IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOLDERS O THE HOME EQUITY ASSET
TRUST 2006-7 CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-7,

Plaintiff,
Case #:
DIVISION: AW
VS,

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------/

EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE FINAL

JUDGMENT TO VACATE SALE AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BASED UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT

Comes now, the Defendant,YYYY , and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1OO (b),
1.140(b) (1) (6) and (h) (2) and 1.210(a) and 1.540(b)
Requests this Court to cancel the sale, Vacate the Final Judgment and Request an Evidentiary
Hearing Based upon Fraud on the Court and as grounds therefore states:

The Plaintiff, U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE

HOLDERS OF THE HOME EQUITY ASSET TRUST 2006-7 CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-
7,
Hereinafter U.S. BANK.

 Filed their complaint without proper standing to do so, and made material
misrepresentations in their pleadings.

 Plaintiff “NEVER” recorded any assigment as evidence that they are in fact the owners
and holder of the alleged “Note” “Mortgage”. EXHIBIT “A”.

 The assigment presented by plaintiff is bogus, fraudulent, due to the fact that MERS do
not have authorization whatsoever as to assign anything they are only the
processors.

 As the court could see the unrecorded assigment presented by plaintiff and their attorneys
in the instruction part says “actual Words”

When Recorded Return To:

BILL KOCK
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC
3815 SW TEMPLE
 SALT LAKE, UT 84115

I would like to address the court to please place extra attention to who was the alleged
authorized representant from MERS.

 On September 25, 2009, R.K. Arnold, the President and CEO of MERSCORP, Inc. — the
parent corporation of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was deposed in
Alabama. Arnold is also an Officer of MERS. Arnold admitted MERS does not have a
beneficial interest in any mortgage; does not loan money; does not suffer a default if
monies are not paid; etc. etc. On November 11, 2009, William C. Hultman was deposed
in Alabama and made the same admissions. And, of course, the internal agreement
used by MERS expressly disavows any beneficial interest.

LANDMARK NATIONAL BANK v. BOYD A. KESLER

CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT TRANSFER NOTE

FOR WANT OF OWNERSHIP; CITES BOYKO, LANDMARK (KANSAS), LAMY, AND
VARGAS CASES JULY 9, 2010

 The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a
ruling dated May 20, 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11
which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to
Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is
headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.

 The court found that MERS acted “only as a nominee” for Bayrock under the Deed of
Trust and there was no evidence that the note was transferred. The opinion also provides
that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying
note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust,
or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”, citing the well-known cases of In Re
Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas decision as to lack of
authority of MERS), LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (New York), and In Re Foreclosure Cases
(the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court).

 U.S. BANK’S lack of ownership of the Original Unalter “Note” and “Mortgage”, in this
case go to the heart of its claim of standing, premates the entire proceeding and
subverts the integrity of the action. Metropolitan dade county v. Martinsen, 736 so. 794
(Fla. 3rd DCA 1999.
 U.S. BANK’S failed to provide any documentation whatsoever that they are in fact the
real party in interest in this Case.

 Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the
outcome and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law as being a real
party in interest entitled to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in
Florida courts rests exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to
enforce the claim. Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd, et al. 462 So. 2d 1178, (Fla. 3d DCA
1985).

Rule 1.2l0(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
  Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but a personal
representative, administrator, guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or
in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly
authorized by statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for
whose benefit the action is brought... The Plaintiff, U.S. BANK’S , meets none of these
standing and pleading criteria.

 "The determination of standing to sue concerns a court's exercise of jurisdiction to hear

and decide the cause pled by a particular party." Rogers & Ford Canst. Corp. v.
Carlandia Corp. 626 SO.2d 1350,1352 (F1a.1993).

 The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on the truthful disclosure of facts.
Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinson, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999), Andrews v.
Palmas De Majorca Condo, 898 SO.2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

 Florida Rule 1540(b) also gives relief from judgment, decrees or orders if there is merit to
the case, which there is in this case. In paragraph (b) on motion and upon such terms that
are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final
judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

1. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

11. Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial or rehearing; and

111. Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party.

 The rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a
party from a judgment, decree, order or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree
for fraud upon the court. From the plaintiff s own pleading, it is easy to see where there
have been both fraud and misrepresentation in this case.

WHEREFORE, the defendant, YYYY Moves this court to DISSOLVE LIS PENDENS,
TO CANCEL SALE, DISMISS CASE, DISMISS COMPLAINT with prejudice.

BY: _________________________
Defendant.

NOTARY

On the _____ day of __________________, 2010 before me, ________________________,

personally appeared _________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is above and acknowledge to me that she is the
person that executed this instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of
the State of FLORIDA that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS by my hand and official seal.