SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND Hon. Joseph J.

Maltese ---------------------------------------------------------------------X HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-8 3476 Stateview Blvd INDEX # 130010/10 F. Mill, SC 29715 Plaintiff, -Against-

NOTICE OF MOTION
ROBERT HAGERMAN, ANNMARIE HAGERMAN A/K/A ANMARIE HAGERMAN, AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY, BANK OF AMERICA, NA BOARD OF MANAGERS OF WOODVALE ESTATES HOMEWONERS ASSOCIATIONS, HSBC BANK USA, NA, JOLEEN ARCHUL, LEAF FUNDING INC A/A/O FIVE POINT CAPITAL, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK, CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICTION BUREAU, RBS CITIZENS NA VICTORY STATE BANK JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious, it being the Intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants Of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, Corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an Interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises) Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------X SIR: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of Derrick Hanna, dated April 14, 2012 and the annexed affidavit of ANNMARIE HAGERMAN sworn to April 14, 2012, and upon the papers and all proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move this Court at a DCM Term, Part 3M thereof, to be held at the Richmond County Supreme Court, 130 Stuyvesant Place, Staten Island, New York on May 25, 2012, at 9:30, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order pursuant to Rule 3012 of the CPLR granting Defendant Summary Judgment on the ground that the Plaintiff and its agents have forged the Note which Plaintiff relies on as the bases of its case and that the ends of justice will be promoted by such, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: Brooklyn, NY April 30, 2012

By:

_____________________________________ Derrick Hanna, Esq. HANNA & VLAHAKIS Attorney for Defendant 7504 Fifth Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11209 (718) 680-8400

To: Hogan & Lovells US LLP Attorney for Plaintiff 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF RICHMOND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES

CORPORATION, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-8 3476 Stateview Blvd F. Mill, SC 29715 Plaintiff, -Against-

INDEX # 130010/10

ROBERT HAGERMAN, ANNMARIE HAGERMAN A/K/A ANMARIE HAGERMAN, AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, AMERICAN GENERAL HOME EQUITY, BANK OF AMERICA, NA BOOARD OF MANAGERS OF WOODVALE ESTATES HOMEWONERS ASSOCIATIONS, HSBC BANK USA, NA, JOLEEN ARCHUL, LEAF FUNDING INC A/A/O FIVE POINT CAPITAL, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK, CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICTION BUREAU, RBS CITIZENS NA VICTORY STATE BANK JOHN DOE (Said name being fictitious, it being the Intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants Of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, Corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an Interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises) Defendants . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Derrick Hanna, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of perjury: 1. That I am a member of the Law firm of Hanna & Vlahakis, and I am

familiar with all the proceedings heretofore had herein. This affirmation is submitted in support of Defendant=s motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs foreclosure complaint and the ends of justice will be promoted thereby. THE NOTE EXHIBITED IN AFFIDAVIT OF KYLE N. CAMPBELL IS A FORGERY 2. On or about July, 2011 Plaintiff moved for a protective order and

Defendant cross moved for summary judgment. In response to Defendants cross motion, Plaintiff filed the Affidavit of Kyle N. Campbell (hereafter Kyle Affidavit) in Opposition to Defendant Annmarie Hagermans Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 15, 2011. The affidavit contained an Exhibit F, referred to by Kyle N. Campbell, at page 3, para. 9 of his affidavit, as the true and correct copy of the Consolidation, Extension, and Modification Agreement, which attaches the Consolidated Note. See Exhibit B, Kyle N. Campbell affidavit. Exhibit F from the Kyle Affidavit has been reproduced for the courts convenience in its entirety here as Exhibit A. Exhibit F in the Kyle affidavit has a Recording and Endorsement cover page from the Office of the Richmond County Clerk and purports to be document # 181083 filed with the Richmond County Clerk. See Exhibit A. The Document # 181083 actually on file with the Richmond County Clerks Office can be found as Exhibit C here. Kyle N. Campbell, in his affidavit, purports to be a Vice President of Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., d/b/a Americas Servicing Company (Wells Fargo), the servicer for the plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee. The Kyle N. Campbell version of the Note also has two endorsements on it that do not appear on the Document # 181083 on file at the Richmond County Clerks office: the first by Evelyn Ortiz, post closing supervisor for Superior Mortgage Corp. and the other by Deanna Martin, Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. For easy comparison the two Notes are reproduced as Exhibit D. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF FORGED NOTE AND FRAUD 3. During a recent meeting with my client to update her on the status of her case. I was explaining the documents in her file and she was looking at the affidavit of Kyle N. Campbell and its exhibits. She came across the Consolidated Note for $839,000 dated January 29, 2007 (which is the bases of Plaintiffs foreclosure case) and was observing it for some time as I explained her options. She looked up at me and stated that the signatures on the Consolidated Note were not that of her or her husband. I observed

the document and saw that it was part of a document filed with the Richmond County Clerk land records. 4. I went online to the Richmond County Clerk website to look up Land Document 181083 recorded on February 28, 2007. To my surprise the Consolidated Note online at the clerks office had a rubber stamped Exhibit C in the left upper corner of the first page of the Consolidated Note. The purported Consolidated Note, dated January 29, 2007, in the Kyle Affidavit has Exhibit C typed in at about the same area. There is also a rubber stamped ORIGINAL on the Kyle version. However, the most disturbing difference is the signatures. On the Kyle version of the Consolidated Note, dated January 29, 2007, (this one has the purported endorsements on it) Robert Hagermans name appears first and then under it is the name Anmaire Hagerman (notice the misspelling in this version). In the version of the Note filed in the Richmond County Clerks Office (filed February 28, 2007) the name Anmarie Hagerman appears first, not Robert Hagerman, and is witnessed. The two notes are reproduced separately here for comparison. See Exhibit D, Note exhibited as part of Exhibit F in the Kyle Affidavit. And see in comparison the Note on file with the County Clerk as Document # 181083. The Kyle version lacks the witness. It appears that all the closing documents were witnessed by the same person, Wayne Prucha, with the same mark. The Kyle version is clearly on its face a forgery and a fraud on the Court. The affidavit of Anmarie Hagerman is unequivocal in that the signature is not that of her or her late husband. All the documents were witnessed at the closing and only one note was signed. This fraudulent forged document was used to convince the Court that the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case based on the endorsements present on this document. This document purports to give the Plaintiff rights to the property; however, Plaintiff in fact has no rights and must be sent a strong message. The Kyle Affidavit makes no mention or gives any explanation as to why there are suddenly two Notes in existence. Defendant requests $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages to be levied against the Plaintiff and all its agents and

attorneys who are ready and willing to file forged papers as was done here. This type of conduct on such a scale is unprecedented in the history of our legal system and undermines all that was previously trusted and relied on in our conduct between attorneys and the court system. No matter who one represents, this is the type of unethical as well as criminal conduct that even the thought of which should never be entertained. It is clear that the conduct the Lippman affidavit was calculated to curtail has failed. Third party affidavits with documents created for the particular occasion have replaced the production of real evidence. 5. The fact that the Plaintiff has and still adamantly refuses to provide discovery of the purported ORIGINAL note now makes sense. This document will soon find itself at the District Attorney and Attorney Generals offices. 6. A forgery constitutes a fraud in the factum, and a forged instrument is void ab initio and therefore unenforceable. Since the Note proffered by Plaintiff as the true and correct copy contained the forged signatures of the Defendants, the Note and the Mortgage are null and void, and the security interest created by the Mortgage should be terminated. The lien against the Property is likewise null and void and must be removed. 7. Any and all money paid by Defendants must be accounted for and returned with interest and in treble. Treble damages are appropriate where Plaintiff or its agents false and misleading statements and improper commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action violate the public policy of New York and constitute deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law 349. Clearly this conduct tends to injure the public and consumers as numerous forged documents are the basis for default foreclosure judgments where citizens are wrongfully put out of their property. 8. Defendant, Anmarie Hagerman states in her affidavit that the signature is not hers or her husbands. It is clear from the documentary evidence that the Kyle N. Campbell exhibited Note is not the Note on file

with the Clerks office under document number 181083. The forged Note was hidden inside the copy of Document 181083 and was calculated to make it appear more credible. Defendant further states that she only signed one Note. The Note was witnessed, as where all the other closing documents. See Exhibit A. The Kyle N. Campbell note was not witnessed. 9. The Courts should no longer tolerate this type of corrupt and unethical behavior by Plaintiff and all of its agents and attorneys who are willing to file third party fraudulent affidavits and forged documents to prove their cases. Attorneys have an obligation to the Court and all the litigants and should not be allowed to sidestep the Littman Affidavit with third party affidavits and forgeries. When one files forged documents in Court as an attorney, one assumes the risk that he/she may be called in to explain. 10. No previous application for the same or similar relief has been made. WHEREFORE, I respectfully ask that the Defendant be granted summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice, that the subject MERS mortgages are declared null and void and legally unenforceable, that the subject MERS mortgages, and the assignments thereof, filed against Defendants property known as 47 Carol Court, Staten Island, NY aka, Block 6744 Lot 110, which mortgages and assignments were recorded in the New York City Registers Office for Richmond County as documents # 0181083, 0181082, 0196253, 0323919, 0323915, 0327781, 0134334 and all thereof be discharged and cancelled of record and the City Register be directed to forthwith expunge said mortgages and said assignments thereof, that the Notice of Pendency filed by Plaintiff be cancelled, that the subject notes are declared null and void and legally unenforceable, that Plaintiff account for any moneys paid by Defendant and return such in treble, that Plaintiff and its agents pay punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. April 30, 2012

Brooklyn, NY Affirmed and Certified pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1301.1A X______________________ Derrick Hanna, Esq. HANNA & VLAHAKIS Attorney for Defendant 7504 Fifth Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11209 (718) 680-8400