1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INSTRUCTION
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
Defendants Partial Counterclaims
TILA Violations
HOEPA Violations
Violations of the Ohio RICO Act
Wherefore
Andy Engel says:
November 2, 2012 at 9:53 am
If the foreclosing bank relied on an after-acquired interest in the note and mortgage to
establish its right to enforce the agreements, then I would certainly seek to vacate the
judgment. But you need not proceed under Civ.R. 60(B) because the judgment is void.
The Schwartzwald decision states that standing has to exist at the time the case is filed,
and if it doesnt exist, the jurisdiction of the common pleas court was not invoked. A
court without jurisdiction cannot enter any judgment (except one dismissing the case for
lack of jurisdiction). A motion to vacate a void (as opposed to a voidable) judgment is
not based on Civ. R. 60(B), it invokes the courts inherent power. Patton v. Diemer, 35
Ohio St. 3d 68 (1988).
INSTRUCTION
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
12. The Holder in Due Course Defense is well-established in bankruptcy practice. To
quote (and incorporate as if my own) Bert Ely, a longtime analyst of the financial services

[Pleading Title] - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

industry and a scholar at the conservative Cato Institute who was among the first to predict the
S&L scandal of the 1980s, this is well-established in bankruptcy practice, that you have to
properly perfect the security interest, and if you havent, youre screwed.
Securitization ostensibly provides a source of capital so that more
home loans are available to borrowers. However, the series of corporate and
banking transactions that make up securitization cannot be permitted to avoid
liability by those who are actually providing the funding _ and often
controlling the transaction. See Kurt Eggert, Held up in Due Course:
Predatory Lending, Securitization, and the Holder in Due Course Doctrine, 35
Creighton L. Rev. 503 (2002).

13. If such basic legalities arent adhered to, a homeowner could pay his or her way out
of a foreclosure jam only to wind up in another when a new plaintiff emerges claiming to own
the debt. Mortgage lending and servicing is a matter of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.
Thats what puts the discipline in the process. Bert Ely.
14. Plaintiff attaches documents to its complaint and documents produced through
discovery conflict with the allegations of material facts in the complaint in which the plaintiff
claims that it owns the Note and Mortgage by virtue of a post-created and post-recorded
assignment. These allegations conflict with the alleged mortgage and note attached to the
complaint that identifies Option One Mortgage Corporation, as the lender with the original
security interest. These allegations therefore constitute serious misrepresentations and could be
construed as a fraud brought upon the court.
15. Plaintiffs own exhibits, fully scrutinized, purportedly show multiple transference
occurrences BEFORE and/or after an alleged transfer has allegedly already taken place of the
Note & Mortgage, and also show many instances of no actual legal transference of the
Mortgage and Note at all. Also, the transference dates purported could not have existed

[Pleading Title] - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

within the Timeline represented. Upon a complete Mortgage Document scrutinization, this is
easily seen.

Defendants Partial Counterclaims

TILA Violations;
TILA remedies and requirements actually address the free house
complaint head on: If banks misbehave in material and
important ways (as defined by statute and not in the minds of a
judge or lawyer) then yes, the homeowner should get a free
house. That is what all three branches of the Federal
government have said and no re-interpretation of TILA
rescission or TILA remedies will be allowed since last week
when the Supreme Court unanimously decided that TILA meant
what it says. Any Judge or lawyer who thinks otherwise is in
fairyland. "
The equitable tolling principles are to be read into every Federal Statute of Limitations unless
Congress expressly provides to the contrary in clear and unambiguous language,
see: Rotella v. Wood 528, 549, 560-61,120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d
1047(2000). Since TILA does not evidence a contrary Congressional intent, its
statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly
since the Act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers.
53. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and foregoing
allegations in the entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the Complaint and his
counterclaims in its and their entirety and from its inception to each and every violation listed.

[Pleading Title] - 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

54. Under the facts otherwise identified elsewhere within this action and at hand
Defendant did correctly, reasonable and legally rely on the mortgage broker and the Plaintiff to
act fairly with him. Defendant has been harmed by each and every below counterclaim listed and
Plaintiff has patently violated not only the Truth in Lending Act, at all relevant times, but also the
spirit of the Truth and Lending Act . The Plaintiffs broker, closing agent and the Lender/Bank
each, in their own parts, has misled, obfuscated, shirked from their proper Due Diligence and
attempted to confuse Defendant in their practice and pattern and pursuit of their own unjust
enrichment, to whit;
i. The Plaintiff did not provide appropriate disclosure as required by the Truth in Lending
Act in a substantive and technical manner,
Pursuant to regulations promulgated under Truth in Lending Act, violator of
disclosure requirements is held to standard of strict liability, and therefore,
borrower need not show that creditor in fact deceived borrower by making
substandard disclosures. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186, as amended, 15
U.S.C. Section 1601-1667(e); Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section
226,8(b-d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1700 Soils v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R.
983,

Given the ease of Plaintiffs availability to verify Defendants actual income, or lack
thereof, and Defendants lack of ability to alter any documentation it is obvious by fact that
the Plaintiff did alter and falsify Application documentation to reflect elevated income
levels for Defendant thereby falsely representing the material fact that Defendant was
employed when in fact Defendant, had no full time employment at time of Loan creation,
nor had any previous full time employment for a period extending approximately 4 years
prior to mortgage loan creation, and exhibit 9, Employment Verification clearly shows
employment verification was not even accomplished (if ever!), (which again speaks to due
diligence), until June 13, 2005, some four days AFTER alleged mortgage loan closing and
payout date. Such action once again clearly demonstrates to the Court, Plaintiffs conduct
and character. Plaintiff also claims to have previously sold this same said Mortgage and
Note on June 10th 2005, three days previous to loan verification, to Barclays Bank
representing to same, and at that time, as fact, that the Mortgage and Note had already
received review and that the required Due Diligence had already, previously been
performed on it, when it is an undisputable fact, that it had not.

[Pleading Title] - 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that
it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes
fraud, and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages. Barnsdall Refining
Corn. v. Birnam wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 8

ii. The Plaintiff did fraudulently represent to Defendant a, witnessed and with witnesses
willing to testify to the fact of it, promise of future refinancing of the same alleged loan to
Defendant after prepayment penalty date had elapsed and future additions and alterations to
property were finalized (thereby increasing equitable value of property), which Defendant
did complete, as incentive in making the loan and thereby assuring Defendant of a future
income with which to make future payments attainable,
If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations
for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly
void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.
Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559, 572; 132 NW 1122

iii. The Plaintiff did supply Defendant with blank application documentation for signature and
return, later filing in the amounts,
It is not necessary for recession of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation
should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even
though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made
false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such
representations. Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

iv. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did fraudulently, and with previous
knowledge, did alter and/or change the documentation to reflect that Defendant had an
ability to repay this alleged Note & Mortgage without future refinancing of same when in
fact and to their knowledge he had none,
Any violation of the Truth in Lending Act, regardless of technical nature, must result in finding
of liability against lender. Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z 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.

v. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did fraudulently alter the Loan
Documents to represent the real party of interest to be Defendants Father in an attempt to
obfuscate true ownership to force real holder of property to face additional burden of
Defending his legitimate position at the time of intentional and pre-ordained foreclosure
by Plaintiff,

[Pleading Title] - 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise
single or entire. Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mutual. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

vi. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did fraudulently misrepresent accurate
amounts financed, percentage rates and finance charges on the Truth In Lending
Documents (2 separate ones). (See Exhibit M & N)
Question of whether lender's Truth in Lending Act disclosures are inaccurate, misleading or
confusing ordinarily will be for fact finder; however, where confusing, misleading and inaccurate
character of disputed disclosure is so clear that it cannot reasonably be disputed, summary
judgment for plaintiff is appropriate. Truth 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.

vii.

Plaintiffs closing Agent did rush Defendant through the closing process with a claim of
being late to catch her plane, thus depriving Defendant of any available time to review
closing documents.
Once a creditor violates the Truth In Lending Act, no matter how technical violation
appears, unless one of statutory defenses applies, Court has no discretion in imposing
liability. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102-186 as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 16011667e. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co. 58 BR, 983.

Home Owners Equity Protection Act

HOEPA Violations
55. In General -The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA
or the Act) amended TILA by adding Section 129 of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639, and has
been implemented by Sections 226.31 and 226.32 of Regulation Z. 12 C.F.R. 226.31
and 226.32. HOEPA was implemented to specifically curb the predatory lending practices
of certain sub-prime lenders. Generally, the Act provides added protections to borrowers
who obtain more high-cost loans in the sub-prime market.

[Pleading Title] - 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

56. In the course of offering and extending credit to Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank
through their assigns, specifically Option One Mortgage Co., and H&R Block mortgage
Corp. (now defunct) has caused injury to Defendant and have violated HOEPA
regulations by engaging in asset-based lending and including loan terms prohibited by
HOEPA. Specifically:
A. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated 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;
Truth in Lending Act was passed to prevent unsophisticated consumer from being misled as to
total cost of financing. Truth in Lending Act, Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S.
56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 F.2d 642.
2. Purpose of Truth in Lending Act is for customers to be able to make informed decisions. Truth
in Lending Act Section 102, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S.Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed,2d 225, on remand
699 F,2d 642,

B. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of
HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "prepayment penalty" provision, in
violation of Section 129(c) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(c), and Section 226.32(d)(6) of
Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d)(6);
C. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did violate the requirements of
HOEPA and Regulation Z by misleading Defendant in the real costs of alleged Mortgage
and Note as is evidenced by lower courts own representation of erroneous and fraudulent
amounts referenced in Decision, Order and Judgment Entry Finding In Favor Of Plaintiff
Wells Fargo Bank (page 2) and purporting the entire loan amount totaling $93,445.92

[Pleading Title] - 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and has violated the requirements of
HOEPA and Regulation Z by including a prohibited "increased interest rate after default"
provision, in violation of Section 129(d) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1639(c), and Section
226.32(d)(6) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d)(6); and
E. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and violated the requirements of HOEPA and
Regulation Z by failing to provide Defendant required disclosure documented under
Section 1639 (a) Disclosures(1)(A) & (B), (2) Annual percentage rate(B), (b) Time of
disclosures(1), (2)(A), (3) Modifications, (c) No Prepayment penalty(1)(A)(B), (2)(A)(i)
(ii), (B), (D), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k?), Section 1639(d), and
Pursuant to regulations promulgated under Truth in Lending Act, violator of disclosure
requirements is held to standard of strict liability, and therefore, borrower need not show that
creditor in fact deceived by making substandard disclosures. TILA, Sections 102-186, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601-1667(e); Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Section
226,8(b-d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1700 Soils v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983,

F. Plaintiff did violate and cause to initiate HOEPA protection rights and Defendants rights
by requiring Defendant to pay an annual percentage rate at consummation which did
exceed an

interest rate more than 8 percentage points for fist lien loansbased on

the yield on Treasury securities 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. Plaintiff failed in their requirements under rules (c)(1)to provide Defendant proper
documentation as required,(c)(2) ,(3),(4) in providing Defendant any and all proper
notices as is required. (d)(1),(2),(4),(5),(6),(7)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) .
H. Plaintiff did violate Defendants rights by charging discount points in violation
of State maximum limitation requirement of 2% by charging Defendant 3%.

Violations of the Ohio RICO Act

[Pleading Title] - 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ohio RICO, R.C. 2923.32

57. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates by reference all of the proceeding and
foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the
Complaint in its entirety and from its inception.
58. Defendant John A. Reed alleges that:
A. Wells Fargo Bank NA., acting as trustee for holders of mortgages and mortgagebacked 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

[Pleading Title] - 9

1 Collection Practices Act as is referenced within the above two quotes, 15 USC Sec 1692e. 51. In
2
3 addition, this suit alleges Wells Fargo Bank NA has failed to comply with Ohio requirements for
4
5 a trust company or national bank to do business in Ohio. That the two named Ohio foreclosure
6
7 law firms have also violated
8
9 the FDCPA and RICO by acting on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank NA in the foreclosure process.
10
60. Defendant John A. Reed is seeking unspecified actual and statutory damages,
11
12
13 including treble damages under Ohio RICO law, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Defendant
14
15 John A. Reed also seeks the appointment of a receiver to recover from Wells Fargo Bank NA all
16
17 charges it has collected from Defendant John A. Reed and any interests in real property it
18
19 acquired illegally, and to collect fees that Wells Fargo Bank NA.s law firms obtained from
20
21 illegal foreclosures.
22
2361. The suit also names two Ohio foreclosure law firms as defendants: Plunkett Cooney 300 E.
24
25 Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43235 & Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati,
26
27 Ohio 45201.
28
62. The action stems from foreclosure of Defendant John A. Reeds property located at
7940 Guilford Dr., Dayton, Ohio 45414 whose alleged mortgage had been allegedly sold,
securitized, divided and then pooled without Defendants permission.
63. Ohio RICO states that No person, through a corrupt pattern of corrupt activity
shall acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in, or control of, any real
property. R.C 2923.32(A)(2).
64. Corrupt Activity includes engaging in a violation of section 2921.03 of the Revised
Code which states No person, knowingly and by filing, recording, or otherwise using a

[Pleading Title] - 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

materially false or fraudulent writing in a wanton or reckless manner, shall attempt to

influence . a public servant in the discharge of the persons duty.
65. Defendant states the Plaintiff has violated Section 2921.03 by knowingly filing
complaints which do allege Wells Fargo Banks ownership of promissory notes and mortgages
when in fact it does not own the alleged notes or mortgages, and by knowingly filing multiple
complaints (see authorities 1, 2, 4, 5) as trustee in reckless disregard of the fact that
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank was not authorized to engage in such activities both as trustee in Ohio
and for lack of standing. These filings were made in a wanton and reckless manner in an attempt
to influence state and federal judges and judicial officers in Ohio to enter judgments against
Defendant(s) on the alleged mortgage and Note, including for principal, interest, late fees,
penalties, costs and attorney fees, and to foreclose on Defendants property in a wanton attempt
at unjust enrichment.
66. The Plaintiffs conduct constitutes a pattern of corrupt activity, because they have
maintained more than two lawsuits under the fraudulent and misleading circumstances described
in the foregoing paragraphs. On information and belief, the defendants have filed hundreds of
foreclosure complaints in violation of R.C. 2923.32 see see authorities 1, 2, 4, 5.
69. Through the filing of foreclosure actions under false pretense and in violation of U.S.
Law, U.C.C., SEC and Ohio Law, and/or any other applicable and\or Local Laws, Plaintiff Wells
Fargo Bank, with the active assistance and participation of the plaintiff law firms herein named,
has acquired an interest in real property, including obtaining a foreclosure action against
Defendants property.

[Pleading Title] - 11

70. As a result of Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsels conduct, the Defendant has been
1
2
3 injured in many various ways, including loss of time to conduct Defendants Profession of choice
4
5 due to Defendants lack of ability to obtain knowledgeable and
6
7 available Legal Counsel and Defendants forced placement into Defending himself pro se,
8
9 through penalties and court costs and attorney fees charged against their account(s) on lawsuit(s)
10
11 filed under false and misleading circumstances, and from other incidental and consequential
12
13 costs and expenses attendant to the defending of his property.
14
15
71. Section 2923.34 of the Revised Code entitles Defendant John A. Reed who
16
17
18
19 has established the elements of Ohio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo Bank
20
21 NA of its interest in Defendants real property and to actual damages Defendant has sustained,
22
23 which may be tripled if proved by clear and convincing evidence, and to costs and reasonable
24
25 attorney fees.
26
2772. The Defendant further states, and does move the Court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(B)(1) of the
28
Ohio RICO Statute, to order Wells Fargo Bank NA divestiture in any interest in Defendants real
property and also moves the court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(D) of the Statute, for an order of
injunctive relief and a temporary injunction.
73. It is without dispute or issue that a claim under the Ohio RICO statute was not presented by
Defendant John A. Reed or litigated in the civil-court foreclosure action, because of Plaintiffs
misrepresentation of both true owner AND of true maker of mortgage and note, Defendant could
have not brought such claim in civil court. Defendants have properly brought the claim as part of
their Appellate action herein pursuant to the doctrine of Pendent or Supplemental jurisdiction, 28
USC sec. 1367(a). The Ohio RICO statute is a state law, which authorizes the specific relief

[Pleading Title] - 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

requested by the Defendant. As such, Defendants claims which attack the foreclosure are not
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith v Encore Credit 4:08-cv-1462 USDC, N. Oh. W.
Dist Judge McHargh

74. Wherefore, because the Plaintiffs exhibits attached to their pleading are inconsistent
with Plaintiffs allegations as to ownership of the subject note and mortgage, those allegations
are neutralized and Plaintiffs complaint is rendered objectionable. Plaintiff has failed to
establish itself as the real party in interest and court did lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear
same. Defendant John A. Reed does request this Court to (1) dismiss this case with prejudice in
its entirety, (2) sustain Defendants expressed defamation and libel charges, stated elsewhere
within this pleading, (3) award Defendant any actual and punitive monetary reward the Court
deems fit and proper for loss of employment (since foreclosure inception in perpetuity) in his
stated profession, any and all amounts render able under TILA, HOEPA and RICO charges stated
above, plus an award for emotional, physical and psychological pain & suffering as well as any
and all costs associated with the defense of this suit, and (4) order Plaintiff, with prejudice, to
immediately cause to be released its alleged mortgage and/or any interest it may have or have
obtained against the subject property and return the property in whole to Defendant John A. Reed
with damages, and award any and all cost and Legal Fees (in their entirety) that Plaintiffs Attys
should/would have collected in the case to Defendant.
75. Defendant reserves the rights to bring charges under each and every other violation
and actionable issue found, acts such as those already discovered within RESPA, The Ohio
Corrupt Activities Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, FTC, FDCPA, FDRA, U.C.C.,

[Pleading Title] - 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

O.R.C 1345, Article III, and all others as they become apparent and, more importantly at this
time, space will allow.
76. Finally, I sincerely thank Your Honor for his/her time and patience in reviewing this
lengthy document and I ask you humbly and respectfully, not only for justice for myself, but for
the necessary sanctions and/or injunctions and/or other actions that would serve to prevent
further predatory practices, such as those used against me, to be utilized against other
unsuspecting home owners. Your Honor, Im nobody special, but I have lived though this before.
Another financial Institution came after me 24 years ago, I searched for knowledgeable legal
help then. I couldnt find any then either. They not only stripped me of all my processions (9
houses Id personally rehabbed including my own of 19 years), they then continued to ruin my
Credit for another 11 years after I filed bankruptcy. I know whats coming. I came out here
destitute, moved here onto a vacant lot that had been for sale for over 15 years, nobody wanted
it. I moved into a 60 year old rat, raccoon and spider infested shed and if it werent for an old
childhood friend, Id have starved and been dead long ago. It got cold and they were building
McMansions close by and I started dumpster-diving for insulation and found lots. In the next 5
years Id built most of this house, 99% of it out of the dumpsters. I worked every job I could
find, still, my electric (and the well) has been turned off too many times. And still, I raised this
property to its highest and best use.

Therefore, It is for these reasons and more and because Wells Fargo Bank NA lacks standing to
bring its foreclosure actions, its attempt to do so constituted violations of the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, as well as Ohio RICO, R.C. 2923.32 Engaging in pattern of corrupt
activity, both on its part as well as on the part of its attorneys filing the foreclosure actions. In
addition to damages and other relief, the Defendant still seeks the dismissal of this foreclosure
action, and requests that the attorneys representing Wells Fargo Bank NA., Bank fork over all the
fees they collected on this foreclosure action and Defendant asks the Court to dismiss
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JOHN A. REEDS

[Pleading Title] - 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MOTION TO VACATE and pleads the Court to find in Favor of Defendant John A. Reeds
Motion To Vacate Void Judgment and to find in favor of Defendant John A. Reeds entire claims
and counterclaims and with prejudice.

[Pleading Title] - 15