2009-04-24 Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower Court and to Rule on the Following Filed Attorney...

7/28/2019 2009-04-24 Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower Court and to Rule on the Following Filed Attorney Pro Se (00000

1/102

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIOSECOND APPELLATE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, Case No. CA0231236Plaintiff

Vs. Judge:

JOHN L. REED________________________,Defendant

Motion To Appeal Ruling ofThe Lower Court and to Ruleon the Following:

Part I. INTRODUCTION

Now comes Defendant John A. Reedpro 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.

Plaintiffs exhibit 11assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo. which was received

from a questionable Holder in Due Course, who allegedly received it from a questionable


2/102

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 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.

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. 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. Reeds 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. Plaintiffs Counsel, within his privileged position, has averred in Pleadings

(libelper 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 Plaintiffs

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


3/102

Reed had broken into the Lending Agents 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 Fathers name on the alleged

mortgaged property note for his own name, as would be necessary to substantiate

Plaintiffs next libelousper se claim, as statement of fact, (see: Wells Fargo Banks

Motion For Summary Judgment and previous Plaintiffs pleadings) of Defendant John A.

Reeds alleged forgery (libelper 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 libelper 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

Fathers signature and altered Federal documents. And, as Defendants viability in his

chosen and previously distinguished profession, of 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

3


4/102

profession, in perpetuity. Plaintiffs Counsel committed this offense mens re, attempting

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, 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 his studied Professions 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 orinjured by the

outcome of the case. Please see attached authorities One

4


5/102

9. Based primarily upon testimony of the Plaintiffs 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

Defendants signature, and Plaintiffs witness of President of Option, who testified as to

not being present at Mortgage creation, whos same testimony is entirely hearsay,

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.

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 AorPlaintiffs 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


6/102

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 havent, youre

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 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 assignment. These allegations conflict with the alleged mortgage and note

attached to the complaint thatidentifies Option One Mortgage Corporation, as the lender

6


7/102

with the original security interest. These allegations therefore constitute serious

misrepresentations and could 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.

TRACKING THE MORTGAGE CHRONOLOGYPlease 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 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 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


8/102

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 Secretaryfor H&RBlock(HRBMC)

6/9/05 Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage as duly authorizedattestor exhibit B

6/9/05 as Funding/Closing Department Contact exhibit K46/13/05 (my personal favorite) Employment Verification Funder/AM

Signature (4 days AFTER loan closing!) exhibit K96/14/05 as Reviewer/Closer on HDMA Audit Sheet exhibit K56/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit sheet 1 exhibit K66/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit Sheet 2 exhibit K76/14/05 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 daysAFTERthe

alleged Mortgage Loan closing, the alleged verification of the income of the Defendant.

The same Defendant who had no income, but who does have witnesss who are willing to

testify that they were present and heard (on speakerphone) Defendant tell Plaintiffs

Agent, of that fact of no income, during Defendants alleged Mortgage application

see attached exhibit K9! The very same employment verification purportedly taking

place 3 daysAFTERthe below titled Execution Copy has already purportedly sold the

8


9/102

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 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.

That will not occur for another140 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 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 #2Plaintiffs exhibit 26(exhibit G) titled EXECUTIONCOPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE

AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENTDated August 15th, 2005 (2 Months and 5 days after the above referenced Plaintiffs

exhibit 25and 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&RBlock(alleged Mortgage

Originator) to Option One. Plaintiffs exhibit 10(exhibit F)

22. This document catalogs the purchase of the Trust from the Company &

Seller Option One Mortgage to the Purchaser, Barclays Bank, PLC.

9


10/102

23. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs ERROR # 3plaintiffs exhibit 27titled EXECUTION COPYASSIGNMENT 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 27lacks any proper signatures (see exhibits H2 thruH4) 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

AFTERthe 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 FIRSTASSIGNMENT DATE to OPTION ONE!

H&R Block Assigns Note & Mortgage to Option One

see assignment dated: October 27, 2005 & Recorded November 22nd, 2005

10


11/102

plaintiffs exhibit 10-Defendants exhibit F

Plaintiffs ERROR # 4 Plaintiffs exhibit 28 (attached exhibit I) titledEXECUTION 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 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1,

2006 (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) (Plaintiffs 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 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 by NO ONE!

11


12/102

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 ofJanuary 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 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 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

12


13/102

Trust Transfers Mortgage BACK to Option One

31. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 2:03 (d) attached exhibit

J,Plaintiffs 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 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

Plaintiffsexhibit 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 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


14/102

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 ofRe-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)Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 months AFTERthe 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!

14


15/102

36. In Conclusion, keeping in mind that in each and every step of this Mortgage

& Note transferences, 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 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 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 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

15


16/102

despite previous court sanctions for these very same actions (seeauthorities 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.

39.Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Na. brings fraud into the Court with its allegations

of ownership of alleged Mortgage & Noteas 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 thetransferee 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 inBuckeye 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. 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


17/102

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 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 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 1303.22 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 & 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 damaging to Defendant as found in Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

17


18/102

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).

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. 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 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

18


19/102

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) ..

58See, 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 Threeshould 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 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 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

19


20/102

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). Consequently, no legal transference took

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 attachedauthorities

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 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

20


21/102

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, quotingPestrak 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 haspersonally 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


22/102

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 ofPlaintiffs own Closing Agents explicit instructions that all closing

documents must be signed with a black ink ball point pen. SeeExhibit 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 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

22


23/102

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, Plaintiffs

action should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction.

50. The Lower Courts decision fails to incorporate prior rulings of this Court on

identical issues. In fact, several of Ohios District Court Judgeshave all ruled on

numerous cases in favor of the 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. 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. Reeds Father, John L. Reed, had no interest or

involvement in the creation of the alleged subject mortgage & note.

(B). Option One Underwriters Worksheet, the Universal Residential Loan

Application and the Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs are all

misrepresenting Defendants fraudulent income to be $3,300.00 per month

(see exhibit PandQ) 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


24/102

(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

(7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Plaintiff had knowledge of

Defendants three child support obligations until 2006. Information

provided by Plaintiff shows0- obligations despite documents provided

from Plaintiff in Discovery (seeExhibits 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 Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the

Complaint and his counterclaims in its and their entirety and from its 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 Plaintiffs

24


25/102

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

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

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,

Given the ease of Plaintiffs availability to verify Defendants actual income, or

lack thereof, and Defendants 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, andexhibit 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 AFTERalleged mortgage loan closing and payout date. Such

action once again clearly demonstrates to the Court, Plaintiffs conduct and

character. Plaintiff also claims 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


26/102

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

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

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 bargaininduced by such representations. Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

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 Section226.1 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

Defendants 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-ordainedforeclosure 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


27/102

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 inLending 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. Plaintiffs 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


28/102

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 therequirements 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 courts 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 courts cant figure it out, how then can they

expect the Defendant to?

28


29/102

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 ofdisclosure 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 loansbased on the yield on Treasury securities havingcomparable periods of maturity.as is required by Regulation Z, 12

C.F.R Section 226.32 (a)(1)(i)(ii), (see exhibitR)

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


30/102

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 Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to

the Complaint in its entirety and from its 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/transferences 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


31/102

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. Reeds 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


32/102

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 persons

duty.

65. Defendant states the Plaintiff has violated Section 2921.03 by knowingly

filing complaints which do allege Wells Fargo Banks 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 fees, penalties, costs and attorney fees,

and to foreclose on Defendants property in a wanton attempt at unjust enrichment.

66. The Plaintiffs 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

seesee 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 Defendants property.

32


33/102

70. As a result of Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsels conduct, the Defendant has

been injured in many various ways, including loss of time to conduct Defendants

Profession of choice due to Defendants lack of ability to obtain knowledgeable and

available Legal Counsel and Defendants forced placement into Defending himselfpro

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 ofOhio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo

Bank NA of its interest in Defendants 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 Defendants 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 Plaintiffs 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


34/102

Defendant. As such, Defendants 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 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 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 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

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 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 Defendant.

75. Defendant reserves the rights to bring charges under each and every other

violation and actionable issue found, acts such as those already discovered within

RESPA, The Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, FTC,

34


35/102

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, Im 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 couldnt find any then either. They

not only stripped me of all my processions (9 houses Id personally rehabbed including

my own of 19 years), they then continued to ruin my Credit for another 11 years after Ifiled bankruptcy. I know whats 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 werent for an old childhood

friend, Id 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 Id 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 its highest and best use.

Respectfully,

_______________

John A. Reedpro se7940 Guilford Dr.Dayton, Ohio [email protected]

35


36/102

i

Exhibits

Exhibit AAssignment from Option One to Wells Fargoplaintiffs exhibit 113/7/2008

Exhibit B Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 1st Assignment fromH&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 DAllonge from H&R Block to Option One plaintiffs exhibit 7 6/9/2005

Exhibit F2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Opt Oneplaintiffs exhibit 10 10/27/2005

Exhibit E EXECUTION COPY Purchase Price and Terms Agreementplaintiffs exhibit 25 6/10/2005

E2 EC/PP&TA signature page

Exhibit G EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATEDMORTGAGE 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 HExecution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Exhibit H2Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 1

Exhibit H3Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature Page 3

Exhibit H4Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 4

Exhibit I Barclays Bank Bill of Sale

Exhibit JPooling and Servicing Agreement Sec. 2.03


37/102

Exhibit K Kristy Canizio theLady of many hatssignature 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

ExhibitM TILA Statement 1

ExhibitN 2nd TILA Statement

ExhibitO Credit report

ExhibitP Universal Residential Loan Application 1

ExhibitQ Universal Residential Loan Application 2

Exhibit R Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Re3lease 7/5/05

ExhibitS Loan Disbursement Worksheet 1

ExhibitT Loan Disbursement Worksheet 2


38/102

ExhibitU Itemization of Amount Financed

Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1

ExhibitW Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1

Exhibit A Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo


39/102

Exhibit K Kristy 9 Employment Verification


40/102

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


41/102

Kristy 1 Exhibit C Allonge from Option One to Blank


42/102

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


43/102

Kristy3 Exhibit E Corporation Assignment of Open-End Mortgage


44/102

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


45/102

Exhibit E Purchase Price & Terms Agreement


46/102

Exhibit E2 Purchase Price & Terms Agreement signature page


47/102

Exhibit G EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED

MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT

(ECFAARMLPAWA)


48/102

Exhibit G2 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement


49/102

Exhibit G3 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership


50/102

Exhibit G4 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence


51/102

Exhibit G5 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 1


52/102



53/102



54/102

Exhibit H Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance


55/102

Exhibit H2 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Signature page 1


56/102


Signature Page 3


57/102


Signature page 4


58/102

Exhibit IBarclays Bank Bill of Sale


59/102

Exhibit J

Pooling & Servicing Agreement 2.03


60/102

Exhibit K4. Instructions to Closing Agent


61/102

Exhibit K4b. Instructions to Closing Agent


62/102

Exhibit K4c. Instructions to Closing Agent


63/102

Exhibit K5. HMDA Audit Sheet


64/102

Kristi Canizio 6 Exhibit K6 Data Integrity Sheet


65/102

Kristy Canizio 7 Exhibit K7 Data Integrity Audit


66/102

Kristy Canizio 8 Exhibit K8 Wiring Instructions


67/102


68/102

Kristy Canizio 9 Exhibit K9 Employment Verification

Child Support 1 Exhibit L1


69/102



70/102



71/102

Exhibit M TILA Statement #1


72/102

Exhibit N TILA Statement #2


73/102

Exhibit O Credit Report


74/102


75/102


76/102


77/102


78/102

Exhibit P Universal Residential Loan Application 1


79/102


80/102


81/102


82/102

Exhibit Q Universal Residential Loan Application 2


83/102


84/102


85/102


86/102

Exhibit RFederal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Release

7/28/2019 2009-04-24 Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower Court and to Rule on the Following Filed Attorne

2009-04-24 Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower Court and to Rule on the Following Filed Attorney...

Documents

Transcript of 2009-04-24 Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower Court and to Rule on the Following Filed Attorney...