Earl S.

David
Attorney at Law
216 River Avenue
Riviera Executive Center
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Tel. 908.907.0953
Email:earlsdavid@yahoo.com

March 14, 2011

The Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, P.J. Ch.

Mercer County Civil Courthouses, 5th Floor
210 S. Broad Street
P.O. Box 8068
Trenton, NJ 08650-0068

Re: Docket # : F-45978-08

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc,.v. Chaim Friedman, et al
Motion return date – 03/18/11

Please accept this letter in lieu of a formal brief which is in reply to plaintiff's opposition to
defendant's motion to vacate judgment.

As noted in your Honor's order, dated, February 7, 2011, the Court denied our previous motion
on the grounds that we did not submit a brief containing the legal argument in support of our
motion.

There are three rules that govern motions to vacate default judgment and motions for
reconsideration that include Rule 4:43, rule 4:50 and 4:49-2.

In the instant case, defendant failed to file a timely answer to the complaint as he was never
personally served which is required by Rule 4:4. Moreover, till date, I have yet to have a copy of
the complaint although I previously submitted a notice of appearance. As I do not have a copy
of the complaint, I cannot prepare the proposed answer.

As noted in our previous motions, we questioned the veracity and accuracy of the assignment of
mortgage that was dated June 18 , 2008. As noted in a brief by the New Jersey Legal Services,
dated November 4, 2010, which was submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court, it noted that
there were serious problems with those kinds of assignments including document irregularities.
In the instant case, there are serious flaws with the assignment of mortgage that was filed with
the Court. For instance, the assignment at bar states that the Assignor, which I assume is
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS) has hereunto set his hand and seal. The
assignment was signed by Tina Jones, who I assume is a woman so it appears that the gender is
incorrect. Moreover, it says that Tina Jones is acting as Assistant Vice President of GPM, that I
assume is Greenpoint Mortgage. However, there is no signature of the Assignor which is MERS.

In article that was culled from the internet, dated February 17, 2010, it states that Tina Jones was
director of foreclosure operations at Greenpoint Mortgage. Here it says she is the Assistant Vice
President. How can she wear two hats? We need the opportunity to depose such an individual to
determine what was her position with the company.

Additionally, there is an article from CNBC, dated August 20, 2007 that said, "The company will
cease residential mortgage origination effective immediately and close Greenpoint's Novato,
California Headquarters." See copy of the letter as an exhibit. The MERS document, dated
June 18, 2008, lists Greenpoint Mortgage Funding , Inc residing or located at 100 Wood Hollow
Drive, Novato, Ca 94945. How can Plaintiff prepare a document with an address that did not
exist at the time of the alleged assignment? This is a clear example of a bogus assignment.

Plaintiff's Attorney submitted three separate assignment of mortgages on three separate Friedman
properties. A clear look at the signature of the notary, Kay Coats, on one of the documents
does not match the other two signatures.

It appears that this document was prepared or ordered by Milstead and Associates as it mentions
their name at the top left hand corner of the document and gives instructions to Record and
Return to Milstead & Associates ,LLC. The assignment of mortgage was prepared to
memorialize the assignment.

Based on above analysis, the assignment is invalid on it's face as it was never executed by the
Assignor and the information on the document was incorrect.

By Plaintiff counsel's own admissions, Greenpoint Mortgage may not even have standing to
prosecute the action. Mr. Milstead states in an undated letter to my office that it is common
knowledge that Countrywide later acquired Greenpoint. See attached letter as an exhibit. In
another letter from Milstead and Associates, submitted to the Court by Nelson Diaz on June 3,
2010, it states that the Servicer is Bank of America. On MERS website, it says that the servicer is
Bank of America. Although Milstead and Associates stated that it is common knowledge
regarding Countrywide, we see that there are other entities that may be involved in the chain of
title. Moreover, it contradicts their most recent letter, dated, March 9, 2011, which states that
"This foreclosure action was instituted in the name of the original noteholder , Greenpoint
Mortgage Fuding, Inc. and Defendant's arguments lack all merit." It may be the same name, but
that does not mean it is the same entity. The complaint, which we have yet to see, may be
missing a recital of assignments in the Chain of Title. This is required under Rule 4:64.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not even furnished any official documentation regarding the real party
in interest. "

Moreover, if it is the same entity that loaned the defendant the money, then why did they file an
assignment of mortgage? Why would they be assigning the mortgage to themselves? That does
not make sense. It would not be an issue if it was not submitted. However, the assignment was
submitted to support the foreclosure action so the document irregularities are an issue that the
Court must address.

Moreover, they have not met the threshold pursuant to Wells Fargo v. Sandra Ford, which
requires documents to be authenticated.

We are not getting another bite of the apple. We are just seeking justice.

Wherefore, defendant respectfully requests that defendant's motion be granted in it's entirety.

Sincerely,

Earl S. David

cc: Milstead & Associates, LLC