Final Brief 2

7/28/2019 Final Brief 2

1/141

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 by Vacating a Void Judgment

and to Rule on the Following

Counterclaims:

Part I. INTRODUCTION

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

this Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment of the Courts Decision and

Entry Rendered on the 1st Day of October, 2008, on the grounds that the Plaintiff

has committed fraud by bringing into this court fabricated, forged and fraudulent

documents.

2. Specifically, Plaintiffs Affidavit of status of Account and military

Affidavit (exhibit A2) which purports to show Plaintiffs ownership interest and

validity of the alleged subject Mortgage & Note & Plaintiffsexhibit A

Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo with which Plaintiff purports to

prove Plaintiffs ownership of the alleged Mortgage & Note at time of foreclosure

initiation dated March 7th, 2008.

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a courtwhich lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, orlacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or anorder procured by fraud (emphasis added), can be attacked atany time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided thatthe party is properly before the court, Long v. ShorebankDevelopment Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

1
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdf


2/141

Please see attached Brief in Support of Void Judgments

(Authorities 12)

2


3/141

DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTANL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I

2. With regard to all counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs claims are barred

in whole or in part, because at the time this Complaint was filed, the Plaintiff was

not the owner or the holder of the Promissory Note in question.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE II

3. With regard to all the counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs claims are

barred in whole or in part, because at the time the Complaint was filed, the Plaintiff

was not authorized to bring this action by any person who had an interest in the

Promissory Note in question.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE III



was not authorized to bring this action by any person who was an owner or holder

of the Promissory Note in question.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IV



was not authorized to bring or maintain this action by all of the people who had an

interest in the Promissory Note in question.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE V

6. With regard to all of the counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs claims are

barred in whole or in part, because the Plaintiff lacks standing.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE VI

3


4/141

7. With regard to all of the counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs claims are

barred in whole or in part, because the Plaintiff lacked standing when the Complaint

was filed.

ARGUMENT & HISTORY

8. 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 court1, did cause to be filed against the wrong

Defendant, a Mr. John L. Reed, in violation of Due Diligence, a

foreclosure suit on February 27th, 2008 ultra vires. See Wells Fargo

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

9. 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)2 which is post dated after

their initiation of this foreclosure action.

10. Plaintiffs assignment fromOption One to Wells Fargo

(exhibit A), was received from a questionable Holder in Due

Course, specifically, Option One.

11. As a requirement of New Yorks Trust law, the TRUST is

required to be the physical holder of the Note & Mortgage and the

TRUSTs represeentative in this case is the Plaintiff Wells Fargo

Bank as Trustee for and NOT Option One.

1(() Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion ForSummary judgment" August 15th, 2008 line 1 & sect. 1, 2, & 3 )2( 9/26,2008 Plaintiff's Notice of Filing of Assignment &Assignment 1st Copy)

4


5/141

12. Option One allegedly received this Note & Mortgage from an

unknown and unverified holder who, it is unclear but a holder who

allegedly received it from another unverified and unknown

questionable holder in due course. Explained more fully below, see

below Tracking The Mortgage Chronology.

10. Upon Plaintiffs Counsels discovery of their own

inconsistent, invalid 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, beyond the

scope of the original pleading, that the real owner of the property,

Defendant John A. Reed, was in fact 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 thatambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the partywho drafted said contract. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558

So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990).

11. Defendant John A. Reed neither affirmed nor denied his

position as signor of the alleged Note and/or Mortgage, instead

relying upon his rights of Burden of Proof .

12. Defendant John A. Reed did affirm that the Principal named

on the alleged Note and Mortgage as the Creator of same,

Defendant John L. Reed, was in fact not the property owner at the

time of the alleged Mortgage and Note.

13. The Courts then found, and Plaintiff has agreed, that the Principal named on

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

5


6/141

Defendant John A. Reeds Father, Defendant John L. Reed, was in fact not the

property owner at the time of alleged Mortgage and Note creation nor the creator

of the alleged Mortgage and Note.

Plaintiffs Assertions of Forgery

14. Plaintiffs Counsel, within his privileged position, has stated

as fact in Pleadings (libel per se)3, and Defendant has denied, that

Defendant John A. Reed had both altered any Federal Documents

and forged his Fathers name.

15. Plaintiffs Counsels pleadings have damaged Defendant

John A. Reed good name and character on numerous occasions

through defamation of the character and/or libel per se, mens

rea, , and done so 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 both forged

his Fathers signature and altered Federal documents.

Defendants Distinctions Previously Earned.

29. Here are 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.

30. Such distinctions earned include;

3(see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment pg. 2,line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JARsMemorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motionto Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum inopposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14,& 24)

6


7/141

a. being the very 1st person to ever identify and stop this

States first computer virus infection (Ameritech Bldg.,

1995 (Neuroquila virus)),

b. 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),

c. of his identifying the need for and then being the sole

author of this States very first Intranet site and

d. subsequently creating the Intranet Department

resulting in the States Intranet Site Construction and

Maintenance Department and

e. of also being the driving force which instigated the

formation of (and becoming a founding member of) this

States Disaster Resumption Team & Plan.

31. 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.

32. Defendants Education and 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 and research, extensive

monetary investments, hundreds of hours of actual hard work and

which collectively show and prove through accomplishment,

7


8/141

Defendants exercise within his own chosen profession of honesty

and constant PROPER DUE DILIGENCE.

Defendants Causes of Action

15. Plaintiffs allegations carry imputations and aspersions of

criminal conduct and allegations injurious to defendant.

16. As is evidenced on all of Plaintiffs alleged loan creation

documentation, all documents were typed and created at H&R

Block Offices located in Tampa Florida (yet they are notarized in

Ohio?) to which Defendant could have had no access.

18. Plaintiff and/or any other person or entity has never even

proffered any reason whatsoever why or even how Defendant

John A. Reed would or could profit ifDefendant John A. Reed

would have substituted his Fathers name on the alleged (typed)

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

to substantiate Plaintiffs other libelous per se claims of forgery, as

statements of fact,. 4

21. These entirely unsubstantiated claims are libelous, and were

maliciously created and committed with unbridled malice, entirely

in an attempt to defame, steal the good identity of and lower the

value of the Defendant in the Courts eyes and have served only to

4(see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment pg. 2,line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JARMemorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motionto Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum inopposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14,& 24),) of Defendant John A. Reeds alleged forgery (libel per se2nd count)

8


9/141

cause harm to the good name, character and reputation of the

Defendant.

22. As Defendants viability in his chosen and previously

distinguished 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 chosen

profession, in perpetuity.

24. Plaintiffs Counsel committed this offense mens re,

attempting only to bias the Courts opinion of the Defendant to

one of a lesser value and in so doing attempting to prejudice the

Court against Defendant.

25. In so doing, Plaintiff did cause to be published onto the

Internet the charges indicated above and in the information

technology age we now live in, that same information was almost

instantaneously disseminated globally by data mining companies

world wide, ie. Lexis-Nexus and many others and as such is now

unalterable.

26. As is witnessed by Montgomery Countys own Pro Legal

websites (changed weeks AFTER this 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, also, unalterable.

9


10/141

27. Defendant states that changing the record, even now, would not restore

Defendants Employability because of Defendants age and reduced work

experience caused by plaintiffs misinformation keeping him from work now.

33. 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.

10


11/141

34. Subsequent with the Court's ruling that Defendant John A.

Reed was the Creator of the Note & Mortgage; the Court, with

Judicial fiat, did then change;

a. the alleged Mortgage & Promissory Note,

b. in so doing effectively destroying the original

Mortgage and Note and their representations of

fact

c. to represent that Defendant John A. Reed was

the true owner and responsible party for the

alleged Mortgage and Note.

in violation of ORCP RULE 25. (C)5U.S. Statute ofFrauds, the U.S.

Law of Contracts and Civ.R. 17(A),

35. Then, without any formal notice of suit directly against

Defendant John A. Reed, as the 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.

36. "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. 6 Please

see attached Authorities 1 & Authorities 3

5Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 25.(C) Substitution of Parties Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, theaction may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interestis transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Service of the motion shall be made as providedin subdivision (A) of this rule. emphasis added6Article III, Section (4)(B) of the Ohio Constitution, Shealy v. Campbell(1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24., Dallman v. Court ofCommon Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515

11


12/141

37. Based primarily upon the biased testimony of the Plaintiffs

paid handwriting witness, Hand Writing Expert witness Vickie

Willard, and in spite of the fact that handwriting in and of itself has

been held by other Ohio Courts as a pseudo science, which fails

the required Daubert test (no statistical rate of success/failure) for

legal 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 ), her testimony

goes directly against CivR 1002 by her use of only copies to

identify Defendants signature and as such whos testimony should

be stricken in its entirety.

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

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

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

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

such could only offer hearsay testimony supposedly laying some

sort of a foundation that Plaintiff's own documentation proves is

false. Mr. Sugimoto also testified that the Plaintiff's Settlement

statement (trial exhibit 12) took place in Tampa, Florida

(transcript line 709) yet was notarized by an Ohio Notary

(transcript line 728) and also testified to not being present at

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

testimony is in it's entirety, hearsay and should also be stricken

from the record.

12


13/141

39. 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

40. On October the 15th 2008 Defendant John A. Reedpro se filed his response

to the Complaint.

41. On July 25th, 2008 Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in the

foreclosure action stating as fact that Son John A. Reed had forged his

Father John L. Reeds signature on the mortgage documents and that

somehow and for some unknown reason it was somehow wrong for Son to

effect a transfer of the property into his own name before seeking the

alleged financing with H&R Block and that they, Wells Fargo Bank NA

(Plaintiff) had now the right to foreclose on the property.

42. On Aug 15th, 2008 Defendant John A Reed filed his Memorandum in

Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgement and request for Trial By

Jury (which Defendant was denied) stating clearly that the Plaintiff had lack

of standing to proceed with the case.

43. On August 26th 2008 the Court denied Wells Fargos Summary Judgment,

stating The Court cannot say, at this time, that John A. Reed and/or John L. Reed

are not liable for the mortgage and/or note, or that Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose

on the property until the disputes of fact are resolved.

13


14/141

44. On August 26th, 2008 Plaintiff caused an Affidavit to be filed. The

Affidavit is titled; Affidavit of Status of Account and Military Affidavit A copy

of the Affidavit is attached hereto asExhibit A2.

45. The Affidavit was allegedly signed by Ms Topako Love, who claimed to be

an Assistant Secretary for Option One Mortgage Corporation as servicing agent for

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Securitized Asset backed

receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-

OP1.Pleasesee below

46. In Paragraph 11 of the Original complaint Wells Fargo NA (Plaintiff) stated

that it is holder of the Note and mortgage.

47. Upon information and belief, this statement was false, and was known to be

false by Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsel at the time it was made in that Plaintiff was

not the owner of the Note; instead, the Note and Mortgage were securitized or

owned by another party. Thus, the securitization, Trust or other party, was the

owner, if not also the holder of the note.

48. In Paragraph 23 of the complaint, Wells Fargo Bank NA (plaintiff) stated it

was the holder of the Mortgage.

49. For the reasons stated above, upon information and belief, this statement is

false, and was known by Plaintiff to be false.

50. Defendant John A. Reedpro se wishes to bring the Courts Judicial notice

of the fabricated, forged and fraudulent Documents Plaintiff has entered into this

Court in their attempt to prove their ownership and subsequent standing right to

foreclose on the alleged Mortgage and Note. Specifically,

a. The above mentioned Affidavit exhibit A2 and

14
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdf


15/141

b. the Assignment of Mortgage exhibit A1purporting to transfer or

Assign the or sell, assign, transfer and set over unto Wells Fargo

Bank, National Association as Trustee. . the owndership of the

alleged Note & Mortgage.

51. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that An affidavit must appear, on

its face, to have been taken before the proper officer and in compliance with all

legal requisites. A paper purporting to be an affidavit, but not to have been sworn to

before an officer, is not an affidavit.In re Disqualification of Pokorny (1992), 74

Ohio St.3d 1238 (citation omitted). Accord,Pollock v. Brigano (1998), 130 Ohio

App.3d 505, 509.

52. Referring to the Affidavit exhibit A2, the same one filed with the Courts on

August 26th, 2008, filed fully 6 months after foreclosure initiation, please note the

signature and the date ofMs Topako Love at the bottom to be February 28th,

2008 and same document Notarized by and in the presence of a one Matthew Allen

Banaszewski.

52. In referring to the Assignment exhibit A1, filed with the Courts on August

26th, 2008, again a full 6 months after foreclosure initiation, please note the date of

signature of One Ms Topako Love at the bottom to be March 7th, 2008.

53. Now please see the Assignmentexhibit A1 which is Notarized by and in the

presence of one James C. Morris. Please notice the document was created by the

Plaintiffs own, original, first, Law Firm, Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss. Also please

recognize the document purports to transfer the alleged note FROM OPTION

ONE Mortgage Co. to Wells Fargo Bank.

54. Although specifically requested by Defendant, Plaintiff offers NO PROOF

that Option One has the authority to do so.

15
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A1%20ASSIGNMENT%20from%20Opt1%20to%20WF.pdf


16/141

Robo-Signers Forgery & Fraud

55. It is now well documented that since 2007 Wells Fargo has used so-called

robo-signers in its mortgage servicing division to expedite foreclosures. See the

depositions of David Abshier page 1, 4, 361 & 363, Exhibit B1, of Erica Johnson

Seck pages 7, 8, Exhibit B2, Xee Moua (Wells Fargo Employee) Exhibit B3page 8,

15 and more, and deposition of Tamara Savery (Wells Fargo Employee) Exhibit B4

page 5, 6, 7, 8, and throughout.

56. Robo-signers are individuals whose sole job responsibility is to sign

affidavits, assignments of mortgage and other legal documents used in foreclosures

en masse so that homeowners can be removed from their homes by banks as

quickly and cheaply as possible. Robo-signers may sign 10,000 or more such

documents per month, including affidavits attested to be made of personal

knowledge.

57. Because these Robo-Signers are required to sign so many documents in

order to effectuate cost savings for the banks, robo-signers, as testified in the above

referenced depositions, do not even read the documents containing critical

statements, rather, the typical robo-signer simply attests under oath that he or she

has personal knowledge of the statements made, and swears that those statements

are true and accurate without even having read the document.

58. In addition, in the rush to generate these documents, the robo-signer will

generally sign the documents outside the presence of the notary who later notarizes

them.

59. The above practices fail to comport with legal requirements, thereby

rendering the documents fraudulent and invalid.

16
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B1%20Deposition%20David%20Abshier%20Wells-Fargo-v-lasalle-Long-Beach-Mortgage-employee-deposition.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B1%20Deposition%20David%20Abshier%20Wells-Fargo-v-lasalle-Long-Beach-Mortgage-employee-deposition.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B2%20Deposition-Erica-Johnson-Seck-Deposition-Indymac-Federal-Bank-Fsb-Plaintiff-Vs-Israel-a-Machado.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B3%20Deposition-Transcript-of-Xee-Moua%20Wells-Fargo.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B3%20Deposition-Transcript-of-Xee-Moua%20Wells-Fargo.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B4%20Foreclosure-Fraud-Full-Deposition-of-Tamara-Savery-Wells-Fargo-Robosigner.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B1%20Deposition%20David%20Abshier%20Wells-Fargo-v-lasalle-Long-Beach-Mortgage-employee-deposition.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B2%20Deposition-Erica-Johnson-Seck-Deposition-Indymac-Federal-Bank-Fsb-Plaintiff-Vs-Israel-a-Machado.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B3%20Deposition-Transcript-of-Xee-Moua%20Wells-Fargo.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B4%20Foreclosure-Fraud-Full-Deposition-of-Tamara-Savery-Wells-Fargo-Robosigner.pdf


17/141

60. In a case involving GMAC, as well as BOFA, a Maine court recently found

that the use of a robo-signer in a foreclosure action constituted a high volume and

careless approach toward the judicial system. The Court disregarded the subject

affidavit, and ordered sanctions against GMAC. See Federal National Mortgage

Association v. Bradbury, Bridgton, Maine District Court Docket No. BRI-RE-09-65, Order of

September 24, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit B4

61. Even more recently,, the Attorney General of Ohio has filed an Action on

behalf of the Citizens of Ohio in Lucas County, Common Pleas court seeking

injunctive relief and damages on account of these same practices. A copy of that

Complaint, without attachments, is attached hereto as Exhibit ***********

62. Within the last month, Bank Of America (BOFA) belatedly acknowledged

that its regular use of robo-signers constituted an abuse of the legal system and a

violation of the rights of homeowners, by halting foreclosures in all 50 states.

63. Within the past month of this writing Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank has

alsopublicly admitted to perjury in the Courtsof this nation in approximately

55,000 foreclosure cases.

Known Robo-Signer Ms. Topako Love

64. In the case at bar, the signor of the Affidavit of Status of Account and

Military Affidavit referenced above as exhibit A2, is one Ms. Topako Love.

65. Ms. Love is one of many robo-signers used by Wells Fargo Bank NA. see

Exhibit B5. Ms. Love is a known employee of professional contract FORGER and

PERJURERFIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc., of Mendota Heights, MN., Ms

LOVE has been employed by FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc., and/or its prior

incarnations Fidelity National Default Solutions, Inc. since March 2003.

17
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B4-Federal-National-Mortgage-Assoc-v-Nicollee-Bradbury.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B5%20Court%20Sample%20Doc's%20Topaka%20MERS%20Employee.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B4-Federal-National-Mortgage-Assoc-v-Nicollee-Bradbury.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20B5%20Court%20Sample%20Doc's%20Topaka%20MERS%20Employee.pdf


18/141

66. In the course of her employment for FIS Foreclosure Solutions Inc., she

regularly executes affidavits, assignments and other legal documents necessary to

foreclosures as quickly and efficiently as possible for a number of different

companies.

67. To accomplish this objective, Ms. Love does not read the affidavits she

signs or make any inquiry as to whether the statements made therein are true and

accurate.

68. Ms. Loves robo-signer status is documented by Defendants Exhibits

FraudDigest1,Love Exhibit L1, Montgomery County Topako Love Docs 1

69. These documents all prove to demonstrate that:

1. Ms. Love is a Corporate Character that wears way too many hats and

2. This problem isnt just somewhere in the Nation but right here in

Montgomery County and

3. Ms. Love, whereas having the Title of Asst. Secretary is enlightening, an

Assistant Secretary has not the capacity, within the standard corporate

hierarchy, to transfer Corporate Assets and

4. since only with specific and documented Authority, which can be given

ONLY by one properly (Legally & Lawfully) authorized to do so, and

that same authority properly memorialized can ANYONE have the

capacity to transfer Corporate Assets,

5. and since same referenced documentation was requested in Defendants

Discovery Request and yielded no such representations from Plaintiff,

then

18
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/from%20Fraud%20Digest.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/Love%20Exhibits%20L1.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/Love%20Exhibits%20L1.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/Montgomery%20County%20Topaka%20Love.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/from%20Fraud%20Digest.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/Love%20Exhibits%20L1.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Topaka%20Love/Montgomery%20County%20Topaka%20Love.doc


19/141

6. Ms. Love, without same said documented authority, could not have

Legally & Lawfully transferred the asset as it is purported on the

Assignment of Mortgage.

70. I am attaching an example ofan affidavit given by Ms. Topako LOVE in

another Ohio case heard and dismissed in Federal Court (Deutsche Bank National

Trust Company v. JACKSON). In this affidavit, Ms. LOVE represented that she

was a servicing agent of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

71. In the affidavit at bar, Ms. LOVE avers that she is acting on behalf of

Option One as the "duly appointed officer of Option One Mortgage Corporation.

72. I am also attaching an affidavit in which Ms. LOVE avers that she is the

"Assistant Secretary" of Option One Mortgage (HSBC Bank USA NA v BROYLES).

In this latter state court case from Summit County, she avers that Option One is the

servicing agent for HSBC Bank USA NA.

73. In a third attached affidavit, Ms. Topako LOVE also avers that she is the

"Assistant Secretary" of Option One Mortgage Corporation as servicing agent for

Wells Fargo Bank NA.

74. Finally, I have attached the unpublished opinion of Justice Karen MURPHY

in a Nassau New York case. You will find that this NY Justice DENIED an order

of reference (foreclosure) when Topaka LOVE was shown to be an officer of

Option One but where NO POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR OPTION ONE and NO

POWER OF ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT DEUTSCHE BANK WAS

PLEADED.

75. Im also attaching an exhibit of Ms. Loves signature on documents where

she attests she is the;

1. Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,(MERS) as nominee forThe Money Tree Financial Corporation

19


20/141

2. Asst Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,(MERS) as nominee forIndymac Bank FSB (1)

3. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,(MERS) as nominee forIndymac Bank FSB (2)

4. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,(MERS) as nominee for Cana Blanca Mortgage Inc., D/B/ ShearsonMortgage

5. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc.,(MERS) as nominee forMortgaget, Inc.

6. Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) asnominee for Impac Funding Corporation DBA Impac Lending Group

7. as a duly appointed officer ofOption One Mort. Corp. as Attorney in

Fact working for same in the mortgage and foreclosure relatedservices to Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

76. As noted earlier In addition, in the rush to generate these documents, the

robo-signer will generally sign the documents outside the presence of the notary

who later notarizes them.

Notary Forgery & Fraud

77. Defendant John A. Reedpro se wishes to bring to the Courts Judicial

notice of the fabricated, forged, fraudulent Documents Plaintiff has entered into this

Court in their attempt to prove their ownership and subsequent right to

foreclose on the alleged Mortgage and Note.

78. On the Affidavit of Status of Account and Military Affidavit (exhibit

A2) and located below Ms. Loves signature, is the signature of the Notary who

has supposedly witnessed Ms. Loves signature to the document.

79. On the above referenced Affidavit, signed by Ms. Topako Love, the notary

listed is one Matthew Allen Banaszewski.

80. Mr. Banaszeski is another employee of FIS Foreclosure Solutions, Inc of

Mendota Heights, MN.

20
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Evidence/Exhibit%20A2%20Affidavit%20of%20Topaka%20love.pdf


21/141

81. Attached to this Pleading I have included several samples of Mr.

Banasweskis signatures from other documents he attests to have signed, including

his State of Minnesota Notary Signature Card, these include;

1. Massachusetts Foreclosure Deed (Jan. 9th

, 2009) by Corporation whereon page 2 we see Mr Banaszewskis signature. Exhibit Bana 1

2. Assignment of Mortgage, January 3rd, 2008 Exhibit Bana 2

3. Affidavit of Laura Hescott, December 26 th,Exhibit Bana 3

4. Assignment of Mortgage, 4209 San Marcos Rd. Exhibit Baba 4

5. Minnesota Notary Matthew Allen Banaszewskis Signature Page whichI have compiled from the docs included and which contains 15 separate

signatures of Mr. Banaszewski that even the most inexperienced eye cantell were crafted by as many different people! Exhibit Bana 5

6. Affadavit of Gary Wait, Kentucky case # 07Ci368 containing Mr.Banaszewskis State of Minnesota Notary Signature Card, otherexamples ofsignatures, and the statement of Mr. Gary Wait as to hissignatures authenticity. Exhibit Wait 1

82. The conclusion reached, when comparing the Signatures of both Ms.

Topaka Love and Mr. Banaszewski signature within these Court filings is both

shocking and revealing as even an untrained eye can clearly discern these signatures

were, in both cases, not made by the same peoples and therefore are forgeries.

83. At least one court has found that filing affidavits that falsely claim personal

knowledge is a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act when filed in

connection with consumer transactions. Midland Funding, LLC v. Brent, 644 F.

Supp. 2d 961, 977 (N.D. Ohio, 2009)

21
http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%201.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%202.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%203.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%203.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%204.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%205.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Evidence%20Wait%201.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%201.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%202.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%203.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%204.pdfhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Exhibit%20Bana%205.dochttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/Notary%20Banaszewski/Evidence%20Wait%201.doc


22/141

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

84. 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).

IV. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

85. 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 properlyperfect the security interest, and if you havent, youre screwed.

Securitization ostensibly provides a source of capital so that more home loansare available to borrowers. However, the series of corporate and bankingtransactions that make up securitization cannot be permitted to avoid liability bythose who are actually providing the funding _ and often controlling thetransaction. See Kurt Eggert, Held up in Due Course: Predatory Lending,Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine, 35 Creighton L.

Rev. 503 (2002).

86. With the process of the securitization of a mortgage loan, it is essential for

the true sale and bankruptcy-remote/FDIC-remote analysis that the Depositor

maintains its own corporate existence separate from the Sponsor and the Trust and

22


23/141

observes the formalities of this corporate separateness at all times. The Elephant in

the Room in all structured financial transactions is the mandatory requirement to

create at least two true sales of the notes and mortgages between the Originator

and the Trustee for the Trust so as to make the assets of the Trust both bankruptcy

and FDIC remote from the originator.

87. And, these true sales must be documented by representations and

attestations signed by the parties; by attorney opinion letters; by asset purchase and

sale agreements; by proof of adequate and reasonably equivalent consideration for

each purchase; by true sale reports from the three major ratings agencies

(Standard & Poors, Moodys, and Fitch) and by transfer and delivery receipts for

mortgage notes endorsed in blank, none of which Plaintiff produces in their

documents of evidence.

88. 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.

89. 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.

90. The Courts judgment in favor of a party without standing is void ab initio

as a matter of law because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

91. 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.

23


24/141

92. Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank NA., attaches documents to its complaint and

documents produced through Discovery conflict with the allegations of material

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

Mortgage by virtue of a post-created and post-recorded assignment.

93. 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.

94. This interest, according to Plaintiffs submitted documentation was

purportedly transferred in whole, to Barclays Bank, there to be Securitized,

allegedly transferred back to Option One as Depositor and then given in its

entirety, with all rights and privileges into the TRUST, which is a publicly owned

entity.

95. These allegations and the misrepresentations that Plaintiff have brought into

this Court with the aforementioned Assignment and Affidavit, therefore constitute

serious misrepresentations and forgery and should be construed as a fraud

brought upon the court.

96. Further, Plaintiffs own exhibits, fully scrutinized, show many instances of

no actual legal transference of the Mortgage and Note at all.

97. Within Plaintiffs exhibits, the transference dates purported could not have

existed within the Timeline represented, as it is not within a consistent a linear

timeline.

98. Upon a complete Mortgage Document scrutinization, these discretions are

easily seen.

99. Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent

statement(s) from being misleading, or making representation(s) despite knowledge

24


25/141

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

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

V. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

100. First: Upon information and belief Defendant states Plaintiffs have already

been paid in full for any securitized notes they held by the Taxpayers of the Unites

States. Upon information and belief Defendant asserts the lenders and holders of

the notes were paid in full. That is, they have no economic damage from the

default (!) due to the way they structured the deals.

101. Second: Upon information and belief Defendant statesthat there was fraud

in the inducement in all of these securitized loans, the case at bar included, in that

there is an implied duty of dealing in good faith in all contracts that was violated

by the Plaintiff who made knowingly bad loans which there is now have sworn

testimonyon.While this is not settled by any means, there is currently pending

litigation on this point.

102. Third: Upon information and belief Defendant alleges that the banks were

not stupid they knew the mathematics (as we all do now) and intentionally

crashed the market. That just compounds the second point.

103. Fourth: Upon information and belief Defendant states, because of the way

that these Securitized assets were structured, the lenders/banks have suffered

no economic damage. As they:

a. first created/structured the Trust(s) in their securitization scheme,

b. THEN they sold off securities based on contemplated future assets

on the then asset-less Trust(s) to Investors and

25


26/141

c. THEN used THAT money to finance the mortgages that were

eventually included into the Securitizations that were used to finally

fund the Trust(s).

104. In the above scenario, which we now know to be true, they suffer absolutely

no direct OR indirect financial economic damage. Indeed, the only real financial

damage they would suffer is if the mortgages were paid in full, as it would then

remove their servicing rights from that individual, cutting off their income flows

from penalties and servicing fees.

105. There was institutional fraud committed in the inducement of this alleged

loan.

106. Any contract between any entities bears with it an implied dealing of in

good faith that was violated by the Plaintiff when they knowingly, purposely and

with premeditation made a bad loan.

107. As is now quite evident, all the major Banks, including Plaintiff Wells Fargo

Bank NA., purposely went out to find loans that were guaranteed to fail.

108. Only by using guaranteed to fail mortgages to fill the securitizations, which

made up the Trust(s) Deposits, were they guaranteed to recoup unjust riches by

profiting from the insurance policies they had created both through derivative

contracts and also from the other insurers such as AIG when those securitizations

failed.

109. Let me be clear on this position:This entire bubble was

predicated on fraud up and down the line. Ill simply quote Prof. Willaim K.

Black (ex. Federal Regulator), ********************

since hes more concise than I can be:

Nothing short of removing all senior officers who directed, committed, oracquiesced in fraud can be effective against control fraud. We repeat: Foreclosure

26
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=170014http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=170014http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=170014http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=170014


27/141

fraud is the necessary outcome of the epidemic of mortgage fraud that began earlythis decade. The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgagesfrequently cannot produce legitimate documents and have committed fraud in theinducement. Now, only fraud will let them take the homes. Many of the requireddocuments do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud thatwas involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing. This in turn wouldallow investors to force the banks to buy-back the fraudulent securities. In otherwords, to keep the investors at bay the foreclosing banks must manufacture fakedocuments. If the original documents do not exist the securities might be ruled nogood. If the original docs do exist they will demonstrate that proper underwriting was

not done so the securities might be no good. Foreclosure fraud is the only thingstanding between the banks and Armageddon.

The entire robo-signing thing is part and parcel of the industrysinability to produce factual documentation right up front. There are only tworeasons not to produce the original paperwork, properly endorsed, instead of all thisrobo garbage:

1. You dont have it because you never got it, and youre trying to cover thatup.

2. You dont have it because you intentionally destroyed it or are hiding it,

as producing it would document that you did something fraudulentearlier on in the process (like at origination, for instance) , and youretrying to cover that up.

In short, there is no other explanation. A few lost pieces of paper here andthere? Sure. A system that cant produce any of the paperwork, properlyendorsed over? Thats not accident its an intentional act. Period.Forgery is not a procedural issue. Its a felony act of perjury.Mocking the rule of law is not a procedural matter it goes to the veryheart of our legal system, not to mention The Constitution. There is thispesky thing called The 5th Amendment. No person shall be deprived of

Life, Liberty, or property, Without Due Process Of Law.

The TRUST

110. The MBS Trust was organized under NY Trust Law. NY Trust Law

requires that delivery be made "in as perfect a form as possible." Intentionally not

delivering anything is so far removed from this requirement that it is a near-

certainty that the Trusts are in fact legally void.

111. IRS REMIC rules (IRS statutes 856-859 which govern REITS) require that the

trusts contain a static pool of loans, and that they all be in the trust as of the

certification date. This is typically 90 days post-closing of the trust (the 90 days is

to allow a few late deliveries.) If REMIC rules are not followed the entire trust

27


28/141

loses its tax passthrough preference and back taxes are due on the operations of

the trust back to the point of violation - in this case, back to the founding. The

holders of the certificates could become held financially responsiblefor these

taxes - at the corporate rate.

112. The Pooling and Servicing Agreements all contain certifications that the

formalities of transfer were complied with, including all intervening

assignments and delivery to the Trust. These are not certifications of something to

be done prospectively, they are certifications of fact that have allegedly

occurred. If in fact no transfers took place then the entire MBS chain is arguably

void as there are no mortgages in the securities.

113. With the above in mind

TRACKING THE MORTGAGE CHRONOLOGY

Please carefully notice all dates!

114. H&R Block Originates the alleged Mortgage Dated; June 9th, 2005

Plaintiff ERROR #1 Here is where the confusion/obfuscation begins.

115. In the Document titled CORPORATION ASSIGNMENT OF OPEN-END

MORTGAGE exhibit B dated June 9th, 2005 purports, along with the 1st

Allonge (which is not attached to the original note as is required by Ohio Law), to

transfer the alleged Mortgage & Note from H&R Block to Option One Mortgage

Corp., yet fails in its requirement to display just WHERE it recorded same, reading

and recorded as Document No. _________ on, ________ day of __________ in

book _________, page __________, of Official Records and attested to by a one

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

28


29/141

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

Contract & Securities Laws stated elsewhere within this pleading.

116. Later, in an Assignment (Exhibit F) dated 10/27/05 and recorded on

11/22/05 Plaintiff wants us to believe it again transfers the very same Note &

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

mentioned entity (Option One). When 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.

117. 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 signs the

following documents, acting in many different positions, wearing many different

hats, and acting on behalf of, and of necessity to positions held, employed by both

H&R Block & Option One Mortgage Corporation. She signs first ;

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

Mortgage Corp.(INVESTORS)

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

Block (HRBMC)

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

attestor exhibit B

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

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

Signature (4 days AFTER loan closing!) exhibit K9 (Due Diligence?)

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

29


30/141

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

118. Probably most interesting is that Ms Canizio holds the position of Assistant

Secretary simultaneously to 2 (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 attachedEmploymentVerification exhibit K9!

119. The very same employment verification purportedly taking place 3 days

AFTER the below titled Execution Copy has already allegedly 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

120. Plaintiff introduces as evidence Plaintiffs exhibit no 25, Titled

EXECUTION COPY RE: Purchase Price and Terms Agreement Dated As of

June 10, 2005 One day after the alleged Mortgage creation! Demonstrating how

Barclays Bank has agreed to buy, but has not bought, the alleged Mortgage Note

and debt from Option One after Option One had combined that same note and debt

into one of two pools of fixed and adjustable rate, first and second lien residential

mortgage loans.

121. Next, please notice that the alleged Mortgage has yet to be assigned to

Option One in the 1st place.

122. That assignment does 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! )

30


31/141

123. 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 which is 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 or even Agreement as previously noted.

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

EXECUTION COPY :

FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE

AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT exhibit G

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

Plaintiffs exhibit 25 and which lacks any reference to Plaintiffs the specific

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)

126. This document catalogs the alleged purchase of certain conventional and

adjustable and fixed rat B/C, residential, first and second lien mortgage loans (The

Mortgage Loans) on a servicing retained basis which shall be delivered in

pools of whole loans from the Company & Seller Option One Mortgage to the

Purchaser, Barclays Bank, PLC.

127. Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 26 lacks any referenace

to the specific Trust at bar, and lacks ANY 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

31


32/141

Laws presented elsewhere within this pleading and as such fails to represent a

legally binding Contract.

25. Plaintiffs ERROR # 3 plaintiffs exhibit 27 titled EXECUTION COPY

ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE (defendants exhibit H1,H2andH3)

dated August 19th, 2005.

126. This document does purportedly represent the Assignment and Conveyance

of the the Mortgage Loans from (Seller) Option One to Barclays Bank PLC.

Again, it should be noted that Plaintiffs exhibit 27 (Assignment and

Conveyance) lacks any proper signatures (indorsements) (see exhibit H1,

H2 and H3) or authentication by either Buyer or Seller clearly in violation

of U.C.C., SEC, O.R.C., and Contract & Securities Laws as stated elsewhere within

this pleading and as such represents NOT a legally binding Contract as previously

noted.

OF SPECIAL NOTICE ALL OF THE ABOVE OCCURRED BEFORE

THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT DATE to OPTION ONE!

127. 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

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

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

127. 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

129. 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

32


33/141

guess) and 30 cents (I guess) dollars. This NOT a typographical error on my part

(see Plaintiffs exhibit 28).

130. This Document purportedly Names Option One as the Servicer, Mortgage

Ramp, Inc. as loan performance advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, National

Association , as trustee as of January 26, 2006. to be paid to it in immediately

available funds by SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC (the

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

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

and Servicing Agreement) (Plaintiffs exhibit 18) .

131. 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 all interest and principal received by the Seller on or with respect

to the Mortgage Loans.

132. Defendant states that if this were a check he had to cash, it wouldnt be

cashable and it is signed and/or endorsed and/or authenticated (indorsed) by NO

ONE!

133. In Summary; theoretically, Barclays Bank PLC resells the Mortgage Loans

from the Trust to SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC as

Purchaser & Depositor, to Option One Mortgage Corporation, as servicer and

33


34/141

responsible party, AND 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 then divides

ownership between the four in some ethereal undisclosed manner .. as again, it

does not specify.

134. Please note this next, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement document is

accompanied by an undated, un-referenced and 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, no authentication given for either signatures

power to enter into this contract and also no Power of Attorney Stamp and Seal

accompanying this document which also has 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.

135. 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

136. As per Pooling & Servicing Agreement section; 2:03 (d) Within 30 days of

the earlier of either discovery by or notice to the Responsible Party that any

Mortgage Loan does not conform to the requirements.of any breach of a

representation or warranty.that materially and adversely affects the value of

any Mortgage Loan the Responsible Party shall.. remove such Mortgage

34


35/141

Loan (a Deleted Mortgage Loan) from the Trust and substitute in its place a

Substitute Mortgage Loan..

137. Contractually, according to the alleged Pooling & Servicing Agreement

supplied by Plaintiff ( exhibit J) , 30 days after the alleged default, which

occurred September, 2007 as of Plaintiffs exhibit 20 (Payment History) ,

hereinafter stated as October 2007, Option One, contractually was supposed tohave

regained sole possession of the Note and Mortgage.

138. There is no assignment or any other authentication or recordation provided

by Plaintiff attesting to same transfer and necessary to prove proper and Legal

Chain of Title.

139. Option One was supposed tosupply a substitute Note & Mortgage to take

the Note & Mortgage at Bars place.

140. Plaintiffs offers only a forged and fraudulent sworn evidentiary

production of the Assignment from Option One Mortgage Corporation

to Wells Fargo Bank N.A. exhibit A (Plaintiffs exhibit 11) dated

March 3, 2008 and recorded March 27th, 2008, 141.

141. This creates multiple problems with Plaintiffs assertions:

a. the date of recordation occurs AFTER recordation of Foreclosure

action and as such proves Plaintiffs lack of standing at the time of suit

initiation to initiate this suit and/or

b. If accepted as a valid assignment, then it also voids Plaintiff Wells

Fargo Bank as Trustee for the TRUSTs argument of Holder of the Note

& Mortgage because Plaintiff is not Option One Mortgage Corp., who in

Plaintiffs proposed scenario is the entity that has assigned the rights to

35


36/141

Wells Fargo Bank to initiate this suit and not the TRUST that Wells Fargo

Bank NA is acting as Trustee within the suit at Bar.

142. Defendant John A. Reedpro se wishes to bring the Courts Judicial notice

that the signatory page(s) located within the of the Pooling & Servicing Agreement,

each contain only but ONE signature, with empty signatory spaces for each other

and that there is 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.

143. Please note date of supposed Re-Possession of Mortgage Note to Option

One as October 2007.

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

February 27th , 2008 Foreclosure Action is filed

144. On March 27th, 2008, through the above mentioned forged and fraudulent

Assignment of Mortgage, Option One then purportedly assigns the Note &

Mortgage to Wells Fargo to act as Foreclosure Special Servicer.

145. 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 the above noted Ms Topaka Love who purporting herself as assistant

Secretary, and who personally appeared for signature in Minnesota, and that the

document was prepared by Plaintiffs Counsel LERNER, SAMPSON &

36


37/141

ROTHFUSS located in Cincinnati, Ohio and notarized by the above mentioned

Matthew Allen Banaszewski (Notary of many signatures).

146. Further, 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

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

valid Legal Contract.

147. In Conclusion, while keeping in mind that with each and every step of this

alleged Mortgage & Note transference, each and every entity bears the

requirement by law of proper Due Diligence.

148. Realizing that all of the alleged loan origination papers, including the Credit

report, bear a Social Security number (over a dozen times all together) that does not

correspond with the stated name on the Mortgage Document.

149. Add to that the inconsistencies that are within almost all of the loan

origination documents are easily identified with minimal effort, especially by

schooled and learned professionals, such as Plaintiffs and their assigns purport to

be.

150. In fact and deed, 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.

151. In fact, Plaintiffs exhibits show not only that Plaintiffs have a near total

disregard for US Federal, State & Local Law, Rules and Regulations, as previously

37


38/141

indicated, as they apply to Securities Transfer and documentation, but also that they

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

place.

153. So, Defendant through knowledge and belief states that Plaintiff 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.

154. Concurrently, they also demonstrate either utter incompetence, collusion

and/or criminal pre-meditated intention and execution.

RICO

155. 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 ).

156. 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.

157. Plaintiffs own exhibits prove not only Plaintiffs Lack of Standing in the

subject case at hand, but also their eager willingness to bring forgery, fraud, greed

and incompetence to the Courts in their attempts at unjust enrichment.

158. Plaintiffs Counsel also clearly demonstrate their own lack of performance

of Due Diligence in Representing Plaintiff before a thorough investigation of same

38


39/141

and his attestation to authenticity of now known forged, fraudulent and

fabricated documents are themselves grounds for this Courts sanction.

159. 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).

41. 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.

42. The Assignments and other documentation submitted by the Plaintiff

fails to establish all of the necessary links between the original lender and the

Plaintiff to effectuate proper Chain of Title. In just one instance of this case,

Plaintiff submitted an Assignment of the alleged Mortgage (exhibit A)(assigned to

Plaintiff post foreclosure initiation) which allegedly transferred the alleged Note from

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

43. Per the Purchasing and Servicing Agreement presented by Plaintiff, at

time of default, the Lender (Option One) takes back the alleged Mortgage & Note

(contractually through the Pooling & Servicing Agreement) and then,post

39


40/141

foreclosure initiation, the Lender purportedly assigns that alleged Note &

Mortgage to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A..

44. Plaintiff fails to produce any 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 ofpost assignment of note, Plaintiff

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

Wells Fargo Bank Na. was never the rightful holder in Due Course of the alleged

Note & Mortgage.

45. The Courts previous 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 the 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.

46. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as defined by

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

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

9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4), (6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e), and subsequently, while it

may be true that an unrecorded mortgage can be an effective transfer; the

assignment must be executed in writing, from the true holder in Due Course of the

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

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

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

40


41/141

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

47. 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 THROUGH

SEPERATION

48. Plaintiffs allege, that the alleged Mortgage and Note,

after its alleged creation on June 9th, 2005, had been sold by

Option One to Barclays Bank and there was disassembled,

without the written permission of the Defendant, separating all

risk associated with the mortgage & note from all interest

proceeds gained through ownership of same, is in violation of any

contractual agreement as is represented upon the alleged Note.

49. The alleged Mortgage and Note was SEPARATED and

then repackaged, with interest income proceeds being re-directed

to the Securitized Trust Shareholders, but with all risk purportedly

still owned by Option One Mortgage Co., (thereby, without

41


42/141

insurance licensure, or even the ability to obtain insurance

licensure, insuring the Note.

50. Documentation provided by Plaintiff 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

seperate the alleged Mortgage & note between one entity to

another, not only evidences a non-viable Legal & Lawful sequence

of events that would support Plaintiffs allegations of Holder in Due

Course by a proper and legally & lawfully permissible transfer of

the alleged Mortgage and Note but same evidence also voids the

Note & Mortgage in their entirety.

51. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is attempting through

subterfuge, deception, fraudulent misrepresentation, and outright

fraud, to confuse the Courts. But once fully scrutinized, Plaintiffs

documentation clearly demonstrates their lack of Standing to

initiate this suit from its inception (see below Tracking the

Mortgage Chronology). When exhibits are inconsistent with the

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

interest is, such allegations cancel each other out.

ASSIGNMENT AND RECORDATION

42


43/141

52. 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

53. 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.

54. Consequently, no legal &/or lawful transference took

place of the alleged Mortgage and/or note between each and

every Plaintiffs named entities and/or co-conspirators.

55. Plaintiff demonstrates near total disregard for UCC and

SEC Rules and Regulations and Ohio Revised Code, as they apply

to Securities Transfer and documentation.

56. Plaintiffs demonstrate the sales of securities based on

NO underlying Securitized assets actually held, and/or utter

43


44/141

incompetence, and/or premeditated criminal intention and

execution.

57. 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

)

Lack ofStanding Article III

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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

defendant; and

(c) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be

redressed by a favorable decision.

44


45/141

61. 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)].

62. 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).

63. 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.

64. 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. SeeAuthorities 6 Negotiable instruments

65. 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.

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

67. Lack of jurisdiction may not be waived and may be raised, by a party or

sua sponte by the court, at any time.

45


46/141

68. Without jurisdiction, the court must grant Defendants Motion and

dismiss this case.

69. 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.

70. 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. Defendants signature, which lacks any physical

impression into the document, as is common when physical signing has actually

occurred, appears to have been placed using a computer and ink jet printer.

71. This red signature is in direct opposition to every other original

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 as such, the red

signature is also 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.

72. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsels lack of due diligence as defined by

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

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

9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4), (6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e), and subsequently, while it

may be true that an unrecorded mortgage can be an effective transfer; the

assignment must be executed in writing, from the true holder in Due Course of the

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

46


47/141

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).

73. The Lower Courts decision fails to incorporate prior rulings of this

Court on identical issues. In fact, several of Ohios District Court Judges and the

States Supreme Court have all ruled on numerous cases in favor of this

Defendants position within the past 16 months (see authorities1(On Standing, Due

Process & Indorsement), 2, (Previous Ohio Judgments on Lack of Standing only;) 3(Real

Party in Interest Case Law References), 4(Previous Ohio Cases Ruled against Wells Fargo Bank

N.A. for Lack of Standing).

74. This Court should not ignore precedent from this very Court in nearly

identical cases.

CONVERSELY

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

have the right, even though;

a. the bulk and greater weight of the evidence presented within this

case clearly prove Plaintiffs lacking standing to foreclose on

Defendant John A. Reed and

b. in light of Plaintiffs Public admission of 55,000 cases of perjury

and fraud,

then Defendant must bring attention to the Mortgage, Note and loan creation

documents which contain many fraudulent and actionable misrepresentations to

whit;

47


48/141

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

subject Mortgage and Note.

Note: Court has held and Plaintiff has agreed that Defendant John A.

Reeds Father, John L. Reed, had no interest or involvement in the

creation of t

Final Brief 2

Documents

Transcript of Final Brief 2