1

Exhibit “Q” Universal Residential Loan Application 2

Exhibit “R“ Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Release

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 page 1

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

Exhibit “W” Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2

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

Authorities One
On Standing & Due Process

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 Comm’n, 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. 2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004Ohio-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. CA2006-07-078, 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, 2008-Ohio-4603 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

Authorities2
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

Seperating and distinguishing between standing and Diversity;
US District Court of SW Ohio, W. Div. 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

Based on Article III requirements and standing, 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 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. 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, 07-cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07cv-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
Against Wells Fargo Bank NA. In Bold
Dismissals Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nashe ; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02994; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN • Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mays; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02334; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN • Ameriquest Funding II REO Subsidiary LLC v. Bat; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02726; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awad ; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv01703; Disposed 12/4/2007; 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. • Washington Mutual Bank v. Clark ; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03177; Disposed 12/4/2007; 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 • LaSalle Bank National Association v. Lyons; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02733; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge James S. GWIN • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. North; Filed 10/30/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03376; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. • MidFirst Bank v. Deem; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03260; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. • 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. • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Black; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03074; 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 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. McFarla; Filed 7/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02042; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS • 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. 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 • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hilty; Filed 3/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00279; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

• • •

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 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-4603
2:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Glass ; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00963; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Merrit ; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00536; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hall; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00731; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; 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 Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB v. Castleberry ; Filed 7/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00642; 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 NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Nelson; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00423; 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 [NOTE: The PACER Case Name Index truncates the parties names after 50 characters. If the Defendant's name looks peculiar or truncated, please see the case shown by Case Number and Filing Date.]

Authorities 3
Party In Interest Case Law
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 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
Previous Ohio Cases Ruled against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. for Lack of Standing
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. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. 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. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No.

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. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; 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

Authorities 5
Previous Sanctions Against Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
US Bankruptcy Court, Dist. Of Mass., Case No. 02-46025-JBR Adversary Proceeding. No. 044517 and No. 07-4109 Lack of Standing no mention of diversity, “ “The seek to bind the Debtor to one standard and themselves to a much lower one. Moreover the attorneys and law firms’ argument 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 creditor’s attorneys holding themselves to a different and clearly lower standard than

what they expect of the Debtor. It will not tolerate a lender’s or sevicer’s disregard for the rules that govern litigation, including contested matters, in the federal courts. It is the creditor’s responsibility to keep a borrower and the Court informed as to who owns the nte and mortgage and is servicing the loan, not the borrower’s or the Court’s responsibility to ferret out the truth.” Wells Fargo Bank sanction amt. $250,000.00 Dated April 25, 2008 JUDGE: JOEL B. ROSENTHAL 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
Negotiable instruments Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n 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) R.C. § 1303.21(B). R.C. § 1303.22 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.

R.C. § 5301.01 R.C. § 5301.25 R.C. § 5309.79 U.C.C § 3-201 & Article III U.C.C. - § 3-203 (b)

S.E.C. true sale obligations
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)

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

Authorties 7
Handwriting Analysis Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. ý No. 01-4953 PATRICK LEROY CRISP

Federal 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 Ass’n 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 R.C § 1303.3(A)” R.C. § 1303.21(B). R.C. § 1303.22 Civ. Rule 17(A) CivR 1002

U.S. Statute of Frauds US Law of Contracts Civ. Rule 17A

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful