Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime

FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime

Ratings: (0)|Views: 262|Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
RECUSAL LAW
37. In light of the publicly recorded alterations of the official records and documents, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has been forced to live in fear of public corruption and the lack of any opportunity of fair, just, and transparent due process and proceedings.
38. Here, Defendant Judge Hayes knew that
a. Bankrupt Bankunited did not hold any instrument;
b. Seized and bankrupt Bankunited had no right to enforce and prosecute;
c. Florida’s real party in interest Rule, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), only permitted an action to be prosecuted if there had been an actual interest.
RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
“(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on the grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show the grounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party.
(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
(e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of disqualification on the judge's own initiative.”

Said rule was intended to unify the procedure for judicial disqualification.

RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

39. Said Rule stated:
(a) Application. This rule applies only to county and circuit judges in all matters in all divisions of court.

(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the grounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit;”

SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.
40. Section 38.10 gives parties the right to move to disqualify a judge when the party fears that “he or she will not receive a fair trial . . . on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10. Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 specifies that a motion to disqualify must show that “the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330.
41. S. 38.10, Fla. Stat., stated:
38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.--Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.

42. Here, Franklin Prescott has been “stating fear that she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is [purportedly] pending on account of the objective prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant. Here, objectively biased Judge Hayes “shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.”
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT’S RIGHT TO APPEAL
43. If the judge denies a motion to disqualify brought under § 38.10 the movant has the right (Le
RECUSAL LAW
37. In light of the publicly recorded alterations of the official records and documents, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has been forced to live in fear of public corruption and the lack of any opportunity of fair, just, and transparent due process and proceedings.
38. Here, Defendant Judge Hayes knew that
a. Bankrupt Bankunited did not hold any instrument;
b. Seized and bankrupt Bankunited had no right to enforce and prosecute;
c. Florida’s real party in interest Rule, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), only permitted an action to be prosecuted if there had been an actual interest.
RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
“(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on the grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show the grounds for disqualification and shall be verified by the party.
(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.
(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of disqualification and proceed no further in the action.
(e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of disqualification on the judge's own initiative.”

Said rule was intended to unify the procedure for judicial disqualification.

RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

39. Said Rule stated:
(a) Application. This rule applies only to county and circuit judges in all matters in all divisions of court.

(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the grounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit;”

SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.
40. Section 38.10 gives parties the right to move to disqualify a judge when the party fears that “he or she will not receive a fair trial . . . on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party.” Fla. Stat. § 38.10. Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 specifies that a motion to disqualify must show that “the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330.
41. S. 38.10, Fla. Stat., stated:
38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.--Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.

42. Here, Franklin Prescott has been “stating fear that she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is [purportedly] pending on account of the objective prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant. Here, objectively biased Judge Hayes “shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.”
JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT’S RIGHT TO APPEAL
43. If the judge denies a motion to disqualify brought under § 38.10 the movant has the right (Le

More info:

Published by: 83jjmack on Aug 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,as [
purported
]
 successor in interest 
to [
SEIZED
] BANKUNITED, FSB.,Plaintiff,vs.
CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
 JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT,
et al 
.
NOTICE OF APPEAL, DISPOSITION, ANDBANKRUPT BANKUNITED’S SEIZURE
 ___________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTTBANKRUPT BANK SEIZURE INFORMATION AND § 673.3011, FLA. STAT.,EVIDENCE OF NO
entitlement to enforce
non-existent
instrument 
DISPOSITION NOTICE IN FAVOR OF JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTTPURSUANT TO UNIFORM COMMERICAL CODE, AND U.C.C., ART. 3,AND FLORIDA LAWNOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ALTERATION OF RECORD
1. Jennifer Franklin Prescott, who was never 
 served 
, hereby
appeals
froma. The unlawful
alteration
of the official documents, records, and Case Docket; b. The
lack 
of any record of the purported
disposition
” in Jennifer Franklin Prescott’sfavor
in the Case File;c. The
lack 
of any record of the
dismissal
 
in Jennifer Franklin Prescott’s favor
;
 
 2d. The
absence
of the FINAL DISPOSITION FORM,
§ 25.075
, Florida Statutes, andFla.R.Civ.P.
1.998
, from the Case File;e. The
lack 
of any record, reason, and/or explanation of the
publicly recorded removal
of the August 2010 “
complaint 
” in the Case File;f. The
absence
of any record, reason, and explanation of the
publicly recorded removal
of the August 2010 “
 summons
” from the Case File;g. The
lack 
of any
transparency
,
accountability
,
due process
, and
equal protection of law
;h. The record
lack 
of any
mortgage
or 
note
in this
facially fraudulent
and
frivolous
 
action
;i. The
lack 
of any record of the
removal
of ALFRED CAMNER, Esq., and the CAMNER LIPSITZ law firm and its Attorneys from the mock proceedings; j. The
record lack 
of the
means
of final disposition
before
any
hearing 
.
RECORD ABSENCE OF FINAL DISPOSITION FORM, § 25.075, FLA. STAT.
2. Jennifer Franklin Prescott could
not
 
 find 
the
Final Disposition Form
, Fla.R.Civ.P.
1.998
, inthe Case File on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. See
§ 25.075
, Florida Statutes.
ABSENCE OF DISMISSAL IN JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT’S FAVOR 
3. On Tuesday, August 17, 2010, Jennifer Franklin Prescott could
not
 
 find 
the Dismissal inJennifer Franklin Prescott’s favor in the Case File.
DEFENDANT JUDGE HUGH D. HAYES SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL ON 08/18/2010
4.
On August 18, 2010, Defendant Judge Hayes
substituted
Counsel, and BILL McCOLLUM,ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Shelley B. Cridlin, Fla. Bar No. 0022451, made anappearance as counsel for Defendant Judge Hugh D. Hayes, in place of any and all prior counsel in Federal Case
2:2009-cv-00791
.
 
FALSIFICATIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS APPARENT
 
 35. Jennifer Franklin Prescott reported Case File demand and/or review in the Clerk of Court’sOffice on August
12
,
13
, and
16
, and
17
, 2010. While the electronic Docket showeda.
disposition
”; b. “
complaint 
”; andc.
 summons
”,
none
could be
ascertained 
and/or 
verified 
in the Naples Courthouse.
DEMANDS FOR CLARIFICATION AND EVIDENCE
6. On Monday, August
16
, AM, and Tuesday, August
17
, 2010, PM, at the Naples Courthouse,Jennifer Franklin Prescott
demanded
to see the Case File
evidence
of:a.
disposition
”; b. “
complaint 
”; andc.
 summons
” in this fraudulent action.
DEFENDANT JUDGE’S ASSISTANT ASSERTED MISTAKE/ERROR 
7. Defendant Hayes’ Judicial Assistant, Jan, stated to Jennifer Franklin Prescott thata. NO
 August 
 
2010 complaint 
”, and b. NO
 August 
 
2010 summons
appeared in the Case File.
NO
negotiable instrument 
UNDER GOVERNING CODE
8. The
Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC), Article 3, governs Negotiable Instruments.Pursuant to § 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, no “
negotiable instrument 
” existed,and no
 promise
or 
order 
to pay a fixed amount of 
money
and
interest 
existed in thisfraudulent
action
.
Bankrupt
and
seized
Bankunited was
unable
to
 prove any right toenforce
the admittedly
non-existent
purported “
instrument 
”. Here, the Court may not
enter 

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
jjandbobscribd liked this
jjandbobscribd liked this
jjandbobscribd liked this
mike carvell added this note
its sand when companies take peoples homes for bloated interest
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
Judicial_Fraud liked this
my_nana liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->