FLORIDAS BANK OWNED JUDICIARY VIOLATIONS OF DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Where the standard for Clean Hands

and Standing in a Court of Equity is measured by compliance with the FDCPA and the filing of exhibits which appear to conform to the equitable claims found within each Plaintiffs Initial Pleading, a summary analysis of the data (from Complaints and further pleadings) drawn from each and all of the first 28 foreclosure Lis Pendens (representing 21%) filed in the Official Records on February 1, 2010 in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County, Florida follows: a) Twenty-seven of the twenty-eight Complaints, or 96%, contain evidentiary exhibits that are in fatal conflict with the claims made in those Complaints. b) Such conflicts should be enough for the Clerk of the Court, by operation of law, to keep all of those twenty-seven cases from crossing the threshold of the Court for lack of Standing. c) At the very least, these conflicts immediately create issues of material fact, prohibiting the Court from granting Motions for Summary Judgment regardless of whether or not the actions were contested. Sadly, nine of the twenty-eight cases, or 32%, were disposed through Summary Judgment. d) All twenty-eight Complaints were filed by Law Firms claiming to act as Attorneys of Record for those Plaintiffs, in violation of Fla.R.Jud.Admin.2.505. e) Plaintiffs claimed in eighteen of those Complaints that they own the note; and in twenty-six of the Complaints that they hold the note. Of those twenty-six claims to hold the notes, ten of them filed separate Counts declaring those notes to be lost, destroyed or stolen. So, in 38% of those cases where the Plaintiffs claimed to hold the notes, they made separate claims to NOT hold the notes. These are fatal conflicts contained within the Complaints themselves. f) Only eight Assignments of Mortgage were produced, two of which were filed long after the Initial Pleading. All eight were fraudulently signed (forged) by non-employees of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as Assignor, and not one of them contained the MERS Corporate seal. g) Sixteen of the cases contain Court Orders setting the cases for Docket Sounding which all held within them the claim by the Court that those cases were at issue while there were unheard pleadings in eleven of those cases. The at issue claims by the Court in the eleven cases constituted breaches of law as violations of Fla.R.Civ.P.1.440. It should be pointed out that nowhere is there found in Floridas governing laws the authority for a civil court Judge to set a case for Docket Sounding. It should also be known that Docket Soundings are only used in Criminal cases to give defendants one last opportunity to plea bargain, but have not been used in civil cases in Florida for many years because Docket Soundings always tend to favor one party over the other in a civil action.

2/15/2012

FLORIDAS BANK OWNED JUDICIARY VIOLATIONS OF DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS h) Ten of those sixteen cases contained referrals to Magistrates without consent of the parties, in clear violation of Fla.R.Civ.P.1.490(c). Judges make the pathetic attempt to circumvent the obvious meaning and interpretation of this rule by stating in these Orders that either party can file an Objection to the Referral. Those Orders also state that only Motions for Summary Judgment can be heard, in heavy favor of the Plaintiffs in these cases. 1) What we end up with is: a) Twenty-seven (96%) cases that should have never crossed the threshold of the Court for obvious, prima facie, lack of Standing. b) Fourteen (50%) Complaints Amended without leave of the Court in violation of Fla.R.Civ.P.1.190. c) d) e) Twenty-eight (100%) violations of Fla.R.Jud.Admin.2.505. Twenty-seven (96%) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Twenty-seven (96%) Plaintiffs with Unclean Hands in Courts of Equity.

f) Twenty-seven (96%) cases where issues of material fact are present upon filing of Initial Pleadings. g) Thirteen sales at auction (ten on Credit Bids to non-creditors, three by investors who purchased real property with defective Titles) Nine Voluntary Dismissals by Plaintiffs (incl. one short-sale) One Abatement/Short-Sale One Modification Four cases that are stalled, and still pending, by action of the Plaintiffs. 2) An extrapolation of data from all one hundred thirty-one foreclosure filings on that date show that in 96% of cases, Plaintiffs had no stated and evidenced Cause of Action, and therefore had no Standing to permit them to cross the threshold of the Court. 3) The data also shows that the conclusions drawn from the expanded research done on the first 21% of cases is a clear and concise representation of 100% of the cases filed on that day. 4) In all of those 96% of cases, the Court had no jurisdictional authority.

2/15/2012