IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

BANKUNITED, a NON-party, and

NOT any successor in interest to LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKRUPT BankUnited, FSB,

NOT any proper “plaintiff” or “party”,

v. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-601-CA

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

NOT any “defendants”.

__________________________________________________________________________/

DEMAND FOR FINAL ORDER & JUDICIAL NOTICE OF BINDING PRECEDENT

[BINDING PRECEDENT, STATE STREET BANK v. HARTLEY LORD, IN SUPPORT OF

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO “ORDER OF THE COURT”,
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (08/31/2010),
AND SHOW OF NO jurisdiction,
“WITH A SATISFACTORY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE”,
“COPY TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL”, AND
NOTICE OF 08/12/10 FINAL DISPOSITION AND LACK OF jurisdiction]

DEMAND FOR FINALITY / JUDICIAL NOTICE OF BINDING PRECEDENT

1. In support of her Amended Notice of Appeal, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, who was never

served and is not any “party” and/or “defendant”, demands judicial notice of the attached

binding precedent, STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST v. HARTLEY LORD, which

conclusively evidenced:

a. The Court(s)’ lack of jurisdiction;

b. BankUnited’s lack of any right to sue J. Franklin Prescott;

c. The prima facie frivolity & nullity of the fraudulent foreclosure action against Prescott.
WHERERFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott demands final judgment and/or order evidencing the

08/12/2010 Final Disposition as supported by said binding precedent.

EVIDENCE AND SHOW OF NO jurisdiction

2. Here, neither the Circuit Court nor the District Court had jurisdiction. The 08/12/2010 Final

Disposition resulted from the lack of jurisdiction.

3. The District Court alleged that

“appellant has failed to provide a copy of the order appealed as required by Fla. R. App.

P. 9.110(d)…”

4. However here, the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition occurred without an order declaring the

lack of jurisdiction. Here in particular, the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition had been the result

of

a. The lack of jurisdiction;

b. The lack of “plaintiffs’” right to sue Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-

defendants;

c. The lack of any note and mortgage;

d. Failure to state any cause of action;

e. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent.

THE DOCKET OF THE DISPOSED CASE WAS DEVOID OF an order

5. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-“defendants order” were entitled to an

finalizing the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition and declaring the lack of jurisdiction.

08/12/2010 RECORD FINAL DISPOSITION

6. On 08/12/2010, Defendant Judge Hugh D. Hayes had disposed Case Number 0906016-CA,

BANKUNITED v. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al. See also record Final Disposition Form

 on file, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.998. Here, the “time and manner” of the admitted record loss of a

purported “note” and “mortgage” were unknown. Here in particular, BankUnited and

BankUnited, FSB, did NOT know WHO had allegedly owned WHAT HOW and WHEN.

RECORD LACK AND/OR LOSS OF ANY “note” and “mortgage”

7. Here, the publicly recorded lack and “loss” of a fictitious “note” and “mortgage” were the

result of a “lawful seizure” and/or transfer, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (F.D.I.C.), Ch.

673, Florida Statutes. Here, the burden had been on lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB, and

BankUnited, both non-parties frivolously seeking to enforce a non-existent and/or lost

“instrument”. See § 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes. Here, NON-parties BankUnited, FSB, and

BankUnited were

a. PROHIBITED from suing the NON-defendants;

b. PROHIBITED from serving the NON-defendants.

Here particularly, the NON-plaintiffs, i.e., said seized bank and NON-successor, and the

Court(s) knew that

c. Failed and seized BankUnited, FSB, and NON-successor-in-interest BankUnited could

NEVER have possibly met the absolutely required conditions precedent;
d. Busted BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited had NEVER any established interest,
standing, and/or right to sue NON-defendant Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and/or any of the
fraudulently listed NON-defendants;
e. The seized Bank and BankUnited were NOT allowed to bring the facially fraudulent
“foreclosure action”.

NON-service OF NON-defendants

8. Here, NON-party and NON-defendant Jennifer Franklin Prescott was

a. NEVER served;

b. Could NOT have possibly been served under any existing law.
 COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

9. Here, the State Court and State Appellate Court must take compulsory judicial notice of

a. The facial illegality of this fraudulent action;

b. The facial frivolity of BankUnited’s facially deceptive action;

c. Bankrupt & lawfully seized BankUnited’s record lack of any right to sue NON-

defendants;

d. The nullity of the disposed action;

e. The Clerk’s responsibility to record and/or file any and all official documents and final

disposition documents.

NON-party FRANKLIN PRESCOTT WAS ENTITLED TO UN-ALTERED RECORDS

10. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was entitled to

a. An un-altered official records and documents;

b. Judicial transparency and accountability;

c. Un-altered official records and entry of the judicial orders and 08/12/2010 final

disposition.

RECORD EVIDENCE OF FRIVOLOUS AND FRAUDULENT “foreclosure action”

11. Here under Florida’s Evidence Code, Ch. 90, and § 90.953, Fla. Stat., there was

a. NO evidence of any note and mortgage;

b. NO evidence of any right to enforce a admittedly fictitious note;

c. NO evidence of any entitlement to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott.

 “LAWFUL SEIZURE” OF BUSTED BANKUNITED, FSB

12. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been “lawfully seized”, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes. Here,

BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited:

a. Had NEVER established any “promissory note”;

b. Were NOT entitled to sue any of the purported “defendants”;

c. Were precluded from the frivolous and fraudulent legal action;

d. Had failed to state any cause of action in the admitted record absence of any “note”;

e. Could NEVER have been, under any circumstances and/or existing law, any proper

plaintiffs or parties to bring any foreclosure action against Jennifer FranklinPrescott

and/or other NON-“defendants”.

13. Here on its face, the fraudulently pretended foreclosure action was
a. Non-meritorious;
b. Frivolous;
c. Fraudulent.

RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY lien AND lis pendens

14. Here as a matter of law and public record, Chapter 673, Fla. Stat., there were

a. NO negotiable instrument;
b. NO “note”;
c. NO obligation to pay any money;
d. NO lien;
e. NO lis pendens.

15. Here pursuant to Ch. 673, Fla. Stat., nothing and no existing law could have possibly

a. justified the facially fraudulent and frivolous “foreclosure action”;

b. Entitled said NON-parties/plaintiffs to sue the NON-defendants.

16. Here, BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited

a. Were NOT any “proper party”;

b. Had NO interest in the subject property;
c. Had NO standing;
d. Engaged in sanctionable conduct before the Court.
 NO notice(s) of appearance

17. Here, several of the purported NON-plaintiff(s)’ lawyers failed to file their notice(s) of

appearance. See Docket.

ADOPTION OF FILED PLEADINGS BY REFERENCE IN THIS PLEADING

18. Hereby, Jennifer Franklin Prescott adopts by reference the attached identified pleadings [see

Certificates of Filings] in this pleading.

RECORD FINALITY AND LACK OF JURISDICTION

19. Here, there was record finality and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was entitled to un-altered

official records and orders of, e.g.:

a. Final disposition;

b. Lack of jurisdiction.

DEMAND FOR OFFICIAL FINAL DISPOSITION RECORDS AND ORDERS

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-defendants demand

1. An Order declaring the Court(s)’ lack of jurisdiction and perfecting the Final

Disposition;

2. An Order directing the Circuit Court to perfect the record 08/12/2010 Final

Disposition;

3. An Order determining the lack of jurisdiction over NON-plaintiff(s)’, BankUnited and

BankUnited, FSB’s, facially frivolous and fraudulent NON-action;

4. An Order directing the Clerk to file the Final Disposition documents under Florida law.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, un-served NON-party and NON-defendant

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND PUBLICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above has been furnished to the NON-

plaintiffs, lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited, James E. Albertelli, Esq., Erin M.

[Quinn] Rose, Esq., and Erin Rowland [NO notice of appearance], Albertelli Law, P.O. Box

23028, Tampa, FL 33623, judicial imposter “Tony Perez”, Magistrate’s Office, and Defendant

Judge Hugh D. Hayes, Naples Courthouse, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, on this

15th day of September, 2010.

Serena Kay Paskewicz, Esq., Camner Lipsitz law firm, is not any co-counsel or counsel at this

time.

This pleading is also being published worldwide.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, un-served NON-party and NON-defendant

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR HOLDERS
OF BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE
SECURITIES INC. MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
1993-12.
Appellant,
v.
HARTLEY LORD, BOCA GROVE
PLANTATION PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., and BOCA GROVE
GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB, INC.
Appellees.
CASE NO. 4D02-4051
Opinion filed July 23, 2003
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward Fine
and John Wessel, Judges; L.T. Case No.CL 99-
006652 AW.
Forrest G. McSurdy of Law Offices of David J.
Stern, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.
Harold B. Haimowitz, Boca Raton, for
Appellee-Hartley Lord.
STONE, J.
The issue on appeal is whether a mortgagee by
assignment, State Street Bank, may pursue a
mortgage foreclosure in the absence of proof that
either the mortgagee, or its assignor, ever had
possession of the missing promissory note. A
summary judgment was entered in favor of the
mortgagor, Hartley Lord. We affirm.
JULY TERM 2003
State Street sought to establish the promissory
note and mortgage under section 71.011, Florida
Statutes. State Street alleged that Hartley
executed the note and mortgage and that, after
multiple assignments, the documents were
assigned to State Street by EMC Mortgage
Corporation. Although State Street alleged in its
pleading that the original documents were received
by it, the record established that State Street never
had possession of the original note and, further,
that its assignor, EMC, never had possession of
the note and, thus, was not able to transfer the
original note to State Street.
The trial court correctly concluded that as State
Street never had actual or constructive possession
of the promissory note, State Street could not, as
a matter of law, maintain a cause of action to
enforce the note or foreclose the mortgage. The
right to enforce the lost instrument was not
properly assigned where neither State Street nor
its predecessor in interest possessed the note and
did not otherwise satisfy the requirements of
section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, at the time of
the assignment. See Slizyk v. Smilack, 825 So. 2d
428, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
To maintain a mortgage foreclosure, the plaintiff
must either present the original promissory note or
give a satisfactory explanation for its failure to do
so. § 90.953(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); W.H. Downing
v. First Nat’l Bank of Lake City, 81 So. 2d 486
(Fla. 1955); Nat’l Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar
Assocs., 767 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
A limited exception applies for lost, destroyed, or
stolen instruments, where it is shown that “the
person was in possession of the instrument and
entitled to enforce it when loss of possession
occurred.” § 673.3091, Fla. Stat. (2002).
Section 673.3091 provides, in part:
(1) A person not in possession of an instrument
is entitled to enforce the instrument if:
 (a) The person was in possession of the
instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of
possession occurred;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of
a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain
possession of the instrument because the
instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts
cannot be determined, or it is the wrongful
possession of an unknown person or a person
that cannot be found or is not amenable to
service of process.
Here, it is unrefuted that State Street was unable
to meet the requirement of section 673.3091. The
undisputed facts show that the note was lost
before the ass ignment to State Street was made.
This court has previously refused to allow a
mortgage foreclosure under similar circumstances.
In Mason v. Rubin, 727 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999), the appellant brought a foreclosure action
on a second mortgage, the trial court denied the
foreclosure, and this court affirmed on the basis
that the appellant had failed to establish the lost
note under section 673.3091. Likewise, here,
where State Street failed to comply with section
673.3091, the trial court correctly entered
summary judgment denying its foreclosure claim.1
1 may be applied where there is proof of an earlier
We recognize that in O’Donovan v. Citibank,
F.S.B., 710 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the court
affirmed a summary judgment allowing foreclosure but
reversed on the re-establishment claim where there was
a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff could re-
establish the terms of the promissory note under
section 71.011(5).
Although it appears that O’Donovan permits
foreclosure even where the promissory note is not re-
established, the Third District applied section 71.011
governing enforcement of lost papers, records, or files,
and not section 673.3091. This court, however, has
concluded that lost promissory notes are negotiable
instruments and are actually governed by section
-2-
State Street cannot succeed under an
assignment theory. We recognize that this court,
and the Third District, have held that the right of
enforcement of a lost note can be assigned. See
Slizyk, 825 So. 2d at 430; Deakter v. Menendez,
830 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Nat’l Loan,
767 So. 2d at 551. Here, however, in contrast to
National Loan, Slizyk, and Deakter , there is no
evidence as to who possessed the note when it
was lost.
In Slizyk, we held that the assignee of a note
and mortgage was entitled to foreclose despite his
inability to produce the original documents. This
court concluded that because the assignor was in
possession of the notes, he had the right to enforce
them. When the notes were assigned to the
appellee, the right to enforce the instruments was
assigned to him as well. Id. at 430. In contrast,
here, the undisputed evidence was that EMC, the
assignor, never had possession of the notes and,
thus, could not enforce the note under section
673.3091 governing lost notes. Because EMC
could not enforce the lost note under section
673.3091, it had no power of enforcement which
it could as sign to State Street. Were we to allow
State Street to enforce the note becaus e some
unidentified person further back in the chain may
possess the note, it would render the 673.3091 rule
meaningless. We do not, and need not, reach any
question as to whether Slizyk and National Loan
assignor’s possession further removed than the
most immediate assignor.
We recognize that applying the statute as we do
will result in a windfall to the mortgagor and a
likely injustice to the mortgagee, unless it is able to
obtain new evidence. In Dennis Joslin Company
v. Robinson Broadcasting Corp., 977 F. Supp. 491
(D.D.C. 1997), the district court rejected the right
673.3091. See Slizyk, 825 So. 2d 428; Mason, 727 So. 2d
283.
to assign the enforcement of a lost note.
Apparently, in response to that opinion, the
Uniform Commercial Code was amended to
delete the requirement that the transferee be in
possession at the time the instrument was lost and
now provides that the person seeking to enforce
the instrument either was entitled to enforce the
instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
acquired ownership of the instrument from a
person who was entitled to enforce the instrument
when loss of possession occurred. See U.C.C. §
3-309(a)(1) (2002). Florida, however, has not
similarly amended its code and still requires
possession either by the assignor at the time of
loss or by the person seeking to enforce the note.
Any remedy must, therefore, be left to the
legislature.

GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY

FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.

-3-
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT, P.O. BOX 327, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33802-0327

CASE NO.: 2D10-4158

Jennifer Franklin-Prescott v. BankUnited

________________________________________________________________________/

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO “ORDER OF THE COURT”,

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (08/31/2010),
AND SHOW OF NO jurisdiction,
“WITH A SATISFACTORY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE”,
“COPY TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL”, AND
NOTICE OF 08/12/10 FINAL DISPOSITION AND LACK OF jurisdiction
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

BANKUNITED, a NON-party, and

NOT any successor in interest to LAWFULLY SEIZED BANKRUPT BankUnited, FSB,

NOT any proper “plaintiff” or “party”,

v. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-601-CA

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

NOT any “defendants”.

__________________________________________________________________________/

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO “ORDER OF THE COURT”,

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (08/31/2010),
AND SHOW OF NO jurisdiction,
“WITH A SATISFACTORY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE”,
“COPY TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL”, AND
NOTICE OF 08/12/10 FINAL DISPOSITION AND LACK OF jurisdiction

SHOW OF NO jurisdiction

1. Here, neither the Circuit Court nor the District Court had jurisdiction. The 08/12/2010 Final

Disposition resulted from the lack of jurisdiction.

2. The District Court alleged that

“appellant has failed to provide a copy of the order appealed as required by Fla. R. App.

P. 9.110(d)…”

3. However here, the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition occurred without an order declaring the

lack of jurisdiction. Here in particular, the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition had been the result

of

a. The lack of jurisdiction;

 b. The lack of “plaintiffs’” right to sue Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-

defendants;

c. The lack of any note and mortgage;

d. Failure to state any cause of action;

e. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent.

THE DOCKET OF THE DISPOSED CASE WAS DEVOID OF an order

4. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-“defendants order” were entitled to an

finalizing the 08/12/2010 Final Disposition and declaring the lack of jurisdiction.

08/12/2010 RECORD FINAL DISPOSITION

5. On 08/12/2010, Defendant Judge Hugh D. Hayes had disposed Case Number 0906016-CA,

BANKUNITED v. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al. See also record Final Disposition Form

on file, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.998. Here, the “time and manner” of the admitted record loss of a

purported “note” and “mortgage” were unknown. Here in particular, BankUnited and

BankUnited, FSB, did NOT know WHO had allegedly owned WHAT HOW and WHEN.

RECORD LACK AND/OR LOSS OF ANY “note” and “mortgage”

6. Here, the publicly recorded lack and “loss” of a fictitious “note” and “mortgage” were the

result of a “lawful seizure” and/or transfer, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (F.D.I.C.), Ch.

673, Florida Statutes. Here, the burden had been on lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB, and

BankUnited, both non-parties frivolously seeking to enforce a non-existent and/or lost

“instrument”. See § 673.3091(2), Florida Statutes. Here, NON-parties BankUnited, FSB, and

BankUnited were

a. PROHIBITED from suing the NON-defendants;

b. PROHIBITED from serving the NON-defendants.

 Here particularly, the NON-plaintiffs, i.e., said seized bank and NON-successor, and the

Court(s) knew that

c. Failed and seized BankUnited, FSB, and NON-successor-in-interest BankUnited could

NEVER have possibly met the absolutely required conditions precedent;
d. Busted BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited had NEVER any established interest,
standing, and/or right to sue NON-defendant Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and/or any of the
fraudulently listed NON-defendants;
e. The seized Bank and BankUnited were NOT allowed to bring the facially fraudulent
“foreclosure action”.

NON-service OF NON-defendants

7. Here, NON-party and NON-defendant Jennifer Franklin Prescott was

a. NEVER served;

b. Could NOT have possibly been served under any existing law.

COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

8. Here, the State Court and State Appellate Court must take compulsory judicial notice of

a. The facial illegality of this fraudulent action;

b. The facial frivolity of BankUnited’s facially deceptive action;

c. Bankrupt & lawfully seized BankUnited’s record lack of any right to sue NON-

defendants;

d. The nullity of the disposed action;

e. The Clerk’s responsibility to record and/or file any and all official documents and final

disposition documents.

NON-party FRANKLIN PRESCOTT WAS ENTITLED TO UN-ALTERED RECORDS

9. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was entitled to

a. An un-altered official records and documents;

 b. Judicial transparency and accountability;

c. Un-altered official records and entry of the judicial orders and 08/12/2010 final

disposition.

RECORD EVIDENCE OF FRIVOLOUS AND FRAUDULENT “foreclosure action”

10. Here under Florida’s Evidence Code, Ch. 90, and § 90.953, Fla. Stat., there was

a. NO evidence of any note and mortgage;

b. NO evidence of any right to enforce a admittedly fictitious note;

c. NO evidence of any entitlement to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott.

“LAWFUL SEIZURE” OF BUSTED BANKUNITED, FSB

11. Bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been “lawfully seized”, Ch. 673, Florida Statutes. Here,

BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited:

a. Had NEVER established any “promissory note”;

b. Were NOT entitled to sue any of the purported “defendants”;

c. Were precluded from the frivolous and fraudulent legal action;

d. Had failed to state any cause of action in the admitted record absence of any “note”;

e. Could NEVER have been, under any circumstances and/or existing law, any proper

plaintiffs or parties to bring any foreclosure action against Jennifer FranklinPrescott

and/or other NON-“defendants”.

12. Here on its face, the fraudulently pretended foreclosure action was
a. Non-meritorious;
b. Frivolous;
c. Fraudulent.

RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY lien AND lis pendens

13. Here as a matter of law and public record, Chapter 673, Fla. Stat., there were

a. NO negotiable instrument;
b. NO “note”;
c. NO obligation to pay any money;
d. NO lien;
e. NO lis pendens.

14. Here pursuant to Ch. 673, Fla. Stat., nothing and no existing law could have possibly

a. justified the facially fraudulent and frivolous “foreclosure action”;

b. Entitled said NON-parties/plaintiffs to sue the NON-defendants.

15. Here, BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited

a. Were NOT any “proper party”;

b. Had NO interest in the subject property;
c. Had NO standing;
d. Engaged in sanctionable conduct before the Court.

NO notice(s) of appearance

16. Here, several of the purported NON-plaintiff(s)’ lawyers failed to file their notice(s) of

appearance. See Docket.

ADOPTION OF FILED PLEADINGS BY REFERENCE IN THIS PLEADING

17. Hereby, Jennifer Franklin Prescott adopts by reference the attached identified pleadings [see

Certificates of Filings] in this pleading.

RECORD FINALITY AND LACK OF JURISDICTION

18. Here, there was record finality and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was entitled to un-altered

official records and orders of, e.g.:

a. Final disposition;

b. Lack of jurisdiction.
 DEMAND FOR OFFICIAL FINAL DISPOSITION RECORDS AND ORDERS

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott and the other NON-defendants demand

1. An Order declaring the Court(s)’ lack of jurisdiction and perfecting the Final

Disposition;

2. An Order directing the Circuit Court to perfect the record 08/12/2010 Final

Disposition;

3. An Order determining the lack of jurisdiction over NON-plaintiff(s)’, BankUnited and

BankUnited, FSB’s, facially frivolous and fraudulent NON-action;

4. An Order directing the Clerk to file the Final Disposition documents under Florida law.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, un-served NON-party and NON-defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND PUBLICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above has been furnished to the NON-

plaintiffs, lawfully seized BankUnited, FSB, and BankUnited, James E. Albertelli, Esq., Erin M.

[Quinn] Rose, Esq., and Erin Rowland [NO notice of appearance], Albertelli Law, P.O. Box

23028, Tampa, FL 33623, judicial imposter “Tony Perez”, Magistrate’s Office, and Defendant

Judge Hugh D. Hayes, Naples Courthouse, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, on this

15th day of September, 2010.

Serena Kay Paskewicz, Esq., Camner Lipsitz law firm, is not any co-counsel or counsel at this

time.

This pleading is also being published worldwide.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, un-served NON-party and NON-defendant

9/14/2010 Public Inquiry

Find it here...
Site Search

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX

Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List

Case Information Printer Friendly Version

Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER

Uniform Case Number: 112009C A0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016C A
Court Type: C IR C UIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MO R TGAGE FO R ECLO SUR ES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPO SED Reopened:
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 09/07/2010 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

1 of 1 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 100

Date Text All Entries

07/09/2009 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (FILING)
07/09/2009 C IVIL C O VER SHEET
07/09/2009 C O MPLAINT
07/09/2009 NO TIC E O F LIS PENDENS
07/09/2009 PAID $10.00 PER ISSUANC E O F SUMMO NS $40.00
07/09/2009 R EAL PR O PER TY VALUATIO N SHEET
07/10/2009 SUMMO NS ISSUED
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT/ W ALTER P R ESC O TT/ JO HN DO E/ MAR Y DO E/
PLAC ED IN SO UTH FLO R IDA PR O C ESS SER VER S BIN
09/03/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS MAR Y DO E
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F LO ST O R IGINAL SUMMO NS JO HN DO E
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JO HN DO E
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
02/22/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAR ANC E
AS C O -CO UNSEL BY ER IN M R O SE Q UINN O N BEHALF O F PLT
04/06/2010 ALIAS SUMMO NS ISSUED
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/W ALTER PR ESC O TT/P LAC ED IN PR O VEST LLC BIN
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F NO N-SER VIC E O F SUMMO NS W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F C O NSTR UC TIVE SER VIC E
AS TO ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N PAR TIES C LAIMING
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F DILIGENT SEAR C H AS TO JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-P R ESC O TT

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/3
9/14/2010 Public Inquiry
06/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
06/17/2010 NO TIC E O F AC TIO N
TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PR ESC O TT & ANY AND ALL UNKNO W N
PAR TIES C LAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 C O NFIR MATIO N O F EMAIL R EC EIVED BY GULF C O AST BUSINESS R EVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT O F PUBLIC ATIO N
NO TIC E O F AC TIO N TO W ALTER PR ESC O TT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT/ANSW ER
W ITHIN 30 DAYS O F FIRST PUBLIC ATIO N 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT /PR O SE
07/22/2010 MO TIO N TO ENJO IN / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT -P RO SE
07/22/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
O F PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D & MO TIO N TO DISMISS
BY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MO TIO N FO R C LAR IFIC ATIO N O F C O UNSEL
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MO TIO N TO C LAR IFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NO TIC E O F R EC O R D FR AUD
08/12/2010 MO TIO N TO DISMISS PR O SE JENNIFER FR ANKLIN P RESC O TT
08/12/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/12/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (DISPO SITIO N)
08/17/2010 BANKR UPTC Y BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED INC IDENT R EPO R T APP AR ENT FALSIFIC ATIO NS NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED DO C KET ALTER ATIO NS EVIDENC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E O F BANKR UPT NO N SER VIC E NO TIC E
08/17/2010 NO TIC E
O F BANKR UPT BANKUNITED EMER GENC Y DEMAND TO EXTINGUISH FR AUDULENT
AC TIO N
08/18/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL
FR O M ALTER ATIO N O F REC O R D NO O R DER ATTAC HED
NO FEES ENC LO SED
08/20/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLEER K TO DC A W /NO TIC E O F AP PEAL
NO FEE INC LUDED
08/20/2010 BILLED APP EAL FILING FEE $150.00
08/26/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING 9/2/10 @ 11:30 MO TIO NS TO DISMISS & ENJO IN
08/30/2010 NO TIC E O F R ELEASE O F LIS PENDENS FILED BY DEFENDANT
08/30/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M
08/31/2010 NO TIC E
O F R ELEASE & DISC HAR GE O F FRAUDULENT LIS PENDENS BY DEFENENDANT
JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
08/31/2010 FINAL DISPO SITIO N FO R M BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
09/01/2010 DEFENDANT NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N O F HEAR ING 9/2/10 FILED BY DEFENDANT
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F R EC O R DATIO N O F RELEASE O F LIS PENDENS
09/01/2010 NO TIC E O F SER VIC E
O F NO TIC E O F DISPO SITIO N AND NO N C O NTEST TO ANY MAGISTR ATE
09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED
09/02/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
09/02/2010 R EC EIP T FR O M DC A
AC KNO W LEDGMENT O F NEW C ASE FILED W /DC A 8/18/10 2D10-4158
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL W ITHIN 15 DAYS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED APPEAL

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 2/3
9/14/2010 Public Inquiry
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A
APP ELLANT SHALL FO R W AR D FILING FEE O R O R DER O F INSO LVENC Y W ITTHIN
40 DAYS
09/02/2010 O R DER BY DC A APP ELLANT SHALL SHO W C AUSE W ITHIN 15 DAYS
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E
09/02/2010 MO TIO N FO R R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E IN SUPPO R T O F HUGH HAYES R EC USAL
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/02/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/03/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUR ISDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 O R IGINAL SENATE STAFF R EC O R D EVIDENC E IN SUPPO R T O F SANC TIO NS
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F LAC K O F JUSIDIC TIO N
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E
09/07/2010 NO TIC E O F AUTO MATIC DISSO LUTIO N O F LIS PENDENS
09/07/2010 R EQ UEST FO R JUDIC IAL NO TIC E

W e dne sday night is re gular m a inte nance tim e on our se rve rs; as a re sult brie f o utage s m ay o ccur.
W e apologize in advance for any inconve nie nce.

Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FA Qs | Contact Us

This we bsite is m aintaine d by The C ollie r C ounty C le rk of the C ircuit C ourt. Unde r Flo rida law, e m ail
addre sse s are public re co rds. If you do not want your e m a il addre ss re le ase d in re sponse to a public
re cords re que st, do not se nd e m ail to this e ntity. Inste ad, co ntact this office by phone or in writing.

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 3/3