IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIODEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANYCase No - PDF document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIODEUTSCHE BAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIODEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTCOMPANYCase No 11-0437)MOTION FORAppelleeRECONSIDERATIONV.Kenneth S. Taylor, et al.AppellantsJUN 15 2011SUPREME COURT OF OHIOFrom Dismissal of appeal as notCOURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIALMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAPPELLANT: ^ °Kenneth S.Tay1{ZSe}^^ fia en Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087T"Kenneth S. Taylor {Pro Se} 1-330-425-1542 katickit@ yahoo.com AlyciaMANLEYDEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOXGECE ^ ^IE DJUN 15 20111CLERKOF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIOWhy this Courtshould reconsider its decision:NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT ORBURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERSDOCTRINE THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWNLEGAL RIGHTS AND MAY NOT ASSERT THE LEGAL RIGHTSOF OTHERS. SPRINT, 554 U.S. AT 589; WARTH, 422 AT 499;OREGON V LEGAL SERVS. CORP, 552 F. 3D 965, 971 (9TH CIR.,2009).2. "Civi

l Rule 17(a)(1) starts simply: "An actio
l Rule 17(a)(1) starts simply: "An action must be prosecuted inthe Judgment will have its proper effect as res judicata."3. "The party asserting it has standing bears the burden of proof toapplicable substantive law, since it is that law which defines andreceive. 6A Federal practice and Procedure sec 1543 at 480-481COLLATERAL BENEFIT TO HOMEOWNERRESULTING FROM DEFECTS IN PRETENDER LENDER CASEIS NOT A REASON TO RULE AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER-In a decision filed June10, 2011 -one year after oral argument- the BAPthe positionof the borrowerand the alleged creditor and2came up with nothing to support the allegations that there was a creditor inbankruptcy Judges in the Ninth Circuit. In a nutshells, the claim of "holder"decided and therefore are engraved in stone under the doctrine of collateralestoppel and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and (2)

nipping abuse of processin the bud is t
nipping abuse of processin the bud is the proper way for the courts to handle the pretender lenders.It is very clear that this represents a sea change in the judicial attitude towardon the debt, they need to have real evidence which means live witnesses"We hold that that a party has standing to seek relief from stay if it has aproperty interest in, or is entitled to enforce or pursue remedies relatedthereto, the secured obligation that forms the basis of its motion."3does the document bear any other traditional elements of admissibleevidence."that reference serves only to identify the mortgage. Moreover, the record isevidence, it would not have provided any proof of the transfer of the note tocontained in the mortgage, such as the obligation to insure the property, andmeaning, no such evidence was offered or requested."PARTICULARLY

APPLICABLE. IT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT APLA
APPLICABLE. IT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT APLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWN LEGAL RIGHTS AND MAYNOT ASSERT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. SPRINT, 554 U.S. AT589; WARTH, 422 AT 499; OREGON V LEGAL SERVS. CORP, 552 F.action must be prosecuted in theThe modem functionof the rule... isaction by the party4actually entitled to recover, and to insure generally that the Judgment willhave its proper effect as res judicata."standing. Sumers v Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)"Real party in interest analysis requires a determination of the applicablethose aggrieved, and the redress they may receive. 6A Federal practice andunlawful egregious abuse of judicial discretion. When a court does not applythe correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of amaterial fact." [U.S. v. Rahm, 993F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.'93)] "A courtmay

also abuse its discretion when the recor
also abuse its discretion when the record contains no evidence tosupport its decision." [MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122its findings opinions or orders and has rested on well known fraudulent, andagreed the judge erred dismissing Appellants counterclaims, it is impossibleto get to the merits , unless this appeals courts reverses or remands orProcedural Due Process Rights The dismissal order violated every relevant5procedural due process protection guaranteed to all citizens by the laws andConstitution of the United States fortherecord-settinkviolations stated inDismissals The dismissal order violated the clear and settled law thathonest opportunity to be heard. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539,the Court stated: The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearingheld: "It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits wit

hout notice, a hearing,and an opportunit
hout notice, a hearing,and an opportunity to respond." The Ohio Supreme Court recently agreed toreview a request (from US BANK NA) to resolve what "appears" to beGovernment (SEC, OCC, OTS) and the rating agencies (Moody's, Standard& Poor's, Fitch), for years while the Banks went wild! Now, the Ohioto fast track the process and get a quick default judgment by using orresult in a plaintiff victory. The rare knowledgeable and awake foreclosurejudge or an even rarer appearance by legal counsel on behalf of defendant6legal hurdle for the plaintiff, in almost every defended OHIOFRAUDclosure and foreclosure case becomes:To have standing, as a plaintiff, in a mortgage foreclosure action, must apoint from the first motion filed in trial court until now, basedresolved. Why this court should reconsider its decision;On April 6, 2011, the Ohio Su

preme Court announced that it has determ
preme Court announced that it has determinedstanding to file foreclosure. In its announcement, the Courtordered the parties in U.S. Bank v. Duvall from U.S. Bank Natl.No. 9414, to brief the issue stated in the Eighth District'sJournal Entry filed January 31, 2011: "To have standing as aplaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party showthat it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaintIn Duvall, the Eighth District affirmed its 2009 holding thatpursuant to Civ. R. 17(A), a foreclosure complaint must beownership of the note and mortgage on the date the complaintwas filed. Wells Fargo v. Jordan (8th Dist. Mar. 12, 2009),that the Eighth District (Cuyahoga County)'s position is in^conflict with the Fifth (Delaware County), Seventh (JeffersonCounty), Ninth (Lorain County) and Tenth (Franklin County)ownership of the note

and mortgage at the time of filing. ForS
and mortgage at the time of filing. ForServicing, L.P. v. Thomas (10 Dist. Jun. 30, 2010), 2010 WL2636887, No. 09AP819, the complaint indicated that a copy ofthe note was "not available" and the mortgage attached to thecomplaint was not in favor of the plaintif£ However, the TenthDistrict affirmed summary judgment in favor of the substitutedplaintiff Owen Loan Servicing, LLS, although the complaintwas filed by Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. whichCourt's determination of this issue could lead towho receivedassignment of the note or mortgage after filing the complaint inforeclosure, or could affirm foreclosurefilings by plaintiffs whodid not proveor have ownershipof the defendant's note and/orthe time offiling PlaintiffsDEUTSCHE BANKTRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES,8SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al., have never proved they had

standing to file the lawsuit and has tol
standing to file the lawsuit and has told courts the note is lostlawsuit was filed, and produced after allege transfer of property, nothing is original or authentic its all falsely made by crimelab LPS. And was not produced until the courts needed it toforeclose, the attorney just order any document the court neededfrom the crime lab LPS, Docx, and did not get the phonydocuments and affidavits unless the court required them and theactual money has gone or who got paid or who lost money, themoney trial is gone cold the court should try following the9TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEWHOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKEDCERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al., are pretendof purchase of the home, they have no note no mortgage, notitle , no chain of title, no legal assignment, no "power oftrial or tribunal in the United States

that why Tom ParkerParker has a void nul
that why Tom ParkerParker has a void null summary judgment award for plaintiffsthat must be reversed judgment can never be enforced, no titledsearch can be done by law it would reveal the true owners,engaging in false advertising, Attorney who signs authorizingsale of home will be sued for millions , the next buyer will beattorneys are now being held liable for filing of fake phony10subpoena, and we will subpoena Robin Wilson Taylor's willmortgage or note but only Trustee for this bundled group ofin-interest, which name in the caption is a clear indication of atleast 3 investors have portion of a product, that was originallylender ( Option One Mortgage Corporation ) that is bothdefunct and not named in caption, and is also notice to thisWilliams, Thompson Hine and Robin Wilson violated theAuthority, purpose, coverage, organization, e

nforcement andownership and encumbrances
nforcement andownership and encumbrances, issued and recorded by the11registered land cannot be charaed with notice, actual orspeaks the last word about the title to land, eliminating allthe register of titles absolute proof of indefeasible titleexcepting only those encumbrances and claims noted therein."Why this court should reconsider: There is no point of higher importanceinterests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246,12material fact" standard provides that the court cannot try the case on asummary judgment motion. National Assn. of Gov't Employees v.Practice ¶ 56.15[1.--0], [3]. A judgment is void if the rendering court actedprocess is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith andcredit elsewhere." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S.without notice to the party." Old Wayn

e Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough,204 U.S.
e Mut. Life Ass'n v. McDonough,204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) ifparties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. E.g., sBurke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11`t' Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile,21, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997); Union Switch & Signal v. Loca1610, 900 F.2d 608,137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) The U.S. Supreme Court,"SCOTUS", On the13City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307,338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas,dissenting). "Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole,situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts ofprocedure is "due process in the primary sense." Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v.Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United StatesCommittee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldbere v. Kelly, 397 U.S.2541970, Fue

ntes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen
ntes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City OfIndependence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 2591978 ; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). "The principlestated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systemsof jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property,principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligencejudicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other14tribunal." Windsor v. McVeieh, 93 U.S. 274;23 L.Ed. 914 (1876). ThisIt also reveals the way the pretenders DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONALSOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKEDCERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al. are avoiding the rules ofThe failure of a foreclosing lender to present any evidence of a writtennotice of acceleration having bee

n sent to a homeowner was sufficient tos
n sent to a homeowner was sufficient tosink another foreclosure judgment, according to a recent ruling by an Ohioappeals court.(1)the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure is that the attomey for the foreclosingforeclosure judgment. In allowing the foreclosing lender's attorney to getaway with it, the appeals court apparently had its hands tied by existing caselaw, noting that the homeowner had not properly objected to the improperintroduction of the materials in the lower court proceeding. Because theappeals court booted the foreclosure judgment on other grounds, the"official" for the lender who signed a mortgage assignment and an affidavitfiled in the case may have been a multiple corporate hat-wearing robosigner.The homeowner had correctly observed that, within about a month, the"official" signed an assignment of the mortgage at issue as a

vice presidentappellate court actually
vice presidentappellate court actually contradicting the official's Citimortgage affiliation at15the time of the signing of the affidavit, it had no choice but to accept theFor the ruling, see CitiMortgav_e, Inc. v. Elia, 2011-Ohio-2499 (Ohio App.Civ.R. 56(C) limits the types of evidentiary materials that a party maypresent when seeking or defending against summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(C)written stipulations of fact"). "The proper procedure for introducingincorporate it by reference in a properly framed affidavit pursuant to Civ.R.App.3d 177, 179. "[P]apers referred to in an affidavit `shall be attached to orserved with the affidavit."' GMAC Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jacobs, 9th Dist. No.Even so, it is the opposing party's duty to object when a summary judgmentmotion relies upon improperly introduced materials. Id. "[I]f the opposingcourt may

, in its sound discretion, consider thos
, in its sound discretion, consider those materials in ruling on thesummary judgment motion." Wolford v. Sanchez, 9th Dist. No.16Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 84, 90 ...............The Taylor's objected tofiled in the record on the basis that it referred to improper Civ.R. 56(C)records attached, no proof of personal knowledge , Further, the Taylor's didassignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to theServices, and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trustsare missing essential documents - they just rely on Lender ProcessingServices to "fix" the problems. Although the Alpharetta office has beenElectronic Registration Systems, to produce the needed Assignments. Sincethe vast majority of homeowners do not retain counsel in foreclosureproceedings, this flawed system has worked very effectively for th

e last fewyears, with courts all over th
e last fewyears, with courts all over the country rarely questioning why so manyl^mortgage companies had officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, or why Trusts thatdissolved, such as Option One, could still be executing documents yearsafter the dissolution. While the closing of the Alpharetta office may be asign that these fraudulent activities will finally be exposed and addressed,for the time being, it is just a matter of an unsatisfactory end of one smallfacet of an enormous and far-reaching problem. This court is now andCourt, and Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron is fraudulent SeeExhibit A-3 , and was proffered by Dakota County, Minnesota offices,absolute proof is found on "ASSIGNMENT" as it is endorsed by a notaryExhibit B, and a fraudulent Affidavit Regarding Account And CompetencyAnd Military Status signed by Assistant Secret

ary SCOTT WALTER ofAmerican Home Mortgag
ary SCOTT WALTER ofAmerican Home Mortgage Service Inc.on August 13, 2008 who was present18business and defunct at such time.Also AbsoluteProof. The judge TomParker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff's attorneyRobin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendantsofficer ofthe court.. Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated SeptemberCounterclaim". Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit(A). Theserepresentations were false and defendants knew the falsity of thesestatements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentionedand Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trialcourt violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C. 1623 which is a both a criminaland civil act of conspiracy against defendants. MoreoverCOURT OFAPPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281agreed w

ith the19remanded case back to trial co
ith the19remanded case back to trial court . Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of thecourt THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARYduring a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulentdocuments, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a memberis corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appealsto "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the courtitself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicialmachinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task ofessence a decision at all, and never becomes final. The Justice Departmentsued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world's 10 b

iggest banks by assets, forat least $1 b
iggest banks by assets, forat least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by "repeatedly" lying to a federalagency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddymortgages. The case is U.S. v. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), 11-cv-2976, U.S.20alone the court should reverse summary judgment. Also See In re: RonWilson, LaRhonda Wilson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern DistrictLENDERS PROCESS SEVERCINGS COMPANY WAS SANCTION FORLYING TO COURTS AND PROVIDING "sham affidavits. See exhibitsthe fake "sham affidavits used in pleadings before this court. In which Judg-ein Court records during initial pleading responsive pleading about defectiveDOCUMENT IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENTWHICH FOR SOME STRANGE REASON WAS ENDORSED IN Dakotaproduce "replacement" assignments specifically, strategically andoffices of its subsidiary,

Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That
Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office wasfirms handling the foreclosures were retained and largely controlled by21Lender Processing Services, in this case Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC. OfColumbus, Ohio law firm, LPS and LPS Default Solutions is illegallypresented the "sham affidavit and fake , fraudulent assignment to this courtas only evidence of any alleged ownership that was deemed defective by thisBankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor, EDPA,the Docx office - although courts and homeowners were never notified.default management services. The banks that especially need the servicesprovided by Lender Processing Services include Deutsche Bank, acting astrustees for mortgage-backed securitized trusts. (there now is absoluteconcrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false ,a summ

ary judgment in their favor with no affi
ary judgment in their favor with no affidavit it had no name on face,this case is so corrupt he awarded plaintiffs the Taylor's home with no22evidence and no witness no hearing, the judge admitted he never look at theCynthia Stevenson as it was impossible for her to meet the basicrequirements under rules of evidence as she was not employed by Option-One the original lender and was not around at the time as her knowledgeThe defendants the (Taylor's) have also repeatedly emphasized that a party'sevidence that is of a quality that would be admissible at trial...Thisqualitative requirement is particularly important in connection withmortgage foreclosures where the affidavits submitted in support of summaryaffidavits is largely derivative because it is drawn from a business's records,The foundation that the custodian or qualified witness

must establish is four-record by, or fro
must establish is four-record by, or from information transmitted by, a person with personalknowledge of the events recorded therein;(2) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business;(3) it was the regular practice of the business to make records of the typeinvolved; and(4) no lack of trustworthiness is indicated from the source of informationfrom which the record was made or the method or circumstances underwhich the record was prepared."Because courts have determine that the affidavits submitted by DEUTSCHECERTIFICATEHOLDERS OFSOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2 ASSETS-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006- OPT2 et al are23admission of the attached documents as business records pursuant to rules ofWe now ask this Honorable Court to complete this process with redress forthose with proof of harm. In re Foreclosure Ca

ses, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D.quasi-monopoli
ses, 2007 WL 3232430 (N.D.quasi-monopolistic system" in which financial institutions, "unchallenged byreaping the benefits of interest running on the judgment.To foreclose on a mortgage, a party must have title to the mortgage. Theinsurance on this present home loan requires by Policy that title is vested andCOMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OFSOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKEDCERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 ("Deutsche Bank" or "DBNTC") toattempt to do so is insurance fraud under policy purchased by original lenderWe stated that at a minimum, in support of any motion for summarymust include the following facts, supported by evidence of a quality that24could be admissible at trial, in the statement of material facts: evidence of properly served notice of default and mortgagor's right to proof of completed mediat

ion (or waiver or default of mediation),
ion (or waiver or default of mediation), whenaccordance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act."the money, effectively being forced to pay twice - once by ejectment frommyriad frauds, including floating-rate loans sold as fixed, "riders" in middlefaith estimates and claims given to borrowers before closing along with allnot only as sellers of money but as qualifiers of a person's capacity to pay,25There is a fair issue triable at law as to whether active frauds occurred ininvolved active deception by the borrower himsel£ These are issues to bethat the paper's owner escapes successor liability for these actions. If inplace with knowledge of the fraud claim existing against its origination,of business and has no successor organization. In some (but not all) of theseprior to its final disposition at law and your assertion of a contrac

tual right toI have seen many examples o
tual right toI have seen many examples of exactly this sort of apparent fraud, where anEven worse there are assignments that appear to have been initiated by thegrantee, which is exactly backwards and is effectively identical to meIn still other cases where transfers did not happen the REMIC sections ofIRS code prohibit the transfer without destroying the trust's tax preference.26bar exists to that late transfer the choice has to be taken - either perform itlate, take the tax hit and have the certificate holders sue the hell out of theTrustee for not performing their duties faithfully (and exposing them to ahuge retroactive tax hit) or take the hit of not having the security and losinghappened.Finally, some of these circumstances have irrevocably severed the securitystill owes the money - he just can't be foreclosed upon. The holder

of theadmittedly, be quite limited.)cont
of theadmittedly, be quite limited.)contractual provisions they entered into with investors around the world.When this failure was first discovered they tried to cover it up with bogusverified them they would have known that the paperwork wasn't done andthe alleged transfers were not made. When they got caught doing that thehe could "clearly see" the target of his assault.We properly dismiss that sort of defense these days when it comes to rape,although that same delusional process used to work once in a while in thoseIf I"lend" you money but fail to protect my own interests by my own hand,uncolored by anything you do, that I have reduced or eliminated my rights of27Nope.Bankers for the last thousand years have existed entirely on the back of thefrom your childhood is just one example. So were the common ledgersThese "record keeping"

lapses are not an occasional error or p
lapses are not an occasional error or problem;All the documents presented to the courts by pretend lenders are invalid notoriginals and do not describe the transactions that actually occurred,as to parties or terms, everything is fabricated and fraud, the plaintiffsare not state court losers, the trustee, and their attorneys have signedfabricated documents, the trial court judge was lied to, and trickedinto believing these parties were telling the truth, and just has erredthere is no note, no one has proved the Taylor's are in default, Nowand the pursuit of happiness , guaranteed by the Constitution of theUnited States, Amendment XIV[1868] Section 1, violating DueProcess rights, and substantial procedural due process whichguaranteed some type of hearing before a Sua Sponte dismissal of alleven a lay person with a myoptic truncated se

nse of the lawshould be compensated, and
nse of the lawshould be compensated, and deserve to be heard. Especially whento repay the Plaintiffs who qualify for such repayment under the USComptrollers office global settlement. Will the (10) Justices on this,The Supreme Court of Ohio Panel of Judges, Reconsider its decisionand explain to pro se defendant Kenneth S. Taylor why he must lose28have no proof of a mortgage, a title, a loan, a assignment that's legal,a deed in trust, and local county records title information does notcontain there name , and no proof any of the allege transfer ofproperty or note ever took place, or was every securitized, there is nota single live real witness or person ever in this case no lawyers haveexsist, this sends a chilling harsh message of injustice to the Taylor'sfraudulent case apart, as every single document in this case presentedby plainti

ffs are absolutely corrupted and fraudul
ffs are absolutely corrupted and fraudulent nothing isauthentic there are judges being sentence to jail in Akron Ohio, JudgeTerry for being influenced to rule in favor of a political friend in aforeclosure matter judge Tom Parker has done far more than JudgeTerry , Judge Parker lied under oath and destroyed defendantscrimes of higher degree than that of State Court judge Terry andSupreme Court of Ohio has just chosen to ignore all these crimes , byhighest degree in the United States of America that of Due Process.Dated this June 14, 201144087KENN^'T S. TA^I.,OR ;I certify a copy of Motion For Reconsideration brief was sent to opposiny-:ROBIN WILSON THOMPSON29KEVIN WILLIAMS MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC P.O. BOX165028 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216 1-614- 222-4921 ThomasKenneth o { r e} 8 e oad Twinsburg Ohio 44087K t Taylr{Pro Se} 1-3 0425 1542 ka