CLERK OF COURT - Supreme Court of Ohio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COVERPAGE 1 1-0437 DEUTSCHE BANK...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

COVERPAGE 1 1-0437

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST) Case No 10-0939)

COMPANY

Appellee

V.

Kenneth S. Taylor, et al.

Appellants

))))))))))

NOTICE OF APPEAL

On Appeal From the

COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL

DISTRICT C.A.NO- 25281

COVER PAGE

NOTICE OF APPEAL

APPELLANTVKenneth S. Taylor, et al

Kenn aj^ldfjo Se} 8610 H den Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087

Kennet . Taylor {Pro Se} 1-33 -425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com Alycia

Taylor- Driggins {Pro Se}

APPELLEE: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

Robin Wilson of THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127

PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1291 216-566-5800

KEViN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX

165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 ATTORNEY FOR

PLAINTIFFS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

MAR I '12U1i

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

1


DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY

Appellee

V.


> Case No 10-0939))))

On Appeal From the


DISTRICT C.A.NO- 25281

)

Appellants

NOTICE OF APPEAL

This case raises substantial Constitutional rights to Due Process, EqualProtection Clauses , substantial Procedural Due Process, , substantial HumanRights,Violations, substantial Civil Rights Violations, Deprivation Of Life,Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happines.Trial Court Judge Tom Parker Lied tothe court and used that lie to dismiss Defendants counterclaim committedboth Civil and Criminal Conspiracy the Crime is ostensibly before theSummit County Court of Common Pleas, and their Administrative JudgeStormer, also the COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTC.A.NO- 25281 is keenly aware of these facts and is fully brief in pleadings,the three judge panel erred in not affirming defendants assignment of errorfor Lack of Jurisdiction and they had a duty to report the crime, issuesanction, and remove judge from hearing case for this crime, for lowercourt judge Tom Parker making False and Material Declarations to thisCourt 18USC 1623 which carries a fine of 100.000.00 and/or five (5) yearsin prison. And has done so in Court in the State of Ohio in an attempt todeprive plaintiffs of home ownership. The Courts as well as judges is underthe mandatory responsibility of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C.and the right of citizens to seek a court order for federal officials, judges,and lawyers to perform a mandatory duty and halt unlawful conduct that isprovided by 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The clear language of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4require that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it toa federal judge (or other federal officer), or that person is guilty of a crime:

2

this High Honorable Supreme Court Of Ohio Now Has the duty to reportand sanction Plaintiffs and all other parties responsible for these Substantialcrimes and Civil Rights violations by lower courts, and lower court judges.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony, Whoever, having knowledge ofthe actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to somejudge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States,shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, orboth. Blocking the reports of major criminal activities against the UnitedStates by government insiders violates other criminal statutes, includingTitle 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, among others.

The defendants have waited three long years to have their counterclaim

heard in state court, which state court has refused to hear a will not set for

trial, which was filed in March 11, 2008 , the state court has denied access

to the courts for defendants , blocked and interfered with the administration

ofjustice, the Judge Tom Parker has sworn to the court that the counterclaim

was heard by him, he ordered and ruled against defendants, dismissed the

counterclaim on January 8, 2010 with no hearing no motion to dismiss and

no summary judgment motion was filed by plaintiffs he did not address

merits of counterclaim, the Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Ninth Judicial

District agreed that the state court violated the defendants Due Process

Rights by not hearing counterclaim and reversed and remanded the case

back to trial court , however in front of the same judge who has lied

previously, is a adversary of defendants, and has made antagonistic , bias ,

partial , statements and rulings in favor of plaintiffs , as the judge has

become so emotionally embroiled with helping plaintiff he cant remain in a

position of neutrality, which was confirmed by the C.A. decision, the judge

3

is further under two motions of recusal , and prohibition lies, refuses to

follow law the under Cannons , and has violated his judicial Sworn Oath and

has not set a trial date or case management hearing , has not responded to

any motions filed by defendant , has not a will not certify class action claims

, as the state court continues to delay and deny any justice to defendants,

even after being order to do so by the C.A. , it is impossible to get a fair trial

in the state court, the trial court record fully supports, all facts allege in this

Notice of Appeal , not a single element of defendants counterclaim was

addressed ..APPELLANT:

Kenneth S. TaylorWo e} 861 Hadk--fi todd TV& g Ohio 44087

Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit yahoo.com Alycia


APPELLEE:

Robin Wilson of THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127

PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1291 216-566-5800

KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX

165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 ATTORNEY-FOR

PLAINTIFFS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

Kenneth S. Taylor, Alycia Taylor- Driggins--------------- - --

------------- Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 8610 Hadden Roadqwinsburg Ohio

44087Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com


DE[JTScHE BANK NATiO'NTAL TR[IST

GOMPANY

Appellee

V.


C'ase ttiio 10-0939))

} MEMOItANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF JURISDICTION)) 0

On Appeal From the


AppellantsDISTitICT C_ANfl- 25281

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT F ISDICTIONAPPELLANT:

Kenneth S. Taylor^4^^Sb10 adde Ro T' s g ®hio 44087

Kenneth S. Taylor {Y(ro Se} 1-3'30-425A4542 katick.itg yahoo.com Alycia


APPELLEE:

Robin Wilson of THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC

SQUARE CLEVELAND, flHIC3 44114-1291 216-565-5800 KEVIN

WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX 165028

COLUMBUS, DHlO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

Case Nomenclature and History: The Plaintiffs -Appelle originally filed this

lawsuit in Federal District Court in Ohio Northern Division on June 20, 2007

case number; 5:07 CV -0840 SEL which was dismissed by judge Sara Lioi on

1

November 8, 2007 for a misleading assignment, produce and submitted after the

lawsuit was filed resulting in Lack of Standing. Subsequently Plaintiffs -

Appelle refiled a unverified complaint signed by attorney Kevin L.Williams of

Manley Deas Kochalaski in Columbus Ohio, In The Court Of Common Pleas

Summit County Ohio on November 30, 2007 case number CV-2007-11-8364

Judge Gippin. However the attorney never attended any hearings or never filed

a required notice of appearance, withdrew without required leave of court, The

Defendants filed their answer and counterclaim as a class action with a jury

demand endorsement on March 11, 2008. The right of access to the Courts is

clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817

1977 ;M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme Court has stated the

right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K

Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516

2001 ("the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government," and

that "[t]he right of access to the courts is ... but one aspect of the right of

petition."). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited 404 U. S. 508,

510 1972 ("The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the

right of petition."). See Tennessee v. Lane 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing

"the fundamental right of access to the courts"); Procunier v. Martinez, 416

U.S. 396 (1974)("The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a

2

corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order

to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their

constitutional rights."). the defendants have waited three long years to have

their counterclaim heard in state court, which state court has refused to hear a

will not set for trial, which was filed in March 11, 2008 , the state court has

denied access to the courts for defendants, blocked and interfered with the

administration of justice, the Judge Tom Parker has swotn to the court that the

counterclaim was heard by him, he ordered and ruled against defendants,

dismissed the counterclaim on January 8, 2010 with no hearing no motion to

dismiss and no summary judgment motion was filed by plaintiffs he did not

address merits of counterclaim, the Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Ninth Judicial

District agreed that the state court violated the defendants Due Process Rights

by not hearing counterclaim and reversed and remanded the case back to trial

court , however in front of the same judge who has lied previously, is a

adversary of defendants, and has made antagonistic, bias , partial , statements

and rulings in favor of plaintiffs , as the judge has become so emotionally

embroiled with helping plaintiff he cant remain in a position of neutrality,

which was confirmed by the C.A. decision, the judge is further under two

motions of recusal , and prohibition lies, refuses to follow law the under

Cannons , and has violated his judicial Sworn Oath and has not set a trial date

3

or case management hearing, has not responded to any motions filed by

defendant , has not a will not certify class action claims , as the state court

continues to delay and deny any justice to defendants, even after being order to

do so by the C.A. , it is impossible to get a fair trial in the state court, the trial

court record fully supports, all facts allege in this Notice to Remove, not a

single element of defendants counterclaim was addressed, it is a class action

complaint with jury trial demand, which was originally plead with a federal -

questions , which arise as follows; Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

15 U.S.C-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2. §

1692e, by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection

with the collection of debts, and engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity in

violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activities statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.32

[hereinafter cited as "R.C."] and violated Ohio Rico R. C. 2923.32 (A) (2), and

Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.03 and Ohio Revised Code 2923.34, TILA

Claims arise under Ohio Consumer law Federal law statues and treaties, which

includes but not limited to 15 U.S.C. And further making False and Material

Declarations to this Court 18USC 1623 which carries a fine of 100.000.00

and/or five (5) years in prison. And defendants has done so in this and other

Courts in the State of Ohio in an attempt to deprive plaintiffs of home

ownership, attempting to remove them though unlawful sale of property in

4

which they have resided for 23 years, without a title, mortgage, or original blue

ink note, in their possession, the defendants at all times have been using fake

and fraudulent forgery of attorney Kevin L. Williams signature, TITLE 15--

COMMERCE AND TRADE CHAPTER 41--CONSUMER CREDIT

PROTECTION SUBCHAPTER V--DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES Sec.

1692e. False or misleading representation (3) The false representation or

implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from

an attomey, submitting fake allonge note into evidence, submitting fake title

search and insurance. Submitting defective forgery of assignment prepare by

the law firm of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC. After the lawsuit was filed, who

has made False and Material Declarations to Courts in attempt to deprive

Taylor's of their property. The above named Defendants have committed both

criminal and civil conspiracy and are involved in joint effort of participation

filing these unlawful lawsuits and continue to attempt to disengage plaintiffs

from property without the legal right to do so. Violating substantial

Constitutional Rights to Due Process, and substantial Procedural Due Process

Rights The case has never been set for trial, it has never been certified as a

class, although it was filed with class action evidence under rule 23, this action

arises and is born out of the original matter with this same District Court who

had original jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the case for lack of

5

standing. Plaintiffs filed a defective, misleading assignment, which was filed

after the commencement of the lawsuit there is now absolute proof with

evidence the assignment is fake and fraudulent and only obtained because the

court required it, by the law firm of Manley Deas Kochaski LLC. The plaintiffs

lacked standing filed lawsuit without assignment of property, the assignment

was fraud upon the courts the original lenders and contractors Option One was

defunct and out of business the assignment is an absolute forgery. THE MOST

IMPORTANT MISLEADING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT IN THIS CASE

IS THE DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT WHICH FOR SOME STRANGE

REASON WAS ENDORSED IN Dakota County, Minnesota WHERE, Lender

Processing Services continues to mass produce "replacement" assignments

specifically, strategically and systematically.

On April 12, 2010, Lender Processing Services closed the offices of its subsidiary,Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office was responsible for pumping out overa million mortgage assignments in the last two years so that banks could foreclose onresidential real estate. The law firms handling the foreclosures were retained andlargely controlled by Lender Processing Services, according to a Sanctions Orderentered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor,

EDPA, Case 07-15385-sr, Doc. 193). Lender Processing Services, the largest "defaultmanagement services company" in the country, has already made at least partialadmissions that there were faults in the documents produced by the Docx office -although courts and homeowners were never notified. According to Lender ProcessingServices, over 50 major banks use their default management services. The banks thatespecially need the services provided by Lender Processing Services include DeutscheBank, acting as.trustees,for mortgage:backed.securitized,trusts. These trusts, in therush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, often ignored the critical stepof obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities

6

companies to the trusts. Now, years later, when the companies "servicing" the trustsneed to foreclose, they retain Lender Processing Services to draft the missingdocuments. The mortgage servicers, including American Home Mortgage Services,and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trusts are missing essentialdocuments - they just rely on Lender Processing Services to "fix" the problems.Although the Alpharetta office has been closed, Lender Processing Services continuesto mass produce "replacement" assignments from its Jacksonville, Florida, and DakotaCountx, Minnesota offices, Law firms retained by Lender Processing Services alsooften use their own employees, posing as officer of Mortgage Electronic RegistrationSystems, to produce the needed Assignments. Since the vast majority of homeownersdo not retain counsel in foreclosure proceedings, this flawed system has worked veryeffectively for the last few years, with courts all over the country rarely questioningwhy so many mortgage companies had officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, or why Truststhat closed in 2005 and 2006 were just obtaining Mortgage Assignments in 2009 and2010. Most, courts, neveL ey.en,questioned.why, companies long;dissoly,ed, such.asOption One,. could still be executmg documents years. after the dissolution. While theclosing of the Alpharetta office may be a sign that these fraudulent activities willfinally be exposed and addressed, for the time being, it is just a matter of anunsatisfactory end of one small facet of an enormous and far-reaching problem. Thiscourt is now and forever put on notice the "ASSIGNMENT" presented to thisHonorable Court, and Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron is fraudulent,See Exhibit A-3a and was proffered by Dakota County, Minnesota offices, absoluteproof is found on "ASSIGNMENT" as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMESC.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota, Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also thisoffice produced a false Foreclosure Compliance Affidavit in the case 5:07 CV 01840SL LJocument 4 filed 6-22-2007 See Exhibit B, and a fraudulent Affidavit RegardingAccount And Competency And Military Status signed by Assistant Secretary SCOTTWALTER of American Home Mortgage Service Inc. on August 13, 2008 who waspresent in Minnesota at arms length as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMESC,MOI2RIS in the state of Minnesota, Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also whenAmerican Home Mortgage Service Inc was locate in Irving Texas.. The"ASSIGNMENT" further states that Assistant Secretary Jeanelle Gray From OptionOne was prese,nt in Minnesota on June25, 2007 for a arms length deal as a secretaryto sign away 84,000.00 note although Option -One Mortgage Corporation was locatedin Irvine Ca. and purportedly out of business and defunct at such time, even thecommon lay person with truncated my optic legal knowledge is keenly aware there isa foreclosure crisis in America that has reached a critical mass of fraud so far reachingits now called one of the greatest tragedies in America, a literal a ponzi scheme whereit is projected that 90% of these loans and transfer of loans into securitized trust arefraudulent, The Judges in this case who must have matriculated though some Law

7

School in America certainly knows that the defendants named in caption is one of theworst offenders of this fraud, so much so they have been named subprime Kings. Thejudges accusation are just plain old wrong the trial court documented evidence and theNinth Judicial Circiut Appeals Court fmdings supports the merit of all PlaintiffsClaims. On February 02, 2011 the C.A not only agreed with Taylor's allegations thatJudge Tom Parker erred in not hearing Plaintiffs counterclaim but it also confirmed heLied about it when he stated he review it, and did not, and he has not Denied Plaintiffsallegations concerning Counterclaim, Moreover this judge awarded a summaryjudgment motion against the Taylor's without looking at the Affidavit whichcontained no named Affiant, was not signed, and was not notarized judge TomParker rulings are wild and mind boggling, the Judge further called upon the Attorneyto lie about the Taylor's Counterclaim which is conspiracy the Attorney Robin Wilsonhas admitted to appeals court she sent a letter to judge to confirm the act ofconspiracy and she followed the judges directive to do so she however has not toldany one about the second letter she sent to Judge Tom Parker, this time initiated byher to judge her second act of conspiracy , judge Tom Parker is under two RecusalMotions, Prohibition lies and refuses to hold hearing under Cannons The Taylors sentthe trial court and Appeals Court absolute proof of eight (8) forgeries by the law firmof Manley Deas Kochaski LLC. Included in the motion was a show cause motion forhearing on the evidence which he denied The following statements forms the basis for

this appeal:

There is substantial constitutional questions raised by this appeal which are certifiably

outrageous, glaring and numerous violations of substantial rights of appellants -defendants

which include but not limited to: Civil Conspiracy Claim, Lack of Due Process, violations Of

Equal Protection Clause provided citizens by the 14t' Amendment section 1, Certain attributes

of "property" interests protected by procedural due process emerge from these substantial rights

to have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or

desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a

legitimate claim of entitlement to it. It is a purpose of the ancient institution of property to

protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives, reliance that must not be

8

arbitrarily undermined. It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an

opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims. Both the trial court and Appellate court

violated defendants 4"', 5th, 6th' 7th' and 14t1i Amendments, rights by denial of trial by jury,

denial of any trial, denial of any hearing on the record, denial of constitutional rights to face and

question accusers, denial of rights to use of court to have counterclaim heard by court, just as

the court is hearing plaintiffs unverified complaint, denial of the right to a fair trial, denial of the

right to conduct discovery "Due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, requires that every

party to an action be afforded 'a reasonable opportunity to be heard after a reasonable notice of

such hearing."' Zashin, Rich, Sutula & Monastra Co., L.P.A. v. Offenberg (1993), 90

OhioApp.3d 436, 443, quoting Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn.

(1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125. The judge and plaintiff attorney committed conspiracy and

acted concert with each other both making material and false declarations to trial court which

violated federal law under 18 USC 1623 this is a serious crime, [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v.

Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] Making it impossible to get a fair trial which

lead to a final judgment, to the taking defendants real property rights and disposed of and

ignored defendants counterclaim with false statement in court records to make court believe the

counterclaim had been resolved and adjudicated, in furtherance of that conspiracy Robin Wilson

contacted judge through a letter to him which she agreed to participate and did so become a

willingly active party in collusion and expressed that activity knowingly in the letter which

9

confirmed the joint action to included language as a result of the judges directive in final

decree that judge had reviewed and adjudicated counterclaim in summary judgment order, the

judge never mention counterclaim in his summary judgment or at any other time during this

case there is nothing in courts record that shows he has reviewed or even read counterclaim,

[Cite as Englefield v. Corcoran, 2007-Ohio-1807.]AND THIS MATTER IS STILL PENDING,

DEFENDANTS NEED AND DEMAND a trial and hearing of counterclaim that had a jury

demand. . Moreover the facts presented are this case is undisputed and lead to inescapable

conclusion law. Moreover the Supreme Court in JONES v UNITED STATES (1999) 526 US

227 247 - 248, noting the founders "fears that the right could be loss not only by gross denial,

but by erosion. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the

right to trial by an impartial jury." Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final judgment order

prohibition lied as two motion of recusal were before the judge. "Justice must give the

appearance of justice" Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960). .

Countywide Home Loans Inc. v Taylor 17 misc3d 595 (Sup Ct Suffolk Co. 2007 The law firm

has forge his signature on final judgment order the title search is a counterfeit and forgery and

judge has knowledge of this fact, the judge granted a summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs

without one witness, and a blank affidavit with no affiants name on document which was

unsigned and not notarized In re Disqualification of Pokorny (1992), 74 Ohio St.3d 1238, 657

N.E.2d 1345 ("A paper purporting to be an affidavit, but not to have been sworn to before an

officer, is not an affidavit"); State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62

1 0

Ohio St.3d 12, 14, 577 N.E.2d 352 (an "'affidavit' *** not sworn before anyone authorized to

give oaths * * * is void"); Benedict v. Peters (1898), 58 Ohio St. 527, 536, 51 N.E. 37 ("The

general rule is that an affidavit must appear on its face to have been taken before the proper

officer, and in compliance with all legal requisitions Judge Tom Parker unlawfully granted

plaintiffs a summary judgment motion without Affidavit, allowing false declarations to this

court(18 USC 1623 ) which harm and prejudiced defendants case, the plaintiffs attorney

submitted a counterfeit forgery of a allonge note attached to a copy of a promissory note See In

re Foreclosure Cases, No 1;07CV2282, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D. Ohio Oct.31, 2007) each and

every document is a fake forgery counterfeit or a computerized copy. There is not one

creditable witness. The judge fail to give notice that final judgment was a final appeal order to

defendants and violated its rights to due process summary judgment was awarded without any

accounting records the law requires written records supported by a witness with personal

knowledge, Cole Taylor Bank v. Corrigan, supra 230 111. App.3d 122, N.E.2d 177, 181 (2d

Dist. 1992 A affidavit is not made sufficient by omitting the facts that it was based on a review

of loan records, if it appears that the affiant did not receive or observe the reception of all the

borrowers payments no one has shown any authority to act on behalf of anyone , the assignment

is a fake and forgery Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn Inc. 147 AD 2d 208 (2nd Dept. 1989).Any

assignment without a power of attorney is a legal nullity (Tawil v. Finkelstine Bruckman Wohl

& Rothman, 223 AD 2d, 52, 53, (1d Dept1996). there further must be an Affiant by and officer

of Deutsche National Bank Trust Company or American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. agency

11

in possession of valid power of attorney or from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company for

that expressed purpose, assigning and transferring notes, and the courts need see evidence of

that purpose expressed in a written agreement with servicing agents. no one has ever appeared

in person the entire case is fraudulent. not one person has ever been to the court no attorney no

real partying-interest no company representative the lawyer who file and signed compliant has

never been to the court he submitted summary judgment without attending any hearing nobody

has ever seen Kevin Williams the law firm is forging his signature on documents filed with the

courts. Never filed notice of appearance. [Cite as Huntsman v. Lowery, 2002-Ohio-3948.] The

sixth Amendment has confrontation clause. Another aspect of this right of confrontation is that

the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses against him. This right can be overcome

only for compelling reasons. The courts have violated defendants basic sixth Amendment right

to face his accusers the plaintiffs which are all ghost and not a single person has ever been to

court ever nobody. No lawyer no one from bank no one from trustee no one from original

lenders no one with real party in-interest has came forward to claim property the reason is no

one wants to face examination or perjury charges for this fraud upon the court These are

criminal acts committed in an attempt to take personal and real property rights the trial court

judge has allowed this the defendants were subjective to a judge who displayed a deep rooted

prejudice an bias an a inability to be fair or impartial or honest violating his sworn oath of office

The judge failed to hold hearing in front of another judge pursuant to both federal and state

rules under Cannon (4), 3 (d). The judge's impartiality was reasonable questioned in this case

12

by defendants. The Second, Rule 2 Cannon C 3 (1) sets forth circumstances in which a judge

should disqualify himself. When one of these causes to recuse appears ajudge must do so, and

he is without jurisdiction and prohibition lies the judge failed to certify class action lawsuit or

consider class action evidence and has done nothing violating rights to due process failure to set

trial date for hearing on counterclaim, three judge with drew from case after making decisions

favorable to plaintiffs Why this case is of great public interest or great general interest Sub-

Prime Foreclosures have reach a Critical Mass in the State of Ohio. This case involves all the

major Players, which includes as the Appellee the King of Sub prime, Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company (DBNTC). Defendants have endorsed in both the caption of answer of Plaintiffs

Complaint and Defendants Counterclaim a demand for trial by jury filed on 3/11/2008 and

clerk's dockets reflect such demand in docket file #37.The Defendants have not waived its

rights to a jury trial any such waiver must be in writing. The case is both one of great public

interest and general interest: This case is a great American Tragedy of a massive proportion,

Sub-Prime and Certificate Back Securities Trust and Trustees Claiming ownership rights of

defendants home without a signed contract agreement, with no original title, no original

promissory note and no evidence and using fraudulent manufactured documents to take

defendants home with the support and blessing and assistance of trial court judges who have

allowed them to do so and the erosion of the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and

individual freedoms The plaintiffs must come to court with proof they own the Note. The Note

is the only thing that was possible for defendants to default on, and the person foreclosing, must

13

have the Note not the servicing company. The issue is simply have plaintiffs show-up to hearing

with Note by Physical possession of the bearer paper, as established by Supreme Court some

(40) forty years ago in United States v, Butner, 440U.S. 48,54-55 (1979). Further this honorable

high court must act swiftly to restore public trust, integrity, ethics, fairness, to our local judicial

District Appellate Court the Ninth Circuit and trial court to cure a devastating and demoralizing

callous and despicable account of the rape and pillage of a black African The plaintiff's final

judgment order is a forgery State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733, 735-36, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982), The

requisite fraud on the court occurs where "it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that

a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the

judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of

fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." Aoude v.

Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1 st Cir. 1989).... The trial court has the inherent

authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff

has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders.

Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). And following Destafano v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1077 (Fla. 1st DCA April

28, 2003), and Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), where the courts

disposed with prejudice for serious, palpable "fraud Reversal is required only where an abuse of

discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done." (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) State v. Fitzgerald,257 Conn. 106, 112, 77A.2d 580 (2001). "Judicial discretion,

14

however, is always a legal discretion, exercised according to the recognized principles of

equity.. .. Such discretion ... imports something more than leeway in decision-making and

should be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and should not impede or defeat the

ends of substantial justice. ...[R]eversal is required where the abuse is manifest or where

injustice appears to have been done." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Burton v.Browd, supra, 258 Conn. 569-70. In addition, we are mindful that, "[t] he design of

these rules [of appellate procedure] being to facilitate business and advance justice, they will be

interpreted liberally in any case appellants are entitled to their right to a fair trial by the

Constitution of Ohio and the United States and we beg this high court to grant them their rights

and stop the miscarriage of justice and the deprivation of life liberty and the pursuit of

happiness, and the erosion of civil freedoms guarantee by Ohio and U. S. Constitution. Too

deny the appellants their rights to be heard the court may as well not recognize the Ohio and us

constitution. And now at last by the mercy of almighty God We ask humbly for the High Ohio

Supreme Court to seize jurisdiction over the lower court of Ninth Circuit Judicial District Court

of Appeals, and reverse its dismissal and address appeal on its merits anVaddr^ess t

assignments of errors that appeals court has completely ignored.

Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com

--------------------------------- Alycia Taylor

15

By:

Kenneth S. Taylor AlyciaTaylor- Driggins{Pro Se}

8610 Hadden RoadTwinsburg Ohio 44087

% ^-WOI' nne S. "Faylor Alycia7aylor- Driggins{ Pro Se

PROOF OF SERVICEThe Plaintiffs hereby certifies that on March 17,, 2011 a copy of theMEMORANDUM INSUPPORT OF NOTICE OF APPEELI., was filed at clerks office and a foregoing copy wassent to Plaintiffs, address to their attorney's office name below via ordinary U. S. mail. ROBIN WILSONTHOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND,OHIO 44114-1229 216-566-5500

KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX 165028

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 Thomas L. Feher and Anthony J. Rospest.

16

I-i.^:'',F;{Gr^NSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF AP.PEALS

; ^ fNTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT

',01DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONl,3COMPANY

Appellee

V.

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, et al.

Appellants

Dated: February 2, 2011

^IY^ A.No. 25281CO^1i^iIo

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTENTERED IN THECOURT OF COMMON PLEASCOUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIOCASE No. CV 2007-11-8364

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

MOORE, Judge.

{111} Appellant, Kenneth S. Taylor, appeals from the judgment of the Surrunit County

Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms in part and reverses in part.

1.

{¶2} On February 6, 2006, Taylor and his wife, Alycia Taylor-Driggins', executed and

delivered to Option One Mortgage Corporation. a promissory note that was secured by a

mortgage on the property at 8610 Hadden Road, Twinsburg, Ohio, 44087. They subsequently

defaulted on the note and have not made a inonthly payment since March 30, 2007. On May 4,

2007, Option One sent a notice of default that included tenns for curing the default. The couple

1 Taylor-Driggins is not a party to this appeal. On appeal, Taylor attempted to file anappeal on behalf hiinself and his wife. He is not, however, an attorney licensed to practice inOhio. Therefore, we dismissed the appeal to the extent that it relates to Taylor-Driggins.

2

did not cure the default. On June 25, 2007, Option One assigned its entire interest in the

mortgage to appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the

Certificateholders of Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006-OPT2, Asset-Backed Certificates,

Series 2006-OPT2. On November 30, 2007, Deutsche Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure

against the couple and numerous other parlies not reievant to triis appeal. Taylor fiied an answer

and counterclaims. The parties took part in mediation and reached an agreement. Subsequently,

Taylor filed four separate motions to dismiss.

{¶3} On August 22, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed a motion for summary judgment. After

another attempt at mediation failed, Deutsche Bank filed another motion for sununary judgment

on July 21, 2009, and included a new affidavit in support of the motion. On September 10, 2009,

the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. On October 2, 2009, the

trial court vacated the entry of sununary judginent after Taylor brought to the court's attention a

number of discrepancies between the affidavit in support of surmnary judgment filed on August

22, 2008, and the affidavit in support of sumrnary judgment filed on July 21, 2009. Most

importantly, the first page of the July 21, 2009 affidavit did not include a state, county or the

affiant's name. Handwritten in the area left for a name is the notation "Original to Follow." The

affidavit lacked a signature and was not notarized. Also, the affidavit included several

discrepancies related to dates. Finally, the affidavit included a statement that "Susan White is

not of Active Military Status." The trial court ordered Deutsche Bank to produce an accurate

affidavit within 30 days or risk dismissal of the motion for summary judginent.

{114} On November 3, 2009, Deutsche Bank provided a new, properly signed and

notarized affidavit in support of summary judgment. The November 3, 2009 affidavit included

corrected dates and stated that neither Taylor nor Driggins-Taylor was on active military duty.

3

On January 8, 2010, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. On

February 1, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment entry and decree in foreclosure. The

February 1, 2010 judginent entry granted summary judgment to Deutsche Bank with regard to

"all claims in the suit" and included language to the effect that the court had considered the

defendants' counterclaims, whereas the January 8, 2010 order made no mention of "all claims"

and did not include any statement that the court considered the counterclaims.

{¶5} Taylor timely filed a notice of appeal. He has raised ten assignments of error for

our review. We have rearranged and combined some of Taylor's assignments of error to

facilitate our discussion.

II.

{¶6} Taylor has presented his arguments before the trial court and this Court pro se.

With respect to pro se litigants, this Court has observed:

"[P]ro se litigants should be granted reasonable leeway such that their motionsand pleadings should be liberally construed so as to decide the issues on themerits, as opposed to technicalities. However, a pro se litigant is presumed tohave knowledge of the law and correct legal procedures so that he remains subjectto the same rules and procedures to which represented litigants are bound. He isnot given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequencesof his mistakes. This Court, therefore, must hold [pro se appellants] to the samestandard as any represented party." (Intemal citations omitted.) Sherlock v.

Myers, 9th Dist. No. 22071, 2004-Ohio-5178, at ¶3.

{¶7} We have made every effort to address the merits of his contentions. It is not,

however, our duty to create an argument where none is made. Cardone v. Cardone (May 6,

1998), 9th Dist. No. 18349, at *8.

4

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

"INSUFFI[]CIENCY SERVICE PROOF FINAL APPEALAB[L]E ORDER[.]"

{^8} In his first assignment of error, Taylor contends that the trial court maliciously

failed to send him notice of a final order in this case as required by Civ.R. 58(B). As a result, he

asks this Court to reverse the trial court's grant of suimnaryjudg-fnent to Deutsche Bank, remand

the case to the trial court, and order that the trial judge recuse himself from further participation

in the case.

{919} It is unfortunate that the decree of foreclosure did not include Civ.R. 58(B)

language directing the clerk of courts to properly serve Taylor with a copy of the judgment entry.

Taylor has not, however, provided this Court with any authority requiring that we provide any of

the relief he seeks. App.R. 16(A)(7). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to suggest

that the trial judge acted maliciously. The failure to serve Taylor with a copy of the judginent

entry caused him to file his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the trial court entered

judginent. Though we initially dismissed the appeal, when Taylor brought the matter to this

Court's attention, we granted his request to reinstate this appeal. See Watley v. Coval, 10th Dist.

No. 03AP-829, 2004-Ohio-1734, at ¶9, citing Civ.R 58; App.R.4(A) ("[b]ecause the trial court

failed to properly serve [appellant] with its decision and entry, the time for [appellant's] appeal

did not begin to run until he was notified of the judgment"). He has suffered no prejudice.

Taylor's first assigmnent of error is overruled:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

"JUDGE LACK JURISDICTION[.]"

5

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

"SUMMARY JUDGMENT VOID[.]"

{¶10} In his second and third assignrnents of error, Taylor essentially contends that the

trial court conspired with Deutsche Bank's counsel to inappropriately enter sununary judgment

on his counterciaims and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Deutsche

Bank on the foreclosure action and on Taylor's counterclaims. We agree that the trial court erred

when it granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank on Taylor's counterclaims. We

do not agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Deutsche Bank on its

foreclosure claim.

{¶11} Initially, we. must address whether the trial court actually granted summary

judgment to Deutsche Bank on Taylor's counterclaims. The trial court's Judgment Entry And

Decree In Foreclosure filed on February 1, 2010, recites that:

"On January .8, 2010, this Court, on Plaintiff's renewed Motion for SummaryJudgment, having reviewed the Complaint, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, theAnswer and Counterclaim filed by Defendants, Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants'Counterclaim, Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motions toDistniss, Defendants' Opposition to Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs Reply Briefto Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Sununary Judgment, the July22 [sic] Motions and Oppositions thereto, as well as all evidence submitted,including the revised Affidavit submitted by Plaintiff on November 3, 2009determined that no issue of fact remains for resolution and that Plaintiff is entitledto judgment in its favor as a matter of law on all claims in the suit (tlie `January 8

Order'). The January 8 Order also referenced and denied Defendant Mr. Taylor'smotion for an evidentiary hearing and for stay pending the outcome of anevidentiary hearing filed on January 4, 2010." (Emphasis added.)

The language "on all claims in the suit" can be interpreted to mean all of Deutsche Bank's claims

and all of Taylor's counterclaims. This is especially true because the court recited that it

considered the counterclaims and Deutsche Bank's reply to the counterclaims. In fact, in its

brief on appeal, Deutsche Bank contends that "the Trial Court properly considered the Taylors'

6

Counterclaim allegations aid found them to be without merit." In discussing his second

assigmnent of error, Taylor states that "[Deutsche Bank's counsel] drafted and sent a letter dated

September 28, 2009[,] to [the trial judge] confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation

as such. The letter states per verbatim `Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a

revised Judginent Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants' Counterclaims

and Plaintiffs' Reply to Counterclaims[.'] Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A)." Taylor's

brief, however, does not include any attachments other than a copy of the trial court's February

1, 2010 Judgtnent Entry and Decree in Foreclosure, nor have we been able to locate a copy of the

letter by reviewing the transciipt of docket and journal entries and searching the voluminous

filings in this case. App.R. 16(A)(7); Loc.R. 7(F). The trial court entered judginent on Taylor's

counterclairns somewhat inartfully;2 a better practice would be to list individually each clairn

upon which suimnary judgment is granted. Based upon the arguments they have made to this

Court, it is clear that the parties also believe that the trial court granted summary judgment on

each claim, including all counterclaims. Because the trial court granted summary judgment in

favor of Deutsche Bank on its clairn for foreclosure and on Taylor's counterclaims, we address

all of Taylor's arguments regarding the entry of suminary judgment against him.

{¶12} This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio

Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. We apply the saine standard as the trial court,

viewing the facts of the case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolving

2 We observe that even if the trial court had not entered surmnary judgment on thecounterclaims, this would still be a final appealable order because the trial court included Civ.R.54(B) language.

7

any doubt in favor of the non-moving party. Viock v, Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 -Ohio

App.3d 7, 12.

{^13} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), smrunary judgment is proper if:

"(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) themoving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears frornthe evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewingsuch evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion forsunnnary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party." Temple v.Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327.

{¶14} The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing

the trial court of the basis for the motion and pointing to parts of the record that show the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-93.

Specifically, the moving party must support the motion by pointing to some evidence in the

record of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. Once this burden is satisfied, the non-moving party

bears the burden of offering specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293. The non-

moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations and denials in the pleadings but instead

must point to or submit some evidentiary material that demonstrates a genuine dispute over a

material fact. Henkle v. Henkle (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 732, 735.

{¶15} With respect to Taylor's counterclaims, after reviewing the grant of surnmary

judginent de novo, we reverse the entry of summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. In its

motion for surmnary judgment, Deutsche Bank moved for judgment on its claims only. It did not

move for suminary judgment with respect to any of Taylor's counterclaims. "Civ.R. 56 does not

authorize courts to enter summary judgment in favor of a non-moving party." Marshall v. Aaron

(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 48, syllabus. The Supreme Court of Ohio addressed a similar situation in

Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 84. In Bowen, the defendant moved for surmnary

judgment with respect to only some of the plaintiffs' claims. The trial court, however, entered

8

judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' entire complaint. The Supreme Court held that the trial court

erred in doing so, noting that such a holding was the logical extension of Marshall. Id. at 94.

"Where no motion has been filed, and necessarily no evidence attached thereto, no conclusion,

favorable or adverse, is properly available upon which to base an order for summaiy judginent."

Marshall, 15 Ohio St.3d at 50. A review of Deutsche Bank's motions for summary judginent

filed on August 22, 2008, and July 21, 2009, indicates that it iiever moved for summary

judgment on the claims contained in the counterclaims. Accordingly, there was no basis upon

which the trial court could grant suinmary judginent with regard to Taylor's counterclaims. We

remand the counterclaims to the trial court.

{¶16} With respect to Deutsche Bank's motion for sunnnary judgment on its claim for

foreclosure, we affirm the entry of summary judgment. When, on Noveinber 3, 2009, Deutsche

Bank resubmitted a proper affidavit in support of suinrnary judgment, the trial court reinstated

Deutsche Bank's previously filed motion for suinmary judgment. "The historic prerequisites for

a party seeking to foreclose a mortgage are, * * * execution and delivery of the note and

mortgage; valid recording of the mortgage; default; and establishing an amount due." (Quotation

and citation ornitted.) Neighborhood Housing Services of Toledo, Inc. v. Brown, 6th Dist. No. L-

08-1217, 2008-Ohio-6399, ¶16. "Once a court has determined that a default on an obligation

secured by a mortgage has occurred, it must then consider the equities of the situation in order to

decide if foreclosure is appropriate." Rosselot v. Heimbrock (1988), 54 Ohio App.3d 103, 106

(Citation omitted).

{¶17} The affidavit in support of summary judgment indicated that Deutsche Bank is the

holder of the note and mortgage secured by the property located at 8610 Hadden Road,

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087. On February 6, 2006, the Taylors executed the note and mortgage. The

9

note and mortgage were recorded and copies of each were incorporated by reference into the

affidavit. The affiant averred that the Taylors failed to make monthly payments as required by

the note and had failed to make any payment since March 30, 2007, when they made a payment

of $679.50, an amount which was insufficient to satisfy the monthly payment due on March 1,

2007. The affiant further averred that a notice of default was sent to the Tayiors at the property

address and the affidavit incorporated a copy of that notice. Paragraph 14 of the mortgage

requires that notice be "given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail * * * Any notice

provided for in this Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower * * *

when given as provided in this paragraph." The notice sent to the Taylors on May 4, 2007,

included a notification that if the default was not cured within 30 days then the lender would

accelerate the loan balance and proceed with foreclosure. The affiant averred that as of March 1,

2007, the balance due on the loan was $84,000.10 plus interest on the unpaid principal at 9.7%,

in addition to late charges, costs, fees and advances. Deutsche Bank provided the necessary

evidence to establish the prerequisites for foreclosure on the mortgage. Neighborhood Housing

Services, at ¶16.

{¶18} In its judgment entry granting Deutsche Bank a decree of foreclosure, the trial

court observed that the Taylors had participated in three mediations. The trial court observed

that the parties reached settlement agreements on two separate dates but that Taylor and his wife

failed to abide by either agreement. The trial court further observed that the lender sent a third

modification package to the couple after the final mediation and that they did not respond. The

equities do not weigh against the grant of foreclosure. Rosselot, 54 Ohio App.3d at 105.

Therefore, Deutsche Bank met its Dresher burden of demonstrating the absence of a question of

material fact. Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 292-93.

10

{¶19} On appeal, Taylor's argurnents consist of the following: 1) the original "blue ink

note" does not exist; 2) there is no title in Deutsche Bank's name; 3) there is no mortgage in

Deutsche Bank's name; 4) the assigmnent is fraudulent; 5) there are indispensible pa-ties that

must be added; 6) there is no power of attorney authorizing Deutsche Bank's attomeys to act on

its behalf; 7) no one has personal knowledge of the accounting of payments on the note; 8) the

assignment is fake; 9) Deutsche Bank lacks standing; and, 10) affidavits are required for any

party claiming any share or distribution from the sale of the property. Taylor has, however,

failed to provide citations to relevant authority in support of his arguments. App.R. 16(A)(7);

Loc.R. 7(B)(7). Instead, he has cited various statements taken out of context from cases arising

in several East Coast states and occasionally in federal court, including bankruptcy cases. He

has also made reference to a federal case between these parties involving this satne subject

matter that was dismissed prior to the filing of this suit. Taylor's filings in opposition to

summary judgment below contain similar allegations. These allegations are not supported by a

properly frained affidavit or other evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Accordingly,

Taylor has failed to carry his reciprocal burden to demonstrate a genuine dispute over a material

fact. Henkle (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d at 735. Notwithstanding the initial issues related to

improper affidavits and evidence in support of summary judgment, the trial court did not err in

granting sumrnary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank. Taylor's second assignment of error is

overruled. His third assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. We remand

Taylor's counterclaims to the trial court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI

"COUNTERCL[AI]M[S] NOT HEARD[.]"

11

{¶20} In his sixth assignment of error, Taylor essentially contends that the trial court's

failure to hear his counterclaims violated his right to equal protection and was a result of bias.

Taylor'.s sixth assignsnent of error is moot as a result of our resolution of his third assignment of

error. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

ASSIGNMEN1 OF ERROR IV

"DISCOVERY DENIED[.]"

{¶21} In his fourth assignment of error, Taylor contends that the trial court erred in

failing to compel discovery with regard to a corporate disclosure statement and certain

information about Cynthia Stevens, an affiant in support of Deutsche Bank's motion for

summary judgment.

{¶22} In support of his fourth assignment of error, Taylor cites to Loc.R. 8.01(b), (c),

(d)(1), (d)(20), (f) and Loc.R. 8.02 of the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, General

Division, as well as with Civ.R. 37. He does not, however, cite any further provision of these

rules or present facts or circumstances to demonstrate that the trial court or opposing counsel

violated the rules. App.R. 16(A)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2). A review of the transcript of docket and

journal entries reveals that the trial court scheduled and held pretrial conferences and settlement

conferences. Moreover, in light of our previous determination that the trial court properly

granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank on its claiin for foreclosure, the trial

court's denial of Taylor's motions to compel was appropriate. M & M Metals Internatl., Inc. v.

Continental Cas. Co., lst Dist. Nos. C-060551; C-060571, 2008-Ohio-1114, ¶29. The trial court

will, however, have the opportunity to reevaluate the motions to compel with respect to any

discovery requests that might be relevant to Taylor's counterclaims, which we are remanding as

discussed above. Taylor's fourth assignment of error is overruled in part and sustained in part.

12

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VII

"VIOLATION OF JURY TRIAL[.]"

{¶23} In his seventh assignment of error, Taylor contends that the trial court violated his

right to a jury trial with respect to Deutsche Bank's claim for foreclosure and his counterclaims.

We do not agree.

{¶24} Neither party to a foreclosure action "is entitled to deinand a jury trial for the trial

of the issue." Alsdorf v. Reed (1888), 45 Ohio St. 653, syllabus. Moreover, "[a] litigant's

constitutional right to a jury trial is not abridged by the proper granting of a motion for summary

judgment." Washington Mut. Bank F.A. v. Christy, 12th Dist, No. CA2003-03-075, 2004-Ohio-

92, ¶14, citing Tschantz v. Ferguson (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 693, 714; Houk v. Ross (1973), 34

Ohio St.2d 77, 83-84. Because we have already detennined that the trial court properly granted

summary judgment to Deutsche Bank on its claim for foreclosure, it follows that Taylor was not

denied the right to a jury trial. Further, because we ordered his counterclaims to be remanded to

the trial court for further proceedings, the remainder of this assigmnent of error is moot. App.R.

12(A)(1)(c). Taylor's seventh assigmnent of error is without meiit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V

"DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT[.]"

{¶25} In his fifth assigmnent of error, Taylor contends that the assignment of the note

and mortgage to Deutsche Bank was defective. We do not agree.

{¶26} In his contention that the assigmnent was defective, Taylor relies upon R.C.

5301.01 and a statement that a power of attorney was necessary under Tawil v. Finkelstine

Bruckman Wohl & Rothman (1996), 223 A.D.2d 52. Tawil, a New York state appellate case

constitutes merely persuasive authority and, in any event, does not stand for the proposition that

13

a power of attorney was necessary in this case. On the contrary, the assignment on its face

appears to comply with R.C. 5301.01 in that Option One Mortgage Corporation acted through a

representative who assigned the Taylors' mortgage and note to Deutsche Bank. The

representative appeared before a notary public in Minnesota. The assignment was then recorded

in Sun•,snit County. Taylor's fifth assign^̂ nent of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VIII

"EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION[.]"

{¶27} In his eighth assignment of error, Taylor contends that the trial court egregiously

abused its discretion in creating the errors that form the basis for his first through seventh

assigrunents of error. We do not agree.

{¶28} Taylor has wholly failed to support this contention with any citations to authority

or the record. App.R. 16(A)(7); Loc.R. 7(B)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2). Taylor's eighth assigmnent of

error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IX

"IL[L]EGAL WITHDRAWAL OF JUDGES AND COUNSEL[.]"

{¶29} In his ninth assignment of error, Taylor contends that the trial court illegally

substituted judges and allowed illegal withdrawal of counsel for Deutsche Bank. We do not

agree.

{¶30} Taylor contends that attorney Kevin L. Williams of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC

"just walked away from this case after filing a[n] unlawful summary[]judgment motion." Taylor

has failed to demonstrate that any attorney has withdrawn either legally or illegally. App.R.

16(A)(7); Loc.R. 7(B)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2).

14

{^J3.1} This matter was originally assigned to Judge Shapiro, who retired. He was

replaced by Judge Gippin, who no longer serves on the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.

Judge Gippin was replaced by Judge Parker, who has made all rulings relevant to this appeal.

Moreover, Taylor has failed to demonstrate how any of these judges "illegally with[drew] from

this case without explanation after making rulings favorable to plaintiffs[.]" App.R. 16(A)(7);

Loc.R. 7(B)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2). Rather than illegally withdrawing, the judges assumed and

then left their positions in a lawful manner. Taylor's ninth assignment of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR X

"FRAUDULENT ALLONGE NOTE[.]"

{¶32} In his tenth assignment of error, Taylor contends that a fraudulent allonge is

attached to the note. We do not agree.

{¶33} As the appellant, Taylor bears the burden of "showing error by reference to

matters in the record." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199. He

directs this Court only to the allonge attached to Deutsche Bank's affidavit in support of

summary judgment. He alleges that Option One added the allonge after the note was sold to

Deutsche Bank. He then contends, without any support, that the "plaintiffs forged this

document, and has [sic] suppressed the date, signed note with initials, it's not certified, has no

`power of attorney[.]"' Accordingly, Taylor has failed to demonstrate error with citations to the

record. Id.; App.R. 16(A)(7); Loc.R. 7(B)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2). Taylor's tenth assignment of

error is overruled.

III.

{¶34} Taylor's first and second assignments of error are overruled. Taylor's third

assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Taylor's fourth assignment of error

15

is sustained in part and overruled in part. Taylor's fifth assigrunent of error is overruled.

Taylor's sixth assignment of error is moot. Taylor's seventh assignment of error is overru.led in

part and moot in part. Taylor's eighth, ninth and tenth assignments of error are overruled.•'We

remand Taylor's counterclaims to the trial court for further proceedings consistent witl-i this

opinion.

Judgment affirmed in part,reversed in part,

and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to all parties equally.

CARLA MOOREFOR THE COURT

DICKINSON, P. J.BELFANCE, J.CONCUR

16

APPEARANCES:

KENNETH S. TAYLOR, pro se, Appellant.

ROBIN M. WILSON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.

STATE OF OHIO ), r.,; r;- -„. r,PP;:Atk ;,-;_ ;4^^ COURT OF APPEALSTJUDICIAL DISTRIC

COUNTY OF SUMMIT

IQI^ r' l^DEUTSCHE BANK ^J ta ;^ i0^^•1^YNo. 25281^., ^;TRUST COMPANY iF 01,31 p OF COUFi ^ S

Appellee

V.

KENNETH TAYLOR, et al.

Appellants

JOURNAL ENTRY

On March 4, 2010, Kenneth Taylor filed a notice of appeal from an order of the

Summit County Court of Common Pleas dated February 1, 2010. The notice of appeal

lists Mr. Taylor and Alycia Taylor-Driggins as the appellants, but Mr. Taylor signed the

document on behalf of both. Upon review of the initial filings, this Court concludes that

with respect to Ms. Taylor-Driggins, the appeal has not been properly commenced. With

respect to Mr. Taylor, the notice of appeal is untimely.

Only a licensed attorney may represent or file documents on behalf of another party

in this Court. See R.C. 4705.01; Talarek v. M.E.Z., Inc. (Sept. 10, 1998), 9th Dist. No.

98CA007088, journal entry. Mr. Taylor and Ms. Taylor-Driggins were both defendants in

the trial court, and according to the notice of appeal, both have attempted to appeal the trial

court's judgment. Mr. Taylor has not indicated that he is a licensed attomey.

Consequently, he cannot file a notice of appeal on behalf of another person, and the appeal

is dismissed to the extent that it relates to Ms. Taylor-Driggins.

Rule 4(A) of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a notice of appeal to

be filed "within thirty days of the later of entry of the judgment or order appealed or, in a

Journal Entry, C.A. No. 25281Page 2 of 2

civil case, service of the notice of judgment and its entry if service is not made on the party

within the three day period in Rule 58(B) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure." An

untimely notice of appeal does not invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See Transamerica Ins.

Co. v. Nolan, 72 Ohio St.3d 320, syllabus (1995). Because Mr. Taylor filed his notice of

appeal thirty-one days after the order appealed, the notice of appeal is untimely with

respect to him. As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the attempted appeal.

The attempted appeal is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Taylor.

The clerk of courts is ordered to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the

parties and make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Ohio

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and to provide a certified copy of the order to the clerk of

the trial court. The clerk of the trial court is ordered to provide a copy of this order to the

judge who presided over the trial court action.

I ^LzJudge

Concur: ^Carr, J.Whitmore, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

1. PARTIES TO ACTION ... Cover Page- Notice of Appeal Ist page.

2. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION.... Cover-Page 2nd

page.

3. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION - BRIEF (1-14)

3RD Page.

4. CASE NOMENCLATURE AND HISTORY page 1 of brief.

5. STATEMENTS FORM BASIS FOR THIS APPEAL page lof brief:

*There is substantial constitutional questions raised by this appeal which are certifiablyoutrageous, glaring and numerous violations of substantial rights of appellants -defendants which include but not limited to: Civil Conspiracy Claim, Lack of Due

Process, violations Of Equal Protection Clause provided citizens by the 14th Amendmentsection 1, Both the trial court and Appellate court violated defendants 4th Amendment6`h Amendment, 7"' Amendinent, rights by denial of trial by jury, denial of any trial,denial of any hearing on the record, denial of constitutional rights to face and questionaccusers, denial of use of court to have counterclaim heard by court, denial of the right to

a fair trial, denial of the right to conduct discovery.

6. CASE IS BOTH GREAT PUBLIC AND GENERAL INTEREST page 6,

7, 8 of brief:

*This case is a great American Tragedy of a massive proportion, Sub-Prime andCertificate Back Securities Trust and Trustees Claiming ownership rights of defendantshome without a signed contract agreement, with no original title, no original promissorynote and no evidence and using fraudulent manufactured documents to take defendantshome with the support and blessing and assistance of trial court judges who have allowedthem to do so and the erosion of the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness andindividual freedoms. Further this honorable high court must act swiftly to restore publictrust, integrity, ethics, faimess, to our local judicial District Appellate Court the NinthCircuit and trial court to cure a devastating and demoralizing callous and despicableaccount of the rape and pillage of a black African American couple Civil Rights beingegregiously violated who have been mairied 25 years, and have been residing in their

1

home 22 years. Who are victims of racial discrimination and disparate treatment by trialcourts in Ohio reflected in the Supreme Court of Ohio's Report of the Ohio Commissionon Racial Faitness? Who have become one of the millions of home owners caught in thewide net cast by sub-prime lending, and alleged fraud of Americas investment giantGoldman Sachs filed by SEC, which continues to destroy the fabric of America turningsome local neighborhood into virtual ghost- towns as houses sit unoccupied just rottingaway as a result of greed The tragedy is the appellate is not a bank is not moving intohome and no one has the note its all fraud as much as this case involves the appellantsbad law is being formed here in Ohio that will affect all Ohioans who come seekingjustice and fairness in Ohio's trial court only to find the lower local court in SummitCounty of Akron Ohio is brought and paid for by giant banks who have ethically andmorally bankrupt the judges of their sworn oath of office, stripping them of power toprovide lawful protection to its citizens their influence of money (paying the bills ) havebankrupt judges of their ability to be fair and impartial unless this court acts they will

remain "Above The Law" Seven(7) judges have sat idly by in this local district in Ohiocharge with the duty to be fair and impartial and have had this case before them and justhave taken the easy way out the ostrich approach and stuck their head in the sand it isimportant that these judges be known for the benefit of the general public in the interestof our citizens as the trial court is trying to keep this case secretly compartmentalized bydismissing it for minor procedural flaws, to block case from being heard on its merits

7. STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS.... Page 2-14 of brief:

*. The judge and plaintiff attorney committed conspiracy and acted concert with eachother both making material and false declarations to trial court which violated federal lawunder 18 USC 1623 this is a serious crime, [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] Making it impossible to get a fair trial which leadto a final judgement, to the taking defendants real property rights and disposed of andignored defendants counterclaim with false statement in court records to make courtbelieve the counterclaim had been resolved and adjudicated, in furtherance of thatconspiracy Robin Wilson contacted judge through a letter to him which she agreed toparticipate and did so become a willingly active party in collusion and expressed thatactivity knowingly in the letter which confirmed the joint action to included language asa result of the judges directive in final decree that judge had reviewed and adjudicatedcounterclaim in summary judgement order, the judge never mention counterclaim in hissummary judgement or at any other time during this case there is nothing in courts recordthat shows he has reviewed or even read counterclaim ,[Cite as Englefield v. Corcoran,

2007-Ohio-1807.]AND THIS MATTER IS STILL PENDING, DEFENDANTSNEED AND DEMAND a trial and hearing of counterclaim that had a jury demand.Moreover the Supreme Court in JONES v UNITED STATES (1999) 526 US 227 247 -248, noting the founders "fears that the right could be loss not only by gross denial, butby erosion. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees theright to trial by an impartial jury." Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign fmal judgement order

prohibition lied as two motion of recusal were before the judge. "Justice must give

2

the appearance ofjustice" Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct

1038 (1960).

* The court never set a trial date, never had a case-management hearing, plaintiffsattorneys never attended pre-trial hearing, and never attended mediation hearings, theplaintiffs attorneys submitted forge documents to court, the lead attorney withdrewwithout notice and without leave of court after he filed this complaint which is not

verified, the law requires complaint be verified by some one other than the illegallywithdrawn attorney Kevin Williams who signed compliant and never came to trial courtever and does not have personal knowledge of facts presented in complaint. Countywide

Home Loans Inc. v Taylor 17 misc3d 595 (Sup Ct Suffolk Co. 2007 The law firm has

forge his signature on final judgement order the title search is a counterfeit and forgeryand judge has knowledge of this fact, the judge granted a summary judgement in favor ofplaintiffs without one witness, and a blank affidavit with no affiants name on document

which was unsigned and not notarized In re Disqualification of Pokorny (1992), 74 Ohio

St.3d1238, 657 N.E.2d 1345 ("A paper purporting to be an affidavit, but not to havebeen sworn to before an officer, is not an affidavit"); State ex rel. Coulverson v.

Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 14, 577 N.E.2d 352 (an "'affidavit' *** not sworn before anyone authorized to give oaths * * * is void");

Benedict v. Peters (1898), 58 Ohio St. 527, 536, 51 N.E. 37 ("The general rule isthat an affidavit must appear on its face to have been taken before the properofficer, and in compliance with all legal requisitions Judge Tom Parker unlawfullygranted plaintiffs a summary judgement motion without Affidavit, allowing falsedeclarations to this court(18 USC 1623 ) which harm and prejudiced defendants case, theplaintiffs attorney submitted a counterfeit forgery of a allonge note attached to a copy ofa promissory note See In re Foreclosure Cases, No 1;07CV2282, 2007 WL 3232430(N.D. Ohio Oct.31, 2007) each and every document is a fake forgery counterfeit or acomputerized copy. There is not one creditable witness. The judge fail to give notice thatfinal judgement was a final appealed order to defendants and violated its rights to dueprocess summary judgement was awarded without any accounting records the law

requires written records supported by a witness with personal knowledge, Cole TaylorBank v. Corrigan, supra 230 Ill. App.3d 122, N E.2d 177, 181 (2d Dist.1992 A affidavit

is not made sufficient by omitting the facts that it was based on a review of loan records,if it appears that the affiant did not receive or observe the reception of all the borrowerspayments no one has shown any authority to act on behalf of anyone, the assignment is a

fake and forgery Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn Inc. 147AD 2d 208 (2nd Dept.

1989). Any assignment without a power of attomey is a legal nullity (Tawil v. Finkelstine

Bruckman Wohl & Rothman, 223 AD 2d, 52, 53, (1 d Deptl 996). there further must be an

Affiant by and officer of Deutsche National Bank Trust Company or American HomeMortgage Servicing Inc. agency in possession of valid power of attorney or fromDeutsche Bank National Trust Company for that expressed purpose, assigning andtransferring notes, and the courts need see evidence of that purpose expressed in awritten agreement with servicing agents. no one has ever appeared in person the entirecase is fraudulent. not one person has ever been to the court no attorney no real partying-interest no company representative the lawyer who file and signed compliant has never

3

been to the court he submitted summary judgement without attending any hearing nobodyhas ever seen Kevin Williams the law firm is forging his signature on documents filedwith the courts. Never filed notice of appearance. (Cite as Huntsman v. Lowery, 2002-

Ohio-3948.1 The sixth Amendment has confrontation clause. Another aspect of this rightof confrontation is that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses againsthim. This right can be overcome only for compelling reasons. The courts have violateddefendants basic sixth Amendment right to face his accusers the plaintiffs which are allghost and not a single person has ever been to court ever nobody. No lawyer no one frombank no one from trustee no one from original lenders no one with real party in-interesthas came forward to claim property the reason is no one wants to face examination orperjury charges for this fraud upon the court These are criminal acts committed in anattempt to take personal and real property rights the trial court judge has allowed this thedefendants were subjective to ajudge who displayed a deep rooted prejudice an bias an a

inability to be fair or impartial.

8. AUGUMENTS SUPPORTED BY PROPOSITIONS OF LAW:

- JUDGE LACKS JURISDICTION -prohibition lied, under motion torecuse judge failed to hold hearing set forth in Canon Rules page 3 line 15 ofbr.

-SUMMARY JUDGEMENT VOID -no witness, no affidavit, and noaffiant, with personal knowledge of facts, compliant not verified, plethora ofgenuine material facts in dispute pointed out by judge himself. Set forth inRule 56. Judge grants second summary judgement motion with perjuredtestimony and new witness, and 8 material issues in dispute pointed out byjudge himself , and failure of plaintiffs to follow court order to produce acurrent accurate, endorsed affidavit in support of summary judgement on

January 8 2010. page 4 line 3 of br.

)

- NO DISCOVERY ALLOWED. No dates set for discovery, no discoverycut off dates set, no case management hearing, violation of due process oflaw. (See attached Trial Court Certified Docket Report entry #87 12/9/09.

-DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT. Fraudulent misleading, produce afterlawsuit was filed, no power of attorney, with authority to act on behalf ofplaintiffs huge discpences in date document was executed. page 1 line 5 of

br.

-COUNTERCLAIM IGNORED The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. page 2 line 12 of br.

4

-DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURYThe Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Page 2 line 13 of br.

- ABUSE OF DESCRETION).... The trial court has the inherent authority, within

the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff hasperpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court

orders.page 2 line 19 of br.

-JUDGEILAWYER WITHDRAW, three judges with drew from case after

making decisions favorable to plaintiffs. Page 9 line 2 of br.

- FORGERY ALLONGE NOTE the plaintiff s attomey submitted a counterfeitforgery of an allonge note attached to a copy of a promissory note.page 4 line 14 of br.

- VIOLATION OF PRE-TRIAL plaintiffs attorneys never eve'r attended

pre trial hearing, as no trial date was set, no case management, and nodiscovery dates were set no dispositive motion cut off dates ordered.

-LACK OF STANDING. The plaintiffs must come to court with proof they own theNote. The plaintiffs are all ghost and not a single person has ever been to court evernobody. No lawyer, no one from banks, no one from trustee, no one from originallenders, no and no one with real party in-interest has came forward to claim property.

-INDISPENSABLE PARTY plaintiff have sworn and declared in affidavits

summited in record in support of summary judgement that other partiesexecuted note and mortgage with defendants, Oak Mortgage Company,

Sands Canyon Mortgage Company, Option One Mortgage Company have

all been named as owners, and must be added as parties to lawsuit.

-DENIAL OF EVIDENTARY HEARING Due process of law, as guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article 1,

Ohio Constitution, requires that every party to an action be afforded 'a reasonable

opportunity to be heard after a reasonable notice of such hearing.

* Both the trial court and Appellate court violated defendants 4`F', 5`h, 6th' 7th' and 14`hAmendments, rights by denial of trial by jury, denial of any trial, denial of any hearing onthe record, denial of constitutional rights to face and question accusers, denial of rights touse of court to have counterclaim heard by court, just as the court is hearing plaintiffsunverified complaint, denial of the right to a fair trial, denial of the right to conduct

discovery "Due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution and Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, requires that

5

every party to an action be afforded 'a reasonable opportunity to be heard after areasonable notice of such hearing. "' Zashin, Rich, Sutula & Monastra Co., L.P.A. v.Offenberg (1993), 90 OhioApp.3d 436, 443, quoting Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc.

v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 118, 125. The judge and plaintiff

attorney committed conspiracy and acted concert with each other both making materialand false declarations to trial court which violated federal law under 18 USC 1623 this is

a serious crime, [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-

2895.] Making it impossible to get a fair trial which lead to a final judgement, to thetaking defendants real property rights and disposed of and ignored defendantscounterclaim with false statement in court records to make court believe the counterclaimhad been resolved and adjudicated, in furtherance of that conspiracy Robin Wilsoncontacted judge through a letter to him which she agreed to participate and did so becomea willingly active party in collusion and expressed that activity knowingly in the letterwhich confirmed the joint action to included language as a result of the judges directivein final decree that judge had reviewed and adjudicated counterclaim in summaryjudgement order , the judge never mention counterclaim in his summary judgement or atany other time during this case there is nothing in courts record that shows he has

reviewed or even read counterclaim [Cite as Englefield v. Corcoran, 2007-Ohio-1807.]

*AND THIS MATTER IS STILL PENDING, DEFENDANTS NEED ANDDEMAND a trial and hearing of counterclaim that had a jury demand. . Moreover thefacts presented are this case is undisputed and lead to inescapable conclusion law.Moreover the Supreme Court in JONES v UNITED STATES (1999) 526 US 227 247 -248, noting the founders "fears that the right could be loss not only by gross denial, butby erosion. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees theright to trial by an impartial jury ° Judge lacked jurisdiction to sign final judgement orderprohibition lied as two motion of recusal were before the judge. "Justice must give the

appearance ofjustice" Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960).

Defendants have 25 motions with merit and plenty meat on the bones that have goneunanswered or ruled as moot or denied without explanation. The court never set a trialdate, never had a case-management hearing, plaintiffs attorneys never attended pre-trialhearing, and never attended mediation hearings, the plaintiffs attomeys submitted forgedocuments to court, the lead attorney withdrew without notice and without leave of court

after he filed this complaint which is not verified, the law requires complaint be verified

by some one other than the illegally withdravin attorney Kevin Williams who signedcompliant and never came to trial court ever and does not have personal knowledge of

facts presented in complaint. Countywide Home Loans Inc. v Taylor 17 misc3d 595 (Sup

Ct Suffolk Co. 2007 The law firm has forge his signature on final judgement order thetitle search is a counterfeit and forgery and judge has knowledge of this fact, the judgegranted a summary judgement in favor of plaintiffs without one witness, and a blankaffidavit with no affiants name on document which was unsigned and not notarized In re

Disqualification of Pokorny (1992), 74 Ohio St.3d 1238, 657 N.E.2d 1345 ("A paper

purporting to be an affidavit, but not to have been sworn to before an officer, is not an

affidavit"); State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12,

14, 577 N.E.2d 352 (an "'affidavit''affinot sworn before anyone authorized to give

oaths * * * is void"); Benedict v. Peters (1898), 58 Ohio St. 527, 536, 51 N.E. 37 ("The

6

general rule is that an affidavit must appear on its face to have been taken before theproper officer, and in compliance with all legal requisitions Judge Tom Parker unlawfullygranted plaintiffs a summary judgement motion without Affidavit, allowing falsedeclarations to this court(18 USC 1623 ) which harm and prejudiced defendants case, theplaintiffs attotney submitted a counterfeit forgery of a allonge note attached to a copy ofa promissory note See In re Foreclosure Cases, No 1;07CV2282, 2007 WL 3232430(N.D. Ohio Oct.31, 2007) each and every document is a fake forgery counterfeit or acomputerized copy. There is not one creditable witness. The judge fail to give notice thatfinal judgement was a final appeal order to defendants and violated its rights to dueprocess summary judgement was awarded without any accounting records the law

requires written records supported by a witness with personal knowledge, Cole TaylorBank v. Corrigan, supra 230 Ill. App. 3d 122, N.E. 2d 177, 181 (2d Dist. 1992 A affidavit

is not made sufficient by omitting the facts that it was based on a review of loan records,if it appears that the affiant did not receive or observe the reception of all the borrowerspayments no one has shown any authority to act on behalf of anyone , the assignment is a

fake and forgery Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn Inc. 147 AD 2d 208 (2nd Dept.

1989). Any assignment without a power of attorney is a legal nullity (Tawil v. Finkelstine

Bruckman Wohl & Rothman, 223 AD 2d, 52, 53, (1 d Dept1996). there further must be an

Affiant by and officer of Deutsche National Bank Trust Company or American HomeMortgage Servicing Inc. agency in possession of valid power of attorney or fromDeutsche Bank National Trust Company for that expressed purpose, assigning andtransferring notes, and the courts need see evidence of that purpose expressed in awritten agreement with servicing agents. no one has ever appeared in person the entirecase is fraudulent. not one person has ever been to the court no attorney no real partying-interest no company representative the lawyer who file and signed compliant has neverbeen to the court he submitted summary judgement without attending any hearing nobodyhas ever seen Kevin Williams the law firm is forging his signature on d=documents filedwith the courts. Never filed notice of appearance. [Cite as Huntsman v. Lowery, 2002-

Ohio-3948.1 The sixth Amendment has confrontation clause. Another aspect of this rightof confrontation is that the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses againsthim. This right can be overcome only for compelling reasons.

9. TABLE OF CASES AS REFERENCED IN MEMORANDUM BRIEF:

Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).page 1I line 22 ofbr.

Benedict v. Peters (1898), 58 Ohio St. 527, 536, 51 N.E. 37 page 4[ine 11 of br.

Burton v.Browd, supra, 258 Conn. 569-70. page 12 line 12 of br.

, Cole Taylor Bank v. Corrigan, supra 230711. App.3d 122, N E.2d 177, 181 (2d

Dist.1992page 4 line 22 of brief.

[Cite as Cote v. Eisinger, 2006-Ohio-4020.] page 10 line 24.

7

Countywide Home Loans Inc. v Taylor 17 misc3d 595 (Sup Ct Suffolk Co. 2007page 4

line I of br.

Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):page 11 line 14 of br.

In re Disqualifcation ofPokorny (1992), 74 Ohio St.3d 1238, 657 N.E.2d 1345 page 4

line 6 of br.

Destafano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1077

(Fla. I st DCA Apri128, 2003),page121ine 1 of br.

[Cite as Englefield v. Corcoran, 2007-Ohio- 1807.1 page 31ine 9 of br.

See In re Foreclosure Cases, No 1;07CV2282, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D. Ohio Oct.31,

2007) page 4 line 16 of br.

. [Cite as Huntsman v. Lowery, 2002-Ohio-3948.1page 51ine 13 of br.

Levine v. United States 362 U. S. 610, 80 S. Ct 1038 (1960).page 3 line 17 of br.

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.1page2line

22 of br.

JONES v UNITED STATES (1999) 526 US 227 247 - 248,page 3 line 13 of br.

Komblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).page 11 line25 of br.

Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003),page121ine 3 of br.

(Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652,

94L.Ed. 865) page 10 line 25 of br.

Mennonite at 798-800, 103 S.Ct. at 2711-2712, 77L.Ed.2d at 187-188.page 141ine 13 of

br.

State v. Fitzgerald,257 Conn. 106, 112, 77A_2d 580 (2001).pagel2 line 5 of br.

State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 14, 577

N.E.2d 352 page 41ine 8 of br.

Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn Inc. 147 AD 2d 208 (2nd Dept. 1989). Page 5 line I of br.

8

(Tawil v. Finketstine Bruckman Wohl & Rothman, 223 AD 2d, 5Z, 53, (Id Dept1996).

Page 5 line 2 of br.

Tannenbuam v. United States.page 10 line 7 of brief.

United States v, Butner, 440U.S. 48,54-55 ( 1979).page 8 line 5 of br.

Zashin, Rich, Sutula & Monastra Co., L.P.A. v. Offenberg (1993), 90 OhioApp.3d 436,

443, quoting Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn. (1986), 28

Ohio St.3d 118, 125. page 2 line 17 of br.

TABLE OF:ALL STATUES, RULES, REGULATION,ORDINANCES, ANDCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RELATED TO CASE IN BRIEF;

Page 1 of brief :; lack of due process and the equal protection clauseprovided by the XIV, IV Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.

Page 6 of brief; Cannon (4), 3 (d). The Second, Rule 2 Cannon C 3 (1)

Page 4 of brief; federal criminal statue treaty 18 U.S.C. 1623..

Page 5 of brief; Mediation Confidentiality (O.R.C. 22.6)

Page 3 of brief; violating Rule 8.01 (B), (C), ( D 1-20), (F), and Civil Rule

37 Pre - Trial and Procedure.

Page 4 of brief; . Rule Civ R 56 Summary Judgement

Page 4 of brief; UCC 1303.36, 3-308, 3-306, and 1303.42., Hearsay Rule

Page 4of brief; "power of attotney" (5301.010.R.C.)

9

2 of brief; rights of a holder -in- due course per U.C.C. 3-203

(b).

Page 2 of brief Equal Protection Clause , Lack Of Due Process .

PaRe 8 of brief 42 U.S.t; 1981, 42 U.S.C. 1985

Page 1 of brief rights Under the Constitution Of The United States, bythe Seventh Amensiment, and the Ohio Rules Of Court (Civ R 38),

Page 3 of brief ; Summit County rules of court state in 7.20 / 17.01,17.02 of Ohio Rules of State Court.

Page 3 of brief; rule 8.02 failure to assi pretrial. And bothplaintiffs counsel violated court rules (B), (C), (D-1-20)^(F) and Civil ruie37.Case must be reversed.

10. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE_..Page 16after brief.

11. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS:* Date stamp cop of court of appeals judgement entry being appealed:dated, February

*Date -stamped copy of the court of appeals opinion being appealed: dated

April 12, 2010

12.OPT1O'AL PE MiTTED ATTACHMENTS:

CLERK OF COURT - Supreme Court of Ohio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COVERPAGE 1 1-0437 DEUTSCHE BANK...

Documents

Transcript of CLERK OF COURT - Supreme Court of Ohio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO COVERPAGE 1 1-0437 DEUTSCHE BANK...