APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS

8/7/2019 APPELLANTS RESPONSE TO COURTS PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS

1/16

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDASECOND DISTRICT, POST OFFICE BOX 327, LAKELAND, FL 33802-0327

CASE NO.: 2D11-1003L.T. No.: 09-6016-CA

Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, v. BankUnitedWalter Prescott, et al.,_____________________________________________________________________Appellants/Petitioners, Appellee / Respondent(s).

APPELLANTS RESPONSE TO COURTS PREJUDICIAL 03/01/2010 ORDERS,

NOTICE OF APPELLATE & LOWER COURTS ERRORS IN FAVOR OF BANK, AND

DEMAND FOR RELIEF AND INJUNCTION

CLEAR SHOW OF CAUSE - THIS APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION

1. Appellants, Walter Prescott, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, et al., conclusively

evidenced theirrights to appeal and the jurisdictionof this Appellate Court as a

matter of law. Nofinal orderneeded to be providedunder the Rules.

ISSUES SHOW OF CAUSE

2. Here clearly, Appellants

a. had the right to appeal (interlocutory);b. were notrequired to provide any final order.

Therefore here, this Courts improper 03/01/2011 orders were prejudicial and

extended the mass foreclosure fraud-on-the-Court-scheme in the previously

disposed action. Here unlawfully, Defendant Clerk of the lower Court had

removed the final disposition record after suggestion of bankruptcy:

APPEAL CLERKS ERROR ON THE RECORD


2/16

3. In her attached 02/22/2010 letter to Appellate Clerk James Birkhold, Appeal Clerk

Cheryl Bishop did not mark Non-final Notice of Appeal and Order. See attached

letter.

Said record errorby the lower Courts Appeal Clerk prejudiced the Appellants who

hereby demand correction and the striking of this Courts two 03/01/2011 orders.

THIS APPELLATE COURT CLEARLY ERRED

4. On March 1, 2011, this Court allegedly wrote:

Appellant shall show cause within fifteen days why this appeal should not bedismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as appellant had failed to provide a copy of

the order appealed as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure9.110(d), and this court is unable thereby to determine its jurisdiction.

THIS COURT KNEW THAT APPELLANTS NEED NOT PROVIDEFINAL ORDER

5. Here, this Court knew that

a. Defendants/Appellants were notrequired to provide a final order;b. Appellant(s) had appealed from fraud on the Court, corruption, and/or a non-

final order pursuant to Florida Appellate Rules of Procedure 9.130 [and not9.110(d)];

c. Appellants had notappealedfrom a final order under Rule 9.110(d);d. Appellants were of course notrequiredto provide a copyof any final order;e. No final order was rendered and/or could have possiblybeen rendered.

SAID 03/01/11 ORDER WAS PREJUDICIAL AND FOR IMPROPER PURPOSES

6. Accordingly, this Court had jurisdiction, and said Order of this Court was

prejudicial because it was for improper purposes of keeping the defendants

away from this Court (fraud on the Court).

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW

7. Here, a non-final order met the standards for the issuance of an extraordinary writ

and/or came within the ordersenumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.130 and was appealable. See Rule 9.130(a).


3/16

8. Here, said non-final orderpermitted appellate review before the trial proceedings

are complete, and said Appellants Prescott, Franklin-Prescott, et al., have been

invoking the propermethodfor this Courts 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 ofnon-final orderswhen 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 wrongfully, the Court(s) did not grant an injunction even though the lower

Court and BankUnited perpetrated fraud on the Court and deliberately

deprived Walter Prescott, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, et al., of due process and their

fundamental rights to, e.g., jury trial and disposition in Appellants favor.

11. This Court and the lower Court have known that BankUnited had no standingand

noright to sue Prescott, Franklin-Prescott, et al.

12. This Court and the lower Court know that BankUnited had no right to schedule

hearings after the lower court had disposed the wrongful foreclosure action on

08/12/2010:


4/16

13. The lower courts record evidenced that 3 (three) prima facie unlawful and

unauthorizedhearings were scheduled aftersaid 08/12/2010disposition:

14. 28.29, Florida Statutes (2010), Recording of orders and judgments, states:

Orders of dismissal and final judgments of the courts in civil actions shall berecorded in official records

Here, the 08/12/2010 disposition record was unlawfully removed from the official

record(s).

PREJUDICE EVIDENCE FAILURE TO PROCESS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

15. On 02/24/2011, Appellants/defendants in the previously disposed action had

filed their NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ROCKET DOCKET However here, the

Clerk did not process said Interlocutory Appeal:

Appellants demand correction of said fraud on the Court in favor of bank(s).

BankUnited HAD NO RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF DEFENDANT(S) PROPERTY

16. Here, BankUnited had no right to possession of defendant(s)s property. Item

(C)(ii) of said Rule 9.1130 is intended to apply whether the property involved is

personal or real as here. It applies to cases in which a party seeks to take

possession and/or title to real property.

17. Here, said Rule applied to this appeal to the circuit court of a non-final order as

provided by general law.


5/16

18. The lower court had noauthorityto perpetrate fraud on the Court and deceive the

defendants about BankUniteds lack ofstandingand lack of any right to foreclose

and sue Prescott and Franklin-Prescott

19. Here, the lower courts record evidenced clear error and a proper appeal was

taken.

20. Here, the highly meritorious issues forappellate review were perfectly isolated,

identified, and framed, and this Court has jurisdictionto review.

APPEAL FROM FRAUD ON THE COURT, AND FRAUDULENT NON-FINAL ORDER

21.Fraudulently, mass foreclosure Judge Monaco set the previously disposed case

fornon-jury trial in the record absence of any jurisdiction and/orauthority.

UNLAWFUL HEARINGS DEFRAUDED W. PRESCOTT, J. F.-PRESCOTT, et al.

22. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 is entitled:

9.130. PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW NON-FINAL ORDERS ANDSPECIFIED FINAL ORDERS

THE LOWER COURT MAY NOT RENDER ANY FINAL ORDER

23. Here, the corrupted lower Court may notrenderany final order:

(f) Stay of Proceedings. In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of areview of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters,including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may notrendera final order disposing of the cause pending such review.

THIS COURT KNOWINGLY MIS-APPLIED RULE 9.110

24. Here, this Court knowinglymis-applied said Rule 9.110 forimproper purposes of,

e.g., promoting the 20th Judicial Circuits illegal rocket docket and concealing

BankUniteds fraudulent robo-signing and affidavits:


6/16

9.110. APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW FINAL ORDERS OF LOWERTRIBUNALS AND ORDERS GRANTING NEW TRIAL IN JURY AND NON-JURY CASES

Here, this Court concealed designated certain instances in which interlocutory

appeals may be prosecuted under the procedures set forth in said Rule without any

requirement to provide a final order.

APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED TO STAY IN PREVIOUSLY DISPOSED CASE

25.Stays of proceedings in lower tribunals should be liberallygranted, in particular

if the interlocutory appeal involves fraud on the court and/or jurisdiction. See Rule

9.1130.

26. Here, both Courts knew that in the record absence of any reestablishmentof the

destroyed and/or lost mortgage and note, BankUnited had never stated any

cause of action.

27. The lower Courts Clerk erred when he/she listed bankrupt BankUnited, FSB as a

plaintiff:

NO RENDITIONOF ANY FINAL JUDGMENT NO PAYMENTREQUIRED

28. On March 1, 2011, this Court allegedly wrote:

This appeal has been filed without a filing fee required by section 35.22(3),Florida Statutes (2008).Appellant[s] shall forward the required $300.00 filing fee or, if applicable, acertificate or order from the circuit court finding appellant insolvent pursuant tosection 57.081 or 57.085, F.S. (2008), as applicable, within forty days fromthe date of this order.


7/16

29. Rule 9.110(b) provides that a party seeking to appeal must pay the required filing

fees within 30 days with the clerk of the lower court afterthe judgmentis rendered.

Here, an appeal from a final order/judgmentcould not have possibly commenced,

because there was norendition of any final judgment/order.

THIS COURT KNEW THAT NO FINAL ORDERWAS EVER RENDERED/FILED IN

DISPOSED WRONGFUL FORECLOSUREACTION

30. This Court knew that the action had been disposedon 08/12/2010, and that no trial

could have everpossiblytaken place. However, a [final] ordermust be rendered

before it is ripe for appeal.

31. For appellate purposes, the rendition date begins the jurisdictional period for filing

an appeal. The rules on rendition, however, are confusing. Rule 9.020(h) provides

that an order is notrendereduntil the clerk has actually filed the order signed by a

judge. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, an order is not rendered when the court

first announces its ruling or even when the order is signed by the judge.

PATTERN OF UNAUTHORIZED & UNLAWFUL ACTS

32. Here, three times in a row, the lower Court, Clerk, and BankUnited agreed to

schedule unauthorized hearings in a disposed wrongful foreclosure action, and

the defendants had demanded reliefand/or an injunction:

COMMON LAW CERTIORARI WAS AVAILABLE IN DISPOSED WRONGFUL CASE

33. The common law writ of certiorari is available at any time. Said writ provides a

remedy for the clear departure from the essential requirements of law proven in this


8/16

case. Here, the lower tribunal deliberately deprived the defendants of their

fundamentalrights under both the Federal and Florida Constitutions.

34. Otherwise irreparable harm will result from robo Judge Daniel R. Monacos

wrongful mass foreclosure fraud scheme in the previously disposed action.

ERRONEOUS UNLAWFUL RULING WAS APPEALABLE

35. Setting a previously disposed wrongful foreclosure case [in which BankUnited

had no standing, and which was not even at issue] for bench-trial was an

erroneous interlocutory ruling which can be corrected by resort to common law

certiorari.

36. Here, this Court and the lower Court knew that the Legislative Branch of

Government had instructed the Judicial Branch to illegally mass-reduce

the foreclosure rocket docket in order to speed up the States economic

recovery.

37. Here, Prescott, Franklin-Prescott, et al. have rights of review of, e.g., orders on

motions seeking relief from a previous court order on the grounds of, e.g., mistake,

fraud, satisfaction of judgment, or other grounds listed in Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.540. Said defendants were clearly entitled to and demanded trial

by jury. The alleged destroyed and/orlostinstruments could not be reestablished

as a matter of common law. Here, rocket docket robo Judge Monaco had no

authorityto set the previously disposed case for non-jury trial.

WHEREFORE, said Appellants/Defendants in previously disposed respectfully demand

1. An Orderrestoring justice and the rule of law;


9/16

2. An Order staying proceedings in the objectively corrupted lower tribunal under

retiredtemporary Judge Daniel R. Monaco;

3. An Orderprohibiting said mass foreclosure rocket docket;

4. An Order enjoining Clerk Brock from obstructing the 02/24/2011 Interlocutory

Appeal;

5. An Order directing proper processing of Appellants 02/18/2011 and 02/24/2011

appeals;

6. An Order declaring that Appellants/Defendants in the previously disposed action

did notneedto provide any [non-existent] final order;

7. An Orderstriking this Courts two 03/01/2011 orders as erroneous and prejudicial.

Respectfully,

/s/Walter Prescott,foreclosure fraud victim

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, BankUnitedforeclosure fraud victim

ATTACHMENTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this pleading has been delivered to

BankUnited, Albertelli Law, P.O. Box 23028, Tampa, FL 33623, USA, the Clerk of

Appellate Court, Mr. Birkhold, the Clerk of lower Court, Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, and

retired rocket docket Judge Daniel R. Monaco, Courthouse, Naples, FL 34112, USA,

on March 14, 2011.

Respectfully,

/s/Walter Prescott,foreclosure fraud victim

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, fraud victim


10/16

08/12/2010 DISPOSITION RECORD EVIDENCE


11/16

APPEAL CLERKS RECORD ERROR


12/16


13/16


14/16

CC: James Birkhold, Clerk,Hon. Hugh D. Hayes (Disposition Judge),Albertelli Law, Hon. Daniel R. Monaco, Karen (JA),United States District Court, Clerk of Court,The Florida Bar, New York Times, et al.

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

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


15/16

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

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

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]@bloomberg.net,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]@flabar.org,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],


16/16

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

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

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

APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS

Documents

Transcript of APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO COURT’S PREJUDICIAL 03/01/11 ORDERS