Earl S.

David

Attorney at Law

Riviera Executive Center

216 River Ave,Lakewood NJ 08701

Tel. 908-907-0953

Attorney for Defendant(s)

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

INC.
CHANCERY DIVISION

MERCER COUNTY

Plaintiff

VS. DOCKET NO: F-50705-08

CHAIM FRIEDMAN AND MRS. CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF

FRIEDMAN, HIS WIFE MOTION TO STAY SHERIFF SALE

Defendant

I , Chaim Friedman, am the defendant in the above captioned matter.

I make this certification in support of my motion to stay sheriff sale as I want the Court to give
me the

following relief :
 A. That the Judgment be vacated due to lack of proper service .

B. That the Defendant be granted leave to file his Answer or otherwise plead within
ten(10) days of the hearing date of this Motion; and

C. That the Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment be stricken as premature; and

D. That the Sheriff sale be stayed pending outcome of motion;

E. Substitute Earl David as my attorney as Cheri Robinson has not cooperated

in signing the substitution of Attorney

F. For such other, further relief as the Court shall deem just and equitable.

1. Plaintiff’s summary judgment must be vacated because I was never properly served with the
summons and complaint. The process server needs to be deposed. I want to have the legal right
to file my answer because there are material issues of fact that can only be resolved at trial.

2. Plaintiff has no standing in this foreclosure proceeding as the assignment is based on

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) which had no authority to assign or
transfer a mortgage in the first place. I had no public knowledge of this fact when I was served
with the summons and complaint. MERS is only a nominee and has no interest in the note. See
attached deposition from the Bank of New York et al vs. Victor and Enoabasi Ukpe, Superior
Court of NJ, Atlantic County, Docket Number F-10209-08. If you read the deposition it will
show you that MERS is just a cover for the plaintiff law firms and it does not disclose who the
true owner of the note is.

3. In my case, I want to question the MERS document as I want to question who is really Tina
Jones . It says she is Vice President of the MERS. I want to see her official capacity with MERS
and proof that she is an Officer of the company. Based on the deposition in the Bank of New
York case as noted above, there are discrepancies as per who is an officer and who has signing
authority. In an attached affidavit from Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq, as an expert witness in a New
York case, she says that Tina Jones wears to hats, representing Grantors ands Grantees. We need
to subpoena or depose Tina Jones to ascertain her capacity in MERS, if any. I want to have the
right to see her employment records, payroll of MERS, official directory of employees to see the
true position of Ms. Tina Jones.
4. There are also issues about the relationship between the plaintiff law firm and MERS.
They are not an independent company but are closely affiliated with the banks and law firms.
The law firm of plaintiff is just a foreclosure mill, bent on stealing peoples’ homes and
destroying the economy.

5. Although I acknowledge in the mortgage that my lender has the right to transfer the note, I was
never notified of the assignment which is a violation of New Jersey statutes, common law and
case law as noted by Judge Todd further on in certification.

6. Plaintiff has not established by the facts that it is the owner or holder of the note in due course.

It has never shown to me or the Court the original note and mortgage. There have been instances
of many forgeries, tamperings and I have the right to question the original note and mortgage at
trial.

7. In a similar foreclosure case in the State of New Jersey, in Bank of New York et al, vs.
Michael J. Raftogianis, Atlantic County, Docket No. F-7356-09, quoting
foreclosuredefensenationwide.com, “The court found that there was no meaningful attempt by
Bank of New York (hereafter “BONY”) to comply with applicable New Jersey procedural rules
requiring a recitation of all assignments in the chain of title. BONY simple alleged that it had
acquired possession of the note prior to the litigation being filed. However, the evidence at trial
failed to establish this allegation, with the Court noting that there were missing documents
incident to the securitization of the loan including the mortgage loan schedule that should have
been attached to the mortgage loan purchase agreement. The Court also found that the “MERS
assignment was potentially misleading”.

”Judge Todd also stated that additional discovery is to be produced when the foreclosure
involves a securitization, lost note claims, or a holder in due course challenge (which may arise
in the context of the purported assignment of a toxic loan to a securitized trust prior to the trustee
of that trust instituting a foreclosure action, as well as any predatory loan claims against the
original lender). Judge Todd recognized that there are dozens of legal issues and inquiries where
a foreclosure involves a securitization, and that a borrower has both the right to know who owns
the mortgage loan and whether a foreclosing party has the legal right to foreclose.”

8. See the Kansas Supreme Court decision in Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan.

LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), where it said "The relationship that MERS has to (to holder of a
loan) is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A

mortgagee and a lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests,

especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual language. The law

generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to

whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1034

(8th ed. 2004). By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt.

K.S.A. 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage document

purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document consistently refers only to rights of

the lender, including rights to receive notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the

debt obligation. The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the

lender. It is our humble opinion that the assignment is a mere sham obscuring from the public the

actual ownership of a mortgage, thereby creating the opportunity for substantial abuses and

prejudice to mortgagors and especially the defendant in this instant action.”

9. As noted above, I was never notified who owns my mortgage loan. A trial is necessary to
determine who owns the mortgage and whether the foreclosing party has the legal right to
foreclose.

10. My loan was also subject to a MERS assignment as noted in plaintiff’s papers. Does MERS
have the right to assign my loan? This is a triable issue of fact.

11. See also attached letter from Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., that claims that there are widespread
abuses by MERS and that they are being investigated by the authorities.

12. I was the victim of TILA and RESPA violations. I have been the victim of the following
violations include over escrowing, junk charges( yield spread premiums and service release fees,
payment of compensation to mortgage brokers and originators by lenders, unauthorized servicing
charges(i.e. the imposition of payoff and recording charges), improper adjustments of interest on
adjustable rate mortgages, upselling and overages was forced to use all of the lenders affiliates in
procuring my loan and I am suspect that there were illegal fees hidden in the payment schedule
that a layperson such as myself could never figure out unless there is an audit which is done by a
professional who can figure out and ascertain the actual costs of the loan. See MAVENT report
as per their analysis of my loan. They point out serious violations of New Jersey law.

13. Moreover, the complaint and summary judgment papers were hearsay as they were not made
by the lender but by their attorney who does not have actual first hand knowledge of the
mortgage and is in violation of N.J.R.E 803. The complaint is a cut and paste mill operation of
bank attorneys.

14. I am also claiming predatory lending as the lender should have known that based on my
income that I would have a problem making payments. They did not care but were more
interested in earning commissions.

15. I lost much of my money and time in this property and it is unfair to lose it to a plaintiff that
may not even have standing to sue me. It is akin to theft. Are plaintiff’s even registered to do
business in New Jersey?

16. I want Earl David to represent me due to ineffective assistance of Counsel. We called and
wrote to Sheri Robinson and she is just ignoring us.

WHEREFORE, I pray that the Court does Justice and grants my motion to stay Sheriff’s sale and
for such other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable.

I certify that the above statements made by me are true and that if any of the

statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

____________________
Chaim Friedman