12/20/2010 RE: REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

From: Darlene M. Muszynski <Darlene.Muszynski@collierclerk.com>

To: jrbu@aol.com
Cc: Dwight E. Brock <Dwight.Brock@collierclerk.com>; Collierclerk <Collierclerk@collierclerk.com>
Subject: RE: REQUEST FOR CORRECTION
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 9:13 am

This document was docketed as received on the 6th however it was docketed as a motion to
compel. That section of the documents was highlighted so the clerk thought that is what the sender
wanted. The first title however does say objection so I have changed the entry to reflect that it was
the objection. The documents that were clocked in were apparently sent to our office by the judge
as they appear to be faxes.

Darlene Muszynski
Assistant Director Civil
(239) 252-2706
darlene.muszynski@collierclerk.com

From: Sue M. Barbiretti On Behalf Of Collierclerk

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Darlene M. Muszynski
Cc: Dwight E. Brock
Subject: FW: REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

Hi Dar, I’m assuming you’ve seen…

From: jrbu@aol.com [mailto:jrbu@aol.com]

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:06 AM
To: Hugh Hayes - Circuit Judge; Darlene M. Muszynski; Collierclerk; Jill M. Lennon; Dwight E. Brock;
afivecoat@albertellilaw.com; simone@albertellilaw.com; nreed@albertellilaw.com; tbaron@albertellilaw.com;
jsawyer@albertellilaw.com; jalbertelli@albertellilaw.com; erose@albertellilaw.com
Subject: REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com

This e le ctronic com m unica tion is confide ntial a nd m a y conta in privile ge d inform ation inte nde d sole ly for the nam e d
addre sse e (s). It m a y not be use d or disclose d e x ce pt for the purpose for which it ha s be e n se nt. If you are not the
inte nde d re cipie nt, you m ust not copy, distribute or ta k e a ny a ction induce d by or in re liance on inform a tion conta ine d in
this m e ssa ge .

Unle ss e x pre ssly state d, opinions in this m e ssage a re those of the individua l se nde r and not of the O ffice of the C le rk
of the Circuit C ourt of C ollie r C ounty. If you have re ce ive d this com m unica tion in e rror, ple ase notify the Cle rk ’s O ffice
by e m ailing he lpde sk @collie rcle rk .com quoting the se nde r and de le te the m e ssage and a ny attache d docum e nts. The
Collie r C ounty Cle rk ’s O ffice a cce pts no liability or re sponsibility for any onwa rd transm ission or use of e m ails a nd
attachm e nts having le ft the Collie rC le rk .com dom ain.

Unde r Florida La w, e -m ail addre sse s are public re cords. If you do not wa nt 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 le ctronic m a il to this e ntity. Inste a d, contact this office by te le phone or in writing.

mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
12/20/2010 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: O THER R EASO N
Case Status: R EO P ENED Reopened: 12/06/2010
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 12/08/2010 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

2 of 2 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 80

Date Text All Entries

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
09/14/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/14/2010 C O PY C O R R ESPO NDENC E TO 2ND DCA W /ATTAC HMENTS
09/15/2010 NO TIC E O F APP EAL AMENDED NO TIC E O F AP PEAL 2D10-4158
09/15/2010 C O PY AMENDED NO TIC E O F APPEAL TITLED TO 2ND DC A
09/15/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F APPEAL
2D10-4158
09/16/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M
APP EAL CLER K TO DC A W /C ER TIFIED C O PY AMENDED NO TICE O F 2ND AMENDED
NO TIC E O F APP EAL
09/16/2010 DEMAND FO R FINAL O R DER
10/04/2010 O R DER BY DC A
THIS APPEAL DISMISSED BEC AUSE AP PELLANT FAILED TO C O MPLY W ITH THIS
C O UR TS O R DER O F 8/31/10 R EQ UIR ING A C O PY O F O RDER APPEALED
10/25/2010 O R DER BY DC A THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F HEARING
11/12/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY FEES
11/12/2010 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
12/02/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL NO TE & O R IGINAL MO R TGAGE
12/03/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N MO TIO N FO R
JUDIC IAL NO TIC E / BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O
12/06/2010 C O RR ESPO NDENCE FR O M C O UNSEL TO C LERK
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C ANC EL HEAR ING
12/06/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (R EO PEN)

apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
12/20/2010 Public Inquiry
12/06/2010 MO TIO N TO C O MPEL
& Q UIET TITLE IN THE R EC O R D O F ABSENC E O F ANY NO T & TO CANC EL
FR AUDULENT & UN NO TIC ED & UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING
12/06/2010 C A48/R EAL PR O PER TY MO R TGAGE FO R EC LO SUR E (PR E 2010) (R EO PEN)
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
12/06/2010 MINUTES - HEAR ING SEE SC HEDULE MINUTES FO R DETAILS
12/07/2010 NO TIC E O F C ANC ELLATIO N 12/06/10 @ 3:00 MO TIO N FO R SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO HEAR ING BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN PR ESC O TT
12/08/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT

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… 2/2
12/20/2010 Public Inquiry

Find it here... Site Search

Clerk To The Board

Home / Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - A LL / C ase - 112009C A0060160001XX
Court Departments
Traffic
Ne w Se a rch R e turn to C ase List
Recording Department

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: O THER R EASO N
Case Status: R EO P ENED Reopened: 12/06/2010
Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 12/08/2010 A ppealed:

Parties Dockets Events Financials

Name Type DOB City, State, Zip

BANKUNITED PLAINTIFF
BANKUNITED FSB PLAINTIFF
PASKEW IC Z, SER ENA KAY ESQ PLAINTIFF'S ATTO R NEY MIAMI, FL 33134
R O SE, ER IN M ESQ PLAINTIFF'S C O -C O UNSEL TAMP A, FL 33623
FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT, JENNIFER DEFENDANT
PR ESCO TT, W ALTER DEFENDANT
DO E, JO HN DEFENDANT
DO E, MAR Y DEFENDANT

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… 1/1
Clerk of Court
Naples, Florida, Courthouse

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF FILING DATE OF OBJECTIONS

Hon. Dwight E. Brock:

1. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s “Objections” were filed prior to the unauthorized hearing.

See Clerk of Court’s 2010 DEC. 6, 12:43 PM stamp:

2. Previously, purported “defendant” Prescott had filed her objections to any magistrate

hearing. See records by Rush Messenger Service West, Inc.

3. Here however, the Clerk alleged an erroneous “12/08/2010” filing date:

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott demands immediate correction.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim

ATTACHMENTS
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

BANKUNITED,
as [purported] successor in interest to [lawfully seized] BANKUNITED, FSB.,

purported plaintiff(s),

vs. DISPOSED CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

purported defendants.
___________________________________________________________________/

EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO PURPORTED note IN DISPOSED ACTION

AND UN-NOTICED AND UNAUTHORIZED hearing IN FRAUD-ON-COURT CASE
BASED ON DEFENDANT STATUS OF DISPOSITION JUDGE & RECUSAL MOTION

MOTION TO COMPEL & QUIET TITLE IN THE RECORD ABSENCE OF ANY note
AND TO CANCEL FRAUDULENT AND UN-NOTICED & UNAUTHORIZED hearing
[State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)]

NOTICE OF CONTESTED note, hearing, affidavit(s), assignment, and notice(s),

FRAUD & LOSS AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF PURPORTED note/instrument
IN DISPOSED AND FRIVOLOUS ACTION BY SEIZED & BANKRUPT BANK

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL, DEF. HUGH D. HAYES

1. On 09/02/10 Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had filed her “Motion for Recusal” and “Notice in

Support of Recusal”:

See Docket.

2
 BANKUNITED WARRANT & SEIZURE (F.D.I.C.) – FRAUD ON THE COURT

2. Attached is a copy of the BankUnited Warrant, p. 1. Here, BankUnited, FSB, had no

“interest” and no right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Furthermore, Camner Lipsitz, P.A.

does not represent purported BankUnited. Here, Serena Kay Paskewicz is not any counsel.

DISPOSITION JUDGE HUGH D. HAYES HAS BEEN A DEFENDANT

3. Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes has been a Defendant, e.g., U.S.A. Ex Rel. et al. v. U.S.A.

et al., and Prescott is a Plaintiff:

3
 “plaintiff(s)” FAILED to surrender ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE

4. Here, “plaintiffs” had asserted unknown loss and/or destruction of the original note and

failed to surrender the original promissory note. See Complaint, page 3:

Because a promissory note is negotiable, it must be surrendered in a foreclosure proceeding

so that it does not remain in the stream of commerce. Here, “plaintiff(s)” seized & bankrupt

bank and BankUnited had alleged that the note was lost, destroyed or stolen, and that the

manner and time of loss/destruction were unknown. Therefore, the court is authorized by

statute to take the necessary actions to protect the purported defendant against loss that

might occur by reason of a claim by another party to enforce the purported instrument. See

4
 section 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been entitled to

and demanded protection and removal of the alleged note from the stream of commerce.

IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY assignment - NO assignment chain

5. Here, after the self-reported and conceded loss and/or destruction of the pretended note,

most obviously, the non-existent note could not have possibly been assigned.

6. A seizure is not any contractual negotiation and/or assignment.

DISPOSED action LACKED ANY base - INSUFFICIENT & FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT

7. 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

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.

“plaintiff(s)” HAD NO cause of action AND NO original note

8. 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.

5
 PRESCOTT RAISED GENUINE QUESTIONS AS TO THE note’s authenticity

9. 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.

PRESCOTT HAD BEEN DEMANDING DUE PROCESS AND THE PURPORTED note

10. Here, the facially frivolous action was filed in July 2009 and disposed on 08/12/2010. As of

12/03/2010:

a. No court hearing had ever taken place;

b. No original note had been filed;
c. No notice of hearing had been served upon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott;
d. No original note had been filed. See Docket print outs.
Here, plaintiff(s) had no right to sue & standing, and were not any prevailing party.

OBJECTION TO FRAUDULENT hearing

11. Hereby, J. Franklin-Prescott again objects to the fraudulent, un-noticed, and unauthorized

hearing in this disposed action, which had lacked any base and sufficiency.

SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED FAILED TO demonstrate ANY interest

12. BankUnited failed to demonstrate a qualified successor-in-interest relationship and knew

that bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had been lawfully seized.

Here, lawful seizure was not any negotiation and/or transfer by delivery in the ordinary

course of business.

OBJECTION TO ALLEGED assignment –INVALID assignment chain AFTER SEIZURE

6
13. Under Florida Statute 701.02, an assignment is only effective if it indicates that it is an

assignment of a mortgage and is recorded. Here, no assignment documents were recorded,

and no mortgage of Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s was assigned to “plaintiff” BankUnited. In

light of the foregoing, this Court had disposed this frivolous action on 08/12/2010,

“Disposition Judge” Hugh D. Hayes. See Docket.

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION – BANKUNITED FRAUD & FRAUD ON THE COURT

14. Prescott again gives notice of publication of said objection(s), proof of fraud and fraud on

the court, and Prescott’s demands under the law. See, e.g., www.scribd.com.

DISPOSED COMPLAINT OF LOST / DESTROYED note / instrument

15. In this disposed & contested foreclosure fraud case, “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank

and/or BankUnited did not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully

seized. Here, “Plaintiff” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited had non-

meritoriously asserted a lost and/or destroyed note/instrument. See Complaint by fired

Counsel Camner Lipsitz (Alfred Camner, founder of bankrupt/seized BankUnited, FSB).

“plaintiff(s)” SEIZED BANK & BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY “holder in due course”

16. Here purported “plaintiffs” are not any “holder(s) in due course”. Here in particular,

“plaintiff” bankrupt bank’s lawful seizure was not any business in due course. Here, there

were, e.g., bankruptcy, creditor’s sale, and/or similar proceedings, and “plaintiff(s)” did not

acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument lawfully seized. See Uniform

Commercial Code, Articles 3, 9; §§ 3-309; 3-302; 3-308.

SEIZED BANK/BANKUNITED ARE NOT ANY assignee(s) - NO ASSIGNMENT CHAIN

7
17. Here after lawful F.D.I.C. seizure of “plaintiff” bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, no assignment

was contained in any document and recorded according to law. See Collier Clerk of Court’s

public records. See Ch. 701, Fla. Stat.; § 701.02 et al. Here, there was no “assignment chain”.

THIS COURT MAY NOT enter judgment in favor OF SEIZED BANKUNITED

18. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code:

“(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove
the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that
proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement
had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the
person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the
instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim
by another person to enforce the instrument …”

Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not protected against further fraudulent “claims” after

said lawful seizure and alleged unknown “loss and/or destruction” of the purported

note/instrument. See U.C.C., § 3-309:

CONTROVERTED authenticity of “seized” bank’s claims AND note ON THE RECORD

19. Here, Jennifer Franklin Prescott has controverted “plaintiffs’” fraudulent claims of any

“payment obligation” and negotiable instrument and/or note.

8
 “plaintiffs” HAD NO right to sue / foreclose AT TIME OF FILING

20. A person suing to foreclose must have the right to foreclose and reestablish when he files the

lawsuit. Here at the time of filing, “plaintiffs” had admittedly lost and/or destroyed any

right to foreclose. Here, “plaintiffs” knew that they could not possibly establish any

negotiable instrument.

21. Any post-lawsuit assignments establish that the lender did not own at time of suit. See State

Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla.4th DCA 2003); Nat. Loan Invest. v. Joymar Ass.,

767 So.2d 549 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000); Mason v. Rubin, 727 So.2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY OF enforcement of lost/destroyed note/instrument

22. A person not in possession of an instrument is not entitled to enforce the instrument if the

loss and/or destruction was the result of a lawful seizure, § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.,

Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. Here “plaintiff” bankrupt bank was

lawfully seized and knew that it could not possibly enforce the admittedly lost / destroyed

note and/or instrument.

NO NOTICE OF ANY transfer OF LOST / DESTROYED note and/or instrument

23. Here, the “plaintiff” bankrupt and lawfully seized bank did not give any notice of any

transfer of the lost and/or destroyed note / instrument. Here, the F.D.I.C. had lawfully

seized bankrupt BankUnited, FSB.

RECORD LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY original note and/or instrument

24. Here pursuant to plaintiff(s)’ own complaint and assertions of record, the purported note

and/or instrument was lost/destroyed in an unknown manner and at an unknown time.

Therefore, “plaintiff(s)” could not have possibly had any cause of action, interest, standing,

and right to sue Jennifer Franklin Prescott. Accordingly, this Case had been disposed.

9
 WHAT IS GOING ON? - DISPOSITION OF FRIVOLOUS action IN AUGUST 2010

25. “Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes” had disposed the facially non-meritorious action on

08/12/2010. See docket.

SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED, FSB & LOSS/DESTRUCTION OF note

26. Here, purported “plaintiff(s)” and BankUnited, FSB, knew that said defunct bank had been

lawfully seized (F.D.I.C.) and 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. BankUnited seizure reports on file.

LOSS OF PURPORTED note WAS RESULT OF LAWFUL SEIZURE

27. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” had conceded “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 (re) establish a lost/destroyed/stolen note under the law.

BANKRUPT BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY action & attorney’s fees

28. Here, the “plaintiff(s)” lawfully seized and bankrupt bank failed to, e.g.:

a. present the purported original promissory note; and/or

b. give any satisfactory explanation for its admitted failure to do so.
Here, no exceptions applied or could have possibly applied, because the unauthorized

plaintiff could not satisfy the requirements of § 673.3091(1)(b). Therefore, BankUnited had

No right to sue; and

No right to collect any attorney’s fees.
SEIZED BANK DID NOT know time & manner of LOSS/DESTRUCTION

10
29. Because here admittedly, lawfully seized BankUnited did not even know WHO had

lost/destroyed the purported note WHEN and HOW, no satisfactory explanation was ever

given or could have possibly been given. Therefore here, said “lawfully seized” bankrupt

Bank was not entitled to any action, attorney’s fees, and “hearing”.

BANKUNITED BANKRUPTCY & LAWFUL SEIZURE PROHIBIT ANY hearing

30. Here, “plaintiff” had no cause of action. BankUnited Financial had filed for protection under

Chapter 11 of the Federal bankruptcy code, listing total assets of $37.7 million and total

debts of $559.7 million. Here, shareholders and other stakeholders were wiped out.

SEIZED BANKUNITED HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT

31. Here in the absence of any note and after said bank seizure, BankUnited had no right to sue

Jennifer Franklin Prescott and demand a hearing as to fraudulent attorney’s fees.

BANKUNITED COULD NOT (re) establish ANY LOST/DESTROYED NOTE

32. Here concededly, BankUnited could not (re)establish any lost/destroyed note. See

Complaint and case law on file. Here expressly, BankUnited had stated that it could not

possibly (re) establish any note, because it knew that it could not determine:

a. WHEN the purported note was lost and/or destroyed ?

b. WHO had lost/destroyed the purported note ?

Furthermore, if the holder of an instrument destroys it, he thereby forgives and discharges

any debt and may not maintain an action. See District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 US 655,

32 L ed 1041, 9 S Ct 694.

11
 FRIVOLOUS ACTION IN THE ADMITTED ABSENCE OF ANY NOTE

33. Therefore here under Florida law, “plaintiff(s)’” action was facially frivolous. Because

seized BankUnited knew that it could not possibly (re) establish the lost/destroyed note/

instrument, the bankrupt bank:

a. Had no right to sue J. Franklin-Prescott; no standing; and no cause of action;

b. Could not possibly satisfy the condition precedent to sue Prescott;
c. Had no right to said hearing and attorney’s fees. See case law on file.
BANKUNITED FAILED TO PREVAIL IN DISPOSED & FRIVOLOUS action

34. In the admitted absence of any note, BankUnited was not entitled to any attorney’s fees and

hearing in this disposed fraudulent action.

BANKUNITED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY ATTORNEY’S FEES

35. Here, the electronic docket showed, e.g.:

a. Fraudulently claimed “attorney’s fees”;

b. Serena Kay Paskewicz’, Esq., lack of any authority to represent seized BankUnited, FSB.

NO “EVENT”/HEARING PURSUANT TO CLERK’S E-DOCKET

36. Here on 12/02/2010, Prescott had reviewed the Clerk’s electronic docket while abroad and

on her way to Australasia. Here, the Clerk’s electronic docket did not show any “event”.

See attached docket print out.

“Erin M. Rose, Esq.” IS NOT ANY “co-counsel” – PASKEWICZ, ESQ. UNAUTHORIZED

37. Here after the lawful seizure of bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, “Erin M. Rose, Esq.” is not any

“co-counsel”. Absent any possibility to establish the lost note, S. Kay Paskewicz, Esq. and

Camner Lipsitz (BankUnited founder Alfred Camner) were fired and no longer authorized to

appear on behalf of BankUnited and not entitled to any attorney’s fees.

12
 NO record address

38. Here, the electronic docket does not show any “address”, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was

not noticed and/or served any

a. “notice of hearing”;
b. “affidavit”; and “notice of filing”. No address to send anything to existed. See attachment.

ANY service and hearing WAS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE

39. In the record absence of any address and possibility to (re) establish any note, Prescott

could not have possibly been “served” and obligated to pay any “attorney’s fees”.

PRESCOTT’S ABSENCE & UNAVAILABILITY

40. J. Franklin-Prescott is abroad, on her way to Australasia, and could not possibly appear.

Prescott had her recent pleadings delivered to the Clerk, Disposition Judge, and parties. See

attached Certificates and Records. See travel records.

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands

1. An Order compelling “plaintiff” seized and bankrupt bank and BankUnited to show cause

WHY their complaint was not both frivolous and insufficient;

2. An Order recusing Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes, because he has been a Defendant and

J. F. Prescott a Plaintiff in Federal Court(s);

3. An Order canceling said unauthorized hearing in this frivolous, fraudulent, and hence

disposed action;

13
4. An Order quieting title in the record absence of any original note/instrument & transfer and

after lawful seizure of said bankrupt bank;

5. An Order taking judicial notice that purported “plaintiff” and seized bank in this disposed

& frivolous action could not have possibly been holder(s) in due course and assignee(s);

6. An Order taking judicial notice of said

a. Unknown loss and/or destruction of purported note / instrument;

b. Unknown transfer & assignment, and invalid assignment chain;
c. 08/12/2010 disposition by Disposition Judge Hugh D. Hayes;
d. Section 673.3091, Fla. Stat.;
e. Section 90.953, Fla. Stat.;
f. Said case law and State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003).
7. An Order restraining “plaintiff(s)” from extorting “attorney’s fees” in the absence of any

cause of action and interest and because of the absolute impossibility to establish any note;

8. An Order declaring Jennifer Franklin-Prescott’s record title to the subject property free and

clear, because of said conceded and absolute impossibility to establish any instrument/note.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim

ATTACHMENTS (12/02/2010)

• Docket as of 12/02/2010
• “Events” pursuant to Docket
• § 673.3091, Fla. Stat., Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.
• State Street Bank v. Lord, 851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003)
• Certificates of Deliveries upon Clerk, Disposition Judge, Albertelli Law

By Certified Facsimile and Delivery to Clerk of Court, Dwight E. Brock & Disposition Judge.
By Rush Messenger Service West, Inc., 12/03/2010.

14
15