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

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

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

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.

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 cocontributors/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.

(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 (see defendants 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

provided from Plaintiff in Discovery (see defendants Exhibits "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 FDCPA Federal 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.

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 Plaintiff Wells 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

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 13. 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. 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 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. 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.

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 defendants Exhibits D, 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

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 defendants Exhibits 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 himself pro se, through penalties and court costs and attorney fees charged against their account(s) on lawsuit(s) filed under false and misleading circumstances, and from other incidental and consequential costs and expenses attendant to the defending of their property. 26. Section 2923.34 of the Revised Code entitles Defendant John A. Reed who has established the elements of Ohio RICO violation to an order divesting Wells Fargo

10

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

29. 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.

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 Code Violation of U.C.C 3-203

12

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 of The Pooling & Servicing Agreement defendants Exhibit J (plaintiffs Exhibit 18)

13

Section 2.03 Representations, Warranties and Covenants 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, If Plaintiffs 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

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

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

43. 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. 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

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 SIX Violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act R.C. Chapter 1345, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) Violations 46. 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. 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

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 49. 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. 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 20050331. Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc. 2006-Ohio-5481, which states; 19

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 offer defendants 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-2006OP1 Mortgage 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

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 Violations TILA 55. 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. 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, 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,

21

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 or recover 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

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

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 and the 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

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 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.

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 Case Law

COUNT TEN Home Owners Equity Protection Act HOEPA Violations 58. 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. 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

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 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 25

"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 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

26

securities having comparable periods of maturity.as is required by Regulation 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 ELEVEN Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act Violations RESPA 61. 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. 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

rights to each and every entity represented as being an owner/holder of the Note and Mortgage. b. Plaintiff failed in the entirety of their requirement of notification that states Each servicer of any federally related mortgage loan shall notify the borrower in writing of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the loan to any other person. For each and every transfer of the alleged Mortgage and/or Note. c. Defendant alleges Plaintiff, and their assignees, did give and receive, in violation of 12 U.S.C., a kickback based on the Yield Spread Premium (YSP) that was not disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate, nor was an H&R Block broker contract delivered to Defendant through discovery. d. e. f. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information on the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information on the Good faith Estimate of settlement costs. Plaintiff failed in their requirement to deliver true and accurate information Controlled Business Arrangement Disclosure as is required. COUNT TWELVE Violations of Ohio Corrupt Activities statute O.R.C. 1315.55 (A)(1-5110. 63. 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.

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. b. Failing to comply with reporting Giving false information to a money

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

28

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. d. e. Structuring a transaction with the Promoting and carrying out an By concealing and/or disguising the intent to avoid the filing requirements: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c) unlawful activity: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c) fact of Duty To Report Transaction: Section 1315.53 (F)(1)(c)

29

COUNT THIRTEEN Violations of Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) 65. 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.

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, 66 Fed.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

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, unrecorded, 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

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 not to 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

b. an award of damages and other compensatory relief as the Court deems proper, and c. tripling such damages, d. and to costs and reasonable attorney fees and e. also moves the court, pursuant to sec. 2929.34(D) of the Statute, for an order of injunctive relief and a temporary injunction. f. And an order that the Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank N.A. must divest any interest in Defendants real property that it acquired through this foreclosure action, and be ordered by the court not to transfer any said interest in the property to any entity other than the Defendant John A. Reed, in an attempt to circumvent the purpose of such divestiture. g. And an order that Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank must make whole the Credit Rating of John A. Reed as to the removal of and any mention of this alleged transaction from his Credit rating with each and every one of the Credit Rating Agencies in use, in the public arena, solely as it relates to the alleged mortgage & note and for a further order awarding Defendant John A Reed an additional amount of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) per each and every day that such information is displayed upon his credit report beginning some 30 days from the ruling of the courts in his favor. In the event of future occurrences of same alleged information reappearing on Defendants Credit Report(s), then same award to again be deemed just, and awarded for each and every event, from each and every Credit reporting Agency, from date of inception till date of removal, and that this same awarding shall last in perpetuity. (3) Under Count Three, Fair Credit Reporting Act, an award of attorneys fees as if tried singly and damages, both substantive and punitive, economic and noneconomic 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

33

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 maximum amount allowed by law.

34

(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 exhibit K 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

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

(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 maximum amount allowed by law.

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

(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

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, 2010
and 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 the above 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. Reed pro se 7940 Guilford Dr. Dayton, Ohio 45414 937-890-2576 Yotraj@Yahoo.com

39

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 NW 83. 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

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 billing 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

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 make specific 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

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 prohibited from lending credit." St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557

43