BankUnited (10 ff MSW)

8/8/2019 BankUnited (10 ff MSW)

1/7

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

[email protected]; [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

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 hearingafter 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 wascancelled. 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 and12/6/10,

and/or could have been properlyscheduled, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had notconsented

to anymagistratehearingand/orhearingaftersaid disposition.

YES, the 9/2/10 hearing was cancelled, and over and over, Franklin-Prescott had objected

to anymagistrate and/orother hearingin this disposed case:
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/7

Here, The Notice of Cancellation of the 12/6/10 hearing referred to a non-scheduled andfictitioushearing, because no hearinghad ever beenscheduledfor 12/6/2010 at 3:00 PM.

Importantly, the fictitious and non-existent motion for summary judgment had never beenfiled, noticed, and/orservedin 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 toschedule 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 representingBankUnited.

Nohearingwas everscheduledon the purported reopen date of 12/6/10 or thereafter.

Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had not scheduled any hearing, and no hearing had evertaken 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 areonly two allowable reasons for a reopen Modification and Other. This motion falls into theOther category.

3. Here, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott objected and properly responded to the unauthorized

and fictitioushearing. Here, Prescott reported and objected to BankUniteds fraud on

the Court. Prescotts objection to the unauthorizedhearingdid not reopen the disposed

frivolousaction.

DEC 6, 2010 EMERGENCY OBJECTION PRIOR TO UNAUTHORIZED hearing

Here, e.g., Jennifer Franklin-Prescott had filed her EmergencyObjection on 2010 DEC. 6,

12:43 PM prior to the unauthorized hearing. See Clerks 2010 DEC. 6, 12:43 PM stamp:

2


3/7

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 unknownloss and/or destruction of the purported note. Here, nonote 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 assignmentTO BANKUNITED

No BankUnited assignmentof any loan, note, and/ormortgage[Darlene M. Muszynski]the

file reflects that on 12/2/10 Plaintiff filed the Original Mortgage.

4. NO, nogenuine original mortgage wasfilednor could havepossibly been filed. No

mortgage and/ornote was assignedto BankUnited. Here, bankrupt BankUnited, FSB, had

been seized pursuant to the warrant on file.

3


4/7

No BankUnited mortgage and/orassignmentappears 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 BankUniteds fraudulently pretended cause of action in the

known and recordedabsence of any chain of assignmentto 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/orinstrument.

Here, BankUnited is neither in possession of any genuine authentic instrument and/or

notenorentitledto enforce any note and/orunrecorded 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/ordestroyednote under Florida law. See State Street Bank v. Lord,

851 So.2d 790 (Fla. 4 Dist. 2003); and Federal and F.D.I.C. Bankseizure reports on file.

NO assignmentOF LOST AND/OR DESTROYED note AFTER LAWFUL SEIZURE

4


5/7

6. Here, no instrument and/ornote 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 possiblymetthe

requirements to prove an assigned note and/or (re) establish a lost/destroyed/stolen note

under the law.

BANKUNITEDS 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/orpossibility 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 legalbasis 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


6/7

complaint. Here, the unauthorizedplaintiff(s) failed to attach a copy of the purported

promissory note. Therefore here, the non-meritoriousclaim had no base and was disposed.

BankUnited HAD NO cause of action AND NOgenuineoriginal 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 instrumentwithin 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 plaintiffdefunct bank, re-establishmentwas 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 notesauthenticity

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-PRESCOTTS UNAVAILABILITY

12. After said 08/12/2010 disposition, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been in, e.g., Dubai,

Australia, and Australasia and will be unavailableuntil 02/28/2011.

6


7/7

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 objectsto said fraud on the Court and demands that

the docket truthfully reflect

Nofilingof anygenuine BankUnited original note;

No recordation of any authentic BankUnited original note and/or mortgage;

Nofilingof any BankUnited original mortgage;

Disposition of the facially frivolous action by BankUnited, which is not any successorin interest after said seizure ofbankrupt BankUnited, FSB pursuant to the warrant on

record;

Notice of Prescotts unavailability in this disposed action.

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, foreclosure fraud victim

7

Documents

BankUnited (10 ff MSW)