Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion for Stay Of

7/29/2019 Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion for Stay Of

1/43

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION

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

Plaintiff

Vs. Judge:

JOHN L. REED_______________,Defendant

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY

OF August 20th, 2010 FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANTS HOME

PENDING DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL & STATE ACTION FOR

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL TRUTH- IN-LENDING ACT, FEDERAL REAL

ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT, CIVIL RICO, AND OTHER

ACTS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND FOR RELIEF OF SAME.

1. In order for any judgment not to be VOID the following must apply:

a. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a third party.

Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse. Some

certain person must take responsibility for the making of the

accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid

means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the

injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay

evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that he heard

that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence

1


2/43

b. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury

cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone

may accuse another falsely without risk.

c. To comply with the two elements above, that is for the accusation to

be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must

have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge.

This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice

procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in

jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his

freedom. All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective

process.

2. Under the circumstances at Barr, where the Plaintiff has intentionally violated

Ohio Statutory law for the express purpose of wrongfully acquiring the Defendants real

property with the specific intent to profit from such wrongful conduct and where there is

no harm to the Plaintiff in restraining it from profiting from its unlawful actions, no bond

should be required of Plaintiff as a precondition to the granting of the relief requested

herein.

3. Defendant John A. Reed incorporates, by reference to this case from its

inception, all of the preceding and foregoing allegations and defenses proffered, in and to

the entirety of, and included within each and every of Defendants answers, pleadings

and Counterclaims, as in regard to the Complaint in its entirety and from its inception,

and respectfully requests answer on each and every claim and counterclaim in specificity.

2


3/43

4. In the course of this suit, Defendant John A. Reed has asserted, shown and

proved with specificity, multiple cause of actions against Wells Fargo Bank and its co-

contributors/assigns/agents and counsel under the FDCPA, Ohio RICO, Federal Fair

Credit Reporting Act , Hoepa, TILA, FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts, Ohio

Revised Code and the Ohio Corrupt Activities Statute and is seeking relief as prescribed

in those acts. Such claims arise, not only from the mortgage loan transaction that was

subject of this Wells Fargos foreclosure action, but also from misrepresentations by

Wells Fargo Bank and its counsel during these foreclosure proceedings. Defendant states

and has repeatedly stated Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank does lack standing to bring this suit

upon Defendant. Consequently, prior to the courts previous action, Defendant did not

even know who was the true holder and owner of the alleged Note & Mortgage, and

still does not, so like a claim for abuse of process, the FDCPA Ohio RICO, Federal Fair

Credit Reporting Act , Hoepa, TILA, FDIC Law , Reulations, Related Acts and the Ohio

Corrupt Activities claims were not required to be raised during the foreclosure actions

(even assuming the foreclosure courts would have entertained them), but may be asserted

in the present case instead.

5.The Mortgage, Note and loan creation documents contain many fraudulent and

actionable misrepresentations and much fraudulent information upon them, to whit;

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

Mortgage and Note. Lower Courts have held and Plaintiff has agreed that

Defendant John A. Reed's Father, John L. Reed, had no interest or involvement in

the creation of the alleged subject mortgage & note.

3


4/43

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

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

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

month (seedefendants exhibit "P" and "Q") 2 separate residential Loan

Applications.

(C) Universal Residential Loan Application (see defendants 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 Defendant's base income as $3,300 per month. Defendant,

in years 2001-2005 was only sporadically, "part time" employed,

instead he was spending the entirety of his working hours

gathering materials and constructing the subject property.

(5) No Interviewers signature

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

Citizen

(7) Child Support Obligations says NO. Plaintiff had knowledge of

Defendant's three child support obligations until 2006. Information

provided by Plaintiff shows -0- obligations despite documents

4


5/43

provided from Plaintiff in Discovery (see defendantsExhibits

"L1", "L2", "L3", "O" Child Dependants & Defendants' Credit

Report.) proving Plaintiff had knowledge. see O.R.C. 1322.07(A),

(B),(C),(E),(H)

6. Defendant states that a full scrutinization of Mortgage and Mortgage creation

documentation also clearly shows many violations in regard to Rules & Regulations as

set forth in The Truth In Lending Act (TILA), The Homeowners Equity Protection Act

(HOEPA), The Fair Debt Collections Act (FDCPA), RESPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act

(FCRA), U.C.C., Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices

Act, Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, O.R.C. 1345.0, U.S Constitution Article III, to whit,

COUNT ONE

Violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U,S,C. 1692e

FDCPAFederal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

7. This is an action on behalf of named Defendant John A. Reed. Defendant does

allege that Wells Fargo Bank and its Counsel violated the Federal Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, by making false, deceptive, or misleading

representations in connection with the collection of debts, and engaged in a pattern of

corrupt activity in violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activities statute, Ohio Rev. Code

2923.32 [hereinafter cited as R.C.].

8. 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.

5
http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL1http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL2http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL3http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitOhttp://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL1http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL2http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitL3http://c/Foreclosure/FORECLOSURE%20CASE%203/APPELLATE%20BRIEF/HTML/#ExhibitO


6/43

9. Federal Law prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading,

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt including the

false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt and the

threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken 15 U.S.C. 1692e.

10. Foreclosing on Defendants home, the Plaintiff:

A made false, deceptive and misleading representations concerning Wells

Fargo Banks standing to sue the Defendant and its interest in the debt;

B. falsely represented the status of the alleged debt, in particular, that it was

due and owing to Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank at the time of suit initiation;

C. falsely represented or implied that the alleged debt was owing to PlaintiffWells Fargo Bank as an innocent purchaser of value, when in fact, such an

assignment had not been accomplished;

D. threatened to and did take action, namely engaging in collection activities

and collection and foreclosure suits as trustee that cannot legally be taken by

them; and

E. used this action to obtain access to Ohio state and Federal courts to collect

on notes and foreclose on mortgages under false pretenses, namely that Wells

Fargo Bank was duly authorized to engage in such activities in Ohio when in

fact it was not.

F. Plaintiff did involve, at length, Defendant John A. Reeds Father in the

course of trying to collect this alleged debt, causing both his father and mother

mental anguish and degraded health, while the mother was dying.

G. The Plaintiff has sought collection fees or interest charges not permitted by

the Mortgage and Note or State law ($107,000 supersedeas bond based on

$98,000 (approx.) debt).

H. Plaintiff Publicly, through printed documents, defamed and libeled

Defendants good nature and Character.

11. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank did not obtain

and/or file an assignment of the alleged note or mortgage of the named Defendant until

6


7/43

after the note was in default, for no consideration and also not until after it had filed suit

in its own name as the holder and/or owner of the note and mortgage; and the exhibits

prove, that same alleged assignment came not from the true and actual holder in due

course of ownership of the alleged Mortgage and Note, thereby making same

assignment nothing more than a fraudulent and worthless misrepresentation of authority

and ownership.

12. These violations of the FDCPA entitle Defendant to recover the actual

damages they have sustained as a result of the improper filing of foreclosure suits, or

alternative damages as are permitted by law, and costs and reasonable attorney fees.

COUNT TWO

Violations of the Ohio Rico Act

Ohio RICO, R.C. 2923.32




14. Defendant John A. Reed alleges that:

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 offraudulent loan documents in violation of the RICO

7


8/43

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.

15. 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 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. That the two 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.

16. 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 illegal foreclosures.

8


9/43

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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).

20. Corrupt Activity includes engaging in a violation of section 2921.03 of the

Revised Code.

21. Section 2921.03 of the revised Code states that No person, knowingly and

by filing, recording, or otherwise using a 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.

22. 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 defendantsExhibitsD,K) 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

9


10/43

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.

23. 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 thousands of foreclosure complaints in violation of R.C. 2923.32

see defendantsExhibits Q, T, S.

24. 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.

25. 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 lack of ability to obtain knowledgeable and

available Legal Counsel and Defendants forced placement into Defending himselfpro

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 their property.

26. Section 2923.34 of the Revised Code entitles Defendant John A. Reed who

has established the elements ofOhio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo

10


11/43

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.

27. 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.

28. 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

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

COUNT THREE

Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act(Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o)

Civil liability for Willful and Negligent Noncompliance

11


12/43


foregoing allegations in the entirety of Defendants answers & pleadings as in regard to the

Complaint in its entirety and from its inception.

1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance

30. (a) In general.

Defendant states Plaintiff , through improper filings, pleadings and

motions, filed fraudulently, in bad faith, and with the purpose of harassment,

necessitated entirely by their own lack of Due Diligence and other stated actions,

did in fact cause harm to Defendant by willfully committing negligent enablement

of Identity fraud and as such did fail to comply with the requirements imposed

under this title and is liable to Defendant in an amount equal to the sum of

(1) any actual damages sustained by Defendant as a result of the failure or

damages.

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this

section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney' s fees as

determined by the court.

(c) Attorney's fees.

Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other

paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad

faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing arty

attorney' s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to

the pleading, motion, or other paper.

COUNT FOUR

Violations of the Universal Commercial CodeViolation of U.C.C 3-203

12


13/43

31. Defendant states that as is required in U.C.C. - 3-203 ( c) and evidenced by

Plaintiffs exhibits, throughout each and every proposed change of ownership of the

alleged mortgage & note Plaintiff exhibits no evidence whatsoever of proper and final

Indorsement of note from or to any other person or entity. Defendant states that

throughout the entirety of the purported passage of this alleged mortgage and note from

any one entity to another, there is not one signature properly indorsing any of the

documents thereby voiding any and all purported transference of same to any and/or all

of Plaintiffs assigns and even to Plaintiff themselves. Plaintiffs act of delivering into

the Court these fraudulent documents constitutes misrepresentation and fraud and in

Defendants knowledge and belief Plaintiff has constituted this same fraud upon the

Courts in thousands if not tens of thousands of cases and as such Plaintiffs callous and

repeated action does fall within the guidelines of the RICO (racketeering) act.

32. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A., brings fraud into the Court with its

allegations of ownership of Proper Mortgage & Note through its disassembly and

subsequent division of Note between the varying entities, Option One Mortgage Corp.,

Mortgage Ramp Inc., the Trust and Wells Fargo Bank in violation of U.C.C. - 3-203

(d)If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the

instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has

only the rights of a partial assignee.Defendant states the very act of splitting the

Original Note & Mortgage, so that the maker Bank, Option One, insures to investers

by guaranteeing to replace the note in the event of a Credit event as described and

required in section 2.03 ofThe Pooling & Servicing AgreementdefendantsExhibit J

(plaintiffs Exhibit 18)

13


14/43

Section 2.03 Representations, Warranties andCovenants of the

Responsible Party and the Servicer; Remedies for Breaches of Representations and

Warranties with Respect to the Mortgage Loans.

Option One Mortgage Corporation, in its capacity as Servicer, hereby makes the

representations and warranties set forth in Schedule II hereto to the Depositor and

the Trustee, as of the Closing Date.

And as such did effectively act to void and destroy the original note and mortgage, as it

was created between Defendant and Original Lender, and as such does render it, from

that point forward, to become null and void and Defendant moves the court to find same.

33. The above does indeed show that, IfPlaintiffs representation of chain of

ownership occurred as represented, the mortgage and note did have the risk removed

and/or separated at the time of placement of the Note into The Trust by Option One in

the promise that said Risk would be retained by Option One, in their attempt at

warranting or guaranteeing the Note. Such actions constitute a violation of agreement

between the Defendant (as maker of the alleged note) and Plaintiff, and in fact, do void

the alleged note in its entirety and also clearly demonstrate insurance fraud being

practiced by a Corporation that is not licensed to practice insurance.

34. Additionally plaintiff makes allegations in its complaint that conflict with the

documents attached thereto as to who owned the subject note and at which particular

time.

35. 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.

14


15/43

36. Because the facts revealed by Plaintiff s exhibits are inconsistent with

Plaintiff s allegations as to its ownership of the subject note and mortgage,

those allegations are neutralized and Plaintiff s complaint is rendered

objectionable.

37. The Plaintiff in this action meets none of the required criteria. Because the

exhibits attached to Plaintiff s complaint is inconsistent with Plaintiff s

allegations as to ownership of the subject alleged promissory note and

mortgage, Plaintiff has failed to establish itself as the real party in interest and

has failed to state a cause of action.

38. The Defendants recognize the precedent set in regarding the assignment of a

mortgage. However as the Second District Court of Appeals has noted,

standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake

in the outcome and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law

as being a real party in interest entitled to bring the claim as of the date of the

commencement of the action. The plaintiff s failure to meet the standing

requirements as of the commencement of this foreclosure action renders the

complaint fatally defective and, therefore constitutes misrepresentation as to

who the Plaintiff really is. The assignment cannot post date the filing of this

action if assignment does not relate back to the commencement of the

litigation.

39. The Plaintiff, in its complaint alleges that it owns the Note and Mortgage

however it has failed to produce the material evidence required to support its

claim. In the absence of this evidence the Plaintiff is clearly and fraudulently

15


16/43

misrepresenting themselves as the real party in interest and the holder in due

course with legal standing to bring this cause of action against the defendant.

40. The Plaintiff alleges that it is the holder in due course on the subject alleged

mortgage and note, yet it is the belief of the Defendant that the note was part

of a larger securitizations process and sold to several un-named parties and

beneficial owners, and any claims by Plaintiff, in the absence of true, just,

legal and convincing evidence that proves Plaintiff is the true holder in due

course of the Mortgage and Note AND holds the original alleged Mortgage

and Note, endorsed to Plaintiff, are a clear misrepresentation of the material

facts and are fraud brought into the Court.

41. It is the position of the Defendant that if the courts were to allow a Plaintiff to

bring a cause of action in a scenario where the Plaintiff alleges that it owns a

certain note and mortgage but fails to provide required evidence to the courts

that this, in fact is true, the courts would be forced to open the door to

incredible harm to any homeowner whose home is secured by a mortgage.

42. If the court were to allow the Plaintiff in this case to prevail in light of

serious misrepresentation and fraud upon the court, it would result in a major

and unconscionable injustice to the Defendant. The Court should not and

cannot be in a position of enabling Plaintiff and its attorneys to commit

material misrepresentation or felony crimes.

COUNT FIVE

Violations of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act

R.C. CHAPTER 4165: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

16


17/43




44. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank Na. and/or their assigns/co-conspirators have

damaged Defendant while violating chapter 4165: Deceptive Trade Practices Act by;

A. passing off the services of others as if they were of their own,

B. causing a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source,

sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;

C. causing likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation,

connection, or association with, or certification by, another;D. using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in

connection with goods or services;

E. representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval,

characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not

have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or

connection that the person does not have;

F. representing that goods or services were of a particular standard,

quality, or grade, or that goods were of a particular style or model, if they

are of another;

G. disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false

representation of fact

H. advertising their goods or services with intent not to sell them as

advertised

F. making false statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of,

or amounts of price reductions

45. Defendant states Plaintiff, through misrepresentation and deception in the

creation of the alleged mortgage and in the subsequent improper filings, pleadings and

motions, which are fraudulently filed in bad faith, and filed with the purpose of

17


18/43

harassment, and necessitated entirely by their own lack of Due Diligence and other stated

actions, has damaged Defendant by willfully violating chapter 4165.01 of the Deceptive

trade practices Act, and as such, Defendant is entitled to an award of injunctive relief as

is stated in R.C. 4165.03. Plaintiff did fail to comply with the requirements imposed

under this title and is liable to Defendant to an award of attorneys fees and pursuant to

R.C. 4165.03 C, The civil relief provided in this section is in addition to civil or criminal

remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other

sections of the Revised Code.

COUNT SIXViolations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

R.C. Chapter 1345, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA)

Violations




47.Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA. did violate Defendant John A. Reeds rights

under the Ohio Sales Protection Act (CSPA) specifically;

a. Through fraudulent and misrepresentative representation of their

Good,. Fair, Just & Legal Mortgage Loan offering and then

b. by coercing Defendant to become enjoined into the same above

referenced alleged Mortgage and note of many misrepresentations,

irregularities and illegalities, and

c. by Plaintiffs Agents initial representation of Subject alleged

Mortgage & Note as being just a temporary step, with the promise of

18


19/43

refinancing of same within the next 2 year period, after improvements

and additions to subject property were completed , which Defendant

has already done, and

d. with the full knowledge that Defendant was deriving his only income

from same and then in the failing of that refinancing action, which

directly caused the commencement of this action, Plaintiff engaged

itself in a classic action of Predatory Lending.

48. Plaintiff has forced Defendant to endure thousands of hours of research and

defense document preparation time, thus depriving Defendant of his most valued

possession, that of his time, which he then could have and would have converted to the

pursuit of maintaining his daily normal and routine lifestyle. And also the degradation of

Defendants emotional, mental, psychological and physical health through the enormous

stress and emotional strain of fighting a predatory giant such as Wells Fargo N.A..

COUNT SEVEN

Violation of O.R.C 1345.0




50. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant by committing an unconscionable act

within the definition of ORC 1345.03 (A) by bringing this foreclosure suit against

Defendant while lacking legal standing to do so.

51. Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant by committing an unconscionable act

within the definition of ORC 1345.03(B)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6).Further, as in 2005-

0331. Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc. 2006-Ohio-5481, which states;

19


20/43

a consumer who is harmed by a supplier's unfair or deceptive trade practices is

entitled to recover not only actual economic losses, but also non-economic damages

that result from the CSPA violations. In a 5-1 decision, the Court held further that

actual damages proven by a consumer, whether economic or non-economic, are

subject to trebling when the offending practice had previously been identified as

deceptive or unconscionable by rule or in a court decision.

52. Defendants state that treble damages are warranted in this case as this is one

of thousands of publicly known instances of same and as such I offerdefendants

exhibitsL & Y titled Previous Sanctions against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and

defendants exhibits, P, Q, T, U titled Recent Rulings Against Wells Fargo Bank

N.A..

COUNT EIGHT

Violation of U.S. Constitution Article III

53. Because Plaintiffs did not demonstrate, nor could they demonstrate, that their

members suffered or were likely to suffer an injury in fact, they fail to meet U.S. Const.

Article III standing requirements which read; a plaintiff must show: (1) it has suffered

an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not

conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of

the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be

redressed by a favorable decision. (Lexis-Nexus Headnotes) Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank,

National Association As Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC-2006-

OP1Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-OP1, as its name (Mortgage

Pass-Through) implies, is merely a conduit that suffers no loss or injury as required. 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

20


21/43

Servicer, not the Trustee and not the Pass-Through Trust itself. (NOTE: lack of standing,

fraud on the Court & unclean hands)

. 54. Without standing, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Lack of

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

at any time. Without jurisdiction, the court must grant Defendants Motion

.

COUNT NINE

Truth In Lending Act ViolationsTILA




56. Under the facts otherwise identified elsewhere within this action and at hand

Defendant did correctly, reasonable and legally rely on the Plaintiffs

Representative Agent, the Mortgage Broker and the Plaintiff to act fairly with him.

Defendant has been harmed 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 the Courts

and Defendant in their practice and pattern and pursuit of their own unjust enrichment, to

whit;

i. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and 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, violatorof disclosure requirements is held to standard of strict liability, and

therefore, borrower need not show that creditor in fact deceived biro 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,

21


22/43

ii. Given the ease of Plaintiffs availability to verify Defendants actual

income, or lack thereof, and Defendants lack of ability to change any

documentation through sheer geography (if nothing else!, recall, Id

also have to break into both their building and computing systems, alter

documents both physically and electronically and then get away!) it is

obvious by fact that the Bank 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, previously 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

defendants exhibit 9 Employment Verification clearly shows

employment verification was not even accomplished (if ever!), which

speaks to due diligence, until June 13, 2005, some four days AFTER

alleged mortgage loan closing and payout date. Such action clearly

demonstrates to the Court, Plaintiffs conduct and character as to its claim

to have previously sold 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 required Due Diligence had already been performed

on it, when it is an undisputable fact, that it had not.

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 orrecover damages. Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 8

iii. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently represent to Defendant a witnessed promise of future

refinancing of 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

22


23/43

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. AugustusSpies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559, 572; 132 NW 1122

iv. 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.

v. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently, and with previous knowledge, alter and/or change the

documentation to reflect 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.

vi. 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,

The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction andthe promise single or entire. Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mutual. Savings Bank,

227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

vii. The Plaintiff has caused injury to Defendant and did

fraudulently misrepresent accurate amounts financed, percentage rates and

23


24/43

finance charges on Truth In Lending Document. See defendants Exhibit

Z

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 inLending 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.

viii. The Banks closing Agent, flown in from Tampa, Florida, 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 1601-1667e. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer

Discount Co. 58 BR, 983.

57. For more Pertinent TILA case Law, see attached Truth In Lending Act CaseLaw

COUNT TEN

Home Owners Equity Protection Act

HOEPA Violations




59. 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.

24


25/43

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.

60. 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 informeddecisions. 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

25


26/43

"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 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

D. 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 l iability, 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

26


27/43

securities having comparable periods of maturity.as is required

byRegulation Z, 12 C.F.R Section 226.32 (a)(1)(i)(ii), see defendants

exhibitN 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) .

G. Plaintiff did violate Defendants rights by charging discount points in

violation of State maximum limitation requirement of 2% by charging

Defendant 3%.

COUNT ELEVENReal Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ViolationsRESPA




62. 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)

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

27


28/43

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. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate

information on the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement.

e. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate

information on the Good faith Estimate of settlement costs.

f. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate

information Controlled Business Arrangement Disclosure as is required.

COUNT TWELVE

Violations of Ohio Corrupt Activities statute O.R.C. 1315.55 (A)(1-5110.




64. 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 O.R.C.

1315.53 by;

a. Failing to comply with reporting

requirements: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(a)

b. Giving false information to a money

28


29/43

transmitter with intent to conceal or disguise that the money or

payment instrument is the proceeds of unlawful activity (such activity

would be the fraudulent information placed upon the Mortgage

qualifying paperwork by the Mortgage Originator) with the intent and

purpose of promoting of carrying out unlawful activity. Section

1315.53 (F)(1)(b)

c. Structuring a transaction with the

intent to avoid the filing requirements: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c)

d. Promoting and carrying out an

unlawful activity: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c)

e. By concealing and/or disguising the

fact of Duty To Report Transaction: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c)

29


30/43

COUNT THIRTEEN

Violations of Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act)




66. 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 perpetrated unlawful

unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Practices previously listed involving fraud,

misleading conduct, misrepresentations and/or material omissions of information

concerning costs, risks, and/or other terms and conditions that do violate the prohibition

against deception. Under relevant precedents, this prohibition is violated by

misrepresentations, representations, omissions, acts, and/or practices that are material

and/or are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in the audience targeted by the

advertisement or other practice. See OCC Guidelines to Guard Against Predatory

Lending, at 4-6. See 12 CFR 25.28(c). See also Interagency Questions and Answers

Regarding Community Reinvestment, Q&A ___.28(c)-1, 66Fed.Reg. 36620, 36640 (July

12, 2001). A bank that engages in credit without assessing the borrowers ability to repay

the loan in addition to violating HOEPA in some circumstances is not helping to

meet the credit needs of the community consistent with safe and sound operations, and

has acted contrary to the OCCs safety and soundness regulatory guidelines. See 12 CFR

30, Appendix A. Such an activity or practice also may adversely affect the OCCs

30


31/43

evaluation of the banks CRA performance. See OCC Guidelines to Guard Against

Predatory Lending.a pattern or practice of extending .

See also United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,Mortgagee

Letter 2002-21 (Due Diligence in Acquiring Loans), September 26, 2002.

67. To Defendants belief and knowledge, Plaintiff, through lack of proper

documentation and/or fraudulent documentation provided, erroneously represented the

true chronology of the alleged mortgage. Plaintiffs unsigned, un-authenticated, un-

recorded, un-intelligible, and post dated documentation, have revealed the engagement of

themselves in the unlawful act of money laundering by attempting to conceal, disguise

the location, source, nature, ownership or control of property derived from either

unlawful of corrupt activity in an attempt to either and/or to simply to make illegally

gained money appear to be from a legal source or to avoid a reporting requirement as are

represented in O.R.C. Title 13: Commercial Transactions Chapter 1315, Transmitters of

Money, sections 1315.53, 1315.54, 1315.55 and 1315.99 and as such show a pattern of

either and/or corrupt or unlawful activity as defined within O.R.C. 2923.31 (1)(1,2,a-f)

and State of Ohio Criminal Law.

SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT REQUESTS TO THE COURT:

68. This is just one more cause of persecution of an ordinary citizen by an alliance

of organizations using premeditated and deliberately-deceptive criminal and predatory

sales practices meant to unjustly enrich themselves while forcing homeowners into

foreclosure.

31


32/43

69. For the reasons stated above, and based on the case law previously submitted

to this Court in Defendants Motion to Dismiss and accompanying pleadings and

memorandum, the Defendant, John A. Reed respectfully asks this Court to sustain these

objections to the Lower Courts Decision and to support the other judges who have set

precedents by deciding against such predatory plaintiffs, including this one, with

prejudice.

70. I ask you humbly and respectfully to dispense justice against such predatory

victimizers by finding compensatory and punitive damages for the Defendant. Since

previous sanctions in similar cases seem notto have altered this Plaintiffs conduct,

sanctions in this case are absolutely necessary if a strong message is to be sent to

financial institutions such as this one, which have brought our country to ruin .

Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 386 B.R. 374 (Bankr. D. Mass 2008)

SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS REQUESTS OF COURT

71. The defendant John A. Reed requests the following from the court:

(1)Under Count One, violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, award of damages and other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the

maximum amount allowed by law.

(2) Under Count Two, violations of the Ohio RICO Statutes,

a. an order divesting Wells Fargo Bank NA of its interest in Defendants

real property,

32


33/43


34/43

all other compensatory relief as the Court deems fit and proper in the maximum amount

allowed by law.

(4) Under Count Four, Universal Commercial Code violations, an award of

attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive, economic

and non-economic and in addition to any civil or criminal remedies otherwise available

against the same conduct under the common law or other sections of the Revised Code

and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the maximum

amount allowed by law.

(5) Under Count Five, Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Defendant is

entitled to an award of injunctive relief as is stated in R.C. 4165.03, an award of

reasonable attorneys fees as if tried singly and any and all relief pursuant to R.C.

4165.03 C, which states The civil relief provided in this section is in addition to civil or

criminal remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or

other sections of the Revised Code.

(6) Under Count Six, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act violations, an award

of attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive,

economic and non-economic and in addition to any civil or criminal remedies otherwise

available against the same conduct under the common law or other sections of the

Revised Code and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the


34


35/43

(7) Under Count Seven, O.R.C. 1345.0 violations, an award of attorneys fees

as if tried singly and both economic and non-economic damages, both substantive and

punitive and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court deems fit and proper in

the maximum amount allowed by law and Defendant states that treble damages are

warranted as this is one of thousands of publicly instances of this same behavior and as

such I please see defendants exhibitK titled Previous Sanctions against Wells Fargo

Bank N.A.

(8) Under Count Eight, Article III violations, an award of attorneys fees as if

tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive, economic and non-economic in

addition to any civil or criminal remedies otherwise available against the same conduct

under the common law or other sections of the Revised Code and any and all other

compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the maximum amount allowed by law.

(9) Under Count Nine, Truth In Lending Act (TILA)15 U.S.C 1601

violations, an award of attorneys fees as if tried singly, an award of actual damages, 15

U.S.C. 1640(a)(1), declaratory relief, establishment of criminal liability on any and all

persons the Court finds who did willfully and knowingly violate the statute, 15 U.S.C.

1611, statutory damages, which may be assessed in addition to any actual damages

awarded. 15 U.S.C. 1640 (a)(2)(A), see Section 130(a) of TILA, an amount equal to the

sum of all finance charges and fees paid by the consumer 15 U.S.C. (a)(4), and under

15 U.S.C. - Liability of assignees (d)(2)(B)(i),(ii) the amount of all remaining

indebtedness; and the total amount paid by the consumer in connection with the

35


36/43

transaction with the all above trebled within the scope and jurisdiction of the Law to the

maximum amount allowed by the Law.

(10) Under Count Ten, Home Owners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) (or

"Regulation Z", 12 CFR 226), 15 U.S.C. 1602(aa), 1639 since all

remedies available to borrowers where a HOEPA violation is present include all those

under TILA, Defendant seeks an award duplicative of each and every award listed in the

above TILA violations listed within this complaint. Additionally, since Plaintiffs

engaged in the pattern or practice of extending Defendant a loan without regard to

Defendants ability to repay from sources other than the encumbered property in violation

of 12 CFR 226.32, Defendant also seeks an additional award of all finance fees paid,

and a duplicative award, in the entirety, against each and every entity within Plaintiffs

representation as their chain of holder In Due Course of the alleged Mortgage and

Note. 12 CFR 226.32.

(11) Under Count Eleven Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act

(RESPA) violations,an award of attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both

substantive and punitive, economic and non-economic and in addition to any civil or

criminal remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or

other sections of the Revised Code and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court

deems proper in the maximum amount allowed by law.

36


37/43

(12) Under Count Twelve, Ohio Corrupt Activities Statute, an award of

attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive, economic

and non-economic and in addition to any civil or criminal remedies otherwise available

against the same conduct under the common law or other sections of the Revised Code

and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the maximum

amount allowed by law.

(13) Under Count 13 Violations of Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC), an

award of attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive,

economic and non-economic and in addition to any civil or criminal remedies otherwise

available against the same conduct under the common law or other sections of the

Revised Code and any and all other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper in the


(14) Count 14 for Defamation of Character & Libel, for previously named and

referenced instances of Libelse and Defamation of Characterse, an award against

Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Counsel, in recompense for the loss of Defendants chosen career

(in perpetuity), damages (both statutory and punitive) for Libel, Defamation of

Character, emotional, mental, psychological and physical damages in the maximum as

the Law and Court is allowed and deems just, fit and reasonable and with extreme

prejudice. Also, an award of Attorneys fees, and any and every other possible

fine/sanction/injunction possible and available to the Defendant in the Law and to which

the Courts may allow.

37


38/43

(15) On all Counts, an award for Defendants pre-judgement and post-judgement

interests, as well as reasonable attorneys fees and other costs and disbursements of this

litigation, and an award for any and all other relief as this Court deems just, fit and

proper, plus an award for any and all Tax encumbrances that would be incurred by

Defendant on same previously mentioned awards. Given that (a) this Case has cost me

inestimable damage to my reputationwhich has destroyed my chosen career, (b) three

and one half -years-plus of my all-day, every-day time to refute this case which cost me

approximately $150,000 or more in possible loss of compensation in that pursuit, (c)

degradation of my physical, emotional and mental health through the enormous stress of

fighting a predatory giant such as Wells Fargo N.A., especially since no competent Legal

help could be found which could be argued is again the fault of Industry insiders like

Wells Fargo, as knowing the efforts involved to fight a foreclosure, and knowing

Attorneys possible compensation for same would never cover the expenditure of time as

is but if that effort could be extended for even longer periods of time it would surely keep

Defendants from being able to obtain competent Legal Counsel, and (d) the additional

strain on Defendants mental, psychological and physical health while simultaneously

having to help, consult, console and reiterate over and over again not only my own

innocence, but also their own lack of culpability and consequence, to my parents, through

this ordeal, at a time when my 81-year-old mother and father were worried not only about

my Mothers fatal bought with cancer day and night (she passed away March 18th, 2008.

1 month after foreclosure initiation) but also worrying about the threat of losing their

own home and everything they owned because of Plaintiffs allegations against them.

38


39/43

Defendant also requests all charges made against Plaintiff, not sustained, to be addressed

and explained with specificity.

(16) Defendant retains all rights and remedies to prosecute any and all other

violations against Plaintiff and their Counsel as they become apparent and available.

Finally, as the sale for the property is scheduled for August 20th, 2010and these same charges have previously been entered by Defendant and NOT

rebutted by Plaintiff, I request of this Court a Stay of Sale until such time as theabove Federal & State violations have been properly addressed by the Court and

ruled thereon.

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 also 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.

Respectfully,

_______________John A. Reedpro se7940 Guilford Dr.Dayton, Ohio [email protected]

39


40/43

Truth In Lending Act Case Law

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

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 NW83.

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

"When an instrument [note] lacks an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain at

a fixed and determined time, it is only an acknowledgement of the debt and statutory

presumptions like the presence of a valuable consideration, are not applicable."

Bader vs. Williams, 61 A 2d 637

In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its

credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him. Farmers and Miners Bank v.

Bluefield Nat l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law being

limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All

such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Natl Bank

of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926)

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.

It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its

credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done. Federal Intermediate Credit

Bank v. L Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929)

40


41/43

Mr. Justice Marshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep

private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their

corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank,

103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

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.

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,

Truth in Lending Act is strictly a liability statute liberally construed in favor of

consumers. Truth in Lending Act Section 102 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq. Brophv v.

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co, 947 F.Supp. 879.

Truth in Lending Act should be construed liberally to ensure achievement of goal of

aiding unsophisticated consumers so that consumers are not easily misled as to total costs of

financing. Truth in Lending Act, Sections 102 et seq, 102(a), 105 as amended, I5 U.S.C. Sections

1601 et seq., 1601(a), 1604; Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Sections 226.1 et seq.,

226.18, 15 U.S.C. Section 1700, Basile v. H&R Block. Jlt(L. 897 F.Supp. 194.

Truth in Lending Act must be strictly construed and liability imposed for any

violation, no matter how technical. Truth in Lending Act Section 102 et seq., as amended, 15

U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq, Abele v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount. 77 B.R. 460, affirmed S45

F.2d 1009.

Truth in Lending Act must be liberally construed to effectuate remedial purposes of

protecting consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit bill ing and credit card practices

and of promoting intelligent comparison shopping by consumers contemplating the use of

credit by full disclosure of terms and conditions of credit card charges, Truth in Lending Act

Section 102 et seq, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq Lifschitz v. American Exp. Co. 560

F.Supp. 458

41


42/43

To qualify for protection of Truth in Lending Act [15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq.],

plaintiff must show that disputed transaction was a consumer credit transaction not a

business transaction, Truth b Lending Act, Section 102 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq.

Quino v. A-I CreditCom. 635 F.Supp. 151

Requirements of Truth in Lending Act are highly technical, but full compliance is

required; even minor violations of Act cannot be ignored, Truth in Lending Act, Section 102 et

seq. as amended, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq.; Truth in Lending Act Regulations, Regulation Z

Section 226.1 et seq., 15 U.S.C. foil. Section 1700. Griggs v. Providence Consumer Discount Co.

503 F.Supp. 246, appeal dismissed 672 F2d 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 F,2d 642.

A valid rescission of a "credit sale" contract does not render inoperative the

disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, as creditor's obligations to makespecific disclosures arises prior to consummation of transaction.Truth in Lending Act Section

102 et seq., 15 U.S.C. Section 1601 et seq.; Truth in Lending Regulations, Regulation Z, Sections

226.2(c) 226.8(a), 15 U.S.C., following section 1700. O'Neil c^ 484 F.Supp. 18.

Under truth in lending regulation providing that disclosure of consumer credit loan

shall not be "stated, utilized or placed so as to mislead or confuse" consumer, placement of

disclosures is to be considered along with their statement and use. Truth in Lending

Regulations, Regulation Z, Section 226.6(c), 15 U.S.C. following section 1700 .Geimuso v.

Commercial Bank & Trust Co. 566 F.2d 437.

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.

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.

42


43/43

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 biro 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,

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 1601-1667e. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co. 58 BR, 983.

A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation.Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US

682, 44 LED 637.

A bank can lend its money, but not its credit. First Nat I Bank of Tallapoosa v.

Monroe, 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

. . . the bank is allowed to lend money upon personal security; but it must be money

that it loans, not its credit. Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case

No.12, 642, 1039.

"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibitedfrom lending credit." St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557

Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion for Stay Of

Documents

Transcript of Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion for Stay Of