Motion for Stay of Proceeding (Alissa Brinkley)

~U?r-l!rn ~"llnT

S TA~1FORO~NOl~~VAU~UPERIORCOURTJUDiC!AL DISTRiCt I

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE ET ALZOlD OCT 20 A :10: Sc.JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

'STAMFORD I NORWALK

DOCKET NO. CV - 07- 6000694 S

VS:AT STAMFORD

ALISSA BRINKLEY, ET AL October 20,2010

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDING

COMES NOW, The Defendant, Alissa Brinkley, in the above-entitled action respectfully moves this

Court, to Stay all further post judgment matters, proceeding of this lawsuit, and scheduled sale,

currently litigated by the alleged Plaintiff BANK OF NEW YORK AS vs. ALISSA BRINKLEY, ET AL,

and counsel Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC in the stated action.

The Defendant, Alissa Brinkley, on August 26, 2010 filed with the Court a Notice Of Initiating

Complaint With The Attorney General Of Connecticut, alleging and claiming acts of fraud and

misconduct by the alleged Plaintiff Bank Of New York. The defendant, prior to the wide-spread,

recent nationwide discovery of foreclosure fraud by lenders and large scale foreclosure mill law firms,

filed such legal "notice" and complained of such similar unconscionable conduct.

In the midst of the recent U.S. upheaval regarding Foreclosure Fraud, and pressures from State

Attorney Generals, and other legislators, many banks have announced that they are voluntarily

Halting All Foreclosures for now.

Media outlets all across America have been reporting breaking news of the epic, historical

foreclosure fraud crisis spreading like a plaque throughout essentially every city in the United States.

It has been very recently revealed and discovered, that several lenders filed fraudulent foreclosure

documents, and were relying on documents signed by unauthorized agents.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDTESTIMONY IS REQUIRED

;.'.,.j.'.,}

'f· ., ,

(2):,'

Multiple signers have been caught claiming to be the same person, and legal papers bearing the

same name, but with completely different, non-matching signatures. These are just a few of the

fraudulent and unlawful acts that have impeded the administration of justice and the preservation of

fairness in our legal system.

'The Defendant, Alissa Brinkley, in preserving and protecting her own rights promised under the

United States Constitution and the State Of Connecticut, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to

StaY-and Halt all further, and pending matters, particularly the scheduled foreclosure sale and law

date of Saturday, October 30, 2010 from going forward pending the further full and complete

·i.\

investigation and resolution of matters of foreclosure fraud involving alleged lender Bank Of New York

and foreclosure lawyers Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC in this action.~,,;,

Shockingly, Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC began and filed this foreclosure action on August 29,, ':,.

2007 in the name of Bank Of New York As Trustee, despite the fact that said entity Bank Of New, ,

j ~ t-, ' .York was already dead and ceased to exist on July 1, 2007. Importantly and relevantly, this lawsuit

k'ow directly ties Connecticut and this court to the fraudulent poison that has been running through the

veins of every court in Florida and other U.S. states. Defendant, Alissa Brinkley, and her lawyer,; I"j" .',

experts and consultants have just this week discovered new evidence marrying the highly publicized

fb'r~~losure crimes of Florida to this case and Superior Court Of Stamford, Connecticut.i :

','Two Fraudulent and legally void Assignments Of Mortgage, and an equally fraudulent and void

A'ffidavit Of Debt have been filed in this matter by Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC purportedly on behalf 6fIt~"';dead bank" client Bank Of New York. The stated legal documents were executed and allegedly

sworn under oath by Erica Johnson Seck. Historically, thanks to Judge Arthur Schack of the. '

Supreme Court of Kings County, New York, and lawyer Thomas E. Ice of Ice Legal, P.A., West Palm,.-

Beach, Florida, leaders in the early detection of Foreclosure Fraud in our United States Courts, Ericac!· \' :;~

Johnson Seck's frequent fraudulent, and/or criminal construction and signing of false and/or illegal

(3)

documents has been exposed. Judge Schack has over the past year systematically Dismissed With

Prejudice numerous foreclosure lawsuits due to Plaintiff misconduct. In the matter of Deutsche Bank

vs. Harris {Kings County, Index No. 39192/2007 (05 Feb 2008)} Judge Schack was particularly

froubled by the purported assignment to Deutsche Bank of 10/23/2007, and the conflicting sworn

accounts as to the identity and role of Erica Johnson Seck. Judge Schack in this case expressed

further dismay that Erica Johnson Seck, who professes to be a Vice President of Deutsche Bank,

executed the alleged affidavit in Williamson County, Texas, rather than in Pasadena, California whe're

both the grantor and grantee represented to be headquartered. In strikingly similar act of deception,'

Erica Johnson Seck in the Alissa Brinkley case executed two (2) distinctly different Assignments Of

Mortgage, on different dates, claiming to be Vice President of lndymac Bank, with its offices located(': t'!:' ; )

in Flint, Michigan, although she and the notary Josie Salazar conflictingly swear under oath that Erica

Johnson Seck executed the same Assignments in Williamson County, Texas.

'/ .~::'Florida Lawyer, Thomas E. Ice deposed Erica Johnson Seck on July 9, 2009, in the matter of

~ r- r' ..

/ndymac Federal Bank, FSB vs. Israel A Machado (Case No. 50-2008-CA-037322XXXX MB AW) In! :

th~15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. Erica Johnson Seck testifies under oath

iksaid deposition that she signs nearly 1,000 Affidavits Of Debt and Assignments Of Mortgage a

~~ek, without reading any of them and having any "personal knowledge" (Erica Johnson Seck

b~postion of July 9,2009, pg. 13, lines 11-25 & pg. 14, lines 1-15) [Exhibit A]. Attorney Thomas Ice

was successful in said deposition in getting Erica Johnson Seck to confess that the stated legal

documents she allegedly signs are not executed in front of a state notary or the professed witnesses.

f'he sworn testimony by Ms. Seck is admission that she knowingly took part in the unlawfulI

. i (' ~

racketeering conduct of fraud factories, creating illegal documents for the purposes of deceiving

United States Courts, and having its judges grant foreclosures based on innocent reliance on such

iH~truments of fraud. All such Affidavits Of Debt and Assignment Of Mortgages as described abov~,i l'and filed in this Connecticut

.::\I' .(4)

Foreclosure Lawsuit are legally void as a matter of law in both the states of Florida and Connecticut

(Erica Johnson Seck Depostion of July 9,2009, pg. 17, lines 18-25 & pg. 18, lines 1-10) [Exhibit B].

In the famous deposition conducted by Thomas E. Ice, Esq., Ms. Seck bizarrely further confesses to

Attorney Ice that she knowingly has signed legal documents in foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of non-: .existent entities.

·+Baseo upon the convincing factual examples and showing of Unconscionable Conduct that have

poisoned this lawsuit, and have caused voluminous foreclosure lawsuits to be dismissed with

prejudice in the states of Florida and New York, The Defendant Objects to this Honorable Court

allowing the alleged Plaintiff, Bank Of New York, et ai, to proceed any further, with any and all

matters, and said foreclosure auction, until such time that the Attorney General Of Connecticut,

arid/or other necessary state or federal authorities deeply and completely investigate the maliciou~i J-_.,

acts and practices made and taken to seek unlawful foreclosure on Alissa Brinkley.

;,

The Office Of The Attorney General Of Connecticut has confirmed that it is in the process of'.';.\":

conducting an investigation and complex query into this above-cited "Brinkley" foreclosure matter.")~'f '

The Defendant filed legal "notice" with this Court on August 26,2010, and August 27,2010

respectively, that she was initiating formal complaints with the office of the Attorney General. The

Attorney General Of Connecticut has since opened a public inquiry into this matter, and officially

assiqned case number 363702 to probe the respectful Demands for Investigation served by Alissa:::i'

Brinkley.

If the alleged Plaintiff is permitted to continue and conclude its alleged unlawful foreclosure action

and scheduled auction, the rights of defendant, Alissa Brinkley, will be seriously and irreversibly

denied and extinguished.

~;! :

.,1. (5)

The known calculated reprehensible actions taken in this case by Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC

professedly along with its "deceased & non-existent" partner Bank Of New York are detestable,

unfair, unethical, unconscionable, inexcusable, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Tradei >.

Practices Act, C.G.S. Sec. 42-11 O(b). Such unconscionable conduct administered by any party in

Connecticut has been clearly held by our Supreme Court to be grounds to withhold foreclosure.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Defendant, Alissa. Brinkley, respectfully asks the,;'

Superior Court of Stamford Connecticut to cancel the scheduled foreclosure auction of October 30,

2010, and stay all further matters concerning this lawsuit pending the outcome of the investigation by

the Attorney General Of Connecticut, and/or other appropriate authorities of this matter, and other

parallel statewide and national examinations of foreclosure fraud. The Defendant will now need

extensive time to seek further experts and or counsel, and based on all the above, this unlawful

action should be Dismissed With Prejudice. For this foreclosure auction to take place on October 30,

2510 after discovery of all the above described and presented acts of fraud, would be a complete

f~ilLJreand breakdown of our legal system, and a foreclosure on the constitutional rights of theI ,'~ I '

American People .

.~..iThe Defendant

';1,

BY~JD(( ~~(lAlissa Brinkley

Date: C(l1D~vs:?Q, MJ[Lt.: ~ ; -: j

;•.~ (" : !

Alissa Brinkley41 Wolfpit Ave, #7-6Norwalk, CT 06851

Tel: (203) 434-7834 Cell

Email: [email protected]

'-':"'\

(6)

ORDER

The foregoing Defendant's Motion For Stay Of Proceeding having been presented to the court;

It is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED I DENIED

By the Court:

Clerk / Judge

Date of Order: _

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

The Defendant, Alissa Brinkley, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion

For Stay Of Proceeding has been furnished via Fed Ex, USPS Certified Mail and U.S. First

Class Mail on October 20, 2010 to the office of the Plaintiff's counsel Hunt Leibert, Jacobson,

PC, at the address of 50 Weston St, Hartford, CT 06120.

USPS CERTIFIED MAIL NO: 7010 1870000329185154FEDEX AIRBIL NO: 872646170650

Additional Service Was Made to the following parties:

:Difendants CounsellDavid Scalzi, Esq.

921 Stillwater RoadStamford, CT 06902

Alissa Brinkley -

(7)

NOTARY CERTIFICATIONOf 5tassa 'Brinkfey

STATE OF CONNECTICUTCOUNTY OF FAIRFIELD

DATE: Signature Confirmation made this ?0*Day of October, 2010

Personally appeared, Alissa Brinkley personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence of identification) to be a person whose name is subscribed to the within

instrument(s) and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, andthat by her signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person

acted, executed that instrument.

" ~Witnessed, my hand and official seal. . ./:- .. ---:...

'- : - ::

(seal

...•..

.; .. ..:..: : .-::-..- # '- ::-......... - :::

_. - '-..- .,- ''-- ..•...•.~ ,......"

Name Of Notary:

STEPHEN F. BORNETNOTARY PUBLIC

It'( COMMISSION EXPIRES 313112012

~/,-/119 3My Commission Expires:

i, "

'Under Oatli and withou: Prejudice

msor & AssociateEXHIBIT A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEFIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDACASE NO. 50 2008 CA 037322XXXX MB AW

INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB,Plaintiff,

vs.

ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY,THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THE HEREINNAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOTKNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAIDUNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST ASSPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, OR OTHERCLAIMANTS; TENANT #1, TENANT #2, TENANT #3,and TENANT # 4, the names being fictitiousto account for parties in possession,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------/THE DEPOSITION OF

ERICA A. JOHNSON-SECKVOLUME I

Pages 1 - 84

July 9, 20091655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

West Palm Beach, Florida12:54 p.m. - 2:59 p.m.

REPORTED BY:Deborah H. Rodgers, CSRConsor & Associates Reporting & Transcription1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 500West Palm Beach, Florida 33401Phone: 561.682.0905

Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.17711655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 500 - West Palm Beach, FL 33401

,.

~:nsor& AseociatesEXHIBIT A-2

Page 131 Q. Okay. How is the decision made as to who

2 will sign what documents?

3 A. There really is not a matrix. Only so many

of us can sign Lost Note Affidavits.4 I happen to be

5 the only one in my department, besides my boss, that

6 can sign a Lost Note Affidavit, so all those would come

7 to me. Other than that, there's not a -- I think they

8 just try to make it even.

9 Q. Just distribute them evenly?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. How many documents would you say that

12 you sign on a week on average, in a week on average?

13 A. I could have given you that number if you had

14 that question in there because I would have brought the

15 report. However, I'm going to guess, today I saw an

16 e-mail that 1,073 docs are in the office for signing.

17 So if we just -- and there's about that a day. So

18 let's say 6,000 a week and I do probably -- let's see.

19 There's eight of us signing documents, so what's the

20 math?

21 Q. Six thousand divided by eight, that gives me

22 750.

23 A. That sounds, that sounds about right.

24 Q. Okay. That would be a reasonable estimate of

25 how many you sign, you personally sign per week?


nsor & Associaf. R"]1CJrting and Tr~nscli~i'cm, JIlC. EX HIBIT A-3

Page 141 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that would include Lost Note Affidavits,

3 Affidavits of Debt?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What other kind of documents would be

6 included in that?

Assignments, declarations. I can sign7 A.8 anything related to a bankruptcy or a foreclosure.

9 Q. How long do you spend executing each

10 document?

11 A. I have changed my signature considerably.

12 It's just an E now. So not more than 30 seconds.

13 Q. Is it true that you don't read each document

14 before you sign it?

15 A. That's true.

16 Q. The procedure that we talked about last time,

17 and I will go over it again to see if that's still the

18 procedure, before you would sign an Affidavit of

19 Debt

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- it goes to your foreclosure specialist who

22 makes sure that the information is correct?

23 A. The figures are correct, yes.

24 Q. It is fair to say that you don't personally

25 check the accuracy of anything in the documents that


nsor & Associate, .. Rf(f!(1rirn;g. and T.~n~CTiJlti{):!\> lac. EXHIBIT B

Page 171 you're talking about your own staff when the documents

2 arrive?

3 A. No, we have LPS on site.

4 Q. In Austin?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Take me through the procedure for getting

7 your actual signature on the documents once they've

8 gone through this quality control process.

9 A. The documents are delivered to me for

10 signature and I do a quick purview to make sure that

11 I'm not signing for an entity that I cannot sign for.

12 And I sign the document and I hand it to the Notary,

13 who notarizes it, who then hands it back to LPS, who

14 uploads the document so that the firms know it's

15 available and they send an original.

16 Q. "They" being LPS?

17 A. LPS, yes.

18 Q. Are all the documents physically, that you

19 were supposed to sign, are they physically on your

20 desk?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In your office?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You don't go somewhere else to sign

25 documents?


o~-n50r&Assoclate~EXHIBIT B-2

Page 181 A. No.

2 Q. When you sign them, there's no one else in

3 your office?

4 A. Sometimes.

5 Q. Well, the Notaries are not in your office,

6 correct?

7 A. They don't sit in my office, no.

8 Q. And the witnesses who, if you need witnesses

9 on the document, are not sitting in your office?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. So you take your ten minutes and you sign

12 them and then you give them to the supervisor of the

13 Notaries, correct?

14 A. I supervise the Notaries, so I just give them

15 to a Notary.

16 Q. You give all, you give the whole group that

17 you just signed to one Notary?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Last time we talked about that there were a

20 group of Notaries and that you had a supervisor that

21 manages a group of loans and passes them out to the

22 different Notaries. Has that changed?

23 A. It used to go to -- well, a little bit. It

24 used to go -- and that's with the shift of people

25 leaving and people coming with everything that's been


Motion for Stay of Proceeding (Alissa Brinkley)

Documents

Transcript of Motion for Stay of Proceeding (Alissa Brinkley)