DEUTSCHE BANK dirty deeds

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO DEUTSCHE BANK NATONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2 Appellees V. KENNETH S.TAYLOR ,ALYCIA TAYLOR -DRIGGINS, Appellant ) ) C.A. No. 26626 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO CASE NO. CV2007 1183 64 JUDGE TOM PARKER APPELLANTS MOTION OPPOSING JUDGES MARGINAL DENIAL OF STAY AND JOURNAL ENTRY Rule 26. Application for reconsideration; Application for en banc consideration; (A) (1) Application for reconsideration and en banc consideration. KENNETH S.TAYLOR, ALYCIA TAYLOR –DRIGGINS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH S. TAYLOR ALYCIA TAYLOR DRIGGINS 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 katickit@yahoo.com THOMAS L. FEHER. Attorney for Appellee, (0038575) 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1229 216-566-5500 Attorney for Appellee. COMES NOW, THE APPELLANTS MOTION OPPOSING JUDGES MARGINAL DENIAL OF STAY AND JOURNAL ENTRY Rule 26. Application for reconsideration; Application for en banc consideration Application for en banc consideration; Application for reopening (A)(1) Application for reconsideration and en banc consideration hereby requests this Honorable Appeals Court reverse its marginal denial order of Stay. J. Christopher Fox ,II, Esq. of Thompson Hine LLP has said his clients will comply with discovery requested by Taylors under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 Qualified Written Request discovery by providing substantial response within 60 days of Taylors new request dated March 24, 2013. The Stay is important because the named plaintiffs and servicing company in trial court summary judgments no longer exist. And was different from the named servicing company in trial court records at that time the servicer was Homeward Residential Inc. and not American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. that fact is established by letter from Thompson Hine in initial motion for stay. This fact is established by the plaintiffs’ attorneys own submission with proof again See Exhibit (A) which also is proof these are vexatious litigators .This court should stay the case until this discovery can be fleshed out so we can all find out the truth of who actually is the owner of note, mortgage, holder in due course or the real creditor that can make a legal credit bid at auction or sheriffs sale. It’s hard to believe the court lacks the technical knowledge to be able to sort this out. Taylor has cause to bring federal claims against Owen Loan Servicing LLC, Homeward Residential Inc., J. Christopher Fox, and II, Esq. of Thompson Hine LLP., ROBIN WILSON THOMPSON HINE LLP, and THOMAS L. FEHER. Attorney for Appellee, (0038575) for “contract interference” and or violation of TILA for both not complying with 20day acknowledgement, of QWR. And 60 day discovery request and vexatious litigation, and warned them of this previously. But will wait to do so if court will wait also by staying the case to see if the attorneys and plaintiff finally provide necessary proof of with original authentic documents that the Taylors have been requesting for 7-years. The time has arrived to put up or shut up. The judge has a duty to provide a full explanation of the reason he denied defendants Motion for stay. The Taylors evidence of new owners and different accounting and Qualified Written Request and discovery pending and due by these new parties , new owners, new holders –in-due –course ,new servicers, and new accounting records supports the motion to stay. The Taylors asked this court to stay a federal foreclosure Compulsory Counterclaim under federal rules and some other ancillary issues. We now ask that all the judges to rule and decide this motion together. we ask for the three (3) judge panel to reconsider the motion to stay under App. R. 26(A)(1), The docket reveals the denial of stay was ordered by a single justice before the defendants could file its reply to plaintiffs erroneous opposition to stay. The trial court speedy denial, marginal denial of stay is void of any of the defendant’s position and seems unbelievable that the trier of facts even read defendants reply and certainly prune its branches of good fruit cutting short justice for Taylors. What is the rush here? The physical look at the docket; begs the question did the court even read it? The stay travels down a one way street and only looks to find a way to rule against Taylor in favor of a issued that has already been decided in United States District Court Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division Case No 5:07cv1840 Judge Sara Lioi which District Court held the plaintiffs Lack of Standing to bring this diversity foreclosure action; with the operative word being “Foreclosure”. For this court not to accept these facts and findings of the High Superior Federal District Court serves as an injustice to the defendants and chiefly calls in to question the integrity of the court. This court should honor the findings and feel the weight of this two-ton anvil sitting on their lap; which sooner or later should cause knees to buckle under that pressure. The court acted against the weight of the evidence. 4/12/2013 -- ORDERS ISSUED TO ATTORNEYS BY REGULAR MAIL. No Image 4/12/2013 -- JOURNAL ENTRY. APPELLANT HAS MOVED THIS COURT TO STAY THIS APPEAL PENDING DETERMINATION OF "FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT." HE HAS ALSO ASKED THAT THE FORECLOSURE SALE BE STAYED. APPELLEE HAS RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION, STATING THAT THE CURRENT APPEAL IS NOT FROM THE FORECLOSURE ORDER AND THAT THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY AFFIRMED THE FORECLOSURE DECREE IN DEUTSCH BANK NATL. TRUST CO. V. TAYLOR, 9TH DIST. NO. 25281, 2011-OHIO-453. UPON REVIEW, THE MOTION FOR STAY IS DENIED. JUDGE CARLA MOORE Document 1 4/9/2013 PRO SE APPELLANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY OF FORECLOSURE APPEAL PENDING DISCOVERY REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT: QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY TWO NEW PARTIES WHO TRANFERRED THE LOAN AND HAS NAMED NEW CREDITOR, DEBT, AND LOAN NUMBER. Document 2 4/4/2013 THOMAS FEHER APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S "MOTION FOR STAY OF FORECLOSURE APPEAL PENDING DISCOVERY REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT: QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY TWO NEW PARTIES WHO TRANSFERRED THE LOAN AND HAS NAMED NEW CREDITOR, DEBT, AND LOAN NUMBER" FILED MARCH 25, 2013. Document 3 taking account all above fore mention and the initial motion to stay filed , plaintiffs reply and defendants reply .This case and its fact finders and triers of facts has placed and advanced a questionable footprint of unethical illegal behavior by trial court. The 7 year history is rife with examples of how this unchecked power has ruined the Taylors. The trial court had a preconception of the relationship of the parties that has caused trial court to lie, use erroneous facts and assumed that the debt was real and was in default, instead of forcing plaintiffs to immediately prove lack of payment and their status as the real creditor. Granting this motion to stay poses no burden on plaintiffs after 7 years of litigation. If judges would simply judge this case on its own merits and require each party to actually prove their position rather than rely on civil procedure to get rid of Taylor and dubious and rebuttable presumptions, this foreclosure wouldn't be filed and would have not lasted 7 years in litigation. The trial court judge has done everything in its power to rule in favor of pretend lenders any reasonable person can see that. Collectively together the conundrum of issues shock the conscience even steps out of bounds of human decency. Moreover there is a tall massive constitutional tree blocking the trial courts narrow path that stands in the way of these plaintiffs gaining the Taylors house for free with no hearing, and with no proof of injury. Discovery will ruin this case because no one has paid any money to Taylors. The plaintiffs have no proof of purchase .The trial court revealed its true intentions. The plaintiffs presented no evidence that the defendants breach his contractual duties. Consequently all the assertions that the defendant caused plaintiffs injury in fact fail. They need help to steal the Taylors home of 25 years, taking all the Taylors property real property tangible and intangible property, cherished memories , of home , family , love, blood, sweat, and tears , sooner or later we all will be judged and have to give an accurate accounting of our record. Judges assume that a big-name bank with 150 year old reputation on the line would never make a claim they couldn't back up. If judges would stop making that assumption and require evidence by just asking to see the receipt and proof the plaintiffs brought and paid for this property millions of dollars could be saved and trial court and plaintiffs would have not had to conspirer together to destroy this counterclaim a by lying to this high court fact they cannot deny. Also a fact this high court cannot continue to ignore. Taylor made a crucial mistake prose himself in not reporting this court to the FBI and Supreme Court when the clerk of courts falsified and deceived Taylors notice of service to file its brief for this appeal ,which was illegally mailed from a location other than Akron and mailed from an address in Cleveland, Ohio and postage was affixed by a different postage meter machine a fact this court cannot deny and most likely a crime against Taylor that has caused the court to dislike Taylor because he recognized the breach and the illegal scheme designed by an overt effort to harm him and has led to disastrous and rather insidious outcomes for Taylor . The dirty hands of the system and the unclean hands doctrine, finger prints of Robin Wilson are on the Taylors. The clerk of courts got caught in one of the most deceit act ever realized at such a high level in the American Justice System. The trial court judge got caught lying, the plaintiffs’ attorney told on the judge. “The Taylors painful story comes with a plea for humanity to rise to a duty of raising awareness to this high honorable court in what appears to be third-world judicial system of shocking perversion and inequality, which has engulfed Taylor’s life forever. Despite this ugly truth Taylor remains confident that someone will emerge at the Supreme Court level when all this gets into a public forum making its way to the mainstream media mass media where Taylors may find some guardianship of his rights that should have been a fiat but are in the contrary prevaricated.” Taylor is in a battle for his constitutional rights as much as for his real property rights. Which confirmed Taylor suspicions that an overt effort was in place to kill and destroy and stop Taylor’s s case from being heard on its merits? The Taylors oppose the marginal denial of Taylors motion to stay foreclose by this high honorable court. The denial is devoid of any explanation, statutory language, case law, and rules that allows a single justice the power to deny the Stay. We now ask this court reconsider its ruling and journal entry. Especially in light of the fact the court has just taken the words of the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have made prior inconsistent statements to this court and this court just allows her to keep lying to this court under oath as the principal reason for its denial. The court has sided with untruthful false and misleading statements of opposing party by Robin Wilson steering this court easily without effort down the wrong road. As there has been no interpretation of any fact or law that resembles the court considered the conundrum of issues the Taylors presented and pointed out in its motion to stay by this court. First and foremost Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine has repeatedly lied to this court. Taylor has presented proof to the court of these lies. She has unclean hands, she is a vexatious litigator, and she is impeached by prior inconsistent statements. She has never denied these lies the stay is important because the plaintiffs lied in the trial court summary judgment that the servicer was American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. when in fact it was someone else whose name is Homeward Residential Inc. making the summary judgment void false and misleading. App. R. 26(A) has now been subdivided into two provisions: App. R. 26(A) (1) governs applications for reconsideration (former App. R. 26(A)), while App. R. 26(A) (2) is a new provision governing en banc consideration. The amendment to former App. R. 26(A) (now App. R. 26(A) (1)) contemplates a future amendment to the Supreme Court Practice Rules that will extend the time to appeal to the Supreme Court if a party has filed a timely application for reconsideration in the court of appeals. It also ensures a responding party’s full ten-day response period, even if that party does not receive the application on the day it is filed. Because the ten-day response period now begins to run from the date of service, a party served by mail now has an extra three days to file an opposition. See App. R. 14(C). Finally, the amendment permits the moving party a reply in support of the application within seven days of service of the opposition; this clarification avoids any ambiguity about the right to file a reply in support of a motion under App. R. 15(A). “The addition of App. R. 26(A) (2) is designed to address the Supreme Court’s decision in McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 120 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-4914, 896 N.E.2d 672 and, in particular, the holding that “if the judges of a court of appeals determine that two or more decisions of the court on which they sit are in conflict, they must convene en banc to resolve the conflict.” Id., paragraph two of the syllabus. The new provision establishes a standard for parties to seek en banc consideration under the same procedures that govern applications for reconsideration under App. R. 26(A) (1), except that a party may also seek consideration en banc within ten days of a judgment or order ruling on an application for reconsideration if that ruling itself creates an intra-district conflict that did not appear from the panel’s original decision. The new provision also allows courts of appeals to establish their own procedures to the extent consistent with the statewide rule”. We now ask all the judges to rule and decide this motion all together. we ask for the three (3) judge panel to reconsider the motion to stay under App. R. 26(A)(1), taking account all of the above fore mention and the initial motion to stay filed , plaintiffs reply and defendants reply. Respectfully, Alycia Taylor Driggins {prose} /s/Kenneth S. Taylor Kenneth S. Taylor {prose}8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg, Ohio ,1-330-425-154 katickit@yahoo.com__ Kenneth S.Taylor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The Plaintiffs hereby certifies that on Friday April 19, 2013 a copy APPELLANTS MOTION OPPOSING JUDGES MARGINAL DENIAL OF STAY AND JOURNAL ENTRY Rule 26. Application for reconsideration; Application for en banc consideration; Application for reopening (A)(1) Application for reconsideration and en banc consideration.; IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C.A. -2626, Was filed in Clerk’s office In Ninth District Court of Appeals Ohio Akron ,Ohio and MAIL BY U.S .REGULAR MAIL TO the following attorneys ;ROBIN WILSON THOMPSON HINE LLP 3900 KEY CENTER 127 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114-1229 216-566-5500KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX 165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 Thomas L. Feher and Anthony J. Rospest. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 /s/Kenneth S. Taylor Kenneth S. Taylor {prose}8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg, Ohio ,1-330-425-154 katickit@yahoo.com__ Kenneth S.Taylor