SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X U.S.SBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO.

XXXXXXX TRUSTEE FOR CSFB HEAT 2006 4 C/O AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, , NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION Plaintiff(s), -againstxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of XXXXXXXXX, attorney for Defendant, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, sworn to on the ____ day of March 2014 and upon all the prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, the Defendant, through her attorney, will move this Court located at One Court Street, Riverhead, New York 11901, IAS Part 9, in front of the Honorable Judge DANIEL MARTIN on the ___ day of _____ 2014 at 9:30 oclock in the forenoon, or as son thereafter as can be heard for an order pursuant to RPAPL 15 to Compel the determination of a claim to Real Property and Quiet Title and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to CPLR 2214 (b), you are hereby required to serve copies of your answering affidavits on the undersigned no later than the seventh (7th) day prior to the date set forth above for the submission of this motion. Dated : March ___, 2014 Riverhead, New York _______________________

To: Scott Reel, Esq Kozeny, McCubbin & Katz, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 395 North Service Road, Suite 401 Melville, New York 11747

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X U.S.SBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDEX NO. xxxxxxxx TRUSTEE FOR CSFB HEAT 2006 4 C/O AMERICAS SERVICING COMPANY, , AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Plaintiff(s), -againstxxxxxxxxxxxx, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK WILLAIM GRAUSSO, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1. The Defendant, xxxxxxxxxxx by her attorney, xxxxxxxxxxx., hereby complains,

alleges, affirms and herein Prays for relief by way of a Decree and Order granting Quiet Title to Plaintiff relative to the subject real property as described herein, as against Plaintiff: 2. Plaintiff represents that there is an ongoing foreclosure proceeding in effect

governing, concerning or relative to the Parties herein as to subject real property 3. JURISDICTION This Court has proper subject matter Jurisdiction over the within action as the real property, the subject of instant action, is so situated and physically located within Suffolk County, New York and the proper venue is the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. 4. IN REM JURISDICTION Plaintiff herein alleges that at all times relevant hereto, instant action is an In Rem action relative to the subject property which is within the jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court of Suffolk County where the subject property is so situated and physically located as fully described herein. 5. LACK OF STANDING Defendant engaged AEGIS BANK and entered into a loan agreement. The terms of the loan were memorialized in a promissory note ("the Note"), which was secured by a Mortgage lien on the Property. Said Mortgage was recorded on February 6th, 2006 in Suffolk County, New York, Liber: M00021227 and Page: 873 Defendant executed the Note naming AEGIS BANK as lender and then separately executed the Mortgage naming MERS, as lender Mortgagee. On August 6th, 2007 US Bank National Association, as Trustee for CSFB HEAT 2006-4 C/O Americas Servicing Company 3476 Stateview Boulevard Fort Mill SC 29715 commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Defendant, recording with the Suffolk County Clerk, a Notice of Lis Pendens announcing that the Plaintiff intends to seize the Defendants property. In its original complaint to foreclose on the Defendants property, the Plaintiff only claims to have an interest in the subject property, nowhere do they make a claim that they are the holder of the note, therefore, entitled to enforce the note. The Plaintiff does not claim that the note was indorsed and negotiated to them. The Plaintiff merely attached said note and security to the original complaint, as an exhibit. Oddly enough, in their most recent nunc pro tunc Motion on the Defendants property, the Plaintiff claims that they are all of the sudden, the holder of the note, thus, they are entitled to enforce the note. The Plaintiff also states that the note was indorsed and negotiated to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff attached said note to the original complaint, as an exhibit. Again Said evidence provided by the Plaintiff proves indebtedness and obligation to no one. If in fact, the note was negotiated to the lender, not the Plaintiff and the security relating to said note was negotiated by someone else in its entirety. Defendant finds it odd and highly unethical that MERS could be both holder of the mortgage as well as nominee of the true owner. MERS claiming its status of mortgagee of record is a vague term that does not give one legal standing as mortgagee. Hence, at best, MERS is only a nominee. MERSs actions backed by claims that as nominee it can assign notes or

mortgages is completely without standing a nominee has limited rights and those most certainly do not include the right to transfer ownership unless there is specific written instruction to do so. Further, said evidence provided by the Plaintiff only proves indebtedness and obligation to the Lender NOT the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not the true holder in due course. 6. INVALIDATION THROUGH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MERS, the nominee of AEGIS BANK for the purpose of recording the mortgage, assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff, U.S. BANK on July 13, 2007, with the assignment recorded on August 17, 2007. The assignment was executed by "Ronald W. Zackem, Esq., On behalf of MERS by Corporate Resolution dated 7/19/07." Neither a corporate resolution nor a power of attorney to Mr. Zackem was recorded with the assignment. Thus, the assignment is invalid and Plaintiff U.S. BANK lacks standing to bring the instant foreclosure action. Further, Nineteen days subsequent, on August 6, 2007 the assignor, Mr. Zackem, a known employee of one Steven J. Baum, Esq. plaintiff's counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., commenced the instant action on behalf of assignee U.S. BANK, with the filing of a notice of pendency, and the summons and complaint in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office. The Defendant is concerned that the apparent simultaneous representation of Steven J. Baum, P.C. for both MERS and U.S. BANK could be deemed a conflict of interest in violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.24, the Disciplinary Rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility, entitled "Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation." All residential mortgage foreclosure actions require an affirmation from the attorney representing the Plaintiff, as stated in the affirmation attached to this order, that he/she has inspected all documents. The Plaintiff is also required to provide an affidavit of regularity/merit from the Plaintiff representative that he/she has reviewed the file in this case and that he/she documents that all paperwork is correct. The Plaintiffs representative shall also provide in said affidavit of regularity her/his position, length of service, training, educational background and a listing of the documents and financial records reviewed substantiating the review of the amounts owed. The affidavit should

also include that she/he has personally reviewed both the mortgage and the note and any assignments for accuracy. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proof in a summary judgment proceeding and judgment will only be awarded when all doubt is removed as to the existence of any triable issue of fact. Under the present circumstances, where there have been numerous instances of alleged conflicts of interest regarding these documents and a failure to attest to the accuracy of documents in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the Plaintiff must prove its entitlement to foreclose on mortgage as a matter of law by establishing the regularity and accuracy of the financial documentary evidence submitted and the court should be scrutinizing all documents for accuracy. In this instance, the assignor, Ronald Zackem, Esq., attesting to all of the facts within the Plaintiffs assignment, is the employee of a well-known alleged felon, and disbarred attorney, one, Steven J. Baum, Esq. Plaintiffs systematic schemes have confused, misled, and deceived borrowers, homeowners, and other citizens who rely on the validity of publicly filed property records. 7. ABSENCE OF ANY PROMISSORY NOTE OR HOLDER THEREOF The Plaintiff now claims it is the current holder and beneficiary of the Mortgage which secures the note, the originals which are in Plaintiffs possession and control and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the aforementioned mortgage and note pursuant to law. Further, the Plaintiff proceeds to claim it is now the true and lawful holder of the said bond(s)/note(s) and is mortgagee of record or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note. As stated above, if the Plaintiff has received its official status based upon a trail of lies and illegalities, does the Plaintiff actually have standing to commence these proceedings? Thus, upon information and belief, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs claim is untrue. There is no evidence that the Defendants Mortgage Note was ever officially transferred to the now purported holder-in-due-course as the original documents (that

being the note and its security) were assigned by a party which lacked standing to assign them. One may think, even if the assignee did have standing to assign the security, the note would not assign, simply because, a nominee lacks standing to do such. Thus the Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce said note, as it is not in legal ownership of said mortgage. Even if it is in physical possession of the original paperwork (which Defendant believes to be a complete impossibility), they did not legally obtain possession of said paperwork, therefore they cannot enforce. Further, in order to help better educate the Plaintiff, the UCC Article 3 defines its imperative terms and principles as such: (a) Negotiable instrument (defines Instrument as a negotiable instrument.), means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder; (2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and (3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain (i) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, (ii) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or (iii) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. (b) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (c) Whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. (d) Unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of endorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified endorsement of the

transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the endorsement is made. So long as there is no fraud affecting the mortgage note, then rights to enforce the indebtedness can be further negotiated. If there is no break in the chain, when fraud is shown affecting the security instrument, this does not affect the rights to enforce the mortgage note but such fraud will affect the validity of the security instrument perhaps making foreclosure impossible. Fraud affecting the mortgage note would affect the right to foreclose. If the note cannot be found and a Lost Note Affidavit cannot reestablish the indebtedness, then foreclosure is not possible and collecting of the indebtedness is also not possible. Further, the Plaintiff attached to its original complaint, a copy of the note as an exhibit. On said note, there is no endorsement on the note whatsoever. In fact, there is no endorsement anywhere, on the note, or the mortgage. Therefore, Defendant alleges that The Plaintiff does not have the requisite evidence needed to claim it is the holder of Defendants Note as there is no endorsement- period. Defendant asks whom does this note belong to? For The Plaintiff to prove that it has the right to enforce Defendants note, said note must be indorsed either to The Plaintiff directly. (a) "Endorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring endorsers liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an endorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than endorsement. There is an ever-increasing quantity of lawsuits filed on behalf of home owners, governmental agencies and MBS investors, which have accused US BANK and its affiliates of fraudulently creating documents in order to justify legal entitlement to

institute foreclosure proceedings. For the Note to be considered bearer paper a representative from any one of the involved parties, AEGIS BANK, MERS or US BANK must have personally indorsed the note and along with their signature authenticated by a notary, which is, oddly enoughmissing. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff is clearly lacking an authenticated Moreover, Defendant signature, and that a representative for AEGIS BANK or MERS did not personally indorse the Note, thus rendering said documents fraudulent. alleges that all other documents where a signature was actually placed, are fraudulent as well, as the signatures were not placed there by someone who had the position, authority, or knowledge to do so. The chain of custody of this Note, Mortgage and subsequent assignments is of a fraudulent nature. 8. PROMISSORY NOTE SECURITIZATION The Plaintiff references in its complaint how the note and its security came to be in their possession. Within that description, the note was transferred, sold, assigned, and who knows what else, in order for it to land in the Plaintiffs lap. Defendant is interested to know, how a simple note executed between the original parties, became this trust with mortgage-backed pass through certificates. Upon research, Defendant came across the answer- Securitization. First, securitization involves the rapid transfer (as per the Plaintiff, Transfer or SALE) of loans through a chain of parties. Second, the entity that ultimately holds the loan works through a number of agents, each with different roles and responsibilities. The failure of any or all of these parties to uphold their legal obligations creates chaos in maintaining the record title to real property essential to homeownership. This practice is in violation of numerous laws. Property law requires recording these sales publically. Notes must be affixed (permanently) to the security instrument a mortgage without the note has been ruled a nullity by the Supreme Court. MERSs recommended business practice (with the servicer retaining the note) would make the mortgages a nullity. Therefore, a complete chain of title is required to foreclose on property every sale of a mortgage must be endorsed over to the purchaser, and properly

recorded. Without this, it is illegal to foreclose on property no matter how many payments the Defendant has missed. However, if the notes can be found and if AEGIS BANK, MERS, US BANK or its counterparts can provide records, it is possible that the mortgages can be made valid, for purposes of collecting upon the indebtedness, but, again- foreclosure would not be possible without a valid continuous perfected mortgage showing a chain of title from origination through to the current party trying to enforce the mortgage note. Any break in the chain of endorsements along with any break in the chain of title renders the Power of Sale clause in the security instrument to be a nullity and therefore no party can foreclose on the real property. Plaintiff misdeeds in connection with their securitization of billions of dollars of mortgages have been the subject of numerous investigations, state Attorneys General lawsuits, court findings of fact, and consent orders. Recently, numerous colleagues of the Plaintiff agreed, collectively, to pay to the U.S. Treasury a total of approximately $5 billion in civil penalties for their mortgage documentation and foreclosure-related misconduct. These monetary fines and other civil and criminal actions do not, however, repair the voluminous number of invalid documents filed all over this country. These mortgage-backed securities are governed by PSAs (pooling and service agreements), the practices above make the securities unsecured debt and there is no solution. The securities are no good. (This would be a Representation & Warrant violation as the MBSs stated that a secured indebtedness was to be purchased, but since the Trustees of the securitization would not have the notes, the securities cannot be secured.). In furtherance of Plaintiffs creation and maintenance of mortgage backed securities the bundling and packaging of mortgage loans into investment vehicles Defendant maintains, Plaintiff has filed, (a) (b) Falsified, forged, and/or fraudulently executed mortgage-related documents and, Mortgages and deeds of trust assigned to and through MERS, that Defendants created for the express purposes of hastening their securitization deals and avoiding the costs of maintaining accurate and

publicly recorded real estate documents regarding transfer and assignment of mortgages. Plaintiff systematically created the falsified, forged and/or fraudulently executed mortgage documents filed with the Suffolk County Clerks Office by what infamously has become known as robo-signing, which is the practice of signing mortgage assignments, satisfactions and other mortgage-related documents in assembly-line fashion, often with a name other than the affiants own, and swearing to personal knowledge of facts of which the affiant has no knowledge. Plaintiffs scheme, that failed to disclose and track ownership in mortgages accurately, was manifested in a private electronic registry many of the Defendants created called the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). Through MERS, Plaintiff disrupted citizens fundamental right to determine through public searches who holds interests in property. Plaintiffs systematic schemes have confused, misled, and deceived Defendant, numerous borrowers, homeowners, and other citizens who relied on the validity of the Plaintiffs actions. Plaintiff herein alleges, without confirming the existence or validity thereto, that any and all debt, loan(s), and or promissory notes relative to, and that which allegedly have been secured by any security, alleged security instrument, and or alleged Mortgages referenced herein, have been partially and or fully and completely Securitized, and or Sold, Assigned, and or Transferred into an Investment and or Securitized Investment Trust or Pool. As such, and by virtue of the selling, assigning and or transferring of said, Debt, Loan(s) and Promissory Notes and the lack or absence of any corresponding assignment of the relative Security, Secured Instrument and or Mortgage, resulted in any and all Rights, Title, and or Interests to property, allegedly held by any of the Name or Un-Known Defendants herein relative to the Security, Secured Instrument and or Mortgage, has been extinguished, relinquished, discharged and or detached as to any and all debt, loans and or promissory note.

9.

THE ASSIGNMENT; TRANSFERRING; OR SELLING OFANY AND ALL DEBT; LOAN(s); AND OR PROMISSORY NOTE(s) Plaintiff(s) herein alleges, without confirming the existence or validity thereto,

that any and all potentially alleged Debt and or Promissory Note(s), relative and or hypothecated by any of the Security, Secured Instruments, and or Mortgages as referenced herein, have in fact been Sold, Assigned, and or Transferred. This referenced Selling, Assigning, and or Transferring of such Debt and or Promissory Note(s) was effectuated previously thereto, concurrently therewith, and or subsequent to the execution, creation or making of any of the Security, Secured Instruments, and or Mortgages as referenced herein, and these referenced assignments are as follows: As to Assignment of Mortgage with Liber # 21586 page 634 executed July 19th, 2007 and recorded August 17th, 2007; From MERS to US Bank National Association, as Trustee for CSFB HEAT 2006-4 C/O Americas Servicing Company; At the point in time when, and once the referenced assignments of the Debt and or Promissory Notes(s) had taken place, then the alleged relative Security, Secured Interest and or Mortgages by Operation of Law had also and accordingly been Assigned. 10. SATISFACTION OF THE TERMS & PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE Plaintiff(s) herein alleges, based upon information and belief, that the terms and provisions of any and all Security, Secured Instruments, and or Mortgage, as referenced herein, specifically dictate, state and possess the enumerated condition that subject Security, Secured Instruments, and or Mortgages will only remain valid, enforceable, and shall remain to any extent in full force and effect until all sums have been paid in full, and therein mandate a full reconveyance when satisfied. By virtue of the fact that any and all alleged Debt and or Promissory Note(s) (without confirming the existence or validity thereto have in fact been Sold, Assigned, and or Transferred for full value, then as a factual result, any and all subject Security, Secured Instruments, and or DOTs have in fact been fully satisfied. As such no Named, Un-Known or Doe individual or entity herein could present a claim Adverse or otherwise as to any Rights, Title or Interests in the subject property.

11.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs

1 through 6 of this complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment as follows : (a) requests that the note and mortgage against the subject property

be deemed null and void and removed from the subject property as a cloud on Defendants title, (b) prejudice (c) and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. or, alternatively dismissing the Plaintiffs Complaint, in full, with

DATED: March ___, 2014 __________________________ Attorney for Defendant Riverhead, NY 11901

ATTORNEY VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK) :ss COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) __________________, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the attorney for the Defendant, _________________ in the above entitled action with offices located at ______________________________, Riverhead, County of Suffolk, New York 11901; that he has read the foregoing MOTION and knows the contents thereof ; and that the same is true to the deponents own knowledge, To : Scott Reel, Esq Kozeny, McCubbin & Katz, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 395 North Service Road, Suite 401 Melville, New York 11747

________________________________ Attorney for Defendant

Sworn to, before me This_____ day of _____________, 2014 _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC