7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

1/111

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, Case No. CA 0231236

Plaintiff

Vs. Judge:

JOHN L. REED_______________,

Defendant

Amended Motion To Appeal Ruling of The

Lower Court and to Rule on the Following:

Part I. INTRODUCTION

1. Now comes Defendant John A. Reed pro se to enter this Motion

to Appeal the Ruling of the Lower Court and to ask the Court to Rule on

the Following. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank and/ or their assigns

(hereinafter Bank and/or Plaintiff), while lacking Legal Standing to

initiate suit, and that same lack of standing having been previously

identified to the court (() Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's

Motion For Summary judgment" August 15th, 2008 line 1 & sect. 1, 2,

& 3 ), did cause to be filed against an alleged Defendant John L. Reed a

foreclosure suit on February 27th, 2008 ultra vires. Defendant John A.

Reed, son ofan alleged Defendant John L. Reed, was enjoined within

this foreclosure action only for reason of his total and complete

ownership of his residence, the subject property referenced within the

alleged Mortgage and note. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA., claims to

have become the alleged possessor or Holder of the alleged Note

and Mortgage through an assignment see (exhibit A) ( 9/26,2008

1

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

2/111

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

which is dated after their initiation of this foreclosure action. Plaintiffs

exhibit 11, the assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo, which was

received from a questionable Holder in Due Course, who allegedly

received it from a questionable holder in due course who allegedly

received it from questionable holder in due course and on and on.

Explained more fully below, see below Tracking The Mortgage

Chronology.

2. Upon Plaintiffs Counsels discovery of their own inconsistent

and invalid documentation and improperly perfected alleged Mortgage

and Note used to foreclose against the wrong Defendant, Plaintiffs

counsel did then act mens rea to set out to prove that the real owner

of the property, Defendant John A. Reed, was the actual creator of the

aforesaid alleged Note and Mortgage, and not the alleged John L. Reed

evidenced upon the Note & Mortgage. it is a well known canon of

contract construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be

construed against the party who drafted said contract. Pursue Energy

Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990).

3. Defendant John A. Reed neither affirmed nor denied his position

as creator of the alleged Note and/or Mortgage, instead relying upon his

rights of Burden of Proof of Plaintiff to prove Defendants ownership of

the Note & Mortgage.

4. Defendant John A. Reed affirmed that the Principal named on

the alleged Note and Mortgage as the Creator of the alleged Mortgage

2

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

3/111

and Note, alleged Defendant John A. Reeds Father, Defendant John L.

Reed, was in fact not the property owner at the time of the alleged

Mortgage and Note creation nor the creator of the alleged Mortgage and

Note.

5. Plaintiffs Counsel, within his privileged position, has stated in

Pleadings (libel per se) (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary

Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JARs

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/

2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike

JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to

JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24), and

Defendant has denied, that Defendant John A. Reed altered any Federal

Documents. These same allegations carry imputations and aspersions of

criminal conduct and allegations injurious to defendant. As is evidenced

on all of Plaintiffs alleged loan creation documentation, all documents

were created at H&R Block Offices located in Tampa Florida (yet they

are notarized in Ohio?) to which Defendant had no access . No one has

found, that Defendant John A. Reed had broken into the Lending Agents

facility in Tampa Florida, and/or altered any documents. This claim, is

entirely unsubstantiated, libelous, and was created and committed with

malice, entirely in an attempt to lower the value of the Defendant in the

Courts eyes and have served only to defame the good name and

character of the Defendant.

3

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

4/111

6. Plaintiff, again acting within his privileged position and with

intentional malice, Plaintiffs Counsel has averred and Defendant has

denied the above claim, and no one has even proffered a reason why

Defendant John A. Reed would substitute his Fathers name on the

alleged mortgaged property note for his own name, as would be

necessary to substantiate Plaintiffs next libelous per se claim, as

statement of fact, (see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary

Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JAR

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/

2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike

JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to

JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24),) of

Defendant John A. Reeds alleged forgery (libel per se 2nd count).

These claims are also entirely unsubstantiated, libelous, created and

committed intentionally with malice and without cause and created

entirely in an attempt to again lower the value of the Defendant in the

Courts eyes.

7. During the course of these pleadings Plaintiffs Counsel did

cause defamation of the character and/or did libel per se, mens rea,

Defendant John A. Reed on numerous occasions, and in the most public

manner, in writing (per se), that has since been disseminated

irretrievably and globally, stating, as fact, that Defendant John A. Reed

had forged his Fathers signature and altered Federal documents.

And, as Defendants viability in his chosen and previously distinguished

4

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

5/111

profession, of Microsoft & Novell Networking Consultant (hourly rate

$100 per hr.), requires a Top Security Clearance to perform, Plaintiffs

Counsel has effectively stripped Defendant of any chance of

employment within his profession, in perpetuity. Plaintiffs Counsel

committed this offense mens re, attempting only to alter the Courts

opinion of the Defendant to one of a lesser value and in so doing

attempting to prejudice the Court against Defendant. In so doing,

Plaintiff did cause to be published onto the Internet the charges

indicated above and in the information technology age we now live in,

that same information was almost instantaneously disseminated globally

by data mining companies world wide, ie. Lexis-Nexus and many others.

As is witnessed by Montgomery Countys own Pro Legal websites

(changed weeks AFTER Defendants submitted brief referencing Data

Mining as being problematic) new opening page disclosure with data

mining reference, and their own new site admission requirement (type

in these 3 characters). Defendant's record is now global, and is now,

unalterable. Plaintiffs Counsels libel, and defamation of character of

Defendant, which carry imputations and aspersions of criminal conduct

and allegations, are not only injurious to Defendant in his chosen and

established profession, they were also his studied Professions death

sentence.

These same site admission requirements were incorporated AFTER

Defendants pleadings had been reviewed by the Courts, thereby

bringing the attention of the Courts to this matter in the first place, and

5

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

6/111

as such adds not only to Defendants credibility as to his abilities within

his chosen Profession as Network Administrator. Along with these

examples of a few of the distinctions earned above and beyond his

exemplary performance of his regular tasks, attendance and duties

while employed as Consultant to ODHS/BNS, such distinctions earned

include being the very 1st person to ever identify and stop this States

first computer virus infection (Ameritech Bldg., 1995 (Neuroquila

virus)), of his identifying the need for and then becoming the sole

Creator of this States File backup and Restoration Dept. (all 35,000 PCs

and 255 servers), of his identifying the need for and then being the sole

author of this States first Intranet site and subsequently creating the

Department resulting in the States Intranet Site Construction and

Maintenance Department and of also being the driving force which

instigated the formation of (and becoming a founding member of) this

States Disaster Resumption Team & Plan. This is to name but a few of

Defendants past accomplishments) but they do also solidify the validity

to Defendants position of Plaintiffs intentional and malicious Global

Defamation of Defendants Character per se. That same good character

was earned at a time BEFORE formal education was even available and

earned only through self educating involving hundreds, if not thousands

of hours of constant study, constant research, extensive monetary

investments, hundreds of hours of actual hard work and which

collectively show and prove through accomplishment, Defendants

exercise within his own chosen profession of PROPER DUE DILIGENCE.

6

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

7/111

Further, although it is the act of Defamation of Character per se by

libel, Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, No. 06-1458 (4th Cir.)., it is also

equivalently identity theft as it changes my identitys good character

to one of an individual with ulterior motives and actions and as such is

in violation of the PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY ACT OF

2007; which calls for penalties under section 4 which reads; The bill also

contains strong civil enforcement provisions. The bill authorizes the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to bring a civil enforcement action

for violations of the data security program requirements in the bill and

to recover a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per violation, per day

and a maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation. 14 In addition, the

bill authorizes State Attorneys General, or the U.S. Attorney General, to

bring a civil enforcement action against violators of the notice

requirements in the bill and to recover a civil penalty of not more than

$1,000 per individual, per day and a maximum penalty of $1,000,000

per violation, unless the violation is willful or intentional. Double

penalties may be recovered for intentional or willful violations of this

provision.

8.Subsequent with the lower Court's finding that Defendant John

A. Reed was the Creator of the Note & Mortgage; they did then, in

violation of the U.S. Statute of Frauds, the U.S. Law of Contracts and

Civ.R. 17(A), and with Judicial fiat, the Court then altered the alleged

Mortgage & Promissory Note, effectively destroying the original

Mortgage and Note and their representations of fact, to represent that

7

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

8/111

Defendant John A. Reed was the true owner and responsible party for

the alleged Mortgage and Note. Then, without any formal notice of suit

against Defendant John A. Reed, as Court proceeded to collectively and

summarily change Ownership of the Note & Mortgage, they also

immediately foreclose on same, effectively denying Defendant John A.

Reed of any proper recourse through Due Process. "Every action shall be

prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." CivR. (17(A) A real

party in interest is one who is directly benefited or injured by the

outcome of the case. Please see attached Authorities 1 & Authorities 3

9. Based primarily upon testimony of the Plaintiffs paid

handwriting witness, who fails the required Daubert test (no statistical

rate of success/failure) for admissibility (please see attached authorities

7 and filed transcript of Plaintiffs Hand Writing Expert witness Vickie

Willard under cross examinations testimony concerning her rate of

inaccuracies see transcript lines 1275-1278 ), and goes directly

against CivR 1002 by her use of only copies to identify Defendants

signature. Plaintiffs other only witness, Mr. Dale Sugimoto, President of

Option One Mortgage Co., testified himself that he was NOT employed

by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. NOR the TRUST (see transcript lines

808 811), NOR Barclay's Bank, NOR MortgageRamp corp. and as such

could only offer hearsay testimony supposedly laying some sort of a

foundation that Plaintiff's own documentation proves is false. Mr.

Sugimoto also testified that the Plaintiff's Settlement statement (trial

exhibit 12) took place in Tampa, Florida (transcript line 709) yet was

8

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

9/111

notarized by an Ohio Notary (transcript line 728) and also to not being

present at Mortgage creation (transcript lines 887 - 888), and as such,

same testimony is in it's entirety hearsay and should be stricken from

the record.

Plaintiffs counsel then did proceed to foreclose against Defendant

John A. Reed, seeking the property sold at Public Auction and

unspecified damages, which the Court did award.

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND ISSUES PRESENTED

10. Defendant John A. Reed states Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank did

act ultra vires to initiate this foreclosure suit and that the Court erred in

judging this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to whit; Wells

Fargo Bank NA. Brought the foreclosure action against Defendant John L.

Reed, naming Defendant John A. Reed only as true owner of the

property, on February 27th, 2008 , yet Assignment of Mortgage from

Option One Mortgage Corp. to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. As Trustee

For Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass

Through Certificates Series 2006-OP1 (see exhibit A or Plaintiffs

exhibit# 11), did not occur until March 7th, 2008 and as such Plaintiff

lacked Legal Standing to initiate suit (Transcript line 109 - 115). Every

action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

Civ.R. 17(A). A real party in interest is one who is directly benefited or

injured by the outcome of the case. Please see Authorities 1 & 2.

9

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

10/111

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

11. Defendant, the State of Ohio, and its Citizens interests are

best preserved by assuring that the parties to the action are the proper

parties. According to the Supreme Court of Ohio a judgment rendered

by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. Patton v.

Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941. As a result, if the

Court were to enter judgment without jurisdiction or without proper

parties, the State of Ohio would be prejudiced by having to participate in

judicial proceedings to set aside the sale and then re-litigate hundreds,

even thousands of foreclosures. it is a well-known canon of contract

construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against

the party who drafted said contract. PursueEnergy Corp. v. Perkins,

558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990). ambiguities in a contract are to be

construed against the party who drafted the contract. Pursue Energy

Corp. v. Perkins, (Miss. 1990).

IV. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

12. The Holder in Due Course Defense is well-established in

bankruptcy practice. To quote (and incorporate as if my own) Bert Ely, a

longtime analyst of the financial services industry and a scholar at the

conservative Cato Institute who was among the first to predict the S&L

scandal of the 1980s, this is well-established in bankruptcy practice,

that you have to properly perfect the security interest, and if you

havent, youre screwed.

10

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

11/111

Securitization ostensibly provides a source of capital so that more

home loans are available to borrowers. However, the series of corporate

and banking transactions that make up securitization cannot be

permitted to avoid liability by those who are actually providing the

funding _ and often controlling the transaction. See Kurt Eggert, Held

up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in

Due Course Doctrine, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503 (2002).

Both when the Plaintiff filed its Complaint and when the Court

granted judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, the documents before the

Court demonstrate that an entirely different party was the holder of the

note. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA was not the holder of the note, had

no interest in the note, suffered no injury from any nonpayment on the

note, and had no standing to pursue foreclosure. The Courts judgment

in favor of a party without standing is void as a matter of law because

the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

13. If such basic legalities arent adhered to, a homeowner could

pay his or her way out of a foreclosure jam only to wind up in another

when a new plaintiff emerges claiming to own the debt. Mortgage

lending and servicing is a matter of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

Thats what puts the discipline in the process. Bert Ely.

14. Plaintiff attaches documents to its complaint and documents

produced through discovery conflict with the allegations of material

facts in the complaint in which the plaintiff claims that it owns the

Note and Mortgage by virtue of a post-created and post-recorded

11

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

12/111

assignment. These allegations conflict with the alleged mortgage and

note attached to the complaint that identifies Option One Mortgage

Corporation, as the lender with the original security interest. These

allegations therefore constitute serious misrepresentations and should

be construed as a fraud brought upon the court.

15. Plaintiffs own exhibits, fully scrutinized, purportedly show

multiple transference occurrences BEFORE and/or after an alleged

transfer has allegedly already taken place of the Note & Mortgage, and

also show many instances of no actual legal transference of the

Mortgage and Note at all. Also, the transference dates purported could

not have existed within the Timeline represented. Upon a complete

Mortgage Document scrutinization, this is easily seen. Knowing failure to

disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from

being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it

has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.

Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990.

V. TRACKING THE MORTGAGE CHRONOLOGY

Please carefully notice all dates!

16. H&R Block originates the alleged Mortgage Dated; June 9th,

2005 Plaintiff ERROR #1 Here is where the

confusion/obfuscation begins.

17. Document titled CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF OPEN-END

MORTGAGE exhibit B dated June 9th, 2005 purports, along with the

1st Allonge, to transfer the alleged Mortgage & Note from H&R Block to

12

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

13/111

Option One Mortgage Corp., yet fails in its requirement to display just

WHERE it recorded same, reading and recorded as Document No.

_________ on, ________ day of __________ in book _________, page

__________, of Official Records and attested to by a one Kristi Canizio

(the Lady of many hats) and Roseann Infusio . Clearly in violation of

U.C.C., true sale obligations and other SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations,

and Contract & Securities Laws stated elsewhere within this pleading.

18. Later, in an Assignment (of note and mortgage? Or just

the note?) dated 10/27/05 and recorded? on 11/22/05 Plaintiff wants

us to believe it again transfers the very same Note & Mortgage??

from the very same entity (H&R Block) to the very same above

mentioned entity (Option One) AGAIN! When exhibits are inconsistent

with the plaintiff s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party

in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out.

19. On June 9th, 2005, the same day of the creation of the alleged

mortgage & Note we see the first appearance of one Ms. Kristy Canizio.

Ms Canizio does sign the following documents, acting in many different

positions, wearing many different hats, and acting on behalf of, and of

necessity to positions held, employed by both H&R Block & Option One

Mortgage Corporation. She signs first ;

6/9/05 Allonge (exhibit K1) to Note as Assistant Secretary for Option

One Mortgage Corp.(INVESTORS)

6/9/05 Allonge (exhibit K2) to Note as Assistant Secretary for H&R

Block (HRBMC)

13

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

14/111

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

authorized attestor exhibit B

6/9/05 as Funding/Closing Department Contact exhibit K4

6/13/05 (my personal favorite) Employment Verification Funder/AM

Signature (4 days AFTER loan closing!) exhibit K9

6/14/05 as Reviewer/Closer on HDMA Audit Sheet exhibit K5

6/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit sheet 1

exhibit K6

6/14/05 as Data Integrity Verifier on Data Integrity Audit Sheet 2 exhibit

K7

6/14/05 Document preparer for 049-8566 Wiring Instructions exhibit

K8

20. Probably most interesting is that Ms Canizio holds the position

of Assistant Secretary to two separate Corporate Entities and also lets

pass, until 4 days AFTER the alleged Mortgage Loan closing, the alleged

verification of the income of the Defendant. The same Defendant who

had no income. see attached exhibit K9! The very same employment

verification purportedly taking place 3 days AFTER the below titled

Execution Copy has already purportedly sold the alleged, but now

certified as properly vetted by Option One Mort. and Ms. Canizio, as

good and fraud free, Mortgage and Note to Barclays Bank

21. Plaintiff introduces as evidence Plaintiffs exhibit no 25,

Titled EXECUTION COPY RE: Purchase Price and Terms Agreement

Dated As of June 10, 2005 One day after the alleged Mortgage

14

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

15/111

creation! Purporting to explain how Barclays Bank has bought(?) the

alleged Mortgage Note and debt from Option One after Option One had

combined that same note and debt into the not yet created Trust. Yet

next, you will notice that the alleged Mortgage has yet to be assigned to

Option One in the 1st place. That will not occur for another 140 days

(over 4 months!), (its either that or Plaintiff has brought fraud into the

Courts with its Assignment of Mortgage to Option One from H&R

Block! ) It should also be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 25 (exhibit E)

lacks any signatures or authentication (indorsement ads per RC

1303.24) by either Buyer or Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC.,

O.R.C. Rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws presented

elsewhere within this pleading and as such represents NOT a legally

binding Contract as previously noted.

Plaintiff ERROR #2 Plaintiffs exhibit 26 (exhibit G) titled

EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN

PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT

Dated August 15th, 2005 (2 Months and 5 days after the above

referenced Plaintiffs exhibit 25 and which lacks any reference to the

TRUST Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage

Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OP1, and is dated months before

the Assignment from H&R Block (alleged Mortgage Originator) to Option

One. Plaintiffs exhibit 10(exhibit F)

15

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

16/111

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

Company & Seller Option One Mortgage to the Purchaser, Barclays

Bank, PLC.

23. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 26 lacks

proper signatures or authentication (indorsements) (see exhibits G2 thru

G7) by Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. Rules &

Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws presented elsewhere within

this pleading and as such fails to represent a legally binding Contract.

24. That said, the conclusion so far is that the alleged Note &

Mortgage could not have been included into the Trust nor into the

ownership of Barlays Bank PLC until at least the day of or after the day

of the Assignment from H&R Block to Option One Mortgage Corporation

dated November 22nd, 2005 and still over a month before the Trust

was even created.

25. Plaintiffs ERROR # 3 plaintiffs exhibit 27 titled EXECUTION

COPY

ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE (defendants exhibit H) dated August

19th, 2005.

26. This document does purportedly represent the Assignment

and Conveyance of the Trust from Option One to Barclays Bank PLC.

Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 27 lacks any proper

signatures (indorsements) (see exhibits H2 thru H4) or authentication by

either Buyer or Seller clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC, O.R.C., and

Contract & Securities Laws as stated elsewhere within this pleading and

16

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

17/111

as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously noted.

Also, Assignment from H&R Block to Option One does not happen until

October 27th, 2005, nearly 2 months AFTER the alleged assignment and

conveyance of the Trust that Plaintiff would have us believe already

contained the mortgage, yet they submit proof it could not have had.

NOTICE ALL OF THE ABOVE OCCURRED BEFORE THE FIRST

ASSIGNMENT DATE to OPTION ONE!

H&R Block Assigns Note & Mortgage to Option One see assignment

dated: October 27, 2005 & Recorded November 22nd, 2005 plaintiffs

exhibit 10-Defendants exhibit F

Plaintiffs ERROR # 4 Plaintiffs exhibit 28 ( attached exhibit I) titled

EXECUTION COPY BILL OF SALE dated January 26th, 2006.

27. Here we have a Bill of Sale that represents that BARCLAYS

BANK PLC (the Seller), in consideration of (i) the sum of

$1,214,208,.30

Let me write that out. One Million, two hundred and fourteen

thousand, two hundred and eight dollars (I guess) then a coma(!) and

then a decimal point (I guess) and 30 cents (I guess) dollars. This NOT a

typographical error on my part (see Plaintiffs exhibit 28). Naming

Option One as the Servicer, Mortgage Ramp, Inc. as loan performance

advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association , as trustee as of

January 26, 2006. to be paid to it in immediately available funds by

SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC (the Purchaser) and

(ii) the Class X, Class P and Class R Certificates issued pursuant to a

17

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

18/111

Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006 (the

Pooling and Servicing Agreement) (Plaintiffs exhibit 18) , (the

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and

online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing

agreement is incorporated herein), among the Purchaser, as Depositor,

Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and responsible party,

MortgageRamp, Inc., as loan performance advisor, and Wells Fargo

Bank, National Association, as trustee, does as of January 26, 2006,

hereby sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to the

Purchaser without recourse, all the Sellers right, title and interest in and

to the Mortgage Loans described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made

a part hereof, including al interest and principal received by the Seller

on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans.. if this were a check I

had to cash, it wouldnt be cashable and it is signed and/or endorsed

and/or authenticated (indorsed) by NO ONE!

28. In Summary; Barclays Bank PLC supposedly resells the

Mortgage Loans from the Trust to SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED

RECEIVABLES LLC as Purchaser & Depositor, to Option One Mortgage

Corporation, as servicer and responsible party, to MortgageRamp, Inc.,

as loan performance advisor, and to Wells Fargo Bank, National

Association, as trustee, as of January 26, 2006 for an undecipherable

amount and for Class X, P & R Certificates issued pursuant to a

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (they dont specify which one) and

18

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

19/111

then divides ownership between the four in some ethereal undisclosed

manner .. as again, it does not specify.

29. Please note this next, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

document is accompanied by an unspecified signature page (does it

belong to this document?) which is signed by one Paul Menefee

Director from SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC, and

one John Cuccoli (probably misspelled but close!), Managing Director of

BARCLAYS BANK PLC, and that there is no indorsement, authentication

given for either signatures power to enter into this contract and also no

Power of Attorney Stamp and Seal accompanying this document and no

signature date, clearly in violation of U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. rules &

Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws as previously stated

elsewhere within this pleading and as such represents NOT a legally

binding Contract.

30. Please note also the date of January 26th, 2006 as the day of

this transaction. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement. On

occurrence of a Credit Event

Trust Transfers Mortgage BACK to Option One

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

attached exhibit J, Plaintiffs exhibit 18; (the Pooling and Servicing

Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at

http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement

is incorporated herein) Within 30 days of the earlier of either discovery

by or notice to the Responsible Party that any Mortgage Loan does not

19

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

20/111

conform to the requirements.of any breach of a representation or

warranty.that materially and adversely affects the value of any

Mortgage Loan the Responsible Party shall.. remove such

Mortgage Loan (a Deleted Mortgage Loan) from the Trust and

substitute in its place a Substitute Mortgage Loan..

32. So, contractually, according to the alleged Pooling & Servicing

Agreement supplied by Plaintiff ( exhibit J) , 90 (it says 30, but Im

using 90 because of any delay in notification between the servicer and

the Trust (with todays computing power, there should be none)) days

after the alleged default which occurred September, 2007 as of

Plaintiffs exhibit 20 (Payment History) , otherwise stated as January

2008, Option One contractually regained sole possession of the Note

and Mortgage (with no assignment or any other authentication or

recordation provided) and supplied a substitute Note & Mortgage to

take its place as is evidenced by Plaintiffs own sworn evidentiary

production of the Assignment from Option One Mortgage Corporation to

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (Plaintiffs exhibit 11) dated March 3, 2008 and

recorded March 27th, 2008, such date being AFTER recordation of

Foreclosure action and as such voiding Plaintiffs argument of singular

Note holdership at time of foreclosure initiation and also voiding

Plaintiffs standing in this action!

33. It should also be noted that the signatory page(s) given at the

rear of the Pooling & Servicing Agreement, each contain only but ONE

signature, with empty signatory spaces for each other and that there is

20

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

21/111

no one Signatory page containing all signatures, no authentication, or

indorsements of any signatures, no dates of signatures and no

certification of any signatures by Power of Attorney clearly in violation of

U.C.C., SEC., O.R.C. Rules & Regulations and Contract & Securities Laws

previously stated elsewhere within this pleading, and as such represents

NOT even a legally binding Contract.

Please note date of Re-Possession of Mortgage Note to Option One as

January 2008.

As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 203(d).

February 27th , 2008 Foreclosure Action is filed

34. Option One then assigns Note & Mortgage to Wells Fargo to

act as Foreclosure Special Servicer. But we must remember, as per the

Trust's Pooling & Servicing Agreement and all supplied documentation

from Plaintiff, Wells Fargo is supposedly the Servicer for "The Trust" NOT

for Option One! See Assignment (exhibit A) Plaintiffs exhibit 11

dated; March 7th, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008. Signed by a Ms

Topaka Love who purports herself as assistant Secretary, and who

personally appeared for signature somewhere in Minnesota, and that

the document was prepared by Plaintiffs Counsel LERNER, SAMPSON &

ROTHFUSS located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Also, the alleged Mortgage & note

was allegedly assigned from Option One to Wells Fargo Bank for NO

CONSIDERATION. Contract Law states there is no value established

unless there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is passed, so

once again, no legal contract is established, as no value has been

21

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

22/111

established because no consideration has been passed. Again we see,

there is no valid Legal Contract.

35. Also of special Interest is the date the TRUST is Legitimized,

January 1st, 2006. This is many months AFTER the Mortgage Companies

have supposedly sold, dissected, securitized, and transferred the subject

mortgage in and out of the TRUST, and sold securities based on its

presence and quality, that hasnt yet even been created!

Hmmmmmm Organized Crime!

36.In Conclusion, while keeping in mind that in each and every

step of this alleged Mortgage & Note transference, each and every

entity bears the requirement by law of proper Due Diligence. And

realizing that all of the alleged loan origination papers, including the

Credit report, bear a Social Security number that does not correspond

with the stated name on the Mortgage Document, and that the

inconsistencies within almost all of the loan origination documents are

easily identified, with minimal effort, especially by schooled and learned

professionals, Plaintiffs own exhibits prove only so many irregularities

and illegalities that unless each and every one is proved, and proved

within a chronology that actually CAN exist, then the Plaintiff Wells

Fargo Bank can NOT ever be deemed the Holder in Due Course of the

subject Mortgage and Promissory Note and in fact, shows not only that

Plaintiffs have a near total disregard for US Federal, State & Local Law,

Rules and Regulations, as previously indicated, as they apply to

Securities Transfer and documentation, but also that they didnt ever

22

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

23/111

have the proper documentation to bring this case to court in the first

place so they threw a bunch of documents into a pile and hiring willing

Counsel to do their bidding, they laid them upon the Court, with Counsel

testifying under oath as to their validity, hoping the Courts would allow

them to steam roll right over the Defendant and use the Court as they

deem fit.

37. Concurrently, they also demonstrate the sales of securities

based on NO underlying Securitized assets actually held, and/or utter

incompetence, and/or criminal intention and execution.

38. To Defendants belief and knowledge, Plaintiff Wells Fargo

Bank NA. has foreclosed on tens of thousands of properties within the

borders of Ohio and the United States using these same tactics and

practices on a regular basis (see authorities 4 ) even despite previous

court sanctions for these very same actions (see authorities 5 ). The

Plaintiffs have demonstrated, in the case at bar, and created by exhibits

provided, a well-documented and clear history of violating every aspect

of Due Diligence AND the Clean Hands Doctrine. Plaintiffs own

exhibits prove not only Plaintiffs Lack of Standing in the subject case at

hand, but also their eager willingness to bring fraud, greed and

incompetence to the Courts in their attempts at unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Counsel also clearly demonstrates his own lack of performance

of Due Diligence in Representing Plaintiff before a thorough

investigation of same.

23

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

24/111

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

its allegations of ownership of alleged Mortgage & Note as per Legal

requirement which states U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) which reads;Transfer of

an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the

transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument,

including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot

acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or

indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud

or illegality affecting the instrument.

40. As stated in Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Assn v. Garlinger

(1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315 (stating promissory notes are

negotiable instruments under R.C 1303.3(A). According to Ohio

Revised Code, in order for a negotiable instrument to be properly

transferred, it must be negotiated. R.C. 1303.21(B). Negotiation

includes not only the physical transfer of the instrument but also the

indorsement, U.C.C 3-201, RC 1303.24, by the holder to transferee,

which of course, must be in writing. Id.; R.C. 1303.22. The Assignments

and other documentation submitted by the Plaintiff fails to establish the

necessary link between the original lender and the Plaintiff. In just one

instance of this case, Plaintiff submitted an Assignment of the alleged

Mortgage (assigned to Plaintiff post foreclosure initiation) which

allegedly transferred the alleged Note from Option One Mortgage Corp.

to Plaintiff, but documentation obtained through discovery proves no

legitimate transfer of the alleged Mortgage and Note from Originating

24

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

25/111

Broker (H&R Block) to Lender (Option One Mort.) until several months

after Lender (Option One) purports to have already sold the alleged note

and mortgage to Barclays Bank, gotten it back, deposited it within a

Trust, that had not yet been created, used it as collateral for the sale of

asset backed securities, and then, at time of default, the Lender

(Option One) takes back the alleged Mortgage & Note (contractually

through the Pooling & Servicing Agreement) and then, post foreclosure

initiation, the Lender purportedly assigns that alleged Note & Mortgage

to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A.. However, there is no evidence that in

each and every occurrence of transfer of the alleged note & mortgage

that there was ever ANY proper recordation, indorsement, OR proper

negotiation for the alleged Note & Mortgage as per R.C. 1303.22,

therefore, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. not only lacks Legal standing to

initiate suit for reason of post assignment of note, Plaintiff Wells Fargo

Bank N.A. also lacks standing to initiate this suit because Plaintiff Wells

Fargo Bank Na. is not the rightful holder in Due Course of the alleged

Note & Mortgage. Lower courts decision fails to acknowledge the

missing links of negotiation, ie., lack of indorsements R.C 1303.24 and

lack of Assignments of the Note at issue prior to Plaintiff initiating suit

and lack of proper assignment and/or transference of the alleged

Mortgage & Note through each and every purported step of this alleged

Note & Mortgages entire chronology, from birth to death. Plaintiffs and

Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as defined by the Securities

and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3), was detrimental and

25

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

26/111

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

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

subsequently, while it may be true that an unrecorded mortgage can be

an effective transfer; the assignment must be executed in writing, from

the true holder in Due Course of the alleged Mortgage & Note prior to

filing the Complaint and before the Plaintiff can establish that it has

standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. Standing is a necessary

prerequisite to establish a courts jurisdiction to hear a case. Cain v.

Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg State ex rel.

Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176). see

Authorities 6 Negotiable instruments

41. Therefore, as raised by Defendant in each and every pleading

and from the initial proceedings ( ANSWER OF DEFENDANT John A.

Reed, sect. 11, line 8., sect 13, sect 14, ), the appropriate time to

establish that the Plaintiff is the holder of the alleged Note and Mortgage

is at the time of filing the Complaint, not at the time of judgment

rendered on the Complaint. Merely alleging it is the holder of the alleged

Note and Mortgage is insufficient where there is no written proof of the

alleged interest in the Note and supplying post documentation

representing a falsity is fraud.

VI. PLAINTIFF SHOWS LACK OF STANDING

42. Plaintiffs allege, through documents provided by Discovery,

that the alleged Mortgage and Note, after its creation on June 9th,

2005, had been sold by Option One to Barclays Bank and there was

26

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

27/111

disassembled, without permission of the Defendant, separating all risk

associated with the mortgage & note from all interest proceeds gained

through ownership of same, without Defendants permission and in

violation of any contractual agreement as is represented upon the

alleged Note. The alleged Mortgage and Note was then repackaged, with

interest income proceeds being re-directed to the Securitized Trust

Shareholders, but with all risk still owned by Option One Mortgage Co.,

(thereby, without insurance licensure, or even the ability to obtain

insurance licensure, insuring the Note) and with 2/3rds of all other

ownership responsibilities divided equally between Mortgage Ramp Inc.,

and Wells Fargo Bank. Documentation provided by Plaintiff through

Discovery proves that not only through lack of signatures, dates,

authentication and indorsements on each document (per Section R.C.

1335.04, 1303.21, 1303.22, 5301.01 ORC (A), 5301.25, 5309.79 and

UCC Article 3 & S.E.C. true sale obligations and others 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C),

(2), (4),6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e)) & SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3) 1303.24

Indorsement - UCC 3-204. (See Authorities 1 On Standing & Due

Process and Authorities 3 Parties In Interest Case Law ) purporting to

transfer the alleged Mortgage & note from one entity to another, but

also, the chronology and/or timeline of Plaintiffs documentation of the

alleged Mortgage & Note does not evidence a viable sequence of events

that would support Plaintiffs allegations of Holder in Due Course by a

proper transfer of the alleged Mortgage and Note. Defendant alleges

that Plaintiff is attempting through subterfuge, deception, fraudulent

27

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

28/111

misrepresentation, and outright fraud, to confuse the Courts. But once

fully scrutinized, Plaintiffs documentation clearly demonstrates their

lack of Standing to initiate this suit from its inception (see below

Tracking the Mortgage Chronology). When exhibits are inconsistent with

the plaintiff s allegations of material fact as to whom the real party in

interest is, such allegations cancel each other out.

R.C. 1335.04. Ohio law holds that when a mortgage is assigned,

moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording requirements of

R.C. 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400i

(interpreting the former statute, G.C. 8543). Thus, with regards to real

property, before an entity assigned an interest in that property would be

entitled to receive a distribution from the sale of the property, their

interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio law.

In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing

Pinney v. Merchants National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177

(1904).1

43.Information contained on most of the rest of Plaintiffs alleged

transferences of the alleged Mortgage and Note in their entirety (see

below Tracking the Mortgage Chronology), has only unsigned places

for signaturesno datesno authenticationand no proper

indorsements upon them as required by U.C.C, S.E.C Rules and

Regulations and Ohio Revised Code R.C. 1303.21(B) & 1303.24

Indorsement - UCC 3-204. Consequently, no legal transference took

28

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

29/111

place of the alleged Mortgage and/or note between Plaintiffs named

entities and/or co-conspirators. Plaintiff demonstrates near total

disregard for UCC and SEC Rules and Regulations and Ohio Revised

Code, as they apply to Securities Transfer and documentation. They also

demonstrate the sales of securities based on NO underlying Securitized

assets actually held, and/or utter incompetence, and/or criminal

intention and execution. To Defendants belief and knowledge, Plaintiff

Wells Fargo Bank NA. has foreclosed on tens of thousands of properties

within the borders of Ohio and the United States using these same

tactics and practices on a regular basis (see attached authorities 2 )

44.Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association As Trustee For

Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage 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 standing requirements that a plaintiff must

show: (a) it has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and

particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;

(b) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the

29

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

30/111

defendant; and (c) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the

injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

45. The minimum constitutional requirements for standing are:

proof of injury in fact, causation, and redress ability (Valley Forge, 454

U.S. at 472). In addition, the plaintiff must be a proper proponent, and

the action a proper vehicle, to vindicate the rights asserted. [Coyne,

183 F. 3d at 494, quoting Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commn, 926 F. 2d

573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991)]. To satisfy the requirements of Article III of the

United States Constitution, the plaintiff must show he has personally

suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the

defendant (emphasis added) (Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454

U.S. at 472). In each of the above-noted complaints, the named Plaintiff

alleges it is the holder and owner of the alleged Note and Mortgage.

However, the attached alleged Note and Mortgage identify the alleged

mortgagee and promisee as other than Defendant John A. Reed, and the

original lending institution as other than the named Plaintiff. When

exhibits are inconsistent with the plaintiff s allegations of material fact

as to whom the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each

other out. Once again Plaintiff demonstrates their Lack of Standing to

initiate this foreclosure action. See Authorities 6 Negotiable instruments

46. Because Plaintiffs did not demonstrate, nor could they

demonstrate, that their members have suffered or were likely to suffer

an injury in fact, they fail to meet Article III standing requirements.

Without standing, the Court did lack subject-matter jurisdiction. Lack of

30

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

31/111

jurisdiction may not be waived and may be raised, by a party or sua

sponte by the court, at any time. Without jurisdiction, the court must

grant Defendants Motion and dismiss this case.

47. Further, Plaintiffs wish the Court to believe that it does in fact

have possession of the Original Note and Mortgage. When confronted

with request of delivery of each Black ink, ball point pen signed,

original, Plaintiff brings only a copy (against EvidR 1002 of Best

Evidence) of the Note and a forged Mortgage Document. Upon

inspection of the alleged Original Mortgage Document, and the

signature which it bears, the signature appears to have been placed on

the document, or copy & pasted, using a computer and ink jet printer.

This red signature is in direct opposition to every other document

produced by Plaintiff through Discovery, which are all allegedly signed at

the same place and time with a black ink ball point pen and such red

signature is in direct violation of Plaintiffs own Closing Agents explicit

instructions that all closing documents must be signed with a black ink

ball point pen. See Exhibit K4c.

48. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as

defined by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)

(3), was detrimental and damaging to Defendant as found in Securities

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

(6)(c),(d)(e), and subsequently, while it may be true that an unrecorded

mortgage can be an effective transfer; the assignment must be

executed in writing, from the true holder in Due Course of the alleged

31

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

32/111

Mortgage & Note prior to filing the Complaint and before the Plaintiff can

establish that it has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.

Standing is a necessary prerequisite to establish a courts jurisdiction to

hear a case. Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2

(citintg State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio

St.2d 176).

49. Having failed to establish that it holds an interest in the

alleged Note and/or Mortgage before suit inception (and actually

afterward s too) , the Plaintiff has failed to show that it suffered an injury

in fact; therefore, Plaintiff once again shows their lack of standing to

initiate this action as do the Court for their lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. A person lacking any right or interest to protect may not

invoke the jurisdiction of the court. State ex rel. Dallman v Court of

Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 176, 178, 298, N.E.2d 515.

Therefore, Plaintiffs action should be dismissed accordingly

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

this Court on identical issues. In fact, several of Ohios District Court

Judges have all ruled on numerous cases in favor of this Defendants

position within the past 16 months (see authorities 1, 2, 3, 4). This

Court should not ignore precedent from this very Court in nearly

identical cases.

51. Conversely, should this Court find that in fact Wells Fargo Bank

DOES have the right (even lacking standing) to foreclose on Defendant

John A. Reed, then Defendant must bring attention to the Mortgage,

32

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

33/111

Note and loan creation documents which contain many fraudulent and

actionable misrepresentations and much fraudulent information upon

them, to whit;

(A) John L. Reed is represented as the party in interest upon the

alleged subject Mortgage and Note. Lower Courts have held and Plaintiff

has agreed that Defendant John A. Reeds Father, John L. Reed, had no

interest or involvement in the creation of the alleged subject mortgage

& note.

(B). Option One Underwriter's Worksheet and both of the Universal

Residential Loan Application HMDA Audit Sheet (exhibit K5) are all

misrepresenting Defendant's fraudulent income to be $3,300.00 per

month (see exhibit "P" and "Q") 2 separate residential Loan Applications.

(C) Universal Residential Loan Application (see exhibit P)

contains multiple other misrepresentations of information;

(1) year house built is not 1990, it is actually 2000

(2) was sub-contractor, which Defendant has never been

(3) lists a completely blank employment history

(4) lists Defendants base income as $3,300 per month.

Defendant, in years 2001-2005 was only sporadically, part time

employed, instead he was spending the entirety of his working

hours gathering materials and constructing the subject property.

(5) No Interviewers signature

(6) U.S. Citizen? Says NO! Defendant is a natural born U.S.

Citizen

33

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

34/111

(7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Plaintiff had

knowledge of Defendants three child support obligations until

2006. Information provided by Plaintiff shows 0- obligations

despite documents provided from Plaintiff in Discovery (see

Exhibits L1, L2, L3, O Child Dependants & Defendants

Credit Report.) proving Plaintiff had knowledge. see O.R.C.

1322.07(A),(B),(C),(E),(H)

52.Defendant states that a full scrutinization of Mortgage and

Mortgage creation documentation also clearly shows many violations in

regard to Rules & Regulations as set forth in The Truth In Lending Act

(TILA), The Homeowners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), The Fair Debt

Collections Act (FDCPA), RESPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),

U.C.C., Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Consumer Sales

Practices Act, Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, O.R.C. 1345.0, U.S Constitution

Article III

VIII. DEFENDANT HAS MET HIS BURDEN.

75. a. The Burden is on Defendant to Prove Invalidity of Courts

Previous Judgment

In seeking to set aside a void judgment, the Defendant must

show the invalidity of Courts judgment. Defendant clearly has the

burden of demonstrating how, exactly, the judgment is void.

Fortunately for the Defendant, this can be quickly and easily

shown using Plaintiffs own documents and pleadings. These documents

34

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

35/111

demonstrate Plaintiff never had standing to pursue foreclosure. Where a

Plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case

and any judgment entered is void.

b. Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff was Not the Holder of

the Note;

76. Negotiation is the mechanism by which one holder conveys its

interest in a promissory note to another party (who then becomes the

holder).Without a negotiation (indorsement and transfer of physical

possession) from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Plaintiff, Plaintiff

had no interest in the note that rests at the foundation of this case.

Without an interest (that is, without the right to be paid each month

according to the terms of the note), Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue

foreclosure.

77. Standing requires a judicially recognizable interest in subject

matter. The interest may not be remote and speculative, but must be

a present and substantial interest in the subject matter. That is,

Plaintiff had to be the holder of the notehave a present and substantial

interestin the subject matter at the time the suit was filed. Plaintiffs

own documents and Plaintiffs counsels representations to the Court

show without a doubt that not only had negotiation not occurred in this

case at the time the suit was filed, negotiation had not occurred at the

time judgment was entered against Defendant..

78. Indeed, the Court need look no further than the pleadings

(Plaintiff is the holder of a note) and the Note itself (no indorsement as

35

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

36/111

per 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204) to find that the P was not, in fact,

the holder and had no interest in the note at the time Plaintiff filed suit.

79. Showing this lack of standing is Defendants burden and

Defendant has met that burden. Where the Plaintiff lacks standing, any

order entered in that case is void from the start and Courts may review

such questions /sua sponte/. A void judgment is no judgment at all, and

no rights are acquired by virtue of its entry of record. The court may, in

a proper proceeding, vacate it at any time. The Courts November 13,

2008 Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff

Wells Fargo Bank was void and should be vacated.

80. Defendant has shown that Plaintiff brings fraud into the Court,

gross (proven) examples of Negligence, a propensity (proven) for Lack of

Due Diligence that borders on the extreme, and some of the filthiest

(unclean) hands imaginable, while Plaintiff's Counsel represents these

same lies as truth and adds his own special touch by bringing libel &

innuendo into the Courts in his own attempt at unjust enrichment.

WHEREFORE, Because Plaintiff was not the real party in interest

on the date this action was commenced, it is not shown to be authorized

to bring this action and because the Plaintiffs exhibits attached to their

pleading are inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations as to ownership of

the subject note and mortgage, those allegations are neutralized and

Plaintiffs complaint is rendered objectionable. Plaintiff has failed to

establish itself as the real party in interest and therefore the Court did

lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear same. Defendant John A. Reed

36

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

37/111

does request this Court to (1) dismiss this case with prejudice in its

entirety, (2) sustain Defendants expressed defamation and libel

charges, stated elsewhere within this pleading, (3) award Defendant any

actual and punitive monetary reward the Court deems fit and proper for

loss of employment (since foreclosure inception in perpetuity) in his

stated profession, any and/or all amounts renderable under TILA, HOEPA

and RICO charges stated above, plus an award for emotional, physical

and psychological pain & suffering as well as any and all costs

associated with the defense of this suit, and (4) order Plaintiff, with

prejudice, to immediately cause to be released its alleged mortgage

and/or any interest it may have or have obtained against the subject

property and return the property in whole to Defendant John A. Reed

with damages, and award any and all cost and Legal Fees (in their

entirety) that Plaintiffs Attys should/would have collected in the case

to. Defendants demands the Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed with

prejudice and for fraud on the court, and for their attorneys fees and

costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants

entitled.

Respectfully,

_____________

John A. Reed pro se7940 Guilford

Dr. Dayton, Ohio

45414937.890.2576 Yotraj

@Yahoo.com

37

mailto:Yotraj@Yahoo.commailto:Yotraj@Yahoo.commailto:Yotraj@Yahoo.commailto:Yotraj@Yahoo.com

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

38/111

i. List of 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 Oneplaintiffs exhibit 10 6/9/2005

Exhibit CAllonge from Option One to Blankplaintiffs exhibit 86/9/2005

Exhibit DAllonge from H&R Block to Option Oneplaintiffs exhibit 7

6/9/2005

Exhibit F2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Opt Oneplaintiffs exhibit 1010/27/2005

Exhibit E EXECUTION COPY Purchase Price and Terms Agreementplaintiffs exhibit 256/10/2005

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 G6(ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2

Exhibit G7(ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3

Exhibit HExecution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Exhibit H2Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signaturepage 1

38

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

39/111

Exhibit H3 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance SignaturePage 3

Exhibit H4Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signaturepage 4

Exhibit IBarclays Bank Bill of Sale

Exhibit JPooling and Servicing Agreement Sec. 2.03

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

Exhibit M TILA Statement 1

ExhibitN 2nd TILA Statement

ExhibitO Credit report

39

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

40/111

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

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

40

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

41/111

Kristy 9 Exhibit K

Employment Verification

Kristy 9 Exhibit K

Kristy 3 Exhibit B

Assignment from H&R Block to Option One 6/9/2005

41

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

42/111

Kristy 3 Exhibit B

Assignment from H&R Block to Option One 6/9/2005

42

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

43/111

Kristy 1 Exhibit C

Allonge from Option One to Blank

43

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

44/111

Kristy 2 Exhibit D

Allonge from H&R Block to Option One

44

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

45/111

Kristy3 Exhibit E

Corporation Assignment of Open-End Mortgage

45

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

46/111

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

46

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

47/111

Exhibit E Purchase Price & Terms Agreement

47

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

48/111

Exhibit E2 Purchase Price & Terms Agreement signaturepage

48

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

49/111

Exhibit GEXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED

MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT(ECFAARMLPAWA)

49

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

50/111

Exhibit G2(ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement

50

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

51/111

Exhibit G3(ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership

51

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

52/111

Exhibit G4(ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence

52

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

53/111

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

54/111

Exhibit G6(ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2

54

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

55/111

Exhibit G7(ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3

55

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

56/111

Exhibit HExecution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

56

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

57/111

Exhibit H2Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Signature page 1

57

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

58/111

Exhibit H3Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Signature Page 3

58

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

59/111

Exhibit H4Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

Signature page 4

59

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

60/111

Exhibit IBarclays Bank Bill of Sale

60

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

61/111

Exhibit JPooling & Servicing Agreement 2.03

61

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

62/111

Exhibit K4.Instructions to Closing Agent

62

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

63/111

Exhibit K4b.Instructions to Closing Agent

63

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

64/111

Exhibit K4c.Instructions to Closing Agent

64

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

65/111

Exhibit K5.HMDA Audit Sheet

65

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

66/111

Kristi Canizio 6 Exhibit K6Data Integrity Sheet

66

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

67/111

Kristy Canizio 7 Exhibit K7Data Integrity Audit

67

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

68/111

Kristy Canizio 8 Exhibit K8

Wiring Instructions

68

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

69/111

Kristy Canizio 9 Exhibit K9Employment Verification

69

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

70/111

70

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

71/111

Child Support 1Exhibit L1

71

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

72/111

Child Support 1Exhibit L2

72

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

73/111

Child Support 1Exhibit L3

73

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

74/111

Exhibit MTILA Statement #1

74

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

75/111

Exhibit NTILA Statement #2

75

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

76/111

Exhibit OCredit Report

76

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

77/111

77

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

78/111

78

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

79/111

79

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

80/111

80

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

81/111

Exhibit PUniversal Residential Loan Application 1

81

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

82/111

82

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

83/111

83

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

84/111

84

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

85/111

Exhibit QUniversal Residential Loan Application 2

85

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

86/111

86

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

87/111

87

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

88/111

88

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

89/111

Exhibit RFederal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Release

89

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

90/111

Exhibit SLoan Disbursement Worksheet 1

90

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

91/111

Exhibit TLoan Disbursement Worksheet 2

91

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

92/111

Exhibit UItemization of Amount Financed

92

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

93/111

Exhibit VGood Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 page 1

93

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

94/111

Exhibit VGood Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 page 2

94

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

95/111

Exhibit WGood Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2

95

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

96/111

Exhibit WGood Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2 page 2

96

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

97/111

ii. Authorities 1 referenced topages

on standing & Due Process pages 6,

7, 20, 24, 31on Indorsement pages pages 11,

14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34

On Standing, Due Process & Indorsement

Civ. R. 17A

Article III, Section (4)(B) of the Ohio Constitution

Shealy v. Campbell(1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24.

Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176,298 N.E.2d 515

Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472

Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494,

Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commn, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6thCir. 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, 2004- Ohio-1529, at 17

Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R. L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001),11th Dist. No. 2000-L-014

Discover Bank v. Brockmeier, 12th Dist. No. CA2006-07-078, 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.3d673, 677, 679-680

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603

58 See, e.g., Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc.,893 F.Supp. 1304, 1312 (D.S.C. 1994) (applying the HDCdefense in a commercial context to hold that: Article

97

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

98/111

Three of the UCC controls transfers of negotiableinstruments, and the mortgage notes are clearlynegotiable. If UCC Article Three should not apply in thiscase and the holder in due course doctrine is no longerwarranted, then any abolishment of that body of law

should come from the legislature, not the court). See alsoEggert, supra note 12, at 560-70 (discussing cases wherethe HDC doctrine was applied against consumer mortgageborrowers).

Indorsement

RC 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204. see pages 11, 14,15, 17, 18, 20, 34

(A) (1) Indorsement means a signature, other than that of asigner as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone oraccompanied by other words is made on an instrument for anyof the following purposes:

(a) To negotiate the instrument;

(b) To restrict payment of the instrument;

(c) To incur the indorsers liability on the instrument.

(2) Regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and itsaccompanying words is an indorsement unless theaccompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of thesignature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate thatthe signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement.For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made onan instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of theinstrument.

(B) Indorser means a person who makes an indorsement.

(C) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of aninstrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a securityinterest in the instrument is effective as an unqualifiedindorsement of the instrument.

(D) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that isnot the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by theholder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holdersname or both, but signatures in both names may be required by

98

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

99/111

a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection.Effective Date: 08-19-1994Jurisdiction

State ex rel. Dallman v Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35Ohio St. 2d 176, 178, 298, N.E.2d 515

Patton v. Diemer(1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941

Authorities 2 see pages 7, 21, 24, 31

Previous Ohio Judgments on Lack of Standing only;

Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg Stateex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176).

US Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist. Of Ohio, HamiltonCo. 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 DLJMtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177 Decided on March 13,2008

Cole v. Am. Industries & Resources Corp. (1998),128 Ohio App.3d546, 552, 715 N.E.2d 1179

DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177

Separating and distinguishing between standing andDiversity;

US District Court of SW Ohio, W. Div.

99

http://66.161.141.176/cgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/bvindex.html?dn=128+Ohio+App.3d+546&State=OH&sid=rtj40sdemo0k79g52egkkh8026http://66.161.141.176/cgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/bvindex.html?dn=128+Ohio+App.3d+546&State=OH&sid=rtj40sdemo0k79g52egkkh8026http://66.161.141.176/cgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/bvindex.html?dn=128+Ohio+App.3d+546&State=OH&sid=rtj40sdemo0k79g52egkkh8026http://66.161.141.176/cgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/bvindex.html?dn=128+Ohio+App.3d+546&State=OH&sid=rtj40sdemo0k79g52egkkh8026

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

100/111

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 StatesConstitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Asa result, a plaintiff must have constitutional standing in order for afederal court to have jurisdiction. Id.

This Court is well aware that entities who hold valid notes areentitled to receive timely payments in accordance with the notes. And, ifthey do not receive timely payments, the entities have the right to seekforeclosure on the accompanying mortgages. However, with regard theenforcement of standing and other jurisdictional requirements pertaining

to foreclosure actions, this Court is in full agreement with JudgeChristopher A Boyko of the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ohio who recently stressed that the judicial integrity of theUnited 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 inthe foreclosure process is driven by money. And the [*9] legal workwhich flows from winning the financial institution's favor is highlylucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financialinstitutions or law firms making a profit -- to the contrary , theyshould be rewarded for sound business and legal practices.However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the

institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and moreabout maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions,the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that onlythose who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed topass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legalargument to support their position, but their arguments fallwoefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail tosatisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutionsseem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this forso long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance.

100

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

101/111

Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Courtto stop them at the gate.

The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: "Fluidity of themarket" -- "X" dollars, "contractual arrangements [*10] betweeninstitutions and counsel" -- "X" dollars, "purchasing mortgages in

bulk and securitizing" -- "X" dollars, "rush to file, slow to recordafter judgment" -- "X" dollars, "the jurisdictional integrity of UnitedStates District Court" -- "Priceless."

JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A.BOYKO

With Diversity but ruled for of lack of standingUS District Court of Ohio, S.D.,E. Div07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv-423, 07-

cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-706, 07-cv-727, 07-cv-731,07-cv-963, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv-1150 JUDGE: John D.

Holschuh Dec. 27, 2007

Weighing the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiffshave not established that they in fact owned the notes and mortgages inquestion at the time these respective complaints were filed. BecausePlaintiffs apparently did not own the notes and mortgages at the timethe complaints were filed, Plaintiffs suffered no injury in fact from thedebtors' default. Plaintiffs thus do not have standing to bring theseactions, and these cases should be dismissed for lack of standing.JUDGE : John D. Holschuh

Lack of Standing Positions Held (precedents)

Against Wells Fargo Bank NA. In Bold

Dismissals Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing

Ameriquest Funding II REO Subsidiary LLC v. Bat; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02726; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. North; Filed 10/30/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03376; Disposed12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stout; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03280; Disposed12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Glass; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No.2:2007cv00963; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awad; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No.5:2007cv01703; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

101

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

102/111

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Black; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No.1:2007cv03074; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bradford; Filed 7/17/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02144; Disposed 12/5/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. DeFrati; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No.1:2007cv03276; Disposed 12/10/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hall; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No.2:2007cv00731; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Henders; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No.1:2007cv03069; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jackson; Filed 9/12/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02753; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jones; Filed 4/23/2007; Case No.

1:2007cv01186; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lewis; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02903; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mays; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02334; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. McFarla; Filed 7/10/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02042; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nashe; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No.1:2007cv02994; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Squires; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No.5:2007cv03076; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Harper; Filed 10/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03052;Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

EMC Mortgage Corporation v. Washington; Filed 3/16/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00226;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding v. Cook; Filed 2/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00166;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Household Realty Corporation v. McCord; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01150;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hilty; Filed 3/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00279;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. King; Filed 10/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01047;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

102

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

103/111

Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB v. Castleberry; Filed 7/6/2007; Case No.2:2007cv00642; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

LaSalle Bank National Association v. Claypoole; Filed 7/24/2007; Case No.2:2007cv00706; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

LaSalle Bank National Association v. Lyons; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02733;Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge James S. GWIN

Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Merrit; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00536;Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

MidFirst Bank v. Deem; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03260; Disposed12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Nelson; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00423; Disposed12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Washington Mutual Bank v. Clark; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03177; Disposed

12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007;

Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603 2:2007cv01119; Disposed

12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007;

Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge

David D. DOWD, Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007;

Judge James S. GWIN

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed

12/27/2007;

Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

Authorities 3 see pages 6, 20, 24Real Party in Interest Case Law References

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

103

7/31/2019 2010-05-03 2nd Brief Word Rev 1

104/111

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

Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24.The purposebehind the real-party-in-interest requirement is " '