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
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Appellants' Motion for Clarification

Appellants' Motion for Clarification

Ratings: (0)|Views: 262 |Likes:
Published by Judicial_Fraud

More info:

Published by: Judicial_Fraud on Mar 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/22/2013

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. BankUnitedWalter Prescott,
et al 
.,
_____________________________________________________________________ Appellants/Petitioners, Appellee / Respondent(s).
APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION UNDER RULE 9.330
NON-FINAL NOTICES OF APPEAL AND ORDER 
” ON FILE
1.
Appeal Clerk Cheryl Bishop
erred
and did
not
properly identify defendants’
Non-Final Notice of Appeal and Order 
”. See Bishop’s attached 02/22/2011 letter to James Birkhold.
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS OF RECORD AND CLARIFICATION
2.
Again, Walter Prescott, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
., hereby
clarify
their 
02/18/2011
” and “
02/24/2011
Interlocutory
 
Appeal(s)
:
 
RECORD OF NOTICES OF “INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS”
3.
Here, defendant(s) had prayed for “proper processing of their 
Notice(s) of Interlocutory Appeal
:
 
“WHEREFORE Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands1. Proper processing of this
NOTICE OF APPEAL
and/or 
INTERLOCUTORYAPPEAL
;” See 02/24/2011
Non
-Final Notice of Appeal.
RECORD COURT ERROR
 
4.
Here, there was
court erro
as evidenced by this Court’s
erroneous
 
entry
of Appellants’
Non
-final Notice as “
Final Civil Other Notice from Collier County 
”. Seeattached DCA Docket.
ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF NON-FINAL APPEAL NOTICES IN PLEADING
5.
“Defendants” hereby
adopt
 
by reference
their previous
02/18/2011
” and
02/24/2011
Non-Final Notices of 
 
Appeal
in this Pleading.
 
THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION
6.
These proceedings are “an
appeal
of a
non
-
final
order pursuant to Florida Ruleof Appellate Procedure 9.130”, and this Court has
jurisdiction.
Here, Prescott’s,Franklin-Prescott’s,
et al 
.,
Appeals
were
cognizable
, e.g., under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
 
“DEFENDANTS” WERE ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW
7.
Here, a
non
-final order met the standards for the issuance of an
extraordinarywrit
and/or came within the
orders
 
enumerated
in Florida Rule of AppellateProcedure 9.130 and was
appealable
. See Rule 9.130(a).
8.
Here, said
non
-final order 
permitted
appellate review
before
the trialproceedings are
complete
, and said Appellants Prescott, Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
.,have been invoking 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 modifyor dissolve
injunctions
 
;(C) determine(i) the jurisdiction of the person;(ii) the right to immediate possession of property …
10.
Here, defendants had properly asserted/identified
three
 
basic avenues
of andtheir 
entitlement
to appellate review:
a.
Review of 
interlocutory
o
 
rders permitted by Rule 9.130;
b.
Review by
extraordinary writ
 
; and
c.
Review of final orders.
11.
Defendants have the right to take their  
non
-final appeal within 30 days of theorder sought to be reviewed or the order can be reviewed at the end of the case. [If defendants had
not
chosen to take their interlocutory appeals, they could have stillappealed that order at the end of the case.]
DEMAND FOR COMMON LAW RELIEF
12.
Here, Prescott, Franklin-Prescott,
et al 
., have also asked that their 
Notices of Appeal
be treated as
petitions
 
for 
 
writ of certiorari
(common law remedy).
RECORD OF 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
13.
The lower tribunal had previously
disposed
of the
wrongful
 
foreclosure
actionfor, e.g.,
lack
of “
BankUnited’s
standing 
and
failure
to
state a cause of action
. Saidbank and
bankrupt
BankUnited, FSB’s
” founder, Alfred Camner, Esq., had allegedthe
UNKNOWN
 
destruction
and/or 
loss
of 
mortgage
and/or 
note
.
 
ORDER 
” DEFINED

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Paul Murray liked this
americanreply liked this
Judicial_Fraud 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)//-->