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
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS

APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS

Ratings: (0)|Views: 94|Likes:
Published by Judicial_Fraud
FORECLOSURE FRAUD
FORECLOSURE FRAUD

More info:

Published by: Judicial_Fraud on Mar 15, 2011
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

08/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDASECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327CASE NO.: 2D11-1003
L.T. No.: 09-6016-CA
Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, v. “BankUnited”Walter Prescott,
et al 
.,
_____________________________________________________________________ Appellants/Petitioners, Appellee / Respondent(s).
APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL “03/01/2010 ORDERS”,NOTICE OF APPELLATE & LOWER COURTS’ ERRORS IN FAVOR OF BANK, ANDDEMAND FOR RELIEF AND INJUNCTIONCLEAR SHOW OF CAUSE - THIS APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION
1. Appellants, Walter Prescott, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
., conclusivelyevidenced their 
rights to appeal
and the
jurisdiction
 
of this Appellate Court
as amatter of law.
No
 
final order 
needed to be
provided 
under the Rules.
 
ISSUES – SHOW OF CAUSE
2. Here
clearly
, Appellants
 
a. had the
right to appeal
(interlocutory);
 
b. were
not
 
required to provide any final order 
.Therefore here, this Court’s
improper 
03/01/2011 orders were
prejudicial
and
extended
the “
mass foreclosure
fraud-on-the-Court-scheme
in the previously
disposed
action. Here
unlawfully
, Defendant Clerk of the lower Court had
removed
the
final disposition record
after “suggestion of bankruptcy”:
 
APPEAL CLERK’S ERROR ON THE RECORD
 
3. In her attached “02/22/2010” letter to Appellate Clerk James Birkhold, Appeal ClerkCheryl Bishop did
not
mark “
Non-final Notice of Appeal and Order 
”. See attachedletter.Said
record error 
by the lower Court’s Appeal Clerk
prejudiced
the Appellants whohereby
demand correction
and the
striking
of this Court’s two 03/01/2011 orders.
 
THIS APPELLATE COURT CLEARLY ERRED
4. On
March 1, 2011
”, this Court allegedly wrote:“Appellant shall show cause within fifteen days why this appeal should not bedismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as appellant had failed to provide a copy of the order appealed as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure9.110(d), and this court is unable thereby to determine its jurisdiction.”
THIS COURT KNEW THAT “APPELLANTS” NEED NOT
PROVIDE 
 
FINAL ORDER 
 
5. Here, this Court
knew
thata. Defendants/Appellants were
not
 
required to provide a final order 
;b. Appellant(s) had appealed from
fraud on the Court
,
corruption
, and/or a
non
-
 
final order 
pursuant to Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure
9.130
[and
not
 
9.110(d)
”];c. Appellants had
not
 
appealed 
from a “
final order 
” under Rule 9.110(d);d. Appellants were of course
not
 
required 
 
to provide a copy 
of any
final order 
;e.
No
final order 
” was “
rendered 
” and/or could have
possibly 
been “
rendered 
”.
SAID 03/01/11 ORDER WAS PREJUDICIAL AND FOR IMPROPER PURPOSES
6. Accordingly, this Court
had
 
jurisdiction
, and said Order of this Court was
prejudicial
because it was for 
improper 
 
purposes
of 
keeping
the “defendants”
away
from this Court (
fraud on the Court
).
 
“DEFENDANTS” WERE ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW
7. Here, a
non
-final order met the standards for the issuance of an
extraordinary writ
 and/or came within the
orders
 
enumerated
in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure9.130 and was
appealable
. See Rule 9.130(a).
 
8. Here, said
non
-final order 
permitted
appellate review
before
the trial proceedingsare
complete
, and said Appellants Prescott, Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
., have beeninvoking the
proper 
 
method
 
for this Court’s review
.9. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a) states:
 
RULE 9.130. PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW
NON
-
FINAL
ORDERS ANDSPECIFIED FINAL ORDERS(a) Applicability.(1) This rule applies to appeals to the district courts of appeal of the
non
-finalorders authorized herein and to appeals to the circuit court of 
non
-final orders
when provided by general law
. Review of 
other 
 
non
-final orders in suchcourts and non-final administrative action shall be by the method prescribedby rule 9.100.(3) Appeals to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders are limited tothose that(A) concern venue;(B) grant, continue, modify, deny, or dissolve
injunctions
, or refuse to modify
 
or dissolve
injunctions
;
 
(C) determine(i) the jurisdiction of the person;(ii) the right to immediate possession of property …10. Here
wrongfully
, the Court(s) did
not
grant an
injunction
” even though the lower Court and “
BankUnited 
perpetrated fraud on the Court
and
deliberatelydeprived
Walter Prescott, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
., of due process and their 
fundamental rights
to, e.g.,
jury trial
and
disposition
in Appellants’ favor.11. This Court and the lower Court have
known
that “
BankUnited 
” had
no
standing 
and
no
 
right to sue
Prescott, Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
.12. This Court and the lower Court
know
that “
BankUnited 
” had
no
 
right to schedule
 hearings
after 
the lower court had
disposed
the
wrongful
 
foreclosure
action on
08/12/2010
:

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->