THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE, Plaintiff Vs.

JOHN L. REED_______________, Defendant Case No. CA 0231236 Judge:

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 & Plaintiffs exhibit 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 court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud (emphasis added), can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court, Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

Please see attached Brief in Support of Void Judgments (Authorities 12)

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 4. 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 was an owner or holder of the Promissory Note in question. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IV 5. 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 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

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 from Option 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.

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

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 that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the party who drafted said contract. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990). 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,

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;

(see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JARs Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24)
3

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,

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 if Defendant 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,. 21.
4

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

(see: Wells Fargo Bank Motion For Summary Judgment pg. 2, line 14 & pg. 7 line 4., Plaintiff's reply to Def JAR Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 8/19/ 2008 pg. 2, lines 6. & 26., Plaintiffs Combined motion to Strike JAR's motion for Summary judgment & Memorandum in opposition to JAR's Motion for Summary Judgment pg 3, lines 14, & 24),) of Defendant John A. Reeds alleged forgery (libel per se
4

2nd count)

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.

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

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. b. the alleged Mortgage & Promissory Note, 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 of Frauds, 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. see attached Authorities 1 & Authorities 3
5

Please

Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 25.(C) Substitution of Parties Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Service of the motion shall be made as provided in subdivision (A) of this rule. emphasis added
6

Article III, Section (4)(B) of the Ohio Constitution, Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24., Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515

11

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

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. Reed pro 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

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 as Exhibit 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 2006OP1. Please see 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. Reed pro 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

b. the Assignment of Mortgage exhibit A1 purporting 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 of Ms 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 Assignment exhibit 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

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 B3 page 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

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

also publicly admitted to perjury in the Courts of 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 PERJURER FIS 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

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

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 of an 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 for The Money Tree Financial Corporation 19

2. Asst Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) as nominee for Indymac Bank FSB (1) 3. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) as nominee for Indymac Bank FSB (2) 4. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) as nominee for Cana Blanca Mortgage Inc., D/B/ Shearson Mortgage 5. Asst. Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc., (MERS) as nominee for Mortgaget, Inc. 6. Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) as nominee for Impac Funding Corporation DBA Impac Lending Group 7. as a duly appointed officer of Option One Mort. Corp. as Attorney in Fact working for same in the mortgage and foreclosure related services 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. Reed pro 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

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 where on 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 26th, Exhibit Bana 3 4. Assignment of Mortgage, 4209 San Marcos Rd. Exhibit Baba 4 5. Minnesota Notary Matthew Allen Banaszewskis Signature Page which I have compiled from the docs included and which contains 15 separate signatures of Mr. Banaszewski that even the most inexperienced eye can tell 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, other examples of signatures, and the statement of Mr. Gary Wait as to his signatures 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

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. Pursue Energy 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 properly perfect the security interest, and if you havent, youre screwed. Securitization ostensibly provides a source of capital so that more home loans are available to borrowers. However, the series of corporate and banking transactions that make up securitization cannot be permitted to avoid liability by those who are actually providing the funding _ and often controlling the transaction. See Kurt Eggert, Held up in Due Course: Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine, 35 Creighton L. Rev. 503 (2002). 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

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

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

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 states that 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 testimony on. 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. b. first created/structured the Trust(s) in their securitization scheme, THEN they sold off securities based on contemplated future assets on the then asset-less Trust(s) to Investors and 25

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. loan. 106. Any contract between any entities bears with it an implied dealing of in There was institutional fraud committed in the inducement of this alleged

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, or acquiesced in fraud can be effective against control fraud. We repeat: Foreclosure

26

fraud is the necessary outcome of the epidemic of mortgage fraud that began early this decade. The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgages frequently cannot produce legitimate documents and have committed fraud in the inducement. Now, only fraud will let them take the homes. Many of the required documents do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud that was involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing. This in turn would allow investors to force the banks to buy-back the fraudulent securities. In other words, to keep the investors at bay the foreclosing banks must manufacture fake documents. If the original documents do not exist the securities might be ruled no good. 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 thing standing between the banks and Armageddon.

The entire robo-signing thing is part and parcel of the industrys inability to produce factual documentation right up front. There are only two reasons not to produce the original paperwork, properly endorsed, instead of all this robo garbage: 1. You dont have it because you never got it, and youre trying to cover that up. 2. You dont have it because you intentionally destroyed it or are hiding it, as producing it would document that you did something fraudulent earlier on in the process (like at origination, for instance), and youre trying to cover that up. In short, there is no other explanation. A few lost pieces of paper here and there? Sure. A system that cant produce any of the paperwork, properly endorsed 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 very heart of our legal system, not to mention The Constitution. There is this pesky 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 nearcertainty 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

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 responsible for 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

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

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 attached EmploymentVerification 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

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

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, H2 and H3) 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 10Defendants 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

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

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

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 to have 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 to supply 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. a. This creates multiple problems with Plaintiffs assertions: 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

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. Reed pro 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

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

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

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

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 of post 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

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

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

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

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 of Standing 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

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. See Authorities 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

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

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 authorities 1 (On Standing, Due
Process & Indorsement),

2, (Previous Ohio Judgments on Lack of Standing only;) 3 (Real 4 (Previous Ohio Cases Ruled against Wells Fargo Bank

Party in Interest Case Law References ), 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

(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 the alleged subject mortgage & note. (B). Option One Underwriter's Worksheet and both of the Universal Residential Loan Application HMDA Audit Sheet (exhibit K5) are all misrepresenting Defendant's fraudulent income to be $3,300.00 per month (see exhibit "P" and "Q") 2 separate residential Loan Applications. (C) Universal Residential Loan Application (see exhibit P) contains multiple other misrepresentations of information; (1) year house built is not 1990, it is actually 2000 (2) was sub-contractor, which Defendant has never been (3) lists a completely blank employment history (4) lists Defendants base income as $3,300 per month. Whereas in truth, Defendant, in years 2001-2005 was only sporadically, part time employed, instead he was spending the entirety of his working hours gathering materials and constructing the subject property. (5) Has no Interviewers signature (6) U.S. Citizen? Says NO! Defendant is a natural born U.S. Citizen (7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Information provided by Plaintiff shows 0- obligations despite documents provided from Plaintiff in Discovery (see Exhibits L1, L2, L3, O Child Dependants & Defendants Credit Report.) proving Plaintiff had 48

knowledge. see O.R.C. 1322.07(A),(B),(C),(E),(H) Plaintiff had knowledge of Defendants three child support obligations until 2006. 76. Defendant states that a full scrutinization of Mortgage and Mortgage creation documentation also clearly shows many violations in regard to Rules & Regulations as set forth in; a. The Truth In Lending Act (TILA), b. The Homeowners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), c. The Fair Debt Collections Act (FDCPA), d. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA, e. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), f. Uniform Commercial Code U.C.C., g. Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, h. Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, i. Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, O.R.C. 1345.0, j. U.S Constitution Article III

VII. DEFENDANTS PARTIAL COUNTERCLAIMS a. TILA Violations; 77. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and foregoing allegations in their entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint and his counterclaims in its and their entirety and from its inception to each and every violation listed. 78. Under the facts otherwise identified elsewhere within this action and at hand alleged Defendant did correctly, reasonably and legally rely on the mortgage

49

broker and the Plaintiff to act fairly with him and Plaintiff did act with Fraud in the act and in fraud in the inducement of this mortgage contract. 79. Defendant has been harmed by each and every counterclaim listed below and Plaintiff has patently violated not only the Truth in Lending Act, at all relevant times, but also the spirit of the Truth and Lending Act. The Plaintiffs Broker, closing Agent and the Lender/Bank each, in their own parts, has misled, obfuscated, shirked from their proper Due Diligence and attempted to confuse Defendant in their practice and pattern and pursuit of their own unjust enrichment, to whit; 80. The Plaintiff did not provide appropriate disclosure as required by the Truth in Lending Act in a substantive and technical manner. See Authorities 9, A. TILA 90. Given the ease of Plaintiffs availability to verify alleged Defendants actual income, or lack thereof, and alleged Defendants lack of ability to alter any documentation it is obvious by fact that the Plaintiff did alter and falsify Application documentation to reflect elevated income levels for alleged Defendant. 91. Plaintiff, unbeknownst to Defendant, falsely represented the material fact that alleged Defendant was employed when in fact alleged Defendant, had no full time employment at time of Loan creation, nor had any previous full time employment for a period extending approximately 4 years prior to mortgage loan creation. 92. Exhibit K9, the Employment Verification clearly shows employment verification was not even accomplished (if ever!), (which again speaks yet again to due diligence), until June 13, 2005, some four days AFTER the alleged mortgage loan closing and payout date. 50

93. Such action again clearly demonstrates to the Court, Plaintiffs conduct and character and, as is being reported nationally almost daily, this is not an isolated instance, but almost the norm. 94. Plaintiff claims to have previously sold this same said Mortgage and Note on June 10th, 2005, three days previous to loan verification, to Barclays Bank representing to same, and at that time, as fact, that the Mortgage and Note had already received review and that the required Due Diligence had already, previously been performed on it, when it is an indisputable fact, that it had COULD NOT. SEE: Authorities 8 FRAUD

i. Defendant alleges the Plaintiff did supply alleged Defendant with blank application documentation for signature and return, later filing in the amounts, ii. defendant also states that Plaintiff has caused immeasurable injury to Defendant not only by using fraud in the inducement of this mortgage & note but also when Plaintiff did alter and/or change the documentation to reflect that the alleged Defendant had an ability to repay this alleged Note & Mortgage without future refinancing of same when in fact and to their knowledge he had none, see Authorities 9 TILA, B. iii. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did fraudulently alter the Loan Documents to represent the real party of interest to be Defendants Father in an attempt to obfuscate true ownership to force real holder of property to face additional burden of Defending his legitimate position at the time of premeditated intentional and pre-ordained foreclosure by Plaintiff,

51

The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire. Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mutual. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83. iv. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did fraudulently misrepresent accurate amounts financed, percentage rates and finance charges on the Truth In Lending Documents (2 separate ones). (See Exhibit M & N & Authorities 9, TILA C. v. Plaintiffs closing Agent did rush alleged Defendant through the closing process with a claim of being late to catch her plane, thus depriving alleged Defendant of any available time to review closing documents. 95. Once a creditor violates the Truth In Lending Act, no matter how technical the violation appears, unless one of the statutory defenses applies, Court has no discretion in imposing liability. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186 as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601-1667e. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co. 58 BR, 983.

Home Owners Equity Protection Act b. HOEPA Violations 96. In General -The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA or the Act) amended TILA by adding Section 129 of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639, and has been implemented by Sections 226.31 and 226.32 of Regulation Z. 12 C.F.R. 226.31 and 226.32. HOEPA was implemented to specifically curb the predatory lending practices of certain sub-prime lenders.

52

Generally, the Act provides added protections to borrowers who obtain more high-cost loans in the sub-prime market. 56. In the course of offering and extending credit to alleged Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank through their assigns, specifically Option One Mortgage Co., and H&R Block Mortgage Corp. (now defunct) has caused injury to Defendant and have violated HOEPA regulations by engaging in asset-based lending and including loan terms prohibited by HOEPA. Specifically: A. Count one. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by engaging in a pattern or practice of extending such credit to a borrower based solely on the borrower's collateral rather than considering the borrower's current and expected income, current obligations, and employment status to determine whether the borrower is able to make the scheduled payments to repay the obligation, in violation of Section 129(h) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(h), and Section 226.32(e)(1) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.32(e)(1), 226.34; See: Authorities 10 HOEPA A. B. Count 2 Plaintiff has caused injury to alleged Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "prepayment penalty" provision, in violation of Section 129(c) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(c), and Section 226.32(d)(6) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d)(6); 53

C. Count 3

Plaintiff has caused injury to alleged Defendant

and did violate the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by misleading alleged Defendant in the real costs of alleged Mortgage and Note as is evidenced by the Courts own representation of erroneous and fraudulent amounts referenced in "Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank "(page 2) and purporting the entire loan amount totaling $93,445.92 which is $6,554.08 less than alleged mortgage amount. If the courts cant figure it out, how then can they expect the Defendant to? D. Count 4 Plaintiff has caused injury to alleged Defendant and has violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "increased interest rate after default" provision, in violation of Section 129(d) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(c), and Section 226.32(d)(6) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d)(6); and E. Count 5 Plaintiff has caused injury to alleged Defendant and violated the requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z by failing to provide Defendant required disclosure documented under Section 1639 (a) Disclosures(1)(A) & (B), (2) Annual percentage rate(B), (b) Time of disclosures(1), (2)(A), (3) Modifications, (c) No Prepayment penalty(1)(A)(B), (2)(A)(i) (ii), (B), (D), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k?), Section 1639(d), and See Authorities 9, A. TILA 54

F. Count 6 Plaintiff did violate and cause to initiate HOEPA protection rights and Defendants rights by requiring alleged Defendant to pay an annual percentage rate at consummation which did exceed an interest rate more than 8 percentage points for fist lien loansbased on the yield on Treasury securities having comparable periods of maturity.as is required by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R Section 226.32 (a)(1)(i)(ii), (see exhibitR) G. Count 7 Plaintiff failed in their requirements under rules (c)(1)to provide alleged Defendant proper documentation as required,(c)(2) ,(3),(4) in providing alleged Defendant any and all proper notices as is required. (d)(1),(2),(4),(5),(6),(7) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) . H. Count 8 Plaintiff did violate alleged Defendants rights by charging discount points in violation of State maximum limitation requirement of 2% by charging Defendant 3%.

C. FDCPA
57. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank did cause harm and injury to Defendant John A. Reed with their assertions of being the real party in interest in the case ay bar. 58. Plaintiff Wells Fargo bank NA. did make false and miseading representations with collecting a debt, in violation of Section 1692, Title 15, U.S. Code (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA). 58. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. an their Counsel are guilty of; 55

a. Making false, deceptive and misleading representations

concerning their standing to sue the plaintiffs for foreclosure;

b. Falsely representing or implying that the debt was owing to

defendants as an innocent purchaser for value when in fact such an assignment had not taken place;

c. Threatening to take legal action and engaging in collection

activities and foreclosure suits as trustee that could not legally be taken by them;

d. Obtaining access to state and federal courts to collect on notes

and foreclosure on mortgages under false pretences;

e. Foreclosing without the ability to obtain and record an

assignment of the mortgage and note.

D. RESPA Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 109. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint in its entirety and from its inception. 110. In the course of offering and extending alleged credit to Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank through their assigns, specifically Option One Mortgage Co., and H&R Block mortgage Corp. (now defunct) have caused injury to Defendant and violated RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) regulations by engaging in misrepresentation of Defendant and including loan terms prohibited by RESPA. Specifically: Sec. 2605 (a), (b), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B)(i),(iii), (b)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) 56

a.

Plaintiff failed to uphold their duty to inform Defendant, at the time of alleged application for the alleged loan, of Plaintiffs intention as to the repeated assignment, sale, and/or transfer of loan servicing and failed in their requirement to notify Defendant of sale and assignment of servicing rights to each and every entity represented as being an owner/holder of the Note and Mortgage.

b.

Plaintiff failed in the entirety of their requirement of notification that states Each servicer of any federally related mortgage loan shall notify the borrower in writing of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the loan to any other person. For each and every transfer of the alleged Mortgage and/or Note.

c.

Defendant alleges Plaintiff, and their assignees, did give and receive, in violation of 12 U.S.C., a kickback based on the Yield Spread Premium (YSP) that was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate, nor was an H&R Block broker contract delivered to Defendant through discovery.

d. e.

Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information on the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information on the Good faith Estimate of settlement costs.

Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information Controlled

E?. Ohio RICO Act Violations Ohio RICO, R.C. 2923.32 57. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint in its entirety and from its inception. 58. Defendant John A. Reed alleges that: 57

A. Wells Fargo Bank NA., acting as trustee for holders of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, has filed thousands of foreclosure actions under false pretenses, without standing and without complying with Ohio law. B. Defendant alleges an improper taking of their real property through the Plaintiff use of intentional nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, and the creation of fraudulent loan documents in violation of the RICO Statute, and continuing injury and damages including the auction of their home and future overpayment of fraudulent charges. C. These activities are a pattern of corrupt and illegal activity and in violation of Ohio RICO law. 59. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., has received millions, maybe Billions of dollars in distributions from the sale of foreclosed properties without possessing properly perfected and recorded assignments/transferences of the mortgages. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 's "pattern and practice of seeking and obtaining foreclosure judgments in state and federal courts without a duly perfected and recorded assignment, without a true and accurate evidence of a chain of assignment/transference of these alleged notes and mortgages, and without the right to engage in the trust business in Ohio" constitutes a "false, deceptive and/or misleading representation or means" in connection with the collection of a debt; a violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as is referenced within the above two quotes, 15 USC Sec 58

1692e. 51. In addition, this suit alleges Wells Fargo Bank NA has failed to comply with Ohio requirements for a trust company or national bank to do business in Ohio and that the two herein named Ohio foreclosure law firms have also violated the FDCPA and RICO by acting on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank NA in the foreclosure process. 60. Defendant John A. Reed is seeking unspecified actual and statutory damages, including treble damages under Ohio RICO law, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant John A. Reed also seeks the appointment of a receiver to recover from Wells Fargo Bank NA all charges it has collected from Defendant John A. Reed and any interests in real property it acquired illegally, and to collect fees that Wells Fargo Bank NA.s law firms obtained from this illegal foreclosure. 61. The suit also names two Ohio foreclosure law firms as defendants: Plunkett Cooney 300 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43235 & Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201. 62. The action stems from foreclosure of Defendant John A. Reeds property located at 7940 Guilford Dr., Dayton, Ohio 45414 whose alleged mortgage had been allegedly sold, securitized, divided and then pooled without Defendants permission. 63. Ohio RICO states that No person, through a corrupt pattern of corrupt activity shall acquire or maintain, directly or

59

indirectly, any interest in, or control of, any real property. R.C 2923.32(A)(2). 64. Corrupt Activity includes engaging in a violation of section 2921.03 of the Revised Code which states No person, knowingly and by filing, recording, or otherwise using a materially false or fraudulent writing in a wanton or reckless manner, shall attempt to influence . a public servant in the discharge of the persons duty. 65. Defendant states the Plaintiff has violated Section 2921.03 by knowingly filing complaints which do allege Wells Fargo Banks ownership of promissory notes and mortgages when in fact it does not own the alleged notes or mortgages, and by knowingly filing multiple complaints (see authorities 1, 2, 4, 5) as trustee in reckless disregard of the fact that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank was not authorized to engage in such activities both as trustee in Ohio and for lack of standing. These filings were made in a wanton and reckless manner in an attempt to influence state and federal judges and judicial officers in Ohio to enter judgments against Defendant(s) on the alleged mortgage and Note, including for principal, interest, late fees, penalties, costs and attorney fees, and to foreclose on Defendants property in a wanton attempt at unjust enrichment. 66. The Plaintiffs conduct constitutes a pattern of corrupt activity, because they have maintained more than two lawsuits under the fraudulent and misleading circumstances described in 60

the foregoing paragraphs. On information and belief, the defendants have filed hundreds (probably thousands) of foreclosure complaints in violation of R.C. 2923.32 see authorities 1, 2, 4, 5. 67. Through the filing of foreclosure actions under false pretense and in violation of U.S. Law, U.C.C., SEC and Ohio Law, and/or any other applicable and\or Local Laws, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, with the active assistance and participation of the plaintiff law firms herein named, has acquired an interest in real property, including obtaining a foreclosure action against Defendants property. 68. As a result of Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsels conduct, the Defendant has been injured in many various ways, including loss of time to conduct Defendants Profession of choice due to Defendants geographical lack of ability to obtain knowledgeable and available Legal Counsel and Defendants forced placement into Defending himself pro se, through penalties and court costs and attorney fees charged against their account(s) on lawsuit(s) filed under false and misleading circumstances, and from other incidental and consequential costs and expenses attendant to the defending of his property, mental stress and psychological damage. 69. Section 2923.34 of the Revised Code entitles Defendant John A. Reed who

61

has established the elements of Ohio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo Bank NA of its interest in Defendants real property and to actual damages Defendant has sustained, which may be tripled if proved by clear and convincing evidence, and to costs and reasonable attorney fees. 70 .The Defendant further states, and does move the Court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(B)(1) of the Ohio RICO Statute, to order Wells Fargo Bank NA divestiture in any interest in Defendants real property and also moves the court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(D) of the Statute, for an order of injunctive relief and a temporary injunction. 71 .It is without dispute or issue that a claim under the Ohio RICO statute was not presented by Defendant John A. Reed or litigated in the civil-court foreclosure action, because of Plaintiffs misrepresentation of both true owner AND of true maker of mortgage and note, Defendant could not have brought such claim in civil court. Defendants have properly brought the claim as part of their Appellate action herein pursuant to the doctrine of Pendent or Supplemental jurisdiction, 28 USC sec. 1367(a). The Ohio RICO statute is a state law, which authorizes the specific relief requested by the Defendant. As such, Defendants claims which attack the foreclosure are not barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. Smith v Encore Credit 4:08-cv-1462 USDC, N. Oh. W. Dist Judge McHargh

62

72.

Defendant reserves the rights to bring charges under

each and every other violation and actionable issue found, acts such as those already discovered within RESPA, The Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, FTC, FDCPA, FDRA, U.C.C., O.R.C 1345, Article III, and all others as they become apparent and, more importantly at this time, space will allow. 73. Despite the uncommon length of this litigation and the potential complexity imposed by Plaintiffs attempted securitization of Defendants home loan, Defendants argument that the Courts November 13th, 2008 judgment is void is straightforward. 74. Defendants motion to set aside the Courts void judgment is based on a simple argument: Both when the Plaintiff filed its Complaint and when the Court granted judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, the documents before the Court demonstrate that an entirely different party was the holder of the note. Plaintiff was not the holder of the note, had no interest in the note, suffered no injury from any nonpayment on the note, and had no standing to pursue foreclosure. The Courts judgment in favor of a party without standing is void as a matter of law because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. VIII. DEFENDANT HAS MET HIS BURDEN. 75. a. The Burden is on Defendant to Prove Invalidity of Courts Previous Judgment

63

In seeking to set aside a void judgment, the Defendant must show the invalidity of Courts judgment. Defendant clearly has the burden of demonstrating how, exactly, the judgment is void. Fortunately for the Defendant, this can be quickly and easily shown using Plaintiffs own documents and pleadings. These documents demonstrate Plaintiff never had standing to pursue foreclosure. Where a Plaintiff lacks standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the case and any judgment entered is void. b. Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff was Not the Holder of the Note at the time of foreclosure initiation and/or ever. 76. Negotiation is the mechanism by which one holder conveys its interest in a promissory note to another party (who then becomes the holder).Without a negotiation (indorsement and transfer of physical possession) from Option One Mortgage Corporation to Plaintiff, Plaintiff had no interest in the note that rests at the foundation of this case. Without an interest (that is, without the right to be paid each month according to the terms of the note), Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue foreclosure. 77. Standing requires a judicially recognizable interest in subject matter. The interest may not be remote and speculative, but must be a present and substantial interest in the subject matter. That is, Plaintiff had to be the holder of the notehave a present and substantial interestin the subject matter at the time the suit was filed. Plaintiffs own documents and Plaintiffs 64

counsels representations to the Court show without a doubt that not only had negotiation not occurred in this case at the time the suit was filed, negotiation had not occurred at the time judgment was entered against Defendant.. 78. Indeed, the Court need look no further than the pleadings (Plaintiff is the holder of a note) and the Note itself (no indorsement as per 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204) to find that the Plaintiff was not, in fact, the holder and had no interest in the note at the time Plaintiff filed suit. 79. Showing this lack of standing is Defendants burden and Defendant has met that burden. Where the Plaintiff lacks standing, any order entered in that case is void from the start and Courts may review such questions /sua sponte/. A void judgment is no judgment at all, and no rights are acquired by virtue of its entry of record. The court may, in a proper proceeding, vacate it at any time. The Courts November 13, 2008 Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank was void and should be vacated. 80. Defendant has shown that Plaintiff brings fraud into the Court, gross (proven) examples of Negligence, a propensity (proven) for Lack of Due Diligence that borders on the extreme, and some of the filthiest (unclean) hands imaginable, while Plaintiff's Counsel represents these same lies as truth and adds his own special touch by bringing libel & innuendo into the Courts in his own attempt at unjust enrichment. 65

WHEREFORE, a. Because Plaintiff was not the real party in interest on the date this action was commenced, it is not shown to be authorized to bring this action and b. because the Plaintiffs exhibits attached to their pleading are inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations as to ownership of the subject note and mortgage, those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiffs complaint is rendered objectionable. Plaintiff has failed to establish itself as the real party in interest and therefore the Court did lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear same. Defendant John A. Reed does request this Court to (1)dismiss this case with prejudice in its entirety, (2)sustain Defendants expressed defamation, Identity theft and libel charges, stated elsewhere within this pleading, (3)award Defendant 1. any actual and punitive monetary reward the Court deems fit and proper for loss of employment (since foreclosure inception in perpetuity) in his stated profession, 2. any and/or all amounts renderable under TILA, HOEPA and RICO charges stated above, 3. plus an award for emotional, physical and psychological pain & suffering

66

4.

as well as any and all costs associated with the defense of this agonizing and frustrating suit and the process of defending same, and

5.

order Plaintiff, with prejudice, to immediately cause to be released its alleged mortgage and/or any interest it may have or have obtained against the subject property and return the property in whole to Defendant John A. Reed with damages,

6.

and award any and all cost and Legal Fees (in their entirety) that Plaintiffs Attys should/would have collected in the case to.

7.

remove any and all reference to this Mortgage/Note and or foreclosure action from Defendants Credit rating Files at all 3 of the major Credit Reporting Agencies.

8.

Defendants demands the Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for fraud on the court, and for their attorneys fees and costs and for all other relief to which this Court finds Defendants entitled. Respectfully, _____________ John A. Reed 7940

pro se Guilford Dr. Dayton, Ohio 45414

67

937.890.2576 Y otraj@Y ahoo.co m

68

i. List of Exhibits

Exhibit A Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo plaintiffs exhibit 11 3/7/2008 Exhibit B Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 1st Assignment from H&R Block to Option One plaintiffs exhibit 10 6/9/2005 Exhibit C Allonge from Option One to Blank plaintiffs exhibit 8 6/9/2005 Exhibit D Allonge from H&R Block to Option One plaintiffs exhibit 7 6/9/ 200 5 Exhibit F Assignment from H&R Block to Opt One plaintiffs exhibit 10 10/27/2005 Exhibit E EXECUTION COPY Purchase Price and Terms Agreement plaintiffs exhibit 25 6/10/2005 E2 EC/PP&TA signature page Exhibit G EXECUTION COPY FLOW AMENDED AND RESTATED MORTGAGE LOAN PURCHASE AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT plaintiffs exhibit 26 8/15/2005 Exhibit G2 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement Exhibit G3 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership Exhibit G4 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence Exhibit G5 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 1 Exhibit G6 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2 Exhibit G7 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3 Exhibit H Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

69

Exhibit H2 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 1 Exhibit H3 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature Page 3 Exhibit H4 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 4 Exhibit I Barclays Bank Bill of Sale Exhibit J Pooling and Servicing Agreement Sec. 2.03 Exhibit K Kristy Canizio the Lady of many hats

signature Exhibits

1. Allonge from Option One to Blank (Investor) 2. Allonge from H&R Block to Option One 3. Corporation Assignment of Open End Mortgage 4. Instructions to Closing Agent b. Instructions to Closing Agent c. Instructions to Closing Agent 5. HMDA Audit Sheet 6. Data Integrity Audit 7. Data Integrity Audit 8. Wiring Instructions 9. Employment Verification Exhibit L1 Child Support L2 Child Support L3 Child Support Exhibit M TILA Statement 1 Exhibit N 2nd TILA Statement Exhibit O Credit report 70

Exhibit P Universal Residential Loan Application 1 Exhibit Q Universal Residential Loan Application 2 Exhibit R Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Re3lease 7/5/05 Exhibit S Loan Disbursement Worksheet 1 Exhibit T Loan Disbursement Worksheet 2 Exhibit U Itemization of Amount Financed Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 Exhibit W Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1

Exhibit A Assignment from Option One to Wells Fargo

71

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

72

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

73

Kristy 1 Exhibit C Allonge from Option One to Blank

74

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

75

Kristy3 Exhibit E Corporation Assignment of Open-End Mortgage

76

Exhibit F

2nd Assignment from H&R Block to Option One

77

Exhibit E

Purchase Price & Terms Agreement

78

Exhibit E2

Purchase Price & Terms Agreement signature page

79

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

80

Exhibit G2 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Due Diligence Statement

81

Exhibit G3 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Validity of Mortgage Documents & Ownership

82

Exhibit G4 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Origination Due Diligence

83

Exhibit G5 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 1

84

Exhibit G6 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 2

85

Exhibit G7 (ECFAARMLPAWA) Signatory page 3

86

Exhibit H Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance

87

Exhibit H1 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 1

88

Exhibit H2 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature Page 2

89

Exhibit H3 Execution Copy Assignment and Conveyance Signature page 3

90

Exhibit I Barclays Bank Bill of Sale

91

Exhibit J Pooling & Servicing Agreement 2.03

92

Exhibit K4. Instructions to Closing Agent

93

Exhibit K4b. Instructions to Closing Agent

94

Exhibit K4c. Instructions to Closing Agent

95

Exhibit K5. HMDA Audit Sheet

96

Kristi Canizio 6 Exhibit K6 Data Integrity Sheet

97

Kristy Canizio 7 Exhibit K7 Data Integrity Audit

98

Kristy Canizio 8 Exhibit K8 Wiring Instructions

99

Kristy Canizio 9 Exhibit K9 Employment Verification

100

Child Support 1 Exhibit L1

101

Child Support 1 Exhibit L2

102

Child Support 1 Exhibit L3

103

Exhibit M TILA Statement #1

104

Exhibit N TILA Statement #2

105

Exhibit O Credit Report

106

107

108

109

110

Exhibit P Universal Residential Loan Application 1

111

112

113

114

Exhibit Q Universal Residential Loan Application 2

115

116

117

118

Exhibit R Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rate Release

119

Exhibit S Loan Disbursement Worksheet 1

120

Exhibit T Loan Disbursement Worksheet 2

121

Exhibit U Itemization of Amount Financed

122

Exhibit V Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 1 page 1

123

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

124

Exhibit W Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Costs # 2

125

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

126

ii. Authorities 1 referenced to pages

on standing & Due Process pages 6, 7, 20, 24, 31 on Indorsement pages pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34

On Standing, Due Process & Indorsement

Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 25, C. Substitution of Parties which reads (C) Transfer of interest . In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Service of the motion shall be made as provided in subdivision (A) of this rule.

Civ. R. 17A Article III, Section (4)(B) of the Ohio Constitution Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E.2d 515 Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472 Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494, Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commn, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991) Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176). Northland Ins. Co. v. Illuminating Co., 11th Dist. Nos. 2002-A-0058 and 2002-A-0066, 2004- Ohio-1529, at 17 Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R. L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-014 Discover Bank v. Brockmeier, 12th Dist. No. CA200607-078, 2007-Ohio-1552, at 7 Highland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240, 273 N.E.2d 903 First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 679-680 127

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603 58 See, e.g., Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc., 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1312 (D.S.C. 1994) (applying the HDC defense in a commercial context to hold that: Article Three of the UCC controls transfers of negotiable instruments, and that the mortgage notes are clearly negotiable. If UCC Article Three should not apply in this case and the holder in due course doctrine is no longer warranted, then any abolishment of that body of law should come from the legislature, not the court). See also Eggert, supra note 12, at 560-70 (discussing cases where the HDC doctrine was applied against consumer mortgage borrowers). Indorsement RC 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204. see pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 (A) (1) Indorsement means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for any of the following purposes: (a) To negotiate the instrument;

(b) To restrict payment of the instrument; (c) To incur the indorsers liability on the instrument. (2) Regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument. (B) Indorser means a person who makes an indorsement. (C) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers 128

a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument. (D) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holders name or both, but signatures in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection. Effective Date: 08-191994 Jurisdiction State ex rel. Dallman v Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 176, 178, 298, N.E.2d 515 Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 70, 518 N.E.2d 941

Authorities 2 see pages 7, 21, 24, 31

Previous Ohio Judgments on Lack of Standing only; Cain v. Calhoun (1979), 61 Ohio A.. 2d 240, 242 fn. 2 (citintg State ex rel. Dallman v. Court of Common Pleas (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176).

US Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist. Of Ohio, Hamilton Co. Appeal No. C-070889 JUDGE: DINKELACKER Since plaintiff-appellant Wells Fargo was not a real party in interest at the time it filed suit in this foreclosure action, the trial court properly dismissed the case.

7th District Court of Appeals of Ohio, Mahoning County DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177 Decided on March 13, 2008

129

Cole v. Am. Industries & Resources Corp. (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 546, 552, 715 N.E.2d 1179 DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, 2008-Ohio-1177 Separating and distinguishing between standing and Diversity; US District Court of SW Ohio, W. Div. 07CV049, 07CV085, 07CV138, 07CV237, 07CV240, 07CV246, 07CV248, 07CV257, 07CV286, 07CV304, 07CV312, 07CV317, ,07CV343, 07CV353, 07CV360, 07CV386, 07CV389, 07CV390, 07CV433. JUDGE: THOMAS M. ROSE Federal courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the United States Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). As a result, a plaintiff must have constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction. Id. This Court is well aware that entities who hold valid notes are entitled to receive timely payments in accordance with the notes. And, if they do not receive timely payments, the entities have the right to seek foreclosure on the accompanying mortgages. However, with regard the enforcement of standing and other jurisdictional requirements pertaining to foreclosure actions, this Court is in full agreement with Judge Christopher A Boyko of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio who recently stressed that the judicial integrity of the United States District Court is Priceless. JUDGE: THOMAS M. ROSE

US District Court, N. Ohio, E. Div. 07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

Based on Article III requirements and standing,

There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is driven by money. And the [*9] legal work which flows from winning the financial institution's favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit -- to the contrary , they should be rewarded 130

for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate. The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: "Fluidity of the market" -- "X" dollars, "contractual arrangements [*10] between institutions and counsel" -- "X" dollars, "purchasing mortgages in bulk and securitizing" -- "X" dollars, "rush to file, slow to record after judgment" -- "X" dollars, "the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court" -"Priceless." JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO With Diversity but ruled for of lack of standing US District Court of Ohio, S.D.,E. Div 07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv423, 07-cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-706, 07-cv727, 07-cv-731, 07-cv-963, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv1150 JUDGE: John D. Holschuh Dec. 27, 2007 Weighing the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that they in fact owned the notes and mortgages in question at the time these respective complaints were filed. Because Plaintiffs apparently did not own the notes and mortgages at the time the complaints were filed, Plaintiffs suffered no injury in fact from the debtors' default. Plaintiffs thus do not have standing to bring these actions, and these cases should be dismissed for lack of standing. JUDGE : John D. Holschuh Lack of Standing Positions Held (precedents) Against Wells Fargo Bank NA. In Bold
Dismissals Due To Plaintiff's Failure To Show Standing

131

Ameriquest Funding II REO Subsidiary LLC v. Bat ; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02726; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN CitiMortgage, Inc. v. North; Filed 10/30/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03376; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stout; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03280; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Glass; Filed 9/21/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00963; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Awad; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv01703; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Black; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03074; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bradford; Filed 7/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02144; Disposed 12/5/2007; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. DeFrati; Filed 10/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03276; Disposed 12/10/2007; Judge Christopher A. BOYKO Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hall; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00731; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Henders; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03069; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jackson; Filed 9/12/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02753; Disposed 12/20/2007; Judge Sara LIOI Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jones; Filed 4/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01186; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lewis; Filed 9/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02903; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mays; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02334; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. McFarla ; Filed 7/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02042; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge Lesley WELLS Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Nashe; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02994; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Squires; Filed 10/8/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03076; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Harper; Filed 10/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03052; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. EMC Mortgage Corporation v. Washington; Filed 3/16/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00226; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

132

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding v. Cook; Filed 2/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00166; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Household Realty Corporation v. McCord; Filed 11/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01150; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hilty; Filed 3/30/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00279; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. King; Filed 10/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01047; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB v. Castleberry; Filed 7/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00642; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH LaSalle Bank National Association v. Claypoole; Filed 7/24/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00706; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH LaSalle Bank National Association v. Lyons; Filed 9/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02733; Disposed 12/11/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Merrit ; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00536; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH MidFirst Bank v. Deem; Filed 10/22/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03260; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Nelson; Filed 5/11/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00423; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Washington Mutual Bank v. Clark ; Filed 10/15/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv03177; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603 2:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

133

Authorities 3 see pages 6, 20, 24

Real Party in Interest Case Law References
58 See, e.g., Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc., 893 F.Supp. 1304, 1312 (D.S.C. 1994) (applying the HDC defense in a commercial context to hold that: Article Three of the UCC controls transfers of negotiable instruments, and the mortgage notes are clearly negotiable. If UCC Article Three should not apply in this case and the holder in due course doctrine is no longer warranted, then any abolishment of that body of law should come from the legislature, not the court). See also Eggert, supra note 12, at 56070 (discussing cases where the HDC doctrine was applied against consumer mortgage borrowers).

Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24. The purpose behind the real-party-in-interest requirement is " 'to enable the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.' " Id. at 24-25, quoting In reHighland Holiday Subdivision (1971), 27 Ohio App.2d 237, 240.

In foreclosure actions, the real party in interest is the current holder of the note and mortgage. Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v. Smith, Hamilton App. No. C-061069, 2007-Ohio-5874, at 18;

Kramer v. Millott (Sept. 23, 1994), Erie App. No. E-94-5 (because the plaintiff did not prove that she was the holder of the note and mortgage, she did not establish herself as a real party in interest).

A party who fails to establish itself as the current holder is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 679-680.

134

Thus, in Hufford, the Third District No. 07AP-615 5 Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment where a purported mortgagee failed to produce sufficient evidence explaining or demonstrating its right to the note and mortgage at issue. In that case, the record contained only "inferences and bald assertions" and no "clear statement or documentation" proving that the original holder of the note and mortgage transferred its interest to the appellee. Id. at 678. The failure to prove who was the real party in interest created a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. Id. at 679-680. Similarly, in Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Green (2004), 156 Ohio App.3d 461, the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding of summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to prove that it was the holder of the note and mortgage. There, the defendant executed a note and mortgage in favor of Check 'n Go Mortgage Services, not Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Although Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. submitted an affidavit alleging an interest in the note and mortgage, it did not state how or when it acquired that interest. Id. at 467. The court concluded that this lack of evidence defeated the purpose of Civ.R. 17(A) by exposing the defendant to the danger that multiple "holders" would seek foreclosure based upon the same note and mortgage. Id. Authorities 4 see pages 17, 24, 31

Previous Ohio Cases Ruled against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. for Lack of Standing
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Clossman; Filed 6/6/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00534; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Banfield; Filed 7/26/2007; Case No. 5:2007cv02272; Disposed 12/12/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, N A v. Ernest; Filed 11/2/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03419; Disposed 12/4/2007; Judge David D. DOWD, Jr. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Ivy; Filed 8/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02453; Disposed 12/3/2007; Judge James S. GWIN Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Muse; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00727; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Raines; Filed 10/26/2007; Case No. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-46032:2007cv01119; Disposed 12/27/2007; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH

135

Authorities 5 (A.)

see pages 17, 31

Previous Sanctions Against Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

US Bankruptcy Court, Dist. Of Mass., Case No. 02-46025-JBR Adversary Proceeding. No. 04- 4517 and No. 07-4109 Lack of Standing no mention of diversity, They seek to bind the Debtor to one standard and themselves to a much lower one. Moreover the attorneys and law firms argument that notes and mortgages frequently change hands multiple times, often with written documentation executed later, which they offer as explanation as to why it reasonable for them to rely on the representations of their clients should provide little shelter when they insist that the Debtor should have known better than to take their pleadings literally. This Court will not countenance creditors and creditors attorneys holding themselves to a different and clearly lower standard than what they expect of the Debtor. It will not tolerate a lenders or sevicers disregard for the rules that govern litigation, including contested matters, in the federal courts. It is the creditors responsibility to keep a borrower and the Court informed as to who owns the nte and mortgage and is servicing the loan, not the borrowers or the Courts responsibility to ferret out the truth. Wells Fargo Bank sanction amt. $250,000.00 Dated April 25, 2008 JUDGE: JOEL B. ROSENTHAL

Authorities 5 (B.) see pages 17, 31

On July 31, a civil jury in Montgomery County, Maryland, Kimberly Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 279370-V, rendered a verdict for $1,250,000 in damages ($250,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for defrauding a home buyer who was seeking a mortgage loan. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., made an excessive loan at a higher than promised interest rate to Ms. Kimberly Thomas. In the course of the loan approval, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was found to have engaged in fraudulent activity by misrepresenting income and assets of Ms. Thomas in order to justify a loan that she could not afford and could not repay in order to earn a commission on the transaction. In conducting its deliberations, the jury was provided evidence from which it could find that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., did not 136

comply with its own consumer mortgage loan policies, its own ethical standards and requirements and abused its position with respect to commonly used banking practices governing loan standards in the consumer area.

Authorities 6 see pages 19 & 2 Negotiable Instruments & Due Diligence

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). R.C 1303.3(A),(B),(C),(E),(H) R.C. 1303.21(B). pages 17, 20, 21 R.C. 1303.22 pages 18, 20 R.C. 1303.24 Indorsement - UCC 3-204 pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 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. page 20 R.C. 5301.01 page 20 R.C. 5301.25 page 20 R.C. 5309.79 page 20 U.C.C 3-201 & Article III page 18 U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) page 17 S.E.C. true sale obligations page 20 Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400 Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) Pinney v. Merchants National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1

Due Diligence
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3) page 20 Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 SEC. 9(a) (1)(A)(B)(C), (2), (4),6)(b)(1)(2)(3), (6)(c),(d)(e)

Authorities 7

see page 6

Handwriting Analysis
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. No. 01-4953 PATRICK LEROY CRISP 137

Authorities 8 see page 26 FRAUD Defined

Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes fraud, and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages. Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 8 Contract can be avoided if it was induced by fraud, duress or misrepresentation. Goldman v. Bequai, 19F3d 666 (DC Cir. 1994).

If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise. Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559, 572; 132 NW 1122 ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the party who drafted the contract.. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, (Miss. 1990).

Authorities 9 see pages 25, 26, 28 TILA

138

A. Pursuant to regulations promulgated under Truth in Lending Act, violator of disclosure requirements is held to standard of strict liability, and therefore, borrower need not show that creditor in fact deceived borrower by making substandard disclosures. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601-1667(e); Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section 226,8(b-d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1700 Soils v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983, B. Any violation of the Truth in Lending Act, regardless of technical nature, must result in finding of liability against lender. Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z Section 226.1 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1700; Truth in Lending Act Section 130 (a, e), IS U.S.C. Section 1640 (a, e). In Re Steinbrecher. 110 BR. 155, 116 A.L.R. Fed. 881. C. Question of whether lender's Truth in Lending Act disclosures are inaccurate, misleading or confusing ordinarily will be for fact finder; however, where confusing, misleading and inaccurate character of disputed disclosure is so clear that it cannot reasonably be disputed, summary judgment for plaintiff is appropriate. Truth in Lending Act Section 102 et seq; Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section 226.1 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1700. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. 503 F, Supp 246, appeal dismissed 672 F.2d 903, appeal after remand 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct, 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 E2d 642.

Authorities 10 see page 29 HOEPA

A. Truth in Lending Act was passed to prevent unsophisticated consumer from being misled as to total cost of financing. Truth in Lending Act, Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 F.2d 642. 139

2. Purpose of Truth in Lending Act is for customers to be able to make informed decisions. Truth in Lending Act Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed,2d 225, on remand 699 F,2d 642, B. Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of anothers ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987.

Authorities 11 Federal & Ohio State Code, Rules & Regulations

U.C.C. - 3-203 (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.

As stated in Buckeye Federal Sav. & Loan Assn v. Garlinger (1991), 62 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315 (stating promissory notes are negotiable instruments under R.C 1303.3(A)

According to Ohio Revised Code, in order for a negotiable instrument to be properly transferred, it must be negotiated. R.C. 1303.21(B). Negotiation includes not only the physical transfer of the instrument but also the indorsement, U.C.C 3-201, by the holder to transferee, which of course, must be in writing. Id.; R.C. 1303.22.

section 3-305(b) of the Revised Article Three of the Uniform Commercial Code Securities Exchange Act of 1934

140

SEC. 10A (a)(1)(2)(3),

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

Ohio Revised Code

R.C 1303.3(A) pages 17, R.C. 1303.21(B). pages 17, 21, R.C. 1303.22 page 18 R.C 1303.24 pages 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34 CivR 17(A) page 5, 6, 7 CivR 1002 page 6

U.S. Statute of Frauds page 5 US Law of Contracts page 5

141