THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., as Trustee : Case No. CA 023136

For Securitized Asset Backed :
Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 :
Mortgage Pass-Through :
Certificates Series 2006-OP1 :
:
Plaintiff :
:
Vs. : Judge:
:
JOHN L. REED, :
Defendant
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ALTERING COPY!!!!!!

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed Receivables
LLC 2006 OP-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006 OP-1 commenced this
foreclosure complaint on February 27th, 2008.

John L. Reed (father) and Donna D. Reed (mother) answered with notification of
Plaintiff’s Lack of Standing (R. “Answer of Def. John L. & Donna Reed”, pg.1, para 1) and
counterclaimed for declaratory judgment on March 19th, 2008 claiming John L. Reed had
not signed the mortgage.

On or about July 1st John A. Reed (son) answered separately and included
Counterclaims for relief on equitable principles and counterclaimed for declaratory
judgment stating Plaintiff held no legal standing (R. “ANSWER OF DEFENDANT” 5/26/ 2008,
Page 4 para. Sec. 11,line 8) to initiate suit.

Wells Fargo Filed for Summary Judgment on July 25th on the basis that John A.
Reed had committed fraud by forging his father’s signature (R. Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant
John A. Reed’s Memorandum In opposition To motion For Summary Judgment pg. 2 par. 2, Plaintiff’s motion For

Summary judgment pg. 2 par. 2. line 8, ) on Wells Fargo’s mortgage.

John L. Reed opposed Wells Fargo’s Motion for summary Judgment and filed his
cross motion for summary judgment on or about August 5th, 2008.

John A. Reed opposed Wells Fargo’s motion (R. Defendants Memorandum in Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment 8/05/08) and moved
for summary judgment and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment stating no forgery
was committed, identifying Plaintiffs lack of due diligence, referencing TILA, HOEPA,
RESPA, FTC, FDCPA, UCC , RICO & OCC violations and that Plaintiff held no legal
standing to initiate suit on August 22nd, 2008.

On August 26, 2008 the trial court denied the dispositive motions filed by Wells
Fargo and John L. Reed. The motion of John A. Reed was never decided.

The case proceeded to trial on October 1, 2008.

John A. Reed filed proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law on or about
October 15th, 2008 proving Plaintiffs lack of due diligence, referencing TILA, HOEPA
& RESPA, UCC, OCC & RICO violations, proving Plaintiff’s lack of standing and
showing that Plaintiff held only a colorable transaction (as defined elsewhere within
this document).

The trial court entered judgment for Wells Fargo on November 13, 2008 and
adopted Well’s Fargo’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law.

A praecipe for order of sale was filed on December 3, 2008.

A Stay of execution was imposed on January 6, 2009 pending the posting of a

supersedeas bond by John A. Reed. Mr. Reed did not post the bond.

On April 24, 2009 John A. Reed filed a Motion to Appeal Ruling of the Lower
Court and to Rule on The Following, which this Court has deemed to be his merit brief
on appeal.
 John A. Reed filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on April 29th, 2009 and the property
was withdrawn from sale on May 1, 2009.

On June 1, 2009 this Court entered an Order giving John A. Reed an extension of
time to file the transcript of proceedings and to amend his merit brief to include any
necessary citations from the trial transcript.

On June 29, John A. Reed filed Addendums and Amendments to his brief and
filed the trial transcript.

A notice was filed on July 6, 2009 terminating the stay imposed by the
bacnkruptcy filing.

ARGUMENT

I. APPELLANT HAS FILED TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

II. APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THROUGH EXHIBITS, REFERENCED
LAW AND CASE LAW THAT THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE DOES SUPPORT HIS POSITION IN THIS CASE AND
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THEIR DECISIONS.
III. APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL
COURT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW.
 Firstly, the issue of just who is the rightful alleged Mortgagee. Plaintiff’s initial
foreclosure pleadings held that “A” Defendant John L. Reed was the true holder of
the alleged Mortgage & Note (as is indicated upon the alleged Mortgage & Note
itself, documentation provided by Plaintiff) and that Plaintiff’s Son, John A. Reed
was the true holder of the property used as collateral for the same subject alleged
Note & Mortgage. Plaintiff initiated foreclosure proceedings against Defendant
John L. Reed and included Defendant’s Son, John A. Reed, solely on the basis of his
ownership of the property (see original foreclosure complaint).
Upon Plaintiff’s discovery of ;

1. the errors within the alleged Mortgage Contract, and

2. the errors contained within it’s supporting application documentation

and

3. that the initiation of suit had occurred before alleged assignment of

same alleged Mortgage & note to Plaintiff and

4. that the initiation of suit was against someone who had no interest in
either the Note, Mortgage OR property in question (Defendant John L.
Reed),

Plaintiffs, instead of properly addressing the Contractual, due diligence and numerous
other issues cited at hand, proceeded to go on a “witch hunt”, desperately attempting to
persuade the Courts through their own (Plaintiff’s) alleged statement of “fact” that the
unsupported and unproven allegation Defendant John A. Reed was the rightful maker of
the alleged Mortgage & Note and that he had committed fraud and had “forged” his
Father’s signature (written approx. 10 times) and “falsified documents” in spite of ;

1. the obvious difficulty Defendant would have had in doing so as all documents
were created in Plaintiff’s offices in Tampa Florida and Defendant resided,
in Dayton, Ohio and

2. the obviously insurmountable problems created in attempting to alter

documents that were created and maintained in their entirety in a secured
facility (Plaintiff’s offices), and
 3. the fact that Defendant John A. Reed had NOT “forged” (used approximately
10 times within the pleadings) his Father’s signature on and in the creation
of the alleged Note & Mortgage.

This undoubtedly because it is a well-known canon of contract construction that

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

On the charge that Defendant cannot use his own act of forgery to preclude
foreclosure Defendant states Plaintiff, while lacking standing, would have Defendant
John A. Reed unjustly convicted of forgery without formal charge nor brought to trial and
that is an act that denies Defendant’s legal rights and remedies. In reality and in deed it is
Plaintiff who brings forgery into the Court.

Defendant John A. Reed has continually maintained the position of neither affirming
nor denying being the actual true Mortgagee, instead relying on his right of Plaintiff’s
“burden of proof” and consistently and adamantly has denied any wrongdoing
whatsoeverspecifically denies having forged any documents.

Lower Courts held, and Plaintiff’s have agreed, that Defendant John L. Reed (the
Father) was not the maker, nor was he in any way involved in the Creation of the Note &
Mortgage.

Simultaneously, along with that decision, the lower Court, in an act of judicial fiat,
then altered the Original Contract to reflect that John A. Reed WAS the original
mortgagee and then the Court summarily foreclosed upon him, effectively denying him
any right to proper defense and stripping him of his equity. A defense which, as the
Pleadings and evidence show, is not only entirely warranted, but also show Plaintiff’s are
the guilty purveyors of fraud.

Secondly, is the issue of Plaintiff’s characterization of Defendant John A. Reed as a

“forger”. Within each, every and all of Plaintiff’s pleadings never once is there any
mention towards any motivation or intent or even any plausible or possible benefit to any
of the Defendant’s, in any way, by the alleged act of forgery as described by Plaintiff and
it is Defendants position that none can be shown as none exist.
 Defendant asks this Court, just what possible advantage or benefit would
Defendant John A. Reed receive if in fact he had forged his Father’s signature? If indeed,
we are to assume Defendant John A. Reed IS the original mortgagee, isn’t it more likely
that the creator of the instrument (remembering this instrument was created entirely at
Plaintiff’s offices in Tampa, Fla.) made a grammatical error (or even purposeful error) in
the formation of that same instrument and isn’t it also more likely that that very same
grammatical error ( if indeed it was an error) was overlooked by ALL parties until this
very foreclosure initiation? Given the above scenario, how then could the Defendant John
A. Reed be a “forger” when all he would have done in actuality would be to sign his own
name to the aforesaid documents? Under the above scenario, Defendant John A. Reed
indeed would not be nor could he be branded with the stigma of being a “forger”. No
intent, no motivation, no profit, no forgery.

Fraudulent intent is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case. Stein v. Brown (1985),
18 Ohio St.3d 305, 308, 18 OBR 352, 355, 480 N.E.2d 1121, 1123. (Emphasis added)

Further, this alleged Mortgage & Note, as is proved by the accompanying

documentation supplied in evidence, was allegedly created entirely based upon
Defendant John A. Reed’s Social Security number (listed multiple times), Credit report
and supposed employment history (all included in exhibits of Appeal). So again, using
Defendant John A. Reed’s Credit history, which at that time was severely blemished, and
not using Defendant John L. Reed’s Credit History (not even as co-maker), which is
almost flawless, Defendant again asks this honorable Court, just what would be the gain
to the Defendant in “forging” his Father’s name? To Plaintiff’s imputations of “fact”
Defendant states there is none and Plaintiff only issues the charge, no, their stated FACT
of Defendant’s forgery, to lower the esteem and character of Defendant John A. Reed in
the eyes of the Court but by so doing has created a serious and libelous Tort against the
Defendant which will have a derogatory effect on the Status, character, earning power,
credit rating and good name of the Defendant for the rest of his life.

Thirdly is the issue of Legal standing. As is shown within the evidence and
pleadings, the Plaintiff’s did not obtain their alleged possession of the alleged Note &
Mortgage until AFTER they had already initiated this foreclosure action, as is referenced
within each and every of this Defendant’s pleadings. At the time of foreclosure initiation,
Plaintiff held no legal right to initiate foreclosure due to lack of standing to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court..

Further, as is evidenced within Defendants pleadings and the accompanying

exhibits, the alleged transfer or assignment of this alleged Note & Mortgage to the
Plaintiffs is also of no Legal value as the issuing entity cannot show that they had just
and legal possession of the legal right, authority or ability to transfer same alleged Note
& Mortgage to Wells Fargo as is referenced within Defendants Appeal.

Defendants pleadings and exhibits show proof that each of the entities involved in
their entirety and throughout the entire chronology (time-line) of this mortgage did fail in
their legal and mandatory due diligence duties and requirements to sign, date,
authenticate, record and more ( stated in more specificity within Defendant’s Pleadings)
and also did fail to perform their fiduciary, legal and mandatory duties as holder, and/or
holders in due course of the alleged Note & Mortgage as they allege within their
pleadings. The true holder of the alleged Note & Mortgage and true holder of the right to
foreclose upon this alleged Note & Mortgage is entirely suspect, but under no
circumstance of fact is it the Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank NA.

The Lower Court erred in reviewing provided (through exhibits) documentation and
claims by Defendant John A. Reed that Wells Fargo and it predecessors in interest failed
in their due diligence. Each and every of Defendant’s allegations are supported in their
entirety by the manifest weight of evidence submitted both at trial and within the
pleadings pre and post trial. While not being of any physical difference, the manifest
weight of the evidence, when scrutinized, clearly shows the lack of Due Diligence
throughout this alleged Mortgage & Note’s lifeline in it’s entirety. In just 1 example we
have over 7 counts of Defendant John A. Reed’s Social Security number being used on a
loan that lists a Mr. John L. Reed as it’s maker. In another blatant example, the loan
application itself lists the Defendant as NOT a United States Citizen! And in yet another,
within the loan application it says Mr. Reed has no children that he pays child support on,
but not only through documents obtained by Defendant through Discovery from Plaintiff
but also Defendant John A. Reed’s Credit Report shows Defendant did, in deed and fact,
have 3 children, all of which he was obligated with monthly support payments.
Each and every one of these predatory Lenders (as is defined in RESPA, TILA &
HOEPA), and all of its predecessors had or has a duty to perform proper due diligence
upon each and every transaction it transfers, sells, assigns or even gives to each other
along with the same exact duty for each and every entity that receives from each other. In
each and every instance, the above gross mistakes were made. A name that does not
match a Social Security number that appears at least 7 times! Not a US Citizen? NO child
support when documents acquired from Plaintiff clearly list support obligations on all 3
children plus, they are all listed again on the Defendants Credit Rating report.
Verification documentation proving(?) employment 4 days after the alleged mortgage &
note were already sold. A falsified income that never existed! These instances of lack of
Due Diligence and fraud show the justiciable inconsistencies that are contained within the
alleged mortgage & note and clearly show that the Plaintiffs propensity for error and/or
downright fraud in loan document creation is, in this case, manifest.

These violations and more are documented along with the pertinent Legal
references and case law within Defendant John A. Reed’s Appellate Brief.

Fourthly, Plaintiffs have brought fraud into the Courts in this proceeding and an
obviousness of Due Diligence by Counsel that is brazen in the least. They bring an
alleged mortgage & note into this Court bearing an alleged chronology (time-line) that is
entirely unsupportable by documentation acquired through discovery and presented by
Defendant as evidence (see Defendants “Chronology of the Mortgage), some of which is
in and of itself highly questionable, ie.;

1. Multiple documents issued supposedly from differing legal entities bearing

the signature of only 1 person, that same person being the same for each
entity, and also

a. by bringing an alleged original Mortgage document, supposedly bearing

the signature of John L. Reed (but remember that Plaintiff’s claim is
forged by John A. Reed), which has been placed upon it by what appears
to be an ink jet printer, but certainly is NOT written by a black ink, ball
 point pen as per Plaintiff’s Instruction to closing Agent (see exhibits)
specifies. That very same signature placed upon it is written in red ink
which is again in violation of that very same Plaintiffs Instructions to
closing Agent. This is also the ONLY document, of all the documents
produced, that bear’s such a signature (non ball-point and red ink). Fraud
is defined as a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of
a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.” Black’s
Law Dictionary 685 (8th ed. 2005)

Fifthly, in each and every of Defendant’s pleading he states and has repeatedly
stated Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank does lack standing to bring this suit upon Defendant.

To Plaintiffs charge that Appellant cannot raise new issues on Appeal, Appellant
states that he raises only issues otherwise previously brought to the attention of the
Courts within previous pleadings excepting that those pleadings previously mentioned
have now been expounded upon with specificity.

Defendant states and has repeatedly stated Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank does lack
standing to bring this suit upon Defendant. Consequently, and prior to the courts previous
action, Defendant did not even know who was the alleged true “holder and owner” of this
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,
Regulations, 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.

Lastly in each and every pleading Defendant has brought notice to and stated
throughout their pleadings that they would not, voluntarily or otherwise, relinquish any
rights or remedies to file against any and all other or newly found charges, as they
became apparent.
 STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS

The Court abused its discretion and did commit error in granting relief to Plaintiff
Wells Fargo bank by granting Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank an equitable lien on the subject
property due to the forgery of John A. Reed of his father’s name when in deed and in fact
Plaintiff;

1. lacked legal standing to initiate this suit ;

a. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed

Receivables LLC 2006 OP-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006 OP-1 is as it’s name implies, a Pass-Through entity and
as such does not bear the necessary burden of personal injury and as
such Wells Fargo Bank lacked standing to initiate this foreclosure
proceeding

b. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed

Receivables LLC 2006 OP-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006 OP-1 did not obtain, through alleged Assignment, the
alleged ability to initiate this foreclosure proceeding until POST
foreclosure initiation and therefore Wells Fargo Bank lacked
standing to initiate this foreclosure proceeding.
c. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For Securitized Asset Backed
Receivables LLC 2006 OP-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006 OP-1 represents to have received the alleged
Assignment of this alleged Mortgage & Note from a just source, but
evidence produced, acquired through discovery, shows no absolute
ownership or authority of that source to transfer legal ownership or
rights to the alleged Mortgage & Note to Wells Fargo Bank and
therefore Wells Fargo Bank lacked standing to initiate this
foreclosure proceeding.
d. Evidence of alleged Assignment throughout the entirety of this
alleged Mortgage & Note’s supposed chronology (time-line), as
represented by the exhibit submissions, is inadequate to transfer
 ownership or rights to Wells Fargo Bank and therefore Wells Fargo
Bank lacked standing to initiate this foreclosure proceeding.
e. Plaintiff’s bring fraud and fraudulent documents into the Court,
claiming them to be just and legal when careful scrutiny reveals they
represent no actual legal transactions and therefore represent only a
colorable transaction. Defined in Black’s “Colorable transaction,” One
presenting an appearance which does not correspond with the reality, and,
ordinarily, an appearance intended to conceal or to deceive. (Black’s Law
Dictionary 6th Edition.) .. No case shall be levied against someone by
any Institution, person, Corporation or any other entity until the
issue of standing has been shown.
2. The Defendant John A. Reed was never charged nor convicted with the
criminal act of forgery and as such was denied his right to defend against that
same charge. An such, the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit error by imposing a
constructive trust in favor of Wells Fargo Bank.

4. The Court did err in dismissing the claims of Defendant John A. Reed and by
dismissing such charges summarily and without specificity.

5. That Wells Fargo Bank is not the real party in interest and has no legal
standing is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence supported in
pleadings, evidence, in fact and at trail and no real, substantiated, scrutinized
and verifiable evidence has been submitted to support otherwise.

6. Evidence of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and their co-conspirators, in their entirety,
“unclean hands” is clear in that they each failed in their due diligence when
the subject loan was made were brought to the awareness of the Courts within
Defendant’s pleadings previous to the Trial (see John A. Reed answer to
Summary Judgment) and are supported by the evidence referenced within
Defendant’s pleadings and are the manifest weight of the evidence and the
law.

7. The Court did err in transferring ownership of the alleged Mortgage & Note
 and then concurrently foreclosing on Defendant John A. Reed, disallowing
him the opportunity of proper defense as is required at law.

8. The Lower Court’s erred in that their decision fails to incorporate prior rulings
of this Court on identical issues, such issues being referenced within
Defendants Table of Authorities.

9. The lower Court did err in their identification that Plaintiff’s had brought fraud
into the Court with there unsubstantiated allegations and their fraudulently
created and forged documentation.

10. The lower Courts’ erred in that their summary of Plaintiff’s specific monetary
damages awards leaves Plaintiff free to charge any amount the Plaintiff deems
adequate, without specificity, stripping Defendant of any and all proper
defense against unwarranted charges. Defendant states that the lower courts
decision, as stated, is so vague that it is legally ambiguous.

11. Defendant states that the lower Court failed in their duty to present clarity as
to respect of each and every counterclaim presented by Defendant.

12. The lower Court did err in their subject matter jurisdiction through Plaintiff’s
lack of standing position due to either/or

( 1.) the use of a post-dated assignment and/or, other documentation as

evidenced and obtained through discovery. These same exhibits are clearly
inconsistent with the plaintiff ’s allegations of material fact as to who the
real party in interest is and which cancel each other out,

( 2.) Plaintiff’s inability to properly document, show and prove legal and just
transference of the alleged Mortgage and Note from any one entity to any
other entity within the chronology of the alleged Note and Mortgage AND
failure to do so within a viable chronology of the alleged Mortgage and
Note from it’s inception to present and/or,

( 3.) when it held that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For Securitized
Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2006 OP1, ;
 1. which is, as it’s own name implies, is only a mortgage “pass through”
servicer which will suffer no specific harm or loss (as it passes all
losses to the true holders of the alleged Mortgage & Note)
i. therefore failing to pass the “personal injury” qualification necessary to
establish legal standing necessary to institute this suit and fails to
satisfy Article III’s requirement of being the injured party.
As necessary to meet the Article III requirement of being the injured party.
(13.) in their defacto conviction without trial of Defendant John A. Reed of
forgery and the alteration of Federal Documents without charge, trial or due
process and/or,

( 14.) in their decision that Defendants counterclaims of Plaintiff’s exhibits of

both unclean hands and lack of proper due diligence were dismissable and/or

( 15.) the lower court’s abuse of judicial fiat in altering the alleged Mortgage and
Note to change ownership of same from a Defendant John L. Reed to the
Defendant John A. Reed against the well-known canon of contract
construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed against the
party who drafted said contract. Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349
(Miss. 1990).and/or

( 16.) in their attempt to solidify the validity of the altered Mortgage and Note
itself, and/or
( 17.) since Plaintiffs fail to meet Article III standing requirements, the Court
lacked 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. And/or

( 18.) The Lower Courts failed in their duty to safeguard the integrity, good
character, status and good name of the Defendant John A. Reed and failed in
their duty to recognize the severity of the Defamation of Character Charges
levied by Defendant against Plaintiff.

Argument in response to Plaintiff’s listed Authorities

Plaintiff references Westlaw, slip copy, page 1

 In the 1st case cited 03-cv228, the case deals with (4)“mortgagors who had
waived any argument that assignee lacked standing.” And as this Defendant has not
waived ANY rights it does not apply in the case at Bar.

In the 2nd case (no citation), this citation (if it is indeed a citation) recites that
Defendant’s relief….was required to be filed within one year after entry of the
foreclosure order”…. Clearly, this case does not apply to the case at bar as Defendant has
made his position clear since the onset of this case.

In the 3rd case (again, no citation) this case references “newly-discovered

evidence” and as such, since Defendant brings no newly discovered and previously
unidentified evidence to trial, excepting those that first required a ruling from the court as
to the true holder in due course that could not justly have been heard until ownership of
the actual Mortgage & Note were solidified, again this citation has no direct bearing on
the case at Bar.

In the 4th case (again no citation) this case references a case “which failed to
establish entitlement to relief on the basis of mistake, newly-discovered evidence, or
fraud, did not entitle mortgagors to relief under catchall provision of rule governing relief
from judgment” In the case at Bar, Defendant John A. Reed has not yet been denied relief
from foreclosure judgment “which failed to establish entitlement to relief on the basis of
mistake, newly-discovered evidence, or fraud, did not entitle mortgagors to relief under
catchall provision of rule governing relief from judgment”, indeed, that is what he seeks
and as such, this citation has no direct bearing on the case at Bar.

In the 5th case again as in case #1, this case is about a Mortgagor who has waived
any argument to a lack of standing defense which in the case at bar Defendant has not
waived his argument and as such, this citation has no direct bearing on the case at Bar.

In the 6th case cited We again have a time of filing issue which is not involved
with the case at Bar and as such, this citation has no direct bearing on the case at Bar.

In MID-STATE TRUST IX, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kera L. DAVIS, et al., Defendants-

Appellants. No. 07-CA-31. we see again the issue of “(4) mortgagors waived any argument
that assignee lacked standing” and in the case at Bar this is not the case. To the contrary,
Defendant offers the affirmative defense that he has stated in numerous occasions that
Defense does NOT waive the argument of Plaintiff’s standing but does raise the
argument of Plaintiff’s standing. As such this citation has no direct bearing on the case at
Bar.

Plaintiff alludes that “The fact that Wells Fargo introduced evidence showing
ownership of the debt obligation is sufficient to support a finding that Wells Fargo had
standing” citing MID-STATE TRUST IX, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kera L. DAVIS, et al., Defendants-
Appellants. No. 07-CA-31. yet the evidence obtained through Discovery and submitted by
Defense clearly shows Wells Fargo Bank’s evidence is fraudulent as defined within
Black’s Law Dictionary 685 (8th ed. 2005) Fraud is defined as a “knowing
misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to
act to his or her detriment.” Black’s Law Dictionary 685 (8th ed. 2005) and shows
clearly a “colorable transaction” as defined in Black’s “Colorable transaction,” One
presenting an appearance which does not correspond with the reality, and, ordinarily, an
appearance intended to conceal or to deceive. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition.)

.. No case shall be levied against someone by any Institution, person, Corporation or

any other entity until the issue of standing has been shown.

Katz v. Banning (1992), 84 Ohio App. 3d states;

[1] Lis Pendens 242 3(1) 242 Lis Pendens 242k3 Actions Affecting Rights to Property Involved Therein
242k3(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Criteria to invoke doctrine of lis pendens are that property must
be of a character to be subject to the rule, court must have jurisdiction both of the person and the res,
property or res involved must be sufficiently described in the pleadings, and litigation must be about some
specific thing that must necessarily be affected by termination of the suit.

In the above case referenced by Plaintiff Defendant John A. Reed states that since
Plaintiff lacked standing to initiate this suit from it’s inception, Courts did lack
jurisdiction to hear same.

[2] Lis Pendens 242 4 242 Lis Pendens 242k4 k. Property Subject to Lis Pendens. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 242k3(1))
To invoke doctrine of lis pendens, property described must be at very essence of controversy between the
litigants.

Defendant John A. Reed states Controversy at Bar is one of Legal standing and
ownership of Mortgage & Note, the property is uncontested by Plaintiff as being wholly
owned by Defendant John A. Reed

[3] Lis Pendens 242 1 242 Lis Pendens 242k1 k. Nature and Grounds in General. Most Cited Cases
Lis pendens is a procedural device to protect status quo of interest in property and not a substantive
right.

Defendant John A. Reed states that the status quo of interest in the property is his
and his alone.

Defense could go on and on but for the sake of judicial brevity, since it is fact that
Plaintiff’s lacked standing to initiate this case, all of the Authorities they list have no
meaning in the case at Bar and without standing the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

Defense has included many, many similar cases within is Appellate Brief’s list of
Authorities. Cases which actually mirror the case at Bar. Defendant has also separated
those mirroring cases with respect to “Diversity” and non “Diversity”. Both of which
support Defendants position.

Defendant also includes, within his table of authorities seven (7) cases previously
tried and lost naming Plaintiff Well’s Fargo Bank as the losing entity in like kind (lack of
standing) arguments and as such satisfies the RICO requirements of 2 previous judgments
lost by Plaintiff for like kind suits and establishes a pattern or racketeering as defined
within the RICO statutes.

CONCLUSION

Trial Court did err when it held that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as Trustee For
Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC 2006-OP1 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2006 OP1 could foreclose the mortgage.

Plaintiff has, by using and/or bringing identified fraud, obfuscation, deceit and
defamation into this Court and it’s recordings and upon the good name of Defendant John
A. Reed, attempted and succeeded to ruin the good name, reputation and Status of the
Defendant John A. Reed, wasted the Courts valuable time and brought great emotional,
financial and mental harm upon the Defendant. Plaintiff’s offer only unsupportable
allegations based entirely on their own self appointed view of superiority and the
delusional belief in their own inability of error when their duty is proof of fact.

Defendant states that within the pleadings and the manifest weight of the
evidence presented, the corresponding pertinent sections of Law referenced and Case
Law submitted, Defendants have shown proof, beyond any doubt that their position is
true, factual and justiciable in favor of the Defense. In fact, Plaintiff’s Wells Fargo Bank
did lack any legal standing to initiate this suit and in the course of their aggressive tactics,
they did irreparably and forever defame and damage the good character, status, earning
power and reputation of Defendant John A. Reed. All other issues aside, without
standing, each and every other of Plaintiff’s issues is outside of Plaintiff’s original
Pleading and once scrutinized, Plaintiff’s Wells Fargo Bank lacks standing and therefore
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.

Alternatively, should the Court decide Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank does
have standing to bring this case to bar, Defendant moves this honorable Court to find in
favor of Defendant on each and every other violation listed within his pleadings and
brief, including but not limited to any and all, TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FTC, FDCPA,
UCC , RICO & OCC violations and any and all other violations identified within
Defendants pleadings, including any additional charges against Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s co-
conspirators and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel as the court deems fit and of which Defendant has
legal right of, as these very same counterclaims could not have been properly identified
or addressed by Defendant until after proper ownership of the Mortgage & Note, and
subsequent legal access to counterclaims, was established by the courts.

Respectfully, therefore, Defendant John A. Reed pro se requests a positive

verdict in each and every count to be returned in his favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________
John A. Reed pro se
7940 Guilford Dr.
Dayton, Ohio 45414
937-890-2576
 SERVICE

A true and exact copy of the foregoing has been served this 8th day of August, 2009
as follows:

Thomas W. Kendo, Jr.

7925 Paragon Rd.
Dayton, Ohio 45459

David Van Slyke

Plunkett Cooney
300 E. Broad St., Suite 590
Columbus, Ohio 43235
Emailed to: dvanslyke@plunkettcooney.com

Amelia A. Bower
Plunkett Cooney
300 E. Broad St. Suite 590
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Emailed to: abower@plunkettcooney.com

Respectfully Submitted

_______________________
John A. Reed