FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2024 04:10 PM INDEX NO.

11234/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :

COUNTY OF KINGS :
:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR :
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF :
THE SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN 2007-OPT -1 :
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST :
:
Plaintiff : Index Number 11234-2009
v :
:
WILLIAM CARRINGTON :
:
Defendant :
_________________________________________x

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

COMES NOW William Carrington, pro se, and hereby requests the court take

judicial notice of adjudicative facts as follows:

FRAUD ON THE COURT

1. On December 4, 2023 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss .

2. On February 27, 2024 Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for summary judgment and

opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

3. Plaintiff filed two counterfeit consolidated adjustable rate promissory notes on two

separate exhibits in support of their cross motion for summary judgment.

4. The fist exhibit is Exhibit 1 (Doc 17) was filed on February 27, 2024. (see page 19-

21).

1 of 3
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2024 04:10 PM INDEX NO. 11234/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

5. The second exhibit is Exhibit G (Doc 58) was filed on February 29, 2024. (See page

25-27).

6. Defendant compared the two different notes and realized they are not the same and

explained this by filing a response to Plaintiff's Reply Affirmation in Support of Cross-

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 67) filed on March 4, 2024.

7. Defendant attached supporting evidence of a completely different consolidated

adjustable rate promissory note recorded in ACRIS on February 14, 2007. See

Exhibit A-1 (Doc 68) filed by Defendant on March 4, 2024.

8. Defendant attached a close up inspection of each signature page to see that it is very

obvious that the signatures are different and forged. See Exhibit A-2 (Doc 69) filed by

Defendant on March 4, 2024.

9. Exhibit A-2 also shows the different signatures on the Balloon Note Addendum and

Balloon Rider which was uncovered during closer inspection of all documents.

10. There can only be one consolidated adjustable rate promissory note.

11. Plaintiff by filing Exhibit 1,(Doc 17) and Exhibit G (Doc 58) committed fraud on the

court.

12. Sanctions and dismissal against the guilty party are mandatory. See CDR Créances

S.A.S. v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op. 03294.

13. A judge can and should notify appropriate law enforcement agencies to report

counterfeiting and forgery allegations which would allow criminal charges to be filed.

2 of 3
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/12/2024 04:10 PM INDEX NO. 11234/2009
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/12/2024

Wherefore Defendant demands the court will take judicial notice of these facts and

respond appropriately. The judge in this case must review all of the allegations in this

case of fraud on the court by the Plaintiff. A judge must always avoid even the

appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote

public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).

Therefore, a judge who receives information indicating a “substantial likelihood” that a

lawyer has committed a “substantial violation” of the Rules of Professional Conduct

must take “appropriate action” (22 NYCRR 100.3[D][2]).

Respectfully submitted,

3 of 3