Akim M. Rahman

Relator

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

V.Wells Fargo Bank N.A.(Wells Fargo Home Mortgage)(Attorneys for wells Fargo)John KopfThompson Hine LLPJennifer SchaefferLENER SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS

Case No. GEN-13-1700

MEMORANDUM OPPOSING RESPONDENTS'"MOTION TO DISiVIISS" A^'vD

REQUEST FOR RESPONDENTS' ADMISSIONS(PLEADIII^TGS), ALTERNATIVELY,IVIOTION FORGRANTING AN ORDER FOR PLEADINGS

Respondents :(Pursuant to S.Ct. R.. 12.04 (B) (2) & Civil R. 36(A))Justification.:Despite plea for jury trial, foreclosure case had bench trial without merit where motion forfindings of fact & conclusions of law was denied by Common Plea Court without basis wheremotion for reconsideration of jurisdictional Appeal (GEN-13-1008) from Appellate ruling is stillpending before the Court. Due to numerous wrongful actions in foreclosure case and errors inrulings of Common Plea Court then of Appellate, jurisdictional appeal was filed with the Court.

Since Respondents' latest wrongful actions have resulted Original Action (GEN: 13-1.700) wherethe bases of Original Action and of motion for reconsideration of jurisdictional appeal aredirectly linked and since Respondents' "motion" is without substance, memorandum opposingRespondents' motion and request for Respondents' admissions under the S.CtR. 12.04(B) (2)and Civil R. 36(A) are justiciable acts for minimizing costs & valuable time of parties and Court.

Wells Fargo Home MortgageP.O. Box 10335Des Moines, IA 50306-0335

John Kopf,Thompson Hine LL:P

Akim Rahman4428 Trailane D riveHilliard, OH 43026Pro kVe, Relator

Attorneys on the record: Scott A. King and Terry W. PoseyTBMPSON ILTNE LLP10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Jennifer SchaefferLENER SAMPSON & RO'THFUSSAttorney on the record, Adam R. Fogelman

LENER SAMPSON & ROTIHFUSSP.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, OH 45201-5480

0

,;.

i3f..ERsI .:tl is0 1ii S'

S %I iN, ff;,.. ,,;r;,^,s,.; +

•,'^ f (,i;F 1 0^s?..3i;^; ^.i if?%

Now comes Relator and asks the Honorable Court to grant a) Relator's memorandum

opposing Respondents' "motion to dismiss" and b) request for Respondents' admissions

(pleadings), alternatively grant an order for pleadings of Respondents under S. Ct.R. 12.04(C).

There is a justiciable request before this Superior Court in many folds. First of all, Court record

shows jurisdictional appeal and then motion for reconsideration is continuously pending before

the senior Court. For arguendo, Respondents (Wells Fargo & John Kopf) assertion "enforcing

judgment is lawful" contradicts with Ohio Constitutional provision: the Article IV (B) (3) of

Ohio Constitution that says

No law shall be passed or rule mde wheYeby any person shall be prej3anted fYominvoking the original juYi scliction of the S'iipreme Court

In this aspect, senior Court's jurisdiction to this foreclosure case still upholds because the case is

continuously pending for decision, therefore, any ruling to this foreclosure case is unlawful.

Regards to "adequate remedy" claim of Respondents is ambiguous one because Respondents'

referred remedy was violations of laws, regulations and constitutional provisions as it was stated

in Jurisdictional Appeal Brief filed with the senior Court. Furthermore, these causes are the sole

bases of the jurisdictional appeal, Therefore, Respondents' referred remedy was not defect free

and it was inadequate.

For arguendo, Respondent's (Jennifer Schaeffer) claizn "complaint fails to state a claim ..." is

premature, therefore, Respondent's this objection can be eroded in the passage of time of this

legal process, which is beyond Relator's control.

1

Therefore, Respondents' motions as a whole should not be granted and since Respondents have

been strategically delaying its pleadings and since it is a repetitious action by the Respondents

which has caused prolong legal battle and is costing Ohio Taxpayers money, a Court Oder for

pleadings is justiciable. The Alleged offenses are:

Inthe first ^,nisode of wrongful actions in foreclosure case

a. Foreclosure comznencement was too fiast

b. An intent of defraud, in reliance upon such deception, to create fears (committed trespass)in aim to assume the right of defendant's property

c. Respondent has been deceiving (since it is a Civil case by nature) the defendant by hidingrelevant information since the beginning of foreclosure commencement

d. Respondent has invaded defendant's privacy by committing trespass and then damages

e. Defendant was racially profiled and Plaintiff committed an obstruction of justice (whilecase was ongoing with Common Plea Court, it trespassed the home)

f. Then Attorney (s) of Plaintiff has engaged in malpractice

The relevant Exhibits are

a. Copy of Tr. (missing portion from the Court record) page 117b. Copy of email correspondence with Appellee on settlement outside the Courtc. Copy of email correspondence with the Court (then Judge Bender's Legal Aided. Copy of jury request fees (missing from the Court records)e. Police report on trespass & on preparatory actions for trespassf Copy of returned mortgage payment checks

In the second episode of wrongful actions in Ori,ginal Action

a. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Respondents have persuadedgovernment officials and utilized government resources, public offices for its own gains

b. Respondents have violated relevant laws, regulations & policies and breached contractbetween lender (Wells Fargo) and borrower (the Relator) in the captioned case

c. The Respondents have violated Relator privacy rights

2

d. Respondents' abusive acts and consequences of alleged acts have caused fears andemotional distresses to Relator. It has undermined personality values of Relator

e. Respondents' actions including destroying property, perpetrated trespass, misrepresentingor confusing party etc. and Court are violations of contract (between borrower & lender)and of Professional Code of Conducts respectively

f. These two episodes are not isolated. First episode would not happened if there was noforeclosure case; second episode would not happened if there was no first episode.Therefore, they are linked and they are the outcome of Respondents' wrongful actions

Relevant Exhibits are (See: Affidavit filed with Original Action)

g. PRAECIPE to issue ORDER OF SALE

h, Created confusions among government officials

i. Prosecutor office filed for collection of fees from. Court of Common Plea

j. Common Plea Court record snapshot printout

k. Schedule for sheriff sale posted online thru sheriff office

1. SHERIFFS RETURN OF ORDER OF SALE signed by the sheriff

Background of the case

Foreclosure case was filed in January of 2011 where Respondent strategically returned Relator's

mortgage payment checks (three) for justifying the late fee charges with the credit bureau despite

Relator had an absolute perfect credit score with all three credit bureaus.

Since the beginning of commencement, Respondent motivationally delayed the case by replacing

attorneys and in March of 2012, the Respondent committed trespass, broke door, looted home

and tied Relator's ptappy dog in basement. This perpetrated trespass was done based on

3

preparatory action for trespass by Respondent where both incidents were reported with Hilliard

Police where reports on incidents were issued, which were immediately filed with Court.

Immediate after filing with Court on perpetrated trespass, Respondent offered for settlement

outside the Court, which was approached by then Judge Bender where Judge Bender's legal

Counsel was coordinating the progress of settlement (See: email correspondences) where

monetary claim was $500,000.00, which was proposed to the Wells Fargo by its then Attorney.

After sometime, during the progress of the settlement (See: email correspondence), Wells Fargo

replaced it then attorney by the Respondent (John Kopf) who initially claimed that there was no

trespass and eventually pleaded that there was trespass where Respondents strategically squashed

the probable amicable settlement in the foreclosure case.

Despite Relator's (defendant) plea for a Jury-Trial, foreclosure case had a Bench Trial without

xnerit where Relator's (defendant) request for separate findings of facts and conclusions of law

under Civil R. 53 (D)(1)(b)(3)(a)(ii)) was denied without merit by the Common Plea Court.

Violating Civil R. Procedures, especially, Civil R. 15 (B), the bench trail rendered ruling and

subsequently the Common Plea Court rendered ruling, which has caused numerous eyrnrs

including plain errors, which has produced miscarriage of justice and outcome of the ruling was

tinjust, unfair and violations of law & Civil R. Procedure.

Ruling was appealed with Appellate, however, Appellate immediate ruling was without merit

and it was rendered without considering allegations in the case, therefore, jurisdictional appeal

was filed with the superior Court, which is currently pending.

4

During this process, Wells Fargo appointed Jennifer Schaeffer as attorney with Common Plea

Court (as per her claim) thru the electronic docket system and a hard copy was mailed to the

Relator (evidence was filed with the senior Court). Respondents as a group were producing

various documentations with a false name of judge "Judge Bender" (Judge Bender is no longer

on the bench since the end of 2012) and have produced numerous fraudulent documentations and

mailed out to the Relator one after another. All copies of these fraudulent documentations as

exhibits were filed with the Court for this Original Action. For clarity, the Respondents have

utilized government resources, public offices and public officials' times for its private gain,

which is the violations laws, regulations and professional code of conduct and consequently, it

has caused fears and emotional distress to the Relator.

As a result, the Original Action was filed with the senior Court and since the episodes of

wrongful actions of Respondent are not isolated but they are a pattern and it has caused damages,

prayer for relief is demanded in captioned case. In this progress, the Appellate nzled on appeal

where a motion for reconsideration is filed with the Appellate along with exhibits that claimed to

be missing in the Appellate ruling. A copy of "motion for reconsideration" filed with appellate

along with exhibits are attached herewith for Respondents' cross examination of Relator's

allegations as stated above so that Respondents' pleadings or admissions of allegations can

completed sooner than delaying.

5

Analysis

The evidences speak itself that is that incidents including returning mortgage payment checks,

trespass and now fraudulent documentation production etc. took place where Wells Fargo and its

assigned Attorneys have played its roles. Furthermore, Police reports clearly show that Wells

Fargo committed the trespass. Now the questions are how and why that happened, which takes

us analyzing what Respondents have so far said and then we examine whether it is permitted by

laws, regulations etc, and by contract between lender (Respondent) and Borrower (Relator).

Regards to episode-one, Respondents have said absolutely nothing on record as of today and

Relator's "motion for findings of fact" was denied without merit where Respondents' influences

and incentives jointly have resulted this outcome. The fact is that then thru coordination with the

Magistrate of bench trial (prior to trial) then ongoing process of settlement was squashed by

Respondents where Common Plea has failed it obligations rendering decision while both parties

were in agreement (See: email correspondence). Furthermore, Relator's motion for findings of

fact with Common Plea was strategically denied, therefore, the entire rulings are based on

incomplete facts and they are contrary to the evidences in hand and they are not defect free. In

some instances it has violated laws, Civil R. etc. and in some instances it has committed plain

errors, which has produced miscarriage of justice. In this aspects, Respondents' recent exhibits

are not defect free, therefore, they are conflicting with justice and fairness in the foreclosure case.

On the same token, in episode-two, Respondents have filed "motion to dismiss" without

verifying its claims with allegations and the exhibits (Relator's exhibits) filed with Affidavit in

support of Original Action. Furthermore, rather pleadings in its responses, Respondents asserted

6

"a judgment - is lawful" and "complaint fails to state a claim ..." and "..: writs are

inappropriate", which do not address the allegations. In summary, allegations are "whether

Respondents have utilized government resources, government offices etc, for its private gains"

"whether documentations produced by Respondents are fraudulent" "whether these cpisodes are

linked, "whether Respondents used Judge Bender's name who is no longer on the bench".

Any answers to these questions "YES" make Respondents' request (motion to dismi.ss) itself to

be defective. Despite violating provisions as stated earlier, Respondents (Wells Fargo & John

Kopf) argued on appropriateness of Relator's reliefs requested. Spec^iically, Respondents

asserted "quo warranto has no ..." However, Jurisdiction & Authority of Ohio Supreme Court

under the Article IV Sec (2) and Sec (5) says (a summary is quoted from Supreme Court

webpage)

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs. These includewrits of habeas corpus (inquiring into the cause of an allegedly unlawful imprisonment ordeprivation of custody), writs of mandamus (ordering a public official to perform arequired act), writs of procedendo (compelling a lower court to proceed to judgment in acase), writs of prohibition (ordering a lower court to stop abusing or usurping judicialfunctions), and writs of quo warranto (issued against a person or corporation forusurpation, misuse, or abuse of public office or corporate office or franchise).

This Article obviously nullifies Respondents' bases of dismissal request. Regards to

Respondents' assertion "Procedendo... are not appropriate against ... ", since Respondents have

not yet filed pleadings and since Respondents have utilized fake judge's name on all

documentations (evidence is undeniable), whether officials were defrauded by Respondents. In

any such findings the Court has authority to utilize measures as it deems appropriate. Therefore,

at this stage, Respondents' claim is premature.

7

Beyond doubt, the evidences show that Respondents have utilized government resources,

government offices and defrauded officials etc., therefore, Court should render a decision as it

deems to be appropriate so that it can set an example for next generation of professionals /

employees within government offices / or other entities in State of Ohio so that moral values can

be preserved and violators can be monetarily penalized in reference to the outcome of this case.

Here none of the episodes of wrongful actions by the Respondents is isolated, they are linked.

Therefore, it will undermine the importance of any standard contract of lenders & borrowers,

which might collapse the normal flow of financial market if it goes unpunished. And in aim to

preventing the consequences of these wrongful actions, various Courts including the SUPREME

COURT OF NEW YORK, SUFFOLK COUNTY, Wells Fargo, Plaintiff v Steven Tyson et al.

(2010 h?YSlip Op 20079; 2010 N. Y. Misc. LEXI.S 410, March 5, 2010, Decided) has ruled against

the Wells Fargo where it was the plaintiff of the foreclosure case where Wells Fargo had

strategically breached the contract by entering borrower's home while the home was under

foreclosure. The Supreme Court of New York has set forth an example to follow in New York

and beyond for years to come. Here the Court decided granting exemplary damages and other

cost over $160,000. In this aspect, Appellant's research findings suggests that SUPREME

COURT OF NEW YORK, SUFFOLK COUNTY's ruling is absolutely effective, and no such

trespass in foreclosure cases has not taken place since the ruling of Wells Fargo, Plaintiff v

Steven Tyson et al. In this aspect, Relator's prayer the Court for setting an example so that Ohio

Homeowners can be benefitted as years to come.

8

Conclusion

Since the summary of allegations is whether Respondents have utilized government resources,

government offices for Respondents' private interests and since evidences in this case are

undeniable, Relator asks Honorable Court to grant

a. this memorandum opposing Respondents' "motion to dismiss"

b. an order issuing a writ of mandamus & prohibition or procedendo or quo warranto asappropriate

c. alternatively, at a minimum, grant an order issuing an alternative as the Court deemsappropriate under Sup. Ct.R. 12.04(C)

Respectfully submitted

Akim Rahman, Ph.D.4428 Trailane DriveHilliard, OH 43026

Affidavits of compliancePursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. 12.02 (B), I here certify that the alleged facts are admissible inevidences and I further certify under oath that the aforementioned facts are all true and correct tomy knowledge based on the evidences I hold in hand.

Akim Rahman, Ph.D.

Certeficccte o f ServiceI certify that a copy of this memorandum was served onto Attorneys of Wells Fargo & JohnKopf and Jennifer Schaeffer via US Postal mail on November 20th of 2013

Attorneys on the record for Wells Fargo & John Kopf ( Respondents)Scott A. KingTerry W. Posey

THMPSON H[NE LLP, 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400Miamisburg, Ohio 45342

Attorney on the record for Jennifer Schaeffer (Respondent)Adam R. Fogelman

LENER SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS, P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, OH

Akim Rahman, Ph.D.

9

^tiMc?000.

a.^N

a^

0zM

0

us

0^0

a^^^

^amCLo.

0

m00

.2

0

0Us

^^LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1 `7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I close my argument with that, Youx

Honor, that this has been going on for,

what, two years. Wel.ls Fargo was in hurry

to file the foreclosure, they could have

waited for a couple months, couple years.

1 f they can't waa.t now, they have not

changed the law yet, so that it is clear

there is the gap between the parties.

I never had any documents. I have

my owndocuments, but not the systematic way

they put it in.

So with that, I wil1, say this is

just misleading, creating environment so

they can continue this process which, I

mean, is abuse of legal process.

Also I c.laim in my counterclaim I

filed for $500,000.00 as exemplary damage,

plus damages that they caused both iny doors,

changed my locks, tied my dog in the

basement, and destroy -- not destroy, damage

to the hardwood flooring because the people

that locked the system there caused those

damages.

And with that I ask the Court to

determine that in this foreclosure case and

614.525.5933 SFIIIZLEYA. EFtMN Shirley-Ertuiat(:o?fccflur,ts.etrg

0®a.

M

^o.

rnra0zM0N

^

0t^0

Q)^

ma.a.

0^0v0^0^

0U

c

EL

give me monetary damage including exemplary

damage that I asked for $500,000.00.

And that in another case that was

ruled by another court where Wells Fargo,

who was the plaintiff, and that was Wells

Fargo, Plaintiff versus Steven Tyson, et al,

and that was in New York where that court

granted $155,000.00 exemplary damage, plus

other damages and costs.

Your Honor, I've been in Ohio for

almost 20 years. I love this state. I had

a job offer in North Carolina State

University, I did not go because I love the

job and I stayed here. Your Honor, I feel

myself bad when something I do wrong to Ohio

because I am part of that, but Wells Fargo

did not think about it. Wells Fargo did it

in New.York, they did it in Ohio, tomorrow

they may do somewhere else.

So what I'm asking this Court, it is

now Court's direction to take a measure and

put the leaders they can take too, but then

to make a law, so I'Fn asking this Court to

determine to dispose of this case and the

damages including the exemplary damages so

614.525.5913 S711R1.EYA.ERWTN Shirtey-Ertoin@fccoeErts.vey

118

119

1

2

3

4

S

6

"r

$

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1'7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that Wells Fargo can learn a].esson, not in

Ohio, maybe not in the United States,

somewhere else they may do.

.So that's what. I`m asking, Your

Honor. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE MAGISTRATE: Okay. Thank

yo Lt .

MR. KOPF: Your Honor, may I

have a brief rebuttal, please?

THE MAGISTRATE: Yes.

MR. KOPF: There is no evidence

in the record at all presented by Mr. ,.^..

Rahman, the allegations that he mention in

closing argument about trespass, they are

not relevant to this proceeding, there is no

claim pending in this proceeding in that

regard.

The New York case is not relevant to

this proceeding, There has been nothing

entered or presented in evidence by Mr.

Rahman to support his assertions in the

case.

Wel].5 Fargo requests that you grant

judgment on the note and judgment on the

mortgage for foreclosure.

514•525•5913 SHrR1-EY A• X%RiNIN Shirtey_P:rwan@fccoitrts.or•g

Outlook Print Messagc. Page l of 2

'^"^^ 3`b^,t^ ° `.-" ^,

FW: Discripancy in Escrow Amount and others; Ref:

11CV001095

From: Akim. Rahman (akirni_rahnian cc? ot:mail.cotn)

Sent: Wed 7/25/12 11:32 AMTo: xicharci__peck@fccourts.org

Dear Mr. Peck,

As the Honorable Court has shown the guardianship of both parties (the Plaintiff & the Defendant inthe foreclosure case (11cv001095)), I here take liberty to keep the Court posted on the progress of

parties' communications & efforts on issues & resolutions. The following email note is the latestcorrespondence between the parties.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely yours

Akim

From: akim_rahman@hotmail.cornTo: elizabeth.fuller@lsrfaw.corri

Subject: Discripancy in Escrow Amount and othersDate: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:56:47 -0400

Dear Ms. Fuller,

From the CountyGffice, this morning I received property-tax payment history & the $ amount paid bythe Wells Fargo (WF). It appears that so far total $20,456.06 was paid by the WF in which there was a

posting amount $10,785.41, which was posted on March 02 of 2010. ,

With this information, I raise questions: first on the total amount--- your paper shows Escrow amount

=$24,370.10, however, the cnty record shows $20,456.06 (was paid by the WF). With this calculation,please help me to understand where the amount $3,913.04 come from. My second dispute is the totalamount of $10,785.41. I woulder you could help me to get a break down of the payment from the WF.I fully agree with the fact that the WF paid this amount to the cnty office but whether it is a part of the

late fees while there was a pending of my late-fees waiver petition, which was granted later but sincethe amount was paid by the WF it was not incporporated into the total assessment. Please know that Imet all the criterions/prerequisites while I applied for that and I still deserve that to be waived.

Regarding the amount of interest as you noted in the paper issued on July 17 of 2012, it appears that it(your amount) is higher than that I have calculated. With that I wonder whether I have used a wrong

technique to calculate the total amount. With that, I wounder you could provide me the copy of thepaper that you showed during our conference meeting for settlement outside the Court on July 24 of2012. It will be helpful to cross examine my technique that i have used to calculate the total interest sofar.

https://bIu171.a-izail.live.comlmail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=d3f61 cl d-0c91-4d87aae91-... 11/15/2013

Outlook Pxint Message Page 2 of 2

Once again, since you have initiated for a settlement outside the Court on the whole package and

since I have supported it for a prompt resolution and I have made my case in the said meeting, we arenow waiting on the final $ amount on both slots that are subject to WF approval as you mentioned inthe meeting. Once we get all the figures, I may prefer for refinance or for loan modification option--- inthis preference I may stick with the WF as I mentioned earlier.

To be helpful to your persuasion & to convey my side to the WF, in case of

foreclosure commencement, I strongly believe with substantial evidence that the WF should consider

the issue whether it was too fast rahter sticking its finger based on its rights to do so, I am not trying touse the cross-examine arguments here but WF should consider what factors have caused this too fastaction (commencement of foreclosure). If that was error (as you mentioned "an administrative error")

then it is understandable --- in this scenario, since I have been thrown in a pond of cold water --- whoshould be responsible to watch me while I am in water, who should be responsible to rescue me fromthe pond, who should be responsible to dry me off, who should be responsible to accommodate me

while I am rescued from the pond etc --- this analogy should answer the questions on issues of fees,costs, charges etc.

Regarding the issue of trespass-- W F should examine what factors have caused this incident---whetherit was a calculated & deliberation of action (wilfulf & wanton), racial profiling, arrogance &terrorization act for creating fears so that I might leave the property etc. Secondly, this practice by theWF is repetitous (see WF vs. Steven et a!.) where it was penalized by $150K for its ennoneousbehaviors. Please know that I hold a substantial evidence to prove that my case & justification for itare much more powerful than that one used in the referred case. With all this and with fullconfidence, as you asked me in the earlier meeting, I have demanded over $500K as an exemplary

damage. I can assure you that I can justify this $ figure in any cross-examination if needed to do so. Ihave demanded this amount because I want to reach to a resolution on the issue for good so that nomushroom can further be grown from it (issues) as years to come so that an economics-exchangerelationship can be re-established with the WF as I had before and will have as years to come.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest.

Thank you again.

Sincerely yours

Akim

https:i/blu l 71.ar:ail.livc.cumhnail/P;rirztMessages.aspx?cpids-d3f61 c 1 d-0c91-4d87-ae91-... 11/15/2013

Progress Report By: Det. Dave Cunningham D-2

incident: 102277

Title: Met with victim- Civil matter

Date: 3/16/2012

Time: 4:03PM

I reviewed this file and attempted to read the victim'sstatements. I was unable to decipher his handwriting. I calledthe victim, Akim Rahman, and made arrangements for him to meetwith me at the police department at 3e00PM..

Shortly after 3s00PM Rahman stopped by the police departmentand we discussed the matter. He confirmed that his home was inforeclosure and had been since 2010. He said that his mortgagecompany was Wells Fargo and he never received a notice thatthey were sending somebody to his house.

I contacted the phone number left on the documents, MortgageMaintenance LLC (614-235-0902). I spoke with "Christy". Sheadvised that they were hired by Mortgage Contracting Servicesto go to he house to determine if it was abandoned andunoccupied. The worker disabled the lock, entered the home anddiscovered the home was occupied. The lock was replaced andnew keys left at the scene.

I contacted Mortgage Contracting Services (813-405-2071-Brittany, 813-387-1100, 888-563-1100) and asked about loan #37021649. They confirmed that thev handled the matter forrtells Fargo (The victim's mortgage holder). She suggested thatthe victim contact their mortgage company and she connected meto their legal department where I left a voice mail message.

I then explained to the victim, that the matter was a civilmatter between him and his mortgage company and not a criminalmatter.

Rahman asked that his written statemezits be released to WellsFargo if they ask for them. I explained that once the case wasclosed- the entire file could be released.

Case Closed:

Typed by DRC D2

x A

VG

........ e

---------.------ _---- _--...-_^._

/ICX^

Dispatch # :1203396( X )

21 Telephone22 Common name :RAHMAN, AKIM M23 Location :4428 TRAILANE DR24 Dist/Sect :213R K1 M# 017834

25 Description :MORTAGE COMPANY TAKING

PICTURES OWNER THEREAND UPSET

26 Name :FIELDS, CHERYL

27 Address : 4 617 LEPPERT RD - SECTOR WCity,St Zip :DUBLIN OH FRAN

28 Telephone :614-377-6503

29 Units (cars):37 3830 Officers :37 3831 Fire equip32 Comment

Line #, Cancel, Up ate,

^

xx

s, Qnext

C

1 Dte of call:01-28-201.Day of week:Saturday

2 Dispatcher :2403 Tme of call:11:59:004 Dispatch :12:00:295 Enroute :12:00:296 On scene :12:05:147 To hosp/sta:8 At hosp/sta:9 In service

10 In quarters:11 Time clear :12:12:47

12 INCIDENT #13 Run #14 Accident#15 Sig code :1616 Fire code17 Mode rec'd:91118 Status :2

^ae^004,

M

0.•t

InN

^

.,

0

z

®

dNi

0v4^U

^cs.CL

O

0V

0

0

^^

0

c

W

^

^ a0

z

U

08

^v^G t

W,^

^

U, p

qri

QW^

y a8 ^.

t W ~ ^ N^a3x

^ ^1 H ev z

i E= a ^ W

! 00 UJ F"Ra Z '2 O u.

'v w wfJC a^ D0 q LL LL

^

I.

^̂0

(II^

CO

^E x17 f^/ ,^ -..

^ ^J+

Ln

o "-^.S c.,oLn-n

W

E-...o0ooCI`

o i!U

f

U1o '.,

o'-^

;

^ZMU

m

2

64D/

m

dL+Aud

z

> tyy^ao

fly^wa

r^l

u a^..,v

C-• W