P. 1


|Views: 87|Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: BANKUNITED_FRAUD on Dec 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





CERTIFIED DELIVERY Clerk of Court, Dwight E. Brock Darlene M.

Muszynski Assistant Director Civil 3315 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112, U.S.A. T: (239) 252-2706; F: (239) 252-2755 darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com; Collierclerk@collierclerk.com Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com, Sue.Barbiretti@collierclerk.com, Robert.StCyr@collierclerk.com OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT Hon. Clerk Dwight E. Brock, Darlene M. Muszynski: 1. Thank you for your e-mail sent Tue, Dec 21, 2010 8:38 am to which the undersigned is directly responding: Disposition No hearing after timely filed objections[Darlene M. Muszynski] The docket correctly reflects that no hearing took place on 9/2/10 & 12/6/10. The 9/2/10 minutes reflect that the hearing was cancelled. The Notice of Cancellation of the 12/6/10 hearing was filed on 12/7/10 and the minutes reflect that there was no appearance of the parties. 2. This facially frivolous case had been disposed on 08/12/2010:

YES, following said 08/12/2010 disposition, “no hearing took place on 9/2/10 and 12/6/10”, and/or could have been properly scheduled, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had not consented to any magistrate hearing and/or hearing after said disposition. YES, the “9/2/10 hearing was cancelled”, and over and over, Franklin-Prescott had objected to any magistrate and/or other hearing in this disposed case:

Here, “The Notice of Cancellation of the 12/6/10 hearing” referred to a non-scheduled and fictitious hearing, because no hearing had ever been scheduled for “12/6/2010 at 3:00 PM”.

Importantly, the fictitious and non-existent “motion for summary judgment” had never been filed, noticed, and/or served in this disposed case. See Docket. Here, WHICH attorney allegedly filed the fictitious motion? Furthermore here, none of the attorneys of record (“Paskewicz; Rose”) had any authority to schedule any hearing and/or move for summary judgment after said 08/12/10 disposition. Here, BankUnited itself had fired Attorney Paskewicz and law firm Camner Lipsitz. According to the communications of record, Rose has not been representing BankUnited. No hearing was ever scheduled on the purported “reopen date” of 12/6/10 or thereafter. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had not scheduled any hearing, and no hearing had ever taken place. No reopen reason(s)[Darlene M. Muszynski] The case was reopened on 12/6/10 with a MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOT There are only two allowable reasons for a reopen Modification and Other. This motion falls into the Other category. 3. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott objected and properly responded to the unauthorized and fictitious hearing. Here, Prescott reported and objected to “BankUnited’s” fraud on the Court. Prescott’s objection to the unauthorized hearing did not “reopen” the disposed frivolous action. DEC 6, 2010 EMERGENCY OBJECTION PRIOR TO UNAUTHORIZED hearing Here, e.g., Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had filed her “Emergency Objection” on 2010 DEC. 6, 12:43 PM prior to the unauthorized hearing. See Clerk’s 2010 DEC. 6, 12:43 PM stamp:


If in each disposed case a non-prevailing plaintiff and/or party could simply schedule an unauthorized and fictitious hearing for improper purposes of re-opening the disposed case, the floodgates of fraud would open even wider. Here to start with, BankUnited had alleged the unknown loss and/or destruction of the purported note. Here, no note had ever been assigned to “BankUnited” as indisputably evident from the Collier County public records on file. See, e.g., Complaint. Accordingly, “BankUnited” had no right to sue Franklin-Prescott. See Ch. 673, Fla. Stat., and U.C.C. RECORD BANKUNITED FRAUD ON THE COURT: INDISPUTABLE RECORD EVIDENCE OF NO note assignment TO “BANKUNITED” No BankUnited assignment of any loan, note, and/or mortgage [Darlene M. Muszynski] the file reflects that on 12/2/10 Plaintiff filed the Original Mortgage. 4. NO, no genuine “original mortgage” was filed nor could have possibly been “filed”. No mortgage and/or note was assigned to “BankUnited”. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been seized pursuant to the warrant on file.


No “BankUnited” mortgage and/or assignment appears in the Collier County public records:

Said seizure of BankUnited, FSB, made impossible any negotiated and/or contractual assignment to “BankUnited” as evidenced. See Uniform Commercial Code and Florida Statutes; see Ch. 673, F.S. Here, there could not have possibly been any breach of contract, “mortgage foreclosure”, and/or BankUnited’s fraudulently pretended cause of action in the known and recorded absence of any chain of assignment to “BankUnited”. See Complaint:

Hon. Clerk Dwight E. Brock is the custodian of Collier County records and has known that on “12/2/10” the purported “plaintiff” “BankUnited” did not “file the original mortgage” and/or any authentic “note” and/or instrument. Here, “BankUnited” is neither in possession of any genuine authentic instrument and/or note nor entitled to enforce any note and/or unrecorded bogus instrument. 5. Here, BankUnited knew that defunct BankUnited, FSB, had been lawfully seized (F.D.I.C.) and that the purported “plaintiff” could not have possibly (re) established any admittedly lost and/or destroyed note under Florida law. See State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003); and Federal and F.D.I.C. Bank seizure reports on file. NO assignment OF LOST AND/OR DESTROYED note AFTER LAWFUL SEIZURE


6. Here, no instrument and/or note was assigned to “BankUnited” after said seizure. The “plaintiff” had asserted the “unknown” loss and/or destruction of the purported “note”, which “was the result of a lawful seizure” (F.D.I.C.), Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See also § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Therefore, “plaintiff” knew that it could not have possibly met the requirements to prove an assigned note and/or (re) establish a lost/destroyed/stolen note under the law. “BANKUNITED’S” FRAUDULENT lis pendens 7. “BankUnited” never satisfied the requirements and/or conditions precedent for a lis pendens. Here, “BankUnited” knew that Franklin-Prescott had no obligation to pay money to “BankUnited” as indisputably evidenced by the Collier County public records on file. At the time of the fraudulent recording of the purported lis pendens, “BankUnited” asserted the unknown loss and/or destruction of a note. See OR 4471 PG 592; instrument 4318185 (7/10/2009). 8. In the record absence of any note assignment to “BankUnited” and/or possibility to establish any “BankUnited” note, the lis pendens was fraudulent. See “Notice of Release and Discharge of Fraudulent lis pendens, Ch. 48, F.S.”; OR 4600 PG 2601, instrument 4470323 (9/1/2010).

Here, there had been no legal basis for any lis pendens, and “BankUnited” had no right to sue Prescott. DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT 9. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Plaintiff to attach copies of all “bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought” to its 5

complaint. Here, the unauthorized plaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritorious claim had no base and was disposed. “BankUnited” HAD NO cause of action AND NO genuine original note 10. The original document required to be filed with the court in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding is the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the definition of section 673.1041(1), and either the original must be produced, or the lost document must be reestablished under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. See Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Downing v. First Nat'l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1955); Thompson v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 673 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of plaintiff defunct bank, re-establishment was legally & factually impossible. Furthermore, seizure is not any transfer by delivery in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Disposition Judge disposed the frivolous action. PRESCOTT RAISED GENUINE QUESTIONS AS TO THE note’s authenticity 11. The Evidence Code provides the rationale for the above conclusion and demand. Section 90.952, Florida Statutes (2002), indicates that original documents are required to prove the contents of a writing, unless otherwise provided by statute. Here pursuant to Section 90.953, Florida Statutes, Jennifer Franklin has been raising genuine questions as to the authenticity of the purported (original) note and mortgage. NOTICE OF FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT’S UNAVAILABILITY 12. After said 08/12/2010 disposition, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been in, e.g., Dubai, Australia, and Australasia and will be unavailable until 02/28/2011.


Under American law, a Florida homeowner should not have to worry each and every time she leaves her home that BankUnited is perpetuating its fraud scheme and fraud on Court. OBJECTION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott objects to said fraud on the Court and demands that the docket truthfully reflect • • • • No filing of any genuine “BankUnited original note”; No recordation of any authentic “BankUnited original note and/or mortgage”; No filing of any “BankUnited original mortgage”; Disposition of the facially frivolous action by BankUnited, which is not any “successor in interest” after said seizure of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB pursuant to the warrant on record; Notice of Prescott’s unavailability in this disposed action.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim


You're Reading a Free Preview

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