IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ________________________________ V. ________________________________ NO.

________________________ CALENDAR: __________

MOTION TO DEEM CASE VOID BECAUSE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT BY PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL Defendant(s), ________________________ and ________________________, pursuant to Section 5/2-1301 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, 735 ILCS 5/2-1301, asks this Court to render the conduct of Plaintiffs counsel fraud on the court and render this case void as a matter of law. This motion is being brought in a timely manner. In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows: 1. The Illinois Supreme Court has defined fraud by an officer of the court in In re Eugene Lee Armentrout et al., 99 Ill.2d 242, 75 Ill. Dec. 703, 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983) as to include anything calculated to deceive the court either by direct falsehood, innuendo, speech, silence, or gesture, whether attorney or judge. 2. ____________________________ (Plaintiffs Counsel) is a law firm specializing in foreclosure prosecution. Attorneys that work with Plaintiffs Counsel

should know that the assignment of a note carries with it an equitable assignment of the mortgage by which it was secured. 3. Moreover, Plaintiffs Counsel should know that once a promissory note is tendered to and accepted by an assignee, the mortgage passes as an incident to the note. See Inland Real Estate Corp. v. Oak Park Trust & Savings Bank, 127 Ill. App. 3d 535, 542 (1983).

4. In addition, Plaintiffs Counsel must be aware of well-settled Illinois law that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it. See Moore v. Lewis, 51 Ill. App. 3d 388, 391-92 (1977); Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872). Consequently, Plaintiffs Counsel knew or should have known that the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt. Moore v. Lewis, 51 Ill. App. 3d at 391-92. 5. Notwithstanding this knowledge and its fiduciary duty to be truthful to the court at all times, Plaintiffs Counsel prepared and caused to be recorded a mortgage assignment that they knew contains forged signatures, and that clearly violated multiple terms and conditions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (Trust Agreement) which allegedly granted Plaintiff, as the agent of the purported owner of the note and mortgage, legal authorization to initiate this cause of action. See City of Chicago v. Higginbottom, 219 Ill.App.3d 602, 579 N.E.2d 890 (1991). Exhibits 1 and 2. 6. More importantly, Plaintiffs Counsel submitted a copy of the mortgage assignment which they knew contained forged signatures of widely known robo-signers. Exhibit 3; see also current list of robo-signers online at the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds http://www.salemdeeds.com/robosite/pdf/robosigners.pdf. 7. Not only was Plaintiffs Counsel responsible for the preparation, execution, and recordation of the mortgage assignment with forged signatures, they turned around and actually sued MERS in the foreclosure proceeding. 8. Plaintiffs Counsels actions were done with the sole purpose to deceive this Court into believing that Plaintiff was the agent of the lawful owner of Defendants note and mortgage when in fact they knew that not to be the case.

9. And while intent is not a requirement when one has a fiduciary duty to the court, attempt alone is sufficient to establish fraud on the court. 10. Such an attempt to deceive this Court was established when Plaintiffs Counsel submitted the complaint with exhibits and motion for summary judgment all the while knowing of the fraud and legal deficiencies as outlined above. 11. Not to mention the fact that even after the completion of any such foreclosure proceeding, fraud on this Court leaves Defendants still legally responsible for the debt to its lawful owner who is not a party to this proceeding. 12. As such, Plaintiffs Counsel has engaged in fraud upon this Court rendering this entire proceeding void. In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Thomas Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935) ("Fraud vitiates everything); State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934); People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Newton R. Gilmore, 345 Ill. 28; 177 N.E. 710 (1931); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929); In re Steven R. Jakubowski, Disciplinary case no. 93 CH 455 (Fraud includes the suppression of the truth, as well as the presentation of false information.). 13. Accordingly, all orders issued by this Court, in connection with this instant matter are void, of no legal force or effect, and cannot lawfully be made valid. 14. Further, a void judgment cannot be cured by subsequent proceedings. WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court for a recordable order deeming this case and the judicial sale deed void as a result of fraud on the court by Plaintiffs Counsel.

Date: __________________

Respectfully submitted, Signature: _____________________________

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ________________________________ V. ________________________________ AFFIDAVIT ____________________________________ (Defendant(s)), being first duly sworn, on oath states: 1. I/We am/are familiar with the facts upon which this affidavit is based and if called upon to testify as a witness I/we could competently testify to the following facts based upon personal knowledge: a. Plaintiffs counsel prepared a mortgage assignment on behalf of MERS as nominee for the original lender in the subject note and mortgage after the original lender was purchased by Bank of America. Plaintiffs counsel also caused this mortgage NO.________________________ CALENDAR: ________________

assignment to be recorded with the county recorder of deeds office. b. In order to prepare the mortgage assignment, Plaintiffs counsel necessarily acquired knowledge of and information pertaining to the documents which created the party to whom the assignment purports to transfer the ability to foreclose, the mortgage-backed security trust.

c. These documents include the Trust agreement a/k/a Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), which, I/we have reviewed. d. These documents specifically state that all endorsements and

assignments had to be completed by no later than ninety days after the Closing Date of the trust in order to maintain the pass-through taxation status of the mortgage-backed security trust under the IRS code. e. Under the PSA and Purchase Agreement, the original lender stated under oath that the Seller is the party to whom the original lender sold the subject note and mortgage prior to be their transfer to servicers principal, the mortgage-backed security trust. f. The Seller, however, is not a party to this foreclosure proceeding and there is nothing evidencing the actual transfer of the subject note and mortgage to the Seller. g. The PSA requires a complete chain of title accompany every endorsement and/or assignment of a note and/or mortgage. Nevertheless, there is no complete chain of title in the record or filed with the SEC. Date: _____________________ Signature: _____________________________ 3

Signature: _____________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _____________, 20_____.

________________________ Notary