David J. Stern & Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Florida Bar 0122068

2/21/2011 David J.
Stern: Bandleader for a Symp…

FDL TV
Just Say Now
« Lew Previews Obama Budget Cuts

Obama Makes Nice with the Chamber of Commerce »
David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symphony of Foreclosure

Fraud
By: David Dayen Monday February 7, 2011 9:56 am Tweet Share8
It’s really something that we have to get the scoop on foreclosure mill con artist David J. Stern from the AP and not
some police blotter, but that’s life in post-rule of law America. The story provides a service, however, profiling a man
who’s really a symbol for the foreclosure fraud crisis. Stern sought to corner the market in shepherding foreclosures
through Florida’s courts. He saw them as a growth opportunity and he wanted to increase profits. He did so through
cutting corners along every step of the way, becoming an expert in the kind of skills needed to keep the foreclosure
train moving – document fraud, fabrication, forgery, etc. He and his firm were very good at what they did, which was
basically commit crimes against homeowners and state courts. And it paid off with a suite of cars, yachts, fabulous
homes and all manner of luxury goods. His possessions increased in a direct relationship to the repossessions his
law firm were illegally pushing through the courts.
As Yves Smith points out, the article intimates that the foreclosure mills came up with robo-signing as a cost-cutting
measure, and that fits with how Stern ran his business. The key for him was volume, processing as many
foreclosures as possible. So he would naturally welcome the idea of having one employee sign off on all the
foreclosure documents as a dedicated job every day. This benefited the servicers as well, since they didn’t want a
whole lot of scrutiny on verification and would rather the question of whether or not they own the mortgages go
unexplored. Stern was the perfect role player for this era, because he was always basically a garden-variety crook:
Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit
alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to
legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern
firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says,
“At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere
to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms
are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate
action, which may include termination.”
Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that
Stern created a “sexually-laden” atmosphere in which he routinely “touched and grabbed and subjected
to simulated intercourse” his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount.
By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the
Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting
“potentially misleading” fee affidavits.
Even a built-for-speed operation like Stern’s firm could not keep up with the volume of foreclosures. As the article
explains, law firms typically get a flat fee per foreclosure, but must get the foreclosure done within a set time frame,
usually around six months, to collect. This led to the need for a solution that streamlined the process as much as
possible.
Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster.
The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry,
Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that
Stern’s chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm’s chief
…firedoglake.com/…/david-j-stern-ban… 1/2
2/21/2011 David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symp…
operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word.
The employee said Samons’ hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her
signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn’t even
exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could
have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been
capable of time travel.
Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the
mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond
to request for comment.
The people getting foreclosed upon were an inconvenient facet of this scheme. And when Stern showed how this
model could work, the servicers undoubtedly pressured every other firm they worked with to operate in the same
fashion. This keeps fees to a minimum and benefits the servicers by giving them an out rather than modifications,
which aren’t cost-effective for them.
The servicer model never had to deal with a flood of delinquent loans before the popping of the housing bubble in 2006;
they were too new to ever need to confront such a problem. And the resultant chaos proved that they simply could not
handle the flood without cutting corners massively and maximizing profits through forms of abuse like illegal fee
increases. The foreclosure mills worked in concert with this.
This kind of profile, quite rare for the AP, exposes the clear fraud at the heart of the mortgage servicing, modification
and foreclosure system. Stern’s company is now a penny stock, he’s being investigated by the state Attorney
General and federal prosecutors, his staff has shrunk from 1,200 to 200, banks have abandoned him, and his
headquarters is in default. He hasn’t gone to jail yet but he’s a likely candidate.
However, if we are to learn anything from this episode, it’s how depressingly normal Stern’s machinations were.
…firedoglake.com/…/david-j-stern-ban… 2/2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
non-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.
_________________________________________________________________________/
CANCELLATION OF HEARING UNDER COURT’S POLICIES & PROCEDURES

IN DISPOSED CASE (NOTICE)
EMERGENCY WRITTEN DEMAND TO CANCEL HEARING IN DISPOSED CASE

AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES & PROCEDURES
FROM: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, “BankUnited” fraud victim
CERTIFIED DELIVERIES
The Honorable Daniel R. Monaco
The Hon. Hugh D. Hayes, “Disposition Judge”
Circuit Court Judges, Twentieth Judicial Circuit
Judicial Assistants Karen / Jan
Collier County Government Complex
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
Phone: 239.774.8118; 239.252.8119;
Fax: 239.252.8870; 239.775.5538; 239.774.9654; 239-252-8020
Email: dmonaco@ca.cjis20.org, jmetcalfe@ca.cjis20.org, hhayes@ca.cjis20.org
RE:
CANCELLATION of unlawful hearing in disposed wrongful foreclosure case 09-6016-CA
“BANKUNITED” v. FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
DISPOSED CASE NO. 09-6016-CA; DISPOSITION JUDGE HAYES, HUGH D.
UNAUTHORIZED “02/22/11 HEARING” [AMENDED TO 02/14/11 & CANCELLED]
08/12/2010 DISPOSITION FOR LACK OF “BANKUNITED’S” STANDING

1. “Disposition Judge” Hayes had disposed of this prima facie frivolous action on 08/12/2010
for record lack of any “BankUnited” standing and interest.
“BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY HEARING
2/21/2011 Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yac…
Search Quotes and News
Anyw here Professional Solutions About Log in
Related New s: Executive · Law · U.S. · Real Estate More Stories
Foreclosure Fortune Buys Bugatti, Yacht, Blake Griffin's All-Star Slam Dunk Over Car Win
Gets Record TV Audience
Mansions for Attorney Manchester United Plans Bid for Tottenham's

By David McLaughlin - Oct 20, 2010 3:49 AM GMT+1300 Modric, News of the World Says
Recommend 122 60 Share

Share More Email Print
Republican Lawmakers Say House Majority Isn't
Seeking Government Shutdown
For Americans, the foreclosure crisis has wiped out fortunes,
Delta Flight Makes Emergency Landing in Florida
bringing destitution and homelessness. For Florida attorney
After Engine Is Damaged
David J. Stern, it has brought mansions, a Bugatti sports car
and a luxury yacht. Rate These Stories More New s »
Advertisement
A screengrab taken from Google Earth Florida has the third-highest residential foreclosure rate in the
shows the home of David J. Stern in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. The larger boat to
U.S., and Stern, 50, has made a fortune off the bust. His
the right is his yacht, "Misunderstood". foreclosure-processing business has generated hundreds of
Source: Google Earth/wbipi.com via
Bloomberg
millions of dollars in revenue preparing documents for the cases
that his law firm brings on behalf of lenders seeking to reclaim
homes from borrowers who can’t pay their mortgages.
Now his business is under scrutiny, as banks suspend

foreclosures and evictions amid allegations that some home
seizures were based on fraudulent documents. Attorneys
general in every U.S. state have joined to probe foreclosure
practices generally. Stern’s foreclosure firm and three others are
under investigation by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.
“Some of these law firms we’re dealing with, we have reason to

believe, actually forged documents, committed fraud, did all
kinds of things,” McCollum said in an interview Oct. 15. “We
don’t know where this is headed right now.”
Bill McCollum, Attorney General of
Florida. Photographer: Ric
Feld/Bloomberg
Stern’s attorney, Jeffrey Tew, said Stern has used technology
and a well-organized operation to efficiently process
foreclosures. Stern gets a flat fee of about $1,400 a foreclosure, according to Tew, of Tew
Cardenas LLP in Miami.
‘His Acumen’
“David’s wealth is a reflection of his acumen and the tremendous volume of foreclosures,” Tew
said in an interview yesterday. “He had something to do with the acumen part. He had nothing
to do with the amount of foreclosures we have.”
Stern’s firm handles thousands of cases a month. It conducted a review of its files and found 21
had “issues with the affidavits,” Stern said in a Sept. 8 conference call to discuss second-quarter
results for DJSP Enterprises Inc. DJSP provides non-legal foreclosure services, such as title
searches, for his law firm, Law Offices of David J. Stern PA. Both businesses share the same
bloomberg.com/…/florida-attorney-bu… 1/5
Plantation, Florida, address. Market Snapshot
U.S. Europe Asia
Stern sold those operations this year in a transaction that formed DJSP, a publicly traded
NIKKEI 10794.20 -48.57 (-0.45%)
company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Stern, the chairman and chief executive
officer of DJSP, declined through his attorney to be interviewed for this story. TOPIX 970.26 -3.34 (-0.34%)
HANG SENG 23595.20 +293.40 (1.26%)

Stern grew up in Liberty City section of Miami and worked his way through school, Tew said.
Stocks on the Move
He received his law degree from South Texas College of Law in 1986 and founded his firm in
1994. Before that, he worked for a law firm that specialized in representing mortgage lenders,
Most Popular Stories
according to a regulatory filing by the company that became DJSP.
Dubai Shares Drop as Mideast Unrest Sparks Risk
Aversion; Emaar, Zain Fall
Island Mansion
Icelanders to Have Final Say on British, Dutch

Stern owns a $15 million mansion on an island in Fort Lauderdale, a $6 million beachfront
Depositor Debt Updated 56 minutes ago
condominium in the city, and a $6 million home in nearby Hillsboro Beach, according to
property records. The mansion includes an adjoining property he bought in 2009 to make room Jordan Regrets U.S. Veto of UN Resolution on
Israeli Settlements
for a tennis court and parking spaces, according to building records.
BHP's CEO Kloppers Has M&A on List Even After

Cars registered under Stern’s name in Florida include three Ferraris, four Porsches, a Rolls-
Investment Pledge
Royce, a Cadillac and the Bugatti, according to the state Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles. He also owns a yacht, Tew said. More Most Popular Stories »
Advertisements
“He started from scratch and has built a wonderful legal practice and has made a lot of money,”
Tew said. “That’s the American dream isn’t it?”
One in 34 housing units in Florida was in the foreclosure process or bank-owned as of Oct. 1, Sponsored Links
the third-highest rate in the country, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc., 10 Keys to Short Selling
which monitors foreclosure data. State courts have hired additional judges to hear foreclosure Do you want to start Short Selling? This
Free report will show you how.
cases and clear the backlog. MoneyMorning.com/Short_Selling
Foreclosures Quadruple Transfer Money Overseas

Moving Overseas Or Buying Property
Abroad? Great Rates, Low Fees!
Foreclosures processed by Stern’s law firm more than quadrupled to 70,328 in 2008 from 15,332 www.NZForex.co.nz
in 2006, according to the regulatory filing. Revenue from non-law-firm operations jumped to Home Foreclosures in USA
$199.2 million in 2008 from $40.4 million over the same period, the filing said. DJSP depends Buy foreclosed Property in the USA Now.
Guarnateed High Yield Returns
on the firm for case referrals, according to the regulatory filing. CashflowGold.com
Stern’s law firm received more than 6,000 new foreclosure cases a month and managed
100,000 at any given time, according to the filing, which is dated Dec. 28, 2009.
“David and foreclosure lawyers are foreclosing legitimate mortgages that are in default,” Tew
said. “And yet, they have been successfully villainized.”
According to the filing, the law firm has represented the biggest banks and mortgage servicers in
the U.S., including Wells Fargo & Co.; Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Litton Loan Servicing,
Countrywide Financial, now owned by Bank of America Corp.; and government-supported
Fannie Mae, the mortgage- financing company. Stern was named Fannie Mae’s attorney of the
year in 1998 and 1999, according to the filing.
State Bar Rebuke
The Florida Bar, which regulates lawyers in the state, has an open investigation into Stern,
according to Karen Kirksey, a spokeswoman. She declined to comment on the nature of the
investigation because it’s confidential. The Supreme Court of Florida approved a reprimand of
Stern in 2002 after the bar said he submitted “potentially misleading” affidavits about his costs
in foreclosure cases, according to court documents. He consented to the reprimand, court
documents show.
At an investor conference in California in March, Stern told investors that rising foreclosures
were the key to DJSP’s success, according to a securities lawsuit filed against Stern and DJSP
filed in federal court in Florida in July. Foreclosures, he said, would stay high until 2017, even as
President Barack Obama acted to keep people in their homes.
“No matter what the Obama administration brings our way, we have found the way to create a
profit center on it,” Stern said at the conference, according to the lawsuit.
‘A Factory’
Hilton Wiener, a Florida attorney who has defended homeowners in foreclosure cases against
Stern’s firm, described Stern’s operations as “more similar to a factory than a law firm.” The
business, he said, depends on homeowners’ not contesting foreclosures so that cases can move
quickly through the courts to judgment, Wiener said, basing his view on former Stern paralegals
whom he has hired.
“This is like a production line,” he said. “The bank needs them to get certain results. It just
becomes a foreclosure processing mill.”
Stern’s employees were under pressure to process cases as quickly as possible, according to a
deposition of Tammie Lou Kapusta, a former paralegal in his law firm.
Under oath, Kapusta told lawyers for the Florida attorney general’s office that Stern’s business
grew from about 250 employees in 2008, when she started, to 1,100 when she was fired in July
2009. She said she was fired after refusing to follow a practice that she said she believed was
improper.
‘Getting the Judgments’
Employees repeatedly signed affidavits without reviewing them, forged signatures, and
improperly notarized and backdated documents, she said, according to a transcript of the
interview.
“Everything was about getting the judgments entered because we have to report back to the
banks,” Kapusta said.
Tew, Stern’s attorney, declined to comment specifically on Kapusta’s allegations. He said that she
was fired for cause and that she provided no evidence to back her claims.
Kelly Scott, a legal assistant who said she left the firm in February 2009 due to illness, made
allegations similar to Kapusta’s in a sworn interview Oct. 4 with the Florida attorney general’s
office.
Paralegals at Stern’s firm signed documents on behalf of bank employees and had the authority
to do so, Tew said. In May 2009, they stopped that practice so that only bank employees now
sign the documents.
Fixed Fees
Stern’s businesses are paid fixed fees for legal and nonlegal work, such as $400 for title searches,
according to the regulatory filing and Stern’s remarks at the investor conference, as quoted in
the securities lawsuit. Profit depends on cutting costs and boosting volume. The business is
supported by an operation in the Philippines that provides data entry and document preparation,
according to the filing.
This year, Stern made about $146 million when he sold his non-legal foreclosure operations to
China-based Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp., a “blank check” company originally
formed to do business in China, according to a regulatory filing. The company was renamed
DJSP Enterprises.
Stern and his businesses were paid as much as $58.3 million in cash, given a note of at least
$52.7 million and promised another $35 million in cash that must be paid in full within five
years, according to the filing. He also received about 6 million common and preferred shares in
the company. Stern is the seventh-largest shareholder of DJSP with a stake of 4.2 percent,
according to Bloomberg data.
DJSP reported a profit of $3.8 million on revenue of $56.1 million in the second quarter.
On Oct. 14 DJSP said it was laying off 10 percent of its workforce because foreclosure referrals
had “declined dramatically,” after lenders including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase &
Co. suspended foreclosures and evictions.
DJSP rose 9 cents to $1.60 yesterday in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have dropped
82 percent this year.
To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New Y ork at

dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.
Recommend 122 60 Share

Share More Email Print
Videos You May Like ‹ Prev 1 of 3 Next ›
10 Keys to Short
Selling
Do you w ant to start
Short Selling? This Free
report w ill show you
Play Video Play Video Play Video how .
MoneyMorning.com/S…
Big Lenders May Be First Douglas Holtz-Eakin Boeing Unveils 747-8
to Settle Foreclosure P… Discusses FCIC Repo… Passenger Jet
Related News
Executive · Law · U.S. · Real Estate
Sponsored Links
"Give a Gift of Bloomberg Markets Magazine and Get Great Savings! "
News Market Data Personal Finance More from Bloomberg Company

Exclusive Stocks TV Bloomberg Businessw eek About Bloomberg
Rate this Page Worldw ide Rates & Business Exchange Solutions
Bonds Radio
Regions Bloomberg on Tw itter Careers
Currencies Video
Go to the old version Markets Bloomberg on Facebook Contact Us
of Bloomberg.com Mutual Funds Podcasts
Industries Bloomberg Briefs Press Room
ETFs
Economy Personalities Bloomberg Government Help
Commodities
Politics Keene On Demand Bloomberg HT Sitemap
Economic
Law Calendar 日本語サイト Trademarks
Mobile
Environment Bloomberg Law Feedback
Science
Leaders Bloomberg Link
Opinion Technology Bloomberg Markets Magazine
Muse: Arts, Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Culture &
Spend Bloomberg Open Symbology
Sports Bloomberg Press
Bloomberg Sports
Bloomberg UTV
©2011 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms of Service Privacy Policy Advertising
Unless indicated otherw ise, intraday market data is at least 15 minutes delayed.
2. “BankUnited” has had no right to sue and/or schedule any hearing. Here, Jennifer Franklin-
Prescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the evidence on file in
this disposed wrongful action. The record and evidence never identified “BankUnited”.
AFTER DISPOSITION THE MOTIONS WERE MOOT
3. After the 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION, the “Motion to Dismiss” was MOOT.
“BANKUNITED” KNEW/CONCEALED THAT IT LACKED ANY STANDING
4. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action.
5. Here, undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct
“BankUnited, FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff
[BankUnited]”. See facially frivolous and insufficient Complaint. “BankUnited” had
fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff” [“BankUnited”] owns
and holds the note and mortgage.”
6. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did
not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.
“BANKUNITED” AND/OR “ALBERTELLI LAW” DECEIVED THE COURT
7. Here, “BankUnited” and/or “Albertelli Law” perpetrated fraud on the Court, because after
disposition in the record absence of any “BankUnited” note, “BankUnited” falsely
pretended entitlement to the “hearing” of a MOOT “Motion to Dismiss / Enjoin”.
“… it is the responsibility of the lawyers to keep the judge's office informed. Our
office cannot possibly call all the lawyers on a trial docket to check the status of each
case prior to trial. PLEASE let us know when you have settled or otherwise
disposed of your case. Please cancel your trials and hearings.”
“BANKUNITED’S” SANCTIONABLE CONDUCT AND FRAUD
8. Here, “BankUnited” failed to comply with the Rules …
“PLEASE READ THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND
ENSURE THAT YOUR ATTORNEY HAS BOTH READ AND
UNDERSTANDS THE "GENERAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS" AND
THE "STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND CONDUCT."
The Standards of Professional Courtesy and Conduct govern scheduling,
hearings, motion practice, submissions to the Court, etc. and may be found at
www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/ao_2_20.pdf
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES, REQUIREMENTS, AND
STANDARDS MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AND THE
MATTER NOT BEING HEARD”
See Judicial “Office Policies and Procedures”.
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS SCHEDULING OF UNAUTHORIZED HEARING
9. Arbitrary, ambiguous, and/or unlawful acts undermine the authority of this Court. Here,
violations of this Court’s “OFFICE POLICES AND PROCEDURES” in favor of crooked
bank lawyers threatened the integrity of the Court.
COURT ADMINISTRATION MUST CANCEL UNAUTHORIZED 02/22/11 HEARING
VIOLATIONS OF “OFFICE POLICIES & PROCEDURES” IN DISPOSED CASE
10. All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be CANCELLED by Court Administration. In this
disposed action, “Motions to Dismiss / Enjoin” were scheduled without any authority.
2
“Only hearings for Summary and Default Judgments may be scheduled on the
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday dockets before Judge Daniel Monaco. These
timeslots will be in 5 minute increments. (DO NOT schedule any other kind of
motions on this docket.) All motions other than MSJ and DJ will be cancelled by
Court Administration. No additional motions will be heard with the
Summary/Default Judgments before Judge Monaco.”
See “OFFICE POLICIES AND PROCEDURE, Senior Judge Foreclosure, Collier County
Clerk of Court.
MANDATORY CANCELLATION FOR LACK OF SERVICE IN DISPOSED ACTION
“A party/attorney scheduling a hearing must concurrently notice the matter in
conformance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and ensure timely notice is
served on all pro-se parties and counsel of record in advance of the hearing. The
original notice must be timely filed with the Clerk of Court.” Id.
11. Here accordingly, “BankUnited” was not entitled to sue nor to any hearing and did not serve
any “timely notice” of hearing on Jennifer Franklin-Prescott as also conclusively evidenced
by the Clerk’s 02/18/2011 Docket.
UNAUTHORIZED ATTORNEY “ANDREW LEE FIVECOAT”, ESQ.
12. “Andrew Lee Fivecoat” had no authority to schedule any hearing in said disposed wrongful
foreclosure action. Here, Fivecoat knew and/or fraudulently concealed that “BankUnited”
had no standing and that the exhibits on file conclusively evidenced that “BankUnited” was
not identified as “lender” and was not any note holder and/or owner.
PRIMA FACIE FRIVOLITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY “BANKUNITED” NOTE
13. Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University, believes that the
involvement of lawyers in questionable transactions could damage the overall reputation of
the legal profession, “which does not fare well in public opinion” throughout history:
“When the consequence of a lawyer plying his trade is the loss of someone’s home,
and it turns out there are documents being given to the courts that have no basis in
reality, the profession gets a very big black eye,” Gillers said.
See New York Times, “Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures”.
FIVECOAT CONCEALED PRIMA FACIE NULLITY OF PURPORTED NOTE
14. Here, Fivecoat knew that the complaint in this disposed action had been “incredible,
outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous”, because no note had been properly executed and
no note and/or instrument “transferred” from bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited,
FSB”, to the “F.D.I.C.”, and/or “BankUnited”. Disgraced founder of defunct “BankUnited,
FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., and/or Camner Lipsitz, PA, had filed the facially frivolous
complaint on 07/09/2009.
A. L. FIVECOAT, ESQ., LACKS AUTHORITY
15. Here, A. L. Fivecoat has lacked any authority to appear. Fivecoat knew/concealed that
bankrupt “BankUnited, FSB” is not any party to this disposed action.
3
MANDATORY CANCELLATION OF HEARING
16. This Court had instructed the parties:

“If you CANCEL a hearing, you are required to file a Notice of Cancellation. If you
are canceling your hearing ten (10) working days before the hearing date you can go
to JACS and cancel on-line by following the instructions. If you are canceling less
than ten (10) working days please, immediately cancel the hearing, by FAX'ing you're
a request to (239) 252-8870 attention Karen. Include the reason for canceling, our
case number and style with date and time of hearing and what party you represent.
You do not need to attach the Notice of Cancellation (just send the original to the
Clerk of Courts).”
“REASONS FOF CANCELLATION”
17. In disposed Case No. 09-6016-CA, the “reasons for cancellation” included, e.g.:
a. Cancellation is mandatory under Court’s “Office Policies & Procedures”;
b. “BankUnited’s” lack of standing;
c. Lack of authority to have 02/22/2011 hearing;
d.
e. “Motion to Dismiss” has been MOOT since 08/12/2010 DISPOSITION;
f. Disposition of the wrongful foreclosure action on 08/12/2010;
g. The unauthorized “Amended hearing” did not take place on 02/14/2011;
h. Dissolution of fraudulent “lis pendens”.
FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO APPEAR

18. Pursuant to Franklin-Prescott’s “Notice of Unavailability”, she has been in the Pacific. In
this disposed action, and in the absence of any notice of service on Franklin-Prescott, she
could not possibly and reasonably be expected to appear for the “Amended Hearing”. Here,
the “Amended Hearing” never took place on 02/14/2011.
19. Furthermore, if there would have been any lawful and legitimate hearing, Prescott would not
be permitted to appear by telephone from the Pacific in this disposed wrongful action:
“All Hearings before Judge Monaco will be in person.
As of January 2010, Telephonic appearance will NOT be permitted for any foreclosure
hearing before the Senior Judge.” Id.
ESTOPPEL PREVENTS “BANKUNITED” FROM FURTHER ACTS OF FRAUD

20. Estoppel prevents identical parties from re-litigating issues that have previously been
litigated and which resulted in a final disposition of a court with competent jurisdiction. See
Mobil Oil Corporation v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1977); Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40
4
(Fla. 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 878, 73 S. Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680 (1952). Here,
“BankUnited” never had any standing in the first place and cannot frivolously “re-litigate”
its prima facie lack of standing.
21. In dealing with the identities of the parties, estoppel requires that the “real parties in interest”
be identical. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Cox, 338 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1976).
The well-established rule in Florida has been and continues to be that estoppel may be
asserted when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies.
See Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So.2d 843 - 45
(Fla. 1984). Here the file and evidence in this disposed action had conclusively evidenced
that “BankUnited” was not any “real party in interest”
BINDING PRECEDENT: BAC FUNDING CONSORTIUM SUPPORTED DISPOSITION
22. The Second District confronted a similar situation in BAC Funding Consortium, Inc.
ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), when the trial court had
granted the alleged assignee U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. That court reversed
because, inter alia, "[t]he incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as
an exhibit to U.S. Bank's response to BAC's motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible
evidence establishing U.S. Bank's standing to foreclose the note and mortgage." Id. at 939.
Said Appellate Court in BAC Funding Consortium, properly noted that U.S. Bank was
"required to prove that it validly held the note and mortgage it sought to foreclose." Id.
RECORD LACK OF ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:
“BANKUNITED” WAS NOT ANY OWNER AND HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE PRESCOTT
23. In the instant case, the purported note was, e.g., not properly executed, not assigned, the
falsely pretended assignment not recorded, and the endorsement in blank was unsigned and
unauthenticated, creating genuine issues of material fact as to whether “BankUnited” was
ever the lawful owner and holder of the purported note and/or mortgage. As
in BAC Funding Consortium, here there were no supporting affidavits or deposition
testimony in the record to establish that “BankUnited” validly owned and held the improperly
executed note and mortgage, no evidence of an assignment to “BankUnited”, no proof of
purchase of the debt nor any other evidence of an effective transfer to “BankUnited”.
AUTOMATICALLY DISSOLVED “LIS PENDENS”
24. Here, the improper and unauthorized lis pendens was automatically dissolved upon the
disposition of foreclosure. See Rule 1.420(f), Fla. R. Civ. P. (2010). The validity of a notice
of lis pendens is one year from filing. § 48.23(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).
25. In this disposed action, the purported “plaintiff” sought to re-establish the missing note in
“COUNT I (Reestablishment of Lost Instruments)” of the complaint (see p. 2 of 8). Franklin-
Prescott had filed her answer(s) and motions to dismiss and proven plaintiff’s lack of
standing, which was one of the ultimate affirmative defenses. Here, the record reflected
that plaintiff could not possibly re-establish the note and that no authentic note could possibly
be proven under the Evidence Code.
FRAUD ON THE COURT & RECORD EVDENCE THEREOF
26. Here however, alleged ‘plaintiff(s)’, BankUnited & BankUnited, FSB, fraudulently asserted:
“that all conditions to the institutions of this action have occurred, been performed or
excused …”
5
27. Prior to the 08/12/2010 disposition, plaintiff had failed to re-establish and could not have
possibly re-established the destroyed and/or lost note/mortgage. Here, the time and manner
of the loss/destruction had been uinknown. See UCC §§ 3-309; 3-305.
FILE & DOCKET SHOWED FRAUD EVIDENCE & DEMAND IN DISPOSED ACTION
INCORRECT CASE NUMBER

28. “BankUnited” used incorrect “Case No. 11-2009-CA-006016CA”.
MANDATORY RETIREMENT
29. Pursuant to various reports, the Hon. Judge Daniel R. Monaco had exceeded the mandatory
judicial retirement age in 2008. The unjustified threat of the loss of Franklin-Prescott’s house
is a matter that demands the highest applicable standards.
TIMELINE OF FRAUD ON THE COURT IN DISPOSED WRONGFUL ACTION
30. The below timeline illustrates the arbitrary and capricious nature of the alleged “”02/22/2011
hearing”, which had been amended and then cancelled.
02/20/2011 Docket shows unlawful / unauthorized “02/22/2011 hearing” in disposed case
even though 02/22/11 hearing had been amended [02/14/11 hearing cancelled]
02/19/2011 Franklin-Prescott again contacted Hon. Daniel R. Monaco’s Office
02/18/2011 Clerk and Sen. Judge give conflicting information
02/18/2011 Prescott called Hon. Dwight E. Brock’s Office & Foreclosure Judge’s JA
02/18/2011 J. Franklin-Prescott called Office of “Disposition Judge” Hayes
02/18/2011 No hearing appeared on the Clerk’s Docket
02/18/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed her “NOTICE OF APPEAL …”
02/17/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed her “AFFIDAVIT in support of fraud on court …”
02/15/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OBJECTION to any hearing …”
02/08/2011 Alleged “02/08/2011” Docket entries:

02/08/2011 “AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING 02/14/11 @3:30P.M., AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR ATORNEY FEES AGAINST
PEDRO LUIS LICOURT”
02/08/2011 “NOTICE OF HEARING 02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS/MOTION TO ENJOIN”
02/01/2011 Franklin-Prescott filed “NOTICE OF OPPOSITION …”
12/06/2010 CANCELLATION of unauthorized “12/0610 hearing”
09/02/2010 CANCELLATION of unauthorized “09/02/10 hearing”
08/12/2010 DISPOSITION
08/12/2010 Franklin-Prescott again filed “Motion to Dismiss”
6
FRAUD - INVESTIGATIONS BY THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
31. Foreclosure mills like “Albertelli Law” have been under investigation, which evidenced so-
called “robo signing” of fraudulent documents and/or affidavits. See, e.g., Office of the
Florida Attorney General, Dept. of Legal Affairs, AG # L10-3-1145, IN RE: Investigation of
Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A..
“ROBO-SIGNING” OF FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS – NO FILE REVIEW
32. In this disposed wrongful foreclosure action, Ashley Simon, Esq., Florida Bar 64472, stated
under oath that she “had not reviewed the actual file in this [disposed] case.” See prima facie
fraudulent “Affidavit as to reasonable attorneys fees”; 11/10/2010 “Notice of Filing”.
33. Employees of “foreclosure mills” in Florida [e.g. Jeffrey Stephan; Angela Nolan, Cheryl
Samon] admitted under oath that they signed hundreds of affidavits a day to process pending
foreclosures without actually having read or checked the documents. It later came to light
that said employees were not alone, and in 23 states that require a court to approve a
foreclosure, thousands of foreclosures are now potentially under question. Robo-signing and
similar practices are unlawful and egregious.
“FORECLOSURE GATE”
34. The lender, formerly known as GMAC, admitted that employees signed thousands of
foreclosure documents without reading them, a practice dubbed “robo-signing”.
35. In this disposed action, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott has been defending against, e.g., “robo
signing”, “BankUnited” fraud, and the cover-up by foreclosure mill “Albertelli Law”.
“BANKUNITED’S” FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
36. In this disposed action, “BankUnited” had failed to show they it had the contractual right to
enforce the alleged note, which had never been properly executed. Accordingly, any hearing
under these circumstances would be unlawful and unauthorized. The allegations by
“BankUnited” have been facially frivolous and unsupported. The Exhibits on file did not
identify “BankUnited” as any note holder and/or owner. Here, the alleged note was never
properly executed.
7
ILLEGALITY OF “ROCKET DOCKET”
37. Here after said 08/12/2010 disposition and in the absence of any note and standing,
“BankUnited” was not entitled to “5 minute increments” of a “rocket docket”, because
“BankUnited’s” fraud on the Court is illegal. In this disposed Case, “BankUnited” and/or
Attorney Fivecoat are playing “another round of [illegal] games of paper”.
38. Cases like this have led experts like Katherine Porter, visiting professor of law at Harvard
University, to seriously question the mortgage industry:
“The foreclosures and the whole loss of wealth are going to deepen the
disappointment and distrust in financial institutions to follow the rules of law," Porter
said, "and be fair when dealing with the little guy.”
PUBLICATIONS AS TO DISPOSED WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE ACTION
39. The communications with the Court and Officers are published at, e.g., www.scribd.com,
www.YouTube.com. See www.google.com.
WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands the MANDATORY

CANCELLATION of said 02/22/2011 hearing and removal of Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Esq.
in this disposed wrongful foreclosure case.
Respectfully,
/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, fraud victim
ATTACHMENTS
Docket et al.
CC:
Florida Bar
New York Times
June M. Clarkson, Esq., Theresa B. Edwards, Esq.
Mark R. Briesmeister, Financial Investigator
Office of the Florida Attorney General
8
5. “BankUnited, FSB” was not any “plaintiff” in this disposed action.
6. The electronic docket in this disposed action had erroneously listed “BankUnited, FSB” as a
“plaintiff” in this disposed action.
7. In this disposed action, “Plaintiff” “BankUnited” had deceptively alleged “that all conditions
precedent to the institution of this action have occurred…” (see complaint, ¶ 2, p. 2 of 8,
“General Allegations”).
8. The “subject mortgage referenced” in the wrongful complaint identified “BankUnited, FSB”
rather than the “plaintiff”, i.e., “BankUnited”.
9. The “logo” of bankrupt and lawfully seized “BankUnited, FSB” included a palm tree and
“BANKUNITED”.
10. “Plaintiff BankUnited” had falsely alleged that “The plaintiff [is] named in the attached
complaint [“BankUnited”] is the creditor to whom the debt is owed … The undersigned
attorney represents the interest of the plaintiff.” See “Notice Required by the Debt Collection
Practices Act …” attached to disposed complaint.
11. “Plaintiff BankUnited” was not any “creditor” in the disposed wrongful action.
12. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott did not owe any debt to “plaintiff BankUnited” pursuant to the
evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action.
13. Undersigned “Camner Lipsitz, PA”, and/or founder of bankrupt and defunct “BankUnited,
FSB”, Alfred Camner, Esq., “represented the interest of the plaintiff [BankUnited]”.
14. “BankUnited” had fraudulently alleged in the Complaint (¶ 16, Count II) that “plaintiff”
[“BankUnited”] owns and holds the note and mortgage.”
15. The purported note and/or mortgage within the four corners of the disposed complaint did
not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.
2
16. The purported note/mortgage identified “BankUnited, FSB” as a “lender”.
17. No admissible evidence of any obligation to pay money to “BankUnited” existed on the
record of this disposed wrongful action, and Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was not obligated to
make any payment to “BankUnited”.
18. “Plaintiff BankUnited’s” purported “01/12/2011 Affidavits as to amounts due and attorneys
fees” were fraudulent and not founded on any note and/or mortgage identifying
“BankUnited” as a “lender”.
19. An affidavit that is not executed in accordance with the requirements of Ch. 92, Florida
Statutes, is not competent evidence in a civil case.
20. The alleged promissory note was never properly executed.
21. “BankUnited” has had no right to enforce the falsely pretended mortgage/note.
22. “BankUnited” never satisfied the required conditions precedent.
23. “BankUnited” had no standing.
24. “BankUnited” failed to state any cause of action.
25. “BankUnited” could not have possibly been entitled to any summary disposition and/or
hearing in this disposed action.
26. “Pedro Luis Licourt” is not any known party to the disposed action, Case # 09-6016-CA
27. The purported “Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against
Pedro Luis Licourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action.
28. Said action was disposed, because here no note and/or mortgage had been “transferred”” to
“BankUnited”.
3
29. The record and/or docket of this disposed action conclusively evidenced the “genuine issues
of material fact”, which prohibited any summary disposition after the 08/12/2011
disposition.
30. The “02/08/2011 “Amended Mtoin for Summary Judgment and for Attorney Fees against
Pedro Luis Lizourt” was erroneous, irrational, and irrelevant to said disposed action.
31. There was no service of notice of 02/14/2011 hearing upon Jennifer Franklin-Prescott nor
any “02/14/2011 hearing”.
32. There was no service of notice of 02/22/2011 hearing upon Franklin-Prescott, and the
“amended hearing on 02/14/2010” did not take place.
33. In this disposed action, the purported “Defendant’s motion to dismiss/motion to enjoin” was
moot and irrational.
34. Jennifer Franklin-Prescott was never properly served either by personal service of process or
by any other service of process in strict compliance with Chapters 48 and 49, Florida
Statutes.
35. “BankUnited” failed to conduct a diligent search in strict compliance with the Florida
statutes governing service of process.
36. The record established that the falsely alleged service by publication was void.
37. Florida’s Statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to assure that
defendants have the opportunity to protect their rights.
38. Any judgment against a defendant based upon improper service by publication would have
lacked authority of law.
4
2/18/2011 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: 02/09/2011 A ppealed:
Parties Dockets Events Financials
6 of 6 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 20
Date Text All Entries

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
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO ATTO R NEYS FEES
02/01/2011 C O PY
(FAX) NO TIC E O F O PPO SITIO N & O PPO SITIO N EVIDENC E/FR AUD EVIDENC E &
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPO SED AC TIO N/NO TIFIC ATIO N O F C O URT & C LER K ET AL
02/07/2011 NO TIC E
O F FR AUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASO N M TAR O KH ESQ & O F UNLAW FUL/
UNAUTHO R IZED AC T BY ALBER TELLI LAW (UNSIGNED)
02/08/2011 NO TIC E O F HEARING
02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MO TIO N TO DISMISS/MO TIO N TO ENJO IN
02/08/2011 AMENDED NO TIC E O F HEAR ING
02/14/11 @3:30P M AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R
apps.collierclerk.com/…/Case.aspx?UC… 1/2
02/14/11 @3:30P.M. AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R
ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST PEDR O LUIS LIC O UR T
02/08/2011 AMENDED
MTO IN FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST P EDR O LUIS
LIC O UR T
02/09/2011 DEMAND
O F FO R ENSIC R EVIEW & AUDIT AND NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AND/O R INAC C UR ATE
AC C O UNTING IN DISPO SED AC TIO N
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.

Docket Type Judge Court Date Court Time

MO TIO N HEAR ING HAYES, HUGH D 12/06/2010 13:30
MO TIO N HEAR ING PER EZ-BENITO A, MAGISTR ATE 09/02/2010 11:30
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.

2 of 2 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 60
Date Text All Entries

09/01/2010 O BJEC TIO N TO MAGISTR ATE
09/02/2010 C ANC ELLED
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
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 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

09/07/2010 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
2/17/2011
/ / Q
Public Inquiry
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 FILING AFFIDAVIT O F ATTO R NEY 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
& MO TIO N TO C O MPEL & Q UIET TITLE BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO T
12/06/2010 NO APPEAR ANC E BY THE PARTIES
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
STATUS O F DISPO SITIO N JUDGE & R EC USAL MO TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O TT
12/17/2010 NO TIC E O F FR AUD & LO SS BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESCO TT
12/17/2010 MO TIO N
TO C ANC EL UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN DISP O SED AC TIO N BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN
PR ESC O
(EMER GENC Y) TO PUR PO R TED NO TE IN DISPO SED AC TIO N & UNNO TIC ED &
UNAUTHO R IZED HEAR ING IN FR AUD O N C O UR T C ASE BASED O N DEFENDANT ET AL
12/22/2010 NO TIC E O F FILING O R IGINAL LO AN MO DIFIC ATIO N AGR EEMENT
01/04/2011 O BJEC TIO N TO FR AUD O N THE C O UR T BY JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PR ESC O TT
01/12/2011 NO TIC E O F DR O PPING PAR TY JO HN DO E/JANE DO E
01/12/2011 MO TIO N FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT
01/12/2011 AFFIDAVIT AS TO AMO UNTS DUE
02/01/2011 C O PY
(FAX) NO TIC E O F O PPO SITIO N & O PPO SITIO N EVIDENC E/FR AUD EVIDENC E &
UNAVAILABILITY IN DISPO SED AC TIO N/NO TIFIC ATIO N O F C O URT & C LER K ET AL
02/07/2011 NO TIC E
O F FR AUDULENT AFFIDAVITS BY JASO N M TAR O KH ESQ & O F UNLAW FUL/
UNAUTHO R IZED AC T BY ALBER TELLI LAW (UNSIGNED)
02/22/11 @10:00A.M., DEFENDANT'S MO TIO N TO DISMISS/MO TIO N TO ENJO IN
02/08/2011 AMENDED NO TIC E O F HEAR ING
02/14/11 @3:30P.M. AMENDED MO TIO NFO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R
ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST PEDR O LUIS LIC O UR T
02/08/2011 AMENDED
MTO IN FO R SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT AND FO R ATTO R NEY FEES AGAINST P EDR O LUIS
LIC O UR T
02/09/2011 DEMAND
O F FO R ENSIC R EVIEW & AUDIT AND NO TIC E O F FR AUDULENT AND/O R INAC C UR ATE
AC C O UNTING IN DISPO SED AC TIO N
2/21/2011 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com>
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com>
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully
Date: Sun, Feb 20, 2011 8:40 pm
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to HON. DANIEL R. MONACO at +1 (239) 252-8870 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 2/20/2011 7:40:23 AM, and contained 21 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,

The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1
2/21/2011 MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successf…
From: MyFax Free <myfaxfree@myfax.com>
To: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott <naplesnano@aol.com>
Subject: MyFax Notification - Fax Sent Successfully
Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 1:53 pm
Dear Jennifer Franklin-Prescott:
Your fax to HON. HUGH D. HAYES at +1 (239) 774-9654 has been successfully sent:
Your fax was delivered at 2/21/2011 12:51:36 AM, and contained 21 page(s).
Thank you for choosing MyFax,

The MyFax Team
http://www.myfax.com
mail.aol.com/…/PrintMessage.aspx 1/1

David J. Stern &amp; Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Florida Bar 0122068

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

David J. Stern &amp; Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Florida Bar 0122068

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/21/2011 David J.

Stern: Bandleader for a Symp…

« Lew Previews Obama Budget Cuts

David J. Stern: Bandleader for a Symphony of Foreclosure

By: David Dayen Monday February 7, 2011 9:56 am Tweet Share8

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

JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.,

CANCELLATION OF HEARING UNDER COURT’S POLICIES & PROCEDURES

EMERGENCY WRITTEN DEMAND TO CANCEL HEARING IN DISPOSED CASE

FROM: Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, “BankUnited” fraud victim

08/12/2010 DISPOSITION FOR LACK OF “BANKUNITED’S” STANDING

Anyw here Professional Solutions About Log in

Related New s: Executive · Law · U.S. · Real Estate More Stories

Mansions for Attorney Manchester United Plans Bid for Tottenham's

Recommend 122 60 Share

Now his business is under scrutiny, as banks suspend

“Some of these law firms we’re dealing with, we have reason to

HANG SENG 23595.20 +293.40 (1.26%)

Icelanders to Have Final Say on British, Dutch

BHP's CEO Kloppers Has M&A on List Even After

Foreclosures Quadruple Transfer Money Overseas

State Bar Rebuke

‘Getting the Judgments’

To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New Y ork at

Recommend 122 60 Share

Videos You May Like ‹ Prev 1 of 3 Next ›

News Market Data Personal Finance More from Bloomberg Company

16. This Court had instructed the parties:

FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO APPEAR

ESTOPPEL PREVENTS “BANKUNITED” FROM FURTHER ACTS OF FRAUD

INCORRECT CASE NUMBER

02/08/2011 Alleged “02/08/2011” Docket entries:

WHEREFORE, Jennifer Franklin-Prescott respectfully demands the MANDATORY

/s/Jennifer Franklin-Prescott, fraud victim

“plaintiff” in this disposed action.

precedent to the institution of this action have occurred…” (see complaint, ¶ 2, p. 2 of 8,

rather than the “plaintiff”, i.e., “BankUnited”.

Practices Act …” attached to disposed complaint.

evidence on file in this disposed wrongful action.

[“BankUnited”] owns and holds the note and mortgage.”

not identify “BankUnited” as a “lender”.

make any payment to “BankUnited”.

Statutes, is not competent evidence in a civil case.

20. The alleged promissory note was never properly executed.

22. “BankUnited” never satisfied the required conditions precedent.

23. “BankUnited” had no standing.

24. “BankUnited” failed to state any cause of action.

hearing in this disposed action.

any “02/14/2011 hearing”.

“amended hearing on 02/14/2010” did not take place.

moot and irrational.

statutes governing service of process.

defendants have the opportunity to protect their rights.

lacked authority of law.

Find it here... Site Search

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

Parties Dockets Events Financials

6 of 6 page s. Entrie s pe r page : 20

Date Text All Entries

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

Find it here... Site Search

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

David J. Stern & Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Florida Bar 0122068

David J. Stern & Andrew Lee Fivecoat, Florida Bar 0122068