Adversary Complaint

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
Eastern District of New York

NOTE: All documents filed in this matter must be identified by both
adversary and bankruptcy case numbers, case chapter and judge's initials.
In re: Michael Krichevsky Bankruptcy Case No.: 1−19−43516−ess
Michael Krichevsky
Plaintiff(s),
−against− Adversary Proceeding No. 1−21−01013−ess
US Bank, NA
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Kelly Duncan, individual
Stephanie Terese Tautge, individual
Daniel V. Edward, individual
Banc of America Funding Corporation
Veriprise Processing Solutions LLC
Charice Lenise Gladden, individual
Woods Oviatt Gilman, LLP
Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., individual
Aleksandra K. Fugate, individual
Brittany J. Maxon, individual
David Bruce Wildermuth, individual
Brettanie L. Hart Saxton, individual
Victoria E. Munian, individual
Michael Thomas Jablonski, individual
Miranda L. Sharlette a/k/a Miranda Jakubec, individual
Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman Gordon, LLP
Barry M. Weiss, individual
Provest, LLC
Woody Dorsonne, individual
Reed Smith LLP
Natsayi Mawere, individual
Jennifer L. Achilles, individual
Estate of diseased Noach Dear, individual
Shmuel Taub, individual
Steven J. Baum, P.C.
Steven J. Baum, individual
Elpiniki M. Bechakas; individual
Jane and John Doe 1−100, individuals
Defendant(s)
SUMMONS AND NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to submit a motion or answer to the complaint, which is attached to this
summons, to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within 30 days after the date of issuance of this summons, except that
the United States and its offices and agencies shall submit a motion or answer to the complaint within 35 days.
Address of Clerk:
United States Bankruptcy Court
271−C Cadman Plaza East, Suite 1595
Brooklyn, NY 11201−1800
At the same time, you must also serve a copy of the motion or answer upon the plaintiff's attorney.
Name and Address of Plaintiff's Attorney:
Michael Krichevsky
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
If you make a motion, your time to answer is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 7012.
YOU ARE NOTIFIED that a pretrial conference of the proceeding commenced by the filing of the complaint will be
held at the following time and place.
Location: Date and Time:

United States Bankruptcy Court, 271−C Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom April 15, 2021 at 11:00 AM
3585 − 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201−1800
IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND TO THIS SUMMONS, YOUR FAILURE WILL BE DEEMED TO BE YOUR
CONSENT TO ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT.
Dated: February 12, 2021 Robert A. Gavin, Jr., Clerk of the Court
Summons [Summons and Notice of Pretrial Conf. rev. 05/27/2016]

In the United States Bankruptcy Court
__________________________________
In the Matter of: CHAPTER 11 CASE No. “19-43516-ess”
Michael Krichevsky
Debtor In Possession
__________________________________
Michael Krichevsky,
Plaintiff Under Duress, DIP

vs.
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING No.
US Bank, NA;
425 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3923.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA;

101 N. Phillips Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57104

PO Box 14507
Des Moines, IA 50306
Kelly Duncan, individual

Unknown address
Possible fictitious name

3476 Stateview Blvd
Fort Mill, SC 29715
Stephanie Terese Tautge, individual; TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

9846 Blaisdell Ave S,
Minneapolis, MN 55420-4809
Daniel V. Edward, individual

Address unknown
Possibly fictitious name
Banc of America Funding Corporation

Possibly defunct entity
214 N Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
VERIPRISE PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC

750 Hwy 121 Byp Ste 100
Lewisville, TX 75067
Charice Lenise Gladden, individual;

1136 Constitution Park Blvd,
Rock Hill, SC 29732-3204
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP;
1900 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604
Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., individual;

3271 Abbey Rd,
Canandaigua, NY 14424-1799
Aleksandra K. Fugate, individual;

19 Arborwood Dr.,
Lancaster, NY 14086-4460
Brittany J. Maxon, individual;

383 DOEWOOD LN,
ROCHESTER, NY 14606-3359
David Bruce Wildermuth, individual;

8 Devon Woods Close,
Amagansett, NY 11930-2439
Brettanie L. Hart Saxton, individual;

4846Saint Paul Blvd,
Rochester, NY14617-1744
Victoria E. Munian, individual;

2255 Peachtree Rd Ne Unit526,
Atlanta, GA 30309-1170
Michael Thomas Jablonski, individual;

784 ATLANTIC AVE,
ROCHESTER, NY 14609-7453
Miranda L. Sharlette a/k/a Miranda Jakubec, individual

270 S Goodman St. Apt 100
Rochester, NY 14607-2755
FRENKEL LAMBERT WEISS WEISMAN GORDON, LLP

53 Gibson St.
Bay Shore, NY 11706
Barry M. Weiss, individual

Uddress unknown
PROVEST, LLC;
320 Carleton Avenue, Suite 2600
Central Islip. NY 1172
Woody Dorsonne, individual;

146 Spencer St., Ste 4008,
Brooklyn, NY 11205-5628
REED SMITH LLP

599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Natsayi Mawere, individual

136 W 15th St,
New York, NY, 10011
Jennifer L. Achilles, individual

1400 5th Ave Apt Thb2,
New York, NY 10026-2588
Estate of diseased Noach Dear, individual;

Address unknown
Shmuel Taub, individual;

1363 E 31ST ST,
BROOKLYN, NY 11210-5414
Steven J. Baum, P.C.

220 Northpointe Pkwy
Amherst, NY 14228
Steven J. Baum, individual

110 Via Quantera,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418-6217
Elpiniki M. Bechakas; individual;

20MuegelRd,
East Amherst, NY, the 14051-1605
Jane and John Doe 1-100, individuals

Names to be discovered
Defendants.
______________________________
INTRODUCTION
“I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate,” Justice Arthur M. Schack
I, Michael Krichevsky, Debtor In Possession (DIP), self-governing man in opposition to proof of claim,
violation of bankruptcy stay by Defendants in concert respectfully aver as follows below:
I have a God given rights to Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness. To defend these rights from
violation, I have been litigating against defendants and investigating public corruption as whistleblower and
victim since 2009.
In 2009, Wells Fargo Bank, NA, US Bank NA and its alleged attorneys had begun malicious
prosecutions against me through foreclosures in State and Federal courts, which continue to present. Not even
one year has passed between each malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
The averments in this complaint based upon my firsthand knowledge, research, court experiences in
foreclosure litigation involving Wells Fargo Bank, NA, US Bank, NA, their subsidiaries and/or agents from
2009. These averments based upon information, documentary evidence provided to me by others in my
capacity as investigator and whistleblower; and upon inferences and conclusions reached from said
information and belief.
In fact, I am the only one amongst Defendants involved in this action with first-hand knowledge able
lawfully sign non-hearsay, admissible Affidavit or Complaint without intention to mislead the court or judge,
harass opponent and without creating perjury and/or fraud on the court.
This is an action for actual, statutory and punitive damages caused to me by defendants in concert
pursuant to Sections 105, 362, 501, 502, 503, 505 and 506 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules 3001, 7001(1),
7001(2), 7001(7), 7001(8) and 7001(9) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to determine the lawful
interest of the US Bank, NA, if any, in the residential real estate development of the DIP and to determine the
amount of the allowed secured claim, if any.
The gist of this complaint is that after US Bank’s or other shadow entity’s double profit or double
recovery from mortgage insurance of an alleged debt from an alleged default, US Bank and/or other shadow
entity/ies try to get even more, but now from me by using criminal, fraudulent means. All criminal acts by all
defendants constitute Obstruction of Justice, Treason against United States and The People they have sworn to
serve and protect.
This complaint unravels fraud upon the court by officers of the court and I, perpetrated by Defendants
using a) after-the-fact fabrication of notes, mortgages, assignments, affidavits and affirmations to assist the
fraud; and b) fraudulent representations to the court and I of names, identities and authority of individual
Defendants to sign numerous documents, make and sign assignments, affidavits, affirmations and declarations
in support of said fraud; and c) fraudulent representations to the court about the owner, creditor and real party
in interest; and d) fraudulent representations to the court about note’s chain of title or chain of transfers
concerning my notes and mortgages.
It is outrageous how this bankruptcy Chapter 11 case is going. I have not seen this in any other
bankruptcy case. This evidently shows how wrong and corrupt participants herein there are. Apparently, it
takes two high profile, international law firms to litigate with me. Evidently, it takes special, skillful fraud and
harass conquer just a pro se guy, wow! Discrimination against pro se here in full view by evident inaction of
US Trustees and Federal Judge while witnessing this fraud and harassment.
I am suing them for the damages they caused to me, to my property and for value of my time of life,
which cannot be ever replenished. They were saying and fabricating documents they sought were necessary to
“win” in court and plunder my estate.
Particularly, I seek relief herein for Defendants’ multiple violations of my Constitutional and other legal
rights in connection with their illegal foreclosures because the law prohibits violation of criminal laws in
order to enforce civil law. I am entitled to relief for Defendants’ unjustified and illegal actions, which violated
federal and state statutes.
Finally, I got tired of “diving into a rabbit holes” so to speak every time Defendants started a new claim
against me in state courts. Finally, I have concluded that whatever the case might be, they obviously hiding
something and that they have no lawful claim against me – otherwise they would have produced evidence of
standing and have succeeded honorably, on the merits.
This lawsuit also seeks an order declaring lien, assignments void and to expunge them from the record
of NYC Register on my property per 11 U.S.C. § 506(d).
JURISDICTION
1. This action arises, inter alia, out of Defendants’ repeated pre-petition and still continuing violations of
bankruptcy stay, my Constitutional and other legal rights under color of law pursuant to 42 USC §§1981 –
1988 and 18 USC §242.
2. This action arises out of never ending violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) by these Defendants in concert, their agents or employees in their concerted, illegal
efforts to extort an alleged consumer debt from me.

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157(a)-(b) and 1334(b).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) this is a core proceeding.
4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §1334 in that this
proceeding arises in and is related to the above-captioned Chapter 11 case under Title 11 and concerns the
property of DIP in this case.
5. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2, which
states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law
of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution) [emphasis is
mine]
6. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question
jurisdiction) and per 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO).
7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear all state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
8. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and more specifically, the wrongdoing
and transactions occurred here and Defendants transact business here.
9. This case is brought within one year of the never ending violations in compliance with the statute of
limitations per 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and per equitable tolling doctrine.
10. Other causes of actions, such as malicious prosecution and fraud, also equitably tolled due to continuing
violation doctrine, recent discoveries of fraud and due to my continuing injury in fact.
PARTIES
11. I, Plaintiff, Michael Krichevsky, debtor in possession (DIP, I or Michael) of above shown Chapter 11
case. I am individual consumer according to FDCPA. From 2005, I was the lawful owner and from 2008
developer of residential real estate project located in this district, which is the property of this bankruptcy
estate in this Chapter 11 estate. My properties and business located in the Eastern District of New York at
4219 and 4221 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY. As a consumer in the bankruptcy court per Chapter 11 case, I
am allegedly obligated to pay a debt to US Bank, NA. as creditor, which I vigorously oppose.
Entity Defendants
12. The following facts drawn from several USB’s legal documents and pleadings in several foreclosure
actions against my property starting from 2009 until present.
13. All Defendants herein, acted under color of law of the State of New York and under color of Bankruptcy
law.
14. US Bank, NA (USB) is a national banking association organized under the laws of United States. USB,
by implication, is acting as a trustee for a securitized trust Banc of America Funding Corporation, which by
implication holds Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-F, which trust by implication, was
securitized in 2006.
15. I say “by implication” because only caption (see Exhibit 1) implies that USB is trustee of some trust,
which is not a sworn statement under oath by any officer or employee of USB to prove standing in this court.
16. USB never averred 1) when it became a trustee, 2) who appointed or hired it as trustee, 3) never
produced in the court any corporate resolution from implied trust showing USB’s authority to act as trustee of
that implied trust, 4) never averred when it became owner and/or holder of the notes and mortgages it attached
to several court documents as evidence against me, 5) never averred from who it acquired said notes and
mortgages, thereby failing to prove a chain of title of said notes and mortgages. And, to hit a final nail in the
head, USB never averred that it is acting as trustee of the “following named trust” in any affidavit signed by
any officer or employee of USB.
17. In fact, there was no document from or by USB in 2009, 2014, 2016 and 2019foreclosure cases in state
courts to prove that USB indeed participated in those actions.
18. From 2009 until present, per FDCPA, USB by its numerous alleged attorneys and law firms in state and
federal courts and to Michael that it is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt for implied trust.
19. After its two failed attempts to prove in state courts that Michael owes USB said debt, in 2016, USB,
WF and WOODS’s attorneys with deliberate disregard to their knowledge of illegality of their actions,
brought third foreclosure action in state court as a debt collector on that alleged debt.
20. These trespassers knew that their action to collect an alleged debt was time-barred in 2015, which was
violation of FDCPA section 1692(e).
21. USB continued alleged debt collection of this time-barred, alleged debt by harassing Michael and by
filing two Proofs of Claim in this court even though Michael notified it’s attorneys that regardless of the
merits of USB claims against Michel, the collection of any debt is time-barred from 2015.
22. USB, particularly, alleges by implication in this bankruptcy court that my alleged debt was securitized
and is a part of certificates Series 2006-F that it owns and holds as trustee.
23. However, every attorney that allegedly represented USB from 2009 and until present arrogantly refused
to answer in writing to the court and I who is or are the owner(s) of those certificates and which “trust” owns
and/or holds them.
24. Stated differently, no attorney neither in first, 2009th foreclosure lawsuit, nor attorney in subsequent
lawsuits and claims disclosed on the record the name of the creditor (certificates’ owner) whom I allegedly
owed money.
25. I am entitled to get this information by operation of law in order to be sued by USB.
26. This lawsuit will compel USB to give this information to me or have its Proof of Claim stricken and
trespassers sanctioned.
27. Also, because I had no contractual relationship with this bank, its Defendant attorneys per New York
law had a legal duty to explain to me why this bank is foreclosing on my property, but again they arrogantly
refused to explain connection between my alleged by them default and my ownership of property.
28. Upon this information and belief, I negatively inferred that USB is not the creditor, but aided and
abetted attorneys’ wrongdoing against me by “renting” its name to undisclosed third parties-intermeddlers or
interlopers in conspiracy to create an illusion in court of a lawful creditor, USB.
29. Alternatively, undisclosed third parties-intermeddlers or interlopers used and continue to use US Bank
NA, “as trustee” name without authority from USB. If that is the case, this lawsuit would compel the USB to
state its true role in these foreclosures on the record.

30. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (WF) is federally chartered bank. From 2009 until present, per FDCPA, WF by
its numerous attorneys, none attorneys and law firms stated in state and federal courts, and to Michael that it is
a debt collector attempting to collect a debt for implied trust.
31. WF is Defendant because, upon information and belief derived from Proof of Claim (POC) with
supporting exhibits, it used notorious “foreclosure manual” to serve WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP (
WOODS) as client in criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States and I using shadow entity
Veriprise Processing Solutions, LLC (VERIPRISE) from California and other states. The copy of first pages
in the envelops that contained POC and motion for relief from stay mailed to me by VERIPRISE. Even
though the name of “sender” on the envelop is deliberately missing, address search shows “Veriprise” located
in several states. Exhibit 2 shows (circled) printed lines “CLIENT ID: Woods…” and another line titled
“Order Number.” “Veriprise” is aider and abettor of the wrongdoings by WF, which are both serving
fabricated documents and criminal fraud for WOODS, WF and USB.
Company Background
32. Overall, WF is a debt collector and attempted to collect alleged debt from Michael since 2009 until
present.
33. It is notoriously corrupt criminal enterprise. It is replete with numerous scandals and investigations by
state and federal law enforcement authorities from 2009 related to illegal foreclosures, fabrication of
documents and forgery of signatures. The latest such scandal is an opening of the millions of accounts without
knowledge and consent of its customers. Needless to say, that opening of an account in the bank requires
paperwork and signature of the customer. As such, employees of WF opened accounts without paperwork and
signatures; and without customers’ knowledge and consent.
34. New York attorney, Linda Tirelli, in Federal lawsuit has unearthed a “foreclosure manual” – the
“smoking gun” demonstrating systematic document fabrication at Wells Fargo. She was quoted in the Wall
Street Journal in connection with her case involving false document submitted to the bankruptcy court on
behalf of Deutsche Bank by WF. Because of the above notorious criminality of this organization it lost its
credibility and this court should not take anything its employees and agents are “filing and saying” for
granted.
35. FRENKEL LAMBERT WEISS WEISMAN GORDON, LLP (FRENKEL) is Defendant and co-
conspirator connected with US bank, NA, Wells Fargo bank NA, WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP’ and
Judge Stong’s criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States and I.
36. From 2014 until present, per FDCPA, FRENKEL by its numerous attorneys stated in state and federal
courts, and to Michael that it is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt for implied trust.
37. In 2015, during foreclosure litigation in State court FRENKEL filed motion to dismiss foreclosure
against me while I requested a jury trial.
38. I had an option to oppose their motion to dismiss and proceed to trial – where I would have exposed
their knowledge of Wells Fargo’s fabricated note, mortgage and assignments. At that time, during a hearing
their attorney pleaded to me that I do not oppose their motion to dismiss foreclosure and that I let them “save
their face” under promise that their client will never bother me again.
39. Upon information and belief, FRENKEL immediately thereafter sold or transferred their fictitious claim
against me together with fabricated note, mortgage, assignments and their full “in house” litigation file to
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP after statute of limitation to collect on the alleged debt has run. More on
statute of limitations, I show below.
40. FRENKEL with its attorneys act as a “hub-and-spoke” of conspiracy to defraud United States and I. See
United States v. Borelli, 336 F. 2d 376 (1964): “Courts often conceptualize single conspiracies using either a
"chain" or a "hub-and-spoke" metaphor.”
41. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP (WOODS) is international foreclosure mill, not a professional
attorney’s entity under New York law.
42. Upon information and belief, WOODS connected to international bankers (Federal Reserve Bank) and
Judge Stong and/or her husband, and therefore is in violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act.
43. From 2016 until present, per FDCPA, WOODS by its numerous attorneys stated in state and federal
courts, and to Michael that it is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt for implied trust.
44. Besides the FDCPA violations, WOODS is defendant here because of its actions as a party-claimant –
not as attorney firm representing a client. In fact, I am confident that this partnership is a corrupt bulk “debt
buyer” acting Pro Se under the guise of representing a client – when in reality WOODS is a client.
45. This partnership with its attorneys act as a “hub-and-spoke” of conspiracy to defraud United States and
I. See United States v. Borelli, 336 F. 2d 376 (1964): “Courts often conceptualize single conspiracies using
either a "chain" or a "hub-and-spoke" metaphor.”
46. WOODS is a criminal enterprise because its attorneys knew that prior state court’s foreclosure action
against me was voluntarily dismissed in 2015 by USB, WF and its then attorneys, FRENKEL. In addition to
this wrongdoing, employed by WOODS attorneys or its employees filed in Kings County Supreme Court and
in City Register several false, misleading and fabricated documents containing false, misleading information
in violation of criminal Federal and State laws.
47. Upon information and belief, WOODS connected to international bankers (Federal Reserve Bank),
Judge Stong and/or her husband, Federal Reserve Bank’s Attorney, and therefore are all in violation of
Foreign Agents Registration Act.
48. Names of individual Defendants employed by WOODS listed below.
49. Law firm REED SMITH LLP (REED) is a limited liability partnership, which employs attorney Natsayi
Mawere. REED is engaged in Obstruction of Administration of Justice in this court by covering up
wrongdoing of WOODS and by harassing me.
50. From 2020 until present, per FDCPA, REED by Natsayi Mawere stated bankruptcy court, and to
Michael that it is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt for implied trust.
51. Upon information and belief, PROVEST, LLC (PROVEST) is limited liability company, which employs
licensed process servers on behalf of foreclosure mills such as WOODS and fabricates documents for these
foreclosure mills.
52. In my Chapter 11 case, this company served me by mail two false and misleading the court documents
used by PROVEST and/or WOODS to electronically file POC and motion for relief from stay.
53. Name of individual Defendant(s) employed by PROVEST will be discovered in this lawsuit.
54. USB, WF, attorney’s firms and individual attorneys-defendants from these firms will be jointly called
“Trespassers.”
Individual Defendants
55. As a preliminary note, all individual attorneys-defendants or non attorneys knowingly made, used, or
caused to be made or used, a false court record(s) and/or sworn material statement(s) to a false or fraudulent
claim against me.
56. The individuals named herein have chosen to ignore exculpatory evidence and established law in their
actions to ”willfully, unlawfully and knowingly” harm me through harassment and/or fraud on the court by
officers of the court.
57. All individual attorneys-defendants committed and continue to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud,
harassment in the second degree under New York Penal §240.26 and aggravated harassment per §240.30.
58. All Defendants in concert committed fraud against their own, created laws, practices and orders.
59. All Defendants that have licenses to practice law took the Oath of Office to support and defend
Constitution, law, order and to serve people.
60. However, every one of these defendants made a conscious decision to breach this oath and violate my
Constitutional and other rights, such as 42 USC Sec 1981.
61. I accuse all individual Defendants in conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. Evidentiary facts to support my
accusations show that when I pointed Defendants out to falsehoods and forged documents – none of them
denied falsehoods and forged documents, they just willfully ignored them.
62. Alternatively, some unknown to me Defendants from WF, USB or attorney’s law firms engaged in
counterfeiting securities and submitting them to attorneys in order to start foreclosures, and which names this
lawsuit will unravel.
63. The following facts drawn from several USB’s legal documents and pleadings filed in several
foreclosure actions against my property starting from 2009 until present.
64. I sue Elpiniki M. Bechakas, (Bechakas), as individual, for recently discovered fraud upon the court by
her as officer of the court and employee of Steven J. Baum, P.C. Fraud was done by creating and signing
VOID, fictitious assignment of mortgage in my 2009 foreclosure case. As I was preparing this complaint and
analyzing facts, I discovered that she, most likely, not have created and/or signed said assignment because
someone else from the foreclosure mill Steven J. Baum, P.C., most likely, have used her name and forged her
signature on said assignment without her knowledge. I needed to rule out this possibility to avoid frivolous
pleading. Accordingly, I contacted her current employer and asked to speak with her. I was told that due to the
COVID19 she is working from home and I was given her email address.
65. I sent her email (Exhibit 1) with attached copy of assignment of mortgage from my 2009 foreclosure
case purportedly signed by her. In this email, I told her that I address her as my witness in litigation case I am
working on to cancel and expunge said assignment. I asked her to look at that assignment and tell me whether
it was her signature or someone else’s.
66. I sent her two emails.
67. She failed to reply.
68. As such, I negatively inferred that it is her signature and she is afraid to admit it or that she is covering
up someone else’s crime. Regardless, refusal to be a witness in Federal proceeding is Obstruction of Justice.
Indeed, if her assignment was lawful, she would not have to be afraid of talking to me. Indeed, why would she
not admit that she made it and signed it or that she did not make it or sign it? Her 2009, void assignment is
now filed in this bankruptcy court in violation of USC 1001?
69. I also inferred that she and Steven J. Baum, P.C. created and participated in scam “I assigned your
property to myself.”
70. Accordingly, she is a paid-off participant and “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to
defraud United States and I.
71. Steven J. Baum was/is the owner of Steven J. Baum, PC. He was supervisor and co-conspirator with
Elpiniki M. Bechakas, WF and USB.
72. Accordingly, he is a paid-off participant and “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to
73. Stephanie Terese Tautge (Tautge) employed by WF.

74. She is notorious robo-signor and robo-notary for WF’ fabricated paperwork. She created or allowed
somebody else to create a rubberstamp with her name, signature and title of “Assistant Secretary” of
Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) on it.
75. In reality, she did not work for MERS or was its officer.
76. Using said rubberstamp she created or allowed somebody else to create and sign for my second
foreclosure case so called “CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT (Exhibit 2), purportedly correcting “scrivener
error” of Elpiniki M. Bechakas assignment (Exhibit 3).
77. This assignment (Exhibit 2) with her signature on it was never notarized.
78. Instead, she or whoever was creating this fraudulent assignment took a second page with a notary stamp
and signature on that page from some other assignment or document, made a copy and attached it to the first
page of this fraudulent, void assignment, in violation of New York’s notary and criminal laws.
80. Daniel V. Edward (Edward) allegedly employed by USB. He purportedly submitted foreclosure
information and documentation to WOODS, which was inadmissible as evidence and contained false
information, thereby aiding and abetting fraud upon the court by officers of the court causing damage to me.
81. I sue Shmuel Taub, (Taub) for his role in 2016 illegal foreclosure case against me as referee, thereby
aiding and abating fraud upon the court by officers of the court.
83. Charice Gladden, (Gladen) is Defendant as employee and “Robo Witness” of WF who purportedly
wrote affidavit in support of proof of claim in my 2019 Chapter 11 case.
84. Upon information and belief derived from public records, she worked for Citibank as Bankruptcy
Specialist from September 8, 2015 until April 2, 2019.
85. Accordingly, she started her work for Wells Fargo less than a year before she signed her affidavit, and
therefore could not have any personal knowledge about Wells Fargo Bank records from 2005 or from 2009,
not to mention her lack of qualification as expert witness and forensic examiner to testify by affidavit about
authenticity of bank records, note, mortgage and my signature. There was insufficient evidence to support
issuance of Court Order to lift stay when motion and POC were submitted to court by attorneys-defendants.
But, for her false and misleading the court declaration, motion to lift stay would not been issued by Judge
Stong.
87. Woody Dorsonne, (Dorsonne), sued by me here for his fraudulent, perjurious affidavit of service as
process server in 2016 foreclosure against me by WOODS.
89. Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., Esq. (O’Brien) is Defendant as employee and/or managing partner of WOODS
OVIATT GILMAN, LLP who supervised and directed all WOODS attorneys involved. Originally, his status
was nonparty, but starting from state foreclosure action in 2016 against me, he proved to be a paid-off
participant by his concerted, unlawful actions. Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal
fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States and I.
90. Aleksandra K. Fugate, Esq., (Fugate) is Defendant as employee and supervisor of bankruptcy
department of WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP. Originally, her status was nonparty, but later on, she
proved to be a paid-off participant by her concerted, unlawful actions against me. Aleksandra K. Fugate, Esq.
is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States and I.
91. David Bruce Wildermuth aka David B. Wildermuth, Esq. (Wildermuth) is Defendant as employee of
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP. Originally, his status was nonparty, but starting from state foreclosure
action in 2016 against me, he proved to be a paid-off participant by his concerted, unlawful actions against
me. David B. Wildermuth, Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United
States and I.
92. Brittany J. Maxon, Esq. (Maxon) is Defendant as employee of WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP.
Originally, her status was nonparty, but later on, she proved to be a paid-off participant by her concerted,
unlawful actions against me. Brittany J. Maxon, Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy
To defraud United States and I.
93. Brettanie L. Hart Saxton, (Saxton) is Defendant as employee of WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP.
unlawful actions against me. Brettanie L. Hart Saxton, Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and
conspiracy To defraud United States and I.
94. Victoria E. Munian, (Munian) is Defendant as employee of WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP.
unlawful actions against me. Victoria E. Munian, Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy
to defraud United States and I.
95. Michael Thomas Jablonski, (Jablonski) is Defendant as employee of WOODS OVIATT GILMAN,
LLP. Originally, her status was nonparty, but later on, she proved to be a paid-off participant by her
concerted, unlawful actions against me. Michael Thomas Jablonski, Esq. is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal
fraud and conspiracy To defraud United States and I.
96. All attorneys from WOODS acted as “spokes” of the WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP (wheel or hub)
of “chain” conspiracy against me. See Bolden v. State, 410 A. 2d 1085 (1980) where Judge eloquently
explained, “A "wheel" conspiracy is shown when a number of people (the spokes) are engaged in similar
relationships with the same individual (the hub). The "chain" conspiracy is characterized by different
activities carried on with the same subject of a conspiracy in such a manner that each conspirator in a chain-
like manner performs a separate function which serves in the accomplishment of the overall conspiracy.
United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.1973).” Subject of the fraud and conspiracy to defraud United
States and I is to use the court process and judgeship to deprive me of approximately $1,700,000 property and
enrich all involved in it as final goal. That would strip me of my working capital, ability to conduct business
as real estate developer and ability to employ people. This, in turn, would deprive me of my right to earn a
living, pay taxes; and would put me on the federal welfare system for life. In fact, Judge Stong created exactly
the same outcome when she Obstructed Justice to me in related to this bankruptcy case of 2012, which she
ended in 2016 in this district, while WOODS simultaneously in 2016 started illegal foreclosure in state court
after 6 years of statute of limitation run. This, in turn, prevented me from appealing her Obstruction of Justice
by taking away my time, energy and resources to fight WOODS’ foreclosure and avoid homelessness. In fact,
she is direct cause of this Chapter 11.
97. Natsayi Mawere, Esq., (Mawere) is employee of REED. She engaged in Obstruction of Administration
of Justice in conspiracy with other Defendants. Her status supposed to be nonparty, but she immediately
proved to be a paid-off participant by her concerted, unlawful actions against me.
98. Mawere is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States and I.
99. All Attorney-Defendants throughout the history of foreclosure litigation against me at various times
knowingly and willfully filed in courts complaints, motions, affirmations, fabricated evidence containing false
information. Thereafter, they argued in support of their fraud upon the court by officers of the court.
100. Jennifer L. Achilles, Esq. (Achilles) is a partner of REED and is supervisor of Mawere. Achilles status
supposed to be nonparty, but she immediately proved to be a paid-off participant by her concerted, unlawful
actions against me. Achilles is a “spoke” of “hub” of criminal fraud and conspiracy to defraud United States
and I.
Introductory statement per FRCP 8 – General Rules of Pleading
101. A simple foreclosure case that should have been routine and fast became my 11-year nightmare,
harassment, malicious prosecutions and human trafficking by forcing Michael to perform free labor in
numerous courts from 2009 until today for the benefit of Defendants.
102. The material facts underlying this complaint are not in dispute by Defendants since they are the ones
who averred them and the ones who created legal documents in support of their claims against me.
103. As preliminary statement, all attorneys please take notice that per “crime-fraud exception” I invoke in
this case, no denials, refusal to deny, refusal to admit or produce any exculpatory for me documentation by
claiming attorney-client privilege will be permitted by law in this court.
104. It is my contention so, please, be advised that NOTHING in these pleadings shall serve as my
admission that Defendant, WF, has the right to service Michael’s mortgage loan. Or that Defendant,
USB or any “Trust” actually “owns” or “holds” Michael’s original notes or mortgage loan or has a
secured interest in Michael’s real estate property, or that Michael ever signed any note or mortgage,
numerous, different from each other, redacted and competing copies of which Defendants filed in every
court and in New York City Register since 2005. Stated differently, it is absurdity to redact and/or
fabricate notes and mortgages, and/or forge Michael’s signatures, file them in court, and then
arrogantly claim that I signed those redacted copies or expect that I admit their authenticity and that I
defaulted on those redacted fabrications.
105. All times herein are relevant to this complaint and applicable to each Defendant’s actions or inactions
since 2005 until present. All of you, Trespassers, know exactly when and what you did, did not do or why
refused to do your job.
106. During my 2005 closing of my property located at 4221 Atlantic Ave., Brooklyn, NY, I relied on my
closing attorney, followed his directions, never read any documents I signed and was pretty much “least
sophisticated consumer.” However, I remember that I have signed several “original” notes and mortgages
(now I know that it means more money for criminals). Looking at this event 16 years later, I realized that this
closing was sham, fraudulent contract, which was also unconscionable, and therefore void for fraud in the
inducement.
107. The following facts are still not admitted, but drawn from New York City Register. I did not approve,
verify authenticity of documents before filed, or verified any information contained in those documents. In
fact, I was not present when the filing took place, but I know for sure that during my closing, there was no
notary and I was not sworn to sign filed mortgage.
108. Therefore, I contend that if I indeed signed the documents filed, the notary stamp and signature were
placed on mortgage after the closing when I left.
109. In fact, mere filing in City Register is not proof of authenticity of documents, correctness of information
on them, or authority to file those documents. See Merin v. City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 31161 where
record shows that City Register’s filing is not evidence of fact, authority to file, and subject to fraud:
“The essential facts underlying the complaint are not in dispute. Plaintiff is the owner of a private
home located at 226-08 141st Avenue in Queens County. She obtained title to the property as sole heir
and devisee of the estate of one Ida Hershman. On March 6, 2014, one Darrell Beatty filed a
fraudulent Real Property Transfer Report with the City Register indicating a sale of the property in
2013 to him from one Edith Moore and on March 20, 2014 filed a fraudulent deed with the City
Register. Thereafter, Beatty broke into the home, changed the locks and took up residency. Upon
going to the home to inspect it, plaintiff discovered that the locks had been changed and she called the
police to report a burglary. When the NYPD arrived, Beatty, who was present at the premises,
produced the fraudulent deed, and the officers refused to arrest Beatty for burglary and left.”
[emphasis mine]
110. Therefore, filings of assignments (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) in City Register against my property is not
evidence of fact, authenticity, authority to file or truth of information in filings.
111. I also believe (opportunity with motivation existed to support my belief) that Defendants downloaded
below stated documents and used them as templates for future fabrications to be used in courts from 2009.
112. Averred below, are material and relevant to this complaint facts taken from filings in NY City Register
of original lender, Fairmont Funding LTD. These filings concern subject property, on which facts USB, WF,
its alleged attorneys relied or should have relied in writing of their complaints, sworn affirmations and
affidavits since 2009 foreclosure complaint by USB.
113. According to city register, my signed, original note and mortgage were transferred from FAIRMONT
FUNDING LTD, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, located at 1333 60TH STREET, BROOKLYN, NY
11219 to SMI-FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD located at 3910 KIRBY DRIVE SUITE 300 HOUSTON, TX
77098 (see an enlarged snapshot of RECORDING AND ENDORSEMENT COVER PAGE in city register
below):
PRESENTER: RETURN TO:

ATLANTIC LAND TITLE AND ABSTRACT, LTD. 5417 SMI-FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD
18TH AVENUE ATTENTION: LANIECE LAMELL
BROOKLYN, NY 11204 3910 KIRBY DRIVE SUITE 300
718-331-6400
HOUSTON, TX 77098
ATLANTICLTA@AOL.COM (AL2387K)
Loan No. CS1848
PROPERTY DATA
Borough Block Lot Unit Address
BROOKLYN 7026 53 Entire Lot 4221 ATLANTIC AVENUE
Property Type: 1- 2 FAM WITH ATTCH GAR/OR VACANT LAND
114.
PARTIES
MORTGAGER/BORROWER: MORTGAGEE/LENDER:
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD, A NEW YORK CORPORATION
120 OCEANA DRIVE W„ 1333 60TH STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11235 BROOKLYN, NY 11219
104. Here is an enlarged snapshot of first page of Michael’s Mortgage filed in city register:
After Recording Return To:

SMI-FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD
ATTENTION: LAN1ECE LAMELL
3910 KIRBY DRIVE
SUITE 300
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098
LOAN NO.: CS1848
ESCROW NO.:
TITLE NO.:
PARCEL NO.: [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA]
MIN NO.: 100294800012018483 MORTGAGE
105. WORDS USED OFTEN IN THIS DOCUMENT
"Security Instrument." This document, which is dated DECEMBER 14 , 2005 , together with
all Riders to this document, will be called the "Security Instrument."
"Borrower."
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY,
whose address is 120 OCEANA DR W sometimes will be called "Borrower" and
sometimes simply "I" or "me." BROOKLYN,
"MERS" is Mortgage Electronic RegistrationNY 11235
Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting
solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is organized and existing under
the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel.
(888) 679-MERS.
"Lender."
FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD, A NEW YORK CORPORATION
will be called "Lender." Lender is a corporation or association which exists under the laws of NEW YORK
. Lender's address is
1333 60TH STREET 2ND FLOOR; BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11219 .
"Note." The note signed by Borrower and dated DECEMBER 14, 2005. will be called the
"Note." The Note states that I owe Lender
SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND 00/100 - -
Dollars (U.S. $ 747,600.00 ) plus interest and other amounts that may be payable. I have promised to
pay this debt in Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full by JANUARY 01 , 2036 .
106. As can be seen from ¶¶ 103 and 104, Michael’s mortgage loan was assigned number “Loan No.
CS1848” and MERS MIN NO.: 100294800012018483, per ¶ (C), which reads:
“(C) "MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting
solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, tel. (888)
679-MERS.”
107. At this point, this Honorable Court should take mandatory judicial notice that MERS address is P.O.
Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026, which will be material and relevant fact in impeachment of deliberately
false statements in purported assignment of mortgage by the Defendant Elpiniki M. Bechakas.
108. This mortgage agreement was subject to Personal Mortgage Insurance (PMI) per paragraph (O):
(O) "Mortgage Insurance." "Mortgage Insurance" means insurance protecting Lender against the
nonpayment of, or default on, the Loan
109. This mortgage agreement was subject to RESPA, which evidenced by paragraph (Q):
“(Q) "RESPA." "RESPA" means the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) and its
implementing regulation, Regulation X (24 C.F.R. Part 3500), as they might be amended from time to time, or
any additional or successor legislation or regulation that governs the same subject matter. As used in this
Security Instrument, "RESPA" refers to all requirements and restrictions that are imposed in regard to a
"federally related mortgage loan" even if the Loan does not qualify as a "federally related mortgage loan" under
RESPA.
110. This mortgage agreement further states on page 10:
“If substantially equivalent Mortgage Insurance coverage is not available, Lender will establish
a non-refundable "loss reserve" as a substitute for the Mortgage Insurance coverage. I will
continue to pay to Lender each month an amount equal to one-twelfth of the yearly Mortgage
Insurance premium (as of the time the coverage lapsed or ceased to be in effect). Lender will retain
these payments, and will use these payments to pay for losses that the Mortgage Insurance
would have covered. “
“Nothing in this Section 10 will affect my obligation to pay interest at the rate provided in the Note.”
“Mortgage Insurance reimburses Lender (or any entity that purchases the Note) for certain losses it
may incur if Borrower does not repay the Loan as agreed.”
“These agreements may require the mortgage insurer to make payments using any source of funds that
the mortgage insurer may have available (which may include funds obtained from Mortgage Insurance
premiums).
As a result of these agreements, Lender, any purchaser of the Note, another insurer, any reinsurer, any
other entity, or any affiliate of any of the foregoing, may receive (directly or indirectly) amounts that
derive from (or might be characterized as) a portion of Borrower's payments for Mortgage
Insurance, in exchange for sharing or modifying the mortgage insurer's risk, or reducing losses.
If such agreement provides that an affiliate of Lender takes a share of the insurer's risk in exchange for
a share of the premiums paid to the insurer, the arrangement is often termed "captive reinsurance."
Further:
Any such agreements will not affect the amounts that Borrower has agreed to pay for Mortgage
Insurance, or any other terms of the Loan. Such agreements will not increase the amount
Borrower will owe for Mortgage Insurance, and they will not entitle Borrower to any refund.
Any such agreements will not affect the rights Borrower has - if any - with respect to the
Mortgage Insurance under the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 or any other law. These
rights may include the right to receive certain disclosures, to request and obtain cancellation of
the Mortgage Insurance, to have the Mortgage Insurance terminated automatically, and/or to
receive a refund of any Mortgage Insurance premiums that were unearned at the time of such
cancellation or termination.
111. The conclusion of these statements in the agreement is that payments from Michael to Lender included
mortgage insurance payments to reimburse Lender or debt holder if Michael will not pay as promised and
debt holder will incur loss of principal or other loss. As can be seen from these filings, Fairmont Funding LTD
(Lender) on 12/14/2005 sold and transferred its right to note and mortgage to SMI-FAIRMONT FUNDING
LTD of Texas and became just the “Loan Servicer” per paragraph 20.
Trespassers knew that their claims rebutted by the past – one cannot give something that one does not
have – but Trespassers, been white color criminals, did not care.
112. Unfortunately, what I know today, I did not know in 2005 or 2009.
113. Since 2009 until present, Defendants in concert harassed me, maliciously prosecuted me, violated my
Constitutional rights, rights to privacy and other rights such as the right to make a living and pursue happiness
– all under pretext of collecting consumer debt from me. But, why would they violate the law and my rights to
collect consumer debt?” Exactly, good question! And the answer is, by the negative inference, without those
violations they knew that they would never win by acting honestly.
114. For about 11 years, I was trying to figure out why Defendants, supposedly having a lawful claim against
me, could not come to court with straight face and win or lose it honorably. Why, in order for Trespassers to
win against pro se litigant, they needed to resort to fraud and fabrication of evidence in support of their
supposedly lawful claim against me? Why Defendant attorneys knowingly and willingly accepted cases
against me, in violation of New York criminal law and attorney’s ethics rules, and began doing fraud, perjury
and evidence fabrication in order to win in court? Why judge Noach Dear, in deliberate disregard to truth,
falsity of attorneys affirmations and evidence laws, in complicity with other Defendants, ignored my motions
with exhibits unraveling fraud and “bended backwards” in order to rule in favor of Defendants on summary
judgment against me.
115. Defendant, Noach Dear, denied my cross-motion to dismiss foreclosure in state court without written
findings of fact and conclusion of law – just as Judge Stong did to me in bankruptcy court? This is not
coincidence. And, the only reason why they violated my rights and disregarded law I could logically come up
was that they all been bribed, and therefore had personal interest in the negative for me outcome.
116. If Defendants would deny this negative inference, then the Court should compel them to give their
honest answer as to why they violated my rights and law for nothing in return.
117. Circumstantial evidence shows that Defendant banks most likely have two sets of accounting or
bookkeeping with double entries, which is why WF and its agents resorted to fabrication of evidence and
would not show the second, lawful book.
118. The complained wrongdoing occurred in connection with the submission of several false, misleading the
court and I affidavits, affirmations, fabricated assignments of mortgage with false information, fabricated
notes and mortgages in State, Federal courts and in City Register in order to plunder my estate and enrich
themselves.
119. This complaint discusses some, but not all, of the material misrepresentations, fraud, fabrication of
evidence and perjury as there are so many that it will be hard to follow each. However, main violations of law
making each court proceeding void by reason of at least one violation of law and order by Defendants, I will
present herein.
Short, Relevant Factual and Procedural History
120. All relevant times herein, start from 2005 and continue to present.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts or Evidence in my favor.
121. In 2009, USB, its alleged servicer, WF, and their alleged attorneys, Steven J. Baum, P.C., in conspiracy
with process servers, filed foreclosure complaint against me claiming that I defaulted on loan contract.
122. Said complaint – obvious boilerplate – signed by attorney, Michael J. Wrona contained, amongst other
things, materially false representations to the court and Michael, to wit:
“FIRST: Plaintiff is a national banking association … and having its principal place of business in
Cincinnati, OH, and the owner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed.
The mortgage was subsequently assigned to US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS
TRUSTEE FOR. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-F by assignment
dated the 25th day of August, 2009 and sent for recording in the Office of the Clerk of Kings County.
FIFTH: That the Defendant(s) MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY so named, has/have failed to comply with
the conditions of the mortgage and note by failing to pay principal and interest and/or taxes,
assessments, water rates, insurance premiums, escrow and/or other charges that came due and payable
on the 1st day of May, 2009 as more fully set forth below. Accordingly, Plaintiff elects to call due the
entire amount secured by the mortgage.
SIXTH: There is now due and owing on said mortgage the following amounts:
Principal balance: $746,256,13
Interest Rate: 6.5%
Date interest accrues from: April 1,2009
Escrow balance: $160.68
Late charges: $323.36
Inspection fees: $15.00”
123. The caption of said complaint contained the following:
“US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 20G6-F
3476 Stateview Boulevard
Fort Mill, SC 29715”
124. By implication, the address of USB was at “3476 Stateview Boulevard, Fort Mill, SC 29715,” which
was in immediate contradiction to the address of USB at “Cincinnati, OH” in the body of the complaint.
125. This obvious contradiction made one of those addresses false and misleading the court and Michael.
126. In fact, it did mislead the court and Michael because it turned out that this address “3476 Stateview
Boulevard, Fort Mill, SC 29715” belonged to WF, alleged servicer, who, upon information and belief, hired
and paid attorneys from Steven J. Baum, P.C. to start foreclosure by claiming that Steven J. Baum, P.C
represents USB when it wasn’t true, in violation of NY CPLR §322(a), NY Judiciary Law §487 and NYRPC
governing attorneys.
127. The statement that USB is “owner and holder of a note and mortgage” was in immediate
contradiction to the statement that USB is “TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 20G6-F,” which is implied trust that must have been “owner and holder of a note
and mortgage” while USB must have been the agent of implied securitized trust.
128. In addition to the above, the body of the complaint failed to plead that USB is acting as trustee and
failed to plead information about of which named trust USB is an agent.
General definition of perjury is making two sworn statements of material fact, which immediately
contradict each other
129. Attorney, Michael Wrona, committed perjury by verifying his complaint for USB and signing attorney’s
affirmation in support of his complaint.
130. At the bottom of the summons it was written, “The law firm of Steven J. Baum, P.C. and the attorneys
whom it employs are debt collectors who are attempting to collect a debt. Any information obtained by them,
will be used for that purpose.
131. That statement implied that attorneys would use due diligence and investigate facts their alleged client,
USB, would submit to them before suing Michael.
Future Impeaches and unravels the Past
132. With deliberate disregard of truth and falsity of statements, Steven J. Baum, P.C. and its attorneys
falsely represented to the court and Michael that Steven J. Baum, P.C. lawfully represents USB when in fact
they knew that they did not and could not lawfully represent USB because of the following.
133. Attached, as Exhibit 4, is my recent search of MERS database (in www.mers-servicerid.org), which
shows that Fairmont Funding, LTD is an investor in my notes and mortgage, which means “as of today,
within 16 years” Fairmont Funding LTD is still the Lender, Creditor and “the owner and holder of a note and
mortgage being foreclosed.”
134. As such, I concluded that Steven J. Baum, P.C. and Elpiniki M. Bechakas knew that information before
making assignment of mortgage and starting foreclosure in 2009.
135. Unfortunately, before this year, I did not know that I can search MERS database without been a
registered user with a password as member bank. Alternatively, MERS could have only recently (in 2019)
allowed general public to use its database without membership, registration and password.
136. Averments below made upon information and belief, drown from Exhibit 4 and other circumstantial
evidence mentioned above
137. Steven J. Baum, P.C. and its attorneys deliberately failed to attach a copy of mortgage, note and
assignment to the 2009 complaint in order not to alert and to deceive the court and I that their foreclosure is
illegal.
138. Indeed, if investor in my notes and mortgage was Fairmont Funding, LTD, there was no securitization,
securitized trust, and of course no USB as trustee in 2009 foreclosure action.
139. Said complaint was never served on me in order to obtain default judgment against me.
140. Affidavit of personal service implied that I lived and was served in Manhattan building through my
relative, John Krichevsky.

141. The problem with this affidavit was that it did not contain any apartment number in the huge Manhattan
building; neither I nor John Krichevsky lived in that building, and there was no John Krichevsky in my family
either.
142. However, Trespassers knew where I worked in Brooklyn, but deliberately failed to serve me there as my
“place of abode.”
143. The second affidavit of personal service on me stated that I was personally served at 4221 Atlantic Ave.,
Brooklyn, NY by attachment of the summons and complaint to the door of the house. The problem with
second affidavit was that there was no door and there was no house to which complaint could be attached.
144. At that time, said house was under reconstruction and had just a foundation.
145. Foreclosing party as plaintiff has the burden of proof of service of process and of standing to foreclose.
146. I successfully rebutted these affidavits of service in court.
147. No Traverse hearing was asked for by USB’s attorneys, Steven J. Baum, P.C., and none took place.
148. I rebutted presumptions of correctness and validity of plaintiff’s name, and its averments in complaint as
follows below.
149. At that time, being ignorant of information in Exhibit 4, I only pointed out to Steven J. Baum, P.C. and
its attorneys the defects (see ¶ 122 – ¶ 129, and ¶ 150) in their foreclosure complaint, but they ignored me and
made no corrections or amendments to this complaint.
150. I demanded a true identity of USB because its name was grammatically gibberish and misleading the
court and I. In ¶ 4 of my motion to dismiss and for sanctions, I wrote:
“4. The Plaintiffs complaint is so vague and ambiguous that I can not reasonably be required to
prepare a responsive pleadings because the complaint fails to attach any document to identify who or
what "US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-F" is; nor can I determine from the Plaintiffs complaint
upon what facts the Plaintiff is claiming to be the real party in interest with legal capacity to pursue
this foreclosure action on a promissory note which is required by the New York State Law. Plaintiff in
Complaint (Exhibit B) does not affirmatively state when it became the owner of mortgage and note.
Nor plaintiff affirmatively states that it is the owner and holder of the mortgage and note. Plaintiff
does not state whom I delivered the mortgage and note and who assigned my instruments to them. No
assignment, mortgage or note attached to the complaint either.”
151. This, in turn, shifted the burden of proof on USB and its attorneys to come with admissible evidence of
correct USB name per CPLR §322 (a) that states: Authority for appearance of attorney in real property action:
“a) Authority of plaintiff's attorney. Where the defendant in an action affecting real property has not
been served with evidence of the authority of the plaintiff's of the attorney to begin the action, he may
move at any time before answering for an order directing the production of such evidence. Any
writing by the plaintiff or his agent requesting the attorney to begin the action or ratifying his conduct
of the action on behalf of the plaintiff is prima facie evidence of the attorney's authority.”
152. USB and Steven J. Baum, P.C. intentionally failed to meet the burden by acting professionally
incompetent and used contrived ignorance of my demands during court hearings and in my affidavit
supporting my motion to dismiss and for sanctions (see ¶ 150).
153. In short, I denied most of USB material allegations in that complaint and I continued denying them until
present.
154. In the writing of my complaint against Trespassers, I also relied on numerous public information sources
and court cases from federal and State courts, which I recently discovered. Some of the sources listed below.
155. From Wikipedia I gathered the following
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008):
“The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, often called the "bank bailout of 2008," was
proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, passed by the 110th United States Congress, and
signed into law by President George W. Bush. The act became law as part of Public Law 110-343 on
October 3, 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis of 2007–08. The law created the $700
billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase toxic assets from banks.”
“American International Group, Inc., also known as AIG, is an American multinational finance and
insurance corporation with operations in more than 80 countries and jurisdictions. During the financial
crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve bailed the company out for $180 billion and assumed control, with
the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission correlating AIG's failure with the mass sales of unhedged
insurance. AIG repaid $205 billion to the United States government in 2012.”‘
156. From case AIG v. Bank of America, Docket No. 12-1640-cv, in Second Circuit Court of Appeals, I
learned the following from ‘findings of fact”:
“Plaintiffs are American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) and its various subsidiaries, which invested
in residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBSs”) that were underwritten, sponsored, or sold by
Defendants. Defendants are Bank of America Corporation (“BOA”) and subsidiaries…” (including
Banc of America Funding Corporation)
“Complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in various fraudulent misrepresentations while
underwriting or sponsoring 349 RMBSs, in which Plaintiffs invested approximately $28 billion,
eventually suffering large losses when the RMBSs fell into default.”
157. From the case MATTER OF BANK OF MELLON, 56 Misc. 3d 210, in NY Supreme Court (2017), I
learned the following from “findings of fact”:

“In June 2011, The Bank of New York Mellon (the trustee) entered into a settlement agreement on
behalf of the covered trusts to resolve allegations that Bank of America Corporation ... breached
certain representations and warranties contained in the pooling and servicing agreements (PSAs) or
sale and servicing agreements and indentures (collectively the governing agreements)for the covered
trusts. Under the settlement agreement, each of the covered trusts is designated to receive a specified
portion (an allocable share) of the $8.5 billion settlement payment.”
158. From website of mainstream media company Pro Publica (https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list) I
gathered that in 2008 Wells Fargo Bank, NA collected bailout sum of $25,000,000,000 for alleged
homeowners defaults on home loans. Also, US Bancorp, parent company of US Bank, NA collected
$6,599,000,000.
159. However, this money was fraudulently obtained from United States and taxpayers, like myself, because
no bank had any losses as a result of defaults of homeowners because Banks did not fund any money.
160. In fact, according to banks’ own admissions of securitization of notes and mortgages, investors from
Wall Street funded the loans to people.
It is logical fallacy and legal absurdity to default on fake, fabricated notes and mortgages
161. Even if, which is not admitted, and stated only for the sake of argument, I did default on the alleged
notes, redacted copies of which were later attached as evidence against me in court, all securitized notes were
insured against default by AIG (insurance company) and/or other third parties and/or scheme( including the
alleged, fabricated notes, which USB and WF attached to several complaints against me). See CIFG ASSUR.
N. AM., INC. v. Bank of Am., NA, 2013 NY Slip Op 51565:
“Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (BOA), Banc of America Funding Corporation (BAFC), and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner& Smith, Inc., formerly known as Banc of America Securities, LLC
(BAS) move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR§§ 3211 (a) (1), and (7), 3016, and 214 (2).
Background
This action concerns two financial guaranty policies CIFG issued in 2006 in which CIFG
guaranteed payments to investors on certain tranches of securities issued in two re-
resecuritization transactions (re-REMICS). Re-REMICs are previously securitized residential
mortgage backed securities transactions (RMBS) that are re-packaged and re-sold, and are typically
comprised of unsold RMBS being held in defendants' inventory of RMBS.
The re-REMICs at issue are Banc of America Funding 2006-R1 (BAFC 2006-R1) and Banc of
America Funding 2006-R2 (BAFC 2006-R2).
In each re-REMIC, the original RMBS are deposited into a trust, and certificates (the
Certificates) representing rights to the cash flows are sold to investors in private placement
transactions. In order to obtain higher credit ratings for the Certificates, a depositor typically
secures financial guaranty insurance, which guarantees the repayment of principal and interest
on certain tranches of the Certificates. The depositor then sells the securities to one or more
underwriters, who market and sellthe securities to investors.
With respect to BAFC 2006-R1, BOA and non-parties served as originator, BOA served as the
seller/sponsor, BAFC andBAMSI served as depositor, BAS served as underwriter, and BOA and other
non-parties served as servicer of the original RMBS. [emphasis mine]
162. As a side note, in above action “Banc of America Funding 2006-R1” is implied name of securitized
trust, which was created in 2006.
Upon information and belief, drawn from my mortgage and several sources of public information such
as case above, my Original Notes, Mortgage and a copy of 2009 Acceleration letter by WF to me were
submitted as undisclosed to me “proof of claim” into insurance carrier’s claim file of my alleged
default. This is why Trespassers always redacted “loan number” and “MIN number” in court filings to
avoid been sued by insurance carrier for fraud, but which are still present in City Register’s file
163. In my case, Trespassers implicated that my “securitized notes” belonged to a trust named as “Banc of
America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-F,” which, by implication,
was too created in 2006.
164. As such, my alleged default have been covered by AIG and/or CIFG ASSUR. N. AM., INC or other
similar entity from Wall Street.
165. Trespassers knew or should have known about insurance policy claim by lender or owner of the note
and mortgage covering my alleged default, but deceitfully failed to disclose this information to the court and I.
166. It was a business model on Wall Street to issue Personal Mortgage Insurance (PMI) and other coverage
“in order to obtain higher credit ratings for the Certificates,” which a depositor typically secured by financial
guaranty insurance, which in turn guaranteed the repayment of principal and interest.”
167. In addition, investors, trusts and banks later claimed bailouts, deductions of alleged losses and/or credits
as REMICs on their corporate or personal income tax.
168. Notwithstanding the information in Exhibit 4, since USB and WF were reimbursed by United States and
taxpayers for their alleged losses, Trespassers had no right to start any foreclosure because their alleged losses
were already set-off.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Exculpatory Facts, Law and/or Circumstantial Evidence in my favor.
169. In USB’s 2009 foreclosure complaint against me, it failed and later refused to plead damages as result of
my alleged default.
170. Even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of argument, I indeed defaulted not on their
alleged, fabricated note and mortgage (which I denied signing), but on the real notes, USB and WF were not
harmed by my alleged default since the alleged defaulted amount was covered as part of these billions of
dollars that these banks received from United States and taxpayers like myself.
171. As such, even If I breached contract and did defaulted, USB and WF with no losses, should have no
claim in 2009 against my property by operation of contract law. See Wenger v. Alidad, 265 AD 2d 322 in NY
Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. (1999) where it explained, “While it is undisputed that the defendant Washington
Mutual Bank made several errors in regard to the plaintiff's refinancing transaction, the plaintiff cannot
prevail on a breach of contract theory unless he sustained actual damages as a natural and probable
consequence of such breach.”
It is logical fallacy and legal impossibility to default on non-existing debt and on fabricated notes and
mortgage with forged signatures
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts and Circumstantial Evidence in my
favor.
172. The Constitution requires pleading injury in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Without injury
the party is not entitled to judgment no matter how many assignments presented in court.
173. Controlling precedents in federal court is Warth v Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), Bell Atl. Corp, v
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed 2d 929 (2007).
174. If USB does not say it have been injured in some way then USB cannot invoke the power of the judicial
system, "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice..." Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. ed. 868
(2009).
175. "To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege "more than labels [e.g. “owner and holder"] and
conclusion, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do..." Bell Atl. Corp, v
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed 2d 929 (2007).
176. During my prior litigation in State courts, I pointed out to attorneys of necessity to claim some losses or
injury-in-fact in order to plead standing to foreclose.

177. Damages or loss is a necessary element of cause of action for breach of any contract, including on the
loan.
178. Without damage or loss, Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted and
complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, unless Plaintiff amends it by claiming damages.
179. I demanded that attorneys pleaded every element of breach of contract and produce evidentiary proof in
support of each element of breach of contract.
180. I contested the balance due, the identity of the creditor, but trespassers hindered and delayed resolution
of these issues. These issues left unresolved from 2009.
181. This lawsuit will resolve these issues.
182. Attorneys knew the law, “Injury-in-fact is a necessary element on breach of contract cause of action.”
183. Alerted by me and having enough time and opportunity to correct said complaint(s), USB, WF, and its
attorneys from Steven J. Baum, P.C., FRENKEL, WOODS and REED refused to do so, while other attorneys
in concert deliberately disregarded prior attorneys’ defects in the complaints and their refusal to correct them.
184. Trespassers in concert, willfully and with deliberate disregard to truth and falsity of their statements
under oath filed in courts in several foreclosure complaints, motions with attorneys’ affirmations, affidavits,
etc. including trespassers’ knowledge of fabricated assignments, notes and mortgages with my forged
signatures continued harassing me by mailing me said documents and by arguing said false information in
court.
185. Even though in my opposing paperwork I continued to object and alert all defendants about their fraud
upon the court by officers of the court and I, trespassers knowingly, in concert failed and refused to address or
controvert, upon my demand, my averments and willfully continued litigation in state and federal courts.
186. The reason why trespassers refused to claim damages in their complaints and motions on the record is to
avoid discovery and production of books and records, which I negatively inferred they didn’t have.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts and Circumstantial Evidence in my
favor.
187. In addition, by filing a foreclosure complaint against me, USB and WF violated bailout settlements with
United States.
188. These banks and its agents did not have genuine note and mortgage to start foreclosure. To overcome
this problem, USB or WF, or someone else, but with USB and WF knowledge of said problem, started “after-
the-fact” evidence tempering and fabrication of notes and mortgages tailored to deceive the court and I in
order to convince us that USB is lawful holder of my genuine notes and mortgage in continuing conspiracy
and fraud upon the court, United States and I.
189. My averments above were never controverted or rebutted by any defendant in this action, even though I
demanded that they controvert or rebut said averments.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts and Evidence.
190. In 2010, WF was under investigation by State and Federal law enforcement authorities for fraudulent
foreclosure practice. Thereafter, WF signed consent judgment and paid fines as part of the settlement with
United States and State of New York.
191. From Washington Post articles “Wells Fargo foreclosure manual under fire,” “The manual, reviewed by
The Washington Post,” outlines steps for obtaining the “missing” document after the bank has initiated
foreclosure proceedings. It also lays out what lawyers must do in the event of a “lost note” or if there is no
documentation showing the history of who owned the loan – paperwork the bank should already have to
foreclose.
Attorneys knowingly acted in violation of Warth v. Seldin and New York State Judiciary law §487,
which is a crime of misdemeanor.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts and Evidence in my favor.
192. Specifically, in my 2009 foreclosure case and subsequent ones, USB, WF and its alleged attorneys, all in
concert, relied on attorney, Elpiniki M. Bechakas, who created and/or signed her mortgage assignment
(Exhibit 3).
193. In March 14, 2007, Per New York State Banking Department Bulletin, Fairmont Funding, LTD, alleged
original lender, surrendered its License to engage in the business of a Mortgage Banker.
194. As such, on March 14, 2007, Fairmont ceased to exist and I am confident that no evidence to the
contrary existed.
195. When Fairmont ceased to exist in 2007, its power of attorney (POA) nominating MERS in any capacity
ceased to exist in 2007 too. Accordingly, POA of dissolved entity could not survive nomination of MERS to
assign anything.
196. Upon information and belief, Fairmont did not have any assignees or successors either and I am
confident that no evidence to the contrary existed.
197. Said assignment contained false information.
198. Said assignment was unauthorized.
199. MERS did not authorize Elpiniki M. Bechakas to create and sign said assignment.
200. Said assignment was fictitious in that it was illegally created to appear as lawful, authorized assignment
from MERS, but it was not.
201. At the time of creation of said assignment by Elpiniki M. Bechakas, she was not employee or agent of
MERS, or Secretary or Vice President of MERS.
202. In 2009, Elpiniki M. Bechakas was attorney employed by Steven J. Baum, P.C. and/or Pillar Processing
Inc. owned by Steven J. Baum, P.C.
203. Even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of argument, Elpiniki M. Bechakas was
authorized by MERS to create and sign said assignment, which of course she was not, the assignment was
void because it was not in compliance with MERS’ manual rules and/or policy of assigning mortgages using
MERS computer system.
204. In 2009, at the time of creation of said assignment, MERS, as nominee of Fairmont, did not have
authority from Fairmont to assign anything because Fairmont was defunct from 2007 and had neither
assignees, nor successors.
205. According to USB, WF and its alleged attorneys from Steven J. Baum, P.C., including Elpiniki M.
Bechakas, in 2006, Fairmont sold all its rights to my alleged debt, notes and mortgage into securitized trust
holding and owning my alleged notes and mortgage by way of “mortgage-pass-through certificates series
2006 F”(See ¶113).
206. “2006 F” means that securitized trust was created in 2006.

207. Therefore, Elpiniki M. Bechakas knew or should have known that neither MERS nor Fairmont had any
authority to assign anything concerning my title to property without authorization from implied trust, which
she did not have.
208. Said assignment was designed to cover up the fact that USB and WF did not and could not show in court
a chain of title from 2005 until 2009 between Fairmont, implied trust and USB.
209. Said assignment was designed to appear and support mentioned above fabricated notes and mortgage,
which USB, WF and its alleged attorneys claimed that I signed.
210. Alternatively, if alleged securitized trust was the owner and holder of my note and mortgage, there was
no reason, and therefore no authorization from said trust to Steven J. Baum, P.C. and Bechakas to assign
mortgage from Fairmont to USB, which is why trespassers refused to disclose information about implied trust.
Future proves past – 2009, 2014, 2016 and 2019 foreclosure lawsuits using fraudulent assignments were
illegal – The “I Assigned Your Property To Myself” Scheme and Scam by Trespassers
211. The facts pleaded herein, all came from a) those Defendants’ documents that they mailed me during the
period starting in 2009 and continuing to present; and b) that were filed with the Kings County Supreme Court
and City Register from 2009 to present; and c) as compared to the other documents that are matters of public
record, and which were filed in the Kings County Supreme Court, New York County Supreme Court from
2009 to 2019; and d) Federal Courts in New York; and e) from numerous websites publishing foreclosure
related information.
212. NOTICE of zero tolerance to the one who will represent Defendants and file motion to dismiss my
complaint for failure to state a claim, etc.
213. With deliberate disregard to knowledge of illegality of their actions, Defendants Steven J. Baum and
Elpiniki M. Bechakas conspired in 2009 to fabricate assignment using MERS’ name reserved for member
banks in order to “boost” credibility of unauthorized by MERS fraudulent assignments in City Register,
despite the fact that Elpiniki M. Bechakas and Steven J. Baum have never insured my title, acted as
underwriters of my debt, or lent me a penny.
214. The way this scheme worked discovered and described in already adjudicated and admitted facts in
lawsuit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. PATRICK JOSEPH SORIA, et al, index No.: 2:18-cv-03041-
DSF-RAO in United States District Court, Central District of California:
“Q: [Y]ou didn't fund a single loan; correct?

A: No. Didn't fund a single loan.
Q: [Y[ou were a complete stranger to this loan; correct?
A: Yeah. Sure. …
Q: [T]he assignment, who drafted it?
A: The assignment deed of trust, I wrote that. …
Q: Were you authorized by anyone other than yourself to assign this deed of trust?
A: No. (From transcript of Patrick Soria, Person Most Knowledgeable for West H&A and Warranted,
Pgs. 171: 11-18; 172: 1-25;86:22-24; 101:24- 25; 253:3-5.)”
Elpiniki M. Bechakas and Steven J. Baum perpetrated fraud upon the court by officers of the court and
committed perjury in court
215. As a side note, Patrick Soria was imprisoned for this crime.
216. Amassing, but true is how easy the scam of USB, WF, Elpiniki M. Bechakas and Steven J. Baum, with
intent to enrich themselves, created the assignment of mortgage (Exhibit 3) in 2009 foreclosure against me.
217. If Elpiniki M. Bechakas and Steven J. Baum had authority from MERS and used its computer system,
then information in Exhibit 4 from my recent MERS search would have shown investor’s name USB (per
assignment) or, at least, some name of securitized trust. However, information in Exhibit 4 showed Fairmont
as “investor,” which would be conclusively the lawful owner and holder of note and mortgage.
218. In contradiction to the false notarized assignment (see Exhibit 3) claiming that Elpiniki M. Bechakas
assigned my mortgage from Fairmont to USB in 2009, the real record (Exhibit 4) still shows that investor is
Fairmont.
219. According to Exhibit 4, Elpiniki M. Bechakas never lawfully assigned my mortgage to USB and USB
was never the owner and holder of my note and mortgage – contrary to every legal document filed by
attorneys in court from 2009 until present time.
220. Amassing, how easy she “assigned my property to herself” or to other undisclosed, shadow entity using
City Register and personal computer.
221. Fact, attorneys have a duty of due diligence to verify the facts presented by the client.
222. However, nobody from trespassers asked each other for any authorization from MERS, WF or USB to
create assignments, file them in court and City Register.
223. No trespasser attempted to stop this illegal foreclosures against me or dropped the client.
224. Therefore, I inferred that trespassers conspired with each other to enrich themselves using false
pretenses and corrupted judges Noach Dear and Elizabeth S. Stong.
225. This assignment was not sent and/or recorded in MERS system using its policy and software program.
226. According to MERS’ check list (Assessment of Compliance with the MERS System Requirement) said
assignment was not in compliance, and therefore would not and was not recorded in MERS system.
227. New York City Register shows the following information regarding purported assignment of mortgage
in 2009, Exhibit 3:
ASSIGNOR/OLD LENDER:
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
3300 SW 34TH AVENUE, SUITE 101.
OCALA, FL 34474
ASSIGNEE/NEW LENDER:
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
180 EAST 5TH STREET
ST. PAUL, MN 55101
PARTIES
ASSIGNOR/OLD LENDER:
FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD
3300 SW 34TH AVENUE, SUITE 101
OCALA, FL 34474
228. Upon information and belief derived from other court cases and per my personal investigation neither
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., nor FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD were
located at the same Florida’s address.
229. Upon information and belief discussed above, my case was on a class member list, which law
enforcement reviewed since Steven J. Baum, P.C. abandoned foreclosure against me in 2010.
230. Particularly, in numerous cases that Steven J. Baum, P.C. handled and in my case, at that time,
undisclosed employees from said firm permitted and rented their names to unidentified people who were
fabricating, inter alia, notarized assignments and used said employee name to sign those assignments.
Investigation revealed that one such employee, Elpiniki M. Bechakas Esq., turned out to be the attorney of
Steven J. Baum, P.C. and Pillar Processing LLC while falsely claiming that she is Assistant Secretary and
Vice President" of MERS.

231. She or other employees of Steven J. Baum, P.C. and Pillar Processing LLC using her name created and
notarized countless fraudulent assignments including assignment of my mortgage.
232. Below is a snapshot of a copy of MERS CHECKLIST required to be used in order to create a lawful,
authorized assignment. This check list unravels the fraud in creation of assignment purportedly made by
Elpiniki Bechakas. This check list shows that this purported assignment of my mortgage was not in
compliance with MERSCORP operating manual.
233. Said assignment did not have any mandatory, identifiable by MERS MIN number, and therefore
incriminate itself and void.
234. This checklist suggests that assignment in question was not registered and made using MERS database
and its proprietary software preparation system.
235. Creation of this assignment by Bechakas is outright criminal fabrication of securities.
236. I took the Liberty to fill in this form on behalf of imaginary Elpiniki Bechakas to demonstrate this
criminal fraud. This is what I show is wrong with her alleged assignment:
“ASSIGNMENT FROM MERS CHECKLIST

Member Name: Org ID: MISSING
MERSCORP Holdings Integrator: MISSING
In what state(s) will this assignment be used? New York
Assessment of compliance with the MERs® system requirements:
YES - NO -
# Review Item
compl does
1 The assignment contains a MIN (or the location for the MIN is evident). ies not
NO
2 The assignment contains the SIS Number (888-679-6377 or 888-679-MERS). compl
NO
(If the assignment contains an address for MERS) The address for MERS is P.O. NOy
3
Box 2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026.
4 MERS's name is spelled out as “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.”
MERS is referred to as mortgagee (if SI is a mortgage), beneficiary (if SI is a deed NO
5
of trust), or grantee (if SI is a security deed).
If MERS is referred to as a nominee, the language “its successors and assigns”
6
appears after the named lender.
MERS is not referred to as any of the following: servicer, lender, investor, NO
7
beneficial owner, note owner, trustee, or financial institution.
The assignment does not contain note transfer language (e.g. “together with the
8
note/indebtedness”).
9 The assignment does not contain an effective date differing from the date of
10 The assignment does not use the word execution.
“sells” to describe the action being taken
by MERS.
The assignment does not refer to the interest being assigned by MERS as the
11
“beneficial interest.”
The assignment is prepared for signature by an Assistant Secretary, Assistant NO
12
Vice President or Vice President of MERS.
*If assignment is for use in indiana, Pennsylvania, New York or Mississippi, replace number 3 with:
YES - NO -
# Review Item
compl does
The address for MERS is 1901 E. Voorhees St., Suite C, Danville, IL 61834; P.O. Box ies not
NO
3
2026, Flint, MI 48501-2026. compl
y
*If the assignment is for use in Washington, Oregon or Montana, replace number 5 with:
YES - NO -
# Review Item
comp does
MERS is not referred to as beneficiary, but is instead referred to as nominee of lies not
5
the beneficiary and beneficiary's successors and assigns. comply
Additional Comments by integrator:
DISCLAIMER: MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. make no
representations, covenants or warranties regarding the legal enforceability or effect of the document(s) to which this
review pertains. This is solely a review for compliance with the requirements of the MERS® System, which are found
in the MERS® System Rules of Membership and MERS® System Procedures Manual. The results of this review
notwithstanding, each MERS® System member is responsible for ensuring that its documents comply with the MERS®
System requirements.”
237. Using this form and comparing assignment in question, I have found at least 9 defects, which make me
to infer that purported assignment a) was not made by “Member Name: Org ID” as it is MISSING on
assignment; and b) MERSCORP Holdings Integrator is MISSING. Accordingly no “integrator” participated
in this assignment.
238. In addition, I have counted 7 “NO” when even one “NO” would make assignment defective and void if
it was done officially with MERS approval and registration in its database.
239. Obviously, Elpiniki Bechakas did not know that if assignment made for use in New York, MERS’
address on assignment should be “1901 E. Voorhees St., Suite C, Danville, IL 61834; P.O. Box 2026, Flint,
MI 48501-2026,” instead of fictitious 3300 SW 34th Ave, suite 101, Ocala, FL 34474 used by her.
240. Bechakas did not make her assignment using MERS system.
241. These defects in assignment suggest that Elpiniki Bechakas or other individual a) was not authorized by
MERS to do my assignment, b) Bechakas did not know how to make a real assignment, hence so many
defects in fabrication of it, and c) MERS’ name on assignment was used without its knowledge to create a
fraud upon the court and I by Steven J. Baum, P.C and its attorneys.
242. Instead of routinely complying with CPLR §322 (a) and continue foreclosure action, Steven J. Baum,
P.C. went silent for about 2 years.
243. Steven J. Baum, P.C. did not voluntarily serve me with “Any writing by the plaintiff or his agent
requesting the attorney to begin the action or ratifying his conduct of the action on behalf of the plaintiff
(purportedly USB).
244. Steven J. Baum, P.C. refused to provide this evidence.
245. Indeed, all I asked of Steven J. Baum, P.C. was to clarify and identify whom or what USB is and why it
suing me.
246. As such, by silence, nonproduction of the proof authority from implied trust and fake assignment of
mortgage, USB, WF, Steven J. Baum, P.C. and its attorneys admitted by contrived ignorance that they
willfully violated FDCPA and committed crimes against me per 18 USC 242.
247. As result of silence, nonproduction and lack of action on USB’s part, 2009 foreclosure case was
dismissed in August 1, 2013 for failure to prosecute and lis pendants was canceled by supervising Judge
Knipel.
248. As such, common-law tort of malicious prosecution aroused because this action ended in my favor.
249. After 2009 complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute, Steven J. Baum, P.C. transferred this case
to FRENKEL without notice of substitution of attorneys to me.
250. Steven J. Baum, P.C., FRENKEL, WOODS and REED did not have any writings to show “prima facie
evidence of the attorney's authority” to represent USB, conduct foreclosure, since no verification of any
complaint by USB’s employee was made and I am confident that no evidence to the contrary existed.
251. Therefore, Steven J. Baum, P.C., FRENKEL WOODS and REED and attorneys knew or had duty to
know that these firms were estopped and forbidden from conducting foreclosure on their own behalf.
Yet another harassment by Wells Fargo
252. In September 2011, WF harassed me by sending some thugs who broke the gate with lock on my
property triggering call to 911, after which these thugs apologized and said that they sought the property was
abandoned, which was a lie.
253. I am aware of several instances where WF sent some thugs who in the absence of homeowner “cleaned
up” the house in daylight. With this “cleaning,” homeowners lost all their belongings and upon return found
that the locks were changed. Later on, WF would tell the police that this “cleaning” was made by mistake.
Needless to say, that homeowners then were unable to continue defense to foreclosure.
254. Shortly thereafter, WF posted sign on my gate that agent inspected my property and determined that it
was vacant. That in turn forced me to write WF a letter with qualified written request “QWR.” In it, I asked,
besides other things, for a copy of note and mortgage, if they have it.
255. In addition, I asked that the reply to this letter be sent to my notary’s address so that the notary will
witness receipt or absence of the receipt from WF. My notary never received anything from WF.
256. This letter was sent by certified mail return receipt requested.
2014 – 2016 foreclosure litigation – continuing harassment, malicious prosecution, trespasser’s fraud
and deceit
257. In January 2014, USB, allegedly hired FRENKEL to restore foreclosure action to calendar and for order
of reference. Supporting affirmation now stated different facts from facts of USB in 2009 foreclosure
complaint and wanted to change plaintiff’s name contrary to doctrine of judicial estoppels.
258. According to affidavit of merit filed in state court, WF accelerated my mortgage note on May1, 2009.
259. This fact will become material and relevant in 2016 round of foreclosure and beyond.
260. Once again, still undisclosed interloper and meddler who learned the lesson from prior lost action,
changed the name of USB on the caption without order of court and forced me to defend my property and
myself against new false accusations by filing cross-motion to dismiss foreclosure action.
261. Once again, I rebutted correctness of identity of USB, all attorneys’ sworn statements, newly fabricated
exhibits of notes and mortgage, and so-called “corrective assignment” of mortgage, Exhibit 2.
262. That “corrective assignment” was not made by MERS as well, had similar defects as the first one, and
therefore was void for the same reasons as the first one (Exhibit 3).
263. The court could not ratify it as well. There will be more about “corrective assignment” below.
264. All attorneys from FRENKEL knew or had duty to know that by operation of law, they must file
counter-affidavit or my affidavit stands as fact and truth defeating motion filed by them.
265. Again, according to doctrine of judicial estoppels, I rebutted presumptions of validity of each document.
266. This, in turn, shifted burden of proof on USB and its new attorneys to come with admissible evidence
per CPLR §322 (a).
267. Knowing CPLR §322 (a), trespassers intentionally failed to meet the burden using contrived ignorance
of duty to disclose identity of the client.
268. As such, I made a negative inference that FRENKEL did not have POA from USB to conduct
foreclosure, and conducting it on their own behalf, which is illegal.
269. In this new USB foreclosure round, attorneys came up with CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT made in
2013 purportedly correcting Scrivener's Error.
270. However, because first assignment was void as fraudulent transaction, second assignment could not
correct first fraudulent transaction made in 2009.
271. Trespassers failed to explain or answer my question, “Why WF did not make a new assignment since
first was void or needed immediate correction” Exactly! Good question!
272. Upon information and belief, the unknown to me interloper could not find anyone with authority from
MERS to lawfully make a new, lawful assignment of mortgage.
273. Therefore, interloper(s) using contrived ignorance of void first assignment of mortgage decided to
“correct Scrivener's Error” and present “repackaged” void assignment as lawful to court and I.
274. In that round of foreclosure, I demanded to see an original note, which attorneys claimed was in their
possession.
275. One of the attorneys of the firm appeared in open court and presented to me an alleged original note.
276. After examination of the note, I found that my signature was mechanically forged and that it was
redacted using “whiteout” in the area for stamps and signatures
277. The paper was freshly white after all these years. I also found undated rubber stamps with rubber
signatures on that note made to order of Wells Fargo Bank from Wells Fargo Bank “transferring” alleged note
to itself, which was obvious absurdity.
278. Since the was no date of stamps and signatures, USB could not prove that it acquired notes before the
date of foreclosure
279. Thereafter, I filed amended cross-motion to dismiss where I added my newly discovered facts and the
new main argument written below:
“Upon the court’s and my examination of the purported note produced by alleged owner, original
owner sold its purported claim and note “without recourse” to, in my belief, undisclosed debt
buyer for pennies on the dollar. “Without recourse” indicates to the court and debt buyer that no
claim can later be made against the original owner (purported holder of the authenticated note
and mortgage) as to authenticity and/or legality of the claim and note. In addition, I discovered
together with the court, note contain an area, which was “white out” thereby hiding other
endorsement, which would be a notice and reason why it was sold “Without recourse” to the
buyer. As the saying goes, “buyers beware.”
“I move this Honorable court to take mandatory judicial notice that this note is redacted (“white
out”), or used before, and therefore altered and void just like any bank check would be.”
“Alternatively, upon circumstantial evidence and logic, I believe that undisclosed debt buyer
purchased an evidence of debt, or fabricated it, and is proceeding with collection activity
posturing as original Plaintiff with the ownership of original note. Accordingly, I rebutted
presumption of document’s authenticity and legality of the claim against me and demand proof
from Plaintiff.”
280. It was the third time when opposing attorneys violated CPLR §322(a), did not rebut above quoted
averments and went silent using contrived ignorance of duty to disclose identity of the client. To pierce it, in
my cross-motion to dismiss I wrote:
“NOTICE TO FRENKEL LUMBERT WEISS WEISMAN & GORDON, LLP AND ALL
ATTORNEYS
12. As pet Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 NY 3d 8 - NY Court of Appeals (2009) you are in violation of
Judiciary Law § 487.
The court stated:
"The purpose of the statute is to "enforce an attorney's special obligation to protect the integrity of the
courts and foster their truth-seeking function."
"A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 may be established " either by the defendant's alleged deceit or by
an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant"
281. In my cross-motion to dismiss, I also requested trial by jury in order to call employee of USB to the
witness stand and to dismiss this action with prejudice.
282. In reply, trespassers filed cross-motion to discontinue action and during scheduled pre-trial conference,
attorney from FRENKEL essentially begged me to let them save their face and that they (USB) will never
bother me again.
283. I had an alternative action by going on trial and dismissing the action with prejudice.
284. I was naïve and relied on this promise in open court, and did not oppose that motion.
285. FRENKEL’s motion to dismiss was granted on January 6, 2016 by Hon. Bert Bunyan.
286. Additionally, in my quest to meet the rightful owner of the note and settle controversy with my
counterclaims, on or about March of 2015, I sent rescission letter to WF.
287. By operation of law, WF had 20 days to challenge my rescission in federal court.
288. WF, using contrived ignorance, only sent me acknowledgment of my letter and later defaulted, which
would be another res judicata.
289. Because of that, I realized that this foreclosure is unconscionable since attorneys involved refused to
correct their false statements, mistakes or errors on the record.
290. It would be unjust in the court of equity to allow some interloper who made false representations in
court to retain the fruits of my life’s labor.
2016 – 2019 foreclosure lawsuit – Supreme Court Kings County Index No 506127/2016 – continuing
harassment, malicious prosecution, fraud, deceit, violation of FDCPA and RICO despite Double Res
Judicata.
291. According to common law, WOODS committed barratry, a crime of instigating controversy and
profiting from it while Federal law, inter alia, calls it RICO.
292. Attorneys Munian, Jablonski and Wildermuth appeared in that court.
293. Attorneys knew due to my notice to them that 6 years statutes of limitation to collect on a debt run in
2015.
294. Attorneys knew or had duty to know the law stated below.
295. In Marrero v. Crystal Nails, 114 AD 3d 101 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. (2013) the court held:
"CPLR 205 (a) provides that when an action is dismissed on grounds other than voluntary
discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute, or a final judgment on the
merits, the plaintiff may bring a new action within six months of the dismissal, even though the
action would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations” [emphasis mine]
296. 2009 action was dismissed for neglect to prosecute and 2014-2016 action was dismissed by voluntary
discontinuance. As such, per state law above and common law it was Double Res Judicata.
297. This Honorable Court should take Judicial Notice about this New York law and the fact that Judge
Bunyan granted motion of Plaintiff, USB, to discontinue foreclosure action against Michael and that it was
granted on January 6, 2016.
298. Upon information and belief, trespassers filed motion to discontinue because they knew or had duty to
know that MIN number of alleged note and mortgage had status “Inactive,” and therefore were afraid to go on
trial for fear to be publicly humiliated and exposed by me.
299. Alternatively, trespassers committed fraud upon the court and Michael, and breach of contract when
they in open court negotiated voluntary discontinuance without Michael’s opposition or trial.
300. The reason that trespassers defrauded the court and Michael this way, was that they wanted to switch
judges – from honest and honorable Judge Bunyan to dishonest and corrupt judge Dear and continue their
crimes against Michael, which is exactly what happened.
301. New York Unified Court System’s rules published on its website in section Affidavit in Support of
motion says the following:
“The Affidavit should say:

what is being asked for and why
the facts about the case
whether or not the movant has ever asked the court for this before, and if so, what happened
and why the movant is asking again.” [Emphasis mine]
302. In this 2016 case, movant was USB. Because it is legal fiction, some employee with authority and
competence to verify complaint must sign verification in order for the complaint to be valid.
303. Upon my personal investigation of foreclosure mills, no bank’s employee ever verified complaint, which
is also the case in all 3 Rounds of foreclosure.
304. I wrote in my affidavit in opposition at that time:
“Alleged Plaintiff’s motion for order of reference, which is second after 2013, too does not have
movant’s affidavit in support from USB.”
“Current Plaintiff s attorney, Victoria E. Munian. Esq., writes in the certificate of merit:
"1.I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of New York, and am affiliated
with the law firm of Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, attorney for plaintiff U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee for Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-F in this action."
She further writes: "On April 6. 2016 I consulted about the facts of this case with the following
representatives of plaintiff: Daniel V. Edward. Vice President of Loan Documentation."
“Prior to producing my answer with counterclaim, in good faith, I called Victoria E. Munian.
Esq. at her office and attempted to inform her about the history of prior fraudulent litigation, its
outcome and about other issues I raised herein. After a few minutes into our conversation, she
abruptly ended it after I started talking about plaintiff’s identity.
On March 1, 2017, I called WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP. and asked receptionist for
information about US Bank. No one could find any information such as name, mailing address or
telephone number of Plaintiff in firm's computer system.
Another staff member directed me to call Wells Fargo at 800-416-1472. No one at this number
was able to help me and worker there directed me to call Wells Fargo at 866-234-8271. No one
at that number would identify Plaintiff and give me any contact information.
Based on the foregoing, I aver that U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. AS TRUSTEE
FOR BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006F does not exist, and therefore demand its articles of
organization or formation together with information from the federal territory or state under
which it registered.”
.
305. In addition, Munian committed perjury by writing in her certificate of merit that USB asked for order of
reference for the first time, when she knew (from Michael) or should have known that FRENKEL already
asked for such order and later dismissed the foreclosure.
306. Thereafter I wrote:
“NOTICE: Victoria Munian, Esq. you must rebut this affidavit point for point and/or should
contact your licensed attorney for advice on how to report this case to your professional liability
insurance carrier”
307. Once again, trespassers brazenly refused to provide evidence of authority from USB in violation of
CPLR §322(a). At this point, I pierced contrived, willful ignorance of crimes committed by attorney Munian
and demonstrated on the record that she committed perjury because she failed to rebut my affidavit point for
point. Now, she was/is judicially estopped to change her testimony.
308. Upon information and belief, Victoria Munian, Esq. after above notice to her, quit working at WOODS
and moved to Georgia to save her attorney license.
309. Upon information and belief, Jablonski and Wildermuth replaced Munian right after she quit. They
continued WOODS harassment, fraud upon the court by officers of the court until 2019.
310. Miranda L. Sharlette a/k/a Miranda Jakubec committed perjury in court by certifying that she examined
original note and mortgage and that the copies of them are exactly the same.
311. What she examined, if she even did, were redacted copies of the fabricated note and mortgage. These
redacted copies did not have “MERS MIN” number and “loan number” on them and were filed in court by
somebody from WOODS.

312. Miranda L. Sharlette knew that without said numbers, note and mortgage were fake, unidentifiable,
fabricated copies.
313. Indeed, since the exact copies of the “originals” were redacted, then the copies of “originals” were
redacted as well, which would be an absurdity and Miranda L. Sharlette knew it.
314. In addition, she had conflict of interest, by self-serving certification of her employer’s work for a client,
in violation of advocate – witness rule of NYRPC, and she knew it.
315. Unfortunately, in 2009, I did not discover the “I assigned your mortgage to myself” scam, nor anybody
else known to me discovered it. It was not until 2019 that I discovered it when I filed complaint against WF
with Inspector General of FHFA and said complaint was transferred to CFPB. On the website of CFPB, I
discovered its finished litigation case leading to NATIONSTAR vs. SORIA discussed above.
316. In addition, due to my complaint to FHFA, I received “a jaw dropping,” self-incriminating admissions
and documentary evidence from WF, which was never presented in any courts’ foreclosure litigation by WF
and its alleged attorneys, Exhibit 5.
More evidence of fraud upon the court and I by WF and its employees from 2009 until present
317. Notwithstanding the fact that from 2009 until 2019, USB and WF refused to provide identity of the real
owner and holder of my note and mortgage, WF finally “revealed” to CFPB that it “owner and holder” of my
original note and mortgage by fabricating yet another note and mortgage and certifying copies of it to CFPB.
318. These copies had different stamps and signatures and there was no mentioning of USB anywhere on this
copies.
319. Exhibit 5 shows that employee of WF, Kelly Duncan, in complete disregard to truth and falsity of her
statement to CFPB and Michael, made the following false and misleading statement in court:
“Origination concerns
This adjustable rate account was opened on December 14, 2005, with Fairmont Funding LTD, and
secured by the purchase of property located at 4221 Atlantic Ave, Brookl3m, NY 11224. We
purchased the account on January 09, 2006. [emphasis is mine]
320. Kelly Duncan made this court’s statement (CFPB) in complete disregard to her knowledge that alleged
debt paid off and WF cannot claim that I owe money to USB.
321. Kelly Duncan wrote to CFPB “We purchased the account on January 09, 2006” in order to deceive the
court by implying that WF is not a debt collector per FDCPA because it collects the debt for “itself,” when in
bankruptcy court WF and its attorneys stated that WF is the servicer, which is a debt collector.
322. This statement was in immediate contradiction to information from Exhibit 4 showing that Fairmont is
the investor (creditor), and therefore WF did not and could not “purchased the account on January 09, 2006.”
323. This statement is also contradicted numerous implied statements in other courts by USB and its
attorneys since 2009 that it is trustee of securitized trust that supposedly holds the note and mortgage.
324. This statement is also contradicted numerous statements of USB and its attorneys that Bechakas
assigned my mortgage from Fairmont to USB without any mentioning of WF.
325. Assignments (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) were used as part of proof of claim in support of standing in my
Chapter 11 case by USB, WF and its attorneys.
326. “We purchased the account on January 09, 2006” immediately contradicted the “USB is the
owner and holder of a note and mortgage” by USB and its attorneys in every foreclosure case against
me.
327. Her statement and Exhibit 4 also contradicted the statement that “USB is creditor” by USB’ attorneys in
bankruptcy court.
328. This statement and Exhibit 4 also revealed that USB, WF, and attorneys made false “representation to
the court” pursuant to FRBP 9011.
329. Kelly Duncan also wrote to to the court (CFPB):
“Foreclosure on the account

We've determined the account was handled properly and no corrections are needed as no error has
occurred. We'd like to provide you with more information about our resolution.
Here's what we've found
A letter dated December 22, 2015, was sent to you advising that the loan was delinquent in the
amount of $263,193.58 and this amount needed to be paid by January 26, 2016, or the account
could be accelerated.” [Emphasis mine]
330. Kelly Duncan, in order to deceive the court, deliberately failed to admit that WF accelerated alleged debt
in 2009, filed foreclosure in 2009 in State court and then voluntarily withdrew complaint in 2016 due to lack
of evidence of standing of USB and that WF is attempting to collect time-barred debt.

331. Kelly Duncan knew that no letter was sent to me “dated December 22, 2015” and that WF failed to
submit it in 2016 illegal foreclosure by WOODS.
332. “We purchased the account on January 09, 2006” impeached and unraveled the POC (form 410) as
follows:
“Part 1: Identify the Claim

1. Who is the current creditor?
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-F
Name of the current creditor (the person or entity to be paid for this claim)
Other names the creditor used with the debtor
2. Has this claim been acquired from someone else x No

□ yes. From whom?
333. By filling in form 410 and placing X next to “No” in POC, Fugate from WOODS deliberately failed to
mention that alleged claim was “purchased from Fairmont on January 9, 2006 by WF,” which statement also
deliberately contradicted information in Exhibit 4 showing that Fairmont is still the creditor according to
MERS system.
334. If trespassers stated in proof of claim that USB purchased the claim from somebody else, then
trespassers would have to prove it, but they knew that they could not because of fraud upon the court by
officer of the court unraveled by Exhibit 4.
335. As a result, I have made an inference that Steven J. Baum, P.C. in an effort to avoid complying with
CPLR §322 (a) deliberately failed to get verification of complaint by any officer or employee of USB because
USB did not give POA to Steven J. Baum, P.C. to start foreclosure against me.
336. Therefore, purported assignment of my mortgage in 2009 was unauthorized, fraudulent transaction or
conveyance made by Steven J. Baum, P.C and Bechakas to conduct fraudulent foreclosure on its own behalf.
337. This fact is relevant and material because it is strike toward validity of purported mortgage assignment
by MERS purportedly made on August 25, 2009 when in fact MERS ceased to exist as nominee for Fairmont
in 2007.
338. Following the same logical thinking, I inferred that USB did not or could not give power of attorney
(POA) to Steven J. Baum, P.C. to conduct foreclosure. I believe that MERS did not or could not give POA to
Steven J. Baum, P.C. to create an assignment of mortgage in 2009 and I am confident that no evidence to the
contrary existed.
339. Alternatively, I believe that MERS and USB were not even aware that Steven J. Baum, P.C. intended to
conduct foreclosure against my property, and I am confident that no evidence to the contrary existed.
340. In addition, upon information and belief derived from several memorandums of law by judges in other
litigation cases, Elpiniki M. Bechakas Esq. was neither employed by MERS, nor was its agent, and therefore
lacked authority from MERS to create any assignments and I am confident that no evidence to the contrary
existed.
341. Furthermore, assignment from MERS checklist evidences its internal procedures and quality control.
Upon information and belief, this checklist form (mentioned above ) is for authorized by MERS individuals
only who permitted to create assignments of mortgage using MERS computer program. The checklist states
that if individual does not comply with MERS requirements, assignment would not be valid and approved by
MERS. Apparently, this checklist demonstrates that one has to have a password and user ID to create an
assignment, which will have some MERS attributes on it after assignment printed out. On my 2009
assignment made by Bechakas there are no such attributes, and therefore this court should conclude that this
assignment was unauthorized by MERS and therefore is void.
342. From 2010 until 2013, USB and Steven J. Baum, P.C. were silent and Administrative Judge Lawrence
Knipel of Kings County Supreme Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute and vacated lis pendens.
343. According to doctrine of judicial estoppels, USB had 4 years to produce promissory note and mortgage,
but failed to do so thereby triggering inference that neither USB with Steven J. Baum, P.C., nor WF were in
possession of the note and mortgage or knew of its whereabouts. Accordingly, USB was Estopped by Action
of Silence and nonproduction to come later with any note and mortgage and start foreclosure.
344. Exactly, where were USB, its alleged attorneys and servicer WF in regards to 2009 foreclosure
production of evidence including violation of CPRR 322(a)? Good question! Because of this, I concluded and
I aver that USB 1) had no idea about 2) 2009 foreclosure by Steven J. Baum, P.C., 3) did not authorize any 4)
assignments of mortgage or 5) note and I am confident that no evidence to the contrary existed.
345. I believe that no securitized trust gave Steven J. Baum, P.C. even a copy from real note and mortgage
and I am confident that no evidence to the contrary existed.
346. Alternatively, If USB was holder of the real note and mortgage then its remedy for losing 2009
foreclosure would have been a legal malpractice claim against Elpiniki M. Bechakas Esq. and Steven J.
Baum, P.C., in which case I should be left alone because USB “blew” statute of limitation to conduct
foreclosure.
Bankruptcy Court Litigation –continuing harassment, malicious prosecution, fraud, deceit by

trespassers and human trafficking – where there is no rule of law according g Elizabeth S Stong and
US Trustees
347. On June 6, 2019, chapter 13 petition was filed on my behalf in this court.
348. On or about August 15, 2019, USB allegedly represented by WOODS, filed proof of claim.
349. On October 28, 2019, chapter 13 case was converted into Chapter 11 case.
350. WOODS submitted power of attorney attached to proof of claim stating that USB hired WF as servicing
agent for USB to file proof of claim on its behalf as agent of principal with rights to litigate in bankruptcy
court and conduct foreclosure of Michael’s property.
351. I, in my Chapter 11 petition, listed USB’s debt as disputed, contingent, unliquidated and Judge Stong did
not make any determination on these issues.
352. On March 17, 2020, Maxon from WOODS, on behalf of WF filed a motion for relief from automatic
stay in connection with the property located at 4221 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11224 (the “Stay Relief
Motion”).
353. On April 27, 2020, Maxon filed a letter requesting an adjournment of the hearing for the Stay Relief
Motion on consent of the parties to May 22, 2020.
354. On April 29, 2020, judge Stong adjourned the hearing of the Stay Relief Motion to May 22, 2020, based
on the alleged consent of the parties.
355. On May 18, 2020, I filed a letter-motion objecting to adjournment order and stated that I never discussed
with Maxon her request for my consent to adjournment to May 22, 2020 hearing date, and therefore
adjournment was fraudulently scheduled without my knowledge and consent.

356. Maxon did not deny that averment and was silent.
357. In addition, I requested adjournment from May 22, 2022 to the longest possible date in the future due to
COVID-19 lockdown of New York City and my technical problems with computer equipment.
358. On May 19, 2020, I filed a Cross-motion to Strike and Dismiss with Prejudice the proof of claim
allegedly filed by WF, which was scheduled to be heard on May 22, 2020 (the “Motion to Strike”).
359. In my Motion to Strike I notified Judge Stong and WOODS that my motion lacks supporting exhibits
and incomplete due to my technical problems with computer equipment failure.
360. On May 21, 2020, WF allegedly filed Amended Proof of Claim with amended power of attorney
attached.
361. Attorney Fugate deliberately attached to POC incomplete POA, because it was fake.
362. In 2016, some attorney from WOODS too deliberately attached incomplete copy of PSA, and when I
objected, refused to attach the complete copy. Information in complete copy of PSA conclusively unraveled
fraud upon the court by WOODS and trespassers in whole. I will come to that issue later.
363. Attorney Fugate, therefore, knew or had duty to know that at the time of filing POC attached copy of
POA was incomplete, misleading the court and void as evidence of authority to appear in this court because at
the beginning of copy of POA says, “The trusts identified on Schedule A (the “Trusts”)…” However, no
Schedule A was attached to this copy of POA and, as I demonstrated by Exhibit 4, never was (Fairmont is
investor).
364. Accordingly, attorney Fugate knowingly and deliberately failed to submit prove of identity of creditor
and her authority to appear in this court; knowingly misled the court and filed POC without proof of authority.
365. As such, POC and Maxon’s motion is unauthorized filing and unauthorized practice of law.
366. I have dealt with unauthorized filings by attorneys involved since 2009 and will show circumstantial
evidence below.
367. On the top of everything, POA was acknowledged and notarized in Massachusetts.
368. I understand that “we are not in Kansas anymore,” but at least we have to be in Ohio or in Minnesota
where corporate headquarters of USB located.

369. In March of 2020, on numerous occasions I contacted Fugate, Maxon and others from WOODS by
email and politely asked whether Fugate inadvertently failed to attach a copy of Exhibit A to POA.
370. I received no answer from them.
371. Accordingly, I demand an explanation and proof whether the people that signed POA reside in
Massachusetts, whether notary is employee of USB and who from Minnesota or Ohio headquarters authorized
them to appoint WF in Massachusetts to conduct foreclosure in New York.
372. The Court should judicially notice, that WOODS judicially admitted that in order for them to file any
claim against my property in court, the firm needed the power of attorney from lawful owner and holder of
original note and mortgage, Fairmont.
373. According to WOODS, WF and WOODS obtained POA only in 2018.
Future proves past - WOODS did not have authority even from USB to conduct foreclosure in 2016
374. Therefore, alleged creditor did not authorize WOODS to do the state foreclosure action in 2016 and I am
confident that no evidence to the contrary existed because WOODS refused to produce POA in 2016 to me.
375. Accordingly, due to the doctrine Estoppels by Action, this court should treat this POA as fabrication in
support of filing POC in bankruptcy court.
376. In 2020, in my affidavit in support of my cross-motion, I predicted that there would be “change of
characters” on this charade of POC.
377. I predicted that attorneys from WOODS would fail and refuse to rebut my affidavit in cross-motion to
dismiss.
378. I predicted that there would be another attorney with “dog ate my homework” excuse or explanation for
WOODS’ wrongdoing.
379. I also predicted that WOODS and its attorneys brazenly would go silent and fail to rebut that they
knowingly failed to prove their authority to file POC. I showed knowledge in historical factual sequence
above.
380. It turns out, I was right on all my predictions because all WOODS attorneys did not rebut my affidavit in
my amended cross-motion to strike and, instead, “lawyered up” by REED, which made this bankruptcy case
into “Circus Circus.”
381. In Circus, when decorations need to be changed or animal does not respond to commands of the master,
clowns enter arena to distract public from that and switch attention on the clown. In this case, the clown is
attorney Natsayi Mawere and “wild animal” is Michael,
382. She claimed in my Chapter 11 proceeding to be WOODS’ co-counsel representing USB and WF, but
did not show POA for REED.
383. She did not add any new information to the case.
384. She did not add any new exhibit to the case.
385. In reply to my affidavit in support of cross-motion to dismiss, is she appeared as Fugate’s witness and
testified as follows:
“1. I am an attorney at law admitted to practice before this Court… counsel to Secured Creditor
U.S. Bank National Association…”
“2. I submit this declaration in support of U.S. Bank’s opposition to Debtor Michael
Krichevsky’s amended cross-motion motion to strike…”
“I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Foreclosure Action.
Following Mr. Krichevsky’s default on his monthly mortgage payments, on April 18, 2016,
U.S. Bank filed an action to foreclose his $747,600 mortgage in the Kings County Clerk’s
office…”
B. The Bankruptcy Action.
“To interfere with the foreclosure of the mortgaged property, Mr. Krichevsky filed a chapter
13 bankruptcy petition on June 6, 2019… U.S. Bank timely filed its Proof of Claim (Claim 3-1)
on August 15, 2019, which U.S. Bank later amended on May 21, 2020 to include a complete
copy of the Limited Power of Attorney, which was inadvertently omitted from the Schedule A
attachment” [emphasis mine]
386. “which was inadvertently omitted” is her version of “dog ate my paperwork” prediction, but she is
deliberately failing to address raised by me fact that POA does not show “Banc of America Funding
Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-F” in the “Trusts” list.

387. In violation of rule 9011, she deliberately omitted from “RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND
PROCEDURAL HISTORY” numerous ultimate facts in my favor including failed 2009 foreclosure, failed in
2016 foreclosure, and the ultimate fact that she is as debt collector attempting to collect on the time-barred
debt.
388. Again, she failed to enter into the record name of the trust because she knew that there is no trust “Banc
of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-F” in the SEC database.
389. She knew the information from Exhibit 4 that per MERS database, “owner and holder of my note and
mortgage” is Fairmont.
390. She did not deny that the case is rigged by all Defendants in concert.
391. I summation, she merely parroted WOODS’ Fugate and Maxon false representations to the court in
violation of Rule 9011, in an attempt to distract the Court and Michael from the fact that Fugate and Maxon
failed to rebut my affidavit in opposition to POC and motion for relief from stay.
392. She failed to rebut my affidavit in opposition to POC and amended motion for relief from stay.
If a party seeking relief lacks standing, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested
relief
393. Widely used 6A WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL
2d § 1541 (1990) states that Federal requirement is that actions be prosecuted in the name of the real party
interest. In this case, “US Bank as trustee,” admittedly an agent of the principal, beneficiary, real party in
interest – the note owner and holder, trust – Banc of America Funding Corporation, which was not joined here
for the reasons stated above.
394. I aver that current, alleged “creditor” USB has no standing in this case due to numerous reasons, which
I showed in detail above, but the main one is – IT DOES NOT EXIST by law or by fact in this court.
395. Accordingly, what attorneys are doing is stealing my property by false pretences.
396. This is the reason why an alleged creditor, USB and its alleged attorneys in this bankruptcy Chapter 11
case, intentionally did not plead federal standing jurisdiction by claiming loss and injury in fact, contrary to
long settled principle in Warth v. Seldin, 422 US 490 where Supreme Court in 1975 ruled:
“[T] he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim
to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties."
“In its constitutional dimension, the question of standing is whether the plaintiff has alleged such
a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy so as to warrant the plaintiff's invocation of
federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on the plaintiff's
behalf.”
397. According to trespassers’ own admissions in State courts and in this Chapter 11 case, alleged creditor
USB is “U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-F (“U.S. Bank”).”
398. I objected and continue to object to this gibberish, deceitful and vague phrase in every court.
399. However, this phrase clearly implies that if USB is trustee then it is not the creditor, but rather Banc of
America Funding Corporation is.
400. As such, any honest jurist would conclude that Banc of America Funding Corporation should be named
as a creditor in bankruptcy court’s proof of claim by USB.
401. I notified all Defendants individually about this fraud upon the court by, among other papers, my
amended cross-motion to strike USB’ POC, which I incorporate by reference herein.
402. Therefore, these Defendants and individual attorneys knew about this continuing fraud upon the court
and I, but failed and refused to correct their paperwork or to drop USB as their client.
403. Attorneys also knew that if they pleaded damages or loss by USB, I would immediately ask for
discovery of records proving damages or loss, which records they knew USB never had.
404. Alleged creditor, USB, therefore could not have it both ways – claiming to be a creditor on foreclosure
complaint or POC and at the same time not suffering any damage or loss.
405. Without suffering damage or loss USB had no standing in any court.
406. In fact, in New York there is affirmative defense of “lack of damages” to cause of action for breach of
contract and all Defendants involved including trustees and judge, knew or had duty to know that law and had
duty to act accordingly. See Wenger v. Alidad, 265 AD 2d 322 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. (1999) where
the court stated:
“ While it is undisputed that the defendant Washington Mutual Bank made several errors in regard to
the plaintiff's refinancing transaction, the plaintiff cannot prevail on a breach of contract theory unless
he sustained actual damages as a natural and probable consequence of such breach”
407. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted and stated only for the sake of argument, I did default on
alleged mortgage and note, USB did not incur any damages due to my breach of contract. Its
408. Accordingly, all attorneys involved had no right to sue Michael, harass him for 11 years and cause him
damages.
Notice to the Court and US Trustees of Uncontested Exculpatory Facts or Evidence.
409. I notified all judiciary Defendants in this bankruptcy Chapter 11 case about this defect of standing (lack
of damages) in their proof of claim (POC) and in motion to lift stay.
410. These Defendants had an opportunity to amend or supplement their POC and motion to lift stay in
compliance with Warth v. Seldin and WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE..
411. However, they did not amend or withdraw POC and/or motion to lift stay in violation of Warth v. Seldin
and New York State Judiciary law §487, which is a crime and it states:
“An attorney or counselor who:

1. Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive
the court or any party; or,
2. Wilfully delays his client's suit with a view to his own gain; or, wilfully receives any money or
allowance for or on account of any money which he has not laid out, or becomes answerable for,
Is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he
forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.”
412. Knowing this law, they intentionally failed to plead standing in violation of federal and state criminal
laws.
413. The damages were caused to me by Defendants fraudulent scheme and conspiracy to acquire a title to
my property are real and computable. The goal of this criminal conspiracy was and is to remove me from my
home, enrich themselves and silence me as whistleblower by making me homeless.
MERS assignments still used in Bankruptcy Court to perpetrate fraud upon the court by officers of the
court and upon Michael.
414. Fannie Mae's Deputy General Counsel stated in the 2006 Baker Hostetler’s report that UCC Article 9
makes assignments irrelevant.

415. All judiciaries involved, knew or had the duty to know that it didn't matter whether MERS assignments
appeared in the City Register record or not because the mortgage follows the note upon proof of purchase of the
debt.
416. Having this knowledge, trespassers involved pretended that 2009 assignment of mortgage made by
Bechakas and later “corrective assignment” made by Tautge is a necessary evidence to prove standing in court,
when they knew that those assignments are irrelevant as evidence of standing in court.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT AGAINST
BANKRUPTCY TRESPASSERS
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.
417. I incorporate by reference all of the above applicable paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully
stated herein.
418. To avoid redundancy, every person trespasser, including entities, jointly called “bankruptcy
trespassers.”
419. Personally, every bankruptcy trespasser, is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6).
420. USB, WF, WOODS by Fugate filed its proof of claim on August 15, 2019, which was amended on May
21, 2020.
421. The alleged debt in POC is a consumer debt as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692 a(5).
422. Bankruptcy trespassers, due to their status as a debt collector, including their employees and its attorneys
renders them all liable for their violations of the FDCPA.
Respondeat Superior Liability
423. The acts and omissions of the individual trespassers named herein, and other debt collectors employed as agents,
employees by trespassers who communicated with Court and with Plaintiff as more described herein above, were
committed within the time and space limits of their agency relationship with their principals and with each other.
424. The acts and omissions by the individual trespassers named herein, and other debt collectors, were
incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities these agents, employees were authorized to
perform by their principals, employers in collecting consumer debts.
425. By committing these acts and omissions against Michael, the individual Defendants named herein and other
debt collectors were motivated to benefit not only to themselves, but to their principals, employers as well.
426. Entities trespassers are therefore liable to Michael through the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the
intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of federal law by its collection employees in
their attempts to collect this alleged debt from Michael.
427. Trespassers have never (prior to or subsequent to Michael’s filing Chapter 11) mailed anything to
Michael with information that was true including the statutory notification requirement under 15 U.S.C. §
1692g.
428. Trespassers’ illegal collection efforts and harassment are highly upsetting to Michael and his
health.
429. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants starting from 2009 until present constitute numerous
and multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(c)(1, 2, 3), 1692d, 1692e,
1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(8), 1692e(9), 1692e(10), 1692e(12), 1692e(13), 1692e(14), 1692f,
1692f(1), 1692f(6), 1692f(8) and 1692g(a), 1692g(b) amongst others.
430. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA, Michael is entitled to actual damages pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 per violation pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) from
the Defendants herein to be determined by Jury.
COUNT TWO
ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA
stated herein.
432. The Defendant additionally violated the FDCPA. Defendants’ violations include but are not limited to
engaging in any conduct the natural consequences of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in
connection with the collection of a debt, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d. A debt collector may not engage in any
conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
violation of this section:
“(1)The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person,
reputation, or property of any person.
(2)The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to
abuse the hearer or reader.”
433. In the letters, bills to Michael and in court documents, Defendant’s misleading and untrue statements
were intended to create a false assumption and fear in Michael’s mind that he will face legal consequences and
become homeless if he does not pay the alleged debt.
434. Michael, as a result of the conduct of the Defendants, has suffered mental anguish, emotional distress,
high blood pressure and depression.
435. As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for actual
damages, statutory damages of $1,000.00, and attorney's fees to be determined by Jury.
COUNT THREE
WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY
SECTION 362(a)
stated herein.
437. Section 362(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits “any act to collect, asses, or recover a claim against
the estate that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.”
438. Chapter 11 case provides that all debtor’s property by operation of law becomes the estate of United
States as of the petition date and all property shall remain property of the estate until the case is completed,
converted or dismissed.
439. The actions of the Defendants as averred herein above constitute a willful, intentional and flagrant
violation of the automatic stay.
440. The actions of the Defendants as averred herein above constitute a willful and intentional disregard for
the Automatic Orders entered by this Court and by the Code.
441. Michael is therefore entitled to the recovery of actual damages, punitive damages and legal fees and
expenses under Section 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code to be determined by Jury.

COUNT FOUR
Willful Violation of New York State Judiciary law §487
stated herein.
443. Per Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 NY 3d 8 - NY Court of Appeals (2009) the court stated, “The purpose
of the statute is to "enforce an attorney's special obligation to protect the integrity of the courts and foster their
truth-seeking function.","A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 may be established " either by the defendant's
alleged deceit or by an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant"
WHEREFORE, Michael having set forth his claims for relief against Defendants respectfully moves this
Honorable Court as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, a sum to be
determined by the Jury in the form of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);
2. That The Plaintiff recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, a sum to be
determined by the Jury in the form of statutory damages of $1,000.00 per violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1692k(a)(2);
determined by the Jury in the form of statutory damages of $1,000.00 per violation pursuant 15 U.S.C. §
1692k(a)(3);
1692k(a)(4);
1692k(a)(6);
6. That the Plaintiff recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, an award of
actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(k):
7 That the Plaintiff recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, an award of
actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2),
1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(8), 1692e(9), 1692e(10), 1692e(12), 1692e(13), 1692e(14)
actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692f, 1692f(1), 1692f(6),
1692f(8)
actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a), 1692g(b)
10. That the Plaintiff recover against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, an award of the
costs of suit, any discretionary costs as may be allowable by law, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
11. That Defendant-attorneys be found in Willful Violation of New York State Judiciary law §487,
be removed from Plaintiff’s Chapter 11 case and disbarred due to their crime of misdemeanor.
12. That the Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of February, 2021.
/s/ Michael Krichevsky

Michael Krichevsky, DIP
4221 Atlantic Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11224
718-687-2300
e-mail:tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com
In the United States Bankruptcy Court
__________________________________
In the Matter of: CHAPTER 11 CASE No. “19-43516-ess”
Michael Krichevsky
Debtor In Possession
__________________________________
Michael Krichevsky,
Plaintiff Under Duress, DIP

vs.
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING No.
____________________________________
Exhibits for Adversary Complaint

EXHIBIT 1
2/12/2021 Yahoo Mail - ASSIGNMENT
ASSIGNMENT
From: michael (tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com)
To: niki@lawsaia.com
Date: Thursday, December 24, 2020, 05:50 AM EST
Dear Elpiniki M. Bechakas:
Attached, please find ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE, which was allegedly signed by you as Assistant
Secretary and Vice President of MERS when you were working as an attorney in Steven J. Baum, PC in
2009. Then, this assignment was used to start foreclosure against me. Luckily, the case was dismissed as
fraudulent. However, new law firm started foreclosure again using said assignment again.
My investigation revealed that Steven J. Baum, PC was fabricating documents for foreclosures. It used
robo-signers to fabricate those documents for courts, which made them void. Federal and State law
enforcement investigated said firm, and as result, it was disbanded. I am sure you know more that I do. So
let me get to my point.
Please, take a look at this document. I am addressing you as my witness in pre-litigation stage of my
lawsuit in federal court. My investigation also revealed that nobody was authorized to even create this
assignment in blank because MERS did not have an office in Ocala, Florida, and therefore was not even
aware of what was going on in Steven J. Baum, PC in regard to this assignment. Internet is full of copies of
fake assignments with your alleged signatures. They are substantially different from each other making me
to suspect that your signature was forged by other people, just as my signatures were forged by somebody.
Please, let me know if this is a) your signature on that assignment, and b) if you prepared this assignment
yourself, or c) who prepared it for your signature if you did not prepare it, but signed it. Please, give me
your answers in the form of affidavit “to whom it may concern.” Thank you very much for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Michael Krichevsky
This is private email message and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Third parties, by reading this email you enter into binding contract between you and me, one of the People of Posterity. All agents or
informants working to monitor My email(s) and any other means of communication without My express written permission, are barred from any use, disclosure,
or distribution. I reserve all My rights without prejudice including all intellectual property rights. If you read any of the contents of My E-Mails, you agree to pay
a user fee of $325,000.00 US payable in gold or silver coin, per hour or any fraction thereof, tracked by your IP address. If you copy any of my posts, you agree
to pay a user fee of $125,000.00US per use. Your use is binding contract to pay. All user fees are immediately due and payable upon use.
ASSIGN 1 2020_10_15_22_02_14.pdf
306.3kB
1/1
2/12/2021 Yahoo Mail - ASSIGNMENT
ASSIGNMENT
From: michael (tokrichevsky1@yahoo.com)
To: niki@lawsaia.com
Date: Thursday, December 24, 2020, 12:48 PM EST
I forgot to give you my phone 718-687-2300 in case you have any questions.
Thanks
Michael Krichevsky
This is private email message and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of
the intended recipient. Third parties, by reading this email you enter into binding contract between you and me, one of the People of Posterity. All agents or
informants working to monitor My email(s) and any other means of communication without My express written permission, are barred from any use, disclosure,
or distribution. I reserve all My rights without prejudice including all intellectual property rights. If you read any of the contents of My E-Mails, you agree to pay
a user fee of $325,000.00 US payable in gold or silver coin, per hour or any fraction thereof, tracked by your IP address. If you copy any of my posts, you agree
to pay a user fee of $125,000.00US per use. Your use is binding contract to pay. All user fees are immediately due and payable upon use.
1/1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
2/4/2021 MERS® ServicerID - Investor
Se le ct borrowe r type and e nte r borrowe r inform ation to se e Inve stor for MIN 1002948-0001201848-3.
Inve stor for Individual Borrowe r
Your e ntrie s m ay be e ithe r uppe r or lowe r case .

Fie lds m ark e dare re quire d.
Last Nam e : Krichevsky
SSN: - -
By che ck ing this box , the borrowe r or borrowe r's authorize d re pre se ntative is atte sting to the fact that he or she
is in fact the borrowe r or borrowe r's authorize d re pre se ntative for the loan in que stion. Additionally, borrowe rs
wishing to le arn the ide ntity of the ir loan's inve stor m ust confirm the ir ide ntity by e nte ring the ir last nam e or
corporation nam e as we ll as the ir SSN or TIN. If this inform ation doe s not m atch the inform ation containe d in the
MER S® Syste m for the borrowe r of the loan, the inve stor inform ation will not be displaye d. Borrowe rs should ve rify
the re sults with the ir loan se rvice r.
Submit
Inve stor for C orporation/Non-Pe rson Entity Borrowe r
Your e ntrie s m ay be e ithe r uppe r or lowe r case .

Fie lds m ark e dare re quire d.
C orporation/Non-Pe rson Entity Nam e :
Tax paye r Ide ntification Num be r:
By che ck ing this box , the borrowe r or borrowe r's authorize d re pre se ntative is atte sting to the fact that he or she
is in fact the borrowe r or borrowe r's authorize d re pre se ntative for the loan in que stion. Additionally, borrowe rs
wishing to le arn the ide ntity of the ir loan's inve stor m ust confirm the ir ide ntity by e nte ring the ir last nam e or
corporation nam e as we ll as the ir SSN or TIN. If this inform ation doe s not m atch the inform ation containe d in the
MER S® Syste m for the borrowe r of the loan, the inve stor inform ation will not be displaye d. Borrowe rs should ve rify
the re sults with the ir loan se rvice r.
Submit
Servicer: W ells Fargo Home Mortgage a Division of W ells

Phone: (612) 478-6808
Fargo Bank NA
Minneapolis, MN
Investor: Fairmont Funding Ltd.
Close Window
https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/common/investor 1/1
EXHIBIT 5
WeBs Fargo
P.O. Box 10335
Des Moines, lA 50306-0335
July 22, 2019
Michael Krichevsky
4221 Atlantic Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Subject: Resolution for the inquiries received for account number 0149183295
Dear Mr. Michael Krichevsky:
Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns. We wanted to speak with you; however,
we weren't able to reach you. We're responding and want to make sure you have the information
you need.
In your written concerns the following concerns were voiced:
• Foreclosure on the account

• Origination concerns
Please see our response to your concerns below.
Foreclosure on the account
We've determined the account was handled properly and no corrections are needed as no error
has occurred. We'd like to provide you with more information about our resolution.
Here's what we've found
A letter dated December 22, 2015, was sent to you advising that the loan was delinquent in the
amount of $263,193.58 and this amount needed to be paid by January 26,2016,or the account
could be accelerated.
The loan was not brought current and the account was referred to foreclosure as allowed by the
terms of your Note and Mortgage on January 27,2016. At that time your account was due for
the July 01, 2010,through January 01, 2016, payments. The foreclosure action is allowed by the
mortgage documents and applicable laws. Enclosed are copies of the demand letter, Note,
Mortgage, and foreclosure documents filed with the courts.
We regret this isn't the outcome you expected. If you'd like to request additional documents that
support our research, you may reply to me directly at the return address on this letter or by
phone at the number provided in the "Going forward" section of this letter.
Krichevslgr
July 22,2019
Page 2
Origination concerns
This adjustable rate account was opened on December 14,2005, with Fairmont Funding LTD,
and secured by the purchase of property located at 4221 Atlantic Ave, Brookl3m, NY 11224. We
purchased the account on January 09,2006.
We've outlined the original terms of your account below:
Interest rate of6.500%

Annual Percentage Rate of 6.897%
Term of360 months
Initial monthly principal and interest payment of$4,049.50
Due date of the first each month
Original Principal Balance of $747,600.00
By the evidence of your signature on the enclosed final documents, you were aware ofthe terms
and conditions of tiie loan. A notary was present at the loan closing to witness your signatures.
Those who sign the Note are responsible for repayment and agree to the terms and conditions
outlined therein. When you signed the final closing documents,the terms of your account
became locked and the only way to change the interest rate is to refinance or complete a loan
modification. We found no evidence that your signature was forged.
We have enclosed the following documents signed by you at closing:
Mortgage
Initial Interests^ Adjustable Rate Note
Federal Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement
Housing and Urban Development(HUD-i)Settlement Statement
Uniform Residential Loan Application
Adjustable-Rate Mortgage Loan Program Disclosure
We've determined your account was handled properly and no corrections are needed as no error
has occurred. If you have any questions or would like to request documents about the
information in this letter,I'm here to help. You may reply to me at the return address on this
letter, or you may reach me directly at the telephone number in the "Going forward" section at
the close of this letter.
Going forward
We value your feedback and appreciate the time and effort you took to contact us. It's been my
goal to fully address the concerns you've brought to our attention.
Krichevslcy
July 22,2019
Pages
If you have any questions, I'm here to help. You may reach me at 1-800-853-8516, extension
1335621004.1 am available to assist you Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. Central
Time. If you require immediate assistance and I am unavailable, other representatives are
available to assist you at 1-800-853-8516, Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.
Central Time.
Sincerely,
Kelly Duncan
Executive Resolution Specialist
Customer Care and Recovery Group
CC/Enc.: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Complaint ID: 190611-4140993
PLEASE NOTE: This notice Is being provided for informational purposes only. As a result of at least one bankruptcy
case filing that Included the above referenced account, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Is NOT attempting In any way
to violate any provision of the United States Bankruptcy Code or to collect a debt (deficiency or otherwise) from
any customer(s) who Is impacted by an active bankruptcy case or has received a discharge, where the account was
not otherwise reaffirmed or excepted from discharge. THIS IS NOT A BILL OR A REQUEST FOR PAYMENT AS TO
THESE CUSTOMER(S).
9d4/co8471694/8394590/cl708
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. NMLSR10 399801
After Recording Return To:
SMI - FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD
ATTENTION:LANIECELAMELL .
3910 KmSY DRIVE
SU1TE300
HOUSTON,TE3CAS T7098
LO^NO. CS.W. : . . . CERTIRED TRUE COPY
EsiicwNa:' ' ''• '" . ORIGINAL SENT FOR RECORDING
xniENO.:'
PARCEL NO.
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDING DATA]
MINNO.; 100294800012018483 MORTGAGE
WORDS USED OFTEN IN THIS DOCUMENT
(A) "Secnrity Instrument." This document, which is dated DECEMBER' 14 .. .2005 .together with
all Riders to this document, will he called the "Security Instiumffll."
(B)."Botrower;".
MICHAEL KRICHBVSKY, • ^ .
whose address is 120 OCEANA DR W

BROOKLm NY 11235
soinetunes will be called "Borrower" and sometimes simply "1" or "me."•
(C)"MERS"is Mottgage Electroiiic Registration Systems,Inc. MERS is a sqiarate corporation that is acting
-'solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and aligns. MJERS is organize and existing under the
lawsofDdaware, andhas an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2(K6,-Flint, MI 48501-2026,
tel.(888)679-MERS:
(D) -Lender.''
FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD. A NEW YORK CORPORATION ^ ^
will be called "Lender." Lender is a coijioration or association which exists under the laws of
New YORK . Lender's address is ;
• 1333 60TH STREET 2ND FLOOR;BROOKLYN,NEW YORK 11219 ; -j-w
(E) 'The note sighedlryBorro datai DECEHB]^' 14 . 1 will be called the

i '. ■ -Note. The Note states that I owe Leader • 1.
SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN TTOUSAND set HUNDRED AND 00/100 ' -'
DoDars(U.S.$ 747,600.00 )plus interest and oflier amounts - that may be paydrle. I .have .
promised to pay this debt in Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full bv JANUARY 01 . 20^ .
'(F) -Property.- The property that is described below in die section titled "Description of the Property," will
be called the "Property."
Initials
NEW YO^-SingleFainily-FBnnleMae/FVeddie Mac UNIFORM INSIRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01

DocnEFSancBr,Jbfc FORM-MMTCinious Page 1 of-l?
ORIGINAL
(G)"Loan." The "lx>an" means the debt evidenced by the Note,pins interest, any prepayment charges and
late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Sec^ty Instrument, plus inter^t.
(H)"Sums Secnreid." The amounts described below in the section titled "Borrower's Transfer to Lender of
Rights in the Property" sometimes will be called the "Snms Secured."
(I) "Riders." All Riders attached to this Security Instrument that are signed by Borrower wD! be called
"Riders." The following Riders are to be signed by Bonower [check box as applicable]:
... [X] Adjustable Rate Rider Q Condominium Rider • Q Second Home Rider
n Balloon Rider Q Planned Unit Development Rider Q Assun^tion Rider
l-'v- nM ' o. D Paypifnt Rjdei,..,. . Q Inter Vivos Trust Rider
i- I □ Other(s) [specify]: * . .
• • («!) "Applicable Law." All controlling applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances and
If - - • administrative rules and orders (that have die effect of law) as well as all a[^licable final, non-ajqjealable
l'f ■ .. ^—judicial qtinions will be c^lcd 'Applicable ^w." ..
(K) "Commnnity Association DneSt Fees and Assessments." All dues, fees, assessments and other charges
t^t are impo^ on Borrower or the Property by a condominium, association, homeowners association or
similar organization will be called "Community Association Dues, Fees and Assessments."
(L) "Electronic Funds lYansfer." "Electronic Funds Transfer" means any transfer of money, other than by
cliKk, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal, teiepbonic
instrument, computer, or magnetic tape so as to order, instruct, or authorize a financial institution to debit or
. credit an account. Some common examples of an Electronic Funds Transfer are poinl-of*saIe transfers (where a
card such as an asset or debit card is us^ at a merchant), automated teller machine (or ATM) transactions,
transfers initiated by telephone, wire ir^fers, ^ automated ciearingbou^ transfers.
(h^ "Escrow Itons." Those items that are described in Section 3 wDl be called "Escrow Items."
(N) "Miscellaneons Proceeds." "Miscellaneous Proceeds" means any compensation, settlement, award of
damages, or proceeds paid by any third party (other than insnrance proceeds paid under the coverages described
' in Section 5) for: (i) damage to, or destruction of, the Property; (ii) condenmation or other taking of all or any
part .of the Property, (iii) conveyance in lieu of condemnation or sale to avoid condemnation; or (iv)
misrepresentations of, or omissions as to. the value and/or condition of the Property. A taking of the Property
by any governmental authority by eminem domain is known as "condemnation."
\ (O) "Mortgage Insurance." "Mortgage Insurance'-means insurance protecting Lender against the nonpayment
of, or defiiu^t on, the Loan. .
(P)'"Periodic Payment." The regularly scheduled amount due for (i) principal and Interest under the Note,
• plus (ii) any amounts under Section 3 will be .called "Periodic Payment."
(Q) "RESPA." "RESPA" means the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) and its
implementing regulation, Regulation X (24 C.F.R. Part 3500). as th^ mi^ be amended from time to time, or
any additional (H^ successor legislation OT regulation that governs the same subject matter.- As nsed in this
Security Instiurnm, "J^PA" refers to all requirements and restrictions .that are imposed in regard to a
"federally related mortgage loan" even if the Loian does not qnalify as a "federally related mortgage loan" under
PFSPA, ' ■' ' ■■■■— ■ . .. • -
' BORRpWER'jS TRANSFER TO LEND]^ OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY

I mqitgage. giant and convey the Prqpefty'U)MERS(soley as nominee ibr Lender and Lender's successors in
interest) and its.successois in interest subject to the terms'of Ibis Security Instrament. This'means that,, by
signing this Security Instrument, I am giving Lender those rights that are stated In this Security Instiumoit and
- also those rights that Applicable Law'gives to lenders who hold mortgages on real property. I am giving Lender
. these rigbts-to iHOtect Lrader from pcsrible losses that might lesuit if I feillo:
LOAN NO.: CS1848 Initials
NEW YORK-Singie FamDy-Fannte Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM IN^tUMENT • MERS Form 3033 l/Ol
Docr»ErSEkncBS.Jbtc. FORM-MMTCinrMin Page 2 of 17
ORIGINAL
WllBWJUUiWI
(A)Pay an Ihc amounts that I owe Lender as stated in the Note including, but not limited to, all renewals,
. , • extensions and modifications of the Note;'
(®) Psyi with interest, any amounts that Lender spends under this Security Instrument to protect the value
of the ftopcrty and Lender's rights in the Property; and
(C) Keep all of my other promises and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.
I understand and agree ttot MERS holds only legal title to the ri^ts granted by me in this Security Instrument,
. but, if neccessaty to comply with law or custom, MERS(as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and
sîgns)has the right:
(A) to exercise aiQr or all of those rights, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the
If' • • . Pnqietty;and . ' • * •
t»• ' • *
- (B) to take any action required ofLender includi^, but not limited to, releasing and this Security
» ■;, • InstfumoilJ
.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY -

1 give MERS (soley as nominee for Lender and Lender's succsrois in interest) rights in the Property described in
(A) dirough'(G) bdow:
• (A) The Property which is located at • 4221 ATLANTIC AVENUE •. • ^,
(Strcell
BROOKLYN ' • • ^ , New York 11224 ' .
• [City, Towa or Village] • . {Zip Code] <
This Property is in MNGS County. It has the following legal description:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPnON
ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER(S) ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
.. . PARC^NO.t . . . .
(B) AH buildings ^ other inprpvenKi^ that are locate on the Property described in subsection (A) of •
thissection;' ~
(Q All rights in other property that 1 have as' owner of the Property described in subsection (A) of this
section. These rights are Imown as "easements and appurtenances attached to .the Prqjwrty";
(D) All rights that 1 have in the land whichTies in the streets or roads in front of, or next to, the Property
' ' , described in subsection (A) of this section;
LOAN NO.: CS1848 Initial jLlJL

NEW YORK-SihgleFaniily-FannieMae/FHddieMac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01.
DocMZPiS'ancsxiAK:, roKM-HMTOmoias Page 3 of 17
ORIGINAL
11 1 ew.irniT , a a «• t * » or-a* *4^
''' , V. .t •• ■> •Ji". .. .,•>

Schedule A Description
TiUe Number AL2387K Page 1
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the
Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings, City and State of New York, known and
designated on map entitled "Map of Section A Norton Point" made by Font and
Beach surveyors, 1894 and filed in the Office of Register Kings County, April 20.
1894,#351-352-353 In Block #7 of said map and described with reference to the
private road, laid down on said map as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Northerly line of Atlantic Avenue on said map, 160
feet Westerly from the intersection of said Northerly line with the Westerly side of
Beach 42nd Street;
RUNNING THENCE Westerly along the Northeriy line of Atlantic Avenue as it •

curves to the Westerly line of lot 351 on said map;
THENCE Northerly along the Westerly line of lot 351 (which line is on a radius of
the concentric curves of Atlantic and Surf Avenues); 100 feet to the middle line of
block between Atlantic and Surf Avenues;
THENCE Easterly along the middle line of the block as It curves,60 feet to the
Westerly line of lot 354 on said map;
THENCE Southerly at right angles to Atlantic Avenue and along the Westerly line
of said lot #354,100 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING.
(E) An fixtures that arc now or in the future will be on the Property described in subsections(A)aAd CB) of
Ais section;
(F) AH of the rights and propertydescribed in subsections(B)through(E)ofthis section that I aiûire in
the future; and
(G) All replacements of or additions to the Property described in subsections(B)through(F)of this section
and all proceeds of insurance for loss or damage to, and an Miscellaneous Proceeds of the Property
describe in subsections.(A) thiougb(P)of this section.
BORROWER'S RIGHT TO MORTGAGE THE PROPERTY AND BORROWR'S OBLIGATION TO •
DEFEND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
I • . .
1 promise that; (A)I lawfiiUy own the Property; (B) I have the right to mortgage, giant and convey the
Property to Lender; and(C)there are no outstîng ciaims or-charges against the Property^ cxcqH for diose
whidr are of public record.
I give a general warranty of title to Lender. This means that I will be folly responsible for any losses which
Lender sêis because someone other than myselfhas some of the rights in the Property which I promise that I
'r have. I promise that 1 wOl defend my ownership of the Pn^reity against any claims of such ri^ts. " •
PIJON LANGUAGE SECURITY INSTRUMENT
This Security Instrument contains promises and agreements that are used in real >property security instruments
all over the coimtry. It also contains other promises and agreements that vary in different parts of the country.
My promises and agreements are stated in "plsin
COVENANTS
I promise and I agree with Lender as follows:
1. Borrower's Promise to Pay. I will pay to Lender on time principal and interest due under the Note
and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts due under the Note. I wiU also pay all amounts for
Escrow Items under Section 3 of this Security Instrument.
Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U.S. currency. If any of my
payments by check or other payment instrument is returned to Lender uiâtd. Lender may require my payment
be made by: (a)cash;-(b) money order;(c)certified check, bank check, treasurer's check or cashier's êck,
.' .drawn upon an institution whose deposits are insured by a federal:3gency, -instiumeiitality, or entity;' or.(d)
Electronic Funds Transfer. . •
Payments are deemed received by Lender when received at the location-required in the Note, or at another
location designated by Lender under Section 15 of this Security Instrument. Lêr may return or accept any
payment or partial payment If it is for an amount that is less tl^ the amount that is then due. If Lender a lesser
payment; Lender may refose to accept a lesser payment that 1.may make'in the future and does not accepts
. waive any of its rights. Lender b not obligated to apply such lesser payments when it accqrts such pûnents.
Ifinterest on principal accrues as if all Periodic Payments had been paid when due, then Loider need not pay
interest on unappli^ fonds. Lender may hold such unapplied fonds until 1 make payments to bring the Loan
current. Ifldonotdoso within a reasonable period of time. Lender wfll either apply such funds or retom
to me. In the event offoieclosure,' any 'uiuqqrliiBd. fii^ will be ^lied to foe"putstandiiig piinc^'7"'*
balaiiK immediately prior to foredosure. No ofi^ or claim'^ch 1 inight have iiow of in the future against
I Lender wQ]rdieve me from maldi^ payments due under the Note and tibis Seoroty Instrument or keqnng all
• of my other promises and agreements secured by this Security Instnunenl.
. . 2. ApplicaUoii of Borrower's Payments and Insnrance Proceeds.* Unless Applicable Law or this
Section 2 requires otherwise. Lender wfll apply each of my payments that Lender accepts in the following
order: " ■
Ftntf to pay interest due under the Note;
LOAN NO.: CS1848 Inlfiab 1

NEW YORK-Single FamUy-Fannle Mae/FTeddSe Mac UNIFORM INCTRUMENT - MERS Form 3033 1701
DocnastSat*icB.I»c. foom.MMTOmoiu Page 4 of17
ORIGINAL
• IKII 1 glMl' .0 V
Nexlt 10 pay principal due under the Note; and
Nextf to pay the amounts due Lender under Section 3 of this Security Instrument.
Such payments wDI be applied to each Periodic Payment in the order in which it became due. Any'remaining
amounts will be applied as follows:
First, to pay any late charges;
Next, to pay any other amounts due under this Security Instrument; and
Next, to reduce the principal balance of the Note.
If Lender receives a.payment from me for a late Periodic Payment which includes a sufficient amount to
pay any late diarge due, the payment may be applied to the late Periodic Payment and tiie late charge. If more
tlm one Periodic Payment is due, Lender may.apply any payment received from me:
First, to die rqeyment of the Periodic Payments that are due if, and to the extent that, each payment can
be paid in full;
to the extent that any excess exists aftdr the payment is applied to the full payment of one or more
Periodic Payments, snch excess may be ^lied to any late charges due.
Vohmtaiy piqpayments will be applied as follows:
^rst, to any prepayment charges; and
Next, as describ^ in the Note.
Any application of payments, insurance proceeds, or Miscdlanecus Proceeds to principal due under the
Note will not extend or postpone the due date of the Periodic Payments or change the amount of those
payments.
3. Monthly Payments For Taxes And Insurance.

(a) Borrower's Obligations. 1 will pay to Lander all amounts necessary to pay for taxes, assessments,
water charges, sewer rents and other similar charges, ground leasehold payments or rents (if any), hazard or
property insurance covering the Property, flood insurance(if any); and any required Mortgage Insurance, or a
loss reserve as described in Section 10 in-the place of Mortgage Imiuaitce. Each Periodic Payment win
inclnde an amount to be applied toward payment of the followmg items which are called "Esqt>w Items":
(1) The taxes, assessments, water charges, sewerients and other similar charges, on the Property
whidi under Aj^licable Law may be superior to this SecuriQrlnstrument as a lien on the. Property. Any
claim, demand or charge that is made against property because an obligation has not been fulfHlcd is known
as a "lien";
(2) The leasehold payments or ground rents on the Property'(tf any);
(3) The premitiri) for.any and aU insurance required by Lender under Section 5 of this Security
Instrument;
(4) The premium for Mortgage Insurance (if any);
(5)'Tte amount 1 may be required to pay Lender under Section 10'of this Security Instrument instead
of the payment of the premium for Mortgage Insurance (if any); and
(6) Ifrequiredby Lender, the amount'for any Gomnumity Association.Dues, Fees and Assessments.
After signing the Note, or at any time during its teim, Lender may include these amounts as Escrow Items.
Thc.monlhly payment I will make for Escrow Items.wlll.be ba^,on Lender!8 estimate .of.the. annual amount ■
required. ' ;.• • *. . . -
1 win pay all of these amounts to Lender iml^ llender tells me,in writing, that 1 do not have to do so. m
unless Applicable Law requires otherwise. 1 win make these 'p^ments on tte same d^ that my Periodic
Payments of prindp^ and interest are due under the Note.
The amounts that,] pay to Lender for Escrow Items under this.SectioD 3 will be caUed "Funds." 1 will pay
Lender the Funds for E^row Items unless Lender waives my obligation to pay the Funds for any or all Escrow'
Items. Lender waive my obligation to pay to Lender Funds for any or aU Escrow Items at any time... Any
such waiver must"be in writing. In the event of such waiver, I will pay directly, when and where payable, the
LOAN NO.: CS18^ * Initials LC * "

NEW YORK-Single FamHy-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT - MERS Fonn 3033 l/Ol
DocMtirSayKss.Jxa poRM-MMTcamom Page 5 of 17 ■ ''
ORIGINAL
amounts due for any Escrow Items for wbtcb payment of Funds has been waived by Lender and. if Lender
requires, will promptly send to Lender receipts showing sudi payment within such time period as Lender may
require. My obligation to make such payments and to provide receipts will be considered to be a promise and
agreement contained in this Security Instrument, as the phrase "promises and agreements" is used in Section 9
of this Security Instrument. If1 am obligated to pay Escrow Items directly, pursuant to a waiver, and 1 fail to
pay the amount due for an Escrow Item, Lender may pay that amount and I will then be obligated under Section
9 of this Security Instrument to repay to Lender. Lenda may revoke the waiver as to any or all Escrow Items
at any time by a notice given in accordance with Section 15 of this Security Instniment and, upon the - '
revocation,I win pay to Lender all Fhrab, and in amounts, that are then required under this Section 3. . -
1 promise to piomptly send to Lender any notices that I receive ofEscrow Item amounts to be paid. Lender . ..
win estimate fiom time to time the amount ofFunds I will have to pay by using existing asscssinecis and bills
and reasonable estimates of the amount I win have to pay for Escrow Items in the iiituie, unless- Applicable '
Law requires Lender to use another method for determining the amount I am to pay.
Lender may, at any time, coUect and hold Funds in an amount soffident to permit Lender to ^ly the
Funds at the time speckled under RESPA. Applicable Law puts limits on the total amount of Funds Lender can ' *"
at any time collect and hold. This total amount cannot be more than the maximum amount a lender could * .""
require under RESPA. If there is another Applicable Law that imposes a lower limit on the total amount of
Funds Lender can collect and hold. Lender will be limited to the lower amount.
(b)' Lender's Obligations. Lender will keq}'tbe Funds in a savings or banking institution which, has its'
deposits insured by a federal agency, instrumentality,' or entity, or in any Federal Home Loan Bank. If Lender
issuchasavingspr banking institution, Lender may hold the Funds. Lender will use the Funds to pay the
Escrow Items no later than the time allowed under RESPA or other Applicable Law. Lender will give to me,
without charge, an annual accounting of the Funds. That accounting will show all additions to and deductions
from the Funds and the reason for each deduction. ' . • • * '
Lender may not charge me for holding or keqping the Funds, for using the Funds to pay Escrow Items, for
making a yearly analysis of payment of Funds or for receiving, or for verifying and totaling assessments
and bills. However. Lender may charge mc for these services if Lender pays me interest on the Funds and if
Applicable Law permits Lender to make such a charge. Lender will not be required to pay me any interest or
earnings on the Funds unless either(1)Lender and J agree in writing that Lender will pay interest on the Funds,
or(2) Applicable Law requires Lender to pay interest on the Funds. <
(c) AdjustmeotstotheFunds. Under Applicable Law, there is a limit oh the amount of Fnnds Lender
may bold. If the amount ofFunds held by Lender exceeds this limit, then there win be an - excess amount and .
RESPA requires Lender to account to me in a special manner for the excess amount ofFunds.
'If, at any time. Lender has imt received enough Fimds to make the payments of Eôw Items when the
payments are due. Lender may teU me in writing that an additional amount is necessary. 1 will pay to Lender
whatever additional amount is necessaiy.to pay the Escrow Items when the payments are due, but the number
of p^mients win not be more than 12.
"When I have paid all of the Sums Secured, Lender.will promptly leiiind to me any Funds that 'are then *
beiiig hdd by Lender."*"*^'— ^ r- . •" — -. t; ~
r:"'.
< .. Borrower's Obligatioa to Pay Charges, Assessinecta And Claims. I will pay aU taxes, assessments, . ^
water charges, sewer rents and other similar diarg^,and any other charges and fii^ diat may be ioqx}sed on .
the Property and that may be sqierior to this Sec^ty InstnimenL I will also make ground rents or jrayi^ts
dueundermy lea^ ifI am a tenant on the Property and Community Association Dues; Fees and Assesiniieiits ,
(if any)due on the Property. If fliese items are Eôw Items,'! will do this by. making the payments-as >
described in Section 3 of this Security Instrument. Inihis Security Instrument, the word "person" means any
individual, organimtion, governmental authority or other party-.
LOAN NO.: 051848' ' • Initials AA. if^ ^

NEW YORK-Single Fsmity-Fannie Mae/FVeddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT.MERS Form 3033 1/01
DomterSartcBS.bic. roRM^jsMToiTHs) • -Page6of 17
ORIGINAL
1 will pronq}Uy pay or satisfy all liens against the Property that may be superior to this Security Instxttment.
However, this Seairity Insutunent does not require me to satisfy a superior lien if: (a)1 agree, in- wri^g, to
pay the obligation which gave rise to the siqjerior lien and Lender approves the way in which 1 agree to pay that
obligation, but only so long as 1 am perfoiming such agreement;(b) in good faith, 1 argue or defend against the
superior lien in a lawsuit so that in Lender's opinion, during the lawsuit, the superior lien may not be enforced,
but only until the lawsuit ends; or(c)I secure from the holder of that other lien an agreement, approved in
•writing by Lender, that the lien ofthis Security Instrument is superior to the lien held by that .person. If
Lender detennines that any part of the Property is subject to a siq)erjor lien, Lender may give Borrower a notice
identifying the superior lien. Within 10 days of the date on which the notice is given, Borrower shall' p^' or'
satisfy tte superior lien or t^ pia or more of the actions mentioned in Ais Section 4.
Lender also may require me to pay a one-time charge for an independent real estate tax reporting service-
usedby Lender in connection with the-Loan; unless )^}plicable l:aw does not permit Lender -to make such a
charge.
5. Borrowa''s Obligation to Maintain Hazard Insurance or Properfy Insurance. IwQl obtain hazard"
or prqperfy Insurance to cover all buildings and other Inqnovements that now are, or in the future will be,'
^ located on die PrDperty. The insurance will cover loss or damage caused by fire, hazards normally covered try
"extended coverage'hazard insurance poiicies, emd'any other hazards for which Lender requires coverage,'
including, but not limited to earthquakes and floods. The insurance will be in the amounts(including, but not
liniited to, deductible levels)and for the period^ of tinu require by Lender.''What Lender requires' under the'
last sentence can change during the term of the Loan. I may dioose the insurance conqiany, but my dioice is
subject to Lender's right to disapprove. Lender may not disapprove my choice unless the disapproval- is
reasonable. Lender may require me to pay either (a) a one-time charge for flood zone determination,
certiilcation and tracking services, or(b) a one-time charge for flood zone determination and certification
services and subsequei^ charges each time remappings or similar changes occur whidi reasonably' might affect
the flood zone determination or certiflcation. If I disagree with the flood zone determination, I may request the'
Federal Emergency Management Agency to review the flood zone determination and I promise to pay ai^ fees
charged by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for its review.
If1 fail to maintain any of the insurance coverages described above. Lender may obtain insurance coverage,
at Lender's option and my expense. Lender is under no obligation to purchase any particular type or amount of
coverage. Therefore,such coverage wiU cover Lender, but might or might not protect - me, my equify in the
Property, or the contents of the Property, against any risk, hazard or liability and might provide greats or
.lesser coverage than was previously in'efiect'. I acknowledge that the cost of the insurance coverage so obtained
might significantly exceed the cost of insurance that 1 could have obtained. Any amounts disbursed by Lender
under this Section 5 will become my additional debt secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts will
bear intoest at the intnest rate set forth in the Note from the date of disbursement and will be pâble with
such interest, upon notice from Lender to me requesting payment.
. All of the instuance policies and renewals of.those policies will include what b known as a'"bandard
mortgage clause" to protect Lender and will name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee. The
form of all policies and renewals will be acceptable to Lender. Lender win have the ri^t to hold the policies
'( T.. ^ ■ ■ . • aiwl icib^.cchifica
loim^nodca'tfahtl rcceiiw.
Hljmder^ri^îrrail wijQpfdnqitfygive Len^ all me^ts ofpaid
^
^
i . HI obtain any form of insurance coverage, not otherwise required by Lender, for damage to, or destruction
of, the Property, such policy will include a sUmdard mortgage clause and will name Lender as mortgagee and/or
as an additional loss payee.. . : * ' ,■
If there b a loss or damage to the Property. I will pronq}tly notify the insurance conq}any and Lender. If 1
do not pronqrtly prove to the insurance company that the loss or dansige occnned, then Lender may do sc.*
LOAN NO.: CS1848 Initials fj(._

NEWYORK-SingleFainily-FaiinleMae/FVeddieMacUNlFOIÎNSillUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01
DocfKsrSeM.YKEs.hM:L FosM-MMTomom Page7 of 17
ORIGINAL
IMC ojf o- •M.'v Mm>m i .. .j.. .iL. '.4P.du*& ^ tm't. k *•
The amount paid by the insurance company for loss or damage to the Property is called "proceeds." Unless'
Lender and I otherwise agree in writing, any proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by >'
Lender, will be used to repair or to restore the damaged Property unless: (a)it is not economically feasible to
make the rq>atrs or restoration;(b)the use of the proceeds for that purpose would lessen the protection given
to Lender by this Security Instrument; or(c) Lender ^.I have agreed in writing not to use the proceeds for
that purpose. During the period diat any rqjairs or isolations are being made, Lender may hold any proceeds
until it has had an opportunity to inq>ect thePnqperty to verify that the repair work has been completed to
Lender's satisfaction. However, this inspection will be done pronqitty. i-euder may make payments for the
repairs and restorations in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed, ■
Unless Leiid^Î agree otherwise in writing or unless Applicable Law requires otborwise, Lender is not.
required to pay me any interest or eannii^ on the proceeds; I wiH pay for ai^ ^biic'aiû^^ or oth^ third
pa^cs that Ihire, and their fees wffl not be |^d out of the'pioce^ds. If Ae repair or restoration is not
^honucail^ foible or ifit woidd lessen Lena's protection under this Security Instrnna^, then^proce^
win be used to reduce the amount that I owe to Lender under this Security Instnmient. Sndi insurance proceeds
win be applied in tlte order provided for In Section 2. If ai:y of the proceeds remain after the amount that I owe
to Lender has been paid in j^,the remaining proceeds will be paid to me.
IfI abandon the Property, Lender may file, nôtiate and settle any available insurance clnim and related *
. matters. Ifldonotanswcr, within30-days, a notice from Lender stating.that the insurance conqiany has •
offered to settle a daim. Lender may negotiate and settle the daim. The 30-day period will begin when the •
notice is given. In either event, or if Lender acquires the Property under Section 22 of this Secnrity Instrument
or otherwise,I give Lender iny rights to any insurance proceed in an amount not greater ^han the amounts
uiqiaid under the Note and this Security Instrument. I dso give Lender any other of my rights (other thai^ the
right to any refund of unearned premiums that I paid) under all insurance policies covering the Property, if the
rights are applicable to the coverage of the Property. Lender may use the insurance proceeds either to repair or
restore the Pttqierty or to pay amounts unpaid under the Note or this Security Instrument, whether or not then • •
due. ■■ • •*
6. Borrower's Obligations to Occupy The Property. 1 wiU occupy the Property and use the ProperQr as
my principal resid^ce within 60 days after I sign this Security Instnimenl. I will continue to occupy the
Property and to use the Property as my principal residence for at least one year. The one-year period will begin
when I first occiqsy the Property. However, I will not have to occnpy the Property and use the Property as my
principal residence within the time firames set forth above.ifLender agrees in writing that I do not have to do
so. Lender may not refuse to agree unless the refusal Is reasonable. I also will not have to'occtq^ the Property'
and use' the Property as my>.prlncq)al residence within the time frames set forth above if extenuating
circumstances exist which are beyond my control.
.7. Borrower's ObK^tions to Maintain And Protect The Property And to Fulfill Any Lease
Obligations.
(a) Maintenance and Protection ofthe Property. I will'not destroy, damage or barm the Property, and
I will not allow the Property to deteriorate. Whe&er or not 1 am residing in the Property,'1 will keq> the
r*.Property in good repair so.lbat it will not deteriorate or decrease uisValue .due to its.qoi^tion.• .Unless .it.
, . determined under Section 5 of this Security Instrument that repair is hot economically foible,I'will pronq>tly . r
repair the Property ifdamage to avoid further deterioraticm or damage. If insurance or condemnation (as , .
described in the de^tion of Miscellaneous Proceeds)proceeds aro paid because of loss or damage to, or " .
* condemnation of, the Property,I will repair or restore the Property only if Lender has released diose proceeds
for such purposes. Lender may pay for the repairs and restorailon.oni of proceeds in a single payment or in a
series of progress payments as the work is completed. If the insurance or condemnation proceeds are not.
sufficient to rqialr or restore the Property^ I promise to pay for the conqiletion of* such repair' or restoration.
LpANNO.:. CS3848 Initials
NEW YORK-SingleFamfly-FannieMae/FVeddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 l/Ol

Docrm'Sa.ncEa.iNC FoitM-2kiMTcity)<dJ33 PaseSofl?
ORIGINAL
(b) l/cnder's Inspection of Fttiperty. Lender, and others authorized by Lender, may enter on and inspect
the Property. They will do so in.a reasonable manner and at reasonable times. If it has a reasonable purpose,'
Lender may inspeclihe inside of(he home or other inaprovements on the Property. Before or at the time an
inspection is made. Lender will give me notice stating a reasonable purpose for such interior inspection.
8. Borrower's Loan Application. If, during the application process for the Loan, I, or any person or
entity acting at my direction or with my knowledge or consent, made felse, misleading, or inaccnrate'statements
to Lender about infoimation inq»itant to Lender in determining my diglbility for the Loan(or did not provide
Lender with sudi iofonnation), Lender will treat my actions as a default under this Security Instrument. False,
misleading, or inaccurate statements about information inqiortant to Lender would include, a misrqnresentation
'of my intention to occupy the Property as a principal rKldence. TTds is jiMt one example ofa false, mtgleflttiiig,
• or inaccurate statement ofinîtant iôrmation. " .^ v-
9. Lender's Right to Protect Its Rights in The. Property. If; (a) I do not keep my promises and
agreements made in this Security Instrument;(b)anmenw, Indnding bîns a legal proceeding that may
signihcantty affect Lender's interest in the Property or ri^ts mwer this Security Instimnent (sudi as a legti
^ proceeding in banknqitcy,In probate,for condemnation offorfeitiiie;proceedings whidh rould give a person
* rights whidi could equal or exceed Lender's interest In the Property or onder tlus Secority. Instrument, • •
proceedings for enforcement of a lidi which may become superior to this Security Instrument, or to enforce
laws or regulations); or(c)1 have abandoned the Property, then Lender may do and pay for whatever is
reasonable or ai^ropriaie to protect Lender's interest in the Prqieriy and Lender's rights under this Secoriiy
Instrument.
' Lender's actions may include, but are not limited to: (a) protiecting and/or asking the value of the.
Property;(b)securing and/or rqjairing the Property;(c) payiiig sums to dinunate any lien against the Property
that may be equal 01 superior to this Security Instrument;(d) appearing.in court; (e) paying reasonable
. attorneys' fees to prot^ its interest in the Property and/or rights mder this Security Insttument, including
its secured position in a bankruptcy proceeding. Lender can also enter the Property to make i:q)alr5, change
locks, replace or board up doors and windows, drain water from pipes, eliminate building or other code
violations or dangerous conditions, have utilities turned on or off,.and take any other action to secure the
Property. Although Lender may take action under this Section 9, Lender does not bave to do so and is under
no duty to do so. 1 agree that Lender will not be liable for not taking'any or all actions under this Section 9.
I will pay to Lender any aniounts, with interest, which Lender spends under this Section 9. 1 will pay
tho% amounts to Lender when Lender sends me a notice jeq;n»tmg that 1 do so. 1 will pay interest on those
'amounts at the interest rate set forth in the Note. Interest on each amount will be^n on t^ date that the amount
is spent by Lender. This Security Instrument will protect Lender in case I do not keep this promise to pay those
amounts with interest..
Ifldonotown,butam atenantonlhePrqierty, IwinfulfillaUmyobligatioDS under'my lease. I also

agree that, if1 acquire the full tide(sometimes called "fee title") to the Property, my lease interest and the fee
tide will not merge unless Lender agrees to the merger in writing.
rr -'S - ' . 10. MortgageInsurarw. If Leikler requiiedMortgageInsnicanceas a condidon of maMiig the Loan,
. will pay thepremiuDis for the Mortgage Insurance. If, for any leasmi, the Mortgage Insurance coverage ceases .. ■ ..
to be available from the mortgage insurer that previously provided such insotmioe and Lender required me to
make sqiarate payments toward the premiums for Mortgage InsuraiKe,1 will pay the premiums for substantially
equivalent Mortgage Insuraê coverage from an alternate mortgage insurer. However, .'the cost of this ■
' Mortgage Insurance coverage will be substantially equivalent to the'cost to me of the previous Mortgage
Insurance coverage, and the alternate mortgage insurer wQl be selected by Lender.
LOAN NO.: CS1848 loidals JX iC-..

NEW YORK-SingleFamfly.FannieMae/liVefldie Mae UNIFORM INSnVUMENT-MERS Form 3033 liOj
DocnErSEkVKes.lHC. rosM-MMitamons Pase'9ofl7
ORIGINAL
If substanliaUy equivalent Mortgage Insurance coverage is not available. Lender will establish- a
ROn-refimdÎe "loss reserve" as a ktbstitute for the Mortgage Insurance pverage. 1 will continue to pay to
Lender each month an amount equal to one-twelfth of the yearly Mortgage Insurance premium (as of the time
the coverage lapsed or ceased to be in effect). Lender will retain these payments, and will use these payments
to pay for losses that the Mortgage Insurance would have covered. The loss reserve is non-refundable even if
the Loan is ultimately paid In fiill and Lmder is not required to pay me any interest on the loss reserve. l.ender
can no longer require Iok reserve payntents if: (a) Mortgage Insurance coverage again becomes available
through an insurer selected by Lender;(b)such Mortgage Insurance is obtained; <c) Lender requires separately
designated payments toward the premiums for Mor^ge Insurance; and(d)the Mortgage Insurance coverage is
, in the amount and forlhepenod of time required 1^ Lender.
If Lender required Mmlgagclnsniance^ a conditioD of making the Loan and Borrower was requiied to
make separate payments toward the premiums for Mortgage Insurance. I will pay(he Mortgage Insurance loss
reserve payments, until the requirement for Mortgage Insurance ends according to any written agreement
between premiums, or the Lender and me jnovidu^ for such termination or until termination of Mortgage
Insurance is required by Api^cable Law. Lender m^ require me to pay the premiums, or the loss reserve
• payments, m the nianiier described'in Section 3 of this Sc^tylmtrument. No^ng in this Section 10 will
: affect niy obligation to pay intc^ at tte iê proyi^ in &e Note.
Mortgage'Insurance rdmbuises Lender(or any bitity.that purchase the Note) for certain losses it may
incur if Bonower does not'repay the Loan as agreed. Borrower Is iu>t a party to the Mortgage Insurance.
Mortgage insurers evaluate their total risk on all such insurance in force from time to time, and may enter
into agreements with other parties that share or modify their risk, or reduce los^. These agreements are on
terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the mortgage insurer and, the other party (or parties) to these
agreements. These agreements may require the mortgage insurer to make payments using any source of funds
that the mortgage insurer may have available (which may include funds obtained from Mortgage Insurance
premiums).
As a result of these agreements, Lender, ai^r purchaser of the Note, another insurer, any reinsurer, any other
entity, or any affiUate ofany of the foregoing, may receive (directly or iiidircctly) amounts(hat derive from (or
might be characterized as) a portion of BorroweT's payments for Mortgage Insurance, in exchange for sharing or
' modifying the mortgage insurer's risk, or reducing losses. If such agreement provides that an affiliate of Lender
takes a share of the insurer's risk in exchange for a share of the premiums paid to the insurer, the arxangem^ is
oBen termed "captive reinsttrance.^ Further: * ■ '
(a) Any such agreemoits will not affect the amounts that Borrowor has agreed to' pay for Mortgage
Insurance, or any other terms of the Loan. Such agreements wUl not increase the amount.Borrower will
owe for Mortgage Insurance, and they will not entltie jterrowo'to any refund.
(b)Any such agreements will not affect the rights Borrower has - if any - with respect to the Mortgage
.. Insurance undo* the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998 or any other law. These rig^ may.Include the
right to receive cniain disdosnres, to request and obtain cancellation of the Mortgage Insurance, to have
the Mortgaige insurance terminated antomatically, and/or to receive a refund of any Mortgage Insurance
-vTvx ~ < —•' premiums that w«e unearned at the time.of cancdlatipn or.tamination.-'u.. -
• • . • , '1'/:^ • ... • • . v,
11. Agreements About Miscellaneons Proceeds; Forfeitnre. All htocellaneous Proceeds are assigned to
and will'be paid to Lender. '
If the Pr(^)city b damaged, such Miscellaneous Proceeds will be applied to, restoration or repair of the
Property, if(a)the restoration or rq>air is economically feasible, and (b) Lender's security given in this
Security Instrument is not lessened. During sudi rqpair and restoration period. Lender will have (he ■ right to
bold such MiscdDbneous Proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect the FT(q)eity to'veiiiy that the
NEW YOlUC-SingleFamny FaiinieMae/fVnldie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS Forai3033 1/01

DocfABi'Satnass.Inc. form •mmtcntmcd Page 10 of 17
ORIGINAL. ] ^
work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction. 'However, the infection will be imitprtalffpn promptly.
Lender may pay for the xâirs and restoration in a single disbnisement or in a series of progress payments as
the work is completed. Unless Lender and I agree otherwise in writing or unless Applicable Law requires
interest to be paid on such Miscellaneous Proceeds, Lender will'not.be required to pay Borrower any interest or
eami^s on the Miscellaneous Proceeds. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's
security given in this Security Instrument would be lessened, the Miscellaneous Proceeds will be a]q>]ied to the
Sums ^nred, whether or not then due. The excess, ifany, will be paid to me. Such Miscellaneous Proceeds
.. win be applied in the order provided for in Section 2.
* In the event of a total taking, destruction, or loss in value of the Property, the MisceUaneons Proceeds win
• be applied to the Sums Secured, whether or not then due. The excess, if any, wfll bepaid to me.
In the event of a partial tak^,destruction, or loss in value of the Prcqjerty in which the fair market value
. of the Property,inunediatelybeicue the partial tsdcing,.destruction, or loss mvûe.is equal to or greater than
- the amount of die Sums Secured tinmediately before the partial taking, destruction, or loss In value, the Sums
Secur^ will be reduced Ity the ôunt of the Miscdlaneous Proceeds multiplied by the following Action: (a)
' the total amount of the Sums Secured immediately before the partial tal^g, destruction, or loss in value
divided by(b)the fair market value of die Property immediatdy before the pm^ taking, destruction, or loss
.in value. .Aity balance shall be paid to ms.
In the event of a partial taldng, destruction, or low In value of the Property in which the fair roaifcet value
'of the Prtîerty imme^tely before the partial taking, destniction, of loss in value'is less than the amount of
the Sums Secured immeâtely before the paitial tîng, dest^tion, or loss in value, the Miscellaneous
Proceeds will be applied'to the Sums Secured whether or not the sums are then due.
. If I abandon the Property, or if, alter Lender sends me notice that the Opposing Party (as defined in the
next sênce)offered to make an award to setde a claim for damages, I fuT to respond to Lender within 30
days after the date the Lender gives notice. Lender is authorized to collect and apply the Miscellaneous
Proceeds either.to restcraUon or repair of the Property or to the Sums Secured, whether or not then due.
."Oiposing Party" means the third i»ity that owes me Miscellai^ns Proceeds or the party against\^m I have
a lij^'t of action in regard to MiscellaiKOus Proceeds.
I will be in default under this Security Instrument if any civil or criminal action or proceeding that Lender
determines could result in a court ruling (a) that would require forfeiture of the Property, or. that could
damage Lender's interest in the Property or rights under tUs Secuiity Instrument. "Forfeiture" is a comt action
to require the Property, or any part of the Property, to be given up. 1 may correct the default by obtaining a
court ruling that dismisses the court action, if Lender determines that this court ruling prevents foifeiturc of
the Property and also prevents any damage to Lender's interest in the Property .or rights under this Security
Instrument. Iflcorrectthedefault,1 will have the right to have enforcement of this Security Instnunent
discontinued, as provided in Section 19 of this Security Instrument, even if Lender has required immediate
payment in full. The proceeds of any award or claim for damages that are attributable to the damage or
reduction of Lender's interest in Property are-assigi^, and will be paid, to Lender.
All Miscellaneous Proceeds that are not applied to restoration or repair of the Property will be applied in
the ordex provided,for in Section 2.
■ 12. Continuation ofBon'owa''s Obligations And ofLender's Rights.

,Lcnder..may allow me,,prâ person .who takes .over my..rights and
rogations, to delay or to change die amount of the Ptôdic Pajmdits. Even if Lender does this, howem, I
wQl still be iuUy obligated under Note and under this Seci^ty Lmtron^ nnle^ Lender agie» to rdease.
;'me,in writing, fipom xny obligatioi^. '
Lender may allow those ddays or changes for me or a person who.takes over my rights and obligations,
even ifLender is requested not to do so. Even ifLender is requested to do so. Lender wlU not be leqiured to
(I)bring a lawsuit against me or sudi a person for not fulfiUing obligations under the Note or undCT'this
' Security Instrument, of(2)refuse to extend time for payment or' otherwise modify amortization of the Sums -
Secured.
LOAN NO.; CSt848 Initials
N^YORK-SinglcFamDy-Fannieê/Fraldie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01

i>ocna'S£imcxs.lNC FoaM-BorrcNTioua' Pass 11 of 17.
ORIGIN^
(b) Lender's Rights. Even if Lender docs not exercise or enforce any right of Lender under this Security
Instnuneid or under Applicable Law,Lender win still have all of those rights and may exercise and enforce
them in the future. Even if: (l)'Lenderobtainsinsurance, pays taxes, or pays other chums, charges or liens
against the Property;(2)Lender accepts payments from third persons; or (3) Lender accepts payments in
amounts less than the amount then due, Leiêr will have the right under Section 22 below to demand that 1
make immediate payment in full of any amounts remaining due and payable to Lender under the Note and under
diis Security Instrument • . .
- - 13i Obligalions ofBorrower And of Persons Taking Over Borrower's Rights or Obligations. If more
than one person signs tibls Security Instrument as Borrower, each of us is fiilly obligated to keep all of
Bmrower's ptomisa and bbligadoiis contained in this Security Instrument. Lender may enforce Lender's rights
liider this Security Instrument against each of us individually or against all of us together. This means that any
: one of us may be required to pay all of the Sums Secured. However, if one of ns does not ^gn die Note: a)
that person is signing this Secnii^ Instrument only to give that person's rights in the Property to Lemler under
the tenns of this Securi^ Instrument;(b)that person is not personally obligated to pay the Sums Secured; and
(c) that person agrees that Lender may agree with the ofliw Borrowers to dday enforcing any of Lender's
. rights, to modify, or make any accommodations with regard to the'tenns of this Security Instrument or the Note
« ■' without that person's consent.
Subj^ to the provisions of Section 18 of this Security Instrument, any person who takes over my rights or
obligations under tibis Security Instrument in writing, and is approved by Lender in writing, will have all of my
rights and will be obligated to keq> all of my promises and agreements made in this Security Instrument.
Bonower will not be released from Borrower's obligations and liabilities under this Security Instrument unless
Lender agr^ to such release in writing. Any person who takes over Lender's rights or. obligations under this
Security Instrument win have all of Lender's ri^ts and will be obligated to keep all of Lender's promises and
agreements made in this Security Instrument excqit as provided under Section 20.
14. Loan Charges. Lender inay charge me fees for services performed in coimection with my default, for
the purpose of protecting Lender's interest in the Property and rights under this Security Icstrumeni, including,
but not limited to, attorneys' fees, properly inspection and valuation fees. With regard to other fees, the fact
that this SKurity Instiumejit does not expressly indicate that Lender may charge a certain fee does not mean that
Lender cannot charge that fee. Lender may not charge fees that are prohibited by this Security Instrument or by
^plicable Law.
II the Loan is subject to i^pUcable Law which sets iîmnm loan charges,, and that Applicable Law is
flnally interprêd so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with the
Loan exceed pemiitted limits: (a) aiiy such loan charge will be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the
' - charge to the permitted limit; and (b) my sums already collected from me which exceeded permitt^ limits will
be refunded to me. Lender may choose to make this refund by reducing the principal owed under the Note or
by making a direct p^menl to Batrower. If a refund leduces piinc^, die reduction will be treated as a partial
^ prepayment without any prqsaymen! charge (even if a prepayment c^ge is provided for under the Note). If I
■accqx such a refund that is paid directly to me, 1 will waive aity right to bring a lawsuit against Lender because ,
H.-»"s.of the.overchaifle.-'*'y^'«-y— .. . . —
If-
15. Notices Required under this Security Instrument. AR îces given by me or Lender in connectton
- with this Security Instrument will be in writing.' Any notice to me in connection with this Security Instniment
is coiuideredgivbn to me when mailed by first class mail or whm actually delivered to my nodce address if
sent by other means. Notice to any one Borrower will be notice to all Borrowers 'unless Applicable Law
. erqrressly requires olherwire. The notlce address is the ad&ess of die Property unless I give notice to Lender
of a different address. 1 win ômptly notify Lender of my change of address. If Lender specifies a procedure
for reporting my change of addr^, then I'will'only rqrort a change of address through'that specified
NEW YORX-SingleFamily-FaimleMae/FtTddle Mae UNIFORM INSntUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01

DocrurSEHYtcxxbic. rom'Mmtcntmid l^gel2ofl7
ORIGINAL
jnocedure. There may be only one designated notice address under Qiis Security Imlrumentât any one time.
Any notice to Lender will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by Tirst dass mail to Lender's address
stated on the first page of this Security Instrument unless Lender has given me notice of another address. Any
• notice in connection with this Security Instrument is given to Lender when it is actually received by Lender. If
any notice required by this Security Instrument is also required under Applicable Law, the Applicable Law
requirement will satisfy the corresponding requirement under this Security instrument.
16. Law That Governs this Security Instmmoit; Word Usage. This Security Instnunent is govemed by
* federal law and the law of New York State. All rights and obligations contained in this Security Instrument are
. object to any requirements and limitations of Applicable Law. Applicable Law might allow the parties to
agree by contract or it might silent, hot suc^ silence does not mean that Lender and 1 cannot agree hy
contract. If any t^ of tb|s Security Instrument or of the Note conflicts with Applicable Law,the conflict will
not affed other prbvkioris of this Seoirity Instrument or the Note which' can operate','or'be given effect,
without the confUcting provision. This means that the Security Instrument or the Note ^1 remain as if the
conflicting provision did not exist.
As used in this Securify Instrument; (a) words of the masculine gender mean and include corresponding
- * . w<Mds of the feminine and neuter genders; words in the singolar ntean and include the plural, aixl words in
- plural mean and include the singular; and(c)the word '!nay' gives sole discretion without any obligation to
take any action. • . ■
17. Borrower's Copy. Twill be given one copy of the Note and of this Security Instrument.
18. Agreements about Lender's Rights If the Property Is Sold or TVansferred. Lcndci may require
' immediate payment in full of all Sums Secured by this Security Instrument if all or any part of the Property, or
if any right in (he Property, is sold or transfened without Lender's prior written permission. If Borrower is
not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transfened without Lender's prior .written •
. permission, Lender also may require Immediate payment in fiill. However, this option shall ix>t * be exercised
by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law.
If Lender requires immediate payment in full imder this Section 18, Lender will give me a notice wbirii
states this requirement*. The notke wifl give ine at least 30 days to make the required payment. Ihe 30-day
period will bîn on the date the notice is given (o me in the maimer required by Section 15 of this Security
Instrument. If 1 do not make the required payment during that period. Lender may act to enforce its rights
under this Securify Imtiumenl without giving me any further notice or demand for payment.
19. Borroww's Right to Have Lender's Enforcement of this Secnrity Instnunent Discontinued. Even
if Lender has required immediate payment in hill, 1 may have the right to have enforcement of this Securify
Instrument stop]^. I will have tl^ right at any lime.before the earliest of: (a) S days before sale of the
Property under any power of sale granted by this Seciirify Instnunent;(b) another period as Applicable Law
ought specify for the tenniuation of my right to have enforcement of the Loan stopped; or (c) a judgment has
been entered enforcing .this Securify InstiunKnt. lii order to have this right, 1 will meet the following
cmulitimis:
(a) I pay to Lender the full amount that then would be due under this Securify Instrument and the Note as
payment in.ii^ had never.beenjeqtiked;. . .^ .
' .j ]correct niy feihire to keq> any of my other promises or agreements made in this Security Instrument;
(c) I pay all ofLender's lei^nable'oêhses in enforcing this Security Instrument indnding, for example,
reasonable attorneys' fees, property inqjection and valuation fees, and other fees Incnrred fox the purpose of
• • protecting Lender's interest in the Property and rights under.this Securify Instrument; and
' ■ ' (d) I do whatever Lender reasonably requires to assure that Lender's interest in the Pnq)erfy and rights
under this Securify Instrument and my obligations under the Note and under this Securify Instrument continue
NEW YORK-SinglcFttmay-FannieMae/IVBddie Mac UNIFQBM INSTRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01

J>o&MEJ'SeityicES,bfc. rosM-MMitam-ns Page 13 of17
ORIGINAL
- •.■■■ -Si. H<!». w —a... ...» — - .1-, . . . .. > ti

■Lender may require that I pay the sums and expenses mentioned in (a) through (d) in one or more of the
foQowing forms, as sdected by Lender: (a) cash; (b) money order; (c) certified dieck, bank check, treasurer's
check or cashier's check drawn upon an institution whose deposits are Insured by a federal agency,
instrumentality or entity; or (d) 0ectronic Funds Transfer.
If] fulfill all of the conditions in this Section 19, then this Security Instrument win remain in fid] effect
as if immediate payment in fiiU had never been required. However, I wDi not have the right to Imve Lender's
enforcement of this Secmity Iiutnunent discontinued if Lender has required iiiunediatc payment in full under
Section 18 of this Security Insbrument.
20. NoteHolder'sRighttoSdltheNoteor anlnferest Inthe Note; Borrower's Right to Notice of

. . • Change of Loan Servicer; Lender's and Borrower's Right to Notice of Grievance. The Note, or an interest
in the Note, together with this-Security Instrament, may be sold one or more times. 1 might not receive any
I prior notice of these sales.
The entity that collects the Periodic .Payments and perfoims other mortgage loan servicing obligations
under the Note, this Security Instrument, and Applicable is called the 'Loan Seivicer.* There may be a
I I ' dmge of the Loan Servicer as a result of the sale of (he Note. There also may be one ormore changes of the
' I^'anServicer unrdated.toasaleof theNote. An)ltcable Law requires that I be given written notke of
change of the Loan Servicer. The notice will state the name and address of the new Loan Servicer, and also tdl.
me the address to which I shotdd make my paynoents. The notice also will contain any other information
required by RESPA or Applicable Law. If fte Note is sold and thereafter the Loan is serviced by a Loan
Servicer other than the purchaser of the Note, the mortgage losm servicing obligations to me will remain with
the Loan Servicer or be transferred to a successor Loan Servicer and are not assumed by the Note purchaser
unless otherwise provided by the Note purchaser.
'Neithn* 1 nor Lender may commence, join or be joined to aiqr court action (as either an individual party or
• the member of a class) that arises firbm the other party's actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that
alleges that the other has not fiilfilled any of its obligations under this Security Instrument, unless the other is
notified (in the manner required under Section IS of this Security Instrument) of the unfulfilled obligation and
given a reasonable time period to take corrective action. If Applicable Law provides a time period uirich win
elapse before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of (his
paragraph. The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to me under Section 22 and the notice of
' the demand for pfQrmen't In fi^ given to me under Section 22 will be deemed to satisfy the notice and
. opportunity to.tê corrective action provisions of this Section 20. All ri^ts under this paragraph are subject
to Applicable Law.
21. Continuation of Borrower's Obligations to Maintain and Protect the Property. The federal laws
' and the laws of New York State that relate to health, safety or environmental protection are called
"Environmental Law." Environmental Law classifies certain substances as toxic or hazardous. Thm are other
substances that are consideTed hazardous for poiposes of this Section 21. These, substances are gasoline,
kerosene, other flammable or tojdc petroleum products, toxic pesticides and herbicides, volatile solvents,
... ■^ ^ , inatmals containing asbestos or fonnaldAyde. and radioactive imterials. Tim sutetances defined u toxic or
- .. . -^sôus Iv'EnyuonmeQtal ^w'andthicsi^tances considered h^ôus for puiposn of this Sisctioii 21 are
(^lc^'"Haz^(^ Substaiices.'' "Envirohmental CIeaniq>" inciutte any response action, remedial action, or
. * removal action; as dciiiied in Enviionmentai Law. An "Environmental Condition" means a condititm that can
cause, contribute to,*Qr otherwise triggeran Environmental Qeaniip.
] win not do anything affecting (he Prqierty that violates Environmental Law; and 1 will not allow anyone
, else to do,so'. 1 will not cause or permit Hazardous Substances to be present on the Iôperty., I wDi not use -or
store Hazardous Substances on the Prppeity. I also win not di^se of Hazardous Substances on the Property,
' or release any Hazardous Substance on the Property, and I will not allow anyone else to do so. I also ytill not
LOAN NO.: €$1848 Initials
NEW YORK-SlngleFamOy-FannieMae/FVcildie Mac UNIiXlRM INSTRUMENT-M£RS Form 3033 1/01

DocnEfSEtvKxxlMC. FORM'BOdTCNTMxo Page 14,0117
ORIGINAL
do, nor allow anyone else to do, anything affecting the Property that: (a) is in violation of any Environmental
Law;(b)creates an Environmental Condition; or(c) which, due to the presence, use, or release of a Hazardous'
Substance, creates a condition that adversely affects the value of the Property. The promises in this paragr^h
do not apply to the presence, use, or storage on the Property ofsmall quantities of Hazardous Substances that
are generally recognized as appropriate for nonnal residential use and maintenance of the Property (including,
but not limited to, Hazardous Substances in consumer products). 1 may use or store these small quantities on
. the Piopej^. In addition, unless Envlronmmtal Law reqaires removal or oUier action, die Imildings, ,the
uiq>rovements and the fixtures on the Pr(q)erty are permitted to contain asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials if the asbestos and asbestos-containiqg materials are undisturbed and "non-firhble"(that is, not easify
crumbled by hand pressure).
, • '2
1 will pronqrtly give Lender written notice of: (a)any investigation, daim,demand,lawsuit or other action
by any govemmental or icgnlatoiy agency or private party involving the Prqjcxty and any Hazardous Substance
or Environmental Law of which I have actual knowledge;(b)axQr Environmental Condition, including but not
limited to, any spilling, leaking, discharge, release or threat of release of any Hazardous Substance; and(c)ai^
condition caused by the presence, use or release of a Hazardous Substance which adversely affects the value of
the Property. If 1 learn, or any govemmental or regulaioiy authority, or ai^ private party, notifies me that any
removal or other remediation of any Hazôns Substance affecting the Property is necessary, I will promptly
take all necessary remedial actions in accordance with Environmental Law.-
Nothing in this Security Instrument creates an obligation on Lender for an Environmei^ Cleanup.
NON-UNIFORM COVENANTS
I also promise and agree with Lender as follows:
22. Lender's Rights If Borrower Fails to Keep Frpmises and Agreements. Exc^t-as provided,in
Section IS of this Security Instrument, if all of the conditions stated in subsections (a),(b)and (c) of this
Section 22 are met,Lender may require that 1 pay immediately the entire amount thai remaining unpaid
under the Note and under this Security Instrument. Lender may do this without making any furthar
demand for payment. Tl^ roqnirement is called "immediate payment in fnll."•
If Lender requires immediate payment in full, Lender may bring a lawsuit to take away all of my
remaining rights in the Property and have the Property sold. At this sale Lender or another person may
acquire the Ihuperty. This is known as-"foreclosure and sale." In any lawsnit for foreclosure and sale.
Lender uill.bave the right to collect all costs and dtsbursemenls and ad^tional allowances allowed by
- Applicable Law and will have the right to'add all reasonable attornqrs'-rees to the amount1'owe Lender,
which fees shall become part of the Sums Secured or if another defanlt occurs under this Security
Instrument.
Vender may require immediate pa3rmenl in full under this Section 22 only if all of the following
conditions are met:
*(a) 1 fail to keep any promise or agreement made in this Security Instrument or the Note, including,
but not limited to, the'promises to pay when due the Sums Secured or if another ddianlt occure under this
h SecurityInstnimeot; . v". ' "* -a- n-rv--.,.-
i (b) Lendarsendstbme,inthe.mannordesaibrainSemonlSbrthisSeciifi^ Listnnriait,''a notire
that states':
r V (1) The promise or.agrerinent that 1 failed to keep or the default that h^ occnrred;
(2)'The action that 1 must take to correct that defanlt;
(3) A date by which I must cmrect the default. Thai date will be at least 30 days from the date
on which the notice Is given;
LOAN NO.: • CS1848 Initials
NEW YORK-SingleFamDy-Famue Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS Form 3033 1/01

DocnErSEMncEs.Inc. poiiM-MMTamoi» Page 15 of 17
. ORIGINAL
(4) That if1 do not correct the default by the date stated iu the notice. Lender may require-
immediate payment in full, and Lender or another person may acquire the Property by means of
'foreclosure and sale;
(5) That if] meet the conditions stated In Section'19 of this Security Instrument, 1 will have the
■right to have Lender's enforcement of this Security Instmment stopped and to have the Note and this
Secnrity Instrument remain fully effective as If Immediate payment in full had .never beai required;
and
(Q That 1 have the right In any lawsuit for foreclosure and sale to argue ttet 1 did keep my
promises and agreements under the Note and nndv this Security Instrument, and to present any
other defenses that 1 may have; and
(c) I do not correct the default stated in the notice from Lender by the- date stated in that notice.
23. Lender's Obligation to Discharge this Secnrity instrument. When Lender has been paid all
amounts due under the Note and under this Security Instrument, Lender win disdiarge this Security Instrument
by delivering a certificate stating that this Security Instrument has been, satisfied. I yriU pay all costs of
recording the discbarge in the proper official record. I agree to pay a fee for the dischmge of this Security
Instmment, if Lender so requires. Lendermayrequire.thatlpay sudiafee, bntonly if the fee is paid to a
third party for services rendered and the charging of the fee is permitted by Applicable Law.
24. Agreements about New 'Torfc Lien Law. I will receive all amounts lent to me by Lender subject to
the trust fund provisions of Section 13 of the New Yoric Lien Law. This means tliat 1 will; (a) hold all
amounts which I receive and whidb'I have a right to receive from Lender under the Note as a "trust fiind; " and'
(b) use those amounts to pay for "cost of improvement" (as defined in the New York Lien Law) before 1 use
them for any other purpose. The fact that I am holding those amounts as a '"trust fiind" means that for any
building or other Improvement located on the Property I have a special responsibility under the law to use' the
amount in the manner described in this Section 24.
25. BoiTOwa''s Statement Regarding the Property [chedt box as applicable].

EH This Security Instrument covers real property improved, or to be improved, by a 1 or 2 family
dwelling only.
Q This Security Instrument covers real property princlp^ inqiroved.'or to be improved, by one or more
structures contaiiung, in the aggregate, not more th^ 6 residential dwelling units with each dwelling
unit having its own separate cooking facilities.
Q This Security Instrument does not cover real property improved as described above.
li:"
LOAN NO.: C51848 Inftlab

j^jL.
NEW YORK SingleFamily-Faiiiite Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT-MERS ' Form 3033 1/01
DocMiBfSaL¥gxs.Iifc. FOKM •BOdTcam-aKS Iêl6ofl7
ORIGINAL
BY SIGNING BELOW,1 accept and agree to the promises and agreements contaiiKd in pages ] through
17 of this Security Instrument and in aiiy Rider signed by me and recorded with it.
Witnesses:
(Seal)
MidHAEL KRICHEVSKY -Borrower
(Seal)
-Borrower
, • . .. . j,.-. ••• . (Seal)

h-""- • ••• .■ -Bonower
(Seal)"
-Bonower
• ' •
■ .
.(Seal)
-Bonower
. *
LOAN.NO.: C»84S
(Seal)
-Borrower
fSpace Below Tbis Line For Acknowledgmenl]
STATE OF NEW YORK

}SS:
uouiviYUF
COUNTY OF . .
On the day of ' .in the year ,before me, the undersigned, personally
appeared ; | :
MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY
personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the iiidividua](s) whose
nanie(s) is/are su^jibed to the within instrument and acknowledged to that he/she/they executed the same
'1
Inhisîer/tli^.cap^^CiesX aiid'thktby tiôythdrsigiiait^^ the. in^vidiia](s) or the
person iqmn behalf of which.the lndivid^(s)acted or the pc^n iqNHi bdialf of which the 'indfividoa!(s) sited,
executed the agreement. ." • "
h'
Sworn to before me this AVROHOM BiWNBAU^
Day of _J NotBiy Publte State of NYi
"^.01315047128 •
in Kings Cnui^
Notary Public r ■ • Expires 07/24/2009
NEW YORK-Single FamOy-Faraxk MBe/Mdie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT - MERS Form 3033 1/01
DocntEPiSEXiTCExX^ FORM.MMTcmnouj Page 17 of17
ORIGINAL
. * .X r
i. f.'-
rrrsTTTicorTw
INITIAL INTEREST®"ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER

(1-Year LIBOR Indes - Rale Caps)
(Assuihable after Initiai Period)
THIS INITIAL INTEREST ADJUSl ABLE RATE RIDER is made this 14TH day of
DECEMBER 2005 and is incciporated into and shall be deemed to amend -and suj^lemenl
(be Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the "Security Instrument") of the same date given by - the
undersigned (the "Borrower") to secure the Borrower's Initial Interest Adjustable Rate Note (the "Note") to
FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD,A NEW YORK CORPORATION
(the "Lender") of the same date and covering the property described in the Security Instruiiient and located at:
4221 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BROOKLYN.NEW YORK 11224
(Property Address)
IWE NOTE CONTAINS PROVISIONS ALLOWING FOR CHANGES IN THE INTEREST-

.RATE AND THE MONTHLY PAYMENT. THE NOTE LIMITS THE AMOUNT THE
BORROWER'S INTEREST RATE CAN CHANGE AT ANY ONE TIME AND THE
MAXIMUM RATE THE BORROWER MUST PAY.
ADDITIONAL COVENANTS. In addition to the covenants and agreements made in the purity
Instrument, Bonower and Lender further covenant and agree as follows:
A. INTEREST RATE AND MONTHLY PAYMENT CHANGES
The Note provides for an initial interest rate of 6.500 %. The Note provides for interest only
payments until the first fully amortizing principal and interest payment due date (the "First P&I Payment D^
Date"), which is the first day of FEBRUARY , 2011 .
The Note provides for changes in the interest rale and the monthly payments, as follows:
4. INTEREST RATE AND MONTHLY PAYMENT CHANGES
(A) Interest Change Dates
The interest rate 1 will pay may change on the first day.ofJANUARY . 2011 , and may
change on that day every 12tb month ther^fler. Each date on'whicb my interest rale could change is called an ■
"Interest Change Date."
(B) *1110 Index
BeginniDg with the first Interest Change Date, my interest rate will be based on an Index. The "Index* is
the one-year London Interbank Offered Rale("LIBOR") which is the average of Interbank offered rales for
one-year U.S. dollar-denominated deposits in the London market, as published in The Wall Street Journal The
most recent Index figure available as of the date 45 days before each Interest Change Date is called the "Current
Index."
If the Index is no longer available, the Note Holder will choose a new index which is based upon
..con^liarable information. The Note Holder.will give me notice.of this choice. „ . —
(C) CalciiIaUoa of Changes'
Before each Interest Change Date, the Note Holder will calcidate my new interest rate by adding
TWO AND 2SOflOOO pwenlage point(s)f 2JtS0 . %)to the Current Index. The Note Holder
will then round'the result of this addition to the nearest one-eighth of one percentage point (0.125%). Subject
to the limits stated in Section 4(D)below, this rounded amount'wiB be my new interest rate until the next
Interest Change Date.
LOAN NO.: CS1848 Initials idL_^

MULTISTATE INITIAL INTEREST ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER •l-Ynr UBOR Inda (Accnmablt >atr IsIOal Period).Stngfe Paaiily-
Freddlr Mst UNIFORM INSTRUMEMT
l}ocrxwSatyicEs.lKC. roM-tassant-ms Page 1 of 3 Form 5137 7/05
ORIGINAL
The Note Holdei will then determine the amount of my monthly payment. For payment adjustments
occurring before the First P&I Payment Due Date, my monthly payment will be the amount sufficient- to repay
all accrued interest each month on the unpaid principal balance at the new interest rate.. For payment
adjustments occurring on or after the First P&I Payment Due Date, my monthly payment wiH be. an amount
sufncieni to repay the unpaid principal that I am expected to owe at the Interest Change Date in lull on the
Maturity Date at my new iiUeresi rale in substantially equal payments. The result of(his calculation will be the
new amount of my monthly payment.
<D) Limits on Interest Rale Changes
The interest rate 1 am required to pay at the first Interest Change Date will not be greater than'11.500 %
or less than 2JtS0 %.-Thereafter, my interest rate will never be increased or decreased on any single
Interest Cb^ge Date by more than TWO AND OOO/iOOO pêntage point(s)( ■ 2.000 %)
from the rate of Interest I have been paying ifbr die preceding 12 months. My interest rate will never be greater
than 11.500 %.
■ (E) Effective Date of Changes

My new interest rate will become effective on each Interest Change Date. I will pay (be amount of my new
monthly payment beginning on the first monthly payment date after the Interest Change Date until the amount
of my monthly payment changes again.
(F) Notice of Changes
Tlie Note Holder will deliver or mail to me a notice of any changes in my interest rate and the amount of
my monthly payment before(he effective date of any change. The notice will Include information required by
law to be given to mc and also the title and telephone number of a person who will answer any question I may'
have regarding the notice.
B. TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY OR A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN BORROWER
I. UNTIL BORROWER'S INITIAL INTEREST RATE CHANGES UNDER THE TERMS

STATED IN SECTION A ABOVE,UNIFORM COVENANT 18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT
SHALL BE IN EFFECT AS FOLLOWS:
Transfer of(he Property or a BeneficlalLiterest in Borrower. As used in Ibis Section 18,
"Interest in the Propeny" means any legal or beneficial interest in the Piopeny, including, but not
limited to, those beneficial interests transferred in a bond for deed, contract for deed, installment sales
.contract or escrow agreement, the inient'of wbidi is the transfer of title by Borrower at.a future date to
a purchaser.
If all or any part of the Propeny or any'Interest in die Property is sold or Iransferred (or if
Boirower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Boirower is sold or transferred) without
Lender's prior written consent. Lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by
this Security Instiuineiit. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is
prchibiled by Applicable Law.
If Lender exercises this option. Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice '
shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from (he date the notice is given in'accordance'mth '"'
' Section 15 within which Boiirowcr must pay all sums secured by this Security lustiiihieiit.' If Borrower
fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period. Lender may iiwohe any lemedies
permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.

MULTISTATE INITIAL INTEREST ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER •I.Ycsr.LIBOR liuia(Amaabk •Rcr lohial Ptfla<t> -Siasle Famiiy-
Frrddle Mm UNnPORM (NSTRUMENT
Docn£fSEiincBs.Iiic. form - mssotn-ms Page 2 of3 Form 5137 7/05
ORIGINAL
2. AFTER BORROWER'S INITIAL INTEREST RATE CHANGES UNDER THE TERMS
STATED IN SECTION A ABOVE, UNIFORM COVENANT 18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT
DESCRIBED IN SECTION BI ABOVE SHALL THEN CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF UNIFORM COVENANT 18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL BE
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS;
Transfo* oT the Property or a BeneHdal Interest in Borrower. As used in this Section 18,
"Interest in the Property" means any legal or beneficial interest in the Property, including, but not
limited to, those beneficial,interests transferred in a bond for deed, contract for deed, installment sales
contract or escrow agreement, the intent of which is the transfer of title by Borrower at a future date to
a purchaser.
If all or aiqr part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or tiansfexied (or if
Borrower Is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Bonower is sold or tiansfeired) without
Lender's prior written consent. Lender may require immediate payment in hill of all sums secured by
this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is
prohibited by Applicable Law. Lender also shall not exercise this option if: <a)Borrower causes to be
submitted to Lender information required by Lender to evaluate the intended transferee as if a new loan
were being made to th( transferee; and (b)Lender reasonably determines that Lender's security will not
be impaired by the loan assumption and that the risk of a bread)of any covenant or agreement in this
Security Instrument is acceptable to Lender.
To the extent permitted by Applicable Law, Lender may charge a reasonable fee as a condition to
Lender's consent to the loan assumption. Lender may also require the transferee to sign an assumption
agreement that is acceptable to Lender and that obligates tbe transferee to keep all the promises and
agreements made in the Note and in this Security Instnuncnl. Borrower will conUnuc to be obligated
under the Note and this Security Instniment tmless Lender releases Borrower in writing.
If Lender exercises the option to requtie immediate paymcm in full. Lender shall give Bonower
notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days ftoin the date the
notice is given in accordance with Section 15 within which Bonower must pay all sums secured by this
Security Instrument. If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period. Lender
may invoke any remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on
Borrower.
BY SIGNING BELOW, Borrower accepts arui agrees to the terms and covenants contained in this
Adjustable Rate Rider.
.(Seal) (Seal)
-Bonower -Bonower
MICHAEL KRIGI1EVSKY
(Seal) ^(Scal)
-Bonower -Bonower
(Sign Orlgina]Only)
LOAN NO.: CS1848

MULTJSTATE INITIAL INTEREST ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER - l.Vear LIBOR Indci (Acramabb afttr loltbl Pniad)-Single Pamily-
FTcddk Mtr UNIFORM INSTRUMENT
DocrK£pSatvtce5.l«c. form-mssutn-was Page 3 of 3 Form 5137 7A)5
ORIGINAL
3&207/fc
INITIAL INTEREST®"ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE
(1-Year LIBOR Index - Rate Caps)
(Assumable after Initial Period)
CONTAINS PROVISIONS ALLOWING TOR CHANGES IN MY INTEREST
ÊREST RATE CAN CHANGE AT ANY ONE TIME AND THE MAXIMUM RATEI MUST
note LR«m
DECEMBER 14 .,jOOS_ BROOKLYN . NEWVORK

4221 ATLANTIC AVENIIF
BROOKLYN.NEW YORK 11224 —
pProperty Address]
1. BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY
'<■ fy "The
k» caUed Pnncipal ), plus mterest, lo die order of the Lender. S- JLender747.iioo.M
is (Olds annum
FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD. A NEW YORK CORPOPATinN
I Will make all payments under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order
Rnd who is entitled lo ^
and anyone
receive payments under this Note is called the "Note who takes this Note by transfer
Holder."
2. INTEREST
has hecn paid. I will pay

Sn4of'tS^^«e' ^ pay Win change in'^ccoriaê ^
The interest rale rûired by this Section 2 and Section 4 of this Note is the rate I wiU pay both before and
after any default described in Section 7(B) of this Note.
3. PAYMENTS
(A) Time and Place of Payments
-rnnr 3 payment evciy month on the first day of the month beginninc on FEBRUARY ni
• i ^ payments every month until I have paid all of the prindpal and interest and anv
^ Note. Eadi momUy paî Si™ iS ™f^
Ss'i,^r;„-umX^h,ch«
i,op!j!2!l NEW YORK
BROOKLYN, îmopayments at 1333 60TH .stueet. 2ND Fi/ym
or at a different place if required by the Note Holder.
(B) Amount of My Initial Monthly Payments
amortizing principal and interest payment due date slated in subsection (O bdow rthe
0?^ Nme «"=
Each of my initial monthly payments will be in the amount of U.S. $ 4.049.50 Thic
may change in accordance with subsection (q below. ' amount
(C) Monthly Payment Changes
The First P&I Payment Due Date is the first day of FEBRUARY 7ni i
LOAN NO-: CS1848 - '
MINNO.: 100294800012018483 ^ //
Doo.«,tout«/»c. P...lorS Form SS37 SAM (rev. 7/»S)

ORIGINAL
!" .-c
of my loan m accordance with Section 5 of this Note. Beginning with the Fir<;t^ n
"eXt.ana\r«.':r.n.e^L^^
aMtl'°7.h
a noiê of' 7'^°"'?m''^"'
the change "f'^y ""'"e''"
accotdance ray8nranlWy
with Section payrnem.
of this Note. ThethenoUce
NotewBI
Holder willttedeliver
include or mail to me
^sTdT^tow
number of a person who will answer any question I may have regarding the not^
4. INTEREST RATE AND MONTHLY PAYMENT CHANGES
(A) Interest Change Dates
Tlieintcrest rate I will pay may change on the first (lav of January __j
tte?:src&'7?' Each dateôn which my interest rate cou-.d^sîfedT
(B) The Index
ihP ra'c will be based on an Index The "Index" u
îS'Si'i'xsK.Krsjsai.'--
(C) Calculation of Changes
-a-
TWotl^tl'r"' >7 "ta by adding
n7rrnu7roV;rn.rm;~7 ^ -"ait'Lrni'S:s:
(D) Limits on Interest Rate Changes
or le]?to""'Two™/ ''"^""" •« 8i«ter than 11.50« %
Inieî
Interest rhan„. n ,7-
Change Date by moreTha^ftar.
than TWO my AND
interest rate will never be increased or decreased
llotMnnn i„"w oânv
,2L sinale
Sf
(E) Effective Date of Changes
(F) Notice of Changes
E.=P^^7Sa'S£Sri
l-OAN NO.: CS1848
MINNO.: 10029481)0012018483 InV Is lA K
MULTIS1ATK INITIAL INTERK.ST ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE - l V»ar LlBon 175 77 ^ Z—',—
Krrddle .Mdt UNIFOILM I.N.STRUVn.3>rT (A8~««bU ,ft.r lollfail Period) - Single P«aily -
Dot.rKfSFKncBs.lNf: ior.m -msisitn-mm PaselufS
rage .i oi 5 i?
porm 5537«?»•-... 5/04(rev. 7/05)
ORIGINAL
5. BORROWER'S R1GHT TO PREPAY
of Principal
doing so. I may not designate a payment as a Preoavi^n^TM h ^ .f Holder in writing that I am
under the Note Prepayment if I have not made all the monthly payments due
HoldcI^yi!se"yTrâTSrto7ed ® Prepayment charge. The Note
Note Holder
applying my may app^mrCay^
I ofKotTTl Note.
d' However, the
cr„g«"° Poy«"'nmcaa oie
P.epayn«n.aSheKSoSy^
monthly payments tjeginning with the monihlv
Poy™'"'-."'--akn a panid
of "»y
Prepayment. After the first Interest Thanoe after the Interest Change Date following the partial
an interest rale incJ«^ ' 'o my partial Prepayment may be offset by
6. LOAN CHARGES
interest or otheHMn SLês°c!lll«°ô?to be colStc^^^ charges, is fiMlly interpreted so that the

limits, then: (a)any such Joan chTfEe perxmiied
7. BORROWER S FAILURE TO PAY AS required

(A) Late Charges for Overdue Payments
in to nw pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the tiate It is tfue, f will be in default
(C) Notice of Default
amol'™a «tS«e '^'"8 me that if J to not pay the o.erdne

(D) No Waiver By Note Holder
(E) Payment of Note Holder's Costs and Expense

havemfrlSftm"Cid1faefby™for^^^^^
prohibited "<>'' Holder will
by applleahle law, Tltose expenses include, for exa'tîSa^Sttmney^Tee"
8. GIVING OF NOTICES
be tllve1lTyS;^'rorT.Snnu •« '»"« Note wll,

.MIN NO.: 10029480001201S483 I.
MIJLTISTATE INITIAL INTEREST AIXJUSTABLE UATT Nnnp . «... -V—^
Freddie Mae UNIFORM INSTRUMENT " '»<!" lAisumable after Ishtai Period) - Single Family -
DoCFUEl'SEXnCBS.hc. lHWM.MS5i37N-8«4 IPaPl>
age JT of
a.r 5C porm S537 S/t)4(rev. 7/05)
ORIGINAL
Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note wUl be given by delivering it or by
mailing it by fii:st class mail lo the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different
address if I am given a notice of that different address.
9. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE

If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fiilly and personally obligated to keep all of the
promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a
guarantor, sirrety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these
obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep
all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each
person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of
the amounts owed under this Note.
10. WAIVERS
I and aiiy other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of Presentment and Notice of
Dishonor. Presentment" means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due.
Notice of Dishonor" means the right to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts
due have not been paid.
11. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE

This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the
protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed
(the'Security Instrument"), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses
which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes
how and under what conditions I may be required lo make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe
under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:
(A) UNTIL MY INITIAL INTEREST RATE CHANGES UNDER THE TERMS STATED IN
ASÔLLfW^^^^^' UNIFORM COVENANT 18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT IS DESCRIBED
Traiujfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower. As used in this Section 18,
"Interest in the Property" means any legal or beneficial interest in the Property, including, but not
limited to. lho.se beneficial interests transferred in a bond for deed, contract for deed, iastallmcnt sales
a purchaser.
If all or any part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if
Borrower i.s not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred) without
Lender .s prior written consent. Lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by
thi.s Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is
prohibited by Applicable Law.
If Lender exercises this option. Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice
shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given in accordance with
Sixiion 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument. If Borrower
fails to pay the.se sums prior to the eviration of this period. Lender may invoke any remedies
permilled by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.
(B) AFTER MY INITIAL INTEREST RATE CIUNGES UNDER THE TERMS STATED IN
SECTION 4 ABOVE, UNIFORM COVENANT 18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT DESCRIBED
IN SECTION 11(A) ABOVE SHALL THEN CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT, AND UNIFORM COVENANT
18 OF THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT SHALL INSTEAD BE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
Transfer of(he Property or a Benendallnta-est in Borrower. As used in this Section 18,
"Interest in the Propeny" means any legal or beneficial interest in the Property, including, but not
limited to, those beneficial interests transferred in a bond for deed, contract for deed, installment sales
a purcha.ser.
LOAN NO.: CS1848
MINNO.: 100294800012018483 jl.
IWULTtSTATE INITIAL INTEREST AWUSTABLE RATE NOTE - l-Vear UBOR l-telAssS^bfe'.fiSnSftfarp^
Frcddit Mat UMI-'ORM INSTRinviKNT
DocpREpSEkvu.rjt.Inc pobm • M.<U5rN.«(SM Page 4 of 5 Form 5S37 5/04(rev. 7/05)
ORIGINAL
Ifall or any part of ihe Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if
Borrower
Lender IS notwritten
s pnor a natural personLender
coiênt. and a beneficial interest
may require in Borrower
immediate paymentis insold
ftill or transferred)
of all without
sums secured by
this Instrument. However, thts option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is
prohibit^ by Applicable Law. Lender also shall not exercise this option if: (a)Borrower causes to be
submitt^ to Lender information required by Lender to evaluate the intended transferee as if a new loan
were being imdc to the transferee; and (b) Lender reasonably determines that Lender's security will not
be impaired by the loan assumption and that the risk of a breach of any covenant or agreement in this
Security Instrument is acceptable to Under.
IUnder s cogent
extenttopermitted
the loan by ApplicableLender
assumption. Law. Under mayrequire
may also chargethe
a reasonable feesign
transferee to as aancondition to
assumption
agreement that is acceptable to Under and that obligates the transferee to keep all the promises and
agrcemMts made in the Note and in this Security Instrument. Borrower will continue to be obligated
under me Note and îs Security Instiumeni unless Under releases Borrower in writing.
If Lender exercises the option to require immediate payment in full. Under shall give Borrower
notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the
notice IS given in accordance with S^tion 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this
Security totrument. If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period. Under
may invoke any remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on
Borrower.
WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S)OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
— ^—-• ' (Seal) WITHOUT ^CQURSg (Seal)

MICHAEL KRICHEVSKY Borrower 7 -Borrower
rSeali -.^.KlrTtmer.Sr.VtoePritklim
EaimocLEdidlieJLM (Seal)
-Borrower -Borrower
(Seal) (Seal)
-Borrower -Bonower
(Sign Original Only)
MULT1.STATE INITIAL INTEREST ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE - 1-V.,, UBOR lod« (A»«n»bl..f,., l.itW Prlod).Smgle Fanuly -
Frtddle Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT
Page 5 of5 Form 5537 5/04(rev. 7/05)
LOAN NO.: CS1R4S ORIGINAL MIN NO.: 1011294800012018483

Adversary Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adversary Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adversary Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Eastern District of New York

In re: Michael Krichevsky Bankruptcy Case No.: 1−19−43516−ess

SUMMONS AND NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Location: Date and Time:

Summons [Summons and Notice of Pretrial Conf. rev. 05/27/2016]

Plaintiff Under Duress, DIP

Wells Fargo Bank, NA;

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Kelly Duncan, individual

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Stephanie Terese Tautge, individual; TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

Daniel V. Edward, individual

Banc of America Funding Corporation

VERIPRISE PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC

Charice Lenise Gladden, individual;

Donald W. O'Brien, Jr., individual;

Aleksandra K. Fugate, individual;

Brittany J. Maxon, individual;

David Bruce Wildermuth, individual;

Brettanie L. Hart Saxton, individual;

Victoria E. Munian, individual;

Michael Thomas Jablonski, individual;

Miranda L. Sharlette a/k/a Miranda Jakubec, individual

FRENKEL LAMBERT WEISS WEISMAN GORDON, LLP

Barry M. Weiss, individual

Woody Dorsonne, individual;

REED SMITH LLP

Natsayi Mawere, individual

Jennifer L. Achilles, individual

Estate of diseased Noach Dear, individual;

Shmuel Taub, individual;

Steven J. Baum, P.C.

Steven J. Baum, individual

Elpiniki M. Bechakas; individual;

Jane and John Doe 1-100, individuals

violation of bankruptcy stay by Defendants in concert respectfully aver as follows below:

victim since 2009.

information and belief.

amount of the allowed secured claim, if any.

serve and protect.

“win” in court and plunder my estate.

federal and state statutes.

standing and have succeeded honorably, on the merits.

of NYC Register on my property per 11 U.S.C. § 506(d).

1988 and 18 USC §242.

efforts to extort an alleged consumer debt from me.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) this is a core proceeding.

property of DIP in this case.

jurisdiction) and per 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO).

and transactions occurred here and Defendants transact business here.

limitations per 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and per equitable tolling doctrine.

actions against my property starting from 2009 until present.

any officer or employee of USB.

courts to prove that USB indeed participated in those actions.

violation of FDCPA section 1692(e).

and/or holds them.

interlopers in conspiracy to create an illusion in court of a lawful creditor, USB.

state its true role in these foreclosures on the record.