8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
1/44
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BANKUNITED,
as [purported]successor in interestto [SEIZED] BANKUNITED, FSB.,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO.: 09-6016-CA
JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, et al.
NOTICE OF APPEAL, DISPOSITION, AND
BANKRUPT BANKUNITEDS SEIZURE
___________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF J. FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
BANKRUPT BANK SEIZURE INFORMATION AND 673.3011, FLA. STAT.,
EVIDENCE OF NO entitlement to enforce non-existent instrument
DISPOSITION NOTICE IN FAVOR OF JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
PURSUANT TO UNIFORM COMMERICAL CODE, AND U.C.C., ART. 3,
AND FLORIDA LAW
NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ALTERATION OF RECORD
1. Jennifer Franklin Prescott, who was neverserved, hereby appeals from
a. The unlawful alteration of the official documents, records, and Case Docket;
b. Thelackof any record of the purported disposition in Jennifer Franklin Prescotts
favor in the Case File;
c. The lackof any record of the dismissalin Jennifer Franklin Prescotts favor;
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
2/44
2
d. The absence of the FINAL DISPOSITION FORM, 25.075, Florida Statutes, and
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.998, from the Case File;
e. The lackof any record, reason, and/or explanation of the publicly recorded removal of
the August 2010 complaint in the Case File;
f. The absence of any record, reason, and explanation of the publicly recorded removal of
the August 2010 summons from the Case File;
g. The lackof any transparency, accountability, due process, and equal protection of law;
h. The record lackof any mortgage ornote in this facially fraudulent and frivolousaction;
i. The lackof any record of the removal of ALFRED CAMNER, Esq., and the CAMNER
LIPSITZ law firm and its Attorneys from the mock proceedings;
j. Therecord lackof the means of final disposition before any hearing.
RECORD ABSENCE OF FINAL DISPOSITION FORM, 25.075, FLA. STAT.
2. Jennifer Franklin Prescott could notfindthe Final Disposition Form, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.998, in
the Case File on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. See 25.075, Florida Statutes.
ABSENCE OF DISMISSAL IN JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTTS FAVOR
3. On Tuesday, August 17, 2010, Jennifer Franklin Prescott could notfind the Dismissal in
Jennifer Franklin Prescotts favor in the Case File.
DEFENDANT JUDGE HUGH D. HAYES SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL ON 08/18/2010
4. On August 18, 2010, Defendant Judge Hayes substituted Counsel, and BILL McCOLLUM,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Shelley B. Cridlin, Fla. Bar No. 0022451, made an
appearance as counsel for Defendant Judge Hugh D. Hayes, in place of any and all prior
counsel in Federal Case 2:2009-cv-00791.
FALSIFICATIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS APPARENT
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
3/44
3
5. Jennifer Franklin Prescott reported Case File demand and/or review in the Clerk of Courts
Office on August 12, 13, and 16, and 17, 2010. While the electronic Docket showed
a. disposition;
b. complaint; and
c. summons,
none could be ascertainedand/orverifiedin the Naples Courthouse.
DEMANDS FOR CLARIFICATION AND EVIDENCE
6. On Monday, August 16, AM, and Tuesday, August 17, 2010, PM, at the Naples Courthouse,
Jennifer Franklin Prescott demanded to see the Case File evidence of:
a. disposition;
b. complaint; and
c. summons in this fraudulent action.
DEFENDANT JUDGES ASSISTANT ASSERTED MISTAKE/ERROR
7. Defendant Hayes Judicial Assistant, Jan, stated to Jennifer Franklin Prescott that
a. NO August2010 complaint, and
b. NO August2010 summons
appeared in the Case File.
NO negotiable instrumentUNDER GOVERNING CODE
8. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 3, governs Negotiable Instruments.
Pursuant to 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT, no negotiable instrument existed,
and no promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money and interest existed in this
fraudulent action. Bankrupt and seized Bankunited was unable to prove any right to
enforce the admittedly non-existent purported instrument. Here, the Court may not enter
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
4/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
5/44
5
12. Seized and bankrupt Bankunited violated Ch. 49, Fla. Stat., for illegal purposes of
defrauding Jennifer Franklin Prescott and perpetrating fraud on this Court. In this
fraudulent Case,service by publication was not allowed:
49.011 Service of process by publication; cases in which allowed.
49.021 Service of process by publication, upon whom.
49.031 Sworn statement as condition precedent.49.041 Sworn statement, natural person as defendant.
49.051 Sworn statement, corporation as defendant.
49.061 Sworn statement, parties doing business under a corporate name as defendants.49.071 Sworn statement, unknown parties as defendants.
49.08Notice of action, form.
49.09Notice of action, return day.49.10Notice of action, publication, proof.
49.11Notice of action, posting, proof.49.12 Mailing of notice of action.
RECORD PERJURY
13. The record and Case File showed perjury by, e.g., Nicholas Krancher. See Exhibits on file.
PURPORTED SUMMONS
14. Purportedly, a summons was issued, ELSA JARERO, who is not any known party to this
fraudulent action. Thesummonsdisappeared from the record without any explanation.
PURPORTED COMPLAINT
15. A complaint appeared on the Docket.
Pursuant to Rule 1.190, Fla.R.Civ.P., the Court had nevergranted any leave. Thesummons
disappeared from the record without any explanation.
PURPORTEDplaintiff HAD NO righttoenforce FICTITIOUS note
16. Seized and bankrupt BankUnited was not entitled to enforce a fictitiousnote. Here,
BankUnited was not any holderof any note ormortgage at the time it filed suit or any time
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
6/44
6
thereafter. It is elementary that to be a holder, one must be in possession of the instrument.
See s. 673.3011, F.S. Here, BankUnited was not any proper party to file suit toforeclose a
fictitiousun-delivered lost and/ordestroyedinstrument.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY delivery
17. Under Florida law delivery is necessary to validate a negotiable instrument. A lost and/or
destroyednote or mortgage could not have possibly been delivered.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY reestablishment
18. Here, the lost and/ordestroyednote or mortgage could not have possibly been reestablished
pursuant to Ch. 71, Fla. Stat.
EMERGENCY AND THREAT OF FURTHER INJURY
19. Known foreclosure fraud is an EMERGENCY. Further injury must be prevented.
NO note NO default
20. The purported plaintiffdid not own or holdany note. No obligation existed. No default
could havepossibly occurred. See also Uniform Commercial Code; Negotiable Instruments.
UNKNOWN LOSS OR DESTRUCTION
21. The bankrupt and seized plaintiff bank asserted that any promissory note and mortgage
have been lostordestroyedand are not in the custody or controlof Bankunited, and the time
and manner of the loss or destruction is unknown. In this Case, Bankunited could not have
possibly reestablishedany lost ordestroyednote or mortgage.
CAMNER KNEW THAT reestablishmentWAS IMPOSSIBLE, CH. 71, FLA. STAT.
22. In particular, Founder and Attorney Alfred Camner and his law firm knew that Bankunited
could not havepossibly reestablishedany lost ordestroyednote or mortgage.
SEIZURE OF BANKRUPT BANKUNITED
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
7/44
7
23. On Thursday, May 21, 2009, BankUnited, FSB, Coral Gables, FL was seized by the Office
of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
was named Receiver. Said seizure stripped away the main asset that belonged to the holding
company, BankUnited Financial Corp. Counsel Alfred Camner was the largest shareholder.
24. The June 22 Report by the U.S. Department of the Treasurys Office of Inspector
General (OIG) was critical of the banks management and Attorney and Founder Alfred
Camner. See Counsel, Camner Lipsitz law firm.
FAILURE & SEIZURE OF THE PURPORTEDplaintiff
25. BankUnited, FSBs failure in May 2009 cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corps insurance
fund about $5.7 billion the second most costly failure in FDIC history.
NO instrument, and NO lien
26. Here, there was neither any instrumentnor any lien. Noproperty was described.
NO interest, and NOsuccessor in interest
27. Here, Bankunited, FSB, had no interest. Here, Bankunited was not and could not have
possibly been anysuccessor in interest. Nosum was due to theplaintiffbankruptbank.
NO rights and NOstanding
28. Here, Bankunited, just like Bankunited, FSB, had no rights and nostanding.
NO conditions precedent FACIALLY FRIVOLOUS action
29. Here, the conditions precedentto the institution of anyforeclosure action did not occur and
could not havepossibly occurred. Here on its face, the sham action was frivolous.
THE COURT KNEW THAT reestablishmentWAS IMPOSSIBLE
30. Here as a matter of law, reestablishment was impossible. Here, the falsified promissory
note and mortgage have been lost or destroyed and are not in the custody or control of
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
8/44
8
Bankunited, and the time and mannerof the loss or destruction is unknown. See Ch. 71,
Fla. Stat.
31. Here, Jennifer Franklins record title to herhomesteadproperty was free and clear.
PROTECTED HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
32. Franklin Prescotts property is protected homestead property.
33. As a matter of law, any accountingunder a prima facie non-existentnote and mortgage was
impossible. The prima facienon-meritoriousdemand for an accountingwas fraudulent.
34. Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not any married woman.
35. Jennifer Franklin Prescott is not any defendantand was notserved.
36. Hugh D. Hayes is a named party Defendant in several actions. See, e.g., Summons/service,
U.S.A. Ex Rel, et al. v. U.S.A., et al. in U.S. District Court.
RECUSAL LAW
37. In light of the publicly recorded alterations of the official records and documents, Jennifer
Franklin Prescott has been forced to live in fear of public corruption and the lack of any
opportunity offair,just, and transparentdue process and proceedings.
38. Here, Defendant Judge Hayes knew that
a. Bankrupt Bankunited did not hold any instrument;
b. Seized and bankrupt Bankunited had no right to enforce andprosecute;
c. Floridas real party in interest Rule, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), only permitted an action to
be prosecuted if there had been an actual interest.
RULE 1.432 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
(a) Grounds. Any party may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the action on
the grounds provided by statute.
(b) Contents. A motion to disqualify shall allege the facts relied on to show thegrounds fordisqualification and shall be verified by the party.
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
9/44
9
(c) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be made within a reasonable time after
discovery of the facts constituting grounds for disqualification.(d) Determination. The judge against whom the motion is directed shall determine
only the legal sufficiency of the motion. The judge shall not pass on the truth of the
facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall enter an order of
disqualification and proceed no further in the action.(e) Judge's Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits a judge's authority to enter an order of
disqualification on the judge's own initiative.
Said rule was intended to unify the procedure for judicial disqualification.
RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES
39. Said Rule stated:
(a) Application. This rule applies only to county and circuit judges in all matters in
all divisions of court.
(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judgeassigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as thegrounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separateaffidavit;
SECTION 38.10, FLA. STAT.
40. Section 38.10 gives parties the right to move to disqualify a judge when the party fears that
he or she will not receive a fair trial . . . on account of the prejudice of the judge of that
court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party. Fla. Stat. 38.10. Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.330 specifies that a motion to disqualify must show that the party
fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described
prejudice orbias of the judge. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330.
41. S. 38.10, Fla. Stat., stated:
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
10/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
11/44
11
grounded fear that she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Id. (quoting
State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 179 So. 695, 697-98 (Fla. 1938)); see also Berry v. Berry, 765
So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2000) (quoting Canon 3E(1) when describing the standard for
granting a motion under 38.10). Here of course, this Court was bound to follow Florida
appellate court decisions interpreting that states law. The final arbiter of state law is the
state Supreme Court, which is another way of saying that Florida law is what the Florida
Supreme Court says it is.
CANON(S) 3E(1), 3E(1)(f), FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
45. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a Code of Judicial Conduct to govern the actions
of state court judges and candidates for judicial office. Canon 3E(1) states, e.g.:
(1) A judge shalldisqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instanceswhere
46. Those provisions address situations in which a judge must disqualify himself because his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when he has made a public
statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to a particular party,
issue, or controversy. Canon 3E(1) [general disqualification provision in Canon 3E(1)],
3E(1)(f) [commits clause at Canon 3E(1)(f)].
47. Canon 3E(1), backed by the threat of a disciplinary proceeding, requires a judge to
disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Fla. Stat. 38.10,
supplemented by Rule 2.330, allows a party to have a judge disqualified for the same reason.
48. Canon 3E(1)(f), which the Florida Supreme Court adopted in January 2006, covers one area
in which a judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See In re Amendment to
Code of Judicial Conduct, 918 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2006). In addition to the Florida Supreme
Court, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee (Ethics Committee) and the Judicial
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
12/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
13/44
13
7. An Orderdeclaring the admittedlackof any recordof any note ormortgage;
8. An Orderdeclaring any reestablishmentof any note or mortgageimpossible;
9. An Orderdeclaring the lackof any interestby Bankunited;
10. An Orderdeclaring the action without any meritunder existing law;
11. An Orderenjoining any further fraud and harassment by Bankunited;
12. An Order for sanctions and expenses against said seized and bankrupt bank and its
dismissed and/or fired attorneys at Camner Lipsitz;
13. An Order removing the fired judicial officers with the Camner Lipsitz firm from these
proceedings, and striking their fraudulent pleadings, because they perpetrated record fraud
and fraud on this Court.
________________________
/s/Jennifer Franklin Prescott, record holder of unencumbered title to homestead propertyVictim of bankrupt Bankuniteds record fraud
Victim of seized Bankunited founder Alfred Camners record fraud on this Court
EXHIBITS ON FILE: DOCKET ALTERATIONS
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
U.C.C. Article 3, Negotiable Instruments
PERJURY EVIDENCE, Nicholas Krancher
673.3011, Fla. Stat.; Ch. 71, Fla. Stat.
F.D.I.C. FAILED BANK INFORMATION
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
14/44
Home/ Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New SearchReturn to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 08/12/2010 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
1 of 1 pages. Entries per page: 60
Date Text All Entries
07/09/2009 CA48/REAL PRO PERTY MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE (PRE 2010) (FILING)
07/09/2009 CIVIL COVER SHEET
07/09/2009 COMPLAINT
07/09/2009 NOTIC E OF LIS PENDENS
07/09/2009 PAID $10.00 PER ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS $40.00
07/09/2009 REAL PRO PERTY VALUATION SHEET
07/10/2009 SUMMONS ISSUEDJENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT/ WALTER PRESCOTT/ JOHN DOE/ MARY DOE/PLACED IN SOUTH FLORIDA PROCESS SERVERS BIN
09/03/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE OF SUMMONS MARY DOE
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF LOST OR IGINAL SUMMONS JOHN DOE
10/14/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE OF SUMMONS JOHN DOE
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE OF SUMMONS WALTER PRESCOTT
12/21/2009 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE OF SUMMONS JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
02/22/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
AS CO-COUNSEL BY ERIN M ROSE QUINN ON BEHALF OF PLT
04/06/2010 ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUEDJENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT/WALTER PRESCOTT/PLACED IN PROVEST LLC BIN
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVIC E OF SUMMONS JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCO TT
05/20/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE OF SUMMONS WALTER PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 COR RESPONDENCE FROM COUNSEL TO CLERK
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF CONSTRUCT IVE SERVICE AS TO WALTER PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF C ONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE AS TO JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICEAS TO ANY AND ALL UNKNOW N PARTIES CLAIMING
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH AS TO WALTER PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH AS TO JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
Find it here...
Site Search
8/14/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 1
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
15/44
06/15/2010 COR RESPONDENCE FROM C OUNSEL TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 NOTICE OF ACTIONTO WALTER PRESCOTT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT & ANY AND ALL UNKNOWNPARTIES CLAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 CONFIRMATION OF EMAIL RECEIVED BY GULF CO AST BUSINESS REVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIONNOTICE OF ACTION TO WALTER PRESCOTT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT/ANSWERWITHIN 30 DAYS OF FIRST P UBLICATION 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
07/22/2010 NOTICE OF SERVICE MOTION TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT /PRO SE
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO ENJOIN / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT -PRO SE
07/22/2010 NOTICE OF SERVICEOF PUBLISHED NOTIC E OF RECORD & MOT ION TO DISMISSBY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COUNSEL
07/23/2010 MOTION TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MOTIO N TO C LARIFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NOTICE OF RECORD FRAUD
08/10/2010 COMPLAINT
08/12/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS PRO SE JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
08/12/2010 BANKRUPTCY BANKUNITED
08/12/2010 CA48/REAL PRO PERTY MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE (PRE 2010) (DISPOSITION)
08/12/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED ELSA JARERO/ PUT IN SOUTH FLOR IDA PROCESS BIN
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is m aintained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
8/14/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
16/44
Home/ Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New SearchReturn to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge:
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed:
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: OPEN Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 08/12/2010 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
2 of 2 pages. Entries per page: 20
Date Text All Entries
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH AS TO JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM C OUNSEL TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 NOTICE OF ACTIONTO WALTER P RESCOTT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PRESCOTT & ANY AND ALL UNKNOWNPARTIES CLAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 CONFIRMATION OF EMAIL RECEIVED BY GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIONNOTICE OF ACTION TO WALTER PRESCOTT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT/ANSWERWITHIN 30 DAYS OF FIRST P UBLICATION 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
07/22/2010 NOTIC E OF SERVICE MOTIO N TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT /PR O SE
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO ENJOIN / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT -PR O SE
07/22/2010 NOTICE OF SERVICEOF PUBLISHED NOTICE OF RECORD & MOT ION TO DISMISSBY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COUNSEL
07/23/2010 MOTION TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MOTIO N TO CLARIFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NOTICE OF RECORD FRAUD
08/10/2010 COMPLAINT
08/12/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED ELSA JARERO/ PUT IN SOUTH FLORIDA PROCESS BIN
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ail
Find it here...
Site Search
8/13/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 1
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
17/44
addresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
8/13/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
18/44
Home/ Records Search / Court Records / Public Inquiry / Search Results - ALL / Case - 112009CA0060160001XX
New SearchReturn to Case List
Case Information Printer Friendly Version
Style: BANKUNITED vs FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT, JENNIFER
Uniform Case Number: 112009CA0060160001XX Filed: 07/09/2009
Clerks Case Number: 0906016CA
Court Type: CIRCUIT CIVIL Disposition Judge: HAYES, HUGH D
Case Type: MORTGAGE FOR ECLOSURES Disposed: 08/12/2010
Judge: HAYES, HUGH D Reopen Reason:
Case Status: DISPOSED Reopened:Next Court Date: Reopen Close:
Last Docket Date: 08/12/2010 Appealed:
Parties
Dockets
Events
Financials
2 of 2 pages. Entries per page: 20
Date Text All Entries
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH AS TO WALTER PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF DILIGENT SEARCH AS TO JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT
06/15/2010 CORRESPONDENCE FROM C OUNSEL TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 LETTER TO GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
06/17/2010 NOTICE OF ACTIONTO WALTER P RESCOTT/JENNIFER FR ANKLIN-PRESCOTT & ANY AND ALL UNKNOWNPARTIES CLAIMING
06/17/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING MAILED 6/18/10
06/18/2010 CONFIRMATION OF EMAIL RECEIVED BY GULF COAST BUSINESS REVIEW
07/07/2010 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIONNOTICE OF ACTION TO WALTER PRESCOTT/JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT/ANSWERWITHIN 30 DAYS OF FIRST P UBLICATION 6/25/10
07/09/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
07/22/2010 NOTIC E OF SERVICE MOTIO N TO DISMISS
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT /PR O SE
07/22/2010 MOTIO N TO ENJOIN / BY JENNIFER FRANKLIN-PRESCOTT -PR O SE
07/22/2010 NOTICE OF SERVICEOF PUBLISHED NOTICE OF RECORD & MOT ION TO DISMISSBY DEFENDANT
07/23/2010 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COUNSEL
07/23/2010 MOTION TO DISMISS
07/23/2010 MOTIO N TO CLARIFY ALLEGED PLAINTIFFS PUBLISHED NOTICE OF RECORD FRAUD
08/12/2010 MOTIO N TO DISMISS PRO SE JENNIFER FRANKLIN PRESCOTT
08/12/2010 BANKRUPTCY BANKUNITED
08/12/2010 CA48/REAL PROPERTY MORT GAGE FORECLOSURE (PRE 2010) (DISPOSITION)
Wedne sday night is regular ma intenance time on our se rvers; as a result brief outages may occur.We apologize in advance for any inconvenience.
Find it here...
Site Search
8/17/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 1
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
19/44
Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Contact Us
This website is ma intained by The Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, em ailaddresse s are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a publicrecords request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
8/17/2010 Public Inquiry
apps.collierclerk.com//Case.aspx?UC 2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
20/44
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JENNIFER FRANKLIN
PRESCOTT, DR. JORGE BUSSE,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC
ROGER ALEJO et al.
Defendants.
_________________________________/
NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSELWITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Shelley B. Cridlin, now makes
an appearance as counsel for Defendants, the Honorable Cynthia A. Pivacek and the Honorable
Hugh D. Hayes, in place of any and all prior counsel in this action. Please forward all pleadings
and other legal documents to the undersigned counsel.
BILL McCOLLUM
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/ Shelley B. Cridlin
Shelley B. CridlinAssistant Attorney General
Fla. Bar No. 0022451
Office of the Attorney General501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33602
T - (813) 233-2880 F - (813) 233-2886
[email protected] for Defendants, the Honorable
Cynthia A. Pivacek and the Honorable Hugh
D. Hayes
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON NEXT PAGE]
Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 254 Filed 08/18/10 Page 1 of 2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
21/44
Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 18, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to
those persons capable of receiving such notice of electronic filing. I further certify that I mailedthe foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following
non-CM/ECF participants: Jennifer Franklin Prescott, P.O. Box 845, Palm Beach, FL 33480 and
Jorg Busse, P.O. Box 11124, Naples, FL 34101 on this the 18th
day of August, 2010.
/s/ Shelley B. CridlinShelley B. Cridlin
Assistant Attorney General
Case 2:09-cv-00791-CEH-SPC Document 254 Filed 08/18/10 Page 2 of 2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
22/44
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,PLAINTIFFS
V
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al.,
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VOID
THIS COURTS JUNE 11, 2008 ORDERDISMISSING PLAINTIFFS CASE WITH PREJUDICE
____________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW Plaintiffs Janet D. McDonald and James B. Stegeman and file
Plaintiffs Brief In Support of Motion To Void This Courts June 11, 2008 Order
Dismissing Plaintiffs Case With Prejudice.
Both Georgia and Federal law are clear that when a Judge is also a defendant, the
Judge must recuse or disqualify themselves. In the case at bar, Judge Becker, the day
after being served with Summons and Complaint,1 dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs
complaint against Georgia Power, leaving the counterclaim against them intact.
The dismissal was either the act of retaliation under color of law against Plaintiffs2
1 Judge Becker was named defendant in US District Court action File No.: 1:08-cv-1981-WSD,
service was perfected June 10, 2008 the day before she signed the Order dismissing with
prejudice Plaintiffs complaint against GA Power leaving only the defendants counterclaim.
2 Mr. Stegeman is Legally Disabled as recognized by Americans with Disabilities Act and SocialSecurity Act, thereby is a member of a protected class of person and is afforded extra protections.
State programs which receive Federal funding that should be protecting Mr. Stegeman have been
denied to Mr. Stegeman. Several state and Federal laws have been violated as well. See
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
23/44
for attempting to enforce their Civil and Constitutional Rights;3 or an unfair act of
extreme, unreasonable discriminatory/bias/prejudice. The Ruling is without authority and
effect and is not merely voidable, but void.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
After a continuing dispute with Georgia Power, Plaintiffs, one of which is 100%
Federally disabled and receives Supplemental Security Income, filed a verified, prima
facie complaint October 26, 2007. Georgia Power filed a verified answer and
counterclaim December 3, 2007.4 Plaintiffs moved to strike the verified answers and
counterclaim on March 8, 20085 due to verification and counterclaim containing
perjury/false swearing. Plaintiffs moved to stay discovery and all other processes
Attached Exhibit I
3 See U.S.C. 42 12203: Prohibition against retaliation and coercion(a) Retaliation No person
shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practicemade unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, orparticipated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.
(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or
interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her havingexercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual
in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.
(c) Remedies and procedures The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117,12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of
subsections (a) and (b) of this section, with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter
III of this chapter, respectively.
4 Although the docket reflects the answer and counterclaim was filed December 3, 2007 PlaintiffMcDonald called the Court on December 6, 2007 after not receiving an answer and was told by
Judge Beckers Clerk that no answer had yet been filed. This has been brought up several times
by Plaintiffs, but they cannot prove what they were told on the telephone by the clerk.
5 The docket reflects the filing of Motion to Strike on March 12, 2008, but Postal records showdelivered on March 8, 2008 and since all of Georgia Powers filings reflect the day received by
the Court, it would be only fair that Plaintiffs were treated equally. This too has been shown to
the Court and ignored.
2
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
24/44
pending Ruling on Motion to Strike6 on March 20, 2008 after being lied to by opposing
counsel and after opposing counsels orchestration of a false discovery dispute.
Plaintiffs Motions went un-addressed by the Court until their case was dismissed with
prejudice although opposing counsel had the Court assisting them, setting hearings, and
making rulings in their favor.
Although Plaintiffs repeatedly requested assistance from the Court for the
numerous problems between Plaintiffs and attorney Watt, the Court refused to address the
problems. Plaintiffs more than once pointed out discrepancies, and manipulations within
the Court system, the Court ignored all of Plaintiffs requests.
After it became apparent that this Court was going to continually aid Georgia
Power and their attorneys and that Plaintiffs Civil and Constitutional Rights under color
of law would continue to be violated, Plaintiffs filed the action in US District Court. That
Court dismissed under Younger and Plaintiff Stegeman Appealed. The Appeal is
currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
VOID JUDGMENT
Both Georgia and Federal law are clear that when a Judge is a defendant, the
Judge has a personal interest and must recuse or disqualify themselves. In the case at bar,
Judge Becker, the day after being named a defendant, dismissed with prejudice only
Plaintiffs complaint, leaving the counterclaim against them intact. The dismissal was
either the act of retaliation under color of law against Plaintiffs for attempting to enforce
their Civil and Constitutional Rights; or an unfair act of extreme, unreasonable
6 The defendants never responded to Motion to Strike, they moved for a continuance which was
NEVER GRANTED.
3
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
25/44
discriminatory/ bias/prejudice, all of such instances calls for mandatory
disqualification/recusal. The Ruling is without authority and effect and is not merely
voidable, but void.
void judgment. A judgment that has no legal force or effect, theinvalidity of which may be asserted by any party whose rights are
affected at any time and any place, whether directly or collaterally *
From its inception, a void judgment continues to be absolutely null. It
is incapable of being confirmed in any manner or to any degree.
Blacks Law Dictionary West Group, 7th Ed. pg. 848.
There are several grounds for which a ruling or judgment is void, i.e.: fraud in the
procurement of a Ruling (which is applicable here); Judge is a defendant thereby
disqualified to act (which is applicable here); non amendable defect:
A disqualified judge can take no judicial action in the case and any
attempt at such action is a mere nullity. Garland v. State of Ga., 110
Ga. App. 756 (140 SE2d 46) (1964).
"The judgment of a court void for any other cause, is a mere
nullity, and may be so held in any court when it becomes material to
the interest of the parties to consider it." Miller v. Miller, et., al.,38752. (104 Ga. App. 224) (121 SE2d 340) (1961)
JUDGES DUTY TO DISQUALIFY/RECUSE
Georgias Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 C. (1) (a) states:
"Judges should disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited
to instance where: . . . the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party or a party's lawyer . . . ."
"We interpret the word 'should' to mean 'shall' in the context of thisrequirement." Savage v. Savage, 234 Ga. 853, 856 (218 SE2d 568)
(1975).
The American Bar Associations Model Rule of Judicial Conduct states:
A judge shall disqualify himself of herself in a proceeding in which
the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ABA
4
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
26/44
Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, R. 2.11(A) (2007).
It has long been held that a Judge which is a defendant, must disqualify/recuse
themselves.
The judge against whom such an action is brought, is of coursedisqualified from hearing the case. See Code 24-2623. Hamby v.
Pope, 27245 (229 Ga. 339) (191 SE2d 53) (1972).
Further a Judge who has been named a defendant loses neutrality, which helps
guarantee that life, liberty and/or property will not be taken in retaliation.
The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or
property will not taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted
conception of the facts of the law. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. 466
U.S. 238, 242, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 64 L. 2d 182 (1980).
If the Due Process Clause requires recusal only when a party could prove actual
bias arising from personal animus in the judges heart or cold cash in the judges pocket,
then the rights of parties to a fair and impartial judge would be imperiled. Probabilities
of unfairness, likelihood of bias, and unacceptable perceptions are at the heart of
circumstantial evidence, which is sometimes the only evidence available on the issue
whether a judge is constitutionally required to disqualify.7
Violations of the Due Process Clause also results in voids judgments.
I. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
Based on the findings that persons with disabilities have been faced with
restrictions, limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and
relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics
7 See Randall T. Shepard, Campaign Speech: Restraint and Liberty in Judicial Ethics, 9 Geo. J.
Legal Ethics 1059, 1087 (1996)
5
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
27/44
that are beyond the control of such individuals, Congress invoke[d] the sweep of
congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment, to
enact the ADA.8
InLassiter v. Department Social Serv., 452 U.S. 18, 24 (1981) it was held: The
Due Process Clause imposes an affirmative obligation upon States to take such measures
as are necessary to ensure that individuals, including those with disabilities, are not
deprived of their life, liberty, or property without procedures affording fundamental
fairness. The Due Process Clause requires States to afford individuals with
disabilities, fair proceedings, and when denied access to benefits or programs created
by state regulations and policies.
The United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) that
Title II of the ADA validly abrogates States Eleventh Amendment Immunity as applied
to the context of access to judicial services. That decision was also supported in United
States v. Georgia, 126 S. Ct. 877, (2006). The Court inLane found that Title II enforces
rights under the Equal Protection Clause as well as an array of rights subject to
heightened constitutional scrutiny under the Due Process Clause Lane 541 U.S. at 522-
523; accord Constantine, 411 F.3d at 486-487.
Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void. Plaintiffs in this case
attempted to bring to the Judges attention numerous times unfair, manipulative treatment
by oppositions attorneys only to have the treatment continue and get worse. A disabled
individual was forced into pro se litigation due to the State of Georgias failure to protect
8 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(4).
6
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
28/44
him and his property, this Court had a duty to ensure fairness. This Court failed, or
refused to ensure that fairness and worked to see that the case against Georgia Power was
dismissed.
Marshall v. Jerrico, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 446 U.S. 238 (U.S. 04/28/1980);64 L. Ed.2d 182, (1980); at [21] The Due Process Clause entitles a
person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and
criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative
proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due
process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the
promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in thedecisionmaking process. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262,
266-267 (1978).
Plaintiffs have been discriminated against and treated with unfairness, bias and
prejudice by this Court and the opposing counsel. An uninterested, lay person, would
question the partiality and neutrality of this Court.
Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of
cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even
the probability of unfairness. In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136
(1955).
Further it is the obligation of every Judge in Georgia to honor, abide by, and
uphold not only the Constitution and laws of the State of Georgia, but they are bound by
the laws and Constitution of The United States as well.
"State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to
safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law." Stone v
Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067
(1976).
Speaking of discrimination against disabled individuals, the Eleventh Circuit has
stated occurs when a disabled individual is treated differently than a non-disabled or less
disabled individual. 42 U.S.C. 12112(b). Nadler v. Harvey, No. 06-12692 (11th Cir.
7
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
29/44
2007) before Edmondson, Hull, and Forrester.
Further, apro se litigant, and a disabled pro se litigant, have not been received the
treatment that staire decisis and past case precedent mandates they receive. Not once has
the court liberally construed their pleadings, held them to a less stringent standard than
opposing counsel.
In considering appellant's enumerations of error, we are guided by
the general rule that "[p]ro se pleadings are held to less stringent
standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers" ( Thompson v.
Long, 201 Ga. App. 480, 481 (1) (411 SE2d 322)), and by the
statutory provision that "[w]here it is apparent from the notice of
appeal, the record, the enumeration of errors, or any combination ofthe foregoing . . . what errors are sought to be asserted upon appeal,
the appeal shall be considered in accordance therewith
notwithstanding . . . that the enumeration of errors fails to enumerateclearly the errors sought to be reviewed." OCGA 5-6-48 (f). Cotton
v. Bank South, N.A., A93A2579 (212 Ga. App. 1) (440 SE2d 704)
(1994)
holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings
drafted by attorneys See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.
Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106,97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v.
Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States
v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)
A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint must read
the complaints allegations expansively,Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S.
519, 520-21, S. Ct. 594, 596, 60 L.Ed. 2d 652 (1972)
Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigants pleadingsliberally Polling v. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502,
506-07 (D.N.J. 2000).
We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally. Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)
8
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
30/44
The Due Process Clause requires notice and opportunity to be heard. By this
Courts own Order Dismissing Plaintiffs case with Prejudice states On May 27, 2008,
the Court conducted a hearing to resolve outstanding discovery disputes; Despite
adequate notice and actual knowledge To date, no party to the case in Superior Court,
or the case in U.S. District Court has produced evidence that Plaintiffs (1) had adequate
Notice or had (2) actual knowledge of a hearing for discovery disputes; (3) a
Motion Calendar showing Plaintiffs or Defendants listed on the Calendar for any
hearings; or (4) a showing that the Docket Report reflected in the scheduled events any
such hearings. Plaintiffs did request that the Docket Report and Motion Calendar to
reflect a hearing if a hearing was scheduled. Plaintiffs Motions were not addressed until
June 11, 2008 when their claims were dismissed.
OATH OF OFFICE
In Georgia as elsewhere, Judges take an Oath of Office, swearing to support the
Constitution of the United States as well as the State of Georgia Constitution:
I swear that I will administer justice without respect to person and do
equal rights to the poor and the rich and that I will faithfully andimpartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as
judge of the superior courts of this state, according to the best of my
ability and understanding, and agreeably to the laws and Constitution
of this state and the Constitution of the United States. So help me
God. O.C.G.A. 15-6-6;
Note: The federal constitution requires that the judicial officers of thestate be bound by oath or affirmation to support the federal
constitution. See U.S. Const., Art. 6, 3.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that No state legislator or executive or
judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to
9
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
31/44
support if. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does
not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that
Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does
not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S.
200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v.
Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer
of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officersof the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the
law, and are bound to obey it." Butz v. Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894
(1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at 261 (1882).
The United States Constitution:
Article VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall bebound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the Country notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, andthe Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 3.: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold anyoffice, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member or Congress, or as
an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, tosupport the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given any aid or comfort
to the enemies thereof.
10
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
32/44
rebellion. 2. Open resistance or opposition to an authority or
tradition.Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. West Group, pg. 1273
Violation of Oath of Office is not only grounds for void judgment, but more
importantly is grounds for impeachment, forever barring holding of Judicial Office.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs in this matter, having shown sufficient grounds to have this Courts
Order Dismissing their Complaint with Prejudice set aside as a void judgment, Move this
Court to grant their Motion. Plaintiffs further Move this Court to disqualify/recuse Judge
Becker so that Plaintiffs may be able to have a fair and impartial tribunal, or a better
alternative is to have this case transferred out of Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit to a
Court which treats disabled and pro se litigants with dignity and respect.
Submitted this 24th day of February, 2009
By: ___________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083(404) 300-9782
By: ___________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard RdStone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
11
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
33/44
JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS
v
GEORGIA POWER CO., et., al.,
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby Certify that I have this 24th day of February, 2009 served upon
Defendants a true and correct copy of Motion To Void This Courts June 11, 2008
Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Case With Prejudice by depositing with U.S.P.S. First class
mail, proper postage affixed and mailed to Defendants counsel on record as follows:
Troutman Sanders, LLPBrian P. Watt
5200 Bank of America Plaza
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
By: ______________________________JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
By: _______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737
12
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
34/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
35/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
36/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
37/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
38/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
39/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
40/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
41/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
42/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
43/44
8/9/2019 FORECLOSURE - Recusal Refusal Organized Judicial Crime
44/44