POINT VI
                           --------

        CAN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ISSUE ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS WHEN
        PLAINTIFF NEVER HAD LEGAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS?

        NO: As clearly demonstrated by Federal Judge Boyko's recent
        decision that dismissed multiple actions where plaintiffs could
        not prove actual ownership of original notes and mortgages when
        they filed for foreclosure.......................


            Plaintiff-Respondent lacked standing ab initio to file
        the suit as POINT V clearly denotes.  Since Plaintiff-Respondent
        did not legally achieve standing over Defendants-Appellants
        the Lower Court likewise lacked jurisdiction.


            Plaintiff-Respondent lacked standing ab initio to
        by filing a suit upon a paid and satisfied mortgage as
        shown in POINTS I, II, III, IV, and V.


                         THE BOYKO DECISION
                         ------------------

            Defendants-Appellants direct the Court's attention to the
        recent Federal Opinion and Order by Federal Judge Christopher A.
        Boyko of the Untied States District Court, Northern District of
        Ohio, Eastern Division, (PAGE ??) in which he dismissed
        fourteen (14) cases of foreclosure brought on by Plaintiff
        Deutsche Bank.   A copy of that Order is attached to the back
        of this Brief for reference at page ___, stated:

            "On October 10, 2007, this Court issued an Order requiring
            Plaintiff-Lenders in a number of pending foreclosure cases
            to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating
            Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the Note and
            Mortgage AS OF THE DATE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, or the
            Court would enter a dismissal.
            (Boyko Order, Exhibit CC page 1)
            ...
            "In the above-captioned cases, NONE of the Assignments
            show the named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights,
            title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as of the
            date of the Foreclosure Complaint."
            (Boyko Order, on page 3)

            While the Boyko Order is not necessarly techinaly binding on
        this Court, it is a Federal decision that should be taken under
        serious consideration by all lower courts.

            Defendants-Appellants in the Lower Court addressed the
        matter of standing which was submitted in Appellants Affidavit
        in Opposition and in Support of Defendants Cross Motion dated
        March 23, 2007 (A 154) as quoted in the following paragraph (A 268):

               "6.   Plaintiff's own Exhibit "B" is an Assignment of
            Mortgage which was executed on December 20, 2006, six
            days after the preparation and date of the Summons and
            Complaint, and five days after the filing of the
            foreclosure action with the Clerk.  Additionally, the fax
            date at the bottom of the page, (391) clearly shows that
            Plaintiffs may not have had this document until
            02/16/2007.  Plaintiffs, according to the County Clerk,
            did not file the instant Motion until February 28, 2007,
            twelve (12) days after they received their tab "B" the
            Assignment of Mortgage apparently from MERS.  Defendants
    =====>  point out that this is proof of the fact that at the time
            of the filing of the Summons and Complaint in this
            foreclosure action, AND THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, that
            Plaintiffs did not have in their hands, or own the
            Mortgage being foreclosed, and therefore lacked
    =====>  jurisdiction.  Again, Defendants point out that this was
            the $162,000 mortgage that Plaintiffs paid off, and "was
            consolidated" as they now attempt to admit"


            Therefore the Lower Court should have dismissed
        Plaintiff-Respondent's action for several reasons, but
        however accorded Plaintiff-Respondent every favorable
        concession it could, even to the violation of stare decisis
        and the rules of the court such as CPLR 2221 and CPLR 8020(a).


            This Court should declare the foreclosure action
        to have been made and filed without standing and reverse
        both the Judgement For Sale and Foreclosure (A 7) and
        the original Decision and Order of April 27, 2007 (A 25).